Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today Greece celebrates its 182nd year of independence. I am here tonight to praise a society that represents, in a historical sense, the origins of what we call Western culture, and, in a contemporary sense, one of the staunchest defenders of Western society and values. There are many of us in Congress, on both sides of the spectrum, who are staunchly committed to preserving and strengthening the ties between Greek and American people. In the years since it's Greek independence, Americans and Greeks have grown ever closer, bound by ties of strategic and military alliance, common values of democracy, individual freedom, human rights, and close personal friendship. The timeless values of Greek culture have endured for centuries, indeed for millennia. Four hundred years of control by the Ottoman Empire could not overcome the Greek people's determination to be free. But, I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, to this day, the Greek people must battle against oppression. For almost 28 years now, Greece has stood firm in its determination to bring freedom and independence to the illegally occupied nation of Cyprus. Given instability around the world and a war in Iraq, now is a good time to heal the wound in Cyprus that has poisoned the relations between Greece and Turkey for so many years. Mr. Speaker, that is why I was so disappointed earlier this month when I learned of the breakdown in the United Nations-sponsored Cyprus peace talks in the Hague. All of the facts lead to the inescapable conclusion that the cause of the breakdown is the intransigence of the Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash, and his supporters in Ankara. Mr. Speaker, yesterday 16 of my House colleagues joined me in sending a letter to President Bush urging that all official statements from the U.S. Government regarding the Cyprus issue place the blame for this negative outcome squarely where it belongs, with Mr. Denktash and Ankara. We also requested that the Bush administration redouble its efforts to persuade Turkey and Turkish-Cypriot leader to work constructively within the U.N. process and framework to achieve a negotiated settlement to end the division of Cyprus. Due to the attitude of Mr. Denktash and Turkey, further progress on the U.N. plan now appears derailed. The office of the Secretary General's Special Advisor on Cyprus will be brought to a close in the coming weeks. The Secretary General has said that his plan is still on the table. It is apparent that continued division serves Mr. Denktash's narrow political interests--even if his position is completely contrary to the interests of the large majority of the Turkish Cypriots, who have made their views known in support of the U.N. process in massive demonstrations. In contrast, Mr. Speaker, Cyprus President Tassos Papadopoulos has pledged to continue efforts for a Cyprus settlement that would properly serve the interests of both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. Mr. Speaker, it is my expectation, and the expectation of 16 of my colleagues who joined me in sending the letter to President Bush, that the Bush administration will use all available political and diplomatic means to persuade Turkey to work constructively to resolve the Cyprus question. At a time when Turkey is interested in joining the EU, its lack of cooperation in the efforts to solve the Cyprus problem can only result in a setback for Turkey's EU candidacy. Ultimately, the victims of these shortsighted policies from Ankara and the Turkish Cypriot leadership are the people of Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot community, who will continue to be deprived of an opportunity to share in the economic, social and other benefits of EU membership. Moreover, the Turkish rejection is a setback to peace and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean, a U.S. strategic objective and long-standing policy for the region. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to work with my colleagues here in Congress to ensure that the United States government remains on the right side of this issue--because there is no gray area when it comes to this conflict. In closing I want to congratulate the Greek people for 182 years of independence and thank them for their contributions to American life.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I rise on the House floor to mourn the passing of one of the Indian American community's most exemplary leaders, Mr. Sunil ``Sunny'' Aghi. Although we will be at a great loss with his passing and it is difficult to express in words the grief of his family and all those who knew him, I would like to offer this tribute as a celebration of his many accomplishments during his short life. ``Sunny'' was a man who stood for the honor and responsibility that comes along with American citizenship. Among his accomplishments was the creation of the Indo-American Political Foundation, a group dedicated to ensuring that Indian Americans were active in their communities and their government. Beyond his numerous personal efforts to provide food and clothing for local charities, and raising money for scholarships to allow struggling families to send their children to college, Sunil's foundation sought to educate Indian Americans about what it means to be a part of their government and how it allows them to be proud of their citizenship in this great country. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have called Sunil Aghl a friend and I am eternally grateful to have called him a partner in the fight to bring government to the people and people to their government. I, for one, am humbled by his accomplishments and can only hope that his message of strong involvement in government, pride in our country, and concern for his fellow Americans will live on in all those he has touched. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope ``Sunny'' is remembered for all he has done and all that he has stood for throughout his short time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the House floor this evening to express my deep sorrow for the victims of a brutal attack in Kashmir that began on late Sunday night in Nandimarg village, which was inhabited by 11 remaining Kashmiri Pandit families. After the massacre by gunmen dressed in Indian Army uniforms, 24 Kashmiri Pandits, including 11 women and two children, were left dead. Mr. Speaker, the conflict in Kashmir has plagued this region for over 3 decades and has created an extremely dangerous and unstable situation for the Pandit community. There was a long history of attacks against Pandits in the 1990s, which started the mass migration of this indigenous people from the valley. As the severity of violence has increased and as the frequency of attacks has risen to a near daily basis, the mass exodus of the Pandits has perpetuated and, over time, well over 60,000 Pandits have been murdered. The Pandits as a people have faced tremendous hardship. They have been forced to leave their homes, jobs and temples in order to stay alive. They have been forced to abandon cultural practices in order to live in refugee camps. The exodus from the valley has left the Pandits as refugees in their own country, running away from persecution and extinction. Mr. Speaker, for the Pandits who have remained in the Kashmir Valley or who planned to return, assurances were made in November by the new Kashmiri state coalition government to protect Pandits from violence. In fact, when the new government took power in Kashmir, its leaders pledged to provide welcoming conditions and the resources necessary for Pandits to safely return. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this has not been the case and both the state and federal authorities have failed to protect the Pandits. It has become clear that security lapses contributed to yesterday's Nandimarg massacre and both the state government in Jammu and Kashmir as well as the Indian Government in New Delhi must step up and meet the needs of both the nearly 8,000 Pandits living in the Kashmir Valley and the 200,000 that live outside of Kashmir. The Pandits in the valley cannot continue to endure the unceasing threat of violence, and the Pandits elsewhere in India must be convinced that their return to the valley will be safe. Mr. Speaker, I hope that a combination of events will take place that will effectuate necessary protections for these people. I encourage the coalition government in Kashmir to do justice to the Pandits. Additionally, I urge President Bush to put more pressure on President Musharraf of Pakistan to stop Islamic militant infiltration into Kashmir and to end Pakistan's moral and military support to these fundamentalists responsible for the mass murder of the Pandits. Pakistan received $50 million in military assistance from the U.S. earlier this month, is slated to receive $25 million in the supplemental appropriations bill scheduled to come to the House floor, and in the President's fiscal year 2004 budget there is a provision that requests $75 million to Pakistan in foreign military financing. My fear is that U.S. military assistance to Pakistan will then be turned around and used against India, particularly in Kashmir. Mr. Speaker, the President must continue to persuade Pakistan to end terrorism in Kashmir and the U.S. should not be providing military assistance to the Musharraf regime. Mr. Speaker, there are no words to express the devastation of the Nandimarg massacre and the sad history of the Kashmiri Pandits. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Pandits, I call upon the coalition government in the state of Jammu and Kashmir to actively engage in steps to protect Pandits that are still in the valley and to ensure the safe return of all Pandits that have been forced to leave for over a decade.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to formally withdraw H.R. 1333, which I introduced on Tuesday, March 18, 2003. Mr. Speaker, I offered this legislation in an attempt to provide United States citizenship to the members of the Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona in both Arizona and Mexico. However, I withdraw H.R. 1333 and instead offer my full support for H.R. 731, the Tohono O'odham Citizenship Act of 2003, of which I am an original cosponsor. In addition to this statement of withdrawal, I have filed a formal request with both the chairman and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over H.R. 1333, to not take up this legislation in any hearings or markups during the course of the 108th Congress. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to further legislative proceedings on H.R. 731.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I am amazed at some of the things that they have said today. The gentleman from Mississippi blamed the entire deficit in this budget on September 11. There is no truth in that. The fact of the matter is, if it was not for the tax cut that the Republicans put in place in the last session of Congress, there would not be a deficit. The deficit is being created primarily because of the constant effort on their part to put in place tax cuts that primarily benefit the very wealthy and special corporate interests. Then I heard the gentleman from Florida say the budget puts us back on the road to surplus. They are creating a deficit, and they are saying they are creating a surplus. There is purposeful activity in creating the deficit by the kinds of tax cuts they put in place and the way they frame this budget. They are taking a situation where a few years ago we had a surplus that was done on a bipartisan basis under President Clinton with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate; but nonetheless, it was done because we felt we had to balance the budget. Now the opposite is happening. They are creating a huge deficit. Then another Member on the other side of the aisle said we have to have these tax cuts because we do not want to put all of the burden on the taxpayers. What about our children, grandchildren, and future generations? What about the fact that we are borrowing this money to pay for the deficit from Social Security and Medicare, and that these programs are going to run dry in the future when our children and grandchildren have to deal with the problem? That is the most irresponsible thing I have ever seen. This is a radical proposal by the Republican leadership here. This is not common sense. This is the most radical budget that I have ever seen in the 15 years that I have been here. They are basically shifting the burden. They are shifting the burden to future generations. It should not be allowed. They should say what they are doing, and they are not.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this week, probably tomorrow and Thursday, we will probably have a final vote Thursday on the Republican budget resolution in the House; and I wanted to speak to that resolution today because I think it really sets a terrible precedent for where we are going in terms of spending programs, tax cuts, as well as the economy in general, which as we all know has experienced a major downturn in the last year or so. My major point is this, that essentially what the President is doing, what the Republicans are doing in this budget is to give huge tax cuts, primarily to wealthy Americans and to corporate interests. As a result of that, there will be a major slash of programs that are important to the average American and also a major increase in the deficit. A few years ago under President Clinton we actually had a surplus with the budget. We were paying down our debt. We were paying back the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Now the opposite is happening. With this Republican budget, which the President essentially supports, we are building huge deficits once again. We are borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. We are borrowing from the Medicare trust fund. And those two retirement security programs, basically Social Security and Medicare, the day when they will go broke or will run out of funds will come closer and closer because of the drain on those trust funds and their resources. But, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see that over the weekend, in fact Sunday, in the New York Times there was an editorial that basically says how I feel with regard to the Republican budget and gives some information of which I would like to read certain sections. It is entitled, ``How Tax Cuts Trickle Down.'' In the beginning it says, Mr. Speaker, ``In a sorry effort to protect President Bush's tax cut mania, the Republican leaders of Congress have unveiled proposals for slashing the most basic government programs for years to come. With rationalizations running from tragic to ludicrous, House budgeteers envision cuts of $470 billion in Medicare, Medicaid, education, child care and other vital programs, from transportation to health care, the environment, to science research.'' And it goes on. And I will go back and give other sections of it, Mr. Speaker. But I just wanted to give Members an idea of how these Republican cuts in the budget would specifically affect my State of New Jersey. And keep in mind that the only reason these cuts are being made is to pay for tax cuts to wealthy Americans and corporate interests. An analysis of the President's budget shows drastic cuts in critical services in New Jersey; and the terrifying fact is that the House Republican budget approved last week in the committee, which we will be voting on tomorrow or Thursday, is even worse than the President's budget in this respect in what it slashes. In New Jersey, the President's budget cuts $9.9 million for after- school programs leaving 14,110 children without after-school services through the 21st Century Community Learning Center's program. The President's budget cuts $1.8 million in teacher-quality funding for New Jersey and cuts funds nationally for grants to improve teacher quality by $80 million. Now this is the President who has said that no child should be left behind. The President's budget cuts more than $27 million in Federal highway funding for New Jersey. The President's budget slashes clean water funding for New Jersey by more than $20 million this year. This is so important to my district because my district is primarily along the shore, along the ocean, the Raritan Bay and the Raritan River; and we are dependent on this Federal funding to keep our waters clean and for sewage treatment. The President's budget cuts more than $3 million in low-income home energy assistance for New Jerseyans and the President's budget cuts more than $4 million in community service block grants which provide local organizations the funds to help reduce poverty, revitalize low- income communities, and provide families with the help they need to become fully self-sufficient. Now, I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker; but I do not want to keep stressing what is happening in my home State, but I have to say that this is happening all over the country. Now, why are we doing this? Well, the President says it is because of tax cuts. And if I could go back to the New York Times, they say, ``The estimated shortfall,'' this is the deficit now, ``of $2.7 trillion could have been an $890 billion surplus but for the Bush proposal, according to the Congressional Budget Office.'' So the fact of the matter is, the reason we will have a deficit because of the President's budget is because of tax cuts. The next $1.4 trillion cut geared to the affluent will average $80,000 a year for millionaires. So what we are seeing, Mr. Speaker, is primarily we are going into deficit and slashing these programs to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. The President has suggested otherwise, but there is another New York Times article that gives the specifics and I just wanted to read it to you. It says, ``The average tax cut is over $1,000,'' this is what the President is saying, ``because a few rich taxpayers would get such large reductions.'' For example, for households with incomes over $200,000, the average tax cut is $12,000; but if you are making less money, you will get about $300.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation to prohibit the commercial harvesting of Atlantic striped bass in the coastal waters and the exclusive economic zone of the United States. This legislation would grant protections to this species that would enable coastal populations to return to historical abundances. The Atlantic striped bass is a valuable resource along the Atlantic coast and is one of the most important fisheries for recreational anglers within the sixth Congressional District of New Jersey. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans, I have a long history of involvement in protecting, preserving, and enhancing the striped bass fishery. It is in this spirit that I would like to designate the striped bass as a federal game fish. This bill would prohibit the commercial harvesting of striped bass and reserve this resource for recreational catches only, thereby ensuring a healthy and sustainable recreational fishery. The recovery of the striped bass fishery since the crash of the late 1970's is an example of successful state and federal cooperation and angler support over the last two decades. The population rebound is encouraging, but a recent Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission decision to both increase the commercial quota and open the exclusive economic zone to striped bass fishing could lead to serious consequences for striped bass. I feel that this decision is too much, too soon, and it is imprudent to subject the fishery to these intensified demands. I believe we must take precautionary measures now to avoid the potential threat of a collapse in the future. In the interest of responsible conservation and sustainable recreational fisheries, I support the goal of making striped bass a game fish along the entire coast. I believe that this is the only way we can truly ensure the future of this important species. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to protect the Atlantic striped bass, a species that maintains an immensely popular recreational fishery. I appreciate this opportunity to convey my concerns about the management of this prized fishery, and I look forward to continuing my involvement in ensuring sound policy decisions.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to explain how this bill helps HMOs and hurts those patients that are victims of HMOs. Many of us for the last 4 years on a bipartisan basis tried to push a patients' bill of rights that basically would say that if you are denied care by your HMO, you can go to an outside maybe administrative agency and then finally can go to court and sue because of the denial of care and what the consequences of that were and actually get damages from a jury or a judge. This bill would kill that. In many States, as well as in some Federal courts right now, patients have been given the right to sue an HMO, which is exactly what we were trying to do here in Congress when we supported a patients' bill of rights. But this bill says, no, you are not going to be able to do that anymore because it limits your ability to recover noneconomic damages as well as punitive damages against an HMO or another private insurance company. I think there is a great deal of hypocrisy here. There are Members on the Republican side of the aisle that have said for years that they want to expand victims rights if they have been denied care or hurt in some way by an HMO, but they turn around today and they pass this bill which they are going to pass which basically limits those victims and their ability to sue an HMO even though the State courts and even though a lot of the Federal courts are now expanding victims' rights to sue. What we are doing here is preempting the State law. If a State says, as mine in New Jersey says, that you can sue an HMO, this bill comes in and says, well, you can do it only under very limited circumstances. You cannot come here and say that you care about the victims. You do not care about the victims not only because you are putting a cap on them of $250,000 but you are not even going to let them sue the HMO in a fair way.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, first let me tell the gentleman from Indiana that I would like to join in his remarks and I want to commend him for taking to the floor to talk about this issue. I agree with him wholeheartedly in what he has been saying tonight and previously. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to express my supreme disappointment with Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash for his unwillingness to compromise, an action that led to the end of the Cyprus peace negotiations earlier this week. Yesterday, after some 20 hours of continuous negotiations, U.N. Secretary-General Annan declared they had reached the end of the road. Madam Speaker, let there be no doubt that Turkish Cypriot leader Denktash is to blame for this sorry conclusion. Yesterday, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said he found it regrettable that, quote, ``Mr. Denktash has denied Turkish Cypriots the opportunity to determine their own future and to vote on such a fundamental issue.'' Lord David Hannay, Britain's special envoy for Cyprus, also blamed Denktash when he stated, and I quote, ``I am sad about it but I do not think that Mr. Denktash left him, Secretary Annan, any alternative.'' Finally, in today's Washington Post, columnist Jim Hoagland writes, and I quote, ``The defiance of one grumpy old man derailed peace plans put forward by diplomats from the United States and the European Union because this grumpster would not see multilateral reason. The stubborn, self-defeating unilateralist I have in mind is Ralph Denktash.'' Madam Speaker, despite yesterday's giant setback, the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos, stressed that the Greek Cypriot side ``will continue the efforts for reaching a solution to the Cyprus question both before and after Cyprus joins the EU.'' Furthermore, President Papadopoulos pledged one more time to continue the efforts for a Cyprus settlement that would properly serve the interests of both Cyprus communities. On the other hand, after the peace talks ended yesterday, Turkish- Cypriot leader Denktash continued his obstructionist actions threatening that if Cyprus accedes to the European Union on May 1, 2004, that there will be a disaster. He went on to say that talks would be suspended until Turkey joins the European Union. Madam Speaker, Turkey's accession to the European Union was seriously undermined yesterday with the failure of a peace agreement. The Turkish government also bears blame for yesterday's developments after giving its full support to Denktash. New Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan said on Monday that it was impossible for Turkey to accept the U.N. plan in its current form. Both the Turkish government and Denktash refused to listen to the thousands who have taken to the streets over the last couple of months in the occupied section of Cyprus and voiced support for a solution based on the U.N. plan. The leader of the Republican Turkish Party in Turkey accused both the Turkish government and Denktash of bringing the talks to a deadlock, and he stated, ``Mr. Denktash persuaded Turkey as well. Having the support of the powerful circles in Turkey he influenced the decision- making mechanism and foiled them. He used the indecisiveness for not making a serious decision. Not being able to decide, Turkey decided to preserve the status quo.'' Madam Speaker, I continue to believe that the Bush administration did not put enough pressure on the Turkish government to force Denktash to negotiate in good faith. Turkey must finally realize that by supporting Denktash's intransigence, it is causing harm to its own long-term interest as a potential full member of the European Union. After the setback of the U.N. efforts, the Bush administration must redouble its efforts to persuade Turkey and the Turkish-Cypriot leader to work constructively within the U.N. process to achieve a negotiated settlement to end the division of Cyprus. Madam Speaker, Turkey's 28 year illegal occupation of 37 percent of Cyprus has to come to an end. It is time for all the citizens of Cyprus to be reunited so they may all reap the economic rewards available with the nation's accession to the European Union. It is very unfortunate this occurred, but I continue to believe that we can somehow achieve a situation where the Turkish Cypriots will join with the Greek Cypriots in a unified Cyprus that would join the European Union at the time that is scheduled next year. I am still optimistic that can be achieved.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate the gentleman coming down. Let me say another thing. This bill is primarily based, this bill that we are going to vote on tomorrow, is primarily based on the notion that damages, punitive and noneconomic damages, have to be capped at $250,000. What I have said over and over again to the Republican leadership in our committee, in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, is where is this magic $250,000 figure coming from? I hear over and over again, I guess because it was used in California, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that $250,000 is somehow some magical term to cap damages. I think there are many on the Democratic side of the aisle, including myself, that do not have a philosophical problem with a cap on damages, but $250,000 is too low. Why is it not $1 million? Why is it not $1.5 million? Nobody on the Republican side of the aisle will give us an answer for that. They just insist that it has to be $250,000. As my colleague from Massachusetts said, any effort to deal with this issue, other than capping damages, the Republicans completely reject. They say that the only thing we are really trying to do here is tort reform. We are not trying to deal with lowering premiums or addressing premium costs, other than through the vehicle of capping damages and tort reform. That is it. Now, I just wanted to use another example, if I could, Madam Speaker, of how this legislation, this Republican bill that is coming up tomorrow, would be unfair to specific individuals. I have another example in my home State in Newark, New Jersey, which is New Jersey's largest city, of a 12-year-old in Newark. I would just like to run through the case, explain what the case is, and why H.R. 5 would be very damaging. This is a 12-year-old 8th grader who developed flu-like symptoms in September 2001. His mother took him to their family doctor, who gave him a prescription for antibiotics. When he showed no improvement, the boy and his mother returned and a different doctor changed the prescription. The boy seemed to be getting worse, continued vomiting and became dehydrated. After 2 more weeks, his mother took her son to the emergency room. A blood test revealed there was something seriously wrong. Further testing determined that he had leukemia. However, he was informed he had a 95 percent chance of complete recovery. Madam Speaker, the boy's pediatric oncologist prepared him for four chemotherapy protocols. After three administrations of the chemotherapy protocol, his progress chart noted that his leukemia was considered in remission. The 12-year-old Newark boy went in for the final chemotherapy treatment at that point. The order for this administration should have been for one 60 milligram dose of a drug called doxarubicin. Instead, the written order called for three doses instead of one, and the chemistry department at the hospital reviewed the protocol but did not notice the overdose. After the third dose, the boy had a violent reaction. The head oncology nurse reviewed the chart and said, ``There has been a terrible mistake,'' and called the doctor. The doctor said, ``Oh, no, how could this have happened?'' The boy's mother was informed that her son had received a massive overdose and he would be very sick. The most serious problem, she was informed, would be an overproduction of mucous throughout his body. Now, Madam Speaker, the boy's health deteriorated, forcing him to stay in the hospital. He developed inflammation and ulceration of the linings of his mouth, throat and gastrointestinal tract. He experienced cardiac dysfunction, began vomiting blood and finally had swelling all over his body. He transferred to a different hospital that began aggressive bone marrow transplants, but, unfortunately, too much damage had been done; and in April of last year this young boy died of severe adult respiratory distress syndrome, ARDS, caused by excessive mucous in the lungs. Again, I use the example, because I want to show what the impact would be with H.R. 5, the Republican bill that we are going to consider tomorrow. The impact of this legislation would be very severe. Being a 12-year-old, he did not have any income. The total amount of his economic loss would be the cost of medical treatment for his cancer treatment. The total available amount of noneconomic damages, compensation to his mother for the poisoning of her son, for his lingering, painful death, and her for permanent loss, would be capped at $250,000. Now, again, what is the magical $250,000? Where does it come from? I do not know. Nobody will give me an answer. I have had some people who I consider somewhat heartless say to me, well, you know, a boy dies, a young person dies, a minor dies. Why should we pay the parents any more than $250,000? In other words, they were not dependent on him economically. He did not have a wife, he did not have children, he did not have a job. He was too young for all that. But I think that is a very heartless approach. It also begs the question of the fact that if there is very little penalty and very little consequence of negligence or medical mistakes, then one could argue that there is not much of an incentive to not keep making them on the part of the hospital or certain physicians maybe that should not be out there practicing. I do not say that because I think that most doctors make mistakes or are negligent. I certainly do not. But there always are some, like in every profession, that do. One of the reasons we have punitive damages and that we do not have a cap is because we want to make sure that there is a certain amount of punishment, so that people do not continue to practice and they are more cautious and do not make these mistakes. Otherwise, why would the mistakes not continue to be made? I have other examples, Madam Speaker; but before I get to some of the other examples, I want to talk a little bit about the fact that this bill goes beyond just malpractice premiums, insurance premiums, for doctors and hospitals, and deals with drug companies and deals with HMOs and deals with medical device manufacturers, because I think the fact that this Republican leadership legislation goes way beyond the order of the day, way beyond the issue of premiums for doctors and hospitals is a strong indication, maybe the strongest indication, that it is really nothing but special interest legislation designed to help some friends of the Republican leadership. I offered an amendment in committee, which is also being considered in the Committee on Rules, and was, of course, voted down in committee strictly on partisan lines and probably the same will happen in the Committee on Rules. I cannot imagine that we would be able to consider it tomorrow. But basically it would have struck the provisions in the bill that deal with the issue other than doctor and hospital premium costs. I just want to talk a little bit about the amendment, because I think, again, it brings forth why this bill is really not meant to accomplish the goal of addressing the malpractice crisis. The amendment that I proposed strikes the language that includes liability protections on punitive and noneconomic damages for these industries; in other words, medical device manufacturers, HMOs, drug companies, and other health insurance companies. These are industries outside the scope of medical practitioners and, therefore, medical malpractice. The limitations in the bill on liability covering defective medical products, dangerous prescription drugs, and claims against HMOs and health insurance companies I think are appalling, Madam Speaker. Shielding all of these additional industries from liability has no effect on medical malpractice insurance premiums which only affect doctors and hospitals and would only harm the current product liability system. What H.R. 5 does, as written, is to leave victims with little recourse. These additional protections, the ones that I mentioned that go outside of the doctors and the hospitals, render victims completely unable to hold pharmaceutical companies, makers of defective medical products, and insurance companies accountable, even when they are proven negligent. Even if they are proven negligent, one cannot recover, other than based on a small amount. In essence, what the bill does that we are going to be considering tomorrow is really a bill designed to reduce the consequences of the mistakes and wrongdoing of large corporations at the expense of victims of those harmful actions. So here we are. Traditionally in our system, in our Anglo-American jurisprudence system that we are so proud of, it has lasted over 1,000 years, the effort was to protect the victim. Now, what we are doing with this bill is protecting the large corporations who do not need any protection. It is certainly not in the circumstances that are delineated here. But the worst aspect of it, Madam Speaker, in my opinion, is with regard to HMOs. Because as I said, on a bipartisan basis, there were different bills; there was a Democratic bill and there was a Republican bill and the Republican bill passed and it was not, in my opinion, as good as the Democratic bill. But the bottom line is there were efforts on both sides of the aisle in the last 4 years in this body to try to deal with HMOs and reform HMOs so that patients had some rights. If they were denied care, they could go to some sort of a board or commission, administrative appeal, or they could go to court to overturn a wrongful decision that denied them care or caused them damages. But what H.R. 5 does that we are going to consider tomorrow is it preempts State law and it amends Federal law far beyond, again, relating to doctors and hospitals, and it says that it applies to any ``health care lawsuit brought in a Federal or State court.'' Now, that is where we get to the HMOs. Eleven States have laws that provide that HMOs may be held liable for refusing to authorize payment for appropriate care. These laws would be completely preempted by H.R. 5 if it passes and becomes law. And, in particular, what is happening is the courts in the States and even at the Federal level are expanding victims' rights because Congress has not acted. We never passed, Madam Speaker, the Patients' Bill of Rights. It passed in the House, but it never passed in the Senate. It was never signed by the President. So in the absence of having Federal law that would protect patients who are in an HMO, States have passed laws and now the courts have even stepped in and said that one can sue and seek grievances for HMO action. In fact, one of the most important Federal courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Vermont, and Connecticut, recently held that Americans can sue HMOs and other insurers for injuries resulting from their cost-minimizing decisions. Now, this ruling, if it is upheld by the Supreme Court, would essentially make the Patients' Bill of Rights the law of the land. We would not even have to pass it. It would essentially make the Patients' Bill of Rights apply to the entire country. But these kinds of lawsuits, the Second Circuit opinion, State law, either enacted by the legislature or by the State courts, would all be preempted and severely limited by H.R. 5. To me, to hear my colleagues on the Republican side spend the last 2 or 3 years saying that they want to protect patients' rights in HMOs and then have them vote on this tomorrow, which I am sure is going to be voted on by most of my Republican colleagues, that would take away all of those rights or at least severely limit them I think is just incredibly hypocritical. Even the President, the President said that he supported the Patients' Bill of Rights too and now he is saying that he favors this malpractice bill, which would essentially limit one's ability to sue and take action against an HMO. I really do not understand where my Republican colleagues are coming from on this. Now, I just wanted to mention, there is a Democratic substitute to H.R. 5, which hopefully the Committee on Rules will put it in order but if they do not, I guess we can do it on a motion to recommit tomorrow so we would have some opportunity to bring it up. Basically what the Democratic substitute does is the opposite of most of the negative aspects of H.R. 5 that I talked about tonight. It tries to look at the malpractice issue in a much broader context, not only for tort reform dealing with lawsuits and damages, but also for insurance reform. In fact, it has a commission that would evaluate the cause and the scope of the recent and dramatic increases of medical malpractice insurance premiums and, most importantly, actually establishes a grant program, if you will. It is similar, I suppose, to the kind of reinsurance program that I mentioned where grants could actually be given to States or, in certain circumstances, where premiums go up. I really maintain that the only way that we are going to reduce premiums is not through any kind of a cap on damages in court, but rather by addressing it directly, by either having a reinsurance program that gives money back to the States or to the insurance companies so that the premiums go down, or providing some sort of grant program to reduce premiums. Again, it was the capping of premiums in California that made the difference, not the $250,000 in damages. I see the gentleman from Texas is here, and I would like to yield to him at this time. I thank the gentleman for coming down.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman for coming down. I know she was up in the Committee on Rules trying to get one of her amendments that she described passed. I doubt they will pass it because they are doing everything on a partisan basis. We only have maybe a minute or two left. I just wanted to thank the gentlewoman for bringing up the fact that traditionally when you are dealing with insurance regulation it is done by the States. It is tremendously unprecedented to take an issue that has primarily been dealt with by the States where there are State laws on medical malpractice and tort reform and all of the sudden put it under this huge Federal rubric and think we are going to solve all these problems. Particularly when something is so complex like this, the States are traditionally the laboratories where we see what can be done to make things work and maybe the Federal Government copies it later if it works. That I think is just another indication that this is just being for special interests. This is just being done by the Republicans tomorrow for politics because they want to take this one-size-fits-all solution, knowing it is never going to pass the Senate, knowing it is never going to become law, just so they can say to the drug companies and to the HMOs and to the doctors, we have done something to try to deal with your problem. Not even caring whether or not it is actually going to accomplish the goal because otherwise they would wait and see what is working in the States or they would wait and they would take a more comprehensive view before we moved ahead with Federal legislation. I think that was a very good point the gentlewoman made, and it is one of the points that we need to continue to make. We are not going to win this one tomorrow, but we have to bring up the debate. If what happens is that it does go over to the Senate and then we are allowed to sit down as Democrats and Republicans and come up with a solution that goes beyond just a cap on damages, then so be it. I welcome that opportunity. I do not understand why we have to wait for it to pass the House to do that. But hopefully that opportunity will be there, and we will be up front making sure we can come up with a solution.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for bringing up the reality of what is happening here politically. I know neither one of us wants to talk about politics. We would rather talk with the substance of this issue and what could be done to bring premiums down, because that is where the crisis is. But what is happening with the Republican leadership, and even the President on this, is totally political. I mean, I have to tell you, I will just give you the background in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. This came up just before the election, I think it was sometime in October, that the Republican leadership on the Committee on Energy and Commerce decided to bring this up. There may have been a hearing, I do not even remember if there was; if there was, maybe there was one. And they quickly brought this up in the committee, wanted to bring to the floor, just before the election in October, just to make the political point that they were trying to accomplish something.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I am here tonight to talk about the medical malpractice insurance crisis which we face in New Jersey and in many States around the country. My concern is that the legislation, H.R. 5, which the Republican leadership intends to bring to the floor of the House of Representatives tomorrow, will not solve the problem in any way and in fact is another example of politics as usual where the Republican leadership, in this case with the support of the President, are bringing up a bill that they realize has no chance of passage. It may pass here and then it will go over to the other body and fail because it was not done on a bipartisan basis; it was not done in an effort to try to bring the parties together and put together something that would actually accomplish the purpose of bringing malpractice premiums down. Rather, it is sort of a bone to special interests. In other words, it is something that is being put out so the Republicans can say and the Republican leadership can tell the doctor groups, the hospital groups, the HMOs, the drug companies, the medical device companies that somehow they are doing something to help them when in reality they are not because it is not a bill that will ultimately pass. I want to talk a little bit about the crisis because it is real. In my home State of New Jersey, we have major problems with increasing malpractice premiums. Some of the doctors actually went out on strike about a month ago because of their concerns; and it continues to be a problem, particularly with certain specialty doctors. But in many cases, it is an across-the-board problem in New Jersey. What is happening now with this Republican bill, H.R. 5, is it is essentially a one-size-fits-all approach that does not look at the actual underlying issue of health care and medical malpractice. It is really designed to put a cap on jury awards at $250,000, the theory being if you do not allow large jury awards, that will bring down the cost of malpractice insurance premiums. There is no evidence that is true. The Republican leadership often cites the State of California as an example of where that kind of cap, a $250,000 cap, was put into place; but we know when the cap was put into place in California, premiums did not go down. The only time when premiums went down in California was when there was an initiative passed by the voters that actually addressed the cause and said that premiums could not rise a certain amount. That did accomplish bringing the premiums down because they were not allowed to increase significantly. But the $250,000 cap did not accomplish that. There are many factors that contribute to the malpractice crisis in New Jersey and elsewhere. There is the changing face of health care in our Nation, namely an increase in high-risk procedures with inherently bad outcomes. There are also the recent problems we have seen in the health care market, namely a shift to managed care, to HMOs which have increasingly created bad outcomes. In addition, bad accounting or bad business judgment on the part of insurance companies has to be taken into consideration when discussing dramatic rises in medical malpractice premiums. Now, wherever there has been success in trying to reduce premiums for malpractice insurance, it is because there has been some kind of combination of maybe some tort reform, but also linked to trying to actually address directly the effort to reduce the premiums themselves. As I said, in California the premium increases were actually capped. In my home State of New Jersey a few years ago in the 1970s when we had a problem with rising malpractice insurance premiums, we set up a reinsurance fund which basically said that the insurance companies had to pay a certain amount of money into a fund, and that money would be used to reduce premium costs when there was a crisis. I actually proposed this in the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over this issue. Last week when we had a markup, I proposed H.R. 485, the Federal Medical Malpractice Insurance Stabilization Act, that would create a national reinsurance fund just like we had in New Jersey. The proposal mandates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services establish a program where insurance companies pay into a Federal fund. In time of crisis, these funds are made available to the companies in an effort to provide stability in the marketplace for medical malpractice coverage. I mention this not because it is the cure-all, but when I tried to raise it in the subcommittee, the Republicans said it was not germane. They would not allow it to be considered as an amendment. Why? Because they have this one-size-fits-all philosophy. They want to cap damage awards by the jury, and they do not want to deal with caps on premium costs that would actually bring down the cost of malpractice insurance. I have a lot of issues that I want to talk about in the context of this malpractice reform issue, but I wanted to give an example because I think it is important when we are on the floor and we talk about legislation, we do not just talk about it in an abstract way; we give specific examples of what it means. I want to give some specific examples in New Jersey, two examples of people who would be negatively impacted by the Republican proposal that is coming up tomorrow, in particular because of the way the language in that bill caps punitive damages, noneconomic damages, at $250,000; and also the way it designs and limits liability for punitive damages. It is a good way for me to illustrate the problems with that legislation because what would happen in this legislation is many people that have serious injuries or have even died, there would be very little recovery. The cap on the $250,000 essentially is a huge limitation on some of these people and their families that would suffer a great deal if this legislation were passed. So let me give Members two examples. One example is Jersey City, New Jersey, a Vietnam veteran who was also a merchant marine barge captain was diagnosed with a carcinoid benign bleeding tumor in his left lung which required that the lung be removed. The diagnosing physician was part of a practice group that also included other doctors, including a surgeon who was set to perform the operation, although that surgeon had no contact with the patient prior to the surgery. The physician mistakenly removed the healthy right lung of the patient rather than the diseased left lung. They could not then also remove the patient's remaining functioning lung which contained the tumor. Madam Speaker, after this error was discovered with this New Jerseyan, the physicians in this case allegedly altered the medical records and told the patient that after beginning surgery, they determined that they needed to remove the other lung because of a previously undiagnosed disease. However, the Vietnam veteran later learned that the pathology report on the removed lung revealed it was a completely healthy lung. Due to the extraordinary alleged coverup attempted by the defendants and their efforts in seeking to convince the patient that it was actually a good thing that they had removed the wrong lung, the plaintiff added a count to his complaint for punitive damages, not just for compensatory damages. Today, Madam Speaker, this Jersey City Vietnam veteran requires oxygen 24 hours a day and has a host of medical problems as a result of the operation. Meanwhile, the tumor in his remaining lung will likely continue to grow. If it becomes cancerous, there is little that can be done to treat it. His lawsuit is pending. What would H.R. 5 that the Republicans have brought up do? H.R. 5 would harm this Vietnam veteran in two ways. First, it would virtually eliminate meaningful economic compensation, limiting it to just $250,000, as we discussed. This is a small amount to compensate a man who has been an active professional and who now must have oxygen tanks with him at all times for the rest of his life. Moreover, he has to live in fear that the tumor that his physicians failed to remove will become cancerous and metastasize, spreading cancer throughout his body, or will perhaps rupture, possibly drowning him in his own blood. Secondly, if you look at H.R. 5, which we are going to consider tomorrow, the Republican bill, it sets standards for the award of punitive damages that would protect the kind of after-the-fact concealment of injury that is alleged in this case. So he cannot even sue because they tried to cover up the malpractice. Because in the bill, punitive damages would not be available unless the physician acted with malice specifically to injure the patient, which was not the case, or deliberately failed to avoid injuring the patient, which was not the case, because in this case the conduct for which punitive damages are claimed is not the malpractice or even the injury itself but the cover-up of the malpractice and the harm and the doctors' deliberate deceit of their patient and as a result removing this healthy lung. You can see how in this case, this patient basically would not be able to recover what is needed. I am going to give another example later, but I see one of my colleagues is here. I do not want to prolong this, but I do want to say one other thing about this bill which I think is so important. I had an amendment. In fact, the Committee on Rules is considering it now, although I doubt that they will allow it because I am sure the Republican majority is not going to allow these various amendments since they have the one-size-fits-all bill and that is what they want. But what the committee did and what the bill does that we are going to consider tomorrow is it not only limit damages and claims, if you will, for malpractice against a physician or a hospital, which is what the crisis is all about in New Jersey and I am sure my friend from Massachusetts would agree, the people that are concerned about malpractice are physicians and hospitals. They are the ones who have the premiums that are going up and that is where the crisis is. But this bill is not limited to doctors or even hospitals. It limits the liability or the claims, if you will, that can be recovered from HMOs, from drug manufacturers and even from medical device manufacturers. The most egregious aspect of it is with regard to the HMOs. Because, Madam Speaker, as I think you know, we here in this House over the last few years have tried to pass a patients' bill of rights that would essentially say that if a decision was made by your HMO to deny you care, that you can appeal either through an administrative procedure or go to court and sue the HMO because they denied you the care that you were supposed to have. A number of the courts now in about 12 States, including the Federal Second Circuit Court in New York which covers a number of States, have now said that a person can sue an HMO. What this bill does tomorrow that we are going to be considering is take away your ability to sue the HMO in certain circumstances. It limits it considerably. So while we in Congress have been trying, or at least articulating the fact that we would like to expand people's ability to appeal a denial of a decision with regard to an HMO that really negatively hurt them or impacted their health, this bill would do the opposite. This would take away whatever rights people now have to sue their HMO or to recover from an HMO when they make a mistake through denial of care. It is incredible for me to think that not only is this not going to work effectively to reduce premiums for malpractice, not only is this going to limit the ability of many victims, as I used my New Jersey example, to sue or to collect damages when they have been seriously injured, but the bill even goes beyond the issue at hand, which is rising premiums for doctors and hospitals and lets off HMOs and drug companies and medical device companies, basically in my opinion special interests who are helping the Republican leadership and so now they have to get some kind of compensation for what they do. I see my colleague from Massachusetts is here. I yield to him at this time.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I will yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, but I think what the gentleman said in particular about the fact that this amount of damages, the $250,000 has no basis in fact. During the Committee on Commerce hearing last week, I asked many times, where does the $250,000 come from? What is it based on? The reply: the California statute. And that was passed years ago. So we can argue that just based on inflation alone, that that is no longer relevant. But then again, the Republicans just want to move ahead, steamroll it, and they are just not really interested in the reality of this and what really matters to the victims. So I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. PALLONE. The gentleman is right on point. Let me tell you how much on point you are. Not only was this same bill essentially rammed in just a few weeks before the election through the committee, but, of course, it had to be the first order of business when we came back. When we on the Committee on Energy and Commerce asked the Republican leadership on the committee to sit down with us and talk about a bipartisan bill that did not just deal with capping damages at $250,000, but actually dealt with all different aspects of the crisis, reinsurance, giving money, capping premiums or whatever, essentially what we were told, informally, was well, we cannot do that now. We cannot sit down. We have to bring this to the floor fast. Then it will go over to the Senate, and, do not worry, it will not pass there. Then we will sit down and talk with you about what we are really going to do. This is essentially what we were told. This came in the subcommittee. Two weeks ago there was a hearing on Thursday. It was marked up in the subcommittee last Tuesday, it was voted out of the full committee last Thursday, and it was brought to the floor. Everybody understood that this had to go to the floor and there was not any opportunity to talk about what really could be accomplished, and we had to pass it in the House as a political measure for the reasons you said; and then when it gets to the Senate, okay, they will not pass it, we will have to sit down and talk. This is the politics of it. There is no question about it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to Mrs. Bessie C. Allen. Through her work as an educator Mrs. Allen has clearly demonstrated her affection and dedication to the community and state of New Jersey. She is truly a woman of unique character, leadership and ability. Mrs. Allen is a role model to all the young people whose lives she strives to enrich. Bessie C. Allen has exhibited an tireless commitment to education throughout her life. In 1960, Mrs. Allen graduated from Ebenezer High School in Dazell, South Carolina. She later graduated from South Carolina State College with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Home Economics Education. Mrs. Allen went on to get her Masters of Arts Degree in Urban Education from the New York State University, Buffalo, NY, and a Masters of Science Degree in Educational Administration & Supervision from Kean College in Union, New Jersey. In 2001, Mrs. Allen attended the Comer Principal's Academy and Comer training at Yale University in Stanford, Connecticut. Bessie C. Allen served as an Extension Home Economist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina where she diligently helped rural families and 4-H Clubs to improve life in Lee County, South Carolina. After teaching home economics at several schools, Mrs. Allen served as Head Teacher and Department Chairperson of Neptune High School, devoting her talents to the department of Home Economics, Physical Education, Health, Art, Music and Industrial Arts. Mrs. Allen also served as Vice President of Neptune High School. Currently, Mrs. Allen is an esteemed and greatly admired Principal of the Gables Elementary School of Neptune, New Jersey and has been honored many times over for her diligent service. Bessie C. Allen was named Outstanding Young Educator in New York State, Teacher of the Year in the State of New Jersey and one of ten Teachers of the Year in the United States. In addition to these honors, Mrs. Allen has received the distinguished honors of Who's Who in American Education, the Worlds Who's Who of Women, Two Thousand Notable American Women and International Leaders in America. In 1989, Mrs. Allen received the Degree of Declaration as a Lifetime Deputy Governor of the American Biographical Institute. Mrs. Allen is married to Frederick Allen. Together they enjoy the company of their seven children and eight grandchildren. Mrs. Allen has spent thirty-nine years in her profession as an educator and throughout this time has continually strived to improve the lives of her students and the quality of her community. Bessie C. Allen is an exceptional woman whose strong character and talents are greatly appreciated by all who know her. On this day, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending this extraordinary individual for her dedicated service.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to an organization in my district that provides vital services to women and families that have been affected by domestic violence. 180 Turning Lives Around, formerly the Women's Center of Monmouth County provides a safe and supportive haven, where women and children can begin to heal. 180 Offices provide specialized counseling and programming for women affected by domestic violence and sexual assault. They staff outreach offices in towns that have the highest rates of domestic violence and sexual assaults in Monmouth County and some of the highest rates in the state, making these outreach programs vital to the communities they serve. 180 provides programming for women of color, including a group- counseling format called ``Makeda'' for Latina and African American women. In addition, 180 coordinates with local courts, police and prosecutor's offices to ensure that victims and family members receive access to appropriate services. These services include the domestic violence offender's intervention program ``Alternatives to Abuse,'' victim's counseling, art therapy for children exposed to domestic violence and other community services. Reports indicate that since 180 has implemented this innovative multi-disciplinary approach, domestic violence police cases in towns throughout the county have dropped by nearly 35 percent, while recidivism rates for domestic violence offenders have dropped over 50 percent. The programs provided by the 180 show concrete results in terms of reduced crime while providing a critical and invaluable resource to the community in general and women and minorities in particular. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me and continue to support 180 and her sister programs and women's centers throughout the nation. Domestic violence is a problem that affects all of society, not just women--and it is critical that we work together to break the cycle and put an end to domestic violence.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, President Bush continues to strongly suggest that America will go to war against Iraq without the support of the United Nations or a significant number of our traditional European allies. Following his lead, many Americans, as well as media commentators, have become critical of the United Nations and the member nations of the Security Council that have expressed opposition to U.S. military action at this time. My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that the United States is needlessly losing the world opinion war with dangerous implications for the real war against Iraq or, even worse, for the larger war against terrorism. I voted against the congressional resolution that authorized unilateral U.S. military action against Iraq in part because of my fear that President Bush would have less incentive to create the type of world coalition that was so successful in the Gulf War. We tend to forget that the Gulf War was successful in many ways beyond the mere fact that the U.S. liberated Kuwait. The coalition of support meant that many countries provided manpower, money, and the political support that made U.S. actions justified in world opinions, even in Muslim countries. The situation, Mr. Speaker, we now face with Iraq is very different. The logistics to carry out the war may suffer from the inability to utilize bases or air flight over countries that were previously supportive in the Gulf War. The cost of the war will be borne almost entirely by the United States. President Bush has not included the costs, estimated from 50- to $200 billion in his budget. And this does not even include the cost to rebuild Iraq. It also does not include assistance that other countries are demanding. For example, Turkey, which has asked for an aid package in the tens of billions. My greater concern, Mr. Speaker, is whether the lack of support by other countries stiffens the resolve of the Iraqis to fight and makes it more difficult for U.S. forces to conduct the war or alternatively encourage the fundamentalist forces that perceive American action as anti-Muslim and, therefore, accelerate terrorist attacks against the United States. I keep asking why the Bush administration feels it is necessary to adopt the rhetoric of unilateral action given the perils that might accompany it. Why do the President and his advisors insist that they do not need the United Nations and our traditional allies even while they pursue resolutions in the Security Council and try to convince other countries to support us. It often seems that their rhetoric makes it all the more difficult to achieve the world coalition that was so successful in the Gulf War. Mr. Speaker, it is crucial that in the next few days and the next few weeks, the Bush administration make every effort to achieve the support of the United Nations as well as the key countries such as France, Germany, Russia and China that have voiced U.S. opposition to U.S. policy in Iraq. The President can best accomplish this goal if he makes it clear that a world coalition is crucial to the United States. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can avoid a war altogether by working within the Security Council to successfully disarm Iraq. I still hope that that can be accomplished. But absent that, the President must work a lot harder to build a world coalition to support a war if it is going to take place and avoid the political perils of unilateral military action.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to a friend of the Sixth District of New Jersey. Mrs. Josephine Hammary, is an outstanding individual, who is being honored for her many accomplishments by the National Council of Negro Women. Mrs. Hammary is being recognized for the many years of service she has devoted to her community. Throughout her life, Mrs. Hammary has volunteered much of her time to working with various religious and social organizations designed to enrich the lives of her fellow citizens. Mrs. Hammary is an active and devoted member of the Martin Luther King Presbyterian Church where she has served on the Board of Elders, the Board of Deacons, the Stewardship Committee, and the Sunday School Ministry. Mrs. Hammary was also elected to preside over the Presbyterian Women's Organization as its President, where she proved herself as an effective leader. Currently, Josephine Hammary serves on the Christian Outreach Missions and the Christian Education Committee, as well as Recording Secretary of the National Council of Negro Women's North Shore. Through her work with these numerous organizations, Mrs. Hammary has fostered a sense of community in her area and strived to help those less fortunate than herself. On this day I would like to honor the distinguished Mrs. Josephine Hammary for her extraordinary service to her community. I ask my colleagues to join with me in commending her in this dedication.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate the gentleman and thank him for coming down. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has joined me so many times on this same issue. We may look a little weary, but we are trying, and we are going to get out there and talk about this prescription drug plan. Ms. JACKSON-LEE OF Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished from New Jersey for yielding to me. It is refreshing to hear from the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballance), who has brought such a wealth of experience from the State legislature, and brings to the floor tonight his vast experience about seniors in North Carolina, which shows that this is so widespread. Those of us who started in local government, and as the gentleman knows, I started in city council, saw these issues even before we came to Congress. That is why we are here night after night. We thank the gentleman for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I want to share an added story. It goes to the point of how one's position or issues can be misconstrued. I hope my colleague does not think I am going far awry, but it is an important point because sometimes even Members are misinterpreted. One of my radio stations, KPRC 950 AM, called desperately this morning while I was in a Committee on the Judiciary hearing, wanting to get my response to the idea of the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. Maybe because I have been so vocal on the question of going to war in Iraq, which is certainly a total different issue, it is a question of choices and options; and, frankly, I am going to discuss the fact that when we make choices and spend huge sums of money on war, there are questions about how we can spend dollars on needed prescription drug benefits; but they wanted to interview me about the words ``under God,'' and did I not object to those words being in the Pledge. It so happens that I am a rabid and avid believer that those words should be in the Pledge and should be allowed to be in the Pledge, and have voted accordingly, and have defended it on the basis that it is protected by the first amendment; meaning that as we say the Pledge, we are not mandated to say it, it is by choice; and therefore, anyone who chooses not to say it can; and if they choose to say it, it can be said readily, as it is. We will see what the court does with it, but I believe that ``under God'' is appropriate. This is what happens when you mislead, or someone hears incorrectly what someone says or believes. I am getting to what I understand or perceive has been said this morning about the proposed Medicare prescription drug plan offered by the administration. It appears to be one that is tied to Medicaid, or Medicare, rather, and it is not. I would like to hear from the President to clarify that, because it appears that there was the impression given that this is all right, it is a guaranteed Medicare prescription drug benefit; and Mr. Speaker, it is not. What it actually does is it forces seniors out of the Medicare program into HMOs, unlike the program proposed by the Democrats, which clearly indicates that we are going to provide the safety net of a guaranteed prescription drug benefit under Medicare; an old shoe, if you will, and I do not want to interpret that as being a bad shoe, but something that we are familiar with and comfortable with; and we are going to strengthen the Medicare system. I think that is the way we should explain what we are trying to do. Some would say, well, you are not fixing the Medicare system. The administration's proposal is new and fresh, and it is fixing it. No, we are going to strengthen a Medicare program that has actually worked. The difficulties in the Medicare program this Congress some years ago fixed when we attacked Medicare fraud; and when I say ``fixed,'' we went after it. We are still monitoring Medicare fraud. I know the Committee on Commerce constantly is in review of Medicare fraud, and looking at ways the system can be more efficient. We want to do that. That is absolutely the right way to go. But one of the problems with Medicare has been that it has been weak and faltering because we have not had the resources to strengthen a very strong program. Why is it strong? Because since 1965, the actuarial tables will show that there has been a decided difference in the length of life of Americans pursuant to the passage of the Medicare Act in 1965; but now we come to a crisis. I see my good friend, the gentleman from Arkansas. I have listened to him time and time again. We both come from semi-rural areas, only because Texas is a big neighborhood, I call it. We have people coming in and out of our cities, but we claim ruralness even in our cities. The problem is, these are our neighbors. Over and over again, each of us has been to our respective senior citizen areas. I have unincorporated areas in my district and they are semi-rural, even though I represent parts of the city of Houston. Seniors are living in these areas, sometimes left as widows or widowers in their homes. They want to be in their homes. They are able to stay because the mortgage is based upon a house that was bought 30, 40, 50 years ago. When they come to me, they are literally in tears, because I am forcing them to sell that house and maybe even move in not even with a child but a relative, or someplace that compromises the quality of life that they are used to. Why? Because they have to make choices between prescription drug benefits or paying for prescription drugs and, as well, rent and food. So the President's plan is not a guaranteed prescription drug benefit. Seniors, listen to what we are saying. It is a proposal that forces them to go into an HMO. I do not want to be in one more meeting with close to 600 or 1,000 seniors when we are all there trying to find a solution to the HMOs who closed up shop in Houston, Texas, six of them at one time, leaving seniors without any kind of care whatsoever. We managed to grab one back in, and we are hanging on by for a string right now. Basically, what the President's plan is forces them upon the insurance process that just a few years ago collapsed when it left many of our jurisdictions; and, in particular, left seniors, without, if you will, the idea of coverage. The other thing is it forces Medicare into privatization, or it privatized Medicare. We have seen that that does not work because, again, I point back to the closing of the HMOs. The reason they closed was not because we were not nice, if you will, subscribers, enrollees; they closed because they were not making money because there were so many of us; when I say that, too many of the seniors. It was costly because seniors were using it. Well, that is what preventative medicine is all about. That is what Medicare did, it allowed seniors to have care so they could live longer. So it does that. We found out that privatization did not work, just to continue what I have said, because that is why we went into the Medicare system, because pre-Medicare we had a much shorter lifespan for seniors in America or Americans, a much shorter lifespan. That is because they were not intervening sufficiently early enough to either treat or prevent the disease. So privatization is not what we want to see. Four hundred billion dollars is what I understand is the President's proposal, certainly woefully inadequate in terms of the beneficiaries that need to participate, and the cost of prescription drugs. So this is inadequate. Again might I say, I know that the debate is, of course, about our proposal: it is $800 billion. I am not ashamed of that, because I am sick and tired of not bringing home, if you will, the substance of what we have been promising to our seniors. It would have been less costly if we had done it 6 years ago when we were discussing it; but obviously we are projecting into the future, and it is time to do it now. Clearly, with a $600 billion permanent tax cut, we could substitute the $800 billion proposal that we would have in order to ensure that we would be able to provide for these seniors. The President's proposal also has gaps in coverage. Because we are dealing with an arbitrary budget number, beneficiaries will be forced to face a gap in coverage, and spend thousands of dollars just when they need the help most. Specifically, I want to say this is what this means. It means that the President's plan does not specify how much seniors would have to spend before they would become eligible for catastrophic drug coverage. I think the other point is, what is catastrophic drug coverage? So this plan is one that needs a lot of help. It also begs the question. It is like the radio interview that I was going to give this morning suggesting that I did not believe in the words ``under God'' in the Pledge. I do not think it is documented anywhere that I have ever said that, and it had to be corrected. So it is important that we correct the message and the substance of the President's plan. It is a forced privatization. It is utilizing HMOs, who may be good in every sort of way, but we have shown that if they do not make a profit, they leave. Also, it does not answer the question of when a senior is very, very sick, whether or not they are able to get prescription drugs that they need. So I thank the gentleman very much, I say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), I hope that we can find common ground and make the right choice, and spend the appropriate dollars effectively. I would like to see us use those dollars that we might be using for going to war for this. Certainly I would like to see it be the last option. More importantly, I think it is crucial that seniors understand what choices they are being forced to make. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. All of us want to be able to deliver help to our seniors, no matter where we live. I think that is a very important challenge we all have to work on.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Speaker. He made a couple of points that I just wanted to elaborate on because I think they are so important. The gentleman talked about the need for simplicity. It is true, the seniors, and not to say that the seniors cannot figure things out or that they are not sophisticated enough, but it is difficult for them oftentimes to figure out all these gimmicks. If we look at the President's plan, there are a lot of gimmicks. It basically talks about this discount card. I have a lot of the drug companies in my district in New Jersey. They have all kinds of discount cards, but we have to figure out whether we are going to buy a discount card and how much of a percent we are going to get. There is no guarantee that we are going to get a particular percent. The other thing is the gimmicks the HMOs are using. I remember when we first started the Medicare+Choice, where seniors were allowed to go into an HMO and use their Medicare to go into it. I started to see these advertisements in the local papers in New Jersey. One in particular said, if you came to a diner on Route 9 in Sayreville, one of my towns, on a given night, they would give you a free lobster dinner if you came and listened to the plan that was being offered. All these senior citizens that I knew, because they came later to my town meetings and forums, went there because they got the gimmick of the free lobster dinner. It sounds funny, and I am kind of laughing; but it was sad because they ended up signing up. They did not know exactly what they were signing up for, what kind of benefit they were really getting with the HMO. They later found out that they had to pay a lot of money out of pocket, they were not allowed to go to the local pharmacy, and they were not allowed to have a choice of doctors. It is very wrong, in my opinion, to put seniors into the position where they can be essentially tricked, because it is not simple. Our plan, the Democratic plan, is simple. It is just like what we get with doctors. As the gentleman did, he explained it in 30 seconds. We need that, not because seniors are stupid, but because they just--they should not have to face all these obstacles and all these difficulties in deciding what kind of a plan to take, because a lot of times they are lured into these things based on false premises. I have seen it myself. I gave the example of the lobster dinner, and I can give a lot of other examples that are similar to that. The other thing that the gentleman mentioned which I think is so important, if we listen to the President and Secretary Thompson today, they keep talking about how they want to put seniors into a plan that is similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, what we have in Congress and what Federal employees have. What they forget to mention is that what they have in mind is not exactly like what we get. They are talking essentially about a voucher system, where they give a senior citizen a lot of money like a voucher, and they go out and try to use it to get into an HMO or some kind of a private plan. That is not what we have. We have a choice of all kinds of plans. I would venture to say that what the Democrats have proposed is more like what Congressmen or senior citizens get, because there is a guarantee that we are going to have a certain kind of prescription drug program. I do not want people to get this idea that what they are proposing, what the President has proposed, is similar to what government employees get. It is not. Government employees do not have to make these choices in order to get the guaranteed benefit the way that the Republicans are proposing. They do not have to make those choices, and end up not having prescription drugs or having prescription drugs. It is not exactly the same thing.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman and particularly with her insight there with regard to the HMOs which are not available in many places. She is exactly right. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

Mr. PALLONE. And he said that he was going to have some catastrophic above $5,000 or $6,000 out of pocket, but that is only going to be a very small percentage of seniors that have that kind of catastrophic drug coverage, and even there he did not define what it was going to be. But the one thing that he came up that was new was this idea if they are very low income, they get a $600 subsidy. Now again, that is meaningless because, as the gentleman knows, for most seniors the $600, first of all, we do not know how low their income has to be to get it, but for most seniors that is not going to be enough, either because their drug bills are very expensive, and what the Democrats have proposed, of course, is just a guaranteed benefit across the board for everyone. Regardless of income, they are going to get 80 percent of their bills paid for by the Federal Government. And the one thing that I forgot to mention that I did want to mention was that in the same way, under part B now for hospital bills, if one falls below a certain income, the Federal Government pays the premium. That will be true for this program as well. So right now if their doctor bills under part B, if their income is low enough, they do not have to pay that part B premium, and if their income is a little better, then they would pay that premium on a sliding scale, because I have a lot of my constituents that do not pay that $40, $50 a month for the premium for their doctor bills because they are low income, or maybe they are only paying $20 or $30 on a sliding scale because they cannot afford it. We do the same thing here. Low-income people, with the Democratic plan, that premium, that $25, if you cannot afford it, it is paid for by the Federal Government. The other thing that the gentleman said, and I think it is so important because I know in my home State this is so crucial, is under the Democratic proposal, because it is covering everybody, regardless of income, the money that States are putting out now, if they are already providing some kind of prescription drugs, they will have saved, because they will not have to put out that money. For example, in my State, which is hurting right now, we have cut back on the CHIP program. We do not cover single adults. We do not even cover the parents now of a lot of the kids who are eligible for the CHIP program. Why we have had to cut back is because we want to continue to pay for a low-income prescription drug program which we now have, State financed. But this money, if the Democratic plan is adopted, that money will go back and the States will not have to pay for that. So there is a significant savings to the States at a time when they are hard hit to pay for Medicaid, CHIP, and all of these other programs, that they will save that money and will not have to cut back on health insurance for children and other people who really cannot afford it. So there is a big savings there, a big benefit for the States. I forgot about that.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I do not want to keep prolonging the gentleman, because I see we have other speakers; but the bottom line is that the reason that Medicare came into existence from the beginning is because the private insurance market was not covering senior citizens. This effort to try to bring HMOs into the Medicare program has not completely failed, but essentially it has been a failure, because less than 15 percent of the seniors are able to find an HMO or tap into an HMO that they want to use. So the notion that the President puts out that somehow privatization, taking money and going into the private insurance markets is going to work, it is not based on the historical fact. It is not based on what we have had to do in order to get seniors coverage. The other thing that the gentleman from Texas mentioned that I thought was so important is he talked about the limitations that HMOs often put on the senior or the participant in an HMO program, not only in terms of choice of doctors or hospital, but also access to local pharmacies, that you cannot use your local pharmacy, or maybe you cannot use certain drugs. In other words, they will not allow you to use certain drugs because they are too expensive. In the Democratic program, we make it clear that you can go to your local pharmacy, because this is just like what you do with your doctor. You have a choice of doctors; you have a choice of pharmacies. You can go to any pharmacy, and they have to participate in the program. The same is true with regard to the type of prescription you get. You are guaranteed that you can buy the prescription drug that you need. There are not going to be limits on what kinds of brands or whatever you are going to be able to access. I see some of my other colleagues are here. The gentleman from North Carolina, I appreciate the fact that he came down here. I yield to the gentleman.