Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas. He brought up a bunch of points that I think are really important to stress, if I could just dwell on them a little bit. First of all, I think it is really important that we stress to everyone that the President was criticized by even some of our Republican colleagues because he basically, in his State of the Union address a couple of months ago now, said that the way they are going to get a prescription drug benefit under Medicare was if they joined an HMO under a private plan. A lot of people, even on the other side of the aisle, criticized that because they realized that seniors did not want to or could not, practically speaking, join HMOs or would not really benefit from it because it was not defined what kind of drug benefit they would get. The HMO would essentially decide. So I was hoping today when he talked about this plan and defined it a little better that there was going to be something for people that were in traditional Medicare. But the only thing he came up with was a discount card which was nothing because they can go get one now.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to discuss the need for a prescription drug benefit for seniors. I would also like to take some time to contrast what the Democrats proposed today and essentially what the Democrats have been saying as a matter of principle, what they would like a prescription drug benefit for seniors to be like and contrast that with what President Bush has proposed in terms of a prescription drug plan. I have to say that I must stress that I do not really believe that the President's proposal is one that really provides any significant benefit or prescription drug plan to seniors. I hesitate to even discuss it as a benefit program because I do not really think that there are many people, if any, that would benefit in a significant way from it. What the Democrats proposed today is very similar to what they tried to pass in the Congress, in the House, in the last session of Congress. Basically, it is simply an extension of Medicare. Those of you who are familiar with Medicare know that right now if you are over 65, you are eligible for a Medicare program that essentially pays most of your hospital bills and also pays for your doctor bills if you agree to pay a premium of so much a month. It is somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 or $50 a month. What the Democrats are saying is that we would simply expand Medicare to include a new part D, similar to the existing part B that covers your hospital bills; and the principle would be very similar to what you do now with your hospital bills. Under the Democratic proposal, beneficiary seniors would pay a premium of about $25 a month. They would have a deductible of $100 a year. If, for example, your prescription drug that you have to buy on January 1st or 2nd is $100, you would have to pay that out of pocket, but then after that $100 expenditure out of pocket, the deductible, the rest of your prescription drugs for the remainder of the year would be paid for by the Federal Government, 80 percent, and there would be a 20 percent copay or coinsurance payment. This is exactly what you have now for part B to cover your doctor bills. Then you would pay out of pocket for your essential coinsurance, in other words, up to $2,000. After that, if you had additional coinsurance because you had tremendous drug bills, 100 percent of the cost of the drugs would be paid for by the Federal Government. So most importantly, essentially, what is happening here is that for most people, most of their drugs, 80 percent of their cost would be paid for by the Federal Government with a 20 percent copay. Before I get into the specifics, because I do want to do that, I want everyone to understand how significant this is and how important it is for seniors to have something that is just like what we do now under Medicare for their doctor bills, as opposed to what the President has proposed. The President spoke today before the American Medical Association, the AMA, the association of physicians. Basically, what he said is that he would provide for seniors who are in the traditional Medicare program, which is about 85 percent of the seniors, only a couple of things in terms of a drug benefit. First of all they would get a prescription drug discount card which he claims would reduce their cost of prescription drugs by about maybe 10 or 15 percent, although I have to say that that is strictly voluntary. There is no reason why that kind of prescription discount card would really effectuate those kinds of savings. Then he said that if your prescription drug bills are above a certain amount, a catastrophic amount, say, $5,000 or $6,000, the Federal Government would pay for them. But for all the seniors who do not have tremendous, catastrophic drug bills and who remain in the traditional Medicare program, the only thing that they would be able to get is the use of a drug discount card, which most of them can get today on their own. They do not need the Federal Government to do it. In other words, there is no guaranteed benefit that you are going to get any kind of Federal benefit to pay for your prescription drugs. The President makes two exceptions to that. On the one hand he says if you are below a certain income, and he does not define at this point what that income is, but if you are a low-income senior, below a certain income, he would give a $600-a-year subsidy to help you pay for drugs. The other option is that if you join an HMO, if you agree to join an HMO or some other kind of private insurance, not your traditional Medicare program, then you can get your prescription drugs paid for in a significant amount. It is not clear how much. Basically, it might be 50 percent, it might be 60 percent of the cost, we do not know exactly, but you have to join an HMO in order to be able to have any kind of guaranteed prescription drug plan. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think that the way the President is going about this is very unfair, and it is not going to be helpful to most seniors. I say that because if you do not provide a guaranteed benefit under the traditional Medicare program the way the Democrats have laid out, similar to what we do now with part B for your doctor bills, then the likelihood that most seniors are going to really benefit in any way is almost nil. I say that because we have the experience of seniors trying to join HMOs in some parts of the country, including my home State of New Jersey; and generally speaking that has been an utter failure. Most seniors, first of all, do not want to join HMOs because their choices of doctors and hospitals are severely limited. So one of the reasons why so few, less than 15 percent of seniors are in HMOs is because they want to have a choice of their doctors. They want to go to the doctor that they have been going to for years. They want to go to the hospital that is nearby. They do not want to have to be limited in what doctors or hospitals they go to. But in addition to that, there are a lot of parts of the country where there is no HMO, States, in fact, where there is no HMO available. So you do not even have the option. Beyond that is the fact that in many States, including my own of New Jersey, and I can give you some examples, even when seniors initially joined HMOs, the HMOs eventually dropped them or they provided a prescription drug benefit initially that might have been fairly generous, maybe provided 60 percent of the cost of the coverage, but eventually increased the amount that the seniors had to pay out of pocket so much that the benefit was not even worth anything. In fact, there was a report that came out just a couple of weeks ago by Public Citizen's Congress Watch; and in that report they did a survey across the country that basically confirmed that Medicare privatization does not work for seniors. The report says that in my home State of New Jersey, nearly 80,000 of the seniors who were in an HMO in the last 2 years were dropped after basically the private HMOs concluded that it was simply not profitable to have them as part of the program. The main thing I am trying to get across here, Mr. Speaker, is that even if you opted under the President's proposal for an HMO because that was the only way you were going to be able to get some kind of drug plan, there is no guarantee under the President's proposal what that HMO is going to provide you with in terms of a drug plan. So not only will most seniors not want to join the HMO, first of all, many seniors will not even be able to find the HMO. But even if they can find one, they lose the choice of doctors and hospitals; and even with that, there is nothing under the President's proposal that says that the HMO has to provide a specific type of prescription drug coverage or has to say that 80 percent or 60 percent of the cost is going to be paid for by the HMO. There is no guarantee. There is no benefit that is guaranteed. That is what we need. Seniors need to know that if they pay a premium, like the Democratic proposal, $25 a month, that they have a defined deductible, $100, that they have a defined copay, 20 percent, and the Federal Government is going to pay 80 percent of the cost. The other thing that we do with the Democratic plan, which is totally different from the Republican plan, is we say in the legislation that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who now represents about 40 million Medicare beneficiaries, has to negotiate with the drug companies to reduce the cost. We estimate that because he has the purchasing power, negotiating power of these 40 million or so seniors, that he is probably in a position to reduce costs for the prescription drugs maybe by as much as 30 percent. So you have a built-in discount, if you will, on your drugs that is required by the law before you even get to the point where the benefit program kicks in and you are paying 20 percent and you are getting 80 percent of your cost paid for by the Federal Government. So what the Democrats have proposed is really a good deal. The Republican plan, by contrast, really is no deal at all. I wanted to go into some more specifics, if I could, about what the Democrats proposed today because I think it is important. This is a very important issue for seniors. I know a lot of seniors are asking what this is going to be about, whether we are going to have success, what the different proposals are; and if I could just go through a little more detail. As I said, House Democrats are committed to providing a comprehensive benefit that is affordable and dependable for all beneficiaries with no gaps or no gimmicks in coverage, exactly like what you do for your hospital bills. The Medicare contractors, those who contract, the drug companies, with the Department of Health and Human Services basically have to guarantee price reductions. The Secretary has the authority to use the collective purchasing power of Medicare's 40 million. In addition, the proposal reduces drug prices for everyone by stopping big drug company patent abuses. I should mention that as well, Mr. Speaker. I did not. That in democratic legislation we plug up some of the loopholes with the patent laws that make it easier for generics to come to market. So actually, everyone would benefit, not just seniors, because they would be able to get lower-priced generics, whereas now they are not able to because of patent extensions or abuses of the patent system by the named brand drug companies. So this is something that would actually benefit everyone, not just senior citizens. The most important thing, though, Mr. Speaker, I have to stress, is that under the Democratic proposal, seniors do not have to leave traditional Medicare to get their drug coverage. They do not have to join the HMO, they do not have to give up the choice doctors or the choice of hospitals. The Republicans talk a lot, and even the President has talked a lot about choice, and somehow suggested that the nice thing about the Republican proposal is that seniors have a choice. They have a choice of staying in traditional Medicare, they have a choice of joining an HMO. But again, those kinds of choices which hinge on whether they get the coverage are not the kind of choices that I find that the senior citizens in my district want. They want a choice of doctors. They want a choice of hospitals. They want to know that they do not have to give those choices up in order to get a prescription drug benefit. Secretary Thompson was on the Today Show this morning, and I just want to read one quote, and then I would like to yield some time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) who has come down so often on the floor to talk about senior issues and health care issues in particular. But Secretary Tommy Thompson of the Health and Human Services Department was on the Today Show this morning, and this was quote that I took down. It says ``Seniors are going to have choices. They are going to be able to stay on their own current plan and get prescription drug coverage with high out-of-pocket expenses if, in fact, they want to do so without additional cost, or they can go with an enhanced plan which is going to cost seniors a few dollars, but it is going to be a great program. It is going to be the same program that I have, that Senators have, that Congress has, that the President has.'' What I do not understand is what if one cannot afford it, what if one does not have the option of paying more or what if one does not want to go into the HMO? Again, it goes back to the same old thing. Choice is not really an issue unless they have the ability to make the choice that is actually to their benefit, and the problem with the choices that the Secretary is providing and that President is talking about, they are choices that limit their other choices. If they join the HMO, then they get the drug coverage. We do not know what drug coverage they are going to get, but they get something, but then their choices of doctors or hospitals are limited, and I know when we talk to senior citizens, they do not particularly like the idea that they have to join an HMO in order to get the drug coverage because the experience that they have had with HMOs has generally been pretty bad, and there are a lot of places where one cannot even join the HMO anyway. So, Mr. Speaker, I would say, let us stop with the gimmicks. Let us stop with the suggestion that somehow the Republican proposal is going to give seniors something. It is not giving them anything unless they trade off something that is just as important, and I do not think that is a fair way to go about treating people who are senior citizens. I yield now to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) who has spent a significant amount of time on this issue and has been in the forefront on all healthcare issues including the need for a prescription drug benefit.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to Mr. Leon Evans who passed away Thursday, February 20, 2003 in Neptune, New Jersey. Mr. Evans was a dedicated, loving man and will be greatly missed by his friends and family. Leon Evans was born on December 29, 1936 to the late Leroy and Virginia Evans in Little Rock, Arkansas. Mr. Evans is a man who recognized the value of education early on in life. First attending school in Little Rock, Arkansas, he continued his education at New Mexico State University, Las Cruces in New Mexico. Later, Mr. Evans furthered his studies at Monmouth University in West Long Branch, New Jersey. Mr. Evans paid tribute to his county by serving in the United States Army from 1955 until his retirement on September 1, 1975. While in the Army, Mr. Evans was an instructor and fundamental Branch Supervisor at the U.S. Army Signal School in Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. After Mr. Evans distinguished service in the United States Army he worked at Siemens Communication Systems Inc. Transmission Systems in Mount Laurel, New Jersey and Iselin, New Jersey from 1976 to 1984. Mr. Evans was self-employed from 1984 through 1987 operating a communications service company. He later worked at Check-Mate Inc., where he provided his services to the Monmouth County area until his death. In addition to his work ethic, Mr. Evans possessed a strong sense of community as exhibited by the various community memberships he held. Mr. Evan's was a member of Neptune's VFW Post #2639 and American Legion Post #266. He also served on the Democratic and Environmental Committees for Neptune Township and was a member of the Optimistic Social Club and the Over the Hill Gang. I would also like to recognize Mr. Evans for his loving devotion to his family. He was married to his beloved wife, Wanda for 47 years. Together they raised five wonderful children, and enjoyed spending time with their seven grandchildren and great grandchild. Mr. Speaker, Leon Evans had many friends and colleagues who affectionately knew him as hard working, dedicated, patriotic, and a civic-minded individual. His friends and family greatly enjoyed his company and will sorely miss him. On this day, I ask my fellow colleagues to join with me in honoring and remembering this extraordinary individual.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want bring the attention of my colleagues to an anniversary that occurred this past Thursday, February 20th, 2003. That day marked the 15th anniversary of the modern day liberation movement of the people of the Nagorno Karabakh (NK). Fifteen years ago, in the twilight of the Soviet Union, the people of NK petitioned the Soviet government to correct historical injustices and reunite them with their brethren in Armenia. The Armenians of NK were placed within the borders of Azerbaijan in 1921, as one of the many ethnic groups that were separated by Joseph Stalin through his ``divide and conquer'' strategy. Despite the fact that 96% of the population of NK were ethnically Armenian, and NK's stated wish to be part of Armenia--or even be represented as an autonomous region within Azerbaijan--the Armenians of NK were subjected to brutal Soviet Azerbaijani rule for 70 years. During those seven decades, the Armenians of NK repeatedly stated to each successive Soviet regime their desire to be joined again with Armenia. These peaceful and legal maneuvers were met with violent repression and forced settlement of ethnic Azeris into NK. Heydar Ailyev, current President of Azerbaijan, ran the Azeri spoke of these policies frankly to reporters on July 22, 2002. He said, ``I tried to change Nagorno Karabakh's demography . . . Instead of sending Azeri workers to Baku, I sent a large number of them to Karabakh from surrounding Azerbaijani regions . . . With these and other measures, I was trying to make sure that Azerbaijani population grew in Karabakh while the Armenian population diminished. Those who used to work in Karabakh back then, know what I am talking about.'' This comment smacks of human rights abuses; working to directly change to demographics of the region while paying no mind to the Armenian or Azeri human condition. In 1988, when the Armenians of NK heard of the Mikhail Gorbachev's democratization agenda, they began to again move peacefully for reunification with Armnenia. At this time, the Soviet and Azeri armies would not stand even to entertain this request and immediately resorted to violence. Public expressions of determination by the Armenians of NK were met with a campaign of ethnic cleansing, deporting the Armenians of NK and Azerbaijan. In 1991, as Armenia and Azerbaijan followed most soviet states in succession from the USSR, NK also voted to succeed. In an internationally monitored referendum, the NK population overwhelmingly voted to establish an independent Nagorno Karabakh Republic, currently known as NKR. Following this referendum in which the country was established, the Azeri army began a full-scale war on the Armenians of NK, which took thousands of lives over three years, but eventually ended up with NKR repelling Azeri forces. This victory was gained with an army that was out-manned and out-gunned, but had desire and guile that proved to be overwhelming. This conflict had a terrific human cost, leaving 30,000 dead and over one million displaced. Thankfully, although small skirmishes have broken out from time to time, the peace has been kept since an agreement ceased hostilities in 1994. Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly come to the House floor to speak of the plight of the Armenians of NKR. I can now speak from personal experience about NKR, having traveled there with Congressman Dogget of Texas last August. We had the opportunity to travel to NKR to witness the Presidential elections there, where we served as official monitors. I am proud to say that all election observers that participated in this historic event gave an overwhelmingly positive response. One group in particular, headed by the Baroness Cox from England stated that, ``Our overall conclusion is one of congratulations to all the people of Artsakh (NKR) for the spirit in which the elections have been conducted, their commitment to the democratic process and their pride in their progress towards the establishment of civil society.'' This process is astounding considering that NKR is not recognized internationally; that they still must deal every day with Azeri aggression, and that their economy is still devastated from the war. The elections were reported to have met, if not exceeded international standards. All this just 9 short years removed from all-out war. Congress recognized this consistent move towards democracy, granting NKR 20 million dollars in humanitarian assistance in FY '97, and an additional 5 million dollars in FY '03. This assistance has not just been crucial for needs of the people of NKR, but has also fostered the beginnings of an excellent relationship between our two countries. Mr. Speaker, I would like to end with a final example of what I saw in Armenia in August last year. During the elections, as I visited the capitol city and small villages alike, everyone I spoke to was incredibly excited about the prospect of voting. They viewed the vote not only as a choice of the leader of their country for the next five years, but a statewide referendum on the democratic process and independence of NKR. I congratulate the people of NKR for the 15th anniversary of the Nagorno Karabakh Liberation movement and their incredible determination to establish a free and open democratic society.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the United States Life- Saving Service Heritage Act, legislation to celebrate one of the most inspiring periods in America's maritime history. This legislation would establish a comprehensive program to inventory, evaluate, document, and assist efforts to restore and preserve surviving historic lifesaving stations. I am pleased that my Jersey Shore colleague Representative Frank LoBiondo has joined me in this effort. The history of lifesaving in the United States dates back to 1785, when the Massachusetts Humane Society began building huts along the Massachusetts coast to aid shipwreck victims. These huts were later fitted with surfboats, beach-carts, and other lifesaving equipment. Beginning in 1847, the Federal government recognized the importance and necessity of lifesaving efforts when Congress provided a series of appropriations to establish lifesaving stations equipped to render assistance to shipwrecked mariners and their passengers. These stations were first established along the Atlantic coast with the assistance of Representative William Newell, who during the 31st and 39th Congresses represented some of the same areas of New Jersey that I represent today. Representative Newell's efforts contributed to the establishment of a network of lifesaving stations along the Jersey Shore from Sandy Hook to Cape May. In 1871, Congress approved the first appropriation for the Federal government to employ crews of lifesavers. On June 18, 1878, the ``Act to Organize the Life-Saving Service'' was enacted. In 1915 the Life-Saving Service merged with the Revenue Cutter Service to form the Coast Guard. At that time, there were over 275 lifesaving stations to aid shipwreck victims on the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf, and Great Lakes coasts. The volunteer and professional lifesaving personnel who staffed these stations risked their lives to prevent shipwreck casualties. Winslow Homer immortalized these great heroes of the American coast in his painting The Life Line. Walt Whitman celebrated their inspiring actions in the following excerpt of his poem Patrolling Barnegat: Through cutting swirl and spray watchful and firm advancing, (That in the distance! Is that a wreck? Is the red signal flaring?) Slush and sand of the beach tireless till daylight wending, Steadily, slowly, through hoarse roar never remitting, Along the midnight edge by those milk-white combs careering, A group of dim, weird forms, struggling, the night confronting, That savage trinity warily watching. An outstanding example of this period survives today in my district. The historic Monmouth Beach lifesaving station, established in 1895, is a Duluth style station designed by the architect George Tolman. On one occasion, every member of the station's crew was awarded a gold lifesaving medal for rescuing victims of two shipwrecks on the same evening. This historic structure had been slated for demolition to make way for a new parking lot for beachgoers. Fortunately, the entire community came together to save this important structure but work still needs to be done to preserve the station's history and the inspiring stories of those who served there. It is not certain exactly how many stations like the one in Monmouth Beach remain. Many surviving historic lifesaving stations are of rare architectural significance, but harsh coastal environments threaten them, rapid economic development in the coastal zone, neglect, and lack of resources for their preservation. The heroic actions of America's lifesavers deserve greater recognition, and their contributions to America's maritime and architectural history should be celebrated. That is why I have proposed the United States Life-Saving Service Heritage Act. This legislation would provide the resources necessary to inventory, document, and evaluate surviving lifesaving stations. It would also provide grant funding to assist efforts to protect and preserve these maritime treasures. The United States Life-Saving Service Heritage Act would authorize the National Park Service, through its National Maritime Initiative, to inventory, document, and evaluate surviving historic lifesaving stations. These activities would be conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Life-Saving Service Heritage Association, a Massachusetts based nonprofit educational organization that works to protect and preserve America's lifesaving heritage. This inventory, documentation, and evaluation would be similar in nature to a study completed by the Park Service in 1994, on historic lighthouses. Under this legislation, the Park Service would serve as a clearinghouse of information on lifesaving station preservation efforts, which would greatly assist public and private efforts to protect these historic structures and the maritime heritage that they embody. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to celebrate one of the most heroic and inspiring periods in America's maritime history.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. I did not realize you could not talk about the credibility, but I certainly will not use that term again. I just want to point out that when the President took office in January 2001, unemployment had reached a 40-year low. Two years later, 1.7 million jobs have been lost. That gives President Bush the dubious distinction of having the worst job creation record of any administration in the last 58 years. So when we talk about job creation and how his economic package is somehow going to create more jobs, it may create a few more, but it is not doing anything significant in terms of job creation as opposed to the amount of jobs that we have seen lost in this economic downturn. Now I want to talk a little bit in the same vein about some of the health care initiatives that the President has put forward, because the bottom line is that over the next few weeks we are probably going to hear more specifics about what he wants to do with Medicare, with Medicaid, with access to health insurance, and also with some of the money that is going back to the States, other than through Medicare and Medicaid, to pay for some health care programs. Again, if you listen to what the President said during his State of the Union address, basically he said that he wanted to not only strengthen Medicaid and Medicare, but also provide a prescription drug benefit in the context of Medicare for senior citizens. Again, I would like to point out the fact that most of what has been proposed with regard to Medicare and Medicaid, in my opinion, will not only not strengthen the programs but weaken the programs, and that when he talks about providing a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, it is not a prescription drug benefit that most seniors will be able to avail themselves of. In fact, again, in yesterday's New York Times, Monday, February 24, there was an article on the front page entitled ``Bush Proposes Major Changes in Health Plans. Critics See Less Security and Fewer Benefits.'' I would stress that critics see less security and fewer benefits because, the gist of this article says, essentially what the President is proposing with regard to not only Medicare and Medicaid, but also with regard to Social Security, are radical changes in the programs and the way these programs are essentially set up. What I would like to do, if I could, is just highlight some of the major changes in the programs that I call radical or fundamental changes that are being proposed in these three very important programs that are relating to the health care of not only seniors, but poor people of all ages. I start out by highlighting the first paragraph of this article in the New York Times. It says, ``President Bush has begun one of the most ambitious efforts to reinvent Medicare and Medicaid since the programs were created 38 years ago. Combined with his earlier plan for Social Security, the proposals offer a fundamentally different vision of social welfare policy, many experts say. ``Several architects of those programs, the people that put the Medicare, the Medicaid and the Social Security programs together years ago, argue that the Bush administration is retreating from the goals of the Great Society and the New Deal and the promises that government made across the generations. ``The Bush plans,'' they say, ``are essentially an effort to limit the Federal Government's financial responsibilities and to cap what is now an open-ended guarantee of specific benefits, in an effort to move from a defined benefit to a defined contribution.'' Essentially what the critics are saying, and this is brought out in this New York Times article, is that these were programs, you talk about Medicare, you talk about Social Security, these were retirement security programs, in the case of Medicare for health care for seniors, in the case of Social Security retirement benefits for seniors, that were basically guaranteed. You paid into this system and you worked over the years, and then when you reached the age of 65, you knew that you had certain benefits that were defined and guaranteed. What the President is proposing now and the reason it is so radical is because he is basically saying they are not going to be defined or guaranteed anymore. He is saying in the case of Medicare that essentially what you will get is a voucher. You will get a certain amount of money, and you can go out in the private sector and see if you can buy health insurance with that voucher, if you will. But you may or may not be able to find it, and you do not know exactly what it is going to provide you with in terms of the benefit package. With regard to Social Security, of course, he is talking about privatizing, and your being able to take the money out and invest it in the stock market or other types of things, so that there is a certain amount of risk, if you will, that the money will not be there because of those kinds of decisions that you made when you took the money away. Let me just get a little more into some of the specifics, because I think it is interesting to see how the New York Times has analyzed this, and also talk a little bit about what the Democrats would like to do differently with regard to the Medicare prescription drug proposal and how the Democratic proposal is consistent with the guarantees and the tradition and the history of the Medicare program, as opposed to the President's proposal, which is not. What it says in this New York Times article, again from Monday, is that Mr. Bush's Medicare proposal, being revised after an earlier draft drew fire on Capitol Hill, would encourage many beneficiaries to leave traditional Medicare and get their benefits through private health insurance associated with the program. Now, some of the Congressional Republicans, some of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, have specifically been opposed or have expressed reservations about the President's Medicare proposal, because what he seems to be saying is if you want the benefit of a prescription drug plan, that you have to go outside of Medicare. In other words, you have to choose a private plan, an HMO or something like an HMO, in order to get the benefits of a prescription drug plan. It says in the New York Times, ``Criticism has come from even influential Congressional Republicans, alarmed at the possibility that the administration might be overreaching. They have been particularly scathing about the possibility that the Bush plan would require the elderly to leave traditional Medicare and join a private plan to get drug benefits discussed in the earlier draft.'' Now, the problem with this, again, is a fundamental change in the way we operate the Medicare program, because those who are in Medicare now know it is a guaranteed plan, it is a defined benefit; if you stay in the traditional plan, you can go to any doctor or any hospital and you get your health care covered. But what the New York Times says is that the architects of Medicare said the program was created with some fundamental precepts that the Bush proposal would undermine; that all working Americans pay into the same Medicare system, that the healthy and the sick, the rich and poor, end up in the same program and all have the same core benefits when they retire. The idea that the elderly would be better served by a private nonprofit insurance market is anathema to those veterans of the Great Society. They say before Medicare, the private health insurance market was a failure for the elderly, nearly half of whom have no hospital coverage, and they fear that private health plans would be attempted to recruit the healthiest of the elderly, leaving sick or more costly patients in the original fee-for-service Medicare program. So basically the problem with what the President is proposing for Medicare is not only a practical problem, in the sense that we are not really sure and we really have no reason to believe based on past performance that the elderly would be able to take this voucher and buy a good health insurance program, but the real danger is it undermines the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program for those who stay behind, because they are going to be the sicker and the more expensive people to take care of. So the problems, if you will, and the costs of Medicare, are aggravated by the fact that now the Federal Government is paying for an older population, if you will. So it is almost a prescription, if you will, to destroy the traditional Medicare program. Now, what does the President do or propose with regard to Medicaid? Medicare, as we know, is the program for seniors, those over 65, primarily. Medicaid is a health insurance program for poor people who fall below a certain income. Well, again, I am going back to the New York Times article from yesterday: ``The issues raised in the Medicaid debate revolve largely around the role of the Federal Government. The administration proposal would offer States advanced new power to reduce, eliminate, or expand health benefits for low-income people, including many who are elderly or disabled. In return for the flexibility and a temporary increase in Federal assistance, States would eventually have to accept a limit on the Federal contribution to the program.'' Now, critics assert it would replace the poors' entitlement to health care with a block grant to the States just when the number of uninsured is rising. Again, Medicaid a program for poor people, is partially funded by the States, partially by the Federal Government. What the President is saying is, we will give you, the States, the flexibility to determine what kind of benefits and who is covered, if you will, by Medicaid. In return for that, though, in the long run, we are going to give you less money. So it is really a cost-saving device. But what it does is undermine the guarantee that if you are poor and you are below a certain income that you are going to have your health benefits. It is the same thing in a different way that the President is proposing with Medicare in the sense that a program that is provided with a guarantee, an entitlement, now ceases to be and the person is not sure whether they were going to get their health care or how they are going to get their health care or what kind of benefits they are going to receive. Now, the last thing that is mentioned in The New York Times article yesterday is: ``Mr. Bush's proposal for Social Security, first offered in the 2000 campaign, would also break sharply with the past by allowing workers to divert some of their payroll taxes to individual accounts that would be invested in stocks. While its political prospects have been dampened by the declining stock market, Mr. Bush reiterated his support for the idea last month in his State of the Union address. Both sides agree that the coming debate over these proposals,'' that is all of them, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, ``will be a fundamental clash of political philosophies over the obligations of government, the rights of the individual, and the role of the private sector.'' Again, I am not an ideologue, Mr. Speaker, and I am not talking about this in the context of the ideology, whether it is a conservative or a liberal idealogy or whatever; I am just very concerned, and I think we all need to be, about the practical implications of what the President has proposed. When we have programs like Medicare and Social Security that are so fundamental to so many people in this country and we talk about radical restructuring of those programs in a way that may save the Federal Government money, but also risks the types of guarantees that are provided traditionally to seniors, I think it is something that we better watch very closely. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that with so many other things going on, that it may be possible somehow to pass significant changes here without us focusing sufficiently on what they really mean and what the impact is going to be. Now, before I finish, I did want to say that in all of this argument, if you will, about health care, I think that there are two things that are crucial. One is that the number of uninsured in the country not continue to go up, which it has in the last couple of years; and, secondly, that we do, in fact, find some way to provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors. Because when I am home, when I am in the district, I hear primarily those two concerns when it comes to health care, which is: I was working, I lost my job, I do not have health insurance anymore. Or, I have my job, but the employer decided to drop health insurance. Or, my employer still offers health insurance, but now he is providing a package that costs me so much out-of-pocket that I cannot afford to buy it anymore or to take that option. The other thing I hear, of course, very frequently is from seniors who complain about the fact that Medicare does not provide a prescription drug benefit and that they have tried maybe, in some cases in New Jersey, to join an HMO that would give them a prescription drug benefit; but they signed up for it, and then later they were dropped because the HMO decided it really was not profitable to provide a drug benefit to seniors, or now the copay, what it costs them out-of-pocket to pay for the prescription drug coverage, again is so high that it does not make sense for them to continue to stay in the HMO because the benefit is so limited and the cost out-of-pocket is so high. So I think we have to understand that for Democrats, we feel that these two issues must be addressed: the fact that more and more people have no health insurance and the fact that we need a prescription drug benefit for seniors. But I would venture to say that with regard to that prescription drug benefit, to go the way the President is proposing, which is to say that one has to go out into the private sector and join an HMO or a PPO or something like that to get one's drug coverage, is not the answer. In fact, the week before the recess, I actually participated in a press conference with Public Citizen; and they did a report on Medicare privatization. Basically, the report showed dramatically that HMOs and private insurance for seniors does not work; that the experience that we have had in the last few years where seniors tried to opt for HMOs in many parts of the country were not available, and where they were available, maybe they lasted for a few years and then they either dropped the seniors or it became unaffordable. In my own State of New Jersey, in the last 2 years alone, nearly 80,000 seniors who had contracted with private HMOs lost their health coverage. In other words, the HMOs simply dropped them. So I just do not think, if we look at this Public Citizen report, we can come to any conclusion other than the fact that saying to seniors that in order to get your drug benefits you have to go into an HMO or something like that, some kind of private insurance is the answer. It is not. We know it is not. It does not work; it has not worked. So what the Democrats have proposed and what makes the most sense is simply expanding our traditional Medicare fee-for-service program to include a prescription drug benefit that would be guaranteed for anyone who wanted it. We use the example of part B. As many people know, Medicare part A is hospitalization and Medicare part B pays for doctor bills, and under Medicare part B, you pay a certain amount of premium per month and the Federal Government pays for a certain percentage of the doctor bills. We have come up with a plan that would essentially do the same thing with a drug benefit. You would pay a premium of $25 a month, a $100 deductible, so that would be out-of-pocket and then after that, 80 percent of the prescription drugs would be paid for by the Federal Government and you would have a copay of 20 percent. Because of high bills, if one ends up spending as much as $2,000 out-of-pocket, then the Federal Government would pay 100 percent of your costs. The last thing and the most important thing, I think, in many respects of what the Democrats propose is that we have a clause in our proposal that was introduced and voted on last session that says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services who administers the Medicare program has to negotiate for lower prices for drugs, because now he has 40 million seniors and he can negotiate for lower prices. So basically, what the Democrats are saying is, yes, we want to expand Medicare to include prescription drugs; but we want to do it in the traditional way, so everyone has it, no one has to go to a private insurance or opt for an HMO to get it, you just get it; and the system is very similar to what we do with part B under Medicare now for doctor bills. Mr. Speaker, I see one of my colleagues and I yield to him.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I think we have just a few more minutes, but I am really pleased that the gentlewoman raised the issue, first of all, of the cost of war and some of the aid packages like to Turkey that has been in the paper the last few days and also to NASA. Again, my point this evening when we started this Special Order was to discuss the President's rhetoric versus what he is actually doing with the budget and all of promises, if you will, that are made about turning the economy around, creating more jobs, providing health care, providing prescription drugs, not raising the deficit. And then what we find is that these tax cuts do not really help the average guy, do not do anything really to stimulate the economy and are creating these huge deficits. But what the gentlewoman is pointing out is that in addition to that is we do not have a true budget at all because we are not including the cost of the war which, as the gentlewoman said, is estimated at something like $100 to $200 billion. And that does not include the AID package. Of course, I point to Turkey because that has been in the paper. I do not know how many other countries will be asking for money. I think that was in the tens of billions, what is being discussed. None of this is in the budget. And so the reality is we may wind up with a situation that by the time this budget is adopted in the appropriation bills by the end of the fiscal year where there have to be even more cuts if you are going to implement, more cuts in health care, more cuts in the things that we were discussing, education, if you are still going to have these tax cuts and pay for the cost of the war or perhaps bigger deficits. Again, it is just a very sad situation because I think that the President has to be forthright with what he is really doing and not say that we are going to be able to turn the economy around and do all of these things and give tax cuts and fight a war and not increase the deficit. It does not add up. It just does not add up. And it is really incumbent upon us over the next few weeks as we move forward and adopt some sort of budget to make the points that the two of you have been making tonight because we are not, I do not think we are being honest with what is really going on around here and we are trying to be honest. And we have to call the President and the Republican leadership to task about what they are really going to be able to accomplish. So I want to thank my colleagues.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the notion that we will be able to rely on the HMOs in the private sector to provide the drug coverage or any kind of coverage is totally belied by the reality of what has happened in the last few years. In New Jersey alone in the last 2 years 80,000 seniors taken off, HMOs dropped them. If we do not provide across-the-board prescription drug plans the way the Democrats have devised, we have no guarantee that the seniors will get their drug coverage. I cannot believe after the experience we have had the last few years that has dramatically shown that HMOs will not provide the seniors with the drug coverage, that anyone, including the President, could suggest that somehow that is not the answer. It is, again, the suggestion or the promise that you will do something. The reality will be very different because they will not be able to find that kind of coverage. It will not exist.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening I wanted to talk about the President's budget, but I also want to point out, using something very specific examples of how the President's rhetoric, if you will, with regard to what he wants to accomplish in this session of Congress, whether it be turn the economy around, create more jobs, reform Medicare, create a prescription drug benefit, the various things that he talked about in his State of the Union Address are not essentially backed up with the budget that he has presented to Congress and that we first had unveiled here a few weeks ago. And it is disturbing to me because I think it creates what many have called a credibility gap between what the President promises versus what he delivers. He creates the illusion that he will create new jobs, reverse our Nation's current economic woes, ensure all Americans have access to healthcare, and provide seniors a prescription drug benefit; but then when we look at his budget for the year 2004, for the next fiscal year, we see that essentially what it does is mire the Nation's future in record deficits, undermine the future of the social security and the Medicare system at the time that they should be strengthened in anticipation of the baby boom generation which will at some point in the near future become 65 years of age, and we only have to look at the promises the President made in the State of the Union Address that he gave a year ago to see how ineffective he is at following up on his rhetoric once he leaves the Capitol. Last year, the President assured the Nation that ``our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short lived.'' But 1 year later, according to President's budget message, annual deficits will run close to $300 billion a year for the next 2 years. Even more troubling under the President's watch, the red ink does not appear to go dry any time in the near future, with deficits reaching over a trillion dollars by 2007. Just last week during the President's Week recess, there was an article in the New York Times that said that the Federal debt was near a ceiling for a second time in 9 months, and I would just read the first couple paragraphs of that article, which was dated February 20, last Thursday, Mr. Speaker. It says ``With budget deficits climbing rapidly, the Bush administration acknowledged today that the government had reached its legal limit on borrowing and would run short of cash by early April unless Congress once again raised the debt ceiling. ``Because Congress inevitably does raise the ceiling after intense jousting, the announcement will have little, if any, effect on operations. But it highlights the new era of red ink that the government faces even before President Bush's latest proposals for more than $1 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years . . . the White House now projects a deficit of more than $300 billion this year and next, as well as deficits at least for the next decade.'' If you talk about the deficit, Mr. Speaker, if you think about what the President has been saying versus reality, he really has no credibility. When he took office in 2001, the Federal budget had a surplus of $5.6 billion. Not only has he reversed those fortunes, but on this President's watch the red ink does not appear to go dry anytime in the near future, with deficits reaching $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. There again, I just use that as one example. There are so many examples of it. I guess one of the things that is so obvious in this regard is what the President says about the tax cuts. He implemented some tax cuts about a year ago. He now proposes additional tax cuts and is talking about maybe a third set of tax cuts in another 6 months or so. There was an article in today's New York Times that, once again, talks about the President's credibility gap in the context of the tax cuts. I just wanted to go to some of those statistics, because I think they are so important in terms of what the President says these tax cuts are going to do, who is going to benefit from them, how they are going to impact the economy, versus what the reality is. This was an article in today's New York Times, and it is entitled ``The President's Tax Cut and its Unspoken Numbers.'' It starts out by saying, ``The statistics that President Bush and his allies use to promote his tax cut plan are accurate, but many of them present only part of the picture. For instance, in a speech in Georgia last week, the President asserted that under his proposal, 92 million Americans would receive an average tax reduction of $1,083 and that the economy would improve so much that 1.4 million new jobs would be created by the end of 2004.'' Now, no one disputes the size of the average tax reduction. But what the President did not say is that half of all income taxpayers would have their taxes cut by less than $100, 78 percent would receive reductions of less than $1,000, and the firm that the White House relied on to predict the initial job growth also forecast the plan could hurt the economy over the long run. You say, how does the President talk about an average tax reduction of $1,083 and then you find out that most Americans do not benefit in a significant way? The reason is because only a few rich taxpayers, in a sense, get the largest reduction. So if you take the number of taxpayers and you put it into the total reduction, you get an average of $1,083, but most of the money is going to a very few wealthy taxpayers at the high end of the spectrum. The cut for those with incomes of $40,000 to $50,000, according to calculations by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, would typically be $380. For those with incomes of $50,000 to $75,000 it would be $553. But if you are someone at the high end, then you are getting tens of thousands of dollars back in tax cuts. The President primarily when he talks about this tax reduction package talks about the stock dividends and how that is going to help not only turn the economy around, but help the average person, because there are so many people, particularly seniors, he claims, that are going to benefit from eliminating the tax on stock dividends. But this article in the New York Times today addresses that and basically explains again the President has a credibility gap in how he is spinning it, because among the points that he makes is that more than half of all taxable dividends are paid to people 65 and older and that their average saving from eliminating the tax on dividends would be $936, and that 60 percent of people receiving dividends have incomes of $75,000 and less, and he goes on. But what we find is only slightly more than one-quarter of Americans 65 and older receive dividends and that two-thirds of the dividends the elderly receive are paid to the 9 percent of all elderly who have incomes of over $100,000. Essentially what you are having, again, is that most of the money, even with the stock dividend elimination, the tax on that, is going to very few senior citizens who have incomes over $100,000. The average senior citizen is not benefiting from it in any significant way. I mention this because, again, I think it is important that we all understand that the President says something, and he spins it and makes it sound like it is going to benefit everyone and turn the economy around, but then the reality is that it is not. It does not accomplish that goal at all. Let me just give you some information, if I can, about job creation. Last month during his State of the Union address, the President said we must have an economy that grows fast enough to employ every man and woman who seeks a job. Of course, obviously, I agree with that statement. Who would not? But, unfortunately, a huge gap again exists between his rhetoric of employing all Americans and the economic stimulus plan that even the White House says is only going to create about 190,000 jobs this year. He says everyone should have a job. He talks about an economic stimulus plan that will theoretically create 190,000 jobs. But you have 8.6 million Americans now actively looking for a job. He does not have any credibility because---- Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman. I thank him for coming down. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's coming down. I know he has been a leader on the health care issue as well. Let me just make a couple of comments about the things that he said. I think we have about 20 minutes or so left. The thing the gentleman mentioned when he talked about education, that is so important. I do not want to talk about credibility gaps, I will not use that word again; but the idea that one makes a promise with no child left behind, which means very obviously that no child is going to be left behind, when we know that in many parts of this country in the public school system children are being left behind either because they do not have the money or because they cannot locally get the teachers, or whatever the reason. So the President gets up with much fanfare a couple of years ago and says no child is going to be left behind. But when we get a budget with a $9.7 billion shortfall from what would be necessary to authorize and carry forth that act, that no-child-left-behind program, it is essentially hypocritical to continue to talk about no child left behind. So I think this is a perfect example of the kinds of things that I have been trying to point out tonight. Going back to the health care issue again, the other thing that I think is so important is that this week the National Governors Conference is taking place. I think it is here in Washington. I am not exactly sure. What the President has been trying to do is to sell this Medicaid proposal to the Governors by saying, look, we are going to give you a lot more flexibility with this program, but you may get less money. We may cap the amount of money that you get. The Governors have already been coming back on a bipartisan basis, some of them, saying this is not such a great idea because we do not have the resources. We know that, as the gentleman mentioned, in the States because of the economic downturn, most of the States do not have the money to continue to pay for these health care programs for poor people; or even for those who are working, like in the CHIP program, we call it kid care in New Jersey, providing health insurance for kids. So what we are seeing is with what the President is proposing and the fewer dollars that he is giving out, with the number of uninsured, the number of kids that are going to be covered by CHIP are going to be reduced. The problem is if we implement this Medicaid program, the States are going to have the ability to basically cut back on that as well, so we will see more and more people that have no health insurance. I am not talking pie in the sky here to my colleague. It has already happened in my home State of New Jersey. Some States have already expanded the CHIP program to cover the parents of the kids, or single adults who are working but do not get health care on the job. In New Jersey, the Governor has already announced that he has to get rid of those. There is even a question now about whether all the kids are going to be covered. So this is not something that is abstract. The President would have to make sure that he provided significantly more resources to programs like S-CHIP or to Medicaid in order to guarantee that the programs continue to exist at the current levels, or to take in the people now that, because of the economic downturn, are not covered by health insurance. What the Democrats propose, the gentleman remembers, in our economic stimulus package is that we would give more money to the States for Medicaid. We would up it by another 2 percent so they would not have to put out as much State dollars, which they do not have to cover everyone eligible for Medicaid. We are saying in these hard economic times the Federal Government should do more to guarantee that working people that cannot get health insurance are covered. The President is doing the opposite at the very time when there are more and more people who have the need. It really is a wrong thing to do. Let me just indicate, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) said it, we have a problem in health care out there. We would think that as a way of responding with the stimulus package, that we would not only answer a problem that exists out there such as health care, but we could also address the problems that our States are having. One of the biggest problems and one of the biggest budget problems they have is health. So not only do we help the States in addressing the problem of the issue of health care and the deficits, but we would also be stimulating the economy by doing just that, and solving a problem and doing a good deed in terms of making sure that people have access to good quality health care. So Mr. Speaker, if I can, I have seen the President in terms of his pattern. In Texas, he did exactly the same thing. He reached out to the Democratic side, and he was very open about reaching out and trying to help in education; but he also did a tax cut. In Texas right now they have about a $12 billion deficit also. Now, yes, they have a great education bill, but they have no money to fund it, very similar to what he did over here. He came out here and reached out to Senator Kennedy and the liberals and the Democrats and talked about education, did his tax cut and did the education. Now we do not have the resources, or we do not have the priority of the resources, to fund that same education bill that he has authored, and that same bill that he ought to be proud enough to put in the $9 billion that he agreed to when he cut that agreement. So we are hoping that he does not go back on his word, and that he fulfills that promise of leaving no child behind.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues of an event that occurred 14 years ago yesterday. Pat Finucane, a Northern Ireland human rights attorney who defended individuals who were detained and targeted by the British and the RUC, was shot and killed by British loyalist paramilitaries while he sat eating a Sunday meal with his wife and three children. Since his murder in 1989, Amnesty International and the United Nations have called on the British Government to investigate any collusion between the RUC/British Government officials and the loyalist paramilitaries. Unfortunately, after 3 years of investigation, still no report has been made public. According to the UDA, the Ulster Defense Association, which claimed responsibility for his murder, Mr. Finucane was profiled as an individual who was helping support the pro-Catholic, pro-republican cause in Northern Ireland. Mr. Speaker, I call on the London Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir John Stevens, to expeditiously complete the report on the February 1989 killing of Pat Finucane in Belfast. Sir Stevens has been investigating this case for almost 3 years. Late last year, Sir John Stevens announced for the second time that the Finucane report would be delayed as a result of a British military witness being reluctant to speak to the police. Stevens claimed that the report will be released before next spring; however, there continues to be speculation that the report may be delayed further should a public inquiry be ordered. There are few who will dispute the facts in this case. According to Brian Nelson, a former British military intelligence agent who also served as chief intelligence officer in the UDA, he directly assisted in the targeting of Pat Finucane and passed a photograph of Pat Finucane to a UDA member just days before the killing. However, Mr. Nelson claims that he has never been examined in an open court. To date, no one has been prosecuted for the murder of Pat Finucane. The facts in this case seem quite straightforward, once again a pro- loyalist police force used its authority to further sectarian rule and continue the rash of violence against the Catholic community. Mr. Speaker, I call on Prime Minister Tony Blair and London Metropolitan Police Commissioner Stevens to finally release the current report and then immediately open a full public inquiry into this matter. My hope is that by putting an end to this long-drawn-out process, we can bring both justice to the individuals who undertook this gruesome act and take steps to ensure that it does not happen again. This whole matter, once again, reinforces my belief that for too long both the British Government, along with their police force, and the loyalist paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland have worked in tandem to usurp the rights of the Catholic community. A full public inquiry into this matter will show the world that the only way peace can last in Northern Ireland is for a full, fair and just reform of policing in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland must immediately implement all of the Patten Commissions' recommendations on policing. Mr. Speaker, if there is to be a just and lasting peace in Northern Ireland, we must learn from what happened to Pat Finucane and ensure that it never happens again.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Clean Water Protection Act, legislation to protect the beauty and quality of our nation's water resources. This legislation would add a definition to the Clean Water Act that would place a specific prohibition on the use of wastes in ``fill material'' that is placed in waters of the United States. I am pleased that my colleague, Representative Christopher Shays, has joined me in this effort. This legislation was predicated by an executive rule change on May 3, 2002, that altered the long-standing definition of ``fill material'' in the Clean Water Act regulations enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Administration's new definition allows the Corps to permit waste to be used to fill streams, wetlands, and other waters. Importantly, the rule change would have nationwide effects, by allowing all industries to seek permits from the Corps to dump their wastes in waters. On May 8, 2002, a federal court in West Virginia decided that the Administration's rule change violated the Clean Water Act and was therefore illegal. Late last month, however, a U.S. appeals court in Richmond reversed the lowercourt ruling that would have ended the practice of filling rivers and streams with waste rock and dirt from mountaintop removal coal mining operations. There are far-reaching consequences of the Appellate Court's decision. The Administration's new definition of ``fill material'' is an attempt to legalize the dumping of countless tons of mountaintop removal coal mining waste--a practice that has already burned and destroyed 1,000 miles of Appalachian streams. The new rule also expressly allows hardrock mining waste, construction and demolition debris, and other types of harmful wastes to be dumped into rivers and streams across the country. Given the possible presence of contaminants such as heavy metals, asbestos, or harmful organic compounds in some of these wastes, the implementation of the new definition of ``fill material'' in the Corps'' regulations could have disastrous impacts even beyond the harm caused by burying streams and other waterways. Congress meant for the Clean Water Act to protect our nation's water resources; the Administrative rule change endangers those resources. The dangerous precedent set by the Administration's rule change undermines the Clean Water Act. This is why I have proposed the Clean Water Protection Act. This legislation would establish a definition for fill material in the Clean Water Act, such that no wastes could be used to bury our streams and wetlands. Creating a statutory definition of ``fill material'' that expressly excludes waste materials will end the need for further court proceedings and will clarify environmental law consistent with the purpose of the Clean Water Act--to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Clean air and water are not partisan issues; they are issues of vital importance to all Americans. We cannot let the Clean Water Act fade into history as simply a ``romantic ideal'', but rather we must ensure the protection of our waters, so that our grandchildren have streams to play in and clean water to drink. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to protect the quality and magnificent beauty of our nation's streams and wetlands.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the billing code system in the United States permits insurance reimbursement for health services and facilitates review of patient access and utilization of benefits. Mr. Speaker, the way we determine health policy, evaluate health care services and codify those services for reimbursement impacts our health care system in dramatic ways. In health care reimbursement, if there is no code for the product, it will not get reimbursed. Many Americans use complementary and alternative health care procedures, including nursing, chiropractic, acupuncture, naturopathic medicine, nutritional and botanical therapies. Too often there is no insurance reimbursement or inadequate reimbursement for these health- promoting services. And one reason is because there is no standardized tool to code these services and products. As a consequence, those who can afford it pay out of pocket and those who cannot are denied access. Right now the Current Procedure Terminology code, or CPT codes as it is called, is the only approved coding standard available for insurance reimbursement. It is geared strictly to services provided by physicians and does not have the capability to represent services by other licensed providers including nurses. The CPT codes cover only about a quarter of all health care services used by Americans, leaving out three quarters of all health care products and services used to stay healthy and prevent disease. This creates critical gaps in knowledge about the health care marketplace. On January 16, Health and Human Services Secretary Thompson authorized a pilot test of a new coding practice in accordance with the provisions and regulations governing the Health Insurance Portability Act that facilitates electronic transactions. These new codes supplement CPT codes and support tracking, measurement and analysis of the economic and health outcomes of complementary and alternative medicine, nursing and other forms of integrated health care. We have the opportunity as a result of this action to make major strides in addressing pressing issues in health care, accessibility, quality and cost management. Mr. Speaker, this new technology is a set of alphabetic codes, called ABC codes, that function in a manner similar to the bar codes in the retail industry. This innovative new technology can provide us as health policy-makers with a more complete and accurate picture of the way U.S. health care is managed, financed, and delivered in terms of what works and what does not. Head-to-head comparisons of conventional, complementary and alternative care are necessary to identify and advance the most health- promoting and cost-effective health care practices. Mr. Speaker, I learned about the ABC codes because they address many health care services that have been largely ignored and undervalued and because studies show it is much more cost-effective to prevent disease than to treat it after it has developed. The developers of ABC codes have designed ABC codes to fit into existing health care data fields, software application and information systems. So the cost and burden of implementation is small, but the benefits are large, and ABC codes help payers identify when reimbursement is justified as it relates to whether the provider is licensed under State law. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to pay close attention to this pilot program to learn of the value of integrating complementary health care and assisting us in developing a model of care that is more cost- effective and health promoting.

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. Mr. Salvatore Michael Schibell, who is being honored as the Man of the Year for the Amerigo Vespucci Society. Mr. Schibell is being honored for his untiring dedication and remarkable assistance to his community. Mr. Schibell, a native of Long Branch, attended Long Branch High School and later graduated from Monmouth University with a Bachelor's Degree in Accounting and a Master's Degree in Business Administration. In 1990, Mr. Schibell was awarded his Masters Degree in Tax Law by Fairleigh Dickenson University. He holds CPA Certificates in both New Jersey and New York. In 1989 Mr. Schibell was a founding partner of Rescinio, Schibell & Company. Prior to the formation of the firm, he spent fifteen years in public accounting, most of them with an international Big 6 firm. Formerly a senior manager, he left public accounting to serve eight years as the senior financial officer and general manager of a major beverage distributor. In 1993, Mr. Schibell became a partner of the accounting firm of Lawson, Rescinio, Schibell & Associates, P.C. in Oakhurst, NJ. Mr. Schibell's professional memberships are numerous, some of which include: The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New Jersey Society of Certified Public Accountants; Community Associates Institute, and the Estate Planning Council of Central New Jersey, for which he served as the past president and was on the Board of Trustees. In addition, Mr. Schibell has served on numerous committees for charitable organizations, such as: the Amerigo Vespucci Society, and the Ronald McDonald House in Long Branch. Presently, Mr. Schibell and his wife Lois reside in Eatontown, New Jersey where they enjoy the company of their four children Stephanie, Andy, Sean, and Denise and their first grandchild, Ashley Brook. On this day we celebrate and honor the distinguished Mr. Salvatore M. Schibell for his extensive accomplishments and his dedicated service to his community. I ask my colleagues to join with me in commending him in his dedication.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in May of 2002, over 11,000 Cuban citizens took a courageous stand and petitioned the Cuban National Assembly to hold a nationwide referendum vote on guarantees of human rights and civil liberties. Named for the 19th century priest and Cuban independence hero, Padre Felix Varela, the Varela Project was the first-ever peaceful challenge to Castro's four-decade-long control of the island. With its 11,000-plus signatures, the project qualified under article 88 of the Cuban constitution, which states that if the Cuban National Assembly receives the verified signatures of 10,000 legal voters, a referendum on the issue should be scheduled. Varela was the first-ever attempt to try and work within the system to bring about change in Cuba. Not surprisingly, Mr. Speaker, instead of allowing his parliament to consider Project Varela, Fidel Castro introduced his own so-called ``referendum'' that would stop future consideration of Project Varela and any other democratic reform efforts. Then, late last month, a Cuban legislative committee threw out the project, officially putting an end to Varela's hopes for peaceful reform. Despite this, Mr. Speaker, the project is far from over. The true aim of the project was not to win political support, but to bring hope to the Cuban people that peaceable change is possible. Oswaldo Paya and Varela's other organizers have worked to educate the Cuban people citizen by citizen and bring the struggles of the Cuban people to the world stage. It is my hope that many of my colleagues will support this project and it will continue. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude with one final note. In response to questions regarding the future of the Varela project, Varela's organizer Oswaldo Paya said only, ``Our Varela Project continues. It's a campaign to inform the Cuban people and we will continue until all Cubans achieve their rights.'' I want to commend those involved in Project Varela, that they continue for a long time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to Mr. Clifton Edward Pettiford. Mr. Pettiford passed away on Tuesday, January 21, 2003, in his hometown of Durham, North Carolina, after an extended illness. Mr. Pettiford was a dedicated, loving man and will be greatly missed by his friends and family. Clifton Pettiford was born on December 12, 1944, to the late Nathaniel and Evelyn Goss-Pettiford. He grew up and attended public schools in Durham and attended the North Carolina Central University. After graduating, Mr. Pettiford honored his country by serving in the United States Army and he received an Honorable Discharge. Clifton was a hard-working man as evidenced by his employment as a chef at Duke University Dining Halls in North Carolina and the Owens-Illinois Glass Company in Durham and Ingalls Shipbuilders in Pascagoula, Mississippi. Upon moving to New Jersey, Mr. Pettiford spent twenty years working at Midland and Anchor Glass Company until the plant closed in 1995. In November of 1997, Clifton took advantage of a job opportunity with Coors Brewery in Golden, Colorado, and he moved to Wheatridge, Colorado where he remained until the onset of his illness. In addition to his strong work ethic, Mr. Pettiford enjoyed volunteering his time to various organizations, of which I was fortunate enough to witness on many occasions. Clifton Pettiford was also a valued member of the Mount Zion AME Zion Church of Eatontown, New Jersey. Clifton was married to Wanda Parker-Pettiford from 1969 to 2002. He leaves behind a daughter Monica and a granddaughter Ymoni Pettiford- Tittle. In addition, he had four siblings, Alma, Glenda, Garrie, and James as well as numerous aunts, nieces, nephews, and cousins who will continue to cherish their fond memories of him. Clifton Edward Pettiford had many friends and colleagues who affectionately knew him as a fun-loving, giving individual who loved life and people. His friends and family greatly enjoyed his company and will sorely miss him. On this day, I ask my fellow colleagues to join with me in honoring and remembering this extraordinary individual.

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. Mr. Alfred A. Edmond, Jr. is the Senior Vice President and Editor in Chief of ``Black Enterprise'' Magazine--a premier source of business, investment, entrepreneurship, careers and financial management information for African Americans, as well as other racial and ethnic groups. I am pleased that he is the guest speaker at the Communications-Electronics Command and Fort Monmouth, New Jersey's annual Black History Month Luncheon on February 5, 2003. This year's Black History Month theme is ``The Souls of Black Folk--100th Anniversary'' in commemoration of the publication of the book by the noted author, newspaper and publications editor, historian and professor Dr. W.E.B. Dubois. Mr. Edmond, a native of Long Branch, New Jersey, who currently resides in Brooklyn, New York, will be honored today for his accomplishments as a business and financial editor and leader. As Senior Vice President and Editor in Chief, Mr. Edmond oversees the research, planning, development and publication of information on entrepreneurship, leadership, careers, professional development and financial management to 4.1 million readers monthly. A talented and highly motivated individual, Mr. Edmond also provides motivational and self-development ``words of wisdom'' to the magazines' readers. An award-winning reporter and editor, Mr. Edmond was selected for three consecutive years (1998-2000) by TJFR Business News Reporter as one of the 100 Most Influential Financial Journalists in the country. Mr. Edmond attended Long Branch High School where he was inducted into its Distinguished Alumni Academic Hall of Fame in 1996. He graduated in 1983 from Rutgers College at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey in New Brunswick with a degree in studio art and a minor in economics. Mr. Edmond led a Steering Committee in establishing the Rutgers University African American Alumni Alliance in 1990. He also served as an adjunct professor in the journalism department at Rutgers University. Ms. Nancey Jackson-Johnson, a native of Newark, New Jersey who now resides in Freehold, New Jersey will perform as guest soloist and be recognized at this luncheon for her talent and accomplishments. In 1997, Ms. Jackson-Johnson recorded her debut album entitled ``Free, Yes I'm Free.'' With the success of her debut album she released her sophomore project entitled ``Relationship'' in 1999. She was also a 1999 Stella Award Nominee for Contemporary Female Artist of the Year. Ms. Nancey Jackson-Johnson was the guest soloist at the Communications- Electronics Command and Fort Monmouth's Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Birthday Observance in January of 2003 and received rave reviews. On this day we celebrate and honor the distinguished Mr. Alfred A. Edmond for his extensive accomplishments as a business editor and leader. I ask my colleagues to join with me in commending him in his dedication to his magazine and its readers.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to one of the most important dates on the calendar for the people of India, as well as for the people of Indian descent who have settled in the United States and around the world. January 26th is Republic Day, an occasion that inspires pride and patriotism for the people of India. On January 26, 1950, India became a Republic, devoted to the principals of democracy and secularism. At that time, Dr. Rajendra Prasad was elected as the nation's first president. Since then, despite the challenges of sustaining economic development and promoting tolerance and cooperation amongst its many ethnic, religious and linguistic communities, India has stuck to the path of free and fair elections, a multi-party political system and the orderly transfer of power from one government to its successor. On that special day in 1950, India adopted its Constitution. It should be noted that India derived key aspects of her Constitution, particularly its statement of Fundamental Rights, from our own Bill Of Rights. On the eve of Republic Day several years ago, India's President K.R. Narayanan stated in his address to the nation: ``Let us remember, it is under the flexible and spacious provisions of our Constitution, that democracy has flourished during the last fifty years and that India has achieved an unprecedented unity and cohesion as a nation and made remarkable progress in the social and economic fields.'' India and the United States both proclaimed their independence from British colonial rule. The Indian independence movement under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi had strong moral support from American intellectuals, political leaders and journalists. Just this week, we paid tribute to one of our greatest American leaders, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King derived many of his ideas of non-violent resistance to injustice from the teachings and the actions of Mahatma Gandhi. As the world's two largest democracies, the United States and India have a natural relationship, based on their shared values of diversity, democracy and prosperity. These two countries have steadily grown closer for the past ten years, and most recently, the United States' campaign to fight global terrorism has brought the two countries even closer. Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001 India was one of the first countries to come forward to the United States with an offer of full assistance and cooperation in this new global fight against terrorism. Prime Minister Vajpayee expressed his deep sympathy regarding the World Trade Center attacks. The attacks in fact took the lives of 250 Indians and Indian-Americans. Since September 11, there have been terrorist attacks against India on a near daily basis. India has sadly been afflicted with terrorism from Pakistani-based terrorist groups that are to be blamed for over 53,000 deaths of innocent Indian citizens throughout the last 15 years. These are in fact the same terrorist groups that belong to the terrorist networks the United States is now fighting against. It is only natural that these two countries are now united in the global fight against terrorism. Lastly, I want to note that throughout the South Asian region, India stands alone as a pillar of democracy, stability and growth. I join both Indians in India and over 1.8 million Indians living here in the United States in celebrating India's Republic Day.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, for too long, Great Britain has used its military and police forces to oppress our friends, family and loved ones in Northern Ireland. It is now time that Prime Minister Tony Blair and the British Parliament take immediate steps to right centuries of murders, anti-catholic bias and oppression. As all of you know far too well, the case of Peter McBride is appalling and reprehensible. I find it unconscionable that the two men who were tried convicted and sentenced for the murder of Peter, were not only released from prison but were allowed to rejoin the Scots Guard. This is absurd. I am proud to lend my voice in calling on Great Britain to immediately remove these two guardsmen. I also stand with you today in calling on Great Britain to immediately reinstate the power sharing government that was created by the Good Friday Accords. As many of you know, last October, Prime Minister Blair suspended the Belfast Assembly. The Good Friday Accords and more specifically the participation of all parties in the power sharing government are the only real solution to lasting peace in Northern Ireland. However, the only way for the agreements and power-sharing institutions to succeed is for Unionists to immediately accept equality amongst all citizens and parties in the North. The Protestant ruling parties must cease their stall tactics and work within the confines of the agreement to create a government that will be representative of all residents of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland must also immediately implement all of the Patten Commission's recommendations. The North must provide its citizens with a full, fair and just reform of their police service. The PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland) must be representative of all ethnic, religious and political groups in Northern Ireland. Prime Minister Blair should immediately demand a full implementation of the Patten police recommendations and ensure that Northern Ireland has a police service that is representative of all parties involved. Once the Northern Ireland Assembly is reinstated, the first item on their agenda should be to provide the citizens of Northern Ireland with a Constitutional Bill of Rights. Northern Ireland should draw from the experiences of the U.S. and South Africa, and create a binding document that specifically lays out the liberties and rights of all the residents of the North. Citizens of Northern Ireland should be guaranteed the right against unreasonable search and seizures, the right against being detained without charges filed and the right to openly practice one's religion. It is my hope that Prime Minister Blair will take immediate action on reinstatement of the Belfast Assembly and come to his senses and terminate these two Scots Guards. I hope that we will honor Peter McBride's memory by continuing our fight for equality and self-rule in Northern Ireland. Again, while we should never forget Peter's murder, we should use this atrocity as a basis for human rights and police reform in the North. I look forward to continuing to work for the right of all citizens of Northern Ireland.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), and I want to, in particular, mention two things that he stressed which I think fit into this concern that I have about what I call the credibility gap: the fact that the President makes certain commitments about how he is going to deal or solve the problems we have, but then he does not follow through with his actions. One thing the gentleman made a very good point about was the homeland security. What is really in many people's minds, the most important issue right now, is homeland security, worried about another attack by terrorists. The President made much of the fact that he was creating a new homeland security department and that this was going to be a priority. And, yet, as the gentleman said, when we go back to our districts, literally, a week does not go by when one town or someone who is from a civil defense program or a fire department or a mayor or a State legislator complains to me about how the funds have not come back to the counties or to the municipalities to deal with homeland security issues. These are basic things. You need money for certain purposes if you are going to make us more secure. In my case in New Jersey in the counties I represent, we had over 200 people die at the World Trade Center. I remember during that whole incident one of the things that a lot of the local defense people talked about is the need to upgrade communication systems, and they were looking for Federal funds for that. The President makes a big to-do about homeland security, and I am sure he will mention it tonight in his State of the Union address, but does not follow through with the funding so that we can improve communication, for example, in New Jersey for homeland security purposes. Then again he is not making good on his commitment. The gentleman also mentioned the issue with regard to State aid which I think is so crucial. The Democrats have said that as part of an economic stimulus package we will give a significant amount of money back to the States. I think it is $30 to $40 billion, or something like that, because we know that they face a huge fiscal crisis. But not only is he not providing for any money to go back to the States for any kind of significant purpose, but as I understand it with this tax dividend, elimination of the tax dividend, it actually makes the States' fiscal crises even worse. The way it does this is, first, the Bush plan to eliminate Federal taxes on corporate dividends will lead to a drop in State revenues; since State income tax laws are tied to the Federal law, the States will also generally stop taxing dividends. And his proposal to end taxation of dividends will cost State governments $4 billion this year and $45 billion to $50 billion over the next decade according to Harley Duncan, executive director of the Federation of Tax Administrators. So he will make the situation of the State even worse, and I am glad that the gentleman pointed that out among the other things he did. Mr. Speaker, I see our new colleague from Maine is here. I just wanted to say, I know this is not necessarily on point, although I think it is related to what we are talking about, I just wanted the gentleman to know I admire him greatly for his role with the prescription drug plan in Maine, and what he and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and others have tried to do as Democrats to improve the situation with regard to the costs of prescription drugs. Once again tonight we understand that the President is going to talk about Medicare reform, but again his promise of Medicare reform falls flat because he is talking about a prescription drug benefit that you would only get if you go outside of Medicare and buy a private plan. I remember the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) talking about the problem. I do not know if this gentleman has any HMOs that take Medicare in Maine anymore, but these gentlemen are doing a good job trying to deal with that issue, and I think the President is just coming up with smoke and mirrors.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The whole goal of this Special Order is to say do not mislead us. If we have a State of the Union Address tonight, be honest where we are going, what we are going to accomplish and what it is going to cost. We are not going to be able to do it all, and the President basically has to confront that issue, and I hope he does.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman brought up this issue of the debt. I would like to end this Special Order with that issue because I think it is so important. I remember when I was first elected, which was about 15 years ago now, and a Member used to come down every afternoon or evening during this time of Special Orders with a huge sort of digital clock that ran the length of this podium here that had the amount of the debt and how it was increasing every minute or 15 minutes, and the Republican Party were in the minority then, and they made that a basic premise. We had to get rid of this Federal deficit. Finally when we did under President Clinton, the last couple of years we had a surplus, that is when the economy was in the boom times. We all know if we create a surplus, it helps the economy. The Federal Government is not taking away money that private industry uses to create new jobs and new production. Even in the President's State of the Union Address last year, the President said that he wanted to control the debt. If there was any debt, it would be short-term, it would not continue to grow. Now all of a sudden silence as if it does not matter anymore. I have one statistic. It was in the New York Times January 16 when the OMB Director Daniels suggested that the budget is not likely to be in surplus in the next 10 years. I do not want to say that Republicans do not care, but they seem to be really downplaying this as if it does not matter. The gentleman from Wisconsin is right, this is essentially an inheritance tax on our children. They are going to have to pay it back. I wish we would hear something from the President about how he is going to deal with this deficit because from what I can understand, if we were able to implement his economic stimulus package, if we then made the tax cuts that were passed last year permanent, and then add the cost of the war in Iraq, which might be 2- to $300 billion, if that happens, we could be talking about a couple-trillion-dollar deficit. I do not understand how, and again it goes back to the credibility gap. He makes commitments how we are going to keep the deficit under control, and then we find out it is very much the opposite. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I appreciate what the gentleman has said; and I thank him for coming down here, as he often does. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield now to my colleague from Wisconsin.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Speaker. I know that he has always been a champion for veterans. And that gag rule, I read about it in the paper; and it upset me a great deal. In fact, in the last 2 weeks something similar happened with Medicare providers. They sent out to the contractors who run the Medicare program a memo essentially saying the same thing, that we do not want you to go out and do any kind of outreach to tell people about what services are available under Medicare. The sad thing about it is that we are often dealing with frail people. We are dealing with a lot of elderly people with Medicare and also with these veterans benefits. As the gentleman mentioned, in some small towns they may not have the normal means of finding out about what is available. So it is really unfortunate, and again it goes back to this credibility gap I keep talking about. The President gives the impression, I am sure he will do it again tonight, about how he wants to provide Medicare coverage and expand for prescription drugs and all these great things in the health care sphere, but in reality we find these memos telling the departments not to tell anybody what is even available now, let alone expand the program. It is totally inconsistent.