Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I totally agree with the gentleman. I think you were hinting earlier about the fact that really what this is is like a social contract. In other words, people were told when they started out working at 18 that when they got to be the age of 65, that Medicare would be there. I think it is grossly unfair after they have depended upon that to say all of a sudden now the age is going to be higher. Because we know that in fact what is happening is that many people in that near elderly group, as you mentioned, are the very ones that do not have any health care coverage. In the beginning I talked about women, because this Older Women's League put out this report in conjunction with Mother's Day coming up this Sunday. A lot of the people that are in that near-elderly category that do not have health care coverage or insurance are women, because what happens a lot of times is that the spouse who is not working, for example, is not covered when there is a buyout or somebody gets laid off at that age, and there is a tremendous amount of people that are in that category that are women. The other thing I just wanted to say very briefly is that instead of worrying about the aspect of this that how we are going to make benefits less for people, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) said, we do not want to do that. What we want to do is look at the gaps that exist in Medicare and try to fill them. We know that when Medicare started in the 1960s, at least this is what I have been told historically, that prescription drug coverage was not that important because people did not rely on prescription drugs that much. The preventive care that comes with prescription drugs really was not available all that much. Also the long-term care, adult day care, which is another gap that Medicare does not pay for, that did not exist then because people did not live as long or they had a situation where they maybe were at home and the family would take care of them. The reality is that the gaps in Medicare have resulted because of the changes in life-style, of people living longer. It is absurd to suggest that in order to accomplish and deal with that, you should simply raise the age. You should try to cover those gaps by providing prescription drugs, providing for long-term care, providing for adult day care. It is particularly important for women. I do not mean to keep stressing that, but I keep thinking about the fact that Mother's Day is coming up. I think about my own mother, and the fact that there are so many women that particularly benefit from Medicare and that these gaps are particularly important to them, and raising the age even makes it worse for them.

Mr. PALLONE. Those were put in as a result or with the balanced budget process.

Mr. PALLONE. I just wanted to follow up on what my colleague from Florida said also about low-income people, low-income seniors not being aware and therefore not applying for some of the low-income protection programs like the QMB or the SLMB programs that we have. Under Medicare and Medicaid, if you are below a certain income, you can apply through Medicaid so that you actually get certain prescription drugs covered and certain other benefits covered. But one of the things that is in this Older Women's League report that I mentioned for Mother's Day is that half the elderly women who are eligible for those low-income protection programs never apply for them because they are not aware of them. And also because they do not want to go to the welfare offices where they have to go from what I understand in order to get them because they do not want to be part of a welfare program. One of the reforms that was suggested by OWL is that individuals be able to apply directly through Medicare or Social Security for those low-income protection benefits. Again that is a kind of reform that we should be looking at, something that is going to help people with prescription drugs and some of these other protections rather than worrying about how we are going to save money by raising the age of eligibility.

Mr. PALLONE. If the gentleman will yield, I would like to say one more thing before he yields to another colleague. This Sunday coming up is Mother's Day. A few years ago I was on the floor talking about Medicare at the time when there was an effort by the Republicans on the other side to try to cut back significantly on the funding. And one of my colleagues on the Republican side was talking about how his mother was frustrated and did not need Medicare because it was not a good program. And I was shocked because, as the gentleman said, everyone that I talk to, including my own mother who is on Medicare, tells me just the opposite. They think Medicare is very valuable. What they would like to see is maybe expanded coverage. I sort of thought it was ironic that it was close to Mother's Day, as it is again today, and we had these opposite points of view about the Medicare program. But, frankly, I get no one who suggests to me that they want to see a radical overhaul of Medicare. One of the things I want to talk about later, after my other colleagues have spoken, is a report that just came out by OWL, I guess the Older Women's League, that talks about Medicare and women, and this was in preparation for Mother's Day. It has some significant insights into the problems that elderly women face.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to draw my colleagues' attention to legislation that has been introduced in the other body that could have the potentially destructive effects of cutting off important exchanges between American scientists and their counterparts from other countries. The legislation in question, offered by Senator Shelby, would impose a moratorium on visiting scientists from so-called sensitive countries in American nuclear labs. The Senator's proposal comes on the heels of recent reports of compromises to our national security with regard to the Peoples' Republic of China. While I agree that Chinese espionage activities should cause us to be more vigilant with regard to that country, I am concerned that this proposed legislation casts a wide net and would give too much discretion to officials at the Department of Energy. The result could be a cutting off of positive scientific exchanges that do not affect our national security, depriving all of us of valuable knowledge and disrupting the types of scientific contacts that actually promote security and cooperation. One country, Madam Speaker, that could be affected by this legislation is India. While the Senate legislation does not mention any countries by name, a recent report in the newspaper India Abroad quotes an Energy Department official that the list of seven sensitive countries includes, in addition to China and Russia, India and Pakistan. The official indicated that different criteria were used for putting countries on the list, and that India and Pakistan were included because they are not signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Madam Speaker, I, too, am deeply concerned about the persistent pattern of China's theft of our nuclear secrets. I have come to this floor on several occasions to call for more safeguards against Chinese espionage, as well as to focus more attention on China's documented actions with regard to nuclear proliferation, which include providing nuclear and missile technology to unstable countries like Pakistan. But in the case of India, we clearly do not have the facts to support the conclusion that India is involved in the same types of activities as China. Thus, I would urge Members of the Senate and the House, as well as the administration, not to jump to any conclusions about India without the facts. What we know, Madam Speaker, is that U.S.-India relations have suffered in the past year because of the nuclear tests conducted by India last May. But one key fact that is often overlooked is that India's nuclear program is essentially indigenous, developed by India's own scientists. Export controls on supercomputers and other dual use technology have been in effect against India for years, forcing India to develop its own highly advanced R&D infrastructure. Another very important point, Madam Speaker, is that India has kept its nuclear technology to itself, out of the hands of rogue regimes and international sponsors of terrorism. This is in marked contrast to China, which has not only stolen our technology, but has shared very sensitive information with unstable countries in Asia and the Middle East. Madam Speaker, I fully agree that we need to be more wary of China. This is an authoritarian country, a one-party state, the Communist party, with a terrible record on human rights and a record of intimidation and aggression against its neighbors. Indeed, Madam Speaker, some of India's recent actions, including the nuclear tests and the test-firing of the Agni intermediate-range missile, which have caused diplomatic problems with the U.S., have to be seen in the context of China. India shares a long border with China, the two countries have fought a border war started by China, and India is directly threatened by China's provision of weapons technology to Pakistan. The bottom line, Madam Speaker, is that India is not China. India is a democracy with multiple political parties. So we need to be careful before we go on a witch hunt against countries, particularly India, which do not pose the same type of security risk posed by China. The legislation introduced in the Senate is too open-ended, in my mind, allowing the Department of Energy overly broad discretion. At a time when there is an emerging bipartisan consensus that we should lift the sanctions that have been imposed on India, this legislation could end up imposing another punitive sanction that will further set back our relations, to the detriment, in my opinion, of both countries. The question, should we protect our sensitive nuclear secrets from potentially hostile countries, like China, that have already been shown to have stolen those secrets, I think the answer is absolutely yes, Madam Speaker. But let us not cut off cooperation and scientific exchanges with countries, like India, that have not been stealing our secrets and which could be partners for a more stable and secure world.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of H.R. 459, to extend the deadline for the Mt. Hope hydropower project. The Federal Power Act allows a licensee two years to begin construction of a hydroelectric project once a license is issued. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) may extend that deadline, but it may only do so once and only for two years. If project construction has not commenced by this deadline, the commission is required to terminate the license. However, there are many obstacles that often make it difficult for a project to commence construction during either the initial license time frame or the extension period. Perhaps the most frequent reason for delay is the lack of a power purchase agreement, for without such an agreement, it is unlikely that a project could get financed. This is the case with the Mt. Hope hydropower project to be located in Rockaway Township, Morris County, in my home state of New Jersey. Because of the limitations set in the Federal Power Act, the House has had a long, bipartisan tradition of moving non-controversial license extensions. I am pleased that Representative Frelinghuysen and I could introduce this bill in a bi-partisan manner. The Commerce Committee unanimously passed this bill. In addition, the chairman of FERC wrote a letter to the House Commerce Energy and Power Subcommittee just a few months ago indicating his approval for extending the deadline for this project. Mr. Speaker, I know of no objection to this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Consumer Food Safety Act (CFSA) of 1999, a comprehensive food safety bill that I introduced in the 105th Congress as well. I am very pleased to note that a companion bill was introduced today in the other body. Food-borne illnesses continue to wreak havoc on the American people. Each day, new accounts of tainted foods and sick children are detailed in media reports. One such report that is in this month's issue of Glamour magazine details the experience of a long-time friend of mine who is also a constituent, Lynn Nowak of Metuchen. At an event earlier today at which I discussed the introduction of this bill, Lynn recounted the horrors of becoming ill from food poisoning while pregnant, which resulted in severe complications for both her and her daughter Julia. While Lynn has recovered her health, her life has been forever changed. Julia's motor development is far from what it should be at her age. Twenty months old, she receives physical therapy twice a week and her prognosis is uncertain. The Consumer Food Safety Act of 1999 proposes a host of common sense measures to protect children like Julia and all Americans against food- borne illnesses. Most importantly, it proposes to modernize the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to fight the newest breed of food-borne illness agents, like E. Coli 0157:H7. And let me assure you, these modernizations are badly needed. While the FDA oversees food safety for fruits, vegetables, juices and seafood, it receives less than one-third of the resources that the U.S. Department of Agriculture receives for its food safety responsibilities. Over the last five or so years, the volume of fruits and produce being imported into the United States has doubled while the number of FDA inspectors has decreased during the same time. Today, less than .2 percent of fruits and vegetables are tested for microbial contamination. This neglect is producing severe consequences for the American public. A recently completed report from the Center for Science in the Public Interest compiled an inventory of 225 food-borne illness outbreaks between 1990 and 1998 and found that ``foods regulated by the Food and Drug Administration caused over twice as many outbreaks as foods regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.'' The GAO estimates that some 9,100 deaths each year can be attributed to food poisoning. If nothing is done to improve the situation, things will only get worse. Indeed, the Department of Health and Human Services estimates that food-borne related deaths and illnesses will likely increase by 10 to 15% over the next decade. The Consumer Food Safety Act will address this growing problem in a number of ways. Let me explain the bill's three main components. national food safety program First, the Consumer Food Safety Act establishes a National Food Safety Program to ensure the food industry has effective programs in place to assure the safety of food products in the United States. While this program will contain a number of provisions, I would like to draw your attention to two key aspects of this program, inspections and registrations. The legislation requires quarterly inspections of food processing and importing facilities. It also requires food processors and importers to register with the Department of Health and Human Services, injecting needed accountability into the food safety system. The Secretary of HHS may suspend the registration if a facility fails to allow inspections or if a suspension is necessary to protect the public's health. Those processors who have a good track record will receive a waiver from the quarterly inspection requirement, but those who do not pass the test will continue to be inspected for sanitary conditions and to determine if their food products are unsafe for human consumption. This should be the baseline for all foods. Frequent inspections are a key ingredient to any food safety package. A more rigorous inspection program is one of the principle pillars of our legislation. I would just like to add that federal and state cooperation is crucial to implementing the National Food Safety Program our bill envisions. It is for this reason the bill includes a section specific to federal-state cooperation, directing the Secretary to work with the states to ensure state and federal programs function in a coordinated and cost effective manner. additional research and education The second major component of the Consumer Food Safety Act will be increased research and education. With new food-borne illnesses cropping up, additional research and education is necessary to devise treatments and better inform the public of threats to its safety. The bill I am introducing includes provisions to conduct better food surveillance and tracking to assess the frequency and source of food- borne illnesses. In addition, research will be conducted to improve sanitation practices and food monitoring techniques. The legislation will also target research on developing rapid testing procedures and determining contamination sources. The goal is to stop food-borne illnesses before they have a chance to spread. As a complement to the research program, the CFSA contains education initiatives to enhance public awareness and understanding. In many instances, the medical community is not familiar with food-borne illnesses. Consequently, physicians are unable to properly diagnose and treat the illness until after additional complications develop or until it is too late. In addition, to educating physicians, however, we must ensure that every American becomes an active participant in the battle against food-borne illness. To that end, the bill targets education initiatives toward public health professionals. enhanced enforcement tools The third major component of the Consumer Food Safety Act will provide the FDA with the additional enforcement tools it needs to better protect the nation's food supply. The bill includes notification and recall provisions that empower the FDA to stop tainted foods from entering the market. It also includes whistleblower protections to prevent employees from losing their job after reporting unsafe practices by bad actor employees. Afterall, it is the worker in the processing facility who is in the trenches and is most able to provide information about unsanitary practices. In order to give the bill the teeth it needs to be enforced, it includes civil monetary penalties for failures to comply with its provisions. Taken together, the increased inspections, additional research and education, and enhanced enforcement tools of the Consumer Food Safety Act will ensure a safer food supply from farm to table. It is a common- sense solution to a growing problem. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in the effort to pass this bill so that we can stop the type of tragedy that has affected Lynn Nowak and her daughter Julia from happening to others.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, April 17, 1999, the Neptune, NJ, Library celebrated its 75th anniversary. I was proud to join with Township officials, other dignitaries and residents to celebrate this important milestone. Neptune, named for the Roman God of the Sea and incorporated as a municipality in 1879, is a diverse community located in Monmouth County. The Township, whose slogan is ``Neptune, Crossroads of the Jersey Shore,'' is a full-service community with great historic significance and an even brighter future. One of the great features of the community is the Neptune Library. The library was started by the Ocean Grove Women's Club at its Clubhouse on Mt. Carmel Way, aided by books from the Monmouth County Bookmobile. In 1932, the Township rented a vacant store at 204 Ridge Avenue for a township library, with some books and supplemented by the bookmobile. The library shared a building on Corlies Avenue with the Township Public Health and Welfare Department in 1937 until that building was sold, moving to the Sunday School Room in the basement of the West Grove Methodist Church. In 1955, the Township Library opened at the Township Municipal Building at 137 Main St., open Tuesday afternoons, expanding its hours to Wednesday mornings in 1960. The year 1961 proved to be an eventful one for the library, with the Friends of Neptune Library organized in February. Recommendations for a new facility contained in a report released in March. On July 20, the Township Library opened its doors at 1908 Corlies Avenue, the site of a former machine shop, open to the public Monday through Thursday afternoons and Wednesday evenings. On November 30, 1961, the Neptune Library Association, Inc., was incorporated, while the Board of Trustees organized in 1964. In 1966, the first Books, Arts and Crafts Festival was held on the future site of the library, and ground was broken at the site on Springdale Ave. (now Neptune Blvd.) on May 10, 1969. Opening day for the Library was on March 22, 1971. It became a municipal library in 1972 following a township referendum. Mr. Speaker, obviously the history of the library is a long and illustrious one. Through the years, the library has been an important cultural and informational resource for the people of Neptune Township, and it continues to fulfill that mission to this day. The growth and success of the library is a strong reflection on the dedication and commitment of the people of this community to enhance the quality of life for the benefit of all. I am pleased to pay tribute on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Neptune Library.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to use the entire hour this evening. I wanted to spend some time, though, talking about HMO reform, or managed care reform. One of the things that I want to really stress is that there is a major difference between the approach that the Democrats have been taking on the issue of HMO reform versus the approach of the Republican leadership. A lot of times I worry that Americans and our constituents think that what we are proposing on both sides of the aisle is essentially the same and that everyone is trying to do something to protect patients' rights during this managed care reform debate. But I just think it is important to stress the differences. I really feel very strongly that the Patients' Bill of Rights, the Democratic bill that has been put forward and is cosponsored by almost every Member on the Democratic side, really protects patients' rights, whereas the Republican leadership bills that have been put forward both in this Congress and in the previous Congress really do not do an adequate job of protecting patients and too often look towards the interests of the insurance industry instead. Mr. Speaker, in the last session of Congress, in the last 2 years, in 1997 and 1998, there was some debate on the issue of HMO reform, but the issue was essentially left unfinished in the 105th Congress, in the last Congress. On the House side, the Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights was defeated by just five votes when it came to the floor. It was considered on the floor as a substitute to the Republican leadership's managed care bill which did pass and which in my opinion was really not a good piece of legislation and did not do anything significant to protect patients. In fact, the Republican leadership in the House has reintroduced a bill in this session of Congress that is virtually identical to what it moved last year. On the Senate side, the Senate Republicans in the so-called HELP Committee approved a managed care bill which really in my opinion is a sham reform bill and does not allow patients to sue the insurance companies but does allow the insurance companies and not the doctors and patients to define what is medically necessary, what types of procedures, what length of stay, what kind of operations would be performed and would be acceptable under an individual insurance policy. I just wanted to, if I could, take a little time this evening to talk about why this Republican bill that passed the Senate, the Republican leadership bill in the Senate, really does not do an adequate job of trying to protect patients' rights. If you look at the bill that passed the Senate or that came out of committee, I should say, in the Senate this year, it leaves out more than 100 million Americans, two-thirds of those with private health insurance. It fails to grant key protections needed by children, women, persons with disabilities and others with chronic conditions or special health care needs. And it allows medical decisions to continue to be made by insurance company executives instead of by health care professionals and patients. Mr. Speaker, the main difference that I have tried to point out between the Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights and the Republican leadership bills that have been sponsored in the House or in the Senate really come down to two points, and, that is, that the Republican bills really leave it up to the insurance companies to decide what kind of treatment you are going to get, and with regard to enforcement they do not have adequate enforcement because if you want to appeal a decision about your treatment that you felt that you should have a particular operation, you should be able to stay an extra day or so in the hospital, if you try that appeal, there is really no process whereby you can appeal the decision of the insurance company and be successful; and certainly if you suffer damages, you cannot sue for those damages under the Republican bill. What the Democrats tried to do on the Senate side in committee, in the HELP Committee when this Republican HMO bill came up, they tried a number of times through amendments to improve the Republican bill. All those Democratic amendments were essentially defeated, but I wanted to give you a little idea, if I could, about the kinds of things that the Democrats were trying to do to improve what was essentially a bad bill that did not provide adequate protections for patients in HMOs. The committee Republicans in the Senate rejected on a 10-8 party line vote an amendment by Senator Ted Kennedy to extend the scope of the bill to all privately insured Americans. As I said, the Republican bill leaves more than 100 million people unprotected because most of its patient protections are narrowly applied to only one type of insurance and that is self-funded employer plans. The committee Republicans also rejected on the same 10-8 party line vote Senator Kennedy's amendment on external appeals. Again, as I mentioned before, the Republican bill does not create a truly independent external review of plan decisions. So if you feel that you are not getting covered adequately and you try to appeal, there really is no effective external appeal. Under the committee bill, the Republican bill, the so-called external review is controlled by the HMOs and contains loopholes to allow HMOs to delay or prevent patients from appealing a bad medical decision by an HMO bureaucrat. Many HMO decisions could not even be appealed under the Republican bill. Just to give you another idea of some of the examples, I talked about the issue of medical necessity and how it is defined. The committee Republicans in the Senate rejected, again on a party line vote, 10-8, an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy to define the term ``medical necessity'' and to prohibit HMOs from arbitrarily interfering with medical decisions. Again just to give you an example of how this operates, this amendment would have prevented insurers from arbitrarily interfering with the decisions of the treating physician on issues relating to the manner, in other words, the length of stay in the hospital, or the setting, inpatient versus outpatient care. It would have stopped HMOs from overruling doctors and going against accepted and best practices of medicine. The committee Republican-passed bill does nothing to protect patients when an insurance company bureaucrat tells them they must have a medical procedure on an outpatient basis or be discharged from the hospital prematurely. The Republican bill allows HMOs to continue to define what is medically necessary, giving them the ability to deny promised benefits. Another example, the issue of emergency room care. Many of my constituents have complained to me that their HMO policy does not allow them to go to the emergency room when they think it is necessary. Or they have to go to a different hospital that is pretty far away if they want to go to an emergency room. They cannot go to the hospital near where they live or where they work. Well, Senator Murray tried to put in an amendment that again was rejected on a party line vote, 10-8, to strengthen coverage for emergency care. Under the Republican bill, it is not clear whether a true prudent layperson standard applies to all of the plans covered. Prudent layperson says that if the average prudent person would think it was necessary to go to the emergency room, then you can go to whatever emergency room is close by and readily available. Well, many insurance policies, many HMOs do not allow that. And so the Democrats are saying, we want to have that prudent layperson standard put into the HMO reform bill. Instead, what happened is that in this case, again the ability to apply that prudent layperson standard was rejected by the committee and what that means is that under the Republican bill there still is no guarantee that you can go to the closest emergency room or that even if you go to the emergency room and later the HMO decides, well, you really should not have gone because it was not really an emergency, that they can just deny coverage and say, ``You shouldn't have gone to the emergency room; therefore, we're not going to pay for the emergency room care.'' Another example that I think is important is with regard to specialists. Many of my constituents complain that their HMO reform bill does not provide them with access to specialists that they may need in a given circumstance. Senators Harkin and Reed had an amendment to this Republican bill that again was rejected along party lines that would ensure that patients have access to needed specialists. Under the Republican bill, patients could be charged more for out-of-network specialty care even if the plan is at fault for not having access to appropriate specialists within the plan. So if you decide that you want to go to a doctor, I will give you an example, perhaps you want to go see a pediatrician but as many people know today, that for children, there are pediatric specialists for different areas of pediatrics. Under the Republican bill if there is nobody that has that specialty and you decide that you want to see that kind of pediatrician for your child, then you can go out of the network but you have to pay for it. Again what we were saying with this Democratic amendment is that access to specialty care should be provided outside the HMO if there is no one within the HMO that has that specialty and is part of the network, but again that was an amendment that was rejected. I will only mention one more effort on the Democrats' part to try to improve this bad bill, if you will, and there are many others but I will only mention one other one, and that was Senator Kennedy's amendment, again rejected on a 10-8 party line vote with regard to liability. The Republican bill fails to hold HMOs accountable when their actions result in injury or death. I mentioned this before. You cannot sue. The Republican plan would protect most HMOs from liability even when someone becomes disabled or is killed. Senator Kennedy's amendment in the Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights would allow 123 million patients who receive coverage through private employers to hold their HMOs and health insurance plans accountable under State laws for their abuses. This is one of the loopholes, if you will, in the current law, and that is that if you are not covered by certain State laws and your health insurance comes from your private employer, oftentimes you cannot sue. We were trying to correct that as well. Mr. Speaker, if I could just say that basically what I am trying to point out tonight is that there are major differences here and that when we look at what is happening on the issue of HMO or managed care reform, it is obviously important that we have an opportunity in this session of Congress to get a vote on this issue. One of the criticisms that I have of the Republican leadership is that frankly it is now April, almost May, and they have not even allowed us to have any kind of a vote, there has not been any movement in subcommittee, in the Committee on Commerce that I am a member of or in the full committee to bring any kind of HMO or managed care reform to the floor. So we need to at least start the movement. But when that movement starts and when we do have an opportunity to vote on HMO reform, we have to understand that there is a major difference between the Patients' Bill of Rights which is being brought forth by the Democrats and the Republican leadership proposal. Now, you do not have to take my word for it. One of the things that I think is important is that we look at some of the commentators and what they are saying about the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans on this issue. But I wanted to read, if I could, all or some parts of an editorial that appeared in the New York Times on Saturday, April 10, earlier this month, that talked about the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans on the issue of patient rights: ``Just about everyone on Capitol Hill professes interest in producing legislation that protects patients from unfair health insurance practices. But the prospect of actually passing meaningful protections as opposed to talking about it is uncertain. President Clinton tried to whip up support for Democratic proposals but the Republicans are balking at Democratic plans as too burdensome on the managed care industry. Yet it is the Democratic proposals that more fully reflect the recommendations of a presidential advisory commission to improve health plan quality. The Republican Senate bill, S. 326, sponsored by Senator Jeffords of Vermont, is too limited to accomplish that purpose. The bill, which was approved by the Senate HELP, or Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on a straight party line vote of 10-8, contains some consumer protections but it is unacceptable because most of the provisions would apply only to 48 million individuals covered by plans in which large employers act as their own insurers, leaving 110 million Americans in other plans unprotected. The Republican bill would grant appeal rights to an additional 75 million privately insured individuals but those rights would be quite restrictive. Appeals to an external reviewer would be allowed only when an insurer refused to pay for a procedure on the grounds that it was not medically necessary or was experimental. Critics say this would give health plans power to limit appeals by simply asserting that a denial is not based on medical necessity. It would exclude appeals where a plan unilaterally decided that the benefit was not covered under the contract, even if medical judgments were involved in that contract interpretation. The Republican bill does not adequately ensure access to specialty care by allowing a patient to see an out-of-network specialist if the plan has an insufficient number of specialists available. Both the Senate Democratic proposal, which has White House support, and a bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators John Chafee, Joseph Lieberman and others would be substantially stronger in allowing external review of coverage disputes and defining medical necessity and in giving enrollees greater rights to take health plans to court. The insurance lobby has already embarked on a media blitz to defeat any new regulations as too costly but consumer protections under the Democratic plan would increase health plan costs by only 2.8 percent, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates made last year. ``Health plans should be made to deliver what they promise their enrollees and held accountable when they fail.'' Mr. Speaker, I think that New York Times editorial really sums up what I am trying to say tonight which is the fact of the matter is that if the Patients' Bill of Rights, the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights, would be substantially stronger in almost every aspect of managed care reform over the Republican proposal. Now I just wanted to briefly mention again the important areas where the Patients' Bill of Rights, a Democratic bill of rights, really provides for a very good protection for patients. Once again and most importantly, the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights allows doctors and patients rather than insurance company bureaucrats to make medical decisions using the principles of good medicine. In addition, it would first guarantee access to needed health care specialists. The Democratic bill provides access to emergency room services when and where the need arises. The Democratic bill provides continuity of care protections to assure patient care if a patient's health care provider is dropped. The Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights gives access to a timely, internal and independent external appeals process, and the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights assures that doctors and patients can openly discuss treatment options and not be gagged because the insurance company says that you cannot talk about something that is not covered. The Patients' Bill of Rights would also assure that women have direct access to OB/GYN, and finally and almost as important really as the medical necessity issue is that the Democrats Patients' Bill of Rights provides an enforcement mechanism that ensures recourse for patients who have been maimed or die as a result of health plan actions. Mr. Speaker, I sound very partisan this evening, and I do not mean to suggest that there are not Republican Members on the other side of the aisle that are supportive of the Patients' Bill of Rights or the types of protections that I think that are needed in a comprehensive HMO reform bill. I know that there are Members on the other side that would like to see these types of protections provided under the law. But the bottom line is that the Republican leadership, which is in charge of the House, keeps producing legislation or keeps proposing legislation both in the House and in the Senate that does not adequately protect patients, and I think it is very important that we not only move ahead in this session of Congress and quickly on HMO reform, but that we move ahead with an HMO reform that adequately protects patients' rights, that is comprehensive and addresses what I consider the major issue that my constituents and most Americans seem to be concerned about at this time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Exactly, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PALLONE. Which is a terrible situation to be in, Mr. Speaker. What I see happening with this Breaux-Thomas proposal, and I think also what the gentleman is trying to do when he says modernize the current system is just the opposite, which is that we do not want Medicare, which is a promise that if one is going to be 65 and one is going to be a senior citizen, that one is going to have their health insurance covered, we do not want it to become a system now where certain people get the benefits now and others do not, depending upon their income, or that the age goes up. We want to make sure that the promise is kept, that when one is over 65, that one is going to be a part of this program, that it is going to be a universal program that benefits everyone equally. I think when the gentleman suggested that he wants to modernize it, he is concerned that already over the last 20 or 30 years that some of that has sort of disappeared, because certain benefits are not covered or we have to take more money out of pocket. As the gentleman says, let us move in the opposite direction. Let us not move, as the Breaux-Thomas bill says, towards making even greater discrepancies between rich or poor, or based on age, but let us try to make it so we modernize the system and everybody gets the same coverage, and it is universal. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the gentleman again for all that he has done to try to shore up and, as the gentleman says, make the case as to why we have to modernize Medicare. I know that the gentleman served for a few years on this Medicare commission. I want to commend the gentleman because the gentleman refused to accept this Breaux-Thomas proposal. I know we are hearing that it has been introduced in the House and there is an effort to try to push it here in the House of Representatives, but I am glad that the gentleman and enough of the other members of the commission voted against that, because otherwise it would have had the sort of stamp of approval, if you will, of the Medicare Commission, and it did not because it is not a good idea. I totally agree with what the gentleman said about modernizing the current system. When I talk to seniors and to people who have been involved in Medicare over the years, they explain to me, and the gentleman might want to comment on this as well, that when Medicare started out, prescription drugs and some of the other things that are not covered really were not that important. In other words, there were not as many drugs available, people did not rely on drugs so much; they were not so much a part of sort of the preventive nature that they are today. It did not exist maybe 30-some years ago or when Medicare first started in the 1960s. The reason we need to modernize is because there were a lot of things that were not covered when the program started, like prescription drugs, that now have taken on vast importance. Therefore, we need to look at the system again to try to come up and see what is not covered. One of the things that I hear from my senior citizen constituents so often is that most of them, or at least most of the ones that contact me, do buy some kind of Medigap coverage because of the gaps in the coverage in the current system. But the Medigap policies and the premiums for those are also going up significantly. I saw some information about the increased premium costs for Medigap in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area. They were much higher than inflation, significantly; sometimes 13, 14 percent increases on an annual base. So we do need to modernize. But what the gentleman is pointing out and what I think is most important is let us modernize in a way that expands the benefit package, add prescription drugs, try to be conscious of the costs that so many seniors are incurring out-of- pocket. I just want to say that some of the things that some of our colleagues on the other side have put forth, and I am not saying they are all that way, but some of the things that I have heard about increasing the age limit before one is eligible for Medicare, or means testing. Mr. Speaker, means testing may sound good to some people saying well, if one has a little bit more money, maybe one can pay more. I see Medicare as sort of like a contract, sort of like Social Security. People knew that they were going to get Medicare by paying into the system over the years, and it does not seem fair to me now to say at this stage well, okay, if you are above a certain income you have to pay more, maybe to the point where you do not get Medicare coverage at all and you have to pay completely out-of-pocket. The other thing I wanted to say, and I am so glad that my colleague from Washington got into this, and that is that this Breaux-Thomas proposal, when we listen to some of the advocates for it, they make it sound so rosy, like it is such a great thing; it is going to save money for the Federal Government. One is still going to get the same benefits, the costs out-of-pocket are not going to go up. It is a lot of baloney. The way I have looked at this thing, and I know we have talked about it before, the gentleman and I and others on our side of the aisle, just the opposite is true. The way I understand it, there will not be a defined benefit package, so it will not be clear at any given point that certain types of things would be covered, including prescription drugs. In addition, if one is in a fee-for-service plan, which most people like, where they basically can go to any doctor they want or they can go to whatever hospital they want or whatever emergency room, and the doctors just get paid out of Medicare, well, what they are going to do with this Breaux-Thomas proposal is say that if one is in a fee-for-service program, one is going to get a voucher and the Federal Government is only going to pay a certain amount. If the fee-for- service program, the premium for that program is above whatever the amount is that is established by whoever is in charge of this program in Washington, if one's fee-for-service plan is more than that, one is going to have to pay that difference out-of-pocket, so costs are going to go up for anybody who is in a fee-for-service program. What that means is unless one is a little wealthier, one is going to have to be pushed into managed care because one will not be able to pay and afford the traditional fee-for-service program; one is going to have to opt for a managed care plan. A lot of people around the country, if they are in rural areas or in certain parts of the country, they do not have managed care plans, number one. In addition to that, many of my constituents are not happy with their HMO or managed care. Many of the HMOs in New Jersey have actually dropped out of Medicare and dropped the coverage, and seniors have been left where they have to look around and try to find some other coverage because the HMOs have gone bankrupt. So pushing everybody into managed care may sound like a good idea to save money for the Federal Government, but it is not a good idea for senior citizens.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a very good point, and that is, again I use the term baloney, because the advocates of this Breaux-Thomas plan are saying to us that it is going to save the Federal Government money, and I do not even believe it is going to do that, ultimately. I think the gentleman makes a very good point. I am very supportive of the idea of using the surplus, 15 percent I guess is what the President has proposed, to shore up the Medicare program. I know that that is one thing that the Republican leadership has absolutely refused to accept, that they would use that 15 percent of the surplus.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as my colleagues and I do every year at this time, in a proud but solemn tradition to remember and pay tribute to the victims of one of history's worst crimes against humanity, the Armenian Genocide of 1915 to 1923. The issue of genocide has been forced onto our conscience and consciousness at the end of the 20th century by the tragic events in Kosovo. The ugly term ``ethnic cleansing'' has become a frequently heard expression. Indeed, one of the major rationales for the current NATO campaign has been to prevent the 20th century, which began with genocide, from ending with genocide. Comparisons can serve a useful and instructive role, but it is important at the same time to remember the uniqueness of an event such as the Armenian Genocide, one of the most horrible events of the 20th century and in all human history. Yet many, perhaps most Americans, and most people around the world are barely aware of this extremely significant historical event. Even more troubling than ignorance or indifference is the phenomenon of denial. Yes, just as with the obscene efforts to deny the Nazi Holocaust, there are actually people who try to deny that the Armenian Genocide ever happened. And we must meet these denials, these so-called revisionist claims, head on with the truth. The Armenian Genocide did happen. The Armenian Genocide was the systematic extermination of one-and-a- half million Armenian men, women, and children during the final years of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. This was the first genocide of the 20th century, but sadly not the last. Saturday, April 24, will mark the 84th anniversary of the unleashing of the Armenian Genocide. And Armenian-Americans throughout the United States, and people of conscience everywhere are commemorating this event in various ways. The commemoration that I will participate in will be held on Sunday afternoon in Times Square in New York City. And there will be commemorations in my home State of New Jersey, around the country, and around the world. The ANCA and the Armenian Assembly of America have both been in the forefront of calling for recognition of the genocide not just for the people of Armenian descent but for all of us as an act of education and witness about the evils of genocide and the danger of forgetting. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that the United States still does not officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. Bowing to strong pressure from Turkey, the U.S. State Department has for more than 15 years shied away from referring to the events of 1915 through 1923 by the word ``genocide.'' President Clinton and his recent predecessors have annually issued proclamations on the anniversary of the genocide but always stopped short of using the word ``genocide,'' thus minimizing and not accurately conveying what really happened. In an effort to address this lapse in our own Nation's record, a bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress will be working to enact legislation affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide. Expected to be introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Radonovich) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our Democratic whip, the legislation calls on the President to collect all U.S. records on the genocide and to provide them to the House Committee on International Relations, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, and the Armenian Genocide Museum in Yerevan. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that the U.S. should go clearly on record and unambiguously recognize the Armenian Genocide and set aside April 24 as a day of remembrance. It is also nothing short of a crime against memory and human decency in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the Republic of Turkey denies that the genocide ever took place and has even mounted an aggressive effort to try to present an alternative and false version of history, using its extensive financial and lobbying resources in this country. The Turkish Government has embarked on a strategy of endowing Turkish studies programs at various universities around the U.S., including a program at Princeton University in my home State of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, for nearly a decade, the solemn remembrance of the tragedy of the genocide has been alleviated somewhat about the remarkable progress made by the Republics of Armenia and Nagorno- Karabakh. Among the international dignitaries coming to Washington this weekend to take part in the NATO summit will be President Kocharian of the Republic of Armenia. President Kocharian will also address Members of Congress next Tuesday in this Capitol Building. He will take time out from the NATO activities on Saturday to lay a wreath at the tomb of President Woodrow Wilson, whose administration recognized that what was happening to the Armenian people under the Ottoman Empire during and after World War I represented a unique kind of evil, and President Wilson tried to at least somewhat alleviate the suffering. It is interesting that President Kocharian will be here as NATO is involved in a campaign against atrocities being committed against a civilian population. Back in the time of the Armenian Genocide, when Armenians were being murdered and deported and all record of the Armenian presence was erased, there was no Western alliance of democracies committed to stopping aggression, brutality, and genocide. Do we wish that there had been then? Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me just say I know that the Armenian Genocide is a painful subject to discuss. Yet we must never forget what happened and never cease speaking out.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for his remarks. Just briefly, if I could support some of the things the gentleman said. I was listening to what the gentleman said about the Republicans, and it is true there are some Republicans on the other side, and historically we have had Richard Nixon supporting most of the environmental legislation in the seventies, signing the law; Teddy Roosevelt with the conservation movement. I just do not understand why the Republican leadership now and for the last 4 or 5 years has taken this track of basically trying to tear down every major environmental legislation; and now, as the gentleman has said, based on this article in Roll Call, literally discussing coming to the floor to attack the Vice President rather than to do something constructive. I just wanted to say, I was listening to what the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said about the Vice President bringing people together, developing a consensus, giving people a seat at the table. It was amazing, when we had this whole battle over the Port Authority, how true that was. Until he came in, everybody was at odds; everybody was fighting. Nobody wanted to do anything. Nobody even wanted to sit down. We could not even get people to sit down at a table and talk, but when he showed up and then took the initiative from there, all of a sudden people were willing to listen, and they ended up standing on a stage together signing an agreement that I never thought was possible. He managed to achieve that. I just wanted to say one more thing in that regard. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) pointed out how there are important issues here legislatively that can be dealt with in this same way. I will just use the example of the Clean Water Act. For the last 5 years now, every effort that we have made to try to reauthorize the Clean Water Act has failed because the Republicans do not want to do it. The Republican leadership refuses to bring it up. Interestingly enough, I went to a New Jersey building trades meeting earlier this week, and the number one issue that the building trades were concerned about was the Clean Water Act. They said we need the jobs that are created, because if we do not have the money and higher authorization levels for infrastructure needs, to build new sewage plants or other ways to deal with clean water that creates all kinds of jobs that we would like to have, those needs are unmet. There again is an example of how we can do something to protect the environment, clean up the water, and at the same time create jobs. They recognize it themselves. Labor recognizes it themselves. So this notion that somehow jobs and the environment and economic growth do not go together is false. The kinds of things that Al Gore has done to point out how we can bring people together to achieve those goals together is a perfect example of why it can be done if we just have a positive attitude. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman. I thought that test that the gentleman brought forward was really a good way to show how valuable the Vice President has been on these environmental concerns and just in general. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I have been listening to what some of the speakers have been saying about different programs where one can both protect the environment and save jobs and where the economy can grow, and I think it was the other gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) that said that the problem with the Republican leadership is that they do not want to move forward on this agenda. A very good example of that, I think someone mentioned, is brownfields. I live in the most densely populated State in the country. We have more Superfund sites and more hazardous waste sites that are not on the Superfund list, but still need to be cleaned up, than any other State. Yet, at the same time in our urban areas where a lot of these sites are located, if they could be cleaned up and used again for commercial or industrial or other purposes, it would mean such an economic boost to those communities because jobs would be created, new businesses would be created, and Vice President Gore has been pushing forever since he was the Vice President and when he was in the Senate and the House that we take the initiative on brownfields. Yet, this Republican leadership has continued to say, well, they do not want to deal with that, we have to deal with Superfund in general; maybe we will take it up in the context of Superfund, and they never get to it. So there are so many examples like this where we need to move in a positive way. As the gentleman said, Vice President Gore has been very optimistic and knows we can be positive about these things, but we are constantly stymied by the other side, so I want to thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois, (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, and everyone who participated in this special order this evening. It is the eve of Earth Day. Earth Day is tomorrow. I think there is a lot of talk up here about what the truth is. The truth is that the health of our environment is in jeopardy at the hands of the Republican majority in the Congress. The truth is that the Democrats and the Clinton-Gore administration are the true protectors of the environment for this Earth Day and the Earth Days in the future.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, and particularly for this idea of what Vice President Gore and this administration have tried to do is to be people of action. They think that we can accomplish some of these environmental goals and still save jobs and still have economic growth. There are so many examples we can use of things that need to be done in the future: Superfund, clean water, brownfields, whatever, and they have the positive attitude. Now we have the Republicans on the other side just wanting to waste our time with all of these personal attacks. I yield to another gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this year the Democrats are celebrating Earth Day, which is tomorrow, by continuing our efforts to leave a real environmental legacy for this year and future years, for this generation and for the next generation. And we are proving that environmental protection and economic competitiveness are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they will be even more compatible as technology continues to advance and as we head into the next millennium under a Democratic administration. On the other hand, my colleagues on the other side, the Republicans, and particularly the Republican leadership, will once again try to look green for a day on Earth Day. They will tout their one or two token environmental bills. I already heard the gentleman from the Committee on Rules, I believe, report one of those bills which is ready for tomorrow. They are going to tout these one or two token environmental bills that actually are far weaker than Democratic alternatives. Let us really compare our agendas. Already this year the Republicans have defeated the defense of the environment amendment, designed to hold Republicans accountable for back-door attempts to roll back 25 years of environmental protection. The Republican budget also would drastically cut environmental funding by $5.3 billion over the next 5 years. And the American people can do the math, they can see through the Republican Party's empty Earth Day gestures. For Earth Day last year, the Republicans held a rally, and Newt Gingrich, the then Speaker, visited a zoo. However, the Republican majority spent the rest of the year gutting environmental programs in the budget and loading up appropriation bills with anti-environmental riders. These riders attempted to construct roads through national parks and forests, delay the release of important environmental standards, allow the dumping of PCBs into other nations' rivers, and increase haze in our national parks. In fact, last year was a record year, with over 40 anti-environmental riders. In 1995 the Republicans' inability to give up on these kind of riders resulted in a government shutdown. And during the 104th Congress, the Republicans introduced the dirty water bill, which would have significantly lowered treatment standards for nearly 7,000 toxic pollutants, allowed more sewage to be dumped in the ocean, and exposed much of our remaining wetlands to pollution or development. They also proposed changes to Superfund that would have let major Fortune 500 companies off the hook for hazardous waste pollution they caused. So do not let them fool my colleagues, not even for a day. Meanwhile, the Democrats and the Clinton-Gore administration have been working hard to strengthen health, safety, and environmental protection across the Nation, and will continue to do so into the next century. Together, the Democrats in Congress and the administration have worked to preserve precious land, fight water pollution, improve air quality, and protect communities and children. President Clinton and Vice President Gore have completed twice as many Superfund cleanups in the last 5 years as in the previous 12 years of Republican administration, and the Clinton-Gore administration established tough new clean air standards to protect our Nation's children from asthma and other illnesses. This year the Clinton-Gore administration's Lands Legacy Initiative will protect, enhance, and expand our national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. The initiative will also set aside $150 million for urban parks. Now, while the Republicans were busy gutting the environment, the Democrats also enacted legislation to protect children's health, fully funded right-to-know and water monitoring initiatives, and issued a directive extending the moratorium on offshore oil drilling. Vice President Gore, I should add, spearheaded a nationwide Smart Growth Initiative to build livable American communities as a foundation for continued economic competitiveness in the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, speaking on the subject of economic competitiveness, as I said at the outset, Democrats have continually proven that we can protect the environment without harming the economy. In fact, many environmental improvement efforts actually create jobs. Jobs and the environment, job creation and environmental protection go together, and we have proved that as Democrats. Brownfields development, for example, conserves resources by turning abandoned waste sites into productive industrial property, instead of using pristine land and encouraging urban sprawl. This creates jobs in the construction industry. But the Republicans have repeatedly held funding for Brownfields cleanups and they hold it hostage to their sham of an environmental agenda. They refuse to do it. Let me talk about energy efficiency and renewable energy programs promoted by the administration that save energy and money and simultaneously improve environmental protection. Development of newer, more efficient and renewable technologies also creates jobs, and such efforts also enhance our competitiveness both domestically and internationally. The administration's Smart Growth Initiative I mentioned serves as another example of providing tools to protect the environment and preserving economic competitiveness and, yes, creating new jobs. An example of the administration's success in preserving the environment and protecting our economic security can best be found in my own backyard in New Jersey, in my district. Let me give my colleague this example. The Port of New York and New Jersey generates $4.6 billion in annual revenue for the New Jersey and New York region and supports over 160,000 jobs. Maintaining the port's depth, the depth, if you will, for the ships to come in, is critical to the region's economy. But the Port of New York and New Jersey requests for dredging permits were continually delayed over objections of the disposal of dredge materials. Let me explain that the traditional practice, and this was off the coast of my district, was to dispose of contaminated dredge spoils at an ocean dump site about 6 miles off the coast of my district, 6 miles really off the coast of where I live in my town, literally in our backyard. We felt that this practice was unacceptable not only to our area but for the environment in general, because of the impact on the ocean of that contaminated dredge material. Well, the result, though, was that because the Port could not be dredged because the material could not be disposed of because of the objections to the contaminants in the disposed dredge materials, that dredging was not taking place, and there was a potential impact on the Port of New York and New Jersey in terms of jobs if shipping moved out or commercial cargo could not come in. Well, there was a struggle. The industry and the labor people struggled for many years because of these delays. Both sides threatened litigation. But all of a sudden Vice President Gore came along and he brought everyone to the table. He brought the environmentalists who did not want the toxic dredge spoils dumped in the ocean. He brought the industrial representatives who wanted to be able to ship their goods in and out of the New York/New Jersey Harbor. And he brought the labor representatives who were concerned about the jobs. He brought them all to the table, and he was critical. He was critical in brokering an agreement to close the mud dump site, the toxic waste site in the ocean, and simultaneously allow critical dredging projects at the port to move forward. So now we have major funding to do the dredging, we have closed the ocean dumping site so that the environment is no longer threatened, and we are developing beneficial reuse alternatives for the dredged material which allows the material to be used for other purposes, perhaps on land, and doing all this essentially promotes the port's viability, allows the commercial shipping to increase, allows the environment to be protected and allows even more jobs to be created in the port. I use that as an example because I want to stress on the eve of Earth Day the leadership that the President and Vice President Gore have taken not only on environmental issues but in an effort to try to deal with environmental concerns in a way that also protects jobs and leads us toward a new technology and a new future where the environment and industry and jobs all basically work together for growth and for a good environment. There are a lot of other examples I could use like that to show how the environment and jobs and the economy can work together. The reason I mentioned it in part is because I think it is wrong for the Republican leadership on the other side of the aisle to make these sort of stealth attacks on the environment that they have been making for the last few years since they have been in the majority here in the House as well as in the Senate, and I think that they do not understand that by trying to break down the last 25 years or 26 years of environmental protection that has been a hallmark of the Democratic years in Congress since the first Earth Day, that by making these stealth attacks and trying to break down the legislation, the laws that protect the environment, that they are very much out of touch with the American people and what the American people want. Mr. Speaker, the American people understand that you can have a good environment and good jobs, and they want us here in this Congress, together with Vice President Gore and President Clinton, to promote that agenda. So I just want to say one last thing, and then I would like to yield to one of my colleagues. On this Earth Day I am proposing a challenge to the Republicans. First, I challenge them not to do anything on the environment; in other words, try to do something progressive. I also challenge them not to gut the environment by sneaking harmful riders into the appropriations bills. That appropriations process is about to begin, Mr. Speaker. I challenge them not to sneak the harmful riders into the appropriations bills this year. I also challenge my colleagues on the other side not to cater to corporate interests and not to slash funds for important environmental health and safety programs. Rather than just making a little show tomorrow on Earth Day with one or two bills that are not very meaningful, I would challenge the Republicans to join us in creating a real environmental legacy for our children by passing the administration's livable communities and lands legacy initiatives on a broadly bipartisan basis. And let us say that on the eve of Earth Day 1999, let us once again talk about truth. The truth is the health of our environment is in jeopardy at the hands of the Republican majority in this Congress, and the truth is that Democrats and President Clinton and Vice President Gore are the true protectors of the environment. Mr. Speaker, with that I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who is here with some others to join me this evening.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, among the international dignitaries coming to Washington this weekend to take part in the NATO summit will be President Robert Kocharian of the Republic of Armenia. Although Armenia is not currently a member of NATO, President Kocharian, like other leaders of new democracies that were captive nations under the Soviet bloc, has been invited to Washington as part of the Partnership for Peace program. As NATO celebrates its first half century, and particularly now, with NATO forces involved in the first combat operation in the history of the alliance, it is important for us to consider how we can make NATO a meaningful force for peace and security in the next century. We recently took our first major step towards changing the composition of the alliance to recognize the realities of the post-Cold War by admitting three former Warsaw Pact nations: Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. We need to continue this momentum by identifying other democratic nations whose security is important to the United States, who may wish to join NATO in the future. While Armenia may be a small country, its importance as a strategic asset for the Western alliance should not be minimized. In the months and years following the summit, I hope we will see greater efforts to build on the U.S.-Armenian relationship, and along these lines, I will be circulating a letter among the Members of the House asking the President to devote greater attention to establishing a strong U.S.- Armenian partnership. Mr. Speaker, Armenia would be a logical candidate for future NATO expansion, and in the short term, as a closer partner on a wide range of security issues. Armenia is a pro-western Nation, despite its years as part of the Soviet Union. President Kocharian is a legitimately elected head of state who must answer to a democratically-elected parliament and be held accountable to a free press. Despite a lack of experience with democracy and despite the security threats posed by hostile nations, Armenia is moving rapidly to establish the institutions of civil society and democratic governments. On the domestic economic front, Armenia has moved aggressively with a privatization campaign. Small businesses are blossoming. Armenia's success as a free democracy in a region of the world where both of these qualities are lacking makes it a notable example of an emerging Nation that has embraced many of our values against very daunting odds. On the security front, Mr. Speaker, NATO Secretary General Javier Solano has already met with Armenia defense and national security officials. Armenia's central location at the crossroads between Asia and Europe has been recognized by American officials and our allies, but we need to pay more attention. Armenia has also earned increased respect from the United States and the Western alliance for its constructive role in the Nagorno Karabagh conflict. As I have mentioned in this Chamber on several occasions, Nagorno Karabagh is an Armenian-populated region that has declared its independence, but is still claimed by the neighboring Republic of Azerbaijan. A bloody war was fought earlier in this decade, with the Karabagh Armenians successfully defending their homelands. A ceasefire was accepted by both sides in 1994, but a political settlement has not been reached. Under the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the United States is a cochair of the negotiating group formed to resolve this conflict. The United States and our OSCE partners have put forward a peace plan to resolve this conflict. Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh have both accepted the American-supported plan as a basis for negotiation, and Azerbaijan unfortunately has rejected the approach. Considering how policymakers in Congress and the administration have identified an establish the Caucasus region as a vital interest, we should do more to reward those countries which are willing to work constructively to resolve longstanding differences. Mr. Speaker, President Kocharian's visit coincides with an important and tragic date. April 24 is solemnly commemorated as the anniversary of the unleashing of the genocide by the Ottoman Turkish empire of 1915 through 1923 that ultimately claimed the lives of 1.5 million Armenians. There will be a reception tomorrow evening in commemoration of the genocide, as well as a series of speeches by Members of Congress. We cannot allow the world to forget the genocide. The lesson of the Armenian genocide should not be lost on us as we witness the heartbreaking TV images from Kosovo. Truly, a major justification for the NATO campaign is to try to ensure that the 20th century, which began in genocide, not end in genocide. Back in the waning years of the Ottoman Empire, when Armenians were being murdered and deported, and their homes and communities burned and destroyed, and all record of the Armenian presence erased, there was no Western alliance of democracies like NATO committed to stopping aggression, brutality and genocide. I just want to say in conclusion, I want to take this opportunity to express my admiration for our men and women in uniform who are fighting to stop the horrible ethnic cleansing of the Kosovar Albanians. At the same time, I urge the administration to assert far more pressure on Azerbaijan to constructively participate in the Nagorno Karabagh peace process. As we remember the martyrs of the Armenian genocide, and as we witness the tragic events unfolding today in the Balkans, we must do all in our power to prevent another genocide in the mountains and valleys of Nagorno-Karabagh.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in light of India's test launch of the Agni missile on Sunday, I want to state today or stress today that the U.S. should look at India's action in light of China's threat to the Indian subcontinent. We should view this step by India in the context of the ongoing threat posed by China, and the fact that Pakistan's missile development program has developed so quickly because of Chinese support. The weekend's developments further demonstrate the need for a U.S. policy with regard to South Asia that turns away from the current stance of confrontation with India and towards recognition of India's legitimate security needs. We should have increased consideration for the prospects of greater Indo-U.S. cooperation in responding to the threats posed by China. Mr. Speaker, last week's visit by the Chinese premier to Washington also raised important questions about how China, a potential adversary, and India, a potential partner threatened by China, are treated in terms of U.S. policy. Last week official Washington witnessed the arrival of Premier Zhu with fanfare and ceremony at the White House, suggesting the visit of an international leader who was a trusted friend and partner. But during the premier's visit, as with other high level meetings between the United States and China, we kept hearing of the need for engagement, despite the fact that China has a terrible human rights record and has actually stepped up the pressure on dissidents; despite the fact that China threatens her neighbors, including Taiwan, and provides missile technology to unstable regimes like Pakistan; and despite, and I stress again, despite the growing evidence of Chinese espionage of American nuclear weapons secrets. Yet, at the same time, when it comes to our relations with the world's largest democracy, that is India, we keep that country at arm's length, ever wary of their intentions and motives. If pure economics were the only consideration, our policy double standard with the two Asian giants still would not make any sense, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, because India's population is almost as large as China's, and will surpass China early in the next century. India offers opportunities for American trade and investment at least comparable to China, and India does not threaten fundamental U.S. interests, which is more than we can say about China. Furthermore, India, a country that holds regular elections at the national and local levels, is seriously committed to improving her human rights situation and the treatment of all minority communities, again, much more than can be said for China. I think, Mr. Speaker, we need to shift our focus from simply condemning India for becoming a nuclear power, which whether we like it or not is a reality, to adjusting our thinking to this new reality and working to promote peace, security, confidence-building, and nonproliferation in South Asia. Within our U.S.-South Asia policy, our narrow India-Pakistan focus overlooks the role of China. I believe that China is the real threat to India, as well as to U.S. interests and to regional security. It is in this context that India's potential role as a partner for peace and stability should be understood. Even if the current climate for partnership is not ideal, at least we should stop seeing India as a threat. In particular, India has legitimate concerns about China's support for Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs. A Rand study published last year indicated that technical help from China, as well as North Korea, is responsible for the accelerated development of Pakistan's missile program. In addition, China invaded India in 1962, and continues to have designs on Indian territory. Since the U.S. should also view China as a potential adversary, there is a growing convergence of American and Indian objectives for responding to China. Mr. Speaker, in a previous statement on the Floor of the House of Representatives in February I said that the U.S. should pay attention to the emerging notion of minimum deterrence in the Indian subcontinent, combined with a declared policy of no first use of nuclear weapons. I have always believed that our goal should be to make India a partner in the American foreign policy goal of minimizing the threat of nuclear war. One way of accomplishing this is to take the long overdue step of accepting India as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. While I recognize there is opposition to this step, we must find ways to make India a partner for peace for purposes of confidence- building, and also avoiding the dangers of isolation.