Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. What I find is a lot of times they will try to address maybe the individual's problem who comes to their office and see what they can do to help, but the bottom line is that everyone is suffering from this. Everybody in an HMO has the potential, no matter how wealthy they are or what their situation in life is, where the insurance company comes along and says to them that you cannot have a particular procedure. I do not care what your situation is you find yourself in. I noticed people that are the head of the company, the CEO of the company, that has had that situation. So this is something that affects everybody. This is not just something that applies to a few people. I think they just pretend like they are doing something about it and hope that people forget.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate my colleague's comments. Let me just say, we have about 4 or 5 minutes left. I certainly will yield to any of my colleagues. The gentleman from Arkansas?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas. She points out the fact that this is affecting real people in their lives, and that is what is so crucial about this tonight. I yield now to the gentleman from Arkansas, who is one of the conferees on this ill-fated Patients' Bill of Rights conference, unfortunately.

Mr. PALLONE. If I could ask the gentlewoman to yield a minute, I remember when we were discussing this at the time the patients' bill of rights passed, that I do not think there were more than a handful of cases since the Texas law became law where anybody had gone to court. Less than five or so at the time.

Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely. I do not think there is any question that if there were a vote once again here or a vote in the Senate that this would pass, would go to the President and be signed into law.

Mr. PALLONE. That is correct. I would say even further that it is quite obvious from the composition of the Senate right now that if the bill were brought to the floor of the Senate and we just did not have a conference, just took the House bill and sent it over to the Senate and brought it up on the floor of the Senate, the votes would be there to pass it. So it is the Republican leadership in both Houses that is preventing this from happening even when we certainly had a majority here and probably even have the majority in the Senate to pass it.

Mr. PALLONE. Basically as I think you remember, when we tried to bring up the patients' bill of rights, we were opposed by the Republican leadership; and we actually were only able to get it up because almost a majority of the House signed a discharge petition, including some Republicans. And as it got close to that magic 218 they decided we better bring it up, otherwise it is going to be discharged to the floor without the leadership's support. But even when it passed the House, the Republican leadership made it clear that they opposed the bill because when we had the conference with the Senate every one of the conferees they appointed on the Republican side with one exception voted against the bill. I am one of the conferees. When we went to the conference, not surprisingly the majority of the Members there between the Senate and the House were against the Norwood-Dingell bill. My colleague from Arkansas knows that that is a fact because he has also been part of the conference. I think the conference met officially once and then there were some smaller meetings after that, but the Republican leadership in the House and clearly the Republican leadership in the Senate made it quite clear that they were not willing to support the Norwood-Dingell bill and essentially scuttled the whole effort. It is nowhere now. The conference has not met in months. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank you for joining us this evening and for all that you have done as part of our health care task force and drawing attention to this issue as well. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. PALLONE. Also I wanted to mention, it has to be so difficult as a physician with these HMOs when a decision is made that you think is not in the best interests of the patient. I imagine you go through that many times and this is really sad.

Mr. PALLONE. I think that that is a very good point. The point is that a lot of these preventative measures, particularly including prescription drugs, although initially there is a cost to the government and we know a rather large cost over the long term it may save costs in hospitalization and other kinds of nursing home care and institutionalization. It is a very good point.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening I am going to be joined with some of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle to discuss health care and what we believe should be done in the waning days of this Congress. Unfortunately, most of what we are about to discuss is part of the unfinished agenda here which I have been somewhat critical of the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives for because these health care issues have not been resolved; yet they are very important to the average American. When I talk about health care concerns, I believe that they are the Nation's number one priority right now. They concern matters that affect the daily lives of our constituents and which I think, if they were resolved and if they were attended to by the Republican leadership and passed and sent to the President in legislative form, would actually make a difference in people's lives. So for that reason I regret that on the issues such as prescription drugs for seniors under Medicare, HMO reform, and also increasing access to health care for those who are uninsured this Congress really has not accomplished much. I do not really expect much to be accomplished in the next few days that we are here, but I do think it is unfortunate that the Republican leadership has so far, and has over the 2 years, refused to address these issues in a meaningful way. I just wanted to summarize, if I could, and put them also in the context of the presidential debate, because I think that health care policy has really been one of the defining issues in the context of the presidential debate and the presidential campaign. Let me mention first the issue of prescription drugs. We know that our senior citizens and the disabled, people who currently are eligible for Medicare, many of them do not have access to prescription drugs because it is not a basic benefit under the Medicare program. What the Democrats have been saying is that we would like it to be a basic Medicare benefit. We would like it to be included under the rubric of the Medicare program because we know that Medicare has been very successful in addressing the problems of hospital care, the need for hospital care and the need for physicians' care. If a person now reaches the age of 65 or is eligible because they are disabled, they do get their hospital insurance taken care of under Medicare. And if they pay a certain amount a month, about $40 or so per month, then they have also their physician's care taken care of. But that is not the case with prescription drugs. Some seniors are able to get a prescription drug benefit if they are fortunate enough to have an HMO in their area that may cover it in some way. But that is not the majority. Some senior citizens outside of Medicare are able to get coverage because they have it as part of an employer retirement plan or maybe they are eligible for veterans benefits as part of the Federal Government; but generally most seniors do not get either adequate prescription drug coverage or, in many cases, no prescription drug coverage at all. Basically, using the example of Medicare part B for physician's care, what the Democrats have been saying and what Vice President Gore has been saying is that we will establish a new part D, for example, under Medicare. And just like with part B for the physician's care, seniors would pay so much per month. It would probably start as little as $25 a month; but as the benefits increase, it might get to be more. They would then get a certain prescription drug benefit that would be guaranteed, which would make it possible for them to simply go to their local pharmacy, and it would be covered. They would have a choice of a pharmacy to go to, and any prescription drug that is recommended by their physician or by the pharmacist as medically necessary would be covered. Very simple concept, really. No magic here. It is simply included under the Medicare program. Well, the Republican leadership and the Republican presidential candidate, Governor Bush, do not like this. I think, frankly, though they may not admit it, that they do not like Medicare very much, and they do not like the idea of a public program like Medicare including prescription drugs. So what they propose I call a voucher. Basically, they say they are going to give a certain amount of money in the form of a subsidy or a voucher to seniors who are below a certain income, not the majority of seniors, but just those who are below a certain income. Those seniors can take this voucher, and they can go out in the private marketplace to see if they can find an HMO or some other kind of insurance plan that will cover them. There are a lot of problems with that. First of all, it is not under Medicare, so it is not going to be universal. Most seniors would not be able to take advantage of it. In addition to that, with the exception of the HMOs, they are probably not able to buy a prescription drug policy. Most insurance companies do not sell prescription drug policies. So they may be able to get it through an HMO, but we know what the problems are with HMOs. We do not know how much the deductible is going to be; we do not know how much the copayment is going to be. We do not know whether all drugs will be covered. A lot of problems and a lot of inability, I would say ultimately, to get a good insurance program that covers prescription drugs. So I would suggest that this Republican proposal and the one that comes from Governor Bush is not realistic. It is not something that is going to help most seniors. But even so, basically they have not paid a lot of attention to it here in the House of Representatives. They talked about it at one time, but that was it. There has not really been any movement to get this accomplished. That is unfortunate, because our seniors are crying out for an answer on the issue of prescription drugs. Now, on a second issue, and that is the issue of HMO reform, once again the Democrats, and if we listened to the last debate, Vice President Gore was very specific that what we need in order to cure the abuses in the HMO system is the Patients' Bill of Rights, the Norwood- Dingell bill that was passed by the House of Representatives, mostly with Democratic votes but with some Republican support. I will not get into all the details of the Patients' Bill of Rights, but basically it changes a lot of things that exist under current law in terms of the abuses we face with HMOs. Right now, the decision about what kind of medical care a person gets, whether that person gets a particular operation, how many days they stay in the hospital, what kind of equipment they get, these decisions are made by the insurance company, and many times without the patient's input or without the doctor's input. That is what leads to abuses. HMOs deny care. People do not really have a way to redress their grievances because if they have to appeal the decision of the HMO, usually it is to the HMO itself, and they, of course, deny it again. What the Democrats have been saying with the patients' bill of rights, with the support of a minority of Republicans but not with the Republican leadership, is that we have been saying that we want to make sure that decisions about what kind of care they get, what is medically necessary, are made by the physician and the patient, not by the insurance company. That is what the patients' bill of rights says. And secondly, it says that if the HMO denies them care that they think they should have or that they need, then they have a legitimate way of redressing their grievance by going into an outside board that is independent of the HMO, or, failing that, they have the right to go to court and bring suit, which is not possible now for most people who are in HMOs. Well, if we listen to the third debate, Governor Bush said that he was in favor of HMO reform. But then when we look at his record in Texas, on one occasion when something like the patients' bill of rights came to his desk, he vetoed it. And then on another occasion when it came to his desk he basically was told, if you veto it again, we will override your veto, we have the votes in the legislature to override; and so, he let it become law without his signature, basically protesting it but indicating that he could not do anything about it because if he did veto it, it was going to be sustained anyway. So we do not have much support here. We have a Presidential candidate on the Republican side that basically opposed HMO reform as Governor. And then we have a Republican leadership that still reluctantly allowed the patients' bill of rights to come to the floor of the House and it passed, but the Senate is holding it up and the Republican leadership continues to oppose it here in the House of Representatives. The last major issue, and there are others but I want to get to my colleagues, the last major issue with regard to health care reform that faces many Americans is that many Americans, something like 44 million Americans right now, simply have no health insurance. They are not covered through their employer. They are not eligible for Medicaid because they are working and their income is a little too high and they cannot afford to go out in the private market and buy their own health insurance. Well, the Democrats have been saying, let us try to solve that problem. We solved it to some extent in a significant way with children, which was the largest of this 44 million who did not have insurance. We passed the CHIP bill, and we gave money to the States so they could sign up kids for a health insurance program for the children of working parents. And that has been successful in probably signing up about half the children around the country that were previously uninsured. But again, when it came to Governor Bush, he said that, although he was getting the money from the Federal Government, he wanted to keep the income levels for the kids' care program, for the CHIP program fairly low. And he had originally proposed, I think, 150 percent of poverty, and it took the Texas legislature basically to insist that the eligibility requirements be higher than that. And for a long time, essentially, he made it difficult for the CHIP program, for the Children's Health Insurance Program, to be implemented in the State of Texas in a way that would be helpful to more and more children. Now, what the Democrats have been saying and what Vice President Gore has been saying is we want to expand the eligibility for this CHIP program to even higher incomes, maybe 250 percent of poverty. And at the same time, the Vice President and the Democrats have been saying we want to address the problem with the adults who are uninsured, so let us let the parents of the kids who are in the CHIP program enroll in the CHIP program as well so that they are insured. It certainly makes a lot of sense. But again, we do not see the Republicans supporting that initiative or taking any action here in the House of Representatives to address that concern. Lastly, the other large group of people that we know are uninsured are the near elderly, the people between 55 and 65 that are not eligible for Medicare but who often lose their job or take early retirement and find themselves or their spouse without health insurance. President Clinton and Vice President Gore and the Democrats have been advocating that those near elderly be able to buy into Medicare for maybe $300 or $400 a month, and again we have seen opposition from the Republican leadership and the unwillingness to bring this up in committee or on the floor of the House. So whether it is the issue of access and covering the uninsured, whether it is the issue of HMO reform, or whether it is the issue of prescription drugs, over and over again the Democrats have put forward proposals supported by the Vice President which have been opposed or scuttled, if you will, by the Republicans and again not supported by their Presidential candidate, Governor Bush. We are only pointing out the facts here tonight. I am joined by a number of my colleagues who would like to address this issue. First, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) who also happens to be a physician.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would again yield, I think there is a serious question about that and whether or not the money would actually flow to the school districts. I understand the gentleman disagrees.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman, as he knows, and for all that he has done in his capacity as chairman of the subcommittee. But I think there is a serious issue here about whether the money really is available in the sense that what has been proposed, from what I understand from the Republican leadership, is that this is more in the nature of a block grant and it is not necessarily the case the way the language is now that this money would be available for these purposes.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely.

Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I want to thank the President of the United States for insisting that this continuing resolution be for only 24 hours and that we operate with these 24-hour resolutions from now on. And the reason is simple. Most of the discussion right now is over the fact that the Republican leadership refuses to move on the Democratic education initiatives that include funding for school modernization and also for more teachers and more money that goes back to the local towns and school districts to hire more teachers. I just want to say how important those initiatives are. In the State of New Jersey, we rely mostly for our school funding on local property taxes; and increasingly we find that the towns are unable to afford more money for educational purposes. And so, what we have is that the class sizes continue to rise; the school buildings, in many cases, do not receive the necessary repairs; we have overcrowding where we cannot even in a lot of the school districts build a new school because we do not have the money. So when the Democrats talk about an initiative that allows these towns to have more money to hire teachers, to reduce class size, or to pay for school modernization or for new schools, these are real problems, these are real issues that affect people every day and affect children in New Jersey and throughout the country every day. The bottom line is the Republican leadership talks about the need for discipline in the classroom. How are we going to have discipline in the classroom if we have a class that has 25, 30, or even 40 students? If we give money back to the school districts to hire more teachers, they can reduce the class size. I think the President's suggestion is down to 18 students at the elementary level. That means better discipline in the classroom, better learning opportunities for these kids in the public schools. And the same thing goes for the school modernization initiative. How can they learn if they are in a building that is falling apart? I have been to school districts in my district where the roof was collapsing. Or in other situations where they have to have two shifts and kids go to school starting at 7:00 in the morning to noon and then 12:00 noon to 5 o'clock, or something like that. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are talking about something that is real here. This is not pie in the sky. All we are saying is that we have the money now, let us make it available for these towns, because it helps with their property taxes. But most importantly, it helps with these kids and their lives.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, but I want to commend my colleagues on the subcommittee for their help with regard to the provisions related to Armenia and specifically the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for the work that they did on these provisions. We are very happy with the fact that the level of assistance to Armenia at a minimum will be $90 million, which is more than what the administration had requested. We also have the provisions in the bill that the House language provides funding for confidence-building measures and other activities in furtherance of the peaceful resolution of regional conflicts, particularly with regard to Nagorno-Karabagh. As many of my colleagues know, this is a conflict that has been going on for some time, and we certainly want to do everything we can to provide for confidence- building measures in that region. Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which prohibits direct U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan because of the continued blockade of Armenia, the language from the previous year is maintained in that regard. I think that is very important, because we need to continue to send the message that this should not be direct assistance as long as the blockade of Armenia continues. Lastly, I wanted to say that there is language in the report, language that says that in the event that Armenia is selected as the host site for the SESAME project, which is essentially a physics project, the Synchrotron Light Source Particle Accelerator Project, there is report language that says that $15 million of the funds made available for Armenia should support this or a comparable project. I mention this, not only because the project itself is very important for the economic development of Armenia and I think the whole Caucasus's region, but also because it is an example of the type of development project that we would like to see more of. We would like to see more of U.S. assistance in the future, not as much the emphasis on humanitarian aid, more on development aid, and this is a good example.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, said, here we go again. For the fourth time this month, the Congress is considering a resolution to temporarily fund the government. Now, Republicans claim that they are working very hard to get these appropriations bills passed, but the American people should know that today is our only full day of work in the Congress this week. The Republicans will send us home tonight, and we will not be back again until next Tuesday night. And I think the Republicans should be embarrassed. They simply cannot govern. Keep in mind that between today and next Tuesday, the Republicans are deploying their members to go out and campaign. They are not hunkered down in some room trying to figure out the appropriations bills. No, they are going out to fund-raisers and political events rather than doing the work that they were elected and paid to do. Bowing to the will of special interests, Republicans have stopped their work on HMO reform, on prescription drugs, on gun safety, on education. They simply cannot get the job done. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention the education issue in particular today, because that is one of the ones that is supposedly going to be addressed in an appropriations bill next week; but so far the Republicans have been unwilling to bring up the Democratic initiative, which says two things. One, that we want to send more money back to the local school districts around the country so that they can hire more teachers and reduce class size. We know that smaller class sizes are great for discipline, great for a learning experience. But, no, the Republicans do not want to do that. They do not want to provide the money. The second education initiative the Democrats have stressed is that they want to provide some funding back to the local school districts to help defray the costs of school modernization. We know that many schools are falling apart. They need renovation. Some need to be upgraded for computers, for the Internet. Many times there is overcrowding, and new schools need to be built. Well, the Democrats have been saying and the President and Vice President Gore have been saying let us provide some money back to the towns, back to the local school districts to accomplish that goal but, no, the Republicans do not want to do that. Basically, they are saying that these are not important. We should not provide money to reduce class size, to hire more teachers, to provide for school modernization. Democrats are saying, let us stay here and get the job done. We are not going to leave until the job is done and those two education initiatives are passed. Let me mention some of the other issues. Prescription drugs, Governor Bush, the Republican candidate for President, said the other day that he was very concerned and wanted to provide some sort of benefit of prescription drugs, but I do not see it happening here. The Democrats have been saying they want a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Put it up. Let us vote on it. Same thing with HMO reform. We passed a good HMO reform bill here, the Norwood-Dingell bill, the Patients' Bill of Rights. It went over to the Senate and it died there. It died in conference. The conference has not even met. I am a member. I am one of the conferees. The conference has not met in several months. These are the kinds of things that the American people want done. They want HMO reform. They want the Patients' Bill of Rights. They want a Medicare prescription drug benefit. They want to do something about education. What is more important to this country than good public schools? But we do not see any action on these things. We do not see any action. We say, go home. Come here one day. We will pass another continuing resolution, keep the government going for another 5 days or so. I have said before and I will say again, I am not going to support these long- term continuing resolutions for 5 days or a week. We should not allow continuing resolutions for more than one day at a time because we need to force the Republican leadership to get the job done. That is what they came down here for. We should insist and all should insist on staying here through the weekend every day until these appropriation bills are passed. There are 13 appropriation bills that make up the budget effectively, and only three have been signed. The rest are still languishing here. Some of them are moving now but not enough, certainly not enough for us to go home for the weekend until next Tuesday. Mr. Speaker, let me say the Republican majority seems to be good at doing only one thing, and that is going home. Well, then the American people should send them home for good this November.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Mercury Policy Project and the California Communities Against Toxics found the Food and Drug Administration was not testing enough seafood for toxic mercury. Their findings were published in a report that was also cosponsored by the Sierra Club and Clean Water Action. In addition to contending the FDA's recommended level for methyl mercury exposure was inadequate, the report noted that the FDA does not check any domestic tuna, shark or swordfish for toxic mercury even though they tend to have the highest levels of the toxin. The lack of a system to screen seafood for mercury is a serious gap in the nation's food safety system. Individuals who consume too much mercury can suffer serious health problems. That is why today I am introducing the Seafood Safety and Mercury Screening Act of 2000. This legislation will require the FDA to develop a system for testing seafood for methyl mercury. It will also require the FDA to develop a statutory threshold level for methyl mercury content in seafood and consider the findings of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which published a report on mercury exposure in July, when developing that threshold. The NAS report found that the Environmental Protection Agency's recommended level for methyl mercury exposure, which is stronger than the FDA's, is the more appropriate standard. We know that if people ingest too much mercury they will get sick and we know exactly where to look for it. Domestic tuna, shark, and swordfish have very high levels of toxic mercury. If we have the means to detect this poison and know exactly where it comes from, common sense suggests that we take the time to look for it and take the necessary steps to inform the public. Typically we do not know about the source of an outbreak of food poisoning until the FDA or other government agencies works backwards to find its origin after people have already gotten sick. When it comes to mercury, we have the opportunity to be proactive and prevent illness instead of being reactive after its too late. The establishment of a strong, enforceable standard that prohibits seafood that contains mercury above the recommended level from reaching the consumer will stop episodes of food poisoning before they have a chance to occur. Another important component of protecting the public from the contaminated seafood is by providing citizens with the information they need to make informed decisions about what they are eating. To that end, the Seafood Safety and Mercury Screening Act of 2000 will also establish a nation wide education program to educate consumers about the dangers of mercury contamination, with a particular emphasis on protecting the most vulnerable populations, pregnant women and children. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in the effort to strengthen our nation's food safety system by lending their full support to the Seafood Safety and Mercury Screening Act of 2000.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my intense disappointment with the decision by the Republican leadership today to pull the Armenian genocide resolution from consideration by the House of Representatives for the remainder of this session of Congress. The Speaker promised to bring this resolution to the floor. His stated reason for not doing so is a request by President Clinton that it not be considered. Mr. Speaker, the State Department and President Clinton have opposed recognition of the Armenian genocide from day one. We all know that the State Department repeatedly uses national security as the reason to oppose most things Armenian. What is really going on here is that the Speaker and the President and, therefore, the government of these United States, both Executive and Legislative, have succumbed to the threat of the Turkish government, threats by that government against American soldiers and American lives. Mr. Speaker, this is shameful. Turkey is a bully. We have America, the most powerful country in the world, being told by the Republic of Turkey what we can talk about and what we can think, not only with regard to human rights violations, but with regard to the most heinous crime against humanity, genocide. I would like to know what kind of ally threatens American lives if it does not get its way. With friends like that, as the saying goes, who needs enemies. It is not as if Turkey's membership in NATO and assistance as part of the NATO alliance only helps the United States. Turkey allows NATO to use its bases against Iraq because of Iraq's threats to Turkey, not Iraq's threats to the United States. Turkey allows NATO to use its bases out of its own self-interest. If Turkey is going to abrogate all of its bilateral and multilateral agreements over the Armenian genocide resolution, well I do not think that is going to happen. I think not. These agreements exist because they are in Turkey's self-interest. Mr. Speaker, what happened today on the House floor I think sets a terrible precedent. It means that Turkey can threaten us in other areas. For example, they can threaten not to negotiate a settlement on Cyprus and continue to occupy that nation. They can threaten the European Union if that organization does not allow them to become a member despite continued human rights violations against the Kurds and other minorities. Mr. Speaker, we have heard these same Turkish threats before. In 1996, for example, this body voted overwhelmingly, 268 to 153, to adopt an amendment to reduce U.S. assistance to Turkey until it recognized the Armenian genocide. The doomsday scenarios that the opponents of the resolution predicted in 1996 did not occur. I do not believe they would have occurred today if we had passed the Armenian genocide resolution. The relationship between the United States and Turkey is mutually beneficial. It is simply not in Turkey's national interest to sever relations with the United States over a House Resolution. This brings me back, Mr. Speaker, to the Armenian genocide resolution and the importance I believe it plays in our overall foreign policy. If America is going to live up to the standards we set for ourselves and continue to lead the world in affirming human rights everywhere, we need to stand up and recognize the Armenian catastrophe for what it was, the systemic elimination of a people. The fact of the Armenian genocide is not in dispute. The fact that the American record on the U.S. response to the Armenian genocide is not in dispute and House Resolution 596 affirms these facts. The only step left is to reject the deniers of the genocide. As Members of Congress, we should not ignore our Nation's history at the insistence of an ally out of geopolitical convenience. Congress should not be forced by a foreign government to deny or ignore the U.S. record and response to the events that took place in the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923. If the House of Representatives cannot speak to our historical experience because of threats from a foreign government, then what message do we send to our friends and our enemies alike? Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), Speaker of the House, to basically reconsider his decision and to allow House Resolution 596 to come to the floor. I assure the Speaker that it will pass overwhelmingly. The votes were there today if the Speaker had only let the resolution come to the floor. To do anything else would establish a dangerous precedent for how history will be recorded with regard to current and future actions of Congress and the administration in response to man's inhumanity to man. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is, if we do not recognize the Armenia genocide, other genocides will occur. The fact of the matter is that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make reference initially to last night's debate between Vice President Al Gore and Texas Governor Bush, but my focus this evening is on health insurance and the various health care issues that have come into play in this Congress, as well as in the presidential debate last evening. I have always felt that one of the most important issues that we face and one of the biggest concerns that I have is the inability of many Americans to find health insurance, to be covered by health insurance. The candidates last night presented starkly different views on how to extend coverage to the 42.6 million Americans who currently lack health insurance. That is a large segment of our population, 42.6 million Americans, and it continues to grow. During their exchange on this issue last night, the Governor said something which I found to be very telling and very disturbing. I wanted to read back what Governor Bush said during the debate. He said, ``There is an issue with uninsured. There sure is. And we have got uninsured in my State. Ours is a big State, a fast-growing State. We share a common border with another nation, but we are providing health care for our people.'' Continuing, the Governor added, ``One thing about insurance, that's a Washington term.'' Mr. Speaker, I was very offended by Governor Bush's referring to insurance, in this context health insurance, as a Washington term. In fact, I consider that remark very elitist and really absurd. All American parents who are out in the real world struggle to find a way to provide insurance for their children. I think they should be very alarmed when the Governor views health insurance as a Washington thing. Really, all Americans should be alarmed because of his statement that somehow this is a Washington thing. Does that mean that Governor Bush thinks it is okay, for example, that my colleagues here, I will use the opposition, the Republican Members of Congress, the fact that they have health insurance and 42.6 million Americans do not? And really, I would like to look at Governor Bush's record on the issue of health insurance, because I think that by referring to it as a Washington thing, he belittles it and shows that he really does not have much concern about the 42 million Americans that do not have health insurance. If we look at the Governor's record in Texas, it shows that Texas has the highest number of uninsured children in the country. When setting up the State's Child Health Insurance Program, which we adopted as a Federal program in this House and was signed into law by President Clinton, but when setting up the State's Child Health Insurance Program pursuant to and with Federal money, Governor Bush wanted to set the eligibility threshold at only 150 percent of the Federal poverty level. I say that by way of contrast to my own State of New Jersey, which also has a Republican Governor, but set 350 percent of the Federal poverty level for that CHIP Federal kids' health insurance program, or more than twice the level that Governor Bush proposed in Texas. Now, what happened eventually is the Texas legislature came forward and said they wanted to push this eligibility threshold up to 200 percent, which Governor Bush eventually signed. But the point of the matter, the fact of the matter is that it was possible under the Federal law to push this eligibility higher and to include more children under the Texas child health care program, and Governor Bush did not do it. So when he says that insurance is a Washington thing, does that mean that he does not really care that much about the kids in Texas, that they should not be able to take advantage of the Federal program and Federal dollars that are allowing them to be covered by health insurance? When it comes to insuring adults, Governor Bush's record is really no better than it is with the kids. Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured low-income adults, 51 percent, in the Nation. Its Medicaid eligibility level is just a paltry $4,728 in annual income for parents of three-person families. A little later I am going to get into the proposals that Vice President Gore and President Clinton and the Democrats in the House have put forward to try to get more adults insured. We care deeply to try to end the problem of the uninsured in this country. If that is a Washington thing, so be it. But I would maintain it is an American thing, that kids are suffering because they do not have health insurance, parents are suffering because they do not have health insurance. When it comes to overall spending on health in the State of Texas, the Governor has distorted his own record. He made it look like health care is a much bigger priority for him than it really is. In last week's debate, the previous debate prior to last night, Governor Bush said Texas had spent $4.7 billion on health care under his administration when in fact that is simply not true. Something like $3.5 billion of that money came from private and local sources and not the State expenditure. I am trying to make the point, Mr. Speaker, that access to health insurance is simply not a priority for the Governor, not a priority in terms of spending, not a priority in terms of trying to get the State of Texas to cover more kids and more adults. The lack of health insurance in the United States is not a problem that should be cavalierly dismissed as a Washington thing by any policymaker or any politician, let alone a candidate for the President of the United States. It is a very real problem that affects real Americans with real consequences. Let me just give some statistics about why I say that, and why it is true that health insurance is not just a Washington thing, but something that everyone in the country has to be worried about. There are millions of American parents who are unable to take sick and suffering children to the doctor because they simply cannot afford it. There are 27,000 uninsured women who are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and are 50 percent more likely to die from it because they are uninsured. There are older couples whose hopes for a dignified retirement after a lifetime of work are swept away in an instant by an unexpected avalanche of medical debt. There are young families whose hopes for the future are destroyed when a breadwinner dies or is disabled because an illness was not diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion. Eighty-three thousand Americans die each year because they do not have insurance, and as a result, do not get adequate or timely care. I can assure the Members, Mr. Speaker, that to them, insurance is far more than just a Washington term to their families. The Federal government and State governments across the country have spent the last 10 years trying to stem the tide of people turning to the emergency room for their medical care. I know Governor Bush throughout the debates has talked about the fact that, you know, you can go to an emergency room in Texas, you can go to a hospital emergency room. The problem with that is that that is not really good health care because there is no prevention. If we have preventative care and take measures before we have to go to an emergency room, our likelihood of doing well and living longer and not being disabled are much greater. Preventative care does not just save lives and stop tragedies before they occur, it is also more efficient and less expensive for everybody, including the Federal government. Those facts are understood by health experts, but not a lot of times by politicians. I would say the same thing to the Governor: Rather than talk about the fact that people in Texas have access to an emergency room, put programs in effect so people can get health insurance and can take the preventative measures so they do not have to wait until they get so sick that they have to go to an emergency room. Governor Bush's view that insurance is a Washington term may be a view that is held by wealthy people who have insurance and can foot the bill easily for any medical emergency that may arise, but it is definitely a view that is clearly out of touch with the American mainstream. It is a view every American, particularly those without insurance, should be aware of in this political season. It is a view that, if followed, will throw a monkey wrench in both private sector and public efforts to bring down the cost of health care, and it is a view that nobody who is interested in addressing the problems of the uninsured in this country should for a single second take seriously. I know it sounds very critical of me to talk about the Governor in this light, but it really annoyed me to hear the term ``insurance'' somehow referred to as a Washington term, as if the rest of the country or the average person was not concerned about it. I know that they are. I want to spend some time also this evening contrasting, if you will, not only the presidential candidates but the parties on the issue of health care. I know it sounds very political, but the bottom line is that this Congress only has another week or so before it adjourns. The Democrats, including myself, over the last 2 years that this Congress has been in session have put forth a number of proposals, whether it is a prescription drug benefit under Medicare or it is HMO reform with the Patients' Bill of Rights, or it is the idea that whatever surplus is available should be primarily used to shore up social security and Medicare, or it is the idea of trying to cover more kids or more parents. We have been out there putting forth, with President Clinton and Vice President Gore's support, many proposals that would address some of the problems that Americans face with health insurance, whether they are uninsured or they have some type of insurance that is inadequate. It really galls me to think that we are here at the 11th hour and most of these problems have not been addressed by the Republican leadership on the other side of the aisle, and will not be addressed if Governor Bush is elected president. So I think it is important to contrast the candidates and the parties on health care. I am just going to take a little time tonight if I could to give my own view, and then give the view of an independent group that has analyzed the proposals that have been put forth by both sides. I want to start with the issue of prescription drugs, because I think right now the fact that so many seniors and disabled people who have Medicare are not able to access prescription drugs is a major problem, almost a crisis in the country. If we listen to what George Bush has been saying, what Governor Bush has been saying, he is saying that he wants to provide some sort of prescription drug program that would provide coverage initially through State-based low-income-only programs, and then through HMOs and insurance companies. I say that because what the Governor has proposed is not to bring prescription drugs under the rubric of Medicare, but rather, to give a subsidy or a voucher, if you will, to low-income people so they can go out and try to buy prescription drug policies in the open market, in the private market. That is very different from what Vice President Gore and the Democrats have been saying. I think it was clearly defined in last night's debate. What Vice President Al Gore has been saying is that Medicare is a successful program that provides coverage for one's hospital care and for one's doctor's care, and it would not be that difficult and would not cost that much money, particularly if we have a surplus, for the Federal government to provide prescription drug benefits under Medicare, as well. So that is the major difference between the Democrat and the Republican proposals. The Democrats are saying they want to expand Medicare to include prescription drugs. The Republicans are saying they do not want to use Medicare as the vehicle, they want to give a subsidy or they want to give a voucher, or in the case of Governor Bush's proposal, a voucher essentially just for low-income people. There are a lot of other differences, but I just want to say, Members do not have to take my word for it. There is an organization called Families USA which just put out a report on health care and the 2000 election. I just want to describe Families USA. Families USA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan consumer health organization established under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that has never endorsed, supported, nor opposed any political candidate, and they are not doing it now. In addition, Families USA has spent two decades working on various aspects of our health care system, and has amassed considerable expertise on health issues. The Democrats and myself have cited them many times, and the Republicans as well. On the issue of prescription drugs, and I just want to run through this, if I could, in their report that just came out they say, ``There is a marked contrast between the two candidates on this issue.'' Vice President Gore intends to establish a voluntary prescription drug benefit in the Medicare program, and I stress in the Medicare program. This would ensure that all seniors and people with disabilities gain access to prescription drug coverage. It would also enable Medicare to bring its considerable market clout on behalf of program beneficiaries to the bargaining table. Now, that sounds a little bureaucratic, but let me explain what that means. One of the biggest problems with prescription drugs right now is the cost for seniors. If they do not have some kind of coverage through their employer or through some sort of coverage that they are able to purchase, which many do not, then they have to go buy it on the open market at the local pharmacy, and the cost is prohibitive. There is a price discrimination between seniors who have to just go buy the prescription at the local pharmacy out-of-pocket versus seniors who happen to be fortunate to be in some sort of plan, either through their employer or in some other way. But what Vice President Gore does and what the Democrats do with their Medicare prescription drug proposal is they give the seniors who are now part of this plan clout with regard to prices, because they establish a benefit provider in each region of the country that will bargain for the best price, just like an HMO does, for example, for the prescription drugs, and that brings the price down. So that is what they are talking about here when Families USA says that the Democratic plan is better. Then they say in the Families USA report, they contrast Governor Bush's approach by way of contrast. Initially he relies on State-run pharmaceutical programs and subsequently on insurance companies, HMOs, to offer prescription drug coverage. To date, however, State pharmaceutical programs reach only a tiny portion of seniors who need drug coverage, and such assistance is usually confined to seniors with very low incomes. The point is that the Republican plan is only going to help seniors with low incomes. It is not going to help the vast majority of seniors with middle incomes, which basically are the people that are crying out for some sort of help. In addition, in analyzing the Bush plan, Families USA's assessment says that private health plans and insurance companies have very limited success in providing drug coverage for seniors. I mention that because what they are basically saying here is that, if one gives the senior or the disabled person the voucher, the way Governor Bush has proposed, to go out and try to buy prescription drug coverage in the open market, not under Medicare, they are not going to be able to find it. They are not going to find an insurance company that will offer that for the price of the subsidy that the Bush plan proposes. Now, additionally, what Families USA says about the Gore plan, the Democratic Medicare prescription drug plan, is that it is very specific in detailing the drug coverage that is guaranteed to every Medicare beneficiary as well as the cost sharing that seniors would have to pay. So what we are saying in the Democratic plan is that we are going to be able to guarantee one to have any drug that is medically necessary. We are going to tell one exactly what the premium is, exactly what one is going to get. Under the Bush proposal, on the other hand, decision making about the specifics of the drug benefit as well as out-of-pocket costs are left to the private insurance companies and the HMOs. So, again, one does not really know what one is getting. But I want to stress again the difference here, the difference is the Bush Republican plan is a voucher plan. It does not come under the rubric of Medicare. The Democratic plan, the Gore plan, is an expansion of Medicare that covers prescription drugs just in the same way that hospital care and physician care is provided under Medicare right now. Now, let me go to a second category here because I want to cover each of these health care issues because I think they are so important in terms of contrasting the difference between the parties. The second one is the future of Medicare itself. Medicare, as we know, in the next, maybe, 10, 20 years, not right away, but at some point in the future will start to run out of money because there are going to be so many baby boomers that become 65, that become seniors, that there is not enough money to pay for it. Now, what President Clinton and Vice President Gore have been saying is that they want to use most of the surplus to shore up the Social Security program and the Medicare program. But what we see is that, instead, by contrast, Governor Bush talks about restructuring the Medicare program in ways that I believe that will increasingly privatize and encourage people to opt out of Medicare or go to private insurance. I do not want to dwell on that too much because I want to get to the next issue, which is I think so important and, again, became an issue in last night's debate, right at the beginning of the debate. That is HMO reform. HMO reform is clearly something that so many Americans are concerned about because more and more people are in HMOs, and they find that they are victims of various abuses, primarily because what they find is that decisions about what kind of Medicare they get, whether they get a particular operation, whether they get to stay in the hospital a particular length of time is determined, not by their physician and themselves as a patient, but by the insurance companies. Naturally they do not like it because it lends itself to all kinds of abuse. Well, it was interesting last night because, during the debate, Governor Bush said that he was in support of HMO reform and that he mentioned that, in the State of Texas, his home State, that they actually had passed legislation that would provide for certain patient protections if one was in an HMO. But the interesting thing about it is Governor Bush used the example of HMO reform to say he would be successful if he were to be elected President because, in Texas, he was able to bring both parties together and everyone together to pass patient protections. Well, I have to point out that, when the issue of patients' rights in the context of HMO reform first came up in the tax legislature and the bill was passed in 1995, Governor Bush actually vetoed the legislation. So he talked about playing a role and bringing people together, the Texas legislature decided they wanted HMO reform, he vetoes the bill. Well, a couple years later, in 1997, there was again passed in the Texas legislature legislation to protect patients in the context of HMOs. This was a very comprehensive HMO reform that Governor Bush referred to in last night's debate. Well, this time, even though he opposed the legislation and refused to sign it, he let it become law. That is hardly an advocate for patients' rights. That is hardly someone who, as he says, is trying to bring people together to pass legislation. You veto it once and then you say, okay, I do not like it, but I will let it become law without my signature. What it means is this was happening despite what Governor Bush wanted. He did not want it to happen, but he did not want to stop it probably because he was afraid of the political consequences if he vetoed it again. By contrast, Vice President Gore last night and throughout the 7 years now that he has been the Vice President, with the support of Democrats and some Republicans as well in Congress, has been an advocate on a Federal level for a comprehensive HMO reform bill which Vice President Gore mentioned last night, the Norwood-Dingell bill. He was very specific about bringing up that legislation in the debate last evening and asking Governor Bush repeatedly whether he supported the Norwood-Dingell bill and, of course, Governor Bush would not say whether he supported it or not. If he would not admit he supported it, I would say we have to assume he does not support it. It is a much stronger bill than even what the Texas legislature passed without Governor Bush's signature. It is a bill that is vehemently opposed by the HMOs and the health insurance industry and all of the special interests and very much supported by the majority of the American people. We passed the Patients' Bill of Rights, the Norwood-Dingell bill here in the House of Representatives. Almost every Democrat voted for it, and some Republicans voted for it too, otherwise it wouldn't have passed. In fact, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), one of the sponsors, is a Republican, the lead sponsor. But the bottom line is that the Republicans both here, the Republican leadership, both here in this House as well as in the other body, have tried to kill this bill ever since it passed. It went to conference. I was part of the conference committee. It has never come out of conference. I would almost guarantee that, in the week or two we have left here, it will not appear on the floor of this House or this Senate. It will not go to the President. It will not become law. Why? Because basically what it does is it does two major things. It says that decisions about what is medically necessary, what kind of care one gets, what kind of operation one gets, how long one stays in the hospital, decisions about what is medically necessary are going to be made by the physician and the patient, not by the insurance companies; and the insurance companies oppose that tooth and nail because they want to make the decisions to save money. Secondly, it has very good enforcement so that if, in fact, one is denied care by one's insurance company, one has a way of redressing one's grievances by going to an independent panel that will review the decision and have the power to overturn it or ultimately going to a court of law and having the decision overturned so that one can get the medical care that one's doctor and that one feels is necessary. So, again, marked contrast here between the views of the two candidates, the Presidential candidates as well as the parties on this issue. I do not mean to suggest that all the Republicans are bad on this, because some of them are good. But the Republican leadership in the House as well as in the Senate, as well as Governor Bush, refuse to support the Patients' Bill of Rights, the Norwood-Dingell bill. Let me go to an issue that I mentioned earlier, and that is the whole issue of increased access and for people to be covered with insurance who do not have it. I am not going to keep repeating over an over again what Governor Bush said about insurance being a Washington thing. I think he probably regrets that he made the statement, hopefully. But the bottom line is we still have over 40 million Americans who are uninsured. What are we going to do about it. Again, I would like to contrast the records between the two candidates and again between the two parties. Fortunately, here in the House of Representatives, the effort to expand coverage for children was successfully passed on a bipartisan basis, the CHIP program. Initially, the Republican leadership opposed it, but eventually they came around to passing it, and it was passed on a bipartisan basis. But what happened is that when this program then was given back to the States to handle it and to try to handle it in a way that would provide for coverage for the 5 million kids that it was meant to try to deal with and to give health insurance, as I mentioned already, Governor Bush, in his capacity as Governor of Texas, tried to make the eligibility for the program very minimal, only 150 percent of the poverty level. In terms of the outreach to try to get kids signed up for the program, he was very ineffective. In fact, the situation in Texas got so bad that a Federal judge just ruled a few weeks ago that Texas had to, under pain of the court's action or penalty, do a better job about enrolling kids in Medicaid as well as the CHIP program. So they were not even doing a good job getting kids enrolled in Medicaid at the very low end of poverty, let alone the ones that are eligible for the Federal CHIP program. Now, by contrast, what Vice President Gore has been saying, and he mentioned it in the debate last night, is that he wants to expand the eligibility at the Federal level, and that money then goes back to the States so kids whose parents are even at a higher income can join up in the Federal-State health insurance program called CHIP. He suggests raising the CHIP program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, eligibility to 250 percent of the Federal poverty level. He also says that, if you are parents and your income is even higher than, that he will allow you to buy into CHIP or Medicaid for children with family incomes above 250 percent of the Federal poverty level. Now of course Vice President Gore successfully pushed for enactment of the existing CHIP program which Governor Bush tried to cut back in the State of Texas. But beyond that, what the Democrats and what Vice President Gore are now proposing is that the CHIP program be even expanded to cover the parents of the kids who are eligible for CHIP. Basically, this is a way of now expanding health insurance for people who were working but whose incomes are too high to be eligible for Medicaid. What I would stress again, Mr. Speaker, is that, when we talk about Vice President Gore's program and the Democratic initiative here with children, the CHIP program, and expanding it to adults, we are not talking about people who are on welfare. They are usually eligible for Medicaid. We are talking about working people who on the job, because of their low income or because the employer does not offer it, are not able to get health insurance. These are working people. These are people oftentimes who have two or even three jobs, and they are not able to offer health insurance for their kids or for themselves. So what Vice President Gore is saying is let us take this CHIP program, which is working, and let us expand it to the parents. If we enroll the parents, we also find that that means that they are more likely to get into the program and enroll their kids. Some parents, unfortunately, selfishly, will not enroll their kids if they are not eligible for the program. Vice President Gore has also been saying that with regard to the other large group of people that are uninsured, which are the people between 55 and 65, we call them near elderly, who are not yet eligible for Medicare, that they would be able to buy into the Medicare program and pay so much a month, $300 or $400 a month, to buy into the Medicare program. It is another way of expanding access to health insurance for people who are currently uninsured. Now, I have made reference once so far this evening to the Families USA report in the context of prescription drug coverage, but I wanted to make reference to it again, if I could, in the context of health coverage for children and expanding the CHIP program to include more kids at higher incomes and also for their parents. If we look at this Families USA report, and I will not repeat what Bush and Gore are proposing, but I wanted to just give a little bit of the analysis that the Families USA report provides. The report says, under the section that deals with expanding insurance for adults, that at the centerpiece of his proposal to expand coverage Governor Bush proposes to establish a refundable tax credit for people and families who purchase health coverage on their own if they do not receive insurance through their employers and do not qualify for Medicaid or any other government assistance. For individuals with incomes below $15,000 per year, the tax credit would equal $1,000 and would taper off as an individual's income increases above $15,000. For families with incomes below $30,000 per year, the tax credit would equal $2,000 and would taper off as the family's income increases above $30,000. Now, Governor Bush has made reference to these tax credits, $1,000 or $2,000 depending on where one is below a certain income, and he suggests that that is one way of expanding coverage. This contrasts of course to what Vice President Gore has been saying about expanding the CHIP program for children and expanding it to include adults, the parents of those kids, as well as Gore's proposal to let the near elderly buy into Medicare. Well, this is how Families USA assesses the two proposals. It says Governor Bush's proposals to expand health coverage for adults are likely to be ineffectual and in some respects may even be harmful. Because of its limited size, the tax credit proposal for low- and moderate-income individuals and families who purchase their own health coverage is unlikely to make a significant dent in the number of people who are uninsured. Today, the average cost of a family health plan purchased by an employer is $6,351 per year, and coverage purchased by families in the individual market typically cost considerably more. As a result, a family would need to spend more than $4,300 over and above the $2,000 family tax credit simply to pay for premiums. This amount would constitute over 14 percent of income for a family earning $30,000 a year and over one-fifth of the income of a family with $20,000 in annual income. Either way, the tax credit would still leave most of these families with an inability to purchase health coverage. Now, to his credit, Governor Bush is at least proposing something, and I will grant him that. But it is not anything that is going to be effective in expanding health coverage for those who are uninsured. Vice President Gore's proposal, by contrast, and this is what Families USA says, to expand health coverage for adults builds on public programs, such as Medicaid, CHIP, and Medicare that work well. His proposal to establish CHIP-type health coverage for low-wage working parents will not only provide increased coverage for those parents but is likely to spur children's enrollment in CHIP as families are enabled to enroll together. The Medicare buy-in proposal is projected to increase health coverage for approximately 300,000 near- elderly persons. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to spend too much more time, and I think my time is probably running out; but I just wanted to say this in conclusion. I do not look at these health care issues from the point of view of ideology. I know that generally most Republicans tend to be more conservative than most Democrats, and more Democrats are liberal, even though not all of them are. But the bottom line is, I do not look at the ideology. I look at what works. And the difference between what Vice President Gore and Governor Bush are proposing and between what most of the Democrats and most of the Republicans are proposing, I think really does not come down so much to ideology but what works practically. Practically speaking, if we want to provide a prescription drug coverage program for seniors, we should put it under Medicare, because Medicare works. And we should not look at the Republican proposals to provide some voucher that assume that people are going to go out and buy coverage that does not exist. And the same thing is true for the CHIP program and the efforts to try to expand health coverage for the uninsured. Basically what Vice President Gore and the Democrats have been doing here for the last 6 years is advocating and, in some cases passing, legislation that would provide for the government to set up a program like CHIP through the States that people can pretty much be guaranteed that they are going to have health insurance. It is health insurance that is provided by the government. Now, I am not saying that we want national health insurance, but where we have gaps and people who are working and still having the inability to get health insurance on the open market, the government needs to step in. That is what Vice President Gore proposed with CHIP. It is working. That is what he proposes for expanding coverage for the near elderly and for the parents whose kids are in CHIP. What Governor Bush is proposing as an alternative is simply to give a tax credit, which once again will not provide the money or the ability for those families to buy health insurance. So all I am saying is that there are huge contrasts here between the two presidential candidates. There are huge contrasts between the parties on these various health care issues. And I think the major difference is that the Democrats are proposing plans that will actually work and make a difference for people who do not have health insurance, or who do not have prescription drugs, and who suffer from the abuses of HMOs. That is why what we are proposing should be passed. My greatest regret in this Congress is that on many occasions when the Democrats have tried to put forward these programs they have not been successful because the Republican leadership has opposed them. We have had a few occasions where the Republicans have joined us, but in most cases they have not. And it is a very sad commentary that this Congress is going to end within the next week or two not having addressed these major problems that face so many Americans.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on September 21, the Jersey Shore Chapter of The National Conference for Community and Justice (NCCJ) held its 32nd Anniversary Humanitarian Awards ceremony. NCCJ is a national human relations organization with local chapters dedicated to fighting bias, bigotry, and racism. It promotes understanding and respect among all races, religions and cultures through advocacy, conflict resolution and education. So it is with great pride that I congratulate the recipients of this year's awards for their outstanding community service to the Jersey Shore, much of which I represent in Congress. They include: Dr. Frank Arlinghaus, founder of our Congressional Award, chairman and president of the N.J. Congressional Award Council, Naval Reserve captain and Special Assistant for Reserve Affairs to the Medical Officer of the Marine Corps, and a pulmonary and critical care physician in Red Bank, N.J.; Bahiyyah Abdullah, director of Marketing and Membership for the Ocean County Girl Scout Council for the last 12 years and active in numerous civic organizations, including the NAACP, Ocean County Human Relations Commission and Jack and Jill of America; Solomon S. Greenspan, managing partner of Rudolf, Cinnamon & Calafato, LLC. He is on the board of the Monmouth County Jewish Federation, and the Urban League and is a Councilman for the Township of Ocean. He is past president of the Monmouth County Jewish Community Center and United Way. The following two physicians helped develop the Parker Family Health Clinic, a free health center on Red Bank's west side: Dr. Eugene F. Cheslock, an internist, is executive vice president of Meridian Health System, Riverview Medical Center's Riverview Foundation. He is past president of the Monmouth County Cancer Society and has received prestigious awards from the Urban League and the Salvation Army, among others. Dr. Timothy Sullivan, an otolaryngologist, is senior vice president for medical affairs at Meridian Health System, Riverview Medical Center. He is a member of the Boards of Trustees of Volunteers in Medicine and Rio Vista Equipo Medico. He also serves as co-leader of medical missions to Guatemala to provide medical care, including cleft palate surgery. The Women's Center of Monmouth County has, for 24 years, provided invaluable services to families affected by domestic violence and sexual assault and has received five major awards for its outstanding work. Anna M. Diaz-White, executive director and a staff member for 16 years, accepted the award on behalf of the Center. I congratulate Ms. Diaz White and all the staffers and volunteers who make the Center the valuable community asset that it is. The Jersey Shore Chapter of NCCJ also applauded Anytown, NJ, a week- long program for high school students in which they break barriers, deal with biased behavior and develop an action plan to reduce prejudice in their hometowns. I have worked with Dr. Arlinghaus for many years on the Congressional Award which seeks to encourage strong values and community service. Before that, he worked with the late Rep. James J. Howard, the original sponsor of the law enacting the Congressional Award program. Because of his association with an important Congressional initiative, I wanted to share with my colleagues a excerpts from his acceptance speech: I submit the following excerpts from Dr. Arlinghaus's September 21 speech into the Record. ``It was many years ago this month that Joe Gouthro and I met the then Congressman Howard to describe to him a dream called the Congressional Award and ten years later it became a Public Law. Since that very humble beginning much has passed into our history. And from that very unique experience of working with Congress, I have observed many unique events and personalities and beg your indulgence to share a thought and a theme with you this evening. A new millennium has begun and our republic stands as what has been described as the world's indispensable nation. Two thousand years ago the Roman Empire in the western world occupied very much the same position economically, militarily and in the minds of those who lived then. The mythic story of the founding of the Roman Republic by the poet Virgil in the Aeneid emphasized one essential point, one essential virtue, one essential value. Aeneas was pious. He was humble before his ``gods''and from that piety flowed his strength and the future moral vibrancy of Rome. When Aeneas lost his piety, when Rome forsake that piety, when individual citizens abandoned that value, Rome was lost.'' ``. . . . . Like pious Aeneas we are warned by history how important these values are. Can we be successful in keeping our sense of Community or our sense of Justice without such values? Whether it be through the NCCJ or the Congressional Award or through the works of our fellow citizens: Bahiyyah and Sol, Eugene and Tim, and the Women's Center, these values are self-evident and command our allegiance. Such values are at the heart of the wonderful acts of service of my more- than-distinguished co-recipients this evening. As Hans Kung the noted philosopher and moralist wrote ``the will of the almighty is carried out through service to human beings.'' And as our Founding Fathers prayed: ``We have given you a Republic. It is up to you to keep it.''