Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 3288. First, I also want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and our ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for working in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation on this issue. Our Committee on Energy and Commerce has repeatedly worked together to deal with issues related to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP. As recently as July, we developed a compromise to protect health care coverage for hundreds of thousands of children under the SCHIP program. The SCHIP program was enacted in 1997 and currently provides health care coverage to approximately 4.3 million children, but there have been some growing pains. The State funding allotment mechanism has not worked perfectly. And, as a result, some States have been left with excess funding and others with too little funding. In July, we passed legislation that preserved the nearly $1.2 billion of funding intended for children's health insurance coverage from returning to the Treasury, not for lack of need but as a result of these problems with the funding allocation. In addition, the bill passed in July extended, for one additional year, the availability of $1.5 billion in SCHIP funds from fiscal years' 2000 and 2001 allotments, thereby allowing 50 percent of each year's unspent money to be retained by States that have not used their entire allotment. The remaining 50 percent of unspent money was distributed to States that have spent all of their respective year's allotment, and New Jersey is one of those states. Finally, the bill allowed certain States to use a portion of their unspent funds for children covered through Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately there were technical errors in that bill which inadvertently excluded New Mexico, Maryland, Hawaii, and Rhode Island. And as a result these four States were unable to receive their portions of these allotments which assisted them in providing health coverage to the children of their State. Neither the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) nor the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) intended this to happen so they introduced H.R. 3288 to correct this technical error. Again, I want to thank the chairman for his efforts to move this legislation forward to make it possible for these four States to receive their allotment and protect health care for children under SCHIP. I hope that the Senate will act quickly, so that we can get this bill to the President's desk and expedite the flow of needed funding for children's health care.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for her comments, and I may ask that we leave up that quote, if we could, from Teddy Roosevelt, because I think it says it all about what this special order is tonight and why so many of my colleagues have gotten up here and spoken out about the statements that have been made by the majority leader. And if I could conclude tonight, I would like to conclude with a couple of quotes comparing what the majority leader said this year, in regard to the war in Iraq, and what he said a few years ago, with regard to the war on Kosovo, because I think that one of the greatest concerns I have is this notion that he has tried to spread that somehow if you do not support the war in Iraq or if you criticize this different aspects of the war or if you do not vote for the funding for the war in various ways, that you do not support the troops. Nothing could be further from the truth. Everybody in this House of Representatives on the Democratic side, and I know on the Republican side as well, support the troops and want to do whatever we can to support the troops. And much of the controversy and much of the debate last week on the supplemental was about how best to support the troops. But at no point was anybody suggesting that we not support them, just how best to support them. And the thing that is amazing about it is if you look up one of the quotes that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) made this year with regard to the Iraq war, and this is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) on March 20 of this year, a quote from the Washington Times where he said, ``I think it is hypocritical to say on the one hand that you support the troops, while on the other hand you say the reason they are risking their lives was wrong. I think it undermines the effort and the unity this country ought to be showing right now.'' Yet just a few years earlier, talking about the Kosovo war, as quoted in the USA Today regarding floor votes on Kosovo, the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), then said, ``It is very simple: The President is not supported by the House and the military is supported by the House.'' What he essentially was saying that you do not have to support the President in the war in order to support the troops. And that is the bottom line. Everyone here on the Democratic side and the Republican side wants to do whatever is necessary to support the troops and to make sure that they are not unnecessarily in harm's way. But the bottom line is that you can support the troops and not support the President's foreign policy, either collectively in Iraq, or separately on different votes. And I think it is very, very important for us as Democrats to continue to make that point. And we will continue to make it unless the majority leader stops his criticism and his comments relative to the patriotism of the Democrats.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. Effective international fisheries agreements are critical for both economic and ecological reasons. Improper or unfair management of international fisheries costs our constituents millions of dollars in lost revenue each year. And our oceans are a global resource: fish and habitats on which they depend do not respect national boundaries. This bill, H.R. 2048, would reauthorize two important fisheries laws: the Fishermen's Protective Act and the Yukon River Salmon Act. Congress has both a right and a duty to protect our fishermen's interests in the global resources market. It remains vital that our fishermen are able to work harmoniously with fishermen from neighboring countries, and reauthorization of these acts will ensure future cooperation. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, for introducing this legislation and in expediting its consideration by the committee. And I also want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the Committee on Resources, and his staff for their cooperation in working with Democratic Members to clear this noncontroversial legislation for the floor. I urge the House to adopt the bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 542 would repeal the reservation of mineral rights made by the United States when lands in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, were conveyed by Public Law 102-562, which was enacted in 1992. The Congressional Budget Office's cost estimate of the proposed legislation found that any foregoing receipts to the United States would be negligible. Mr. Speaker, we would have preferred that this bill be considered under regular order with a hearing in the Committee on Resources prior to markup and floor consideration. However, we will not object to its consideration today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1446, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), is a bipartisan and noncontroversial measure that authorizes grants to support the restoration and preservation of the historic California missions. The California missions, dating back to the mid- 1700s, are important historical and cultural resources that made significant contributions to the settlement of California and the American West. In early California, these 21 missions were the center of the social, economic, and religious development of the region. The $10 million in historic preservation grants authorized by H.R. 1446 will help restore and preserve these historic missions for the benefit of all Americans. Under the terms of the legislation, the Federal funds must be matched by funds from non-Federal sources and will be used for secular purposes to protect those qualities of the missions that are historically significant. Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, H.R. 1446 is bipartisan legislation. It has the cosponsorship of 48 members of the California delegation. The legislation is relatively small in terms of the amount of money, but important in an effort to preserve these missions and the historical and cultural history that they embody. I support the bill and urge its adoption by the House today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the accomplishments of Father Miguel Virella, a man dedicated to the advocacy of a solid educational foundation for the Latino youth. Father Miguel is being honored as a mentor and role model to the Latino Community's youth by the Latino American Committee of Monmouth County, Inc., for his positive influence and many contributions to the Latino community. In my mind there is no one more deserving to receive this award. Through a strong family, Father Virella was taught that determination and compassion were imperative parts of living a devout life. His religious and academic journey was influenced by the teachings of his friends and family. It was his devotion to his faith that motivated him to pursue studies of a religious nature and eventually to join the priesthood. In 1976 Father Miguel graduated from Juan Rios Serpas High School, in his hometown of Ciales, Puerto Rico. Soon after, he traveled to New Jersey with his family where he was introduced to the Religious Order of the Society of the Divine Word. His participation in this community led him to develop a deep interest in working with the poor and minorities of other countries. He could relate to the hardships endured by those who were starting a new life in America and his compassion for those in need compelled him to do all that he could to help. In 1984, Father Miguel decided to continue his studies in Dubuque, Iowa at Divine Word College. Later, he enrolled at the University of Saint Louis, Missouri and was awarded a Bachelors degree in Sociology with a minor in Spanish. Father Miguel decided to continue his studies in Theology, for which he received a Masters degree in Divinity. He was ordained as a priest in the Society of the Divine Word shortly thereafter. Following his ordination in 1995, Father Miguel was asked to minister at St. Anthony Claret parish in Lakewood, NJ where he remained for two years. Due to the large number of incoming Hispanic parishioners, he was later called to serve at St. Rose of Lima in Freehold. He remained there for four years serving as minister to his fellow Hispanics before moving to our Lady of Providence in Neptune, NJ, in January of 2001. Father Miguel still serves as the minister to that parish which is composed of over four hundred families. Mr. Speaker, it is evident that Father Miguel Virella is an asset to the Hispanic community and should be lauded for his accomplishments. I ask that my colleagues rise up and join me in honoring this most respectable man, Father Miguel Virella.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to laud the accomplishments of Dr. Dimas Montalvo, a longtime community activist. Mr. Montalvo is the founder of the Latino American Committee and a tremendous supporter of various Latino-related programs. Friends and neighbors refer to him as a hometown hero for his many accomplishments and his longstanding service to the Latino community. In search of a better future, Mr. Montalvo left Puerto Rico for New Jersey in 1957. He settled in Long Branch in 1959 where he began working at the Fort Monmouth Army Base barbershop before opening his own shop in 1965. Following the opening of his business, Mr. Montalvo started attending classes in the hopes of earning his GED and improving his English skills. In 1969 Mr. Montalvo's barbershop was relocated and another business, Montalvo's Rooming House, was established in conjunction with the shop. Currently, he is still running both businesses from the same location, which has become a site for community outreach. It is there that Mr. Montalvo counsels people from all walks of life with various questions, concerns and problems. Over the years, Mr. Montalvo has become very active in numerous community organizations, including the Monmouth Community Action Program and the Spanish Fraternity of Monmouth County. In 1992 Mr. Montalvo was appointed Commissioner of the City of Long Branch Housing Authority, while also serving as a member of the Long Branch Health Advisory Board. Later he founded the Latino American Committee, on which he served as President for many years. The LAC is responsible for many great things, such as collecting funds to be used in scholarships for Latino students and organizing the Latino Chamber of Commerce of Monmouth County, which exclusively serves the needs of Latino merchants and professionals. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Mr. Montalvo on his hard work and dedication to the Latino community. I would like to thank him for all that he has done and all those that he has helped through the years. I ask my colleagues to rise with me in honoring the distinguished Mr. Dimas Montalvo.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the achievements of Mrs. Carmen Vega, a paradigm of expertise in social work and education. Assistant Principal to the Long Branch High School and Middle School, Mrs. Vega has demonstrated outstanding versatility in various roles of leadership and mentorship. She proves an honorable recipient of the Latino American Committee of Monmouth County Annual Award, not solely for her work in the Long Branch public school network, but for numerous other experiences in helping the counties of Monmouth and Ocean excel as dynamic and thriving communities. A native of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, Mrs. Vega was raised in Long Branch, where she earned a Master's degree in Latino bilingual/bi- cultural issues from Rutgers University. More recently, she completed a Masters of Arts in Urban Education, also from Rutgers University. Her academic accolades provided her the honor as a licensed clinical social worker in the State of New Jersey. Mrs. Vega's experience in advocacy and counseling, coupled with the framework of the Monmouth County Division of Social Services under which she worked, provided her with the skills to transform the outlooks and goals of many psychiatric patients. She was an engaging coordinator of a pre-discharge transitional program at Marlboro Psychiatric Hospital in Monmouth County, as well as a counselor to individuals and families throughout Ocean County. Mrs. Vega never forgot the importance of helping the psychiatrically handicapped, giving importance to their families and their friends as well. With a diverse background such as this, it is no wonder that in 1997, the Monmouth County Urban League honored Mrs. Vega with the Individual Equal Opportunity Award. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Mrs. Vega for her dedication to the Monmouth and Ocean county communities. She exemplifies the ideals and aspirations of many dedicated and charitable citizens, as well as youth across all cultures. I ask that my colleagues rise and join me in honoring the distinguished Mrs. Carmen Vega.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of the late Reverend Felix Santana, a man who has served his faith and community tirelessly throughout his life. On October 17, 2003, the Latino American Committee of Monmouth County will honor the Reverend with an award for his contributions as a role model and mentor for Latino youths. Reverend Santana was born in Humacao, Puerto Rico on August 21, 1924. In 1948 he moved to northern Indiana where he worked in the steel industry for two years. When America became entrenched in the Korean War, Reverend Santana heroically served his county in the U.S. Army and was decorated with the United Nations Service Medal. After the war, and a productive career in design, the Reverend entered the Bangor Theological Seminary in Maine. After completing his studies, Reverend Santana and his family settled down in Monmouth County, New Jersey. It was then that Reverend Santana established the first Hispanic Ministry in Asbury Park, New Jersey. In addition, he led similar efforts in Ossining, New York, Plainfield, and Jersey City, New Jersey. However, the Reverend's commitment did not end at his religious responsibilities. Reverend Santana made time to serve Hispanics and others in his community. He helped set up an anti-poverty agency called ``Checkmate, Inc'' as was actively involved with the Puerto Rican Civic Association and the freeholders of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Reverend Santana believed in serving his community. The legacy that he has left behind will continue to serve those he has given so much of himself too. I ask that my colleagues rise and join me to honor this most respectable man, Reverend Felix Santana.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, when the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was enacted in 1972, it was with a vision of protection and precaution. It was created to right the ecological wrongs caused by generations of slaughter driven by our collective greed for the products that marine mammals supplied. The founding goal of the MMPA was to provide a broad moratorium on the taking of marine mammals in order to maintain and rebuild healthy populations of whales and dolphins, seals and sea lions, and other marine mammals. To a noteworthy extent, protection and precaution have paid off. We should celebrate that some marine mammal species have recovered to estimated pre-harvest levels. But we should not be lulled into a false sense of complacency. Many populations, such as North Atlantic right whales and bowhead whales in the Arctic, remain endangered. We also cannot ignore that the full breadth and intensity of human activity in the ocean, including shipping, oil and gas exploration, and military activity, has a profound effect on marine mammals, even if we do not seek to kill them outright. It is for these reasons that I introduce this bill today that would reauthorize the Marine Mammal Protection Act in a way that preserves its precautionary intent. Summarizing key provisions, the bill would: Provide a refined definition for the term ``harassment'' that is consistent with the recommendations of the National Research Council and accounts for the cumulative, as opposed to merely incidental, effects of behavioral changes in marine mammals. Enhance protections for marine mammals in captivity, including the establishment of a new advisory committee to encourage the promulgation of regulations by the Secretary of Agriculture for captive care and maintenance, an updated and publicly accessible captive marine mammal inventory, and elimination of all marine mammal traveling exhibits. Provide increased funding opportunities for the development of fishing gear that would decrease harmful interactions with marine mammals. Authorize research and grant programs to study methods of non-lethal deterrence and control of nuisance seals and sea lions, whose robust populations have been of growing concern in coastal California. Reauthorize and improve the John H. Prescott funding assistance program to allow an improved nationwide response to stranding and entanglement events. Clarify the provisions regarding the import and export of Native marine mammal handicrafts. Modernize the system of penalties and fines for violations of the Act for the first time in 30 years. Expand the list of fisheries included in the take reduction team process to include both commercial and non-commercial fisheries using comparable gear. Contrary to the efforts of others in this Congress to weaken the MMPA through strategic piecemeal amendments, I have always urged that the MMPA deserves nothing less than a comprehensive reauthorization. The Resources Committee Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, to the immeasurable credit of Chairman Wayne Gilchrest and his predecessor, the former Chairman James Saxton, invested significant time and resources over the past 4 years in conducting a series of oversight hearings regarding implementation of the Act and needs for reauthorization. This substantive analysis has not been squandered and has, in fact, been incorporated into this legislation. This bill also reflects the best of the ideas forwarded by the Administration in their proposal regarding priorities and recommendations for reauthorization of the Act. Moreover, this bill incorporates the best ideas offered by a wide range of stakeholders ranging from the sportfishing and public display industries to the animal welfare and environmental communities. Maintaining protection for marine mammals need not be a contentious or partisan issue. I urge support of this comprehensive and precautionary-minded reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the distinguished Professor Clinton N. Hewitt, a renowned lecturer, author, and community activist. Throughout his professional career he has been committed to serving education and his community alike. Professor Hewitt is a proud native of Virginia and a graduate of the Virginia Public School System. He holds undergraduate degrees from Virginia State University and Michigan State University. Furthermore, Professor Hewitt has earned a graduate degree in Landscape Architecture at Michigan State University and has completed the Institute of Education Management Program at Harvard University. Currently, Professor Hewitt is a full-time faculty member at the College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture at the University of Minnesota. Before deciding to teach full-time he served as the Associate Vice President for planning at the University of Minnesota for nearly thirty years. It was there that he managed the planning, design, and construction of facilities with funding well over one billion dollars. In addition, Professor Hewitt is the past president of the Society for College and University Planning (SCUP), an organization recognized nationally and internationally as the leader in prompting the practice of comprehension planning in higher education. Professor Hewitt has been recognized for his achievements on many occasions. He has received SCUP's Founders Award for Distinguished Achievement in Higher Education Planning, as well as its Distinguished Service Award. Professor Hewitt has also received the American Institute of Architecture Minnesota Honor and Special Awards for leading its Minority Scholarship Program in 2000 and the Distinguished Service to Higher Education Planning, Torch and Shield Award. He has been given memberships to Alpha Kappa Mu National Honorary Society, Beta Kappa Chi Honorary Science Society, Kappa Phi Kappa Professional Education Fraternity, and Sigma Lambda Alpha Honor Society in Landscape Architecture. In 1987, Professor Hewitt spread his community service internationally when he was one of eleven delegates of U.S. College and University Facilities Administrators who were invited to visit China to examine common problems and develop facilities management programs. Beyond Professor Hewitt's extraordinary professional career, he has given back much to his community. He serves on the Board of the University of Minnesota YMCA, the Minnesota Architectural Foundation Board, and the Board of Directors of Hope Community. He is a member of the Minneapolis University Rotary Club, NAACP, and the American Association for Higher Education. Mr. Speaker, Professor Hewitt has been an asset to the betterment of higher education. His contributions have been great and selfless to those around him. I ask that my colleagues rise and join me in honoring Professor Clinton N. Hewitt.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is critically important that we get our military troops all the resources they need to safely complete their mission as soon as possible in Iraq. However, I do not support rubber-stamping this legislation so the Bush administration gets a free ride from Congress and does not have to account for its strategy in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I oppose outright the $18 billion in reconstruction funds included in the supplemental and feel the Bush administration has an obligation to explain to Congress why it downplayed our role in reconstruction prior to the war. Last March, Secretary Rumsfeld told the Senate Appropriations Committee, ``I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction. Funds can come from those various sources I mentioned, frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it.'' But then the Secretary changed his mind over the last 6 months, stating last month, ``Iraq is in no position to pay its current debt service, let alone take on more additional debt.'' Was the administration bending the truth 6 months ago, or have events changed in Iraq to warrant these reconstruction funds? Congress deserves an answer to that question, and I do not believe we have received an adequate explanation yet. Mr. Speaker, I will not support a supplemental that does not create accountability for the funds Congress appropriates for no-bid contracts to companies like Vice President Cheney's old employer, Halliburton. I will not support a supplemental that does not turn the reconstruction funds into a loan rather than a grant. And I will not support a supplemental that is not paid for. If these changes were made, then I could support it, but I do not think that is going to happen. I think that this administration has the bill that they want, and so I cannot support the supplemental that is being put forward today. I think it is a mistake. I think we will regret it. I think, most importantly, we need accountability, and we are not getting it. What about all the money that could be spent that is being spent on Iraq that could be spent here at home for the needs that we have, whether it is infrastructure, like hospitals or sewage treatment plants, or roads or highways, whatever? Instead, we are spending it on Iraq. We do not need to do it. I think it is a mistake.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 106, celebrating 350 years of American Jewish history. Whether they were born in the United States or they immigrated here from Israel, Europe, or Middle East countries such as Syria, as many people in my district in New Jersey have done, the American Jewish community is a melting pot of cultures and tradition. Over the last 350 years, the American Jewish community has given rise to many of our Nation's most renowned artists, authors, doctors, scientists, business leaders, and statesmen. Members of the American Jewish community were present at the birth of our Nation and have helped to transform the United States into what it is today through their contributions to culture, scientific discovery, and entrepreneurial innovation. In talking about the American Jewish community, we cannot forget the link between the community here and the community in Israel. Throughout my time in Congress, I have had the opportunity to travel to Israel, most recently this past August. There I met with leaders in the World Jewish community, including the chief Sephardic rabbi, Shlomo Amar. Each time I travel to the region, I am struck by the many ways in which our two nations are so intimately connected. Not just politically or diplomatically but the many ways in which Jewish and Israeli culture have influenced American culture. After returning from Israel, I held several town hall forums with members of my local Jewish community. Many of my constituents expressed the same desire for peace and community, as did the people I met with while in Israel. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for introducing this resolution and recognizing a community that is such a great part of American society and culture.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill. We have to show Syria that there are consequences for supporting terrorism and undermining peace in the region. It is amazing to me that Syria offered support to Iraq even as U.S. and Coalition forces were engaged in combat and subsequently has turned a blind eye to militants who slip across their borders into Iraq to kill American soldiers. Syria has been on this terrorist list for such a long time, and yet we allow it to continue. We have imposed fewer sanctions than any other country that is a state-sponsor of terrorism. I suppose we sort of bought into this idea that somehow they were helping us over the years. But in the aftermath of the Iraq war, it has been quite clear that they have not been helping us, and whatever effort was out there supposedly to give that impression is simply not real. The fact that they continue to be present in Lebanon, to harbor various terrorist organizations, the time has come to pass this bill. It is certainly long overdue, as so many of my colleagues have said on a bipartisan basis. Let us get it passed today.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Indiana for organizing this Special Order and also the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for organizing the trip to Israel which, as was mentioned, so many of us on the Democratic side of the aisle went together. I think it was actually the largest number of House Members ever that traveled to Israel, at least in anyone's memory. I wanted to discuss the trip but, in particular, discuss the troubling developments in the Middle East peace process that have occurred since the trip when we were there in early August. I have to admit that for myself and probably all of my colleagues on the trip, we were hoping to return from Israel with stories of remarkable steps being taken towards peace in the region. I wanted to be able to return and tell my constituents that progress was being made, that things were getting better, and that families were safer. However, many of us returned from Israel, and I know I did, uneasy about what we saw and concerned about the future of the peace negotiations. In our meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and then Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas, they both expressed a willingness to work towards a peace settlement. But while the talk was positive, there seemed to be no action on the part of the Palestinian Authority to eliminate Hamas and the other violent factions of the organization, despite concessions by Israel on political prisoners and the control of territories. Even more troubling to us was the overriding concern that Prime Minister Abbas did not have the ability to negotiate peace with Israel or the power to reign in the Palestinian terrorist factions. At every turn, it seemed, Yasir Arafat worked to undermine the Abbas government. So it came as no surprise that only a month after we returned from Israel, Abbas resigned as Prime Minister, citing his inability to effectively do his job in the shadow of Yasir Arafat. It was even less a surprise that a member of Arafat's inner circle was then tapped to step into the position. Mr. Speaker, since our trip, as we all know, violence has once again escalated in the region. Just this past weekend on the eve of Yom Kippur, another suicide bomber stepped into another crowded Israeli seaside restaurant and killed another 19 people. Mr. Speaker, since the start of this year, over 100 people have been killed in Israel as a result of suicide attacks. This is not a combined total of several years; this is over 100 people killed in the last 9\1/2\ months alone. In response to this weekend's bombing, Israel conducted an air strike inside Syria in a terrorist camp believed to be used by Hamas and its Islamic Jihad. This was a measured response by the Israeli government against the groups who carried out the attack. As a side note, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken several times on the House floor regarding the need for Congress and the President to implement sanctions against Syria. I am a cosponsor of legislation that was approved today by the House Committee on International Relations that would place economic sanctions against Syria and hold Syria accountable for their actions. Syria has long been known to support and sponsor terrorist organizations. It is on the State Department list of terrorist nations. This Congress and the President must show to Syria that there are consequences for their actions. So I would urge that this bill come to the floor of the House and be passed as soon as possible. Not surprisingly, Arafat has used Israel's strike against Syria to his advantage. Arafat has taken the attack as an opportunity to declare a ``state of emergency,'' passing a presidential decree that institutes his chosen group as the new prime minister and cabinet. This step by Arafat only confirms my fears that Arafat continues to exert enormous influence over the Palestinian government. Israel has to come to grips with Arafat's ability to derail the peace process and has faced serious international opposition when the Israeli government issued a decision to take steps to remove Arafat from power. Recent actions by Arafat make it painfully clear that Arafat continues to be a roadblock to peace. When one government does not follow his orders, he undermines that government until its leaders resign, and he puts his own people in charge. Peace cannot be achieved, in my opinion, as long as Arafat is in power. Mr. Speaker, I am sure I can speak for many of my colleagues on the trip when I say that we all want nothing more than to see peace negotiations move forward. So, for now, the Palestinian Authority has a new prime minister. However, many of the same questions remain: Will steps be taken to dismantle the terrorist networks? Will the new prime minister be able to govern or will Arafat continue to pull the strings? I guess only time will tell the answers to those questions. In closing, I just want to urge all of my colleagues in Congress to visit Israel and meet with government officials and see the region firsthand. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for organizing this trip, giving us the ability tonight, through the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), to discuss our trip. It was a wonderful trip. It was at a time when peace seemed possible. I know it does not seem very possible right now, but I am still hopeful that again we will see peace in the Middle East.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois, for putting together this motion to strike the Health Savings Account provisions and shore up employer-sponsored coverage. The House Republican bill includes $174 billion over 10 years for Health Savings Accounts, and these accounts, Mr. Speaker, are bogus. This money should be used to subsidize employers to prevent employer- sponsored coverage erosion. The Health Savings Account provisions will undercut employer-provided health care coverage. These benefits are available only if individuals are covered by high deductible plans. In other words, plans providing no coverage for at least the first $1,000 of medical expenses. A deductible that size is approximately double the deductible of most employer plans. The provisions will encourage employers to reduce coverage for workers and their families by increasing deductibles and shifting even more costs on to employees. The resulting cost savings will be enjoyed by the employer because there is no requirement that these savings be passed on to the employee. For many American families, the tax benefits are completely worthless. The only thing they would receive from the Health Savings Account provision is reduced health care coverage. Most American families will not be able to take advantage of the tax shelter in these provisions because they do not have $4,000 per year in additional savings. The Health Savings Account provisions are designed to benefit employers and upper-income management not rank-and-file employees. Now, Mr. Speaker, with the deficit at a record high, we ought to carefully consider how best to spend the scarce resources we have. It is fiscally and morally irresponsible to spend $174 billion on a tax shelter that will erode health insurance coverage and not improve it. This money would be much better spent by strengthening employer- sponsored retiree coverage, which currently covers about a third of all seniors. The fate of employer-sponsored health coverage for retirees is a central issue in the Medicare prescription drug debate. As it currently stands, the House-passed Medicare bill encourages employers currently providing retiree health benefits to drop coverage. Unfortunately, the Republican bill states that any dollar an employer pays for an employee's prescription drug cost would not count towards the employee's out-of-pocket catastrophic cap. This disadvantages seniors with employer-sponsored coverage because it would be almost impossible for them to ever reach the bill's catastrophic cap over which Medicare would pay 100 percent of the drug costs. So, without a doubt, many employers will simply stop offering retiree coverage. The potential loss of this valuable benefit that many unions and employers provide was reported recently in the New York Times. According to the lead story by Robert Pear, and I quote, ``About 12 million of the 40 million Medicare recipients has retiree health benefits, usually including some drug benefits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that one-third of the people with such drug coverage could lose it under bills passed in June by the House.'' Now, the Republican conferees are unwilling to provide a final Medicare agreement that will provide seniors with an affordable, available, and guaranteed prescription drug benefit that does not privatize Medicare. With the added threat of employers dropping retiree health benefits if a retiree is eligible for Medicare, we will no doubt have a public health crisis on our hands. Do not let this happen. Support the Schakowsky motion.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support of the Capps motion. Let me say from New Jersey we are a little sick and tired of the Federal Government trying to tell us what to do with our offshore resources. I remember I was first elected to the House of Representatives back in 1988, 15 years ago, and at the time we had all kinds of pollution. We had the sewage. We had medical waste. We had all kinds of garbage that was traveling up and down our coast. The fact of the matter is that we were not able to protect ourselves; and we had, I think, something like a $3 or $4 billion loss in our tourism industry that summer. All the beaches were closed. The number one industry in the State of New Jersey is tourism. All the beaches were closed, and tourism was dead. So when I say that I want to protect my coastline and I do not want to the Federal Government coming in undermining our ability to say what Federal actions we do not support, we are speaking practically about what is important to our economy. We have seen the consequences of offshore drilling for oil and natural gas and what it has meant in other parts of the country and how it has destroyed the beaches and destroyed the water. The Federal Government has already done a lot of analysis of this and has found there is very little oil and natural gas off the coast. The risk that comes from having to try to drill that or exploit that or inventory that and what it leads to in the long run is great compared to the benefit and the destruction of our coast. If we had to balance the amount of oil and natural gas we are going to get compared to the negative impact on our coast and our tourism, there is no comparison between the two. What the conferees are trying to do is basically undermine the rights of the States to protect themselves. That is what the consistency determination is all about. And the changes made in the conference reduce the time limit on the appeals process for consistency determinations to 120 days from the agreed-upon 360 days, thereby restricting States' ability to reject offshore drilling projects. Whatever happened to States' rights? Republicans used to talk about States' rights. I guess it does not apply when big oil is there and the administration wants to let big oil do whatever they want to the States. Forget about States' rights. We do not talk about that anymore. Furthermore, the conference has deleted bipartisan language that gave the Secretary the ability to extend the time frame for appeal should additional environmental analysis need to be completed in accordance with NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. What is wrong with extending the time, if it needs to be extended for environmental reasons? Now, the biggest payback to big oil is this section 334 of the conference bill that requires the Secretary to conduct an inventory of oil and natural gas resources in the currently off-limit Outer Continental Shelf. Not only does this language sidestep the 13-year moratorium on granting new leases, but it completely ignores a bipartisan amendment in the House that removed the inventory language. Now, I know you are going to tell me, well, we cannot override that, but that inventory language was put in on an annual basis. If one year it is not put in, then Mineral Management can go out and do whatever they please. If we do not put that language in every year for a moratorium, then Mineral Management can go ahead and do whatever they want. So it is not good to proceed and allow this inventory to take place. Also, Mineral Management Service already compiles estimates of OCS oil and gas resources every 5 years, most recently in 2000. This is nothing but an attempt to initiate the first phase of opening up our coastlines to oil and gas exploration. And do not tell me in New Jersey what you want to do with our coastlines. This is not what the Federal Government should do. This is the States' right, to determine what happens off their coast, and we know what the problem is in New Jersey, and we know what it is up and down the East Coast. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter to the conferees from the New Jersey delegation, both Senators and most of our Members of the House of Representatives. I include this because I want to point out this is a bipartisan effort. Members of the New Jersey delegation, on a bipartisan basis, do not want these changes, do not want our State to be crippled and our ability to limit Federal actions which we do not want to happen. I would ask again for support for this motion to go to conference. I thank the gentlewoman from California for introducing it. congress of the United States, Washington, DC, September 30, 2003. Dear Conferee: We are concerned that a draft version of the omnibus energy bill may contain provisions that would be harmful to ocean and coastal environments. We want to underscore our opposition to the provisions listed below and strongly urge you to not to include any of them in the final bill. Authorizing the inventory of sensitive coastal and marine areas around the United States for their oil and gas resources. Draft provisions would allow seismic explorations of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) areas of the Mid-Atlantic, Gulf, West and Alaskan coasts that are currently protected from exploration and development by Congressional moratoria. This language was actually rejected by the House during debate on the energy bill, and was not included in the final Senate version. This language must be kept out of the final bill to ensure sensitive coastal areas can be protected from oil and gas development. Granting sweeping new authority for interior to permit energy projects in the OCS without adequate oversight or standards. Draft language has been added that would grant substantial new authority to the Department of Interior to permit new energy projects including subsea pipelines and offshore Liquid Natural Gas facilities. The language fails to address the necessary environmental reviews required by existing statutes. Weakening the Coastal Zone Management Act's (CZMA) consistency provision to remove states' rights and weaken environmental protections. Such a provision would impose severely restrictive deadlines on the decision-making process for states, agencies and the public to indicate their views on a consistency appeal. Congress has previously rejected this proposal in the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act, and we urge the energy conferees to reject such a provision in the final bill. Exempting oil and gas industry construction activities from the Clean Water Act. These activities are known to cause tremendous water pollution problems, introducing toxics chemicals such as benzene, toluene, and heavy metals into our drinking water. It makes no sense to exempt these industries from the rules all other industries must follow. Again, we underscore our opposition to these provisions in the final energy bill that would imperil our oceans and the nation's priceless coastal resources, and we urge you not to include them. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Representative Frank Pallone, Jr.; Representative Rush Holt; Representative Donald M. Payne; Representative Robert E. Andrews; Senator Jon Corzine; Representative Bill Pascrell, Jr.; Representative Steven R. Rothman; Senator Frank Lautenberg; Representative James Saxton; Representative Frank LoBiondo; Representative Christopher Smith; Representative Robert Menendez.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the House floor to express my concern regarding an agreement that is being sought by the Medicare conference committee on means testing the Medicare program. Accepting a provision that will allow means testing of Medicare beneficiaries will in time only lead to the destruction of the Medicare program that seniors rely on and that we as Democrats have worked on preserving since its days of inception nearly 40 years ago. The House Republican bill means tests the protection against high drug costs. Seniors who earn more than $60,000, or $120,000 for couples, will not have the $4,900 catastrophic protection, and instead they will have to pay more out of pocket before they get catastrophic protection because of their income. Means testing the catastrophic protection will force many seniors to pay more for their drug coverage. This provision in the House Republican Medicare legislation for the first time in the history of Medicare taxes middle class, or I should say the middle class seniors, twice for their benefits. Today Medicare is available to all who are eligible. Everyone pays the same percentage in payroll taxes and gets the same benefits out. Universality is the central theme of the Medicare program, and all Americans who contribute taxes during their working years are eligible for the full package of Medicare benefits when they retire. The House Republicans, however, are taking the first steps to turning Medicare into what is essentially or what could become a welfare program, making higher-income seniors pay more for their Medicare benefits. What this amounts to is an additional Medicare tax on higher- income seniors who have already paid more money in Medicare taxes because of their higher earnings. Now they are getting hit again through this drug benefit and are being asked to pay another tax to pay more money for their drugs than other seniors. They basically are paying twice for their benefits. Keep in mind that in many localities a $60,000 income does not make you wealthy, and that once the precedent is set, there will likely be a domino effect with the cutoff reaching lower and lower, affecting more and more middle class seniors. Right now the Republicans are talking $60,000, but that could change to $50,000 or $40,000; and as it goes down, more middle income seniors will be impacted. It is unclear how the provision in the House Republican bill is going to work, or whether it will even work. The Medicare administrator will send the names of seniors to the IRS, and the IRS will send back the senior's income for the previous year. Medicare will then send this very private information to private health insurance companies, and seniors' confidential information will be sent all across the country, a situation ripe for abuse. Medicare currently does not means test benefits, and it does not have staff to deal with this complicated matter. The Republican bill will increase government bureaucracy in both Medicare and the IRS to administer the provision. And under the Republican bill, Medicare is supposed to have a process for seniors who have seen their incomes decline to come in and get an adjustment; and because we know seniors' income declines as they age, Medicare would need to be able to deal with millions of people coming in every year to have their income information reevaluated. Mr. Speaker, private plans will have a hard time administering this means test provision as well. They will have different catastrophic levels for every senior making above $60,000 in income. More importantly, with this income information, the provision to allow means testing of catastrophic levels will also enable plans to risk-select and pick out other seniors to be in their plans. Private insurance companies will have incentives to seek out only higher-income seniors to make their premiums lower. Because higher-income seniors will have a higher catastrophic level, plan premiums will be lower because the plan will be paying less of beneficiaries' drug costs. And seniors living in low-income areas may find that plans do not want to come there because these seniors will make the plan premiums more expensive. Mr. Speaker, all in all the provision in the House Republican bill is a bad idea for Medicare. It increases government bureaucracy, injects the IRS into Medicare, and it will be unworkable for plans and seniors. The approach taken in the Republican bill is wrong. We should not be taxing middle class seniors twice for Medicare benefits or because they have retiree coverage. This threatens the program's broad support and popularity, fragmenting public support and confidence in the Medicare program and making it easier to end the program once and for all. I urge my colleagues on the conference committee to eliminate the means testing of catastrophic drug coverage and all Medicare benefits. Means testing will destroy the universality of Medicare and will destroy the Medicare program altogether.