Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to laud the accomplishments of Mr. Yashvant Patel, and the organization he created, Matri, Inc. Mr. Patel and Matri, Inc. have created a unique and important forum where Gujarati youth can uphold their traditional values while searching for a life partner using more modern methods. This forum has been the starting ground for many happy couples, and has provided a much-needed service to America's young Gujarati people. Mr. Patel founded Matri, Inc. in 1995 with a specific vision of a forum where Gujarati youths could uphold their traditional values while searching for a life partner. The first Matri was hosted by Anand Pragati Mandal in Kearny, NJ, and it had less than 100 attendees. In the last nine years the event has grown drastically and become a professional non-profit organization, providing annual conventions with over 300 participants. Matri serves an important role in the unique Gujarati youth culture. Although it is a matrimonial forum, it does not force ideas of marriage but instead encourages networking and meeting with people who share similar ideas and principles, who may become lifelong friends or even marriage partners in the future. It is their belief that similarities in dharma, poshaak and khorak (religion, dress and food) are necessary to create a successful marriage. Matri allows Gujarati parents to fulfill their duty to pave the way for their children and give them a prosperous and happy life by honoring Gujarati traditions. Matri is actually the Sanskrit term for friendship, which is a key element in any successful marriage. Since the participants are allowed to meet without the pressure of parents, the event gives them the opportunity to meet other people and develop relationships. Matri estimates that approximately 15 percent of all participants meet with success each year. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Mr. Patel and his organization for the fine and important work they have done over the past eight years. His organization is doing an enormously important service to an important group of our nation's citizens, and we thank him for it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to laud the accomplishments of Mr. Yashvant Patel, and the organization he created, Matri, Inc. Mr. Patel and Matri, Inc. have created a unique and important forum where Gujarati youth can uphold their traditional values while searching for a life partner using more modern methods. This forum has been the starting ground for many happy couples, and has provided a much-needed service to America's young Gujarati people. Mr. Patel founded Matri, Inc. in 1995 with a specific vision of a forum where Gujarati youths could uphold their traditional values while searching for a life partner. The first Matri was hosted by Anand Pragati Mandal in Kearny, NJ, and it had less than 100 attendees. In the last nine years the event has grown drastically and become a professional non-profit organization, providing annual conventions with over 300 participants. Matri serves an important role in the unique Gujarati youth culture. Although it is a matrimonial forum, it does not force ideas of marriage but instead encourages networking and meeting with people who share similar ideas and principles, who may become lifelong friends or even marriage partners in the future. It is their belief that similarities in dharma, poshaak and khorak (religion, dress and food) are necessary to create a successful marriage. Matri allows Gujarati parents to fulfill their duty to pave the way for their children and give them a prosperous and happy life by honoring Gujarati traditions. Matri is actually the Sanskrit term for friendship, which is a key element in any successful marriage. Since the participants are allowed to meet without the pressure of parents, the event gives them the opportunity to meet other people and develop relationships. Matri estimates that approximately 15 percent of all participants with success each year. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Mr. Patel and his organization for the fine and important work they have done over the past eight years. His organization is doing an enormously important service to an important group of our nation's citizens, and we thank him for it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to laud the accomplishments of one of my constituents, Mr. Christopher Hansen. Mr. Hansen, is a resident of Neptune City, New Jersey and is this year's recipient of the United States Small Business Administration's Home-based Business Advocate of the Year Award. Mr. Hansen is being presented with this honor for his outstanding advocacy work on behalf of New Jersey's 750,000 self-employed, home based, business owners. This award is given to an individual who has experienced the rewards and difficulties of home-based businesses and has volunteered to improve the climate for home-based businesses. In my mind, there is no individual more deserving of this award then Mr. Hansen. Over the past few years, Mr. Hansen has volunteered an infinite amount of time and energy to improve the conditions for home-based businesses. Christopher Hansen has proven himself to be one of the nations leading supporters of home-based business. In 1995, Mr. Hansen founded the Home Based Business Council, a not-for-profit corporation of which he currently serves as President. He decided to start the organization because of an unfair law that was passed in 1992 that drove elected officials with home based businesses out of office by making a majority of those businesses illegal. Mr. Hansen saw a problem with this and decided to act. Mr. Hansen started to gather supporters together to discuss the suppression of home-based businesses. His actions soon attracted both local and national media attention. The following year Mr. Hansen co-founded the New Jersey Partnership for Work at Home to educate elected and appointed leaders about the changing nature of the homebased business economy. As part of his voluntary leadership, Mr. Hansen authored a comprehensive paper on incorporating home-based businesses into the community. He has since written numerous articles that have appeared in national publications and those of the New Jersey Conference of Mayors and League of Municipalities. Over the past few years, Mr. Hansen has tirelessly fought against the outmoded notion that home based businesses harm communities. It is because of individuals like him that nearly 25 million families throughout the country are able to create income from self-employed work at home. Mr. Hansen continues to achieve immeasurable accomplishments in advancing home-based businesses and is a tremendous asset to the small business community. Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, I wish Mr. Hansen continued success and ask that my colleagues join me in honoring him.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to listen to my Republican colleagues for most of the last hour when they spoke about the issue of Medicare prescription drugs, and I intend to discuss the same subject; but I cannot help but begin the debate on this issue this evening by pointing out how radical the proposal is that the Republican House leadership is putting forth with regard to Medicare. Contrary to most of what we listened to and what was said by my Republican colleagues, the effort by the House Republican leadership to present a Medicare proposal is one that will, in my opinion, would effectively kill Medicare the way we know it. For those who think they would be able to stay in traditional Medicare and they would get a drug benefit that is basically linked to the traditional Medicare program that they are in, nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is what the Republican leadership is putting forth in the House is nothing like traditional Medicare, and would make it very difficult if not impossible for most seniors to stay in traditional Medicare. Certainly if they were looking for any kind of drug benefit that was meaningful, they would have to go outside of traditional Medicare in order to secure it. I just wanted to, if I could, just refute some of the statements that were made by some of the Members. I listened to the last three or so speakers, and I just wanted to contrast what they said to what I believe they are really doing with their Medicare proposal. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) said that Medicare is broken. It does not run. Well, let me say, Mr. Speaker, the opposite is true. Medicare is the best-run government program that we have, and one of the reasons that I believe why the House Republicans, particularly the leadership, want to say that Medicare is broken and does not run is because they want to set the stage to say this is a lousy program and we have to change it dramatically, as I say, radically, in order to improve it or in order to keep it as a program that is somehow good for seniors. If they start out by saying Medicare is broken and does not run, the consequence is that we have to fix it; and I would say just the opposite is true. Most seniors feel very strongly that Medicare is run well and they benefit greatly from it. The only thing they want is to add a prescription drug benefit. They do not want to change it. They do not believe it is broken. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) went on to say that when you get to be 65 and you are eligible for Medicare, you become something like a second or third-class citizen because of the nature of the kind of benefit that you get under Medicare. Again, it is the same thing, to give the impression to the seniors that somehow Medicare is broken. What do they propose to do in order to fix it? They propose to privatize it. And when they say it is broken, they also talk about how it is running out of money, and the reason it is running out of money is because they have borrowed from the Medicare trust fund in order to pay for ongoing operations. We all know that we have a debt that is $400 billion. They borrowed that from the Medicare trust fund. If they continue to borrow money from the Medicare trust fund, they make it so the money is not available and then they can come back and say that it needs to be fixed. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) also said that we need choice and competition. Again, I would say that is a euphemism for privatization. If we look at what they are proposing to do with Medicare as well as the prescription drug benefit, they essentially want to get you out of the traditional Medicare by giving you a voucher, saying we will give you a certain amount of money and go out and try to buy a health care policy similar to Medicare with the money that we are going to give you. But if there is no plan that provides the type of health coverage that you want with that set amount of money, then would you have to pay more to stay in the traditional Medicare program. Or if you want to get a prescription drug benefit, you would have to join an HMO or some kind of private plan in order to get the prescription drug benefit. It is amazing to me because I have listened to the President of the United States go out and talk about what he is trying to do with Medicare and how he would like to have a prescription drug program attached to Medicare. But if we look at what the House Republican leadership is doing, essentially they want to privatize Medicare. They want to get people out of traditional Medicare, and they will only give you a drug benefit if you opt to go out of traditional Medicare and join an HMO or some other kind of program that is not traditional Medicare. Finally, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) mentioned three principles. He had here on the floor three charts. I wanted to debunk those three principles that he mentioned. First of all, for principle one, he said we have to guarantee that all seniors have an affordable prescription drug benefit under Medicare. He says one of the ways they are going to get that is to negotiate prices. Well, let me tell Members, they not only do not guarantee that all seniors have a prescription drug plan because you will not get it unless you join an HMO or somehow privatize, but they specifically say in their legislation which is going to be considered tomorrow in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, they specifically have a noninterference clause which prohibits the Medicare administration or the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating prices. So this is not true, this principle that they are going to guarantee that seniors have an affordable drug plan. There is no way in the world that they allow the government to negotiate price and make the health plan affordable or make the prescription drug plan affordable. The gentleman from Georgia said we will protect seniors with the right to choose a benefit package, and we will cap out-of-pocket costs. I would venture to say the opposite is true. They are essentially saying if you stay in traditional Medicare, you are going to have to pay more out-of-pocket costs if you want to stay in traditional Medicare. Finally, principle three, the gentleman from Georgia said he wants to strengthen Medicare for future generations, make structural improvements to curb run-away costs. What they are getting to here is the cost. They think traditional Medicare costs too much. They want to borrow the money to spend on other programs and cut back on the costs by telling people we will give you a voucher, go out and buy your own private health insurance. If you want traditional Medicare, you have to pay extra. This is nothing, Mr. Speaker, on the part of the Republican leadership, but what I would consider a sort of scam. In other words, you say that Medicare is broken, you say that it is costing too much money, you say it needs to be fixed, and so you come up with a privatization scheme, you come up with a voucher and tell people they have to get out of voucher if they want to get any kind of meaningful benefit, and you justify it by saying we have to do something to reform Medicare. Last, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) said people can stay in traditional Medicare if they want to and then he started talking about enhanced Medicare. Well, they may be able to stay in traditional Medicare if they want to, but it will cost a lot more out of pocket. I would venture to say that eventually traditional Medicare would wither on the vine. It would be too costly, and it would simply wither away. That is what the Republican leadership wants. They want to end Medicare. They are going to disguise this, but what this really is is a very radical way of trying to kill the way that we normally administer health care for seniors, and it is a very dangerous precedent that we have to look at in great deal. Mr. Speaker, I am joined by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) who has a long history of dealing with Medicare issues. We are very concerned what is happening this week in the Committee on Energy and Commerce with regard to Medicare, and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank the gentleman, because I think that what the gentleman pointed out is that we are not ideologically driven in the way that the Republicans are on the other side. We just want to do what is practical. The bottom line is we know that this privatization does not work. Medicare started back in the 1960s because most seniors were not insured and they could not get coverage, so the notion that you are going to get a voucher and go out and buy health insurance privately, it did not work 30 years ago, and it is not going to work today any more than it did then. The same is true with the HMOs. We have had the experience with the HMOs, and they have dropped the seniors. I think in here they even make permanent the medical savings accounts, another thing that they talked about a few years ago which has not worked out. I think there are only a few thousand of them around the country, yet they are talking about them again. The bottom line is that we as Democrats want to keep traditional Medicare. We just want to add a prescription drug benefit, and we want to make it one that is affordable and that everybody can take advantage of. And to the extent that the Republican proposals here in the House do not measure up to that, we simply have to speak out and say that it does not measure up and we should not allow them to destroy traditional Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman again.

Mr. PALLONE. I wanted to say when the gentleman was talking about rural areas before, I want to thank the gentleman for joining us, when the gentleman from Michigan was talking about rural areas, because I know your district in the northern part of Michigan, I have actually been there, is very rural. But the bottom line is you take my State, because you even mentioned HMOs may exist in densely populated areas. Of course, New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the country. But what the gentleman mentioned about HMOs dropping seniors has happened in my State, in my district dramatically over the last few years. We have had, I think, something like 80,000 seniors in New Jersey who were in HMOs and who joined in order to get a prescription drug benefit who have been dropped. So I understand what the gentleman is saying, that rural areas in particular have a problem because they may not even have an HMO or PPO; but even in as densely a populated State like New Jersey where we have them, they have dropped the seniors at will. It is almost a joke to suggest that somehow, no matter where one is in the country, that these HMOs are going to provide a meaningful drug benefit. We do not know that they will.

Mr. PALLONE. Maybe. You remember before we came, the Congress had passed a catastrophic health care bill, and then, when we came, there was the clamor to repeal it and it was repealed. Essentially it reminds me of that, where the Republicans are saying we are going to give you a drug benefit, but when you look at the details, it is probably going to be a benefit that is not even worth the paper it is written on. For the next few years, everybody will think they are getting it. When it kicks in, they will realize it is not even worth having, and they will be outraged. That is what we faced when we came in 15 years ago, or whatever it is. The other thing that is really bothering me, I listened to our Republican colleagues earlier and they talked about how Medicare is broke and it has to be fixed. The biggest problem with Medicare now is they are borrowing from the trust fund. If anything, they are going to make it go broke, because they keep borrowing it to pay for other costs. When my colleague from Washington mentioned the voucher, all I kept thinking was how this becomes budget driven. In other words, say you give them $4,500 now. But next year, when they say we do not have the money for that, we cannot afford $4,500, so maybe you will continue to get the $4,500, but inflation will not keep up with it. Once you get into that voucher type system, you can regulate how much the government spends and just limit the amount of the voucher or the amount of the program so that essentially the whole Medicare program becomes budget driven, rather than what the real cost is. It is a way for them to calculate the cost and have it be budget driven. It is a very dangerous precedent.

Mr. PALLONE. I think I have been longer than even you.

Mr. PALLONE. We are speculating upon what is in it.

Mr. PALLONE. But, at the same time, even though this is not until 2010 for the voucher for Medicare in general, they are essentially doing the same thing with prescription drugs. If you want to get a prescription drug benefit, you would have to join one of these private plans, or whatever it is. Otherwise you do not get the benefit. So, by luring people with the prescription drug benefit, that that is the only way they can get it, if they go out and buy this drug only policy or join an HMO, effectively they are doing the same thing before 2010.

Mr. PALLONE. I know the gentleman was on this Medicare Commission, and the commission basically rejected by a vote this voucher proposal. I just wish we could just develop it a little more, because I think this is the one thing that people just do not understand, that they probably would not even believe what the gentleman just said. If I went to my constituents and asked five of them, did you hear what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) said, they would not believe that is what the House Republicans are proposing. But it is, in fact, what they are proposing in this bill. I basically said to a couple of my Republican colleagues exactly what the gentleman said. This was their response. I said, see if we can develop it. They said well, it is not exactly like that. I said, ``What happens if there is not anything? What happens if the senior goes out and tries to take this $4,500 voucher and tries to buy this private health insurance and it is not available?'' They said, ``Oh, it will be available, because we will make it profitable for them to go into this business.'' So, on further reflection, I understood. I wanted to get the gentleman's comment on this. What they will do? Because there is no defined benefit. Right now if you get Medicare, you have to get certain benefits and certain things. They will simply reduce the benefits. So maybe somebody eventually will be out there who will take the $4,500 and give your mother the insurance, because they will not provide what Medicare now provides. They will just cut back on the level of benefits, what she gets, whatever. So eventually there will be some junk plan out there for her to purchase, because somebody who is looking to make a buck will come up with something. But then my understanding is that, let us say that she can find some junk plan that does not provide any benefits that are meaningful or does not operate in a meaningful way. If she wants to stay in traditional Medicare, they are going to charge her more to do it. She will not be able to go back to the traditional Medicare because they will charge her the difference. They may charge her $500 or $1,000. She will be forced with the junk plan. I want the gentleman to develop it a little. We do not really know.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, but still a physician. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), and just before I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) because I am very pleased that he is with us this evening, not only because he is a physician, but also because he is on the Committee on Ways and Means which is the other committee that will be dealing with the markup of the Medicare bill tomorrow, I just wanted to highlight a couple things that the gentleman from Michigan said, though, because I think they really make the point so well. First of all, I suppose we should not give the impression that we as Democrats do not have an alternative to the Republican bill, and, in fact, we do. Essentially what we have said is look, we have no problem with traditional Medicare. We think Medicare works. We think that the only thing that needs to be done is to add a prescription drug benefit. So we as a Democratic Caucus have been saying let us just continue on with the existing Medicare program and let us add a prescription drug benefit, and we have proposed adding a new part D to Medicare that provides a voluntary prescription drug benefit to all Medicare beneficiaries and does not require them to join an HMO or a PPO or do any privatization or use a voucher or anything. It is very much modeled on part B, which pays for their doctor bills right now. They would simply pay a premium of $25 a month. They would have a deductible of $100 a year. Beneficiaries or seniors pay 20 percent. Medicare pays 80 percent. And the most they would spend out of pocket for that 20 percent is up to $2,000 per year at which case everything beyond that is paid for. And most importantly, we have a provision in our bill that would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate price reductions. So I just want to put it on the table that we do not see a problem just adding a drug benefit for everyone to traditional Medicare and continuing with traditional Medicare, which has been a very good program. As my colleague from Michigan mentioned, the Senate, the other body, on a bipartisan basis has come up with a proposal that, in my opinion, is not as good as the House Democrats' proposal that I just mentioned, but because it does not provide as generous a benefit, I think it only provides 50 percent coverage of their costs and there is a higher deductible and there is a point when they have to pay everything out of pocket, but at least the other body, the Senate, has not done anything to privatize Medicare with their proposal. They can still stay in traditional Medicare. They can still get their prescription drug benefit under traditional Medicare. They do not have to join an HMO. They do not have to join a PPO. I mean, I obviously like what the House Democrats have proposed better than the Senate, but the main thing is that the other body does not privatize Medicare and does not require them to join an HMO or a PPO to get a benefit. We are wondering to ourselves where is all this coming from? Where are the House Republicans coming from, as the gentleman said, in that essentially they have rejected the Senate bill and they want to do all these things to end traditional Medicare and force seniors out of it? There are two theories, and I will just mention two. One is it is strictly ideologically driven. They are just so bent on getting rid of traditional Medicare because it is a Government program that they will not look at the practical side of the fact that it works. That is one theory. Maybe some of them are driven by that. The other theory that I have is that they are in the pockets of the drug companies. We know that the drug companies now are spending all kinds of money as they have in the past to lobby because they do not want any kind of price reduction. They do not want any kind of a real benefit because they are fearful that somehow they are going to make less money. So I do not know what the reason is, but the one thing that I have to mention is this effort to avoid any mention of price in the House Republican bill. And as the gentleman said, they go so far that they have this noninterference clause, and one of the first things that I did today was to try find out if they continued this noninterference clause that they had in the previous Congress that would prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating price. And here it is, gentlemen. I am just going to read it. It says that the administrator of the program shall not interfere in any way with negotiations between PDP sponsors and Medicare advantage organizations and other organizations and drug manufacturers, wholesalers, or other suppliers of covered outpatient drugs. So they are going to allow the competition of the marketplace, but they are not going to allow the Secretary or the Medicare or Health and Human Services to negotiate any kind of price reductions. They are forbidden from doing it. And again, I say it is just because the House Republican leadership is just in the pockets of the drug companies. This was in the New York Times June 1, and it said: ``Lobbyists for the drug industry are stepping up spending to influence Congress, the States and even foreign governments as the debate intensifies over how to provide to prescription drug benefits to the elderly, industry executives say. ``Confidential budget documents from the leading pharmaceutical trade group show that it will spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress and State legislatures, fighting price controls'' . . .'' subsidizing ``like-minded organizations' and paying economists to produce op-ed articles and monographs in response to critics. ``The industry is worried that price controls and other regulations will tie the drug markets' hands as State, Federal and foreign governments try to expand access to affordable drugs.'' So I do not know if it is their right-wing radical ideology. I think it is probably because they are essentially being bought and sold by the drug companies. But the bottom line is we are not going to see any price reductions here. And the issue of affordability, as the gentleman mentioned, is absurd when he talks about this huge gap. Between $2,000 and $3,700 a year, they are going to help them up to $2,000, but once they go over that up to $3,700, there is this huge doughnut hole, and we know that that is the biggest amount of money that seniors spend. In other words, the biggest problem for seniors is not the catastrophic, which only hits a few people, or the $2,000 or under, which hits a lot, but most people can still afford to pay that. The biggest problem for the average middle class senior is this $2,000 and $3,700 a year. That is where they cannot pay. That is where they start to have to split the pills and go without whatever, and that is where the huge cost savings is that the Republicans are not providing coverage for that doughnut hole. I have spoken too long, and I would like to recognize the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) who has been such a leader on this issue. And I want to say one thing if I could to him. I know he has always been an advocate for universal health care, and I agree with him that that is the real answer here, but it is really sad to see that we have a government program that works, that at least does provide universal coverage for seniors and now the Republicans want to destroy even that rather than trying to build and provide more coverage for people who are not seniors. They are even trying to destroy the very universal coverage program we have, that at least seniors have. So I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. Me neither.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to encourage a new round of peace talks between the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, LTTE, also known as the Tamil Tigers. Recent conciliatory actions by the Sri Lankan Government, as well as strong international support for peace, offers progress in finding a resolution to this conflict. However, the Tamil Tigers need to be encouraged to return to the negotiating table in order to continue this momentum towards peace. Sri Lanka, Mr. Speaker, is a nation that has suffered a tremendous loss of nearly 65,000 lives due to a long-standing conflict between Sri Lankans and the Tamil Tigers. Finally, on February 22nd of last year, the Norwegian Government brokered a cease-fire signed by both groups, but the peace process remains far from complete. Excluded from a preliminary conference held in Washington this April, the Tamil Tigers then withdrew from participating in the Tokyo Donor Conference that is currently taking place. However, recent developments on the part of the Sri Lankan Government and the international community offer some progress. On Monday, the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka offered a provisional administrative structure for the Tamil majority region of the island, a step toward meeting a central demand of the Tamil Tigers for resuming peace talks. The Tigers have said they would return to the negotiating table only if an interim administration in the Tamil-majority north and east was established, and the Prime Minister's proposal does just that. Having taken this important step, the Prime Minister must further lay out a more specific outline for addressing the Tamil Tigers' concerns. The movement towards peace in Sri Lanka is further solidified by the vast influx of international support for peace on the island. At the Donor meeting in Tokyo, host Japan has already pledged $1 billion in assistance. Another $1 billion has been offered by the Asian Development Bank, and a spokesman for the European Union said it will contribute $290 million over the next 3 years. The U.S. has committed to $54 million in aid, and the World Bank recently announced before the conference that it would provide Sri Lanka with $200 million a year for 4 years. Mr. Speaker, these donations show an enormous interest by the international community in rebuilding postconflict Sri Lanka and finding a peaceful resolution. Any aid will come with strict conditions in an effort to provide the international community with the ability to compel the Sri Lankan Government and the Tamil Tigers to move quickly toward resolving their conflict. Mr. Speaker, I have to say the atmosphere for peace in Sri Lanka, I think, is right. Strong international financial and moral support for peace, and recent Sri Lankan compromises to the Tamil Tigers will hopefully lead to the Tamil Tigers' return to the negotiating table and, hopefully, eventually lead to a peaceful resolution in Sri Lanka.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to a remarkable constituent from the Sixth District of New Jersey, Gideon Sofer. This young man has tremendous determination and has recently been recognized as one of America's top ten youth volunteers by the Prudential Spirit of Community Awards. This distinction carries not only national recognition, but also a $5,000 award, and $25,000 in toys, clothing and other juvenile products donated in his name to needy children in his area by Kids in Distressed Situations, Inc. Gideon has lived most of his formative years with an incredibly painful and often debilitating sickness, Crohn's disease. He has been living with this disease since he was diagnosed when he was twelve. During the last 6 years, he has been thorough numerous surgeries, and has often faced death during the painful procedures. Most people would have just been concerned with their survival, but Gideon has turned his personal suffering into a quest: to educate the public about Crohn's disease. In 1932, Dr. Burrill B. Crohn, Dr. Leon Ginzburg, and Dr. Gordon D. Oppenheimer published a landmark paper describing the clinical features of what is known today as Crohn's disease. Crohn's and a related disease, ulcerative colitis, are the main divisions of the group of illnesses called inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Because the symptoms of these two illnesses are so similar, approximately 10 percent of cases are unable to be diagnosed definitively as either ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease. In both illnesses, there is an abnormal immune response. White blood cells infiltrate the intestinal lining, causing chronic inflammation. These cells then produce noxious products that ultimately lead to tissue injury. When this happens, the patient experiences the symptoms of IBD. The precise cause of the chronic inflammation associated with IBD is not known. Mr. Speaker, Gideon Sofer is an example to us all. He selflessly offers his energy to the education of the public about Crohn's. Please join me in recognizing this young man and his achievements.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize an exemplary individual, Reverend Dr. Henry P. Davis, Jr. This year marks Reverend Davis's 30th Anniversary as Pastor for the Saint Paul Baptist Church of Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey. On July 13, 2003 Reverend Davis will be honored for his commitment and extraordinary service to his community over the past 30 years. Reverend Davis's educational achievement has aided him tremendously in serving his congregation and surrounding communities. After earning his Bachelor of Science degree from Huston-Tillotson College in Austin, Texas, the Reverend went on to receive a Master of Education degree from Prairie View A&M University. He was later awarded a Master of Divinity degree from the New Brunswick Theological Seminary and a honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from Rankin's Theological Clinic. Reverend Davis is also the recipient of a Doctor of Ministry degree from Drew University. Reverend Davis has stood out amongst his peers for his exceptional leadership skills. Over the past few years Reverend Davis has served as the Moderator of the Seacoast Missionary Baptist Association, which consists of 32 churches throughout Monmouth and Ocean counties. He is the former Treasurer of the General Baptist Convention of New Jersey and served as the Secretary of the Moderator's Auxiliary of the National Baptist Convention, for over a decade. Presently, Reverend Davis serves on the Executive Board of the Hampton University Ministers Conference and the New Jersey Council of Churches. Reverend Davis has also devoted much of his time to various youth, community service, and civil rights organizations. He currently serves as a Trustee of the Brookdale Community College Foundation and member of the Youth Services Commission of Monmouth County. He is the Vice- President of the Monmouth County Board of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Service. At present Reverend Davis is the Chairman of the Monmouth County Minority Youth Vicinage Committee and is a life member of the NAACP. Through his work with these different groups Reverend Davis has positively influenced the lives of countless individuals. In addition to the award he will receive on July 13, 2003 Reverend Davis has been the recipient of a number of previous awards for the remarkable work he does. Those awards include the Seacoast Association's Outstanding Service Award; New Jersey's State Federation of Colored Women's Club's Outstanding Community Service Award and Humanitarian Award; as well as recognition from the greater Red Bank NAACP. Mr. Speaker, on this day I rise up to acknowledge a truly remarkable individual and I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring the distinguished Reverend Dr. Henry P. Davis, Jr. for his 30 years of devoted service to his community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. It is amazing to me. The Democrats have been talking about the need to provide this child tax credit to the 12 million children who are in working families now for at least a week and we were very gratified to see that the other body, the Senate, on a bipartisan basis passed a very carefully tailored bill that would cost, I guess, $3.5 billion and that would essentially put the families of these children, the working families, back into eligibility for this increased tax credit. What happens when this bill comes over here to the House? Our House Republican leadership, which as we know has repeatedly said that they are not in favor of this, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was quoted many times last week as saying it was not important and that he was not going to do it unless it was part of a larger tax break giveaway. That is what we are hearing now. The House Republicans are saying and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the Committee on Ways and Means have said that they are only willing to provide this tax credit to these 12 million children if we increase the amount of money greatly, go further into debt and add on a number of other things for wealthier families. It simply is not right because what effectively the Republicans in the House are doing is killing this proposal. If the bill that passed the Senate came over here and we simply took it up and passed it, it would become law and the 12 million children would get the tax break. They would get the money going out sometime after July 1. And now because of the House Republican action here to expand this and try to help wealthier families and individuals, it is very likely that this whole bill is killed and that the Senate action will not accomplish what it should accomplish. I blame directly the House Republican leadership. They were not in favor of this from the beginning. They did not include it in their tax bill in the beginning, they said they were opposed to it, and now they are putting up more hurdles and roadblocks to it. They are also saying they are not going to pay for it. In the Senate, Senator Blanche Lincoln had put in specific pay-fors, increases in customs duties to make sure that this would not do anything to increase the debt which we understand is like $400 billion now. And what do the House Republicans do in the leadership here? They eliminate the pay-fors and they increase the funding to pay for higher- income individuals, holding these children and their families essentially hostage to a tax break for wealthier individuals, and they refuse to pay for it. They basically come up with a bill that is about 80 or $82 billion that is all debt and not paid for at all. I cynically say the reason they are doing it is because they want to kill the bill. They do not want these 12 million children to get the tax break, these working families to get the tax break. They just want to kill the bill. They were always against the bill. Through this action they will kill the bill if it passes in that way, and they are totally responsible for that. You have to understand the way this place works, and this is the sad part about it. It is very easy for the House Republican leadership to simply take something good that the other body did on a bipartisan basis and kill it by adding all these additional tax breaks for wealthier families and at the same time eliminating the pay-fors, so it is now being paid for out of debt which will cause so much problem for the other body that they will never take up the bill, it will never get the 50 or the 60 votes that are necessary in the Senate to pass the bill. We have to do whatever we can over the next 24 hours, because this is likely to come up tomorrow, to try to force the original Senate bill to pass just at the cost of the $3.5 billion, just for those 12 million children that were left out, and with the pay-fors that were in it so that it is acceptable to everyone. That is the way this should be done. Simply take up the other body's bill and pass it and not load it down with all these other problems. We have about 24 hours to try to convince and get the votes for that. It is not going to be easy, but we are going to make sure as Democrats that we do that so that we have a good bill that will pass.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the members of the Raritan High School Boys Baseball team from Hazlet, New Jersey in the 6th district of New Jersey. On Tuesday June 10, 2003, they completed a season of hard work and personal sacrifice with the first State Baseball Championship in school history. Two weeks prior they won their first Central New Jersey Sectional Championship in over a decade continuing their improbable underdog journey defeating Spotswood High School. The true measure of their achievement came this past Tuesday when this Cinderella story finally was granted the glass slipper. Down for much of the game, the team rallied to defeat statewide ranked Hanover Park to win the school's first ever state championship. This occasion cannot be fully appreciated unless I recognize the graduating seniors and leaders of this gifted group of student athletes. Two of the team's coaches, T.J. O'Donnell and Tim Hildner, members of previous Raritan championship teams, returned to their alma mater to guide this team to the state championship never realized during their tenure as players. Remaining coaches, long time teachers at the school, Andrew Milewski and Robert Generelli gave this group the extra guidance that made them champions. Though the team's full potential was put into motion by the group's undisputed leaders, such as first basemen Gregory Casha, shortstop Alex Mautone, pitcher Sean Walsh, left fielder Steve Plagianakos, utility fielder Ernie Scelia, first basemen Patrick Wood, and center fielder Jared Pflug all of who which will be graduating this June, moving on to several of our state's great universities and leaving their current teammates with a title to defend. The contributions of underclassmen such as second basemen Sal Straniero, catcher Sean Hanrahan, designated hitter Ricky Russomano, center fielder Steve Bilowus, right fielder Andrew Mandeville, and third basemen Michael Nunes were the extra pieces to the puzzle that together turned a small high school on the Jersey Shore into a state powerhouse in one short season. Today I speak to you as a proud representative of the 6th district of New Jersey due to the inspiration that these young men have contributed to the residents in Township of Hazlet. So on this day, June 11, 2003 I wish congratulations to the players, coaches, and parents of the 2003 Group II State Champions, the Raritan High School Rockets!

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, for the last few days the Democrats have been demanding that the Republicans bring up the child tax credit and extend it for lower-income working families. The Senate passed this bill. It is time for the House to bring it up. What do we hear today? What have the House Republicans done? Basically what they have done is to take this very small amount of money, $3.5 billion that will pay for these 12 million kids to get their child tax credit, and they have now expanded it, they are not paying for it and they are trying to cover and pay $82 billion for an expanded tax break for wealthier individuals. Why is it that we cannot just take up the Senate-passed bill, give these 12 million kids and their parents a tax break that they deserve, and instead we are holding this bill hostage so that we can have more tax breaks for wealthier people and deal with other tax issues that are not germane to these 12 million kids? I resent the fact that the House Republicans are now holding this bill hostage, holding these working families hostage to try to expand tax cuts for other people and wealthier individuals.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, not only because I believe the House should finally address the child tax credit, but also because the Committee on Rules refused to include an amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) to allow American Indian tribes to operate Internet gambling sites on their reservations, the very action the overall bill gives to the States. Without the inclusion of this amendment, Indian tribes are unfairly singled out and cannot reap the same benefits States will receive if this legislation becomes law. Mr. Speaker, I join my Democratic colleagues in calling on the Republican leadership to follow the Senate's lead and immediately approve legislation that will provide a child tax credit to 12 million children, children Republicans left out of their bill last month. Included among these 12 million children are the children of U.S. military families. A report out last week showed nearly 1 in 5 children of active duty U.S. military families will not benefit from the increased tax credit because their parents earn too little to qualify. Mr. Speaker, it appears the only Republicans who do not fully comprehend the huge mistake they made in their tax bill are my Republican colleagues here in the House. Last week the Senate passed a bill. Yesterday the President's press secretary said his advice to the House Republicans is to pass it, to send it to him so he can sign it. And yet House Republicans continue to fight against common fairness. Just today in an AP story that I will quote, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, it ``ain't going to happen.'' ``DeLay said the House will not pass the Senate's bill. Instead, it will use the child tax credit as a bargaining chip to encourage the Senate to pass bigger tax cuts favored by the House.'' And I have a quote of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), ``What we are interested in is real solid tax relief for those who are paying taxes,'' he said. So the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), on behalf of the House leadership, continues to stop the child tax credit from becoming law for these 12 million working families. Now, let me point out that these workers do pay Federal taxes; 7.65 percent of their earnings go to pay for Social Security and Medicare. These hardworking parents also pay State and local taxes as well. An analysis released earlier this year by the New York Times found that families pay 14 percent of their income. These people pay taxes and they deserve the child tax credit, too. Pass the bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge once again a group of talented and capable women. This month marks the 12th anniversary of the Thornton Sisters Foundation, Inc. I have been following these women's struggles and accomplishments for a long time now, and after a decade of success, I still feel it is an honor to formally salute these women for a third time. On Sunday, June 8, 2003, the Thornton Sisters Foundation will hold an awards ceremony for the 25 finalists of the Donald and Itasker Thornton Memorial Scholarship and their family members. The occasion will be hosted at Jumping Brook Country Club in Neptune, NJ. The Thornton Sisters have an inspiring history that led to the creation of this foundation. They come from a family that has always known the intrinsic worth of a good education. In 1948, their parents, Donald and Itasker, moved the family from Harlem, New York City to Long Branch, NJ, so that their children would be able to receive a better education. And while Mrs. Thornton was unable to attend college, she pushed all of her daughters to accomplish something that she would never be able to do. With the help of scholarships and their parent's inspiration, all six daughters graduated from Monmouth University in Long Branch. Having learned early on the importance of an education, these six sisters now want to give the same opportunity they had to other young women. This story has special significance to me, as I am a citizen of Long Branch. In addition, Rita Thornton and I both attended Long Branch High School and even participated in speech and debate together. I could tell back then, that she and her sisters share a true commitment to education and excellence--it is no wonder that they all received straight A's throughout high school. This year, I would also like to recognize all recipients of the Donald and Itasker Thornton Scholarship, past and present: from 1992, Miss LaShawn Pruitt and Miss Tiffany Sanders; from 1995, Miss Natasha Dwamena; from 1996, Miss Jasmine Williams; from 1997, Miss Anetha Perry, Miss Sanetta Ponton, and Mr. Carl Little; from 1998, Miss Diane Bynes; from 1999, Miss Estelle Docteur, Miss Leigh-Michil George, Miss Tiffany Little, and Miss Traymanesha Moore; from 2000, Miss Marie Guervil, and Miss Lesha Sanders; from 2001, Miss Aakia Seymour, Miss Fatiya Ilegieno, Miss Lesha Brady, Miss Betty Lin, and Miss Courtney Jackson; from 2002, Miss Melissa Thompson, Miss Tiffany Reed, and Miss Martha Tan; and from 2003, Miss Yoonieh Ahn, Miss Cassaundra Brown, Miss Porschia Epps, Miss Sorochi Esochaghi, Miss Sonya Frontin, Miss Indria Harrison, Miss Quasheeda Kelly, Miss Elizabeth Meltzer, Miss Dominique Robinson, Miss Candice Spence, Miss Shakeilya Washington, and Miss Katherine Wheatle. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these aspiring women. They are truly a group that needs to be admired and praised. I want to personally thank the Thornton sisters for their twelve years of providing scholarships for young minority women of the State of New Jersey.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sensenbrenner amendment. The underlying bill, as we know, exempts transactions with a business licensed or authorized by a State from the definition of ``bet or wager.'' This will permit lotteries, horse and dog tracks and other gambling operations to go on the Internet, but does not cover transactions with tribal governments. It is simply unfair not to provide parity for Indian tribes. If this bill becomes law, the outcome will result in unequal treatment of Indian tribes because the current Federal law that prohibits Internet gambling will only apply to Indian tribes. With this bill, only state-licensed businesses will be permitted to conduct Internet gambling. The gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment, with the gentleman from Michigan, ensures fairness for everyone, placing tribes and States on a level playing field. Indian gaming, as we know, has provided tribal communities with economic self-reliance; and it has also helped to create jobs in surrounding communities, not just for tribes but for other people in the surrounding communities. It is simply unfair not to provide parity. I would ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the Sensenbrenner amendment if they feel strongly that there should be parity for Indian tribes.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I am coming to the House floor this evening to urge the Republican leadership to follow the Senate's lead and immediately approve the legislation that will provide a child tax credit to 12 million children, the children Republicans left out of their tax bill last month. Included amongst these 12 million children are the children of U.S. military families. A report out last week showed nearly 1 in 5 children of active duty U.S. military families will not benefit from the increased tax credit because their parents earn too little to qualify. Now, last week, Madam Speaker, Senate Republicans worked with Democrats to expand the child tax credit to the 12 million children they initially left out. And talk about a tale of two Chambers. While Senate Republicans were negotiating with Democrats to craft the bipartisan compromise, Republican leaders here in the House showed nothing but ambivalence towards the terribly unfair treatment of these working families. Madam Speaker, this House should follow the Senate's lead and immediately approve legislation extending the child tax credit to working families. I hope that my Republican colleagues will follow the lead of their colleagues in the Senate and not their own leadership here in the House. Just last week, the House majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and many of us have mentioned it, said he would not bring up a legislative remedy to this injustice, and he justified this inaction by saying, ``There are a lot of other things that are more important than that.'' Well, I do not agree with him, and I have to say I hope that Republicans in the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay's) own party recognize the injustice. Last week, conservative syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington said in the Los Angeles Times: ``A magnetic compass always points north; a moral compass should always point out that heaping billions on the rich while ensuring that 1 out of 6 American children do not get a penny is dead wrong.'' Conservative Arianna Huffington continued: ``But that's exactly what congressional Republicans did in pushing through tax cut legislation last month, and that's what President Bush signed off on.'' When hearing about the provision being pulled from the bill and the impact it would have on 1 in every 5 active duty military families, Republican Senator John McCain said, ``My God, what kind of message are we sending when we leave out low-income families, exactly those who are in that category of the enlisted men and women who are fighting for us today in Iraq? It is beyond belief.'' It truly is. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer probably explained it best when he said: ``Does tax relief go to people who pay income taxes, or does it go above and beyond the forgiving of all income taxes, and you actually get a check from the government for more than you ever owed in income taxes?'' That is what the House majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is saying. He basically is backing up Fleischer's claims and he says, ``To me, it is a little difficult to give tax relief to people who do not pay income tax.'' Well, it is simply not true. These people do pay taxes. What the President's secretary and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) forget is that these workers pay Federal taxes. Madam Speaker, 7.65 percent of their earnings go to pay for Social Security and Medicare. These hardworking parents also pay State and local taxes as well. But beyond the issue of whether they pay or not, and they do, it is just the issue of simple fairness. How can the Republicans say it is fair to give a millionaire a tax break of more than $90,000 while giving nothing to millions of working families? I do not understand how they even could conceive of such a thing. Now, after realizing that the Republicans had left this provision out of their final tax bill, several of my Democratic colleagues introduced a bill early this week that would repair the damage from this irresponsible tax package. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has introduced legislation with many Democratic sponsors that would provide greater tax relief to the families of 19 million children, and the legislation is fully paid for, so it would not add to the record deficits created by the President and the Republicans in Congress. Last week we Democrats in the House said we would not allow business to continue as usual around here until Republicans agreed to address the Rangel legislation. We did some procedural motions and we will continue to do that this week until the Republican House leadership stands up and says that they are going to pass this legislation. I just do not understand where they are coming from. I do not understand how they can be so crass and so really unfeeling about these low-income working families. Obviously everybody else here agrees: The President now today, the Democrats, and the Republicans in the other House. The only thing that is holding us up here on this is the House Republican leadership. They have to stop this attack on low- and middle-class families. They have to stop this attack, bring it to an end, pass this legislation. Let us bring it up and pass it immediately.