Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman in particular for bringing up what has happened in the gentleman's own State's legislature in Texas. As we know, some of the criticism which is really coming from the insurance company about the Patients' Bill of Rights or any kind of managed care reform is that somehow it is going to cause all those lawsuits. The Texas experience shows that is not the case. What we want to do is preventative. If these are in place, people do not have to file lawsuits because the protections are there. In addition, the gentleman pointed out there has been very little cost increase. We always get the criticism that this is going to cost a lot of money. It has been a matter of pennies, from what I understand.

Mr. PALLONE. We cannot have it. We have to have an end to that. I agree with the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who is a member of our Health Care Task Force and been working very hard to try to make sure that we are able to vote on this Patients' Bill of Rights and to articulate to our constituents what this is all about.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I want to thank the gentleman. I think this is really all it is about. One of the things that I keep stressing, and that I think came up tonight with the various speakers, is the fact that this is just common sense. When we talk about these patient protections that are in the Patients' Bill of Rights, we are not really talking about anything abstract or difficult to understand or even difficult to implement. In fact, when I go through the list of the kinds of patient protections that are included in our bill, I think most people would be shocked to think that they are not already guaranteed.

Mr. PALLONE. And there is also the fact that the States do not have any power over the ERISA plans, and the majority of the people are actually under some kind of self-insured program or self-insured health care or managed care through where they work, and that is preempted by Federal law so that those State plans do not apply. Just to give an example, and I know we do not have a lot of time, we are almost out of time, but I just went through some of the highlights of the Patients' Bill of Rights: Guarantees access to needed health care specialists. Most people probably think they have a right to see a specialist, but they do not necessarily right now. Provide access to emergency room services when and where the need arises. Most people are shocked to find out they cannot go to the local emergency room because their HMO says they have to go somewhere else. Provide continuity of care protections to assure patient care if a patient's health care provider is dropped. Give access to a timely internal, independent, external appeals process. Ensure that doctors and patients can openly discuss treatment options. That is a great one. The gag rule. When I explain to constituents that under many managed care plans now that a doctor cannot give them information about a course of treatment that is not covered by the insurance company, they cannot believe it. Most people view that as un- American because they figure we all should have a right to free speech. And to imagine that a doctor cannot tell a patient about a treatment option because it is not covered by the insurance plan is un-American is unethical and just incredible. These are simple things. We are not really talking about anything that is terribly abstract. These are just common sense protections. If I could just conclude by saying that I just think it is very unfortunate that we just cannot bring this measure to the floor and have a vote up and down. And the worst part of it is that this is the second year. Last year we had to do the same thing; go through the same petition process, have 200 some odd Democrats and a few Republicans come down here and sign a petition to get this considered on the floor. And here we are about to do the same thing next week in order to bring this to the floor. It just should not be that way. That is not the way people expect this Congress to operate. But we are going to make sure it happens and we are going to make sure that we have an opportunity to bring the Patients' Bill of Rights to the floor of the House of Representatives because it is the right thing to do and it is what Americans want and expect from all of us.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun). This amendment could have the potentially destructive effect of cutting off important exchanges for 2 years between American scientists and their counterparts from other countries. The amendment attempts to respond to compromises to our national security with regard to the People's Republic of China, obviously, a worthy goal, but it goes too far, extending the moratorium for 2 years instead of the 90 days specified in the Cox-Dicks amendment. The sensitive country list, as has been mentioned, includes many friends of the United States, including Israel. The list includes most of the former Soviet republics, including countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia that are part of NATO's Partnership For Peace, and whose presidents took part in the recent 50th anniversary celebrations for NATO here in Washington. It includes India, the world's largest democracy. The stated reason for putting India on the list is it has not yet signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But it needs to be made clear that India's nuclear program is an indigenous one, developed by India's own scientists. Export controls on supercomputers and other dual-use technologies have been in effect against India for years, forcing India to develop its own highly advanced R&D infrastructure. There is no evidence or even suggestion that India has been involved in the kinds of espionage activities that have been documented with regard to China. And we must be careful not to cut off scientific exchanges for as long as 2 years. And I know, Mr. Chairman, there is a waiver provision for national security reasons, but I would suggest that that is a very difficult test. Experience shows these types of waivers are rarely used. And I just want to say that I agree that China's espionage activities should cause us to be more vigilant, but the Cox-Dicks amendment addresses many of these concerns, including a much more measured approach to dealing with the Department of Energy's foreign visitors program. So I think that for that reason we should oppose this amendment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, there are some who call it the ``trial of the century.'' Abdullah Ocalan, the imprisoned Kurdish rebel leader, is on trial before a Turkish military tribunal. The trial could hardly be called fair. Mr. Ocalan, who faces the death penalty if convicted, has been denied access to his lawyers. His legal team has faced a pattern of harassment and threats. The Turkish government and media have stirred up nationalistic passions against Mr. Ocalan. If the Turkish government forges ahead with legally railroading Mr. Ocalan and the threat to hang him is carried out, the result would be disastrous for all the people of the region. Yet interestingly enough, the trial of Mr. Ocalan has created a potentially positive and long overdue opening towards reconciliation between the Turkish and Kurdish peoples. Standing in the dock at his show trial, Mr. Ocalan made a brave plea for a negotiated, Democratic solution to the Kurdish question. Mr. Ocalan's organization, the Kurdish workers's party known as the PKK, has announced its support for Mr. Ocalan's peace offer. With the media attention that the trial is attracting, putting the Kurdish issue in the spotlight to an almost unprecedented degree, Turkey could vastly improve its international standing by simply agreeing to begin negotiations with the Kurdish leaders but, sadly, Mr. Speaker, so far the Turkish government has rejected the path to peace insisting that it will not negotiate with Mr. Ocalan or any leaders of the Kurdish movement. Yesterday's Washington Post had an editorial entitled, ``Turkey's Kurdish Opening,'' which begins with these words: ``Turkey may have a once in a generation opening to treat its national cancer, the problem of its aggrieved Turkish minority.'' The editorial in the Post, a paper that has previously shown sympathy to the Turkish point of view on a number of issues, notes that the Turkish policy of relentless military and political attack on the Kurdish movement dooms Turkey to a conflict that sets it at odds with the human Democratic values of the western nations whose company it most values. That is the bind, Mr. Speaker, that Turkey has put itself into. Turkey is a member of NATO and has sought membership in the European Union, so far unsuccessfully. At the same time, Turkey continues not only to wage a dirty war against a minority community within its borders but to repress and essentially deny the existence of a distinct Kurdish identity, language or culture. In the meantime, Turkey's economic development, levels of education, infrastructure, development and standard of living, lag far behind European standards while scarce resources are squandered on its ongoing war against the Kurds. It is a cycle that must be broken. As The Washington Post editorial concludes, ``Friends of Turkey must hope it can muster the courage to broaden its perspective and to conduct an honest exploration of the Ocalan initiative.'' Mr. Speaker, two recent articles in the New York Times suggest unfortunately that the Turkish political and military establishment is a long way from making this major leap. Last Friday, it was reported that Turkey's best known human rights advocate, Akin Birdal, entered prison to serve a 9\1/2\ month sentence for giving speeches judged subversive. What was his subversive activity? Mr. Birdal, chairman of the Human Rights Association, has repeatedly urged the Turkish state to reach a peaceful settlement with Kurdish rebels. Now, as the article reports, such statements constitute support for terrorism under Turkish law. This same law has recently been used to convict two journalists, a university professor and an aide to Mr. Birdal. While some brave Turks, including the country's top judge, have called for repeal of the law, the hardline regime refuses to give in. Mr. Speaker, in an effort to encourage the U.S. Government to play a constructive role in heading off the crisis in Turkey, my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and I, are circulating a letter this week asking our colleagues to sign a letter to President Clinton urging his intervention to implore that the Turkish authorities show some basic fairness in trying Mr. Ocalan and to spare his life. Seeking a fair trial for Mr. Ocalan should be the first step in our efforts to press Turkey to enter into negotiations to achieve a political solution to this tragic struggle. Mr. Ocalan and his Kurdish organization have offered an olive branch to the Turkish government. It would be both the decent and the smart thing to do for Turkey to accept this good faith offer and to embark on the path of peace. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ocalan made several previous cease-fire offers prior to his arrest--all of which were summarily rejected by the Turkish government and military officials. An article in Sunday's New York Times further describes the hardening of official attitudes in Turkey. According to the article, the Turkish Interior Ministry has issued a directive listing terms that must be used when discussing Mr. Ocalan, his movement or Kurds in general. The rules are binding on all reporters for state-run news agencies. It represents another example of the ongoing pattern of inciting nationalistic fear and distrust of the PKK, while trying to blind the Turkish people to the Kurds, their history, their culture and the validity of their struggle. Mr. Speaker, the Turkish regime refuses to even acknowledge the Kurds' existence, referring to them as ``mountain Turks,'' prohibiting all expression of Kurdish culture and language in an effort to forcibly assimilate them, while jailing, torturing and killing Kurdish leaders. The Government of Turkey's undeclared war on the Kurds has claimed close to 40,000 lives and caused more than 3 million people to become refugees.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks tensions have increased in the area that is known as the ``roof of the world,'' and that is India's state of Jammu and Kashmir, located in the western Himalayan Mountains. For years they have been victimized by foreign militants, mercenaries affiliated with Islamic extremist groups, and supported by Pakistan, who have imposed a reign of terror on the inhabitants of the state, and this spring the Pakistan-backed infiltrators took over Indian defensive positions located on India's side of the line of control near the town of Kargil. India has responded to this incursion on its territory by exercising its legitimate right of self-defense. Mr. Speaker, recently Pakistan's Ambassador to the U.S. has complained of what he called a ``bias in favor of the Indian position'' by our State Department. Ambassador Kokhar was apparently upset about a statement made by State Department spokesman James Rubin at his regular press briefing in which Mr. Rubin described the Kashmiri Mujahideen as infiltrators from Pakistan on India's side of the line of control. Mr. Rubin also stated that insertion of any additional fighters from across the line of control will only increase tensions and prolong the fighting. Mr. Speaker, I find it a little ironic that the Pakistani Ambassador complained about a pro-India tilt at the State Department, since for years the State Department has demonstrated what I consider to be a pronounced pro-Pakistan tilt. In fact, in the first few days of the current conflict, the State Department seemed to be going out of its way to suggest that both countries were equally guilty. At last week's briefing, the State Department spokesman was just stating the facts, describing the situation in Kashmir as it truly is. I hope that the State Department and other administration officials will not bow to Pakistani pressure in characterizing the current conflict in Kashmir. It is clear that Pakistan has had a major role in precipitating this current conflict. Pakistan has for years tried to internationalize its bilateral dispute with India over Kashmir, and it is a strategy we cannot allow to succeed. Officially, Pakistan claims that it only provides political and moral support for militants in Kashmir, although I think it is highly inappropriate to use the term ``moral'' for a campaign of terror that has claimed thousands of victims, both Hindu and Muslim, and has made refugees of hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri pundits. Mr. Rubin's statement indicates a recognition of the obvious fact that the militants have crossed over from Pakistan. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there are reports indicating that these well-trained mercenaries are not only supported by the Pakistani Army, but that Pakistani Army regulars may be participating in the infiltration of India. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that India has undertaken a defensive operation to repulse hostile infiltrators, and India has taken appropriate steps to keep its neighbor Pakistan and the world community informed about its actions. The militants are occupying strategic locations, threatening to alter the current line of control that was established by the U.N. in a negotiated cease-fire and which both countries officially recognize and honor, almost as a de facto international boundary. India could not stand by and allow this to continue. During this conflict, India's Prime Minister Vajpayee has been in contact with his Pakastani counterpart, Prime Minister Sharif, and the Directors-General of Military Operations of India and Pakistan have been in contact with each other over the hotline installed to defuse tensions between the two countries. The U.S. Ambassador to India, Richard Celeste, has been briefed by both the Defense Department and the External Affairs Ministry in New Delhi. The week before last, India's Ambassador to the United States came up to Capitol Hill to brief Members of Congress, and other friendly governments have also been briefed. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken out repeatedly about the need to repeal the economic sanctions that were imposed on India and Pakistan last year pursuant to the Glenn amendment after both countries conducted nuclear tests. In fact, I have introduced legislation to repeal these sanctions which have done nothing to promote nuclear nonproliferation or to build confidence between India and Pakistan. What the sanctions have accomplished is to cause American businesses to lose trade and investment opportunities with both India and Pakistan, to disrupt bilateral relations in many other areas not related to military or nuclear technology, and to block important development projects funded by international lending institutions. The current situation in Kashmir should have nothing to do with our efforts to lift the sanctions imposed by the Glenn amendment. But the current situation does point to an area where I believe U.S. sanctions should be maintained. The Pressler amendment bans U.S. military assistance to Pakistan unless the U.S. President certifies that Pakistan does not possess nuclear weapons. Late last month, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, Karl Inderfurth, testified before a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee in support of repealing the Pressler amendment, and I greatly respect Rick Inderfurth, Mr. Speaker, but I believe he was wrong on this issue. The justification for the Pressler amendment is Pakistan's long-term involvement in nuclear proliferation. Indeed, the Cox report contains several references to transfers of nuclear technology and missile technology between China and Pakistan. India's nuclear program, on the other hand, is an indigenous program, and India has not been involved in sharing this technology, and this is a very important distinction. Now, Pakistan's involvement in supporting the militants that continually infiltrate India's territory is an example of how Pakistan promotes regional instability and commits or supports aggression against its neighbors. India is not involved in these kinds of hostile, destabilizing activities. Mr. Speaker, our priority should be to do what we can to promote stability and economic opportunities in South Asia. The best way we can do that is to lift the sanctions imposed under the Glenn Amendment. While I obviously oppose repealing the Pressler Amendment, in any case we should be focusing now on lifting the sanctions imposed by the Glenn Amendment. We must not be pulled into intervening in the Kashmir issue, since India and Pakistan must resolve this conflict on a bilateral basis. I urge that American statements on this issue continue to recognize which party is the destabilizing force and which one is trying to defend itself from outside aggression.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I agree and I appreciate the gentlewoman bringing it up. We can also continue to address and find ways of providing coverage as part of our health care task force which the gentlewoman cochairs. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). He is the second Texan we have had tonight. I think part of the reason is because he has had a very successful type of patients' bill of rights passed in Texas that applies statewide. One of the things we have been pointing out tonight is that even States like Texas that have gone very far in providing these kind of patient protections that we would like to see done nationally, because of the Federal preemption that exists for those where the employer is self-insured, the Texas law in many cases does not apply. That is why we need Federal legislation.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman and particularly emphasize again what she said about the extraordinary nature of this procedure of the discharge petition. And it is unfortunate. As my colleague mentioned, there are major differences between the Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights and the Republican leadership bill, which we know is really defective in terms of providing patients' protections compared to what the Democrats have put forward. The bottom line is that the Republican leadership refuses to bring any bill up. So it is not even a question, as my colleague pointed out, whether this is a good bill or bad bill. They just refused to bring the issue up and let us have a debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. We had the same problem last year. We had to use this discharge petition. As my colleague knows, back a month ago, I guess in April around the time of Easter and Passover, we actually had the President going to Philadelphia with a number of us and start this whole national petition drive on the Internet to show how many people supported bringing up the Patients' Bill of Rights. Since that time, a number of us on the Committee on Commerce, and I see my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) is here, also on the Committee on Commerce, have pleaded and sent letters to the Republican leadership and our committee asking that they have hearings and mark up this legislation or any legislation related to HMOs, managed care reform. So far, we have been told we will have hearings sometime this summer. Well, that is a long time. That brings us into the fall. And if there is no action on this because we are having hearings all summer, that is not going to solve the problem. So we have no recourse, essentially, other than to go to this petition route. That is why we are doing it. And it is extraordinary.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), who is one of the co-chairs of our Health Care Task Force.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman. I think it is very important as she did to point out that as much as we support the Patients' Bill of Rights and we want to bring it up, that we also need to address the problems of the uninsured and the fact that the numbers are growing. Of course part of our Democratic platform that has been pushed, also, by President Clinton is to address some of the problems of the uninsured. Of course, a few years ago, our health care task force worked on the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill which allows people to take their insurance with them if they lose their job or they go from one job to another, and then we moved on the kids health care initiative which is now insuring a lot of the children who were uninsured, and, of course, the President and the Democrats had the proposal for the near elderly where people who are between 55 and 65, depending on the circumstances, can buy into Medicare. But the gentlewoman is right. We are trying to address those issues but the larger issue of the uninsured also needs attention.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, it is very important that we keep up the pressure in this House to pass HMO reform. Despite the overwhelming support among the American people for HMO or managed care reform, the Republican leadership continues to let the issue languish. We still have no indication when or even if they will allow the Patients' Bill of Rights to come to the House floor for a vote. The reason for this activity is the same as it was last year. The Republican leadership cannot figure out how they can pass a good managed care bill without alienating the insurance agency. So instead of doing what is right and best for the American people, they are once again appeasing the insurance industry and hoping an answer to this problem will magically fall from out of the sky. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, as the leadership sits and waits and does nothing, the shortcomings of the system continue to forever change the lives of countless Americans. We need only to turn on the TV or open the newspaper to see this. I would like to use one example here tonight, and that is the issue of emergency room care. Earlier this month, USA Today ran an editorial on this issue. It was called ``Early Last Year'' starts the editorial. It mentions that a Seattle woman began suffering chest pains and numbness while driving. The pain was so severe that she pulled into a fire station seeking help only to be whisked to the nearest hospital where she was promptly admitted. To most, that would seem a prudent course of action, but not to her health plan. It denied payment because she did not call the plan first to get preauthorized, according to an investigation by the Washington State Insurance Commissioner. I mentioned this editorial, Madam Speaker, as an example of the problems people have with their HMOs in terms of access and paying to for emergency room care. Let me just go on to talk about this editorial again. The editorial says that this incident is typical of the enumerable bureaucratic hassles patients confront as HMOs and other managed care companies attempt to control costs. But denial of payment for emergency care presents a particularly dangerous double-whammy. Patients facing emergencies might feel they have to choose between putting their health at risk and paying a huge bill they may not be able to afford. The editorial in USA Today goes on to suggest a solution to the problem, noting that a national prudent layperson standard law covering all health plans would help fill in the gaps left by the current patchwork of State and Federal laws. Democrats have been basically making this point about managed care for a long time. We know that people have had problems with their HMOs if they need to use an emergency room either because they are told to go to a hospital emergency room a lot further away from where they live or where the accident occurred, or, as in this case that I just mentioned, the actual payment afterwards is denied because they did not seek preauthorization, which seems nonsensical certainly in the context of emergency room care. One only goes to an emergency room if it is an emergency. If one has to get preauthorization for it, it really is not an emergency. That is the dilemma that more and more Americans face, that their HMO plan does not cover emergency room care. The Democrats, in response to this, have introduced a bill called the Patients' Bill of Rights. Basically what we do in the Patients' Bill of Rights is say that the prudent layperson's standard applies. In other words, if the average person, the average, prudent person, if you will, decided that they had chest pains or they had a problem that necessitated going to the local emergency room, then they can go to the emergency room that is closest by, and the HMO has to pay, has to compensate for that care, has to pay for that emergency room care. In the last Congress, we, the Democrats, tried to bring up the Patients' Bill of Rights. The Patients' Bill of Rights provides a number of patient protections, not just the emergency room care, but access to specialists. It basically applies the principle that says, if particular care is necessary, medically necessary, and in the opinion of one's doctor is medically necessary, then it is covered; and the HMO has to cover that particular type of care. In the last Congress, the Republican leadership did not hold a single hearing on the Patients' Bill of Rights or even on an alternative managed care bill that they had proposed. So what we had to do, basically, was to seek what we call a discharge petition. We had to have a number of our colleagues come down to the well here and sign a discharge petition that said that the Patients' Bill of Rights should be allowed to come to the floor. As we reached the magical number that was necessary in order to bring the Patients' Bill of Rights to the floor, the Republican leadership finally decided that they would bring their own managed care reform bill to the floor. In the context of that, we were allowed to bring up the Patients' Bill of Rights. I think we are going to have to be forced to do that again. Basically in this session of Congress, even though the Patients' Bill of Rights have been reintroduced and even though there are some Republican managed care reform proposals, so far, the Republican leadership has refused to bring up HMO reform, either their bill, which is not as good, or the Patients' Bill of Rights, the Democratic bill. So what we have had to do again, and starting tomorrow, is to file a rule allowing for a discharge petition to be brought up and have as many Members of Congress come down to the well again in a couple of weeks and sign this discharge petition in order to force the Republican leadership to bring the Patients' Bill of Rights to the floor. It should not be that way. It should not be necessary that, in order to achieve HMO reform, that we have to sign a petition as Members of Congress to bring it up. It simply should be brought up in committee. There should be hearings. It should be voted on in committee to come to the floor. But so far, we have nothing but stalling tactics from the Republican leadership. I mentioned the example of emergency room care. But there are a lot of other examples that we can mention about why we need patient protections, why we need the Patients' Bill of Rights. Let me just give my colleagues another example, though. We have a Democratic Task Force on Health Care, which basically put together the Patients' Bill of Rights. We had some hearings on the Patients' Bill of Rights in the context of our Democratic Health Care Task Force because we could not get hearings in the regular committees of the House because of the opposition from the Republican leadership. I just wanted to mention another example because I think it is one of the most egregious that came before us when we had this hearing. We invited a Dr. Charlotte Yeh, who is a practicing emergency physician at the New England Medical Center in Boston, to the hearing that we had. She provided a number of examples of the effects that the managed care industries approach to emergency room care is having on patients, including one from Boston. She told our task force about a boy whose leg was seriously injured in an auto accident. At a nearby hospital in Boston, emergency room doctors told the parents he would need vascular surgery to save his leg and that a surgeon was ready at that hospital to perform the operation. Unfortunately for this young man, his insurer insisted he be transferred to an in-network hospital for the surgery. His parents were told, if they allowed the operation to be done anywhere else, they would be responsible to the bill. They agreed to the move. Surgery was performed 3 hours after the accident. By then, it was too late to save the boy's leg. Dr. Yeh went on to express her very strong support to making the prudent layperson's standard the national standard for emergency room care. As I said before, basically the prudent layperson's standard says, if one does go to the emergency room to seek treatment under conditions that would prompt any reasonable person to go there, one's HMO would pay for it. But in addition to the prudent layperson's standard, Dr. Yeh also emphasized the need to eliminate restrictive prior authorization requirements and the establishment of post-stabilization services between emergency physicians and managed care plans. The Patients' Bill of Rights includes all of these types of provisions. If I could for a minute, Madam Speaker, just run through some of the protections that are included in the Patients' Bill of Rights, it guarantees access to needed health care specialists, very important. It provides, as I said, access to emergency room services when and where the need arise. It provides continuity of care protections to assure patient care if a patient's health care provider is dropped. It gives access to a timely internal and independent external appeals process. Let me mention that for a minute. If one is denied care right now because one's HMOs decides that they will not pay for it, one of the things that my constituents complain to me about is that they have no way to appeal that decision other than internally within the HMO. So if the HMO decides, for example, that a particular type of treatment is not medically necessary or that one does not have to stay in the hospital a couple more days, even though one's doctor thinks that one should be staying there, or a number of other things that they consider not medically necessary, well, most of the times, under current law, there is no appeal other than to the HMO itself; and they of course routinely deny the appeal because, for them, it is largely a cost issue. What we are saying in the Patients' Bill of Rights is that that person should be able to go to an external appeal, someone outside the HMO, or a panel outside the HMO that would review the case and decide whether or not that care should be provided and paid for by the HMO. In addition, what we say is that, if one has been damaged for some reason, God forbid, that one needed some kind of procedure or one needed to stay in the hospital a few more days and the HMO refused to allow that and, as a result, one suffered injury and damage, then one should be able to bring suit in a court of law and recover for those damages. Most people do not realize that option does not exist today for a lot of people who are in HMO plans because the Federal Government has said that, in the case of people covered by a Federal plan or where the Federal Government has usurped or preempted the State law for those who are mostly self-insured by their employer, that there is no recourse to seek damages in a court of law. That is not right. It is not right. Someone should be able to sue for damages and sue the HMO if they have been denied care and if they have been hurt or damaged as a result of that. Just to mention a couple more things, we also have in the Patients' Bill of Rights, we assure that doctors and patients can openly discuss treatment options, because, oftentimes, HMOs tell the doctors they cannot tell about treatment options that are not covered, the so-called gag rule. We assure that women have direct access to an OB/GYN. As I said, we provide an enforcement mechanism that ensures recourse for patients who have been maimed or die as a result of health plan actions. There are a lot more things that we can go into, and we will tonight; but I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has been outspoken on this issue and has oftentimes talked about how in her own State of Texas a lot of these protections exist. They exist in Texas. They should exist nationally.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). He brought up a number of really good points, if I could just, as my colleague knows, comment on them a little bit. I mean first of all I think it is important to stress that with this discharge petition, we are not doing it out of spite or disrespect or anything like that. We just want this issue brought to the floor, and as my colleague said, as my colleagues know, having hearings all summer does not do the trick. So far we have not gotten any indication from the Republican leadership or the committee leadership that there is any date certain to mark up this bill in committee and to bring it to the floor, and that is why we need to go the discharge petition way. The other thing the gentleman said I think is so important is he talked about how the Texas law, which does apply to a significant number of people in Texas, even not everyone, that both the cost issue and the issue of the fear, I guess, of frivolous lawsuits has so far proven not to be the case. In other words, the, as my colleagues know, one of the criticisms of HMO reform or Patients' Bill of Rights that the insurance companies raise unfairly is the fact that it is going to cost more, and in fact in Texas it has been found that the cost, there is practically no increased costs whatsoever. I think it was a couple of pennies or something that I read about. And in terms of this fear that there are going to be so many lawsuits and everybody is going to be suing, actually there have been very few suits filed, and the reason I think is because when we put in the law that people can sue the HMO, prevention starts to take place. They become a lot more careful about what they do, they take preventive measures, and the lawsuits do not become necessary because you do not have the damages that people sue for. So I think that is a very important point. The other point the gentleman made that I think is really crucial is the suggestion that somehow because of the debate and because of the pressure that is coming from, as my colleagues know, the talk that is out there, that somehow many; some HMOs I should say; are starting to provide some of these patient protections, and the gentleman's point is well taken, that even though some of them may be doing it, and there are not really that many that are, but even though some of them are doing it, that does not mean that we do not need the protections passed as a matter of law for those, as my colleagues know, bad actors, if you will, who are not implementing these Patients' Bill of Rights. So there needs to be a floor. These are nothing more than commonsense proposals that are sort of a floor of protections. They are not really that outrageous, they are just, as my colleagues know, the commonsense kind of protections that we need. So I think that our time is up, but I just wanted to thank my colleague from Texas. We are going to continue to push. Tomorrow the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is going to file the rule for this discharge petition, and we are going to get people to sign it so we can bring up the Patient Bill of Rights.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 3, 1999, the Jewish Community Center of Greater Monmouth County in Deal, NJ, will honor one of our leading citizens, Ms. Ruth Hyman, with a Testimonial Dinner. I am pleased to add my voice to the chorus of praise for this exceptional lady. Mr. Speaker, it is rare to see someone who has made such an impact on her community as Ruth Hyman has. Through her professional work, civic commitments, wide-ranging network of friendships and a unique personal flair, she has made a deep and lasting impression. Her accomplishments include her apparel business, Ruth Hyman Fashions, and a lifetime of work with numerous Jewish community organizations. Ruth is currently the President of the Long Branch, NJ, Hadassah, a Benefactor and Board Member of the Jewish Community Center, Board Member of the Jewish Family and Children's Service, and Member of Congregation of Brothers of Israel. She was the first Chairperson of the Women's Business and Professional Division of the Jewish Federation. Some of her other affiliations and leadership positions include, Past President and International Life Member of American Red Magen David for Israel, life member of Daughters of Miriam, AMIT, B'nai Brith, Past President of Deborah, and Life Member of the Central New Jersey Home for the Aged. She is also Chairperson of the Women's Division of Israel Bonds, a position she has held for the past 25 years. All of this hard work has not gone unnoticed, Mr. Speaker. Ruth has been presented with the Hadassah National Leadership Award and the Service Award from the Jewish Federation's Women's Campaign, and she was selected as Chai Honoree and Woman of the Year of the Long Branch Chapter of Hadassah. She was chosen by the Jewish Federation as Lay Leader of the Year. She has been presented with the State of Israel Bonds Golda Meir Award, the Service Award from the Jewish Federation Women's Campaign, and the State of Israel Bonds Ben Gurion Award. In addition to her major contributions at the Jewish Community Center, Ruth is founder of Hadassah Hospital at Ein Kerem, Israel, and the Mt. Scopus Hospital, where her name is inscribed on the hospital's Pillar of Hope. Mr. Speaker, as everyone who has known her will attest, Ruth Hyman's hard work for the community emanates from her sincere warmth and generosity. It is an honor to join with the JCC in paying tribute to her, for who she is and what she's done.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, May 23, the Women's Democratic Club of Monmouth County, NJ, will pay tribute to Mr. Victor V. Scudiery, who for the past 10 years has served as the Monmouth County Democratic Chairman. A native of Newark, NJ, Mr. Scudiery graduated from Seton Hall University. He served his country in the U.S. Army in both active and reserve duty. Since then, he has achieved the status of one of our most prominent citizens in the worlds of business and politics and in the civic life of our community. He is the president of Interstate Electronics in Hazlet and also oversees several other business ventures in New Jersey and Florida. But it is probably in his capacity as the Monmouth County Democratic Chairman that Vic Scudiery is best know. As if his chairmanship didn't keep him busy enough, Vic Scudiery devotes considerable time to many worthwhile causes. He serves on the boards of seven community organizations, and his energy, devotion and sincere commitment to giving something back to his community is felt in all of the endeavors that he is involved with. He is the chairman of the Bayshore Senior Day Center Board of Advisors, a lifeline to many area senior citizens, providing meals, companionship and daily activities. As chairman of the Buck Smith Memorial Foundation, he has overseen the granting of scholarships to deserving students. The Bayshore Hospital Health Care Center selected Mr. Scudiery as chairman of the Board of Trustees, where he is responsible for land acquisition and construction of facilities. In recognition of all his hard work and generosity--and in spite of his natural sense of modesty--Vic Scudiery has received countless honors from civic and charitable organizations throughout New Jersey, including the Bayshore Senior Center, Brookdale College, Knights of Columbus, Society of St. Anthony of Padua, the NAACP, and various municipal and Democratic organizations. On this occasion, Mr. Speaker, I am honored to join with the Women's Democratic Club of Monmouth County, and the many friends of Victor Scudiery, in paying tribute to a great chairman and one of our most distinguished citizens.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Weiner/ Kucinich/Udall/Rivers amendment. I have been actively working to ameliorate aircraft noise and pollution problems affecting my district and the New Jersey/New York Region for many years. Recently, I helped secure language in the FAA reauthorization act to urge the FAA to complete its redesign of the New York/New Jersey airspace as expeditiously as possible. I also joined other Members in signing a letter to the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee urging full funding for the airport improvement program. Recently, too, I have met with NASA representatives to better understand their ongoing research efforts that would help reduce aircraft noise. These efforts are leading to the next phase of quieter aircraft, often referred to as ``state IV''. However, NASA is many years away from deploying this technology. To increase their ability to develop this technology more rapidly, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Weiner amendment. The amendment would restore funding for NASA's aircraft noise research program to last year's appropriated level, and would only do so over the next three years. This funding is critical to providing noise relief to our citizens, improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing safety of residents and flight passengers nationwide. This amendment is important not only for residents in the New Jersey/ New York region, but for our entire nation. And I commend my freshman colleague from New York for initiating this important amendment that will improve the quality of life for people across the U.S. Help begin the new millennium with greater noise and pollution relief for our constituents by voting ``Yes'' today on the Weiner/Kucinich/Udall/ Rivers amendment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, May 30, the Republic of Armenia will hold parliamentary elections. In these last 2 weeks leading up to election day, the parties and candidates are intensifying their campaigns and are holding rallies, meetings and using free TV air time as well as paid commercials to get their message out to the voters. Both domestic and international observers will closely scrutinize the conduct of the election to ensure that it is free and fair. Armenia's Central Elections Commission has promised equal treatment for all parties and has vowed to penalize anyone who commits illegal or fraudulent acts connected to the election. Mr. Speaker, we Americans may take for granted the idea of free and fair elections, but in Armenia as a former captive nation under the Soviet Union, the progress of democracy and the establishments of the institutions of a civil society in less than a decade of independence is nothing short of remarkable. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, given the fact that many of Armenia's neighbors are ruled by authoritarian governments, some of which maintain a hostile and aggressive attitude, the determination of the Armenian people to work towards a democratic political system is all the more impressive. Armenian voters last went to the polls in March of 1998 to elect a President. The winner of that election, President Robert Kocharian, was here in Washington last month as part of the NATO summit. He also came to Capitol Hill to meet with Members of Congress to discuss the prospects for U.S.-Armenia relations and our role in promoting stability and economic development in the Caucasus region. Armenia's central location in the heart of this region at the crossroads of Europe, Russia, the Middle East and Central Asia will make it an increasingly important country for the U.S. strategic considerations in the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, for a country with less than 4 million people living in an area about the size of the State of Maryland, Armenia has an extremely diverse group of political parties representing a wide range of ideologies. More than 800 individual candidates and 21 political parties are vying for 131 seats in the parliament; 75 seats will be contested in single-candidate constituencies, while 56 seats are reserved for a system of proportional representation. According to a recent report, 11 political parties and blocs have used the free TV air time that has been allotted to them. Media outlets representing diverse ideologies are covering the elections. For the first time, the campaign and election will be covered on the Internet. Paid political advertisements for this election cycle have exceeded the levels of all previous election campaigns. A survey by the Armenian Sociological Association indicated that voter turnout would be as high as 75 percent, although other polls suggest figures could be somewhat lower than that. The polls indicate that at least six parties and blocs would be able to garner the 5 percent threshold of votes needed to be represented in the Parliament. The major issue is expected to be the economy. Mr. Speaker, I just want to stress that in the first few elections held in the first few years after Armenia became a democracy, there were admittedly some problems. But last year's presidential elections showed the world that Armenia has made significant progress in just a few years despite the legacy of 70 years of Communist dictatorship. After the resignation of Armenia's first President, Levon Ter- Petrosian, in early 1998, the transition was handled in an orderly manner according to the nation's constitution. The presidential election conducted in two rounds was peaceful and well-organized, and the legitimacy of the outcome was accepted by the vast majority of observers inside and outside Armenia. Later this month, Armenia will once again find itself under heavy international scrutiny because of the elections. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe on April 26 set up a monitoring mission with 15 long-term observers deployed around the country to monitor the election campaign and administrative preparation, and to assess the implementation of the new electoral code. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the Armenian people will demonstrate once again during this election on May 30 their commitment to building a society based on civility, the rule of law and tolerance for each other's opinions. This election I think will go far once again to show the progress of Armenia's democracy.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, once again the annual State Department report on international terrorism has acknowledged official Pakistani support for militants operating in India's state of Jammu and Kashmir. Yet once again the State Department has refused to designate Pakistan's government as a sponsor of international terrorism. The report, ``Patterns of Global Terrorism 1998,'' which was released 2 weeks ago, stated, and I quote, ``As in previous years, there were continuing credible reports of official Pakistani support for Kashmiri militant groups that engage in terrorism.'' Still quoting from this report, ``Pakistani officials stated publicly that while the government of Pakistan provides diplomatic, political and moral support for `freedom fighters' in Kashmir, it is firmly against terrorism, and provides no training or material support for Kashmiri militants. Kashmiri militant groups continued to operate in Pakistan, however, raising funds and recruiting new cadre. These activities create a fertile ground for the operations of militant and terrorist groups in Pakistan, including the HUA (Harkat-ul-Ansar).'' Madam Speaker, I should point out that the HUA is the terrorist organization that has been blamed for the 1995 kidnapping of five western tourists in Kashmir, including two Americans. One of the American hostages managed to escape. One of the other hostages, a Norwegian, was brutally murdered; and the fate of the remaining hostages, including an American, Donald Hutchings of Spokane, Washington, is still unknown, despite what the State Department has said is ``ongoing cooperative efforts between U.S. and Indian law enforcement.'' Even if we accept the argument that there has not been official Pakistani training or material support for the militants, and there has been evidence to cast doubt on this assertion, but if we accept that argument, still it is clear that our State Department recognizes, at a minimum, that Pakistan is a base for various militant groups, and that there are credible reports of official Pakistani support. Pakistan admits to diplomatic, political, and moral support for the militants. And we have to wonder, Madam Speaker, how anyone can use the word moral to describe support for a movement that has caused the deaths of thousands of civilians and the dislocation of hundreds of thousands of people from their homes. Madam Speaker, the issue of Kashmir frequently gets mentioned in the geopolitical calculations over the larger India-Pakistan conflict. There has been an ongoing Pakistani effort to internationalize this issue by bringing the United States or other world powers into the negotiations. The one aspect of this tragedy that frequently is overlooked is the plight of the Hindu community of this region, the Kashmiri Pandits. The Kashmiri Pandits have suffered doubly, from the atrocities committed by the militants and the indifference of the world community. I have urged our government, India's government, and various U.N. bodies to accord more attention to the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits, and I will continue these efforts until this tragic situation starts to receive the attention it deserves. Last month, I had the opportunity to raise some of these issues in a meeting with Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah of Jammu and Kashmir, who was in Washington on a working visit. I have to say that Dr. Abdullah had some important ideas on how the U.S. can help promote investment and international lending to rebuild the economy of Jammu and Kashmir. He also mentioned the importance of lifting the U.S. unilateral sanctions on India. Chief Minister Abdullah appealed to both the administration and to Congress to do all in our power to get Pakistan to end its proxy war against India, which it wages by means of its support for the insurgency in Kashmir. Sadly, Madam Speaker, the same May 7, 1999, edition of the newspaper ``India Abroad'' that included coverage of the ``Patterns of Global Terrorism'' and the visit of Chief Minister Abdullah also had this headline, ``Terrorists Gun Down Eight of a Family.'' The article said that in the northwest Kashmir district of Kupwara, that terrorists surrounded the home of Muhammad Maqbool Ganai, a middle-aged resident of the village of Krishipora, and fired indiscriminately at the occupants, killing five men and three women. Apparently, this gentleman was helping security forces in their campaign against the terrorists. Killing people who cooperate with the police is a tactic that has become widespread recently. The terrorists have also been targeting former militants who have surrendered and their families. In the past few months, these attacks have claimed more than 100 lives. According to a police official quoted in the ``India Abroad,'' ``The state police is receiving tremendous support from the locals, and that has made the militants nervous.'' Madam Speaker, there are indications that leading, moderate Pakistani officials have convinced the State Department not to designate Pakistan a sponsor of international terrorism for fear it would provoke anti- American sentiment and embolden the radicals. The question is, given the continuing pattern of Pakistani support for the militants in Kashmir, what has been accomplished by our refusal to state the obvious?

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the recent disputes between the United States and India over nuclear and missile testing issues have not only resulted in political and diplomatic setbacks in our bilateral relationship. One of the major casualties of this year of antagonism has been the economic relationship between our two countries. The historic free-market economic reforms that India initiated at the beginning of this decade have created vast opportunities for American participation in India's economic future. India's huge middle class represents a significant market, while India's infrastructure development needs offer opportunities for cooperation that will benefit both countries. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this past year has seen us lose some of the momentum of the previous 6 or 7 years. I am hoping to contribute to putting the U.S.-India economic relationship back on track, and I would like to offer some ideas on how we can do that. Today I am introducing legislation to suspend all of the unilateral sanctions that the United States has imposed on India. Last year, Members of Congress, working on a bipartisan basis, approved a provision in the fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill that gave President Clinton authority to waive the sanctions during the fiscal year. But I think that a more permanent and less discretionary approach is now necessary. There are some other legislative initiatives being proposed in this body and in the other body, the Senate; and this progress is encouraging, although some of the proposals may not go far enough. My bill is drafted in such a way as to remove the current discretionary approach for waiving sanctions on a selective basis or an exchange for certain concessions by India. In a response to a letter I sent him earlier this year, President Clinton indicated that his administration will pursue an incremental approach to lifting sanctions in exchange for nonproliferation steps by India. But I do not think that this is the way to go. I have been calling for months for a U.S. policy that turns away from the current stance of confrontation with India and towards recognition of India's legitimate security needs and the prospects for greater Indo-U.S. cooperation in both strategic and economic areas. Negotiations over our disagreements concerning nuclear issues should not destroy the burgeoning economic relations between America and India. I am not only pushing for this legislation because of my concerns for how the sanctions impact on the people of India, although that is extremely important to me. As a U.S. Congressman, I am concerned that the remaining sanctions are causing American companies to lose opportunities to do business in India, while our economic competitors in Europe and Japan gain a major foothold in this great, emerging market. Mr. Speaker, India is the fifth largest economy in the world. The private sector accounts for 75 percent of GDP. The country has 22 stock exchanges, over 9,000 listed companies, as well as the commercial banking network of over 63,000 branches. It has had stable democratic government since 1947. It has an independent judicial system and positive foreign investment policies. There is a skilled work force, including professional and managerial personnel. English is, of course, the preferred language for business and is spoken widely and fluently. During a recent congressional delegation visit to India, the leadership of the Confederation of Indian Industry, considered to be India's major business organization, presented a wish list to radically improve our economic ties. Foremost on the list was, of course, the lifting of the sanctions. CII's newly installed president has called on India's government to speedily approve economic reform legislation. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee currently leads a caretaker government, and new parliamentary elections are not scheduled until September. But the caretaker government is empowered to push through 11 key pieces of economic legislation that have been introduced in Parliament and vetted by the relevant committees. They include bills governing insurance regulatory authority, money laundering and foreign exchange management, securities contract and export/import. CII is also calling for reform in 19 key sectors of the economy, ranging from the financial sector and capital markets, to infrastructure and agriculture, to continued privatization. It is clear that the leaders of India's private sector are intent on promoting an improved climate for trade and investment and are encouraging their government to do everything possible to achieve this. I have spoken with many American business leaders, and it is clear that the U.S. business community is concerned about improving relations, and that lifting the sanctions is also on the top of their list. Mr. Speaker, we must finally get beyond the unproductive approach of confrontation and work towards policies that will promote improved opportunities for cooperation between the world's two largest democracies. I hope that the legislation I am introducing today will contribute to that process.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as our military campaign in the Balkans continues, with the noble goal of stopping the ethnic cleansing that the dictator Milosevic has perpetrated against the Kosovar Albanian people, another similar atrocity continues to be perpetrated in the mountains of eastern Turkey against the Kurdish people. There is a crucial difference between the situations in Kosovo and in Kurdistan. In the case of Kosovo, the forces of NATO are being used to stop the murderous rampage unleashed by Milosevic. But the Turkish regime that is responsible for the war against the Kurds is actually a member of NATO. Unfortunately, because Turkey is viewed as a strategic ally of the U.S. and the West, the plight of the Kurds in Turkey has not been given adequate attention by the United States. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we may actually be contributing to the oppression of the Kurds. The issue of Turkey's war on the Kurds and American support for Turkey was brought into sharp focus earlier this year with the apprehension of Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the Kurdish independence movement. Mr. Ocalan has been fighting for autonomy for the Kurdish people, who are the victims of oppression by Turkey as well as Iraq, Iran and Syria. Mr. Speaker, the Turkish regime refuses to even acknowledge the Kurds' existence, referring to them as ``mountain Turks'', prohibiting all expression of Kurdish culture and language in an effort to forcibly assimilate them, while jailing, torturing, and killing Kurdish leaders. It is true that the Kurdish communities in Iraq, Iran and Syria also suffer terribly, and we should keep in mind the fate of the Kurds in those countries--indeed, the U.S.-led Operation Provide Comfort in Northern Iraq is an action we can all be proud of. But, frankly, we tend to expect egregious human rights violations to occur under the Iraqi, Iranian and Syrian regimes. Turkey, on the other hand, is a member of NATO, touted as a democracy, a participant in Operation Allied Force. Turkey has received over the years millions of dollars in economic and, especially, military assistance courtesy of the American taxpayer. We have a right to expect better, and Turkey, as a member of NATO and a candidate for the European Union has an obligation to do better. Furthermore, the mistreatment of the Kurdish population of Turkey is not the only example of Turkey's blatant violation of American values, ideals or interests. The continued occupation of Northern Cyprus and the blockade against Armenia are two other glaring examples where Turkey pursues the kind of policies that we should not accept from any nation, but particularly one of our allies. Mr. Speaker, I was appalled when it was reported that American intelligence and diplomatic services actually helped a Turkish commando team to capture Mr. Ocalan in Kenya in February of this year. This shameful collaboration with Turkey has resulted in Mr. Ocalan being held in solitary confinement on an island prison in Turkey. He will be tried in a secret military-type court with no jury and no foreign observers. The prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. There is little hope that Mr. Ocalan will receive a fair trial. In fact, the debate in the Turkish press is not about whether he will get a fair trial but rather when he will be executed. According to a recent report by Amnesty International, Mr. Ocalan's defense lawyers are routinely beaten and harassed by Turkish police. The police have even tried to incite public riots against the defense team. The lawyers and their families have received telephone threats. I should point out that this is in violation of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which states that lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients' causes as a result of discharging their functions. In the United States and in other countries where the rule of law is respected, we believe that everyone, even the most unpopular defendants, has a right to a fair trial. There is no place for a lynch mob mentality. After 3 months in solitary confinement, denied proper access to his lawyers and being constantly guarded by armed soldiers wearing ski masks, Mr. Ocalan may be suffering a psychological breakdown. All of his meetings with his lawyers are monitored. It is quite possible that he has been subjected to torture. But if Turkey does go ahead and hang Mr. Ocalan, the result would be to create a martyr for the Kurdish people and to unleash an all-out civil war that would be disastrous for all the people of the region, both Turks and Kurds. Such an outcome is not in anyone's interests, not that of Turkey, not the Kurdish people, not the neighboring countries, certainly not the United States. Mr. Speaker, in order to encourage the U.S. Government to play a constructive role in heading off a crisis in Turkey, my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), and I will be circulating a letter this week asking our colleagues to sign a letter to President Clinton urging his intervention, to implore that the Turkish authorities show some basic fairness in trying Mr. Ocalan and to spare his life. The government of Turkey's undeclared war on the Kurds has claimed close to 40,000 lives and caused more than 3 million people to become refugees. Before his arrest, Mr. Ocalan had announced that he was ready to renounce violence and negotiate, but Turkey did not even consider the request. Even worse, Mr. Speaker, the United States did not encourage such negotiations to begin. Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that it would be more appropriate to have an International Tribunal prosecute Mr. Ocalan since Turkey is at war with the Kurds and cannot be expected to conduct a fair trial. Seeking a fair trial for Mr. Ocalan should be the first step in our efforts to press Turkey to enter into negotiations to achieve a political solution to this tragic struggle. What is truly tragic about the conflict between the Turkish regime and the Kurdish people is that the Turkish and Kurdish people have not always lived in conflict. There is hope that reconciliation could occur but only if the Turkish authorities recognize the rights and distinct identity of the Kurds and finally halt their goal of controlling and conquering the Kurds.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 7, 1999, the Ocean County, NJ, Democratic Party will pay tribute to Peter A. Marone on the occasion of his retirement as Assistant Supervisor and Investigations Coordinator of the Ocean County Board of Elections. Mr. Marone has served in this post since 1979. Peter Marone has been a leader in political, civic and community affairs in Ocean County for as long as most area residents can remember. He was a member of the Point Pleasant Borough Governing Body for three decades (the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's), including a term as mayor from 1979-1982, and two periods of service as a Councilman, from 1974-78 and 1989-91. He also was a member of the Point Pleasant Planning Board from 1979-82, and he served as Acting Administrator of the Borough from 1979-82. In 1976, he was appointed by former New Jersey Governor Brendan Byrne to the Open Access Public Beaches Study Commission. He has been a loyal and active member of the Ocean County Democratic Committee, serving as Treasurer and Sergeant-at-Arms from 1985-1999. He also currently serves as a New Jersey State Committeeman. Peter Marone's service to his community and our country goes back decades. A New Jersey native, Mr. Marone served in the Korean War from 1948-52, and is a Life Member of the Disabled American Veterans. He is a member of the Chosin Few (Korea-1950) Exclusive Fraternity, and has been decorated with the Japan Occupation Ribbon and the Korean Campaign Ribbon with five bronze stars. A past Senior Vice Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he is a member of VFW Post 4715, and American Legion Post 196. He is also a member of the Loyal Order of Moose. Peter and Doris Marone have been married 42 years, and they have three children. A communicant of St. Martha's Roman Catholic Church in Point Pleasant, Peter enjoys a number of activities besides politics-- but he enjoys nothing more than his seven grandchildren. As his friends and colleagues in the Ocean County Democrats pay tribute to Peter Marone, I want to add my voice to all those wishing him well and thanking him for so many years of steadfast service, solid leadership and true dedication to his town, county, state and nation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 4, at the Embassy of the Republic of Armenia here in Washington, D.C., an important milestone was celebrated, the 30th anniversary of the Armenian Studies Program at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I believe this event is important not only because of the celebration of three decades of one of the world's finest programs for the study of Armenian language, literature, art and history, although this is of course extremely important in its own right. What distinguishes this week's celebration and the entire mission of the Armenian Studies Program at Hebrew University is the cooperation it represents between the Armenian and the Jewish peoples. This cooperation was in evidence as distinguished representatives from both the Armenian-American and Jewish-American communities were present at the Embassy. Mr. Speaker, the Armenian and Jewish peoples have much in common. They are two of the most ancient and enduring nations, with histories and traditions that are measured not in centuries but in millennia. Sadly, these two peoples of great cultural achievement have also been singled out for unthinkable suffering, particularly in this century. Last month, Members of this House paid tribute to the victims and survivors of the Armenian genocide in which 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of the Ottoman Turkish Empire during the years 1915 to 1923. At that time there did not exist a word to properly convey the enormous horror of an entire people being singled out for mass murder, for racial or ethnic elimination. It was not until the Nazi Holocaust, in which six million Jews were killed for no other reason than for who they were, that a term was devised to describe this mass atrocity: Genocide. In fact, when Hitler was planning his so-called ``final solution'' against the Jewish people, he said to his associates, ``Who today remembers the extermination of the Armenians?" Yet today, Mr. Speaker, the Armenian and Jewish people have overcome the horrors of the past, not forgotten, of course, but overcome. The Republic of Armenia is an emerging democracy that has worked to establish the institutions of a civil society at home while maintaining its national security despite being surrounded by hostile neighbors. The State of Israel has succeeded at these same daunting tasks, fostering a thriving democracy while remaining secure against hostile neighbors for half a century. In Israel's capital of Jerusalem, in the southwestern part of the Old City, surrounding the Citadel of King David, is the Armenian Quarter. The staunchly Christian Armenian people, the first to embrace Christianity as their national religion, have maintained their presence in that area since early times. The Armenian St. James Cathedral is one of the most impressive churches in the Old City. The Armenian Museum is a graceful cloister housing a fascinating collection of manuscripts and artifacts. Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate Road and Ararat Street, named for the mountain in full view from Armenia's capital of Yerevan, where Noah's Ark is believed to have come to rest, are two of the area's main thoroughfares. Jerusalem's approximately 2,000 Armenians live in a tightly-knit community known for their sophistication, dedication to their faith and their nation, and hospitality to visitors. During the Armenian genocide, hundreds of thousands of Armenians were forced by the Ottoman Turks into the deserts of the Middle East. In the midst of their suffering, some Armenians were taken in and given protection by many people in the Middle East, and Armenian communities still exist in that part of the world. Israel and Armenia continue to work on expanding and improving their bilateral relations. While there have admittedly been some differences, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian visited Israel late last year, at which time the governments of both countries emphasized their commitment to increased cooperation. But, Mr. Speaker, while government-to-government initiatives continue, some of the most important advances come from the person-to- person relationships. Tuesday night's event at the Armenian Embassy is a testimony to that effort. I want to pay particular tribute to two individuals who have done so much to further these important contacts, Annie Totah and Aris Mardirossian, the co-chairs of the 30th Anniversary Celebration. I also salute all of the Armenian and American Friends of the Hebrew University and all of the leaders in the Armenian and Jewish communities who have worked so hard for this very worthy cause. Tuesday's reception will be followed by several noteworthy events in Jerusalem, including the International Conference on the Armenians in Jerusalem on May 24 through 26, a symposium for the Israeli public on June 6, and a symposium on the Armenian Pilgrimage to the Holy Land with guest of honor His Beatitude Mesrop II, Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, and an alumnus of the Armenian Studies Program. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to one of the leading figures in the media, ABC news anchor Peter Jennings. On last Friday's broadcast, Mr. Jennings presented as part of his series on the century a poignant and powerful report on the Armenian genocide. In a century in which genocide has been a recurring horror, from the Nazis to Cambodia to Rwanda to the Balkans, it is important that all of us, in politics, in the media, in the field of education, and in other walks of life, be aware of what happened to the Armenian people 84 years ago.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say, I mean, I totally agree with what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) said and my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Brown). I think that the problem that we face with this Breaux-Thomas voucher proposal is the following: Right now, because Medicare applies to everyone over 65 and is a program that most people can rely on and is a quality program, there is substantial support for it, I think, all over the country. But, as my colleague from Ohio points out, the Republicans traditionally were not very supportive of Medicare from the beginning. And that statement about Medicare withering on the vine that Speaker Gingrich made I think is exactly what would happen with this Breaux- Thomas voucher plan, it would wither on the vine. Because once this voucher plan went into effect, people would be paying more and getting less. So they are going to be paying more out of pocket because they are just going to get a set amount of money which is not going to cover a lot of expenses. And as they pay more out of pocket and find that the benefits of the program, which are very vague under Breaux-Thomas so it is not clear what kind of benefits they are going to get, as they find that they are going to pay more and get less in terms of benefits or alternatively and at the same time be pushed into managed care, which they do not like or where they cannot choose their doctor or they end up getting dropped, because, as my colleagues know, in many States managed care has dropped seniors after a bit of time, they are going to become very dissatisfied with the Medicare program. And the kind of consensus that we have now that says that this is a good quality program will disappear. And then we are going to have a race, if you will, to see what is going to replace it. And I think it, essentially, destroys the program so that people will not have faith in it anymore. They will be looking for an alternative. I do not want to be so cynical, because maybe I am being a little too cynical. But if we look at that whole philosophy of withering on the vine, that is essentially what would happen to this program. The irony of it is that Breaux-Thomas does nothing to solve the long- term solvency of Medicare. I think the information we have is that it extends Medicare for 1 or 2 years, at the most. President Clinton and the Democrats have said, we want at least 15 percent of the budget surplus to go towards extending the life of the Medicare program. The Republican leadership has refused to do that. They are not really interested in extending the life of the program. They just want to change it radically with this voucher system. And I think ultimately it would wither on the vine.

Mr. PALLONE. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for organizing this special order. It goes without saying that along with social security, the Medicare program is the cornerstone of the Federal government's commitment to America's seniors, and the importance of the program to the millions who are covered by it cannot be overstated. I do not think there is any question that we in Congress have to continue to search for ways to strengthen Medicare. I just wanted to say a few words today to agree with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) about the proposal put forward by the cochairs of the recently disbanded Bipartisan Commission on Medicare. The cochairs' proposal fortunately did not pass the Commission because it did not achieve the required majority in the voting process, and I am glad that it did not, because I think that the cochairs' proposal of this Commission would drastically change Medicare as we know it. The problem is that there is really nothing we can do to stop the proponents of this proposal from introducing the bill in Congress. Here on the House side, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bill Thomas), who was one of the principal authors of that proposal that failed in the Medicare Commission, has vowed to move forward and pass this ill- conceived scheme. The centerpiece of this scheme is changing Medicare from a program with a guaranteed benefits package to a program without a guaranteed benefits package. Proponents of this plan would do this by converting Medicare into what they call a premium support program. I would caution, and I know my colleague from Ohio said, that seniors should beware of this proposal. Premium support is just a fancy phrase that the plan's supporters like to use to hide the fact that they want to turn Medicare into a voucher program. It is nothing more than a voucher program. Under this proposal, the Federal Government would pay a set amount towards the cost of a beneficiary's health care. Any expense that exceeded what the Federal Government contributes would have to be paid by the beneficiary. Seniors may still choose fee-for-service under this scheme, but their premiums will be more expensive. I think this was designed deliberately. The goal of the proponents of this proposal is to eliminate fee-for-service as we know it and basically replace it with a managed care-dominated system. Ironically, the voucher plan's proponents want to put seniors out of fee-for-service into managed care because they think the competition between managed care plans will drive health care costs down. But the information we have on the cost of health care in recent years indicates that the Federal Government is doing a better job of controlling health care costs than the private sector. The figures we have, for example, for the first 6 months of fiscal year 1999 indicate that this trend is continuing. Medicare funding has actually declined by $2.6 billion, compared to the first 6 months of last year. What I am basically putting forward is that under this voucher plan, the costs of fee-for-service would see a sharp increase. According to an independent Medicare actuary, the voucher proposal would be an 18 to 30 percent increase in the cost of the traditional fee-for-service program. So there should not be any doubt here, the price increase would bully seniors into managed care programs, and then we have a track, essentially, for our seniors. Once seniors make the switch to managed care, they will not only lose their freedom to choose their doctor, they will also lose the guaranteed benefits package today's Medicare beneficiaries enjoy. A voucher system is simply not going to provide the guarantee. What we are seeing essentially with this proposal that has been put forward by the Medicare Commission, and I stress again, it failed the Medicare Commission, is that we are going to see increasing costs, out- of-pocket expenses for seniors. We are going to see them pushed out of fee-for-service and into a managed care plan. The problem is that if we look at what has been happening across the country in terms of managed care plans, we know that many people are not satisfied with their managed care plans, even when they are available, and that many seniors, after a few months or a few years in the managed care plan, find that the HMOs drop them because they claim that they cannot afford to continue with the seniors in the managed care plan. So we have seen cases and cases across the country, particularly in my home State of New Jersey, where seniors have simply been dropped from HMOs or managed care plans. Why in the world do we want to push more and more American seniors into the managed care plans when people have not been happy with many of them, they have not had adequate protections, and, in many cases, they have simply been dropped? I am very concerned that what we are doing with this voucher plan that is being proposed is simply changing Medicare to the point where it will not be the type of quality program that we have had in the past. The other thing I wanted to mention, and then I would yield back to my colleague, is that the other aspect of this voucher plan that disturbs me a great deal is this idea of increasing the age of eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 67. We know there has been a steady increase in the number of uninsured Americans. That is probably the greatest threat we see today is the number of people who are uninsured. The most rapidly growing group of the uninsured are people between the ages of 55 to 65. If we raise the eligibility, we are only exacerbating this problem and denying even more people coverage at a time when they most need it. If I could just say, in conclusion, the fact of the matter is that the Medicare program has been enormously successful and does not need to be changed in the manner suggested by this voucher proposal. The voucher proposal is a solution in search of a problem, and it ignores six key principles that most Democrats on the Medicare Commission supported, that I support, and I think must be protected as Congress and the President consider ways to improve and strengthen the current Medicare program. I just want to list them briefly, if I could. First, any revision of Medicare must protect the right of individuals to choose their doctor by continuing the traditional fee-for-service program. Second, any revision of Medicare should not increase the number of uninsured or reduce access to health insurance. Third, any revision of Medicare must not increase burdens on beneficiaries and should do more to help low-income beneficiaries. Fourth, Medicare must always cover a well-defined set of benefits that cannot be reduced or eliminated. Fifth, Medicare must provide comprehensive prescription drug coverage for all its enrollees; and Sixth, 15 percent of the budget surplus should be set aside to extend the life of the Part A Hospital Trust Fund to 2020 and to combine the Part A and Part B Trust Funds to eliminate solvency as an issue in Medicare. I am afraid, I say to my colleague from Ohio and my other colleagues here on the Committee on Commerce, that if we look at this voucher proposal that is being put forth by the cochairs of this Medicare Commission, it does not satisfy these different enumerated guarantees or principles that we should be aspiring to. These principles will ensure Medicare is preserved and protected for the current and future generations. I know my fellow Democrats want to accomplish that goal, and hopefully we will be able to withstand some of the efforts that are being put forward, primarily by the other side of the aisle, to change Medicare--from to what it has traditionally been: a good program, a quality program that covers all seniors.