Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I would like to make some remarks. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3488 to name the Long Branch, New Jersey Post Office after a hero, Detective Sergeant Pat King. Long Branch is my hometown and November 20, 1997, was a very sad day for us in the City of Long Branch. On that day, Officer Pat King was killed by a career criminal from out of state who made his living promoting prostitution and selling drugs. On this particular day, the assailant went gunning for a police officer, any police officer, and he found Pat King. Sergeant King was killed because he was simply wearing an officer's uniform. Following the shooting, the assailant went on an hour long crime spree, including a chase and exchange of gunfire that injured other officers. He finally shot himself with a second gun, Officer King's gun. Mr. Speaker, my bill, H.R. 3488, names the Long Branch Post Office after Pat King. Officer King, 45 years old at the time, was the most decorated police officer in the history of the City of Long Branch. By passing this bill, this body not only pays tribute to Pat King it honors all 305 police officers across the country who died last year at the hands of vicious criminals. Mr. Speaker, for a police officer, the mere act of donning a uniform makes him an immediate target for sick and criminal minds. Each call presents dangers and threats that we cannot begin to imagine. It is my hope that in naming the post office after Pat King we will be paying tribute to individuals so dedicated to their fellow human beings that they are willing to die to protect our safety. It is a way to honor bravery and unselfishness at a time when we question whether it still exists and it is a way to remind young people that dedicating a career to helping others is still a path deeply admired by their community. To Pat's widow, Maureen, and her sons Patrick and Todd, I say that I hope this tribute provides them with some small comfort that their husband and father will not be forgotten, not by the people of Long Branch and not by the Congress of the United States. Mr. Speaker, if I could, I wanted to thank the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), for helping me bring this bill to the floor this evening on unanimous consent. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today I want to speak about the need for the Turkish government to recognize the basic human rights of the Kurdish people, and I rise this afternoon to condemn recent, though ongoing, violations of these rights in Turkey. I have always said the Kurds must be respected as a people, the world must finally listen to and respect their aspirations, and that they should enjoy the same right of choosing their representatives as other people do all over the world. The Turkish government has not accepted the validity of the Kurdish struggle or even of the Kurdish people. They have jailed leaders, but the message of these leaders continues to ring loud and clear. Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks, the Turkish government has extended a 13-year-old state of emergency in four mainly Kurdish provinces for an additional 4 months, and who knows what will happen at the end of those 4 months in terms of another extension. Further, the extension of emergency rule occurred despite the European commission's formal expression that the lifting of emergency rule is an objective for Turkey to achieve. On December 4, The Washington Post reported that the director of a Kurdish linguistics institute in Istanbul is facing a trial on charges that the institute is an illegal business. The charges come despite the fact that Turkish security courts have hired interpreters from this very institute for the past 8 years. This incident illustrates the type of human rights violations infringements that continue to occur but that must be halted immediately against the Kurdish people. I call upon my colleagues to join me, Mr. Speaker, in urging the Turkish government to immediately grant basic rights to Kurdish citizens in Turkey and more formally and fully recognize the Kurdish people. This should include lifting the extension of emergency rule, lifting all bans on Kurdish-language television, cinema, and all forms of fine arts and culture. Bans on language and culture are particularly disturbing because the lands of Kurdistan are considered by many to be the birthplace of the history of human culture. It saddens me that there is still a need to be on the floor protesting violations of these most basic yet essential human rights. Mr. Speaker, back in 1997, I addressed the American Kurdish Information Network on the cultural oppression of Kurds by the Turkish government and on the Turks' squelching of Kurdish language and culture. At that time, 153 Members of Congress expressed their disapproval of the antidemocratic treatment of elected Kurdish representatives in the Turkish parliament. In April of this year, a number of my colleagues joined me in introducing a House Resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release from prison of certain Kurdish Members of the Turkish parliament and for prompt recognition of full Kurdish cultural and language rights within Turkey. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am continuing the fight on behalf of the Kurdish people, because their voices are still repressed, although the conflict between the government and separatist Kurdish guerrillas in the southeast has subsided significantly since the arrest last year of the Kurdish Workers Party leader, Abdullah Ocalan. Fears by hard-line Turkish nationalists that any recognition of Kurdish identity will fragment Turkey and strengthen separatism seem unwarranted based on the decline in tensions. Mr. Speaker, Turkey must negotiate with the Turkish leaders. Turkey must lift its blockade of Armenia also. Turkey must end its military occupation of northern Cyprus. Such a change in behavior would benefit everyone in the region, including the Turkish people. I hope my colleagues will join me in delivering these important messages to the Turkish government at every possible opportunity.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the achievements of my constituent and friend, Dr. Lou Pullano, Ed.D, of Long Branch, N.J. Lou is retiring from Brookdale Community College, Lincroft, N.J., after 28 years of outstanding service as a professor and administrator. Lou has made many remarkable contributions to the local and educational communities of Monmouth County over the course of his career. Perhaps his most outstanding achievement and lasting contribution is the creation of the Brookdale College Radio Station, WBJB 90.5 FM. This small station has grown in listenership and is now recognized as a leading model for school-sponsored stations. In fact, I understand it is now broadcasting with National Public Radio. Lou's career at Brookdale has been varied and far-reaching, thereby accounting for the tremendous love and respect in which he is held by thousands of students, current and former. For many years, he was a faculty member and professor of Communications Media and became director of Arts Communications, which included the departments of Music, Arts, Graphics, Theater and Speech. In addition, he was more recently named Brookdale Director of Telecommunication Technologies, which includes radio and cable television broadcasts, and in charge of the Performing Arts Center at Brookdale. Now, upon his retirement, he is also in charge of Distance Education Programs. Lou is among those who have made Brookdale Community College the educational gem that it is among community colleges in New Jersey and across the country. I know I speak for all the students past and present at Brookdale, as well as the community of Long Branch and the County of Monmouth, when I wish Lou well in his retirement and thank him for his many years of outstanding and dedicated service.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted tonight to spend a few minutes saying, first of all, that I am pleased that the Government of Pakistan has positively responded to India's month-long cease-fire in Kashmir. I think many of us know that about a week ago, India declared a cease-fire unilaterally, hoping that it would get a positive response from Pakistan as well as from some of the secessionist or separatist organizations that operate within Kashmir. We have found out over the weekend that Pakistan did decide, as the foreign secretary said, to observe maximum restraint with regard to its troops that were deployed along the disputed border in Kashmir. Last week, Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the Pakistani ambassador in Washington asking his government to accept India's call for a cease- fire, and I was very pleased again to hear that Pakistan's foreign secretary had indicated now that they will also observe it. In addition, I thought it was particularly relevant that the All Parties Hurriyat Conference had indicated that they might be prepared to begin talks or negotiations with India with regard to Kashmir. Certainly having them come back to the table and have discussions with the Indian government with regard to Kashmir is a positive sign. Between the Pakistani actions and the actions of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, we might actually see some positive developments over the next few weeks or the next few months with regard to peace in Kashmir. However, in the midst of all this, I found it very unfortunate that the Kashmiri Pandits, the Hindus as well as the Sikhs, who are a minority in Kashmir, continue to be the victims of violence. Over the weekend again, we heard, in fact, on Friday that four sleeping Hindu children between the ages of 3 and 15 years old were shot and killed in a remote Kashmiri mountain village. This is the third attack on Kashmiri Pandits in less than a week since India declared the cease- fire. Again, why is it that the minorities in Kashmir, the Pandits, the Hindu minority as well as the Sikhs who have also suffered and some have been killed over the last week since the cease-fire, continue to be the subject of these attacks? I can only hope that with the joint cease-fire that now appears to be in existence and the fact that there may be talks with some of the separatist groups, that the violence against minorities such as the Pandits and the Sikhs will stop, because for too long they have been the victims, if you will, more than any other group, of the problems and of the violence and of the continued dispute over Kashmir. Mr. Speaker, today I wrote a letter to the Pakistani ambassador in Washington not only thanking him for deciding to go ahead with the cease-fire but also asking that steps be taken to try to end the violence against the Pandits. I wrote a similar letter to the Indian ambassador in Washington, not only commending him and Prime Minister Vajpayee for sticking with this Ramadan cease-fire for the month but also asking that steps be taken by the Indian government to try to protect the Kashmiri Pandits as well. I wanted to add, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Vajpayee, has to be commended not only for unilaterally declaring the cease-fire last week but also for doing so despite the fact that the separatist militants continued with their violent acts over this last week and despite the fact that many domestic opponents criticized his action. Prime Minister Vajpayee has told me many times that he cares for the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits and understands that there will never be peace in Kashmir unless they can live in their homes without fear. I also ask once again that when any peace talks take place over the next few weeks, that the status of the Pandits and their security also be raised in the context of those peace talks. If we are ever going to see toleration of all religions in Kashmir, it is certainly necessary that steps be taken now to protect them, to protect their security, and that reference be made to their status in the context of any peace talks that might take place.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Certainly. I would certainly yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. I agree. And if the gentleman would just yield to me once more, very briefly, I strongly believe that we have to do whatever we can to make sure that a person's vote counts. If we do not, then what is going to happen is people are going to say why should I bother to vote. The bottom line is that last Tuesday was a great day because so many people came out to vote. I know in my own district, in my own State of New Jersey, there was an overwhelming turnout. It was grand to see so many people come out because they thought it was going to be a close election, and it was, and they knew their vote would count. So let us not let them down by saying that their vote does not count, or something is done to make sure that their vote does not count. Because that will certainly discourage people from voting in the future, and I certainly do not want that to happen. And, lastly, I would say this. Let us not make this a partisan process. I have to say that I am very partisan, as the gentleman knows, when I come to the floor of the House and I talk about issues. But this is not a question of an issue or a bill; this is a question of our democracy and upholding the Constitution. I would just expect that both sides of the aisle would simply not make this into a partisan battle. One may feel the votes should count or not count, or they may feel strongly about how people should exercise their right to vote; but let us not start the name calling, the way I heard before, against the candidates or against the parties or against the representatives. I do not really believe anybody wants that, and we should refrain from that. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my two colleagues from California. I do not intend to use a lot of time, but I just wanted to say that I totally agree with what the gentlewoman has said. It disturbed me a great deal, to be honest, when I heard some of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle come here earlier this evening and sort of deride the process. I think at one point one of our colleagues from the Republican side suggested that the campaign manager for the Democrats was involved in fraud or that his father was involved in fraud. These kinds of comments are totally inappropriate. I do not even know if they are allowed under the rules of the House. As the gentlewoman said, let us not get into this partisan argument and start calling names tonight. All the gentleman from California is saying, from what I understand, and I respect the gentleman a great deal for it, is that he just wants the will of the people to be heard. The gentleman just wants to make sure that if somebody voted, or intended to vote a certain way, that they be counted; that their sacred right to vote, which we cherish under our form of government, not be taken from them. I just want to make two comments in that regard. One is that, again, it upset me today to think that the Republicans had gone into court to stop the recount. We know that these manual recounts occur from time to time and are necessary from time to time. I was actually involved with one myself going back almost 20 years, I think it was in 1981, when we had a very close gubernatorial race. I had to sit in a room and watch and see whether those, we called them chits in New Jersey, I guess they call them chads in Florida, to see whether they were actually punctured and the votes were counted. Ultimately it did not make that much of a difference in terms of the total vote count; but at least people were assured that someone was looking carefully, and in this case a number of people looking carefully, to make sure that their vote counted and their intention to vote a certain way was carried forth. I feel the same way about this whole manual recount, and the gentleman's suggestion there about how this ballot was set up. I do not know whether this will end up in court or not; but it really pains me to think that anyone, whether they be Republican, as some of them earlier, a Democrat or anybody, would suggest that the will of the people should not be carried forth. I think there is a real philosophical difference here. I heard some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle saying, well, people have to be very careful when they go into vote; treat it as a solemn occasion and do not get it wrong. It is as if someone gets it wrong, that is their own problem; that is their fault; they have to carry the personal responsibility of having gotten it wrong. Well, the bottom line is that if the ballot is set up in a way to confuse and it is obvious the intent was to vote for a certain candidate and the vote was discarded, it seems to me it is incumbent upon us to make sure that that vote counts; whether there is a manual recount to check to see whether the chit was punctured or whether a new vote has to occur to make sure the people whose ballots were thrown out get an opportunity to vote. It just seems to me that what we want is for the people to be able to exercise their right to vote.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to two of my longest serving and most loyal staffers, Jim and Betty McCann, who retired this year from my New Brunswick district office. Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual to have an outstanding individual on your staff for a long time, but to have two outstanding individuals who also happen to be married to each other is most unusual and most fortunate for me. Jim and Betty McCann worked for my predecessor, the late Congressman James Howard, in the 1980s. Jim Howard recognized early on that Jim and Betty had the talent and the personalities to handle the varied and difficult job of running a congressional district office. Just as we know that not everyone has the special skills needed to be a successful politician, so, too, not everyone has the versatility and interpersonal and organizational skills to survive and excel on a congressional staff. After Jim Howard passed away and I was elected in 1988, I urged Betty and Jim to stay on and work for me. When redistricting reshaped the districts in New Jersey and I ran and won in the Sixth Congressional District, I set up a new office in New Brunswick, New Jersey, in the Middlesex County portion of my district. Jim and Betty's experience on congressional and case work matters were very important to the success of my new office, which handled a tremendous amount of constituent casework and important projects in the most populous and ethnically diverse area of my district. In all those years, I did not think I ever heard a word of complaint about the operation of the New Brunswick District Office. I knew it was being well administered, so I could divert my attention to other important issues in Middlesex County, secure in the knowledge that the equally important constituent matters were being carefully attended to. I was often complimented in person and in letters about Jim and Betty's service to the Sixth District, and I would like to quote from some of the hundreds of letters that I have received thanking me, or thanking me for their efforts, over the years. The first, Mr. Speaker, is from a physician in my district. He writes: ``Dear Congressman Pallone: I am writing this letter to thank you and your outstanding office staff for the great effort in dealing with my difficult case. Mrs. McCann has been very helpful, sincere, and had the leading role in solving my complicated case. Over the past few months, I have been dealing with Mrs. McCann, and she has always been very cooperative and always walks the extra mile to get things done properly. I was very impressed by her knowledge of the immigration laws and rules and her superior ability to approach a difficult case like mine. . . . She is a superb caseworker.'' I have another letter from a retired lieutenant colonel regarding Jim McCann. It says, ``Dear Congressman Pallone, I am writing to thank you and a member of your staff, Jim McCann, for responding so quickly and effectively to my family in time of need. My wife's brother recently died after a long illness. He was a retired Navy Chief Petty Officer and wished to be buried at sea. Because of Jim McCann, who made the arrangements with the Coast Guard in New Jersey and who personally appeared at dockside on the day of the burial, the occasion proceeded smoothly. I was struck by how quietly and efficiently Mr. McCann coordinated the details without intruding on the grief of the immediate family. He is a very considerate individual who gave up a good portion of his Saturday to represent your office. I am personally very grateful.'' Mr. Speaker, Jim and Betty epitomize the best in congressional service. Working long and hard and not seeking the limelight, they loyally served the residents of the Sixth Congressional District by walking that extra mile to get things done properly. I want to thank them deeply, and wish them a happy and productive retirement.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I think the only thing I can conclude is that the major difference, of course, is that, by the time the bill came to the floor, it was weighted heavily in favor of the HMOs. Of course I conclude that that is because the majority, the Republican leadership wanted to give a lot more money to the HMOs. I think that is really what happened. I just wanted to make a few points. I do not want to belabor it too much, because I do not know how much more time we have or how much my colleagues want to speak. But I would say that the three issues that I sort of highlighted and that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) have highlighted also over the last 2 years, when we talk about health care, HMO reform, prescription drug benefit under Medicare and trying to help the 40 million plus uninsured all relate to this bill that we have been talking about tonight. What the Democrats try to do and what we did on a bipartisan basis in the Committee on Commerce with the bill actually helped in each of those areas in some ways because probably the biggest initiative to try to deal with the uninsured was the kids health care initiative that we passed on a bipartisan basis a couple years ago. In this bill that we were trying to bring to the floor last week as an alternative to the Republicans with their HMOs, we actually expanded the kids health care program to do more outreach and to sign up more kids so that we would actually reduce the ranks of the uninsured. In addition, in this bill, we talk about HMO reform. In the bill, there was an appeals process for people under Medicare who had been denied an operation or length of stay in the hospital a particular procedure by the HMO, that they could take an appeal where they were granted rights very similar to the Patients' Bill of Rights that passed in this House on a bipartisan basis. But of course the Republican leadership has stymied. So in that bill, which, again, they rejected, we actually would try to make a little bit of a step towards HMO reform as well. Then, finally, the whole issue of prescription drugs was addressed to some extent because, right now, the main way that people get prescription drugs under Medicare is if they are able to sign up for an HMO. What we did in our bill was to say that, if the HMOs are going to get more money, they had to stay in the program for 3 years, and they could not reduce their benefits, which is primarily prescription drugs. So with this bill that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) was talking about, this Democratic, really, bipartisan alternative that the Republican leadership rejected, we were in some small way addressing each of these major health care issues that the gentleman from Texas, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and I have been talking about and trying to address. So granted there is not any time left before the election, but when we come back for the lame duck session, if we could manage to get this alternative with regard to the givebacks, the higher Medicare reimbursement rate passed, we would make a small step towards dealing with some of these health care issues, in my opinion. It is very unfortunate that the Republican leadership rejected this and just went ahead with this bill that really does nothing but help the HMOs without any accountability. I mean, it is one of the reasons that I am so upset with the fact that they rejected this and they refused to negotiate, and essentially nothing is happening. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just have to reiterate the same thing. I mean, the bottom line is that we are having these discussions about what should be or what legislation we would like to see pass, but there is absolutely no way that any of it can because the other body has left. So probably the best thing to leave everyone with tonight is the notion and the understanding that all these suggestions about working or continuing the session over the next few days just do not make any sense because there is no way to get anything done as long as the other body has left. I just wanted to say a couple of things now. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) brought up this whole issue of the balanced budget amendment givebacks or however we are describing it, the problem, with the balanced budget agreement, that we still have a problem with our hospitals, our nursing homes, because the reimbursement level is not high enough, and the effort that we have been trying to work on a bipartisan basis, theoretically, to try to work that out and give some more money back. It is interesting because we have been critical of the Republican proposal that was voted on last week because it basically gave most of the money or the lion's share of the money to the HMOs without any accountability and did not give enough money to the hospitals, the nursing homes, the home health cares, the basic providers of health care services. But the bill that the gentleman from Texas talked about, the Democratic alternative, actually the one that we brought up as an alternative to this Republican bill, actually, when I look at it, most of it was actually adopted in my committee in the Committee on Commerce on a bipartisan basis. I do not know exactly what happened to it after it left the Committee on Commerce because we had a unanimous vote with both Democrats and Republicans to do exactly what the gentleman is proposing, which would have helped the hospitals and nursing homes. Somehow, by the time it got from the committee to the floor, it changed dramatically to what we have now. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. PALLONE. Exactly. That is why they said they would not do it. In fact, they had the example we mentioned several times here on the floor where I think it was back in March of this year the State of Nevada passed on a State level a plan or proposal that was very similar to the Republican model that the gentleman mentioned, and for something like 6 months they could not get any insurance company to come in and even propose to sell the insurance. I was told a couple of weeks ago they finally got one company that says that they might be able to do it, but I have to see over the next few weeks whether that happens or not. But for 6 months they could not find anybody to even consider it, for exactly the same reason, that it is a benefit that everybody is going to take advantage of. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), who has been on our Health Care Task Force. He is one of the co-chairs for the whole 2 years, and has talked a lot about this.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman said, because in fact, and I think the same person who represented the health insurance industry who addressed the Committee on Commerce that I am on went to the gentleman's Committee on Ways and Means hearing when the Republican prescription drug proposal came up, and he said, I forget his name, I think Kahn is his name, he said exactly that. He said the reason that this Republican proposal will not work is because the prescription drugs are a benefit, they are not something that is a risk, so everybody wants it. Everybody is going to sign up. Everybody needs the prescription drugs, and no insurance company is going to insure something that everybody is going to take advantage of.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention briefly what happened with the HMOs, this bill that was mentioned that came up last week. In New Jersey, and I think nationwide, we know that only 15 percent of the seniors are in an HMO, only 15 percent of the Medicare recipients are in an HMO. In my district, and I am sure in many of my colleagues, I guess it was July 1 or just prior thereto, a lot of the seniors who were signed up for the HMOs got a notice saying that by the end of the year they were going to be dropped. They were very upset and they called my office and they wrote to me. A lot of them did not even know that they could go back to the traditional Medicare, which they can, but as my colleagues know, that traditional Medicare does not have a prescription drug benefit. So they were very upset with the fact that they were being dropped. I, in response to that, actually introduced a bill that would give a higher reimbursement rate to the HMOs, but I also realized that just giving them more money was not going to be good enough, that we had to put some kind of accountability in there. And as my colleagues know, I have talked about and we have actually voted on it, although the Republicans voted against it, the idea that they would have to stay in the system, in the Medicare system, for 3 years if they have a higher reimbursement rate, and they could not reduce their benefits, they could not, you know, for example, decide they were not going to observe prescription drugs. Of course, Republicans opposed that. What basically the Republican leadership did with this bill is to say we are going to give you all this extra money. The gentleman mentioned $11 billion, and that is about 40-some percent of the total that is going in this bill back to providers, between the hospitals, the nursing homes, the home health agencies, the HMOs. The HMOs get over 40 percent, yet they only represent 15 percent of the seniors. They are dropping almost a million seniors now since they got involved in the Medicare program. It is just crazy. How do you do that? How do you do that? The answer is very simple, and that is because the HMOs are aligned with the Republican leadership, and they are opposing the HMO reform. They are opposing the Medicare prescription drug, and they basically take the money that they get and they use it to lobby and to work against candidates who support Medicare prescription drug benefit and HMO reform. Mr. Speaker, I mean it is just so obvious how this special interest money is operating here. They just want to give more money to the HMO. I do not know how they get away with it. Hopefully they will not get away with it. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleagues. I think that we have made the point well this evening that we really want to get the work done and we want to accomplish things for the average American. Our only frustration tonight has been that we know that the Senate is out and there is no time to do this between now and election day. So let us just hope that tomorrow as the gentleman from Texas said that we stop the partisan bickering and basically recognize the fact that the time has run out and the only way we are going to accomplish this is when we come back after the election.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening I was concerned because I think the impression was being given by the Republican leadership and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that if we stayed here the next few days, that we were going to be able to accomplish something. I think that was a false impression, because we all know that the other body has already gone home and passed a continuing resolution that brings the other body back I think on November 13 or 14. So as much as my House colleagues and the Republican leadership here in the House may feel that they are accomplishing something by being here for the next few days prior to the election, the bottom line is that they cannot accomplish anything because the other body, the Senate, is simply not here. So it is hard for me to understand why my colleagues on the Republican side are being critical because some Members of either party do not happen to be here, because we all know that absolutely nothing can be accomplished. I have listened to the debate back and forth in the last hour or two, and I know that what we are trying to do, what my Republican colleagues were trying to do, certainly, was to suggest that there have been great accomplishments made in this Congress. I have been very critical of the fact, particularly with regard to health care, that the issues that the American people really care about, the ones that affect their lives, whether it be Medicare prescription drugs, because they do not have access to prescription drugs or because they are not affordable, or the issue of HMO abuse and the need for reform of the HMO system, these types of issues have not been addressed. Also, there is the issue of trying to deal with the uninsured. We have now 42 million Americans who do not have health insurance. That needs to be addressed. It is not being addressed. Reference was made to the fact that the Democrats have been trying to pass a labor-health appropriations bill that would provide additional funding for local education, give money back to the school districts around the country so they can hire more teachers and reduce class size, give money back so they can modernize their schools, renovate school buildings that are falling apart, or build new schools where there is overcrowding. That has been a major issue in one of these appropriation bills that is still outstanding, yet it has not been addressed by the Republican leadership. There are so many issues like that. The larger issue of what we are going to do about social security and Medicare is important, because we know that in another 20 or 30 years the money is going to start to run out, and the question is whether or not we are going to have some kind of long-term plan to do that, to deal with that. These are the issues that my constituents talk about when I go home. They are concerned about quality education, they are concerned about health care, they are concerned about retirement security with regard to social security. These issues have not been addressed. There is absolutely no way those issues are going to be addressed in the next few days prior to the election, so to suggest somehow that they could be I think is just basically a hoax, if you will, on the American people. There is no basis to it whatsoever. Several times my colleagues, myself and others, have made reference particularly to an editorial that was in the New York Times just this past Wednesday, November 1. I thought that pretty much summed it up. I am not going to read the whole editorial, but it is entitled ``An Ineffectual Congress.'' It says: ``The 106th Congress, with little to show for its 2 years of existence, has all but vanished from public discourse.'' What they mean by that is that nobody is really paying attention to what we do anymore. It is no wonder that certain numbers of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have gone home prior to the election, because they know that there is nothing to be done here. The editorial continues. It says: ``Nobody, least of all the presidential candidates, are talking about this particular Congress, and the reason is plain. On almost every matter of importance, gun control, Patients' Bill of Rights, energy deregulation, social security, Congress has done little or nothing, failing to produce a record worthy of either celebration or condemnation.'' I suppose it is the ultimate ridicule when the New York Times tells them that they have done neither anything good nor bad, they have done nothing at all. ``Nor has the Congress been able to complete even the most basic business, the appropriation bills that keep the government functioning. Three have been vetoed. Absent a burst of statesmanship in the next few days, it is possible that Congress will have to come back after election day to complete work on the Federal budget.'' The bottom line is, once the other body, the Senate, went home, that is a fait accompli. That is going to happen. There is absolutely no way that anything happens here. It is going to happen on November 13, in what we call a lame duck session. There is no way to avoid that anymore because the other body has left. The editorial goes on to say: ``But if Congress has done a lousy job for the public at large, it is doing a fabulous job of feathering its own nest and rewarding commercial interests and favored constituencies with last-minute legislative surprises that neither the public nor most Members of Congress have digested.'' What we have been saying, a lot of the Democrats have been saying, the problem with the Republican leadership is not only have they not done the people's business to get the appropriations and budget through, not only have they not addressed the major issues, such as health care, but they are doing nothing. If they do anything, it is something that favors the special interests. It is very sad. I have seen this happen with almost every major issue. If we talk about prescription drugs, I made the point earlier this evening, when we were having some dialogue during the 1-minute speeches, that this body never passed, the Republicans never passed, the Medicare prescription drug bill. Mr. Speaker, my point is that what we have seen with the Republican leadership is that whatever they do is essentially favoring special interests. When I was talking earlier this evening during the 1-minutes, one of my colleagues on the Republican side, I think the gentleman from California who is on the Committee on Ways and Means, he said, well, we passed a Medicare prescription drug bill. Well, it is not true, we did not pass a bill. The Republicans did not bring up a bill that would actually put a prescription benefit under Medicare. What they did was passed a system which I call a voucher, where they essentially give some money to seniors and say, go out and try to find an HMO or some kind of insurance company that will cover your prescription drugs. The bottom line is that the seniors cannot do that because it is outside of Medicare. There is not an insurance company that is going to give them that kind of policy for the amount of money that the Republicans are offering. They may end up in an HMO. We know about all the problems we have had with HMOs that have dropped seniors. So they have not passed a Medicare prescription drug bill, a benefit under Medicare. The reason is because the pharmaceutical companies do not want that to happen. They do not want to have a benefit under Medicare. They want to see what they can do somehow to avoid Medicare covering prescription drugs. So there are so many examples like this with the special interests. I see some of my colleagues are here, Mr. Speaker. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take issue with the last speaker. It is very obvious that the Republican leadership has no intention of doing any more work here in the House of Representatives. There is barely a majority here to even vote on any measure. The Senate has already left. The other body has already left. To suggest in any way to the American people after having spent 2 years without passing a Patients' Bill of Rights, without passing a Medicare prescription drug benefit, without doing anything with regard to education initiatives that somehow this House or the other body are going to do some work over the next few days before the election is patently absurd. Let us not kid the American people. This session is over. I am here and a lot of us are here, but we know very well that no work could possibly be done and the Republicans have failed to accomplish anything for the American people. They might as well admit it rather than keeping on with this rhetoric this evening.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. If I could just reclaim a little time, the problem with the HMOs, and we have said it before, is three things. First of all, they had the administrative costs because they are for profit in most cases and the situations of CEOs getting huge sums and using it for all kinds of things. Then you have the advertising costs in order to lure people into the program. They spend a tremendous amount of money on advertising. I have seen that in New Jersey, and I have used examples before. Then they use the money also to lobby, and that is where we get back to the special interests on the Republican side, they use it to lobby here and to finance campaigns against HMO reform and against the prescription drug benefit. All of those three add to the costs and tremendously to the costs in many cases. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).

Mr. PALLONE. I agree. And the thing that is amazing about it is that the traditional Medicare program has one of the lowest overheads of any administrator programs. I think it is like less than 3 percent. In terms of overhead for Medicare right now, if you add a prescription drug benefit and you want to do it in a way that has a very low overhead or administrative costs, what better way to do it than to put it under Medicare? HMOs. The overhead is so much greater, and this option of somehow finding a prescription-only policy, I mean that just does not exist. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentlewoman said. I think what she did in giving us an example of an individual who is impacted by the lack of action here is so important, because that is what I really believe it is all about, to be down here for. In other words, we bring up these issues like a Medicare prescription drug benefit, HMO reform, because we believe that these are the things that have an impact and these are the things that really make a difference for people. I think one of the reasons that the gentlewoman and I in particular stress health care as an issue, because there are others that we could talk about, is because we know that, particularly with reference to health care, it has a direct impact on people. If they cannot lead a healthy life, then what kind of life do they have? I just want to say briefly, before I yield to our other colleague, that the saddest thing I think in what the Republicans are trying to say in these commercials is that they try to give the impression, as the gentlewoman said, that somehow there is going to be a universal prescription drug benefit available under their proposals. It is simply not true. The only thing they have proposed and this they tried to pass, and Governor Bush is talking about, is basically giving a subsidy, a small amount of money, I call it a voucher, to people of lower income; not the people eligible for Medicaid, which is really low, I think you have to be under $10,000, but at a little higher level. They are saying to them that they can go out and use that to try to get an HMO to cover them, or try to buy an insurance policy to cover prescription drugs. That is not even an option because it does not exist. Most of the seniors, certainly every middle-class senior, the majority, would not benefit in any way, even if that passed. They have not passed it. They brought it up, and it has not gone through both Houses and been sent to the President. Not only have they not really passed it, but even if they did pass it it would be meaningless, and yet they put on commercials acting as if they have done something.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I was not planning on talking about this this evening, but I heard what my colleague from Florida (Mr. Foley) said about where we are tonight and the possibility of adjournment; and I have to respond to it, because I think it was very unfair to the minority side and to the Democratic side here. The gentleman from Florida suggested that somehow the Democrats wanted to go home and that the Republicans were the ones that were keeping us here. I find it rather ironic. He talked about the fact that the other body, the other body passed a 2-week continuing resolution so that we could go home for the election and not come back for 2 weeks, and we know who is in the majority, both in the other body as well as in the House of Representatives, and that is the Republicans. The motion in the other body to adjourn for 2 weeks came from the Republican leadership, not from the Democrats. The same is true here. As Democrats, if the Republican leadership in this House wants to take up that resolution that came up from the other body, I assure my colleagues that most, if not all, Democrats will vote no. We have made it quite clear as Democrats in the House of Representatives that we have no intention of going home, and that we are not in favor of a continuing resolution that would take us out of here for 2 weeks, and any suggestion to the contrary is not based on the facts, because we are not in the majority. How would we possibly be in a position in either House of the Congress to make a decision to adjourn for any period of time when we are not in the majority? It simply makes no sense. I have to take offense to the fact that somehow he was suggesting that the Democratic leadership wanted to go home. It was the Republican leadership in the other body that brought up the resolution, and if anything is done with that resolution, it will have to be the Republican leadership that brings it up. There is absolutely no question that the Democrats want to stay here and work, and we have made the point over and over again; and I certainly have myself, along with some of the Members that are joining me here tonight, particularly on the health care issues, that we do not want to go home until we pass HMO reform and the Patients' Bill of Rights, until we pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit plan for our seniors. We have been very critical of the fact that the Republican leadership refuses to bring these major issues and major policy concerns up to be addressed here in the House of Representatives. At the same time, it is abundantly clear that the Republican leadership does not want to even get its basic work done by passing the budget, the appropriations bills. A good percentage, I think 5 or 6, of the appropriation bills are still pending, and every effort on our part to try to resolve those and say that we should be meeting to resolve them continues to be met, but with the other side saying, well, we need more time, or we cannot accept your proposals, or we do not want to meet on common ground. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to highlight an editorial that was in today's New York Times that talked about how ineffectual this Republican Congress has been. I think, with the concurrence of my colleagues here, maybe I will just, I will put this up for my colleagues and others to see. This was in today's New York Times, and it is entitled, as my colleagues can see, ``An Ineffectual Congress.'' If my colleagues do not believe me and my characterization of the Republican leadership's efforts of basically being ineffectual, well, then just take some sections from this editorial from the New York Times today. I just want to read a few of the parts of it that I think are particularly relevant. It says, ``The 106th Congress, with little to show for its 2 years of existence, has all but vanished from public discourse. In past Presidential campaigns, Congress has at least been an issue, but nobody, least of all the presidential candidates, is talking about this particular Congress and the reason is plain. On almost every matter of importance, gun control, Patients' Bill of Rights, energy deregulation, Social Security, Congress has done little or nothing, failing to produce a record worthy of either celebration or condemnation, nor has it been able to complete even the most basic business, the appropriations bills that keep the government functioning. Three have been vetoed,'' and it says, ``Absent a burst of statesmanship in the next few days, it is possible that Congress will have to come back after Election Day to complete work on the Federal budget.'' I think that is almost certain at this point. The other body has actually left. But the editorial continues: ``But if Congress has done a lousy job for the public at large, it is doing a fabulous job of feathering its own nest and rewarding commercial interests and favored constituencies with last-minute legislative surprises that neither the public nor most Members of Congress have digested.'' Mr. Speaker, I have said over and over again that what the Democrats have been saying on the floor of this House for 2 years is that we want to address these issues that are important to the average person: HMO reform, Medicare prescription drugs, education issues. You name it, we are looking at the concerns that the average person has. What do we see with the Republican leadership? All they want to do is address concerns of special interests. The reason that they could not agree on a Labor-HHS appropriations bill and had to finally blow up the negotiations the other day was because the Democrats had put in the bill provisions for people, what we call ergonomics, people who have repetitive motions in their work, using their fingers, and what they do on the job and suffer from it, and we wanted to address that worker safety issue. The Chamber of Commerce came in and said, we do not want that in there, so they blew up the Labor appropriations bill. The reason we do not have a Patients' Bill of Rights is because the Republicans basically are in the pocket of the HMOs, and they want to do the bidding of the HMOs. They do not want HMO reform. The reason we do not have a Medicare prescription drug benefit is because the drug companies oppose it and the Republican leadership is in the pocket of the drug companies and has to do their bidding, so they cannot bring up the Medicare prescription drug benefit. This is laid out abundantly clear. Just another section, if I could, from this New York Times editorial. It says, and this is the President, it says, ``But most of his energy has been spent beating back last-minute riders he does not like. At last count, there were well over 200 special-interest items `in play.' Originally they were attached to the Commerce-Justice-State spending bill. When the President threatened a veto, they jumped like fleas to the Labor-Health and Human Services bill.'' That is what we are having here, special interest riders. The President says, no, we are not going to do that for these special interests, we are here for the people. The Republicans, they just move them from one bill to the next. ``Most of these items,'' according to the New York Times, ``are garden-variety pork projects. But some involve real substance and bad policy. One egregious example is a bill that passed the Senate Agriculture Committee without hearings. . . . It would broadly prohibit states from using their authority to write food safety regulations stronger than those required by the federal government.'' Again, people are concerned about food safety and what they eat. No, Republicans cannot do something about that because of their special interest friends. I do not have to go on and on. I just want to read the last paragraph on this ineffectual Congress in today's New York Times. It says, ``The Republicans believe that somehow they will profit from these confrontations. But Mr. Clinton has won these stand-offs in the past, and there is no reason why he cannot do so now.'' So when my colleague, the gentleman from Florida on the other side of the aisle, criticizes President Clinton, President Clinton is trying to do his job, protect the public from food safety problems, health care problems, whatever. What do the Republicans do? They just stand for the special interests. It is very sad and it is very unfortunate, their efforts this evening on the other side of the aisle to somehow characterize us as wanting to go home. We are not the ones in charge, we are not the ones in the other body who passed the resolution to go home, and we are not going home. I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me just make two points. I think the point of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) there with that GAO report is so important in light of two things that have happened here. First of all, we know that last week the Republicans passed this tax bill that gave a lot of money back to the HMOs. The lion's share of the money that was going back for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement increases in funding went, instead of going to the hospitals or the nursing homes, the basic providers, it went to the HMOs. I am particularly, and all of us were, very critical to the fact that there were no strings attached. The Republicans wanted to give all this money to the HMOs, but they did not require, as we saw it, that they stay in the program for 3 years or they provide the same level of benefits that they had initially promised. Now given what the gentleman from New Mexico said in that GAO report, to not attach some strings or accountability, as the gentleman termed it, and give them more money makes absolutely no sense. The GAO report says that will not accomplish anything based upon past experience. The other thing is that, in our proposal, our Medicare prescription drug proposal, as opposed to the Republican and Governor Bush's proposal, in our prescription drug proposal, which is under Medicare, because it is under Medicare, it is universal, and one has a guaranteed basic benefit package; in other words, that one can go to any pharmacy, that one is going to get any drug that is medically necessary as defined by the pharmacist or the physician, and one knows what one's copayment is going to be. All that is set as part of a basic benefit package. But under Governor Bush's proposal and the Republicans' proposal, all they are doing is giving money to the HMOs and saying to you, you can go out and try to get an HMO that will cover you, but you do not know whether or not that is going to be a good plan, what the copayment is going to be, what the premium is going to be, whether they will cover the drugs that you need, are medically necessary. All that is up in the air depending on what you can negotiate with them. Again, based on past experience, you are not going to be in a very good position, you are not offering them that much money, and they are going to negotiate you down so you do not even know what kind of basic medicine package that you are going to get. It makes no sense. The other thing is that we do not even say that we are against HMOs. Because if we pass our Democratic Medicare prescription drug proposal, one can stay in the basic traditional fee-for-service plan and get the basic benefit, but one can still offer the HMO. One can still go into an HMO. But now, unlike the current law or unlike what the Republicans are proposing, if one goes into the HMO, they have to offer those same pharmaceutical benefits. They have to give one the drug that is medically necessary. They have to guarantee that they are doing the same thing as everyone else. That is the difference. So we do not even stop one from going to the HMO. But we make sure that the HMO is giving one what is fair and what one needs. I mean, it is such a tremendous difference. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues listen to what the Democrats are saying about the surplus versus what the Republicans are saying about the surplus, the whole emphasis for the Democrats is paying down the debt and retirement security. The idea is that the majority of the surplus would be used to shore up Social Security and Medicare because we know at some point down the road that they are going to have shortfalls in their trust fund, and we need to shore up those programs. And the two go hand-in-hand because, as you pay down the debt, you make it possible to have the money available to shore up those two programs. The Republicans keep talking about this huge tax cut. They actually tried to pass it. Governor Bush keeps saying he wants to do it. It would take us back to deficits. Then the money would not be available for prescription drugs, for shoring up Social Security and Medicare and there would not be any retirement security. I mean, in many ways I think that is the most crucial aspect of this election November 7 is who is going to favor having the money available to shore up those two retirement security programs.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment on some of the things the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) said, because I think they are so important. First of all, on the whole prevention issue, obviously if one has a Medicare prescription drug benefit, one is going very far towards looking at the prevention issue. Because, I mean, the biggest prevention issue right now is that Medicare does not include prescription drugs. When Medicare was started in the 1960s, prevention, particularly with regard to the prescription drugs, was not a major issue. There were not that many. People did not rely upon them so much. But the modern miracle, if you will, for the last 30 years has been the fact that we have been able to produce, and the pharmaceutical industry has produced, all these drugs that actually make it so people do not have to go to the hospital, do not have to go to the nursing home. It was ironic to me, though, because when I saw the prioritization of this Medicare reimbursement rate, this money that the Republicans put in the tax bill last week that was going to try to help out with various health care providers, that the least amount of money went to those providers. In other words, if we think about it, if we think about it, the HMOs really, they are insurance companies. So when one gives them money, they have got all the overhead and the lobbying and the advertising and everything we have already discussed as opposed to giving it to the basic providers. A lot of those basic providers are prevention oriented, for example, home health care agencies. Prescription drugs are a method of prevention. But home health care is a way of avoiding nursing home care or a way of avoiding hospital stays. So why not give more money to home health care agencies, because they will prevent people from having to be institutionalized.

Mr. PALLONE. Just to give you an example, I had a hospital in my district close, South AmBoy Memorial Hospital, last year. It closed the door, Medicare reimbursement rate. I visited with some of the nursing homes a couple weeks ago and was told a number of them are facing bankruptcy. They cannot get the skilled nurses to come in. I mean, there is no way. They are suffering, and we are giving the money to the HMOs. I just wanted to comment because I thought my colleague brought up the issue of price discrimination and that is important. If you listen to Governor Bush, and this goes back to I guess the first debate or each earlier around Labor Day, when he just came out and slammed Vice President Gore when he said that their Medicare prescription drug benefit was price controls. He did not even get into the Allen bill. He said that even our benefit plan was price control. One of the things that really bothers me with the Republican leadership is that so often, and the prescription drug issue is a good one, they just get into this whole ideology that Government does not work and we do not want to do anything with the Government and that is why they cannot accept a prescription drug benefit under Medicare because Medicare is a Government program, or at least ostensibly a Government program, so they get into all these ways trying to get around that by throwing money in the private sector. And the same thing with the Republicans on this issue of price discrimination. They do not call it price discrimination. They say it is price control. And they cannot accept the notion that we have in the Allen bill that somehow the Government should be negotiating to try to bring costs down. They do not have anybody to negotiate with them. In our Medicare bill, we do not even have the Allen provision. We do not go that far. We just say that in each region of the country we are going to have a benefit provider that will go out and negotiate a good price, which will probably bring the cost down 10 or 15 percent. But even then Governor Bush says that is price control. I just want the Republicans to forget about the ideology and talk about what works particularly. I do not care, I am not concerned with idealogy, government versus no government, left versus right. I just think we have to look at what works. Medicare works. It does not make any sense to have Lucy and the others suffer because of some idealogy.