Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. As I said, I think that the school modernization is probably the most important aspect of this education agenda that we have been trying to push, but I also think that this proposal, which originally came from President Clinton to hire a hundred thousand additional teachers, is equally important. And again it is modeled in many ways on the COPS grant program where the President has basically instituted a program, and we approved it in Congress, to hire a hundred thousand additional policemen. Let me say that that COPS grant program, because I heard some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle criticize it earlier, and I was shocked to hear some of the Republicans criticize that program because I know how effective it has been in my district. We have had, almost every community has been able to hire additional police because of that COPS grant, and it is a community program. In other words, the policemen have to be put on the beat in the community, in many cases tied into recreation and other programs that they work on during the evening or during off hours. It has been terribly successful. I have had so many people in my hometown, in Long Branch, where I was supposed to be at the Columbus Day parade today, tell me how it has made a difference in terms of the crime rate has gone down significantly as a result of this. Now we are saying we want to model that in the same way. We want to give those towns money so that they can hire additional teachers and bring class size down. I think it is either 1 to 3 or K to 3 in the lower grades. Now we know that anybody who has been involved in education, I know both of my colleagues who are here with me today have been, have talked about this in the past, know in the last few years all kinds of research has come out to point out that early childhood development is so crucial, even down to like 6 months or a few months, zero. And so what we are saying is that we want to make sure at that early level, and I mean it is not even that early because we are talking kindergarten or first grade, but whatever, that when these kids start in the public schools that they have those small class sizes. And again, you know, you could talk to people who say, well, I went to a one-room schoolhouse and there were 30 kids in the class. Well, again, things are different today. In many ways I wish that they were like they used to be, but they are not. A lot of these kids come to school already with some major problems, and they cannot have a class that has 30 kids in it because they are not going to learn anything. So, if you combine the fact that we are trying to reach these kids at a young age, that we have a lot of problems that need to be addressed today at that young age, you have to bring classes down. I think this would actually bring it down to 18 or so, the average in the classroom and the country. And I cannot stress how important that is, and do not let anybody on the other side tell you that the COPS grant program was a failure. If we can build on that, we will have another very successful program, and, I will say, for not a lot of money.

Mr. PALLONE. In New Jersey. That is right. My father was a policeman for about 25, 30 years and is retired now from the police force. The same is true. We grew up, we never had to worry about anything, but we were middle class, went to public school and basically the quality of the education in the public school was, I think, as good as it gets. That is all we are saying. But if I have to go back to that same school or other schools in my district today, you will find that many of them do not have the money to keep up with the plant, as I would say. When we talk about this money that we are looking to see for modernization of the schools, which really is sort of the main object, if you will, of what we are asking the Republicans to do before we get out of here, is that we would like to get this modernization fund available for the local communities. It is not so much that a lot of communities need additional schools or need to build additions to their schools, which is true. A lot of them are overcrowded now and they need new schools and this money that we are asking for that be appropriated could be used for that purpose. But I find that many of the school districts just cannot afford to keep up with technology anymore. In other words, they need to be rewired for computers, they need to have things done so that they can keep up with the high tech age, so to speak. It is very different today than it might have been 20, 30 years ago, or even 10 years ago, where the local community of course never had an easy time raising the funds to build the school or renovate the school but they did not have all the problems that are associated now with all the changes that occur in technology every day. I have found that when I go back and I talk to some of the school districts, they are just looking for some additional help just to make the changeover, if you will, to the high technology age. Now, of course there are others that have crumbling roofs. I have some in my own district that are in pretty bad shape where I have been in the auditoriums and I have seen the water leak through. So there are some that are very decrepit. But you will not find a single school district in this country now, I do not think, that does not need some kind of assistance because of all the demands that exist now on the physical plant of the school building. Again, I know I hear my Republican colleagues say, well, you know, schools should be local, everything should be done locally. We are not arguing that the curriculum should not be decided by the local school board, that the local school board should not decide who to hire or what to do on a daily basis. We are just talking about the money that they need, because local property taxes are so high, it is very difficult for them to get along. So all we are saying is give us a little down payment here. Do not rush out of this place immediately without having done your job. Address the education needs, address the need to modernize the schools. If they would just do that, I will be honest with you, all the other things that I would like to see done here, but if they would just do that, I would be happy.

Mr. PALLONE. If the gentlewoman will yield, I am going to join in by pointing out my background as well. My father, who probably is listening because today is Columbus Day and he told me he might listen to us.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity last night to go back to my district in New Jersey and I explained to my constituents that I saw at a function last evening how this do-nothing Congress was looking to adjourn and go home as quickly as possible because the Republican leadership refused to address education initiatives, refused to address the need for HMO reform and was talking about a tax break for the wealthy at the expense of Social Security. We need to save Social Security for future generations. But I was told by my constituents that the one thing that was the most important, that they did not want to see this Congress adjourn until we addressed it, was education, and the Democrats have two initiatives. One is to hire 100,000 teachers, new teachers across the country with Federal dollars that would reduce the size of the classroom, and the second one was to try to provide some funding to help local school districts to modernize their schools, to either build new schools or additions or to upgrade the schools that need to be restored. We are going to make sure that that happens here. We are telling the Republican leadership and our colleagues on the other side we are not going to run out of this place quickly. This has been a do-nothing Congress but at least before you go home, try to do something, put some sort of down payment on these education initiatives that are so important, not to Democrats, not to Republicans but to the American people. These are the kids. We have to think about the future of this country. The future of this country is in its children and in public education, not vouchers for private schools but public education, and doing things to upgrade public education, doing things to help in the classroom, doing things that make it possible to have safer and smarter schools. That is what the Democrats are all about. We have been talking about this for a long time. President Clinton brought it up in his State of the Union address. Now is the time to do something about it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I listened very carefully to what the previous Republican speaker said, and basically what I understood him to say was that the reason we need this rule is because we have to get out of here as quickly as possible. Let me say that I disagree with that completely. We should not be getting out of here as quickly as possible. We should be staying and getting things done that need to be done for the American people. Then I heard the previous Speaker say, ``Well, it doesn't really matter if we haven't done much, maybe we haven't done much, but that's okay because the American people don't want us to do much.'' Again if you want to take credit and say it is great that you have a do-nothing Congress, that is fine, but I do not think that is a good thing. I think a do-nothing Congress is a bad thing, and I want to say very emphatically that we have to accomplish a lot of things here before we leave, because the American people demand it. Then I listened to the gentleman from New York on the other side. He started talking about all these great things that he claimed came out of the Balanced Budget Act. I would remind him that the Balanced Budget Act was passed and signed into law over a year ago. So basically for the last year and more, nothing has been accomplished here. I would also point out that those middle-class tax credits or the things that helped the middle class that were in that Balanced Budget Act only came about because the Democrats kept insisting on it, kept insisting that the middle class be the priority in terms of what that Balanced Budget Act accomplished. For many months we had to deal here with Republican proposals that would help only the wealthy and the well-to-do in this country, but we kept insisting over and over again that the concentration had to be on the middle class and the average American. Mr. Speaker, we need to stay here. Let us defeat this rule, let us stay here and let us get accomplished the things that need to be accomplished. Let us come up with some funding to modernize our schools, to hire the additional 100,000 teachers so we can reduce class size. Let us address HMOs and the need for HMO reform. We went over to the other body yesterday to try to bring it up, Mr. Daschle, the Democratic leader, tried to bring it up and the Republicans basically banged the gavel and said, ``No, we're not going to deal with it.'' We need to address these issues.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that we are at least moving forward in an attempt to do something to correct the home health crisis. New Jersey's home health providers are among the most efficient in the Nation; and, in my view, it is unfair to penalize those agencies for their efficiency. I also want to address this 15 percent cut. As we know, the Balanced Budget Act, as everyone who has been affected by this problem knows, mandates a 15 percent across-the-board reduction to the per beneficiary caps in fiscal year 2000 if the prospective payment system is not ready by that time. We already know that it will not be. I would like to have a provision postponing that cut included in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and a number of my Democratic colleagues in the House introduced a bill that would reach the goal by reducing the enrollment cap on Medical Savings Accounts demonstration projects in the short term. Reducing the enrollment cap on MSAs, moreover, makes even more sense when we consider that nobody has signed up for an MSA yet. It is my understanding the other body was working on a proposal that would include this reduction, and I hope we are successful on getting that postponement included. I think that is very important.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I listened to what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) said, and the problem I have is not only with the substance of what he talked about, but the fact that effectively what he has proposed and what the Republican leadership has done is to just waste time, and that is why we are here in this dilemma tonight where they have to pass continuing resolutions, and they cannot get the budget done, and they cannot get the appropriation bills passed because basically they just wasted the Congress' and the American public's time. The gentleman from Arizona talked about HMO reform. They had no intention of passing HMO reform. Democrats in committee, in the Committee on Commerce and other committees, on the floor, constantly asked that the Patient Bill Of Rights be brought up for a vote and be considered, the Democratic proposal. It was never considered. They just took 1 day, they passed an HMO bill that basically reformed nothing, that was worse than the status quo, and they knew it was not going to go anywhere. They sent it over to the Senate. The Senate never took it up. The Democratic leadership in the Senate tried to take it up today and was denied. There was no intention to pass HMO reform, just to waste time. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) talked about tax cuts. There was no intention to pass a tax cut. This was just an exercise in futility. They were taking the money from the Social Security Trust Fund. They knew it was never going to pass. It passed the House, it went over to the Senate, they knew the Senate would never take it up. The President vowed he would never sign it. They did not even intend to pass a tax cut really. They were just wasting time. And we have seen this over and over again, wasting time on appropriations bills, all these antienvironmental riders that will wreck our natural resources that eventually most of them they had to take out. This whole debate over education, they did not care about public education. They spent days, weeks talking about vouchers, taking money from public schools to give it to private schools. But they did not even intend to really pass that either. They were just wasting time. That is why we are here today, because this Congress essentially does nothing under the Republican leadership but waste time. They do not want to do anything to help the American public. Just some benchmarks: The least number of days that this Congress has worked in decades, the least number of bills enacted in decades, and, finally, the failure to pass a budget for the first time since the budget process was created.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. PALLONE. No offense to the Majority Leader, Mr. Speaker, but the procedure the way I understand it is that these are 1 minute speeches that alternate with each side, and I would ask that the Speaker follow that procedure.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as the time runs out on the Congress, it is important to keep in mind that the Republican Congress has been a failed Congress. The Democrats are putting out a report today called A Failed Republican Congress, Partisanship Instead of Progress, and it details how Republicans have spent a lot of time driving their partisan agenda, but very little to help the American people. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have failed to act on the critical kitchen table issues that Americans really care about. We have had no managed care reform, no bill to reduce class size and modernize schools, no action to safeguard the surplus for Social Security, no bill to reduce teen smoking, no bill to reform our campaign finance system and no bill to increase the minimum wage for working families. Republicans have let down the American people. It is time for a new direction. Congress needs to put the public interest ahead of partisan politics. There is still a few days left here. I think we should see some action on HMO reform, on education initiatives and on safeguarding Social Security. So far we are seeing nothing.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention at the outset that I intend to yield a significant portion of my time later to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to talk about the Republicans and their successful effort to block managed care reform in this Congress. And I stress block managed care reform. Congress is now just a few days away from adjourning for the year, and managed care reform, or HMO reform, is essentially dead. And the reason is because the Senate, at this point, has simply refused to take up any HMO or managed care reform bill. To date, the House Republicans have dutifully carried the water, in my opinion, for the insurance industry. They did pass in the House of Representatives a bill which they labeled managed care reform, but it is a counterfeit bill, a reform bill that is worse than the current law. Of course, not to be out done, the Senate Republicans have rewarded the industry's loyalty to the Republican Party by doing nothing at all. Absolutely nothing. They simply refuse to take up the issue of managed care reform, and they are hopeful that the issue will simply die and everyone will forget about it. Well, I do not think people are going to forget about it. The Republicans are, in effect, touting their indifference to HMO reform in the public's face. I have to say when I go around in my district at town meetings or forums, or I just talk to people on the street, as we tend to do quite a bit; and now, of course, we are going to be running for election, all of us in the next few weeks, and so we see a lot of people, a lot more people maybe than we even would normally, and I say to my colleagues that the public, not only in my district but throughout the country, is clamoring for HMO reform. I do not really have to go too far. Today's New York Times. On the front page there was a story that said, ``Reality of the HMO System Doesn't Live Up to the Dream.'' It talks about places around the country where people had high expectations of HMOs and have been basically disappointed because of not only the quality of care that they have lost but also the fact that, in many cases, they have not even been able to get care that their physicians or their health care professional considered necessary. I am not going to read this whole article, but I just thought it was very interesting because it starts out by talking about Kansas City, Missouri, and how at the start of the 1990s, when employers' health insurance costs were going up, that the giant Sprint Corporation shifted its employees to HMOs in order to try to save money. And they saved a lot of money. And there is no reason why a corporation that is providing health care benefits for employees should not try to save money. I am not taking away from the fact that HMOs and managed care organizations often save a lot of money. But it is often at the cost of quality and even access to care. Just as an example, it says in here that Sprint's costs stabilized, and today the comprehensive health program stands as a model of what Congress and industry envisioned 4 years ago when they rejected President Clinton's health plan and left the health care system to the tides of the marketplace. So Sprint is happy with the fact that they have stabilized their costs. However, it says, and I am reading now from the New York Times story today, along the hallways at Sprint in Kansas City, the great expectations for managed care have dimmed. In a score of interviews with workers and managers, no one recounted the kind of HMO horror stories that make headlines, an example, the wrong leg amputated or a child denied a transplant, but, instead, they said they had found managed care to be exasperating, callous and sometimes just senseless. I have been on the floor of the House many times talking about some of the horror stories. But what the article is pointing out tonight is that regardless of some of the horror stories, the day-to-day activity of having to deal with HMOs, without the kind of patient protections that I think this Congress needs to put into place, are very difficult. It mentions in the article Kevin Leroy, a Sprint sales compensation manager, who says his HMO, Cigna, saved his 10-year-old daughter's life with months of hospitalization to help her conquer a mysterious immune system disorder, but it also required him to interrupt 3 days of work to get a third doctor's opinion before authorizing hernia surgery for him. What we are finding here is that even though in this case the HMO actually eventually authorized the particular procedure here that this individual needed, or that this individual needed for his 10-year-old daughter, he had to go through all kinds of hoops in order to get the procedure approved. This is another example. The toddler son of Elsa Wong, a project manager, suffered an ear infection for a year before her HMO primary care physician sent him to a specialist. When Phyllis Van Kamp, a secretary, had the fever and deep cough of bronchitis, a clinician told her over the phone to try aspirin for a few days. So what we are finding is that it is very difficult for people, on a regular basis, who have HMOs or managed care, to oftentimes get the care they need. They have to go through a lot of hoops. Sometimes the care is denied; sometimes it is postponed. In any case, they worry, because the system is not working the way it should be. And what the Democrats have been saying in the House of Representatives is that if we just put into law a few common sense protections for patients, nothing major, nothing dramatic, just a few common sense protections for patients, then we could make all the difference in the world in terms of HMOs and managed care organizations. Because right now they operate under so few rules and so few requirements and so few protections for individuals; whether they want to have access to a specialist, whether they want to be able to go to an emergency room and not have to fear that it will not be covered, whether or not they want to appeal the denial of a decision and have a very difficult time having a hearing or an opportunity even to be heard, whether or not they want to know what their policy contains and what is covered, and they do not have proper disclosure. These are the kind of common sense things that need to be corrected, and that is what the Democrats have been saying for the last year or 2 when we put together our Patient's Bill of Rights and demanded that it be considered here in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, what the House did was to stall and to stall. The Republicans essentially were not in favor of any kind of HMO reform. And, finally, when their backs were to the wall this summer, and they figured they had to do something, what they did was a bill that is basically a sham and actually takes us backward. And even that bill, the Senate, the other body, does not want to take it up and wants to let die before this session ends within the next few days. Well, I just wanted to mention again, with regard to The New York Times, in a New York Times poll that was conducted in July, 85 percent of respondents said that the health care system needs fundamental change, barely below the 90 percent who said the same thing in a Times- CBS news poll in 1994, before President Clinton's health care plan died. This is all in this article that I was quoting from in The New York Times. The article says also, today's article on the front page, says that when asked about health maintenance organizations, 58 percent of respondents said the HMOs had impeded doctors' ability to control treatment, compared with 17 percent who said that they had improved it. And, basically, the article also makes reference to a 1995 Harris poll that found more people saying managed care would improve quality of care rather than harm it. If we compare that 3 years ago to the Times poll now, there was a sharp reversal; 50 percent saying care would be harmed and only 32 percent saying it would be improved. Again, from today's New York Times. I think the lesson we are seeing is that there was a great expectation that managed care was not only going to save money but even improve the quality of care, or at least not make the quality of care worse, or access to care worse. And now, not only has the public found that, from their own example, that that is not true, but the polling that has been done and mentioned in this New York Times article today shows rather dramatically most people overwhelmingly feel there are problems with HMOs that need to be corrected. Almost 6 out of every 10 Americans are saying HMOs are impeding doctors' ability to treat patients, and the Republicans are simply going to let the clock run out on this issue. Basically, what the Republicans are saying to the American people is that they will have to wait until next year for the issue to be looked at again when the new Congress convenes in January. Sorry, they are telling parents of sick children who are trying to get their child to the appropriate specialist, they will have to wait until next year before Congress takes up the issue. Everyone, in fact, who was hoping Congress would pass legislation to improve managed care is out of luck for the indefinite future. Now, I believe, Mr. Speaker, very strongly, and I know this sounds partisan, but I cannot help it because the Republicans are in control, they are in the majority, the adjournment of Congress without a managed care reform bill is without question, I think, the target that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) and the Republican leadership have been aiming for all year. What little they have done on managed care has all been part of a smokescreen that the GOP has set up to create the illusion of serious interest in managed care reform. Consider now if we could, if I could just take a little time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to consider the GOP health task force original proposal to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich). I am actually the cochair, along with some of my Democratic colleagues, of our Democratic Health Care Task Force and we came up with the Patients' Bill of Rights as our Democratic proposal. Well, on the Republican side, there were some Republican Members who were very interested in managed care reform and wanted to come up with a decent bill that they figured would address some of the concerns that the public had to try to correct HMOs. But, if we remember, when that Republican Health Care Task Force came up with their original proposal just a few months ago, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) scoffed at what his own colleagues had come up with, and he basically berated them for bringing him a patient protection bill that had too many protections on it, and he sent them back to the drawing board because he and the insurance industry did not like what they saw. They saw a proposal that was very much like our Patient Bills of Rights. So those Republicans, those colleagues on the other side of the aisle who wanted to do real patient protection, were basically told by the House Republican leadership, no, we do not want that. Go back to the drawing board and come back with something else. Well, they went back to the drawing board this summer. They came back with something else. But what they came back with, which this time was acceptable to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) and the Republican leadership, was a bill loaded with provisions that were purposefully included to draw the President's veto. These are the so- called poison pill measures. The House Republican leadership did not want a bill that could actually pass. They wanted a bill that was so loaded down with these extraneous provisions unrelated to HMO and managed care reform that they could be sure that the President would veto it. It turns out he did not even have the opportunity because they never sent it to him. But that was the idea. And these poison pills included expansion of the medical savings account, medical malpractice reform, and the subversion of State consumer protection laws through the expansion of health pools. Now, some of these things some people might even like, but the problem is that they did not belong in this managed care reform. In order to ensure that this bill would not be exposed for the sham that it is, the Republican leadership bypassed the committee process and brought it straight to the House floor only a week after it was introduced by the task force. And aside from the poison pills which I just mentioned, the Republican leadership's bill included a host of so- called protections that are totally worthless. I just want to give some examples. Then I will yield to my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), who is very much involved in putting together this Patient Bill of Rights as part of our Democratic task force. But let me just give my colleagues some examples of why the Republican proposal that passed here was a sham. For example, the issue of medical necessity, which is really the chief catalyst of the managed care debate reform, in other words, who is going to decide what is medically necessary and needs to be covered by insurance company, is basically the key to what kind of care they are going to have. Well, again, in today's New York Times article it notes that nearly 6 in 10 Americans believe managed care interferes with doctors' abilities to treat patients. The Republican solution for this problem was to lock the status quo in place. In the bill that House Republicans have already approved, your HMO is allowed to define what ``medical necessity'' means. And this means that if the Republican bill were signed into law, which they are not going to allow it to be, they are not even going to move on it, but if it were signed into law and they had a dispute with their HMO, if their HMO says the treatment they need is not medically necessary, they do not get it. That is exactly what the problem is. In other words, the solution the Republicans are proposing is to codify the source of the problem into law. What the Democrats do in our Patients Bill of Rights is to define ``medical necessity'' based on generally accepted principles of professional medical practice. So, essentially, doctors are deciding what is medically necessary. The Republicans use the same kinds of tricks really for everything in their bill. Emergency room care is another example. While they could go to any emergency room under the Republican bill, there is no guarantee that their insurance company would pay for it. So it does not really help to have health insurance if they are not going to pay for it. Severe pain, for example, under the GOP bill is a standard a reasonable person could use to determine whether or not he or she could get him or herself to the emergency room. In other words, if they feel like they are having pain, the normal person would say, okay, that is a reasonable basis for them to go to the emergency room. But under the Republican bill, that is not a basis for saying that they are entitled to go to the emergency room. If the HMO decides that they do not want to define ``severe pain'' and say that is not a reason to go to the emergency room, then they do not cover it. They go to the emergency room, but they do not get the proper care. Under the Democratic bill, patients would have the guarantee that if they had severe pain, that would be a reason to go to the emergency room and have it covered. I do not want to keep going on because I see that my colleague is here, and he has been extremely helpful to us in the Democratic Caucus and to the Committee on Commerce in this effort. And if I could mention to my colleague that one of the things I mentioned here tonight is how this Republican proposal did not even go to committee. So we never even had the opportunity in the Committee on Commerce, which has jurisdiction over health care issues, to even consider this matter before it came to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) not only because he has been so far out really bringing up this issue on a regular basis and making sure that it is addressed and then spending the time on our health care task force, but also because he brought out tonight that the cost of implementing these protections in his home State of Texas was so minimal. I remember New Jersey has patient protections that are basically similar to Texas from what I have seen, and I remember at the time when they were trying to pass it in New Jersey. And we are getting the same thing here in Washington. The whole drumbeat against it is it is going to cost so much money, and it is going to increase the price of insurance, and the managed care organizations say that our whole purpose was to bring down costs, now we are going to bring them up again. And I think the gentleman said it was 34 cents, which is basically a few pennies for these protections. Really, again, what we want to emphasize, and that is why I think it is important that my colleague brought up the minimal cost factor, is that these are just common-sense proposals and what they really amount to in most cases is just prevention. My colleague mentioned the gag rule, how under current law if the HMO decides that they do not want the physicians that are part of their network to tell patients about procedures that are not covered by the HMO, they essentially put in place a gag rule so that their own doctor, in this great democracy that we have, cannot tell them about the type of services that are available because the insurance company will not cover them. That is a terrible thing to me, because I think most people when they go to a doctor, they think the doctor is going to educate them and tell them what kind of care they need. That is common sense. Yet they cannot. The doctors in many cases cannot. They are under this so-called gag rule. I think most people are shocked to find out that that is the case and that their doctor actually cannot tell them the truth essentially. That is really what we are all about. We are just trying to put in place what as you mentioned and I mentioned are just commonsense proposals. Before we conclude tonight, I just wanted to reiterate again so that everyone understands that you and I realize that this is not going to happen because the Republican leadership in the Senate will not even bring it up. But the fact of the matter is that we have a week left. You and I know that when the Republicans decided to bring up their bad bill in August, it only took them a day to do it. They did it in one day. They basically noticed it, they had the debate and they passed what was a very bad bill. So there is no question that if the Senate wanted to take it up, even with a week left, they could do it.

Mr. PALLONE. The bottom line is that we know that the Republican leadership is not going to do that. They not only do not want to bring up the bad bill, they do not want to bring up anything at all because they do not want to address it. So effectively the issue is dead for now. But I am worried about the individuals who are negatively impacted in the time before we get a chance to bring this up again. I know that it will come up again because the public as you said is just totally in favor of the kind of patient protections that we have put in our Democratic proposal. I may be unfair also in saying that it is just a Democratic proposal because the patients' bill of rights has Republican support as well but the Republican leadership refuses to bring it up.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member from Ohio for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the conference report, and I want to thank the conferees for including a provision that would give the President authority to waive sanctions that were imposed on both India and Pakistan as a result of the nuclear tests that those countries conducted earlier this year. The sanctions imposed after the nuclear tests have disrupted a variety of bilateral assistance programs, including technical support for the very market reforms that we would like to see India and other developing countries adopt. These reforms offer short- and long-term opportunities for U.S. companies, large and small, to gain entry into India's vast consumer market and to help meet India's significant infrastructure improvement needs. Under the unilateral sanctions, we stand to lose many of these economic opportunities. Mr. Speaker, the sanctions have not achieved the desired result; namely, gaining India's support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. However, several rounds of negotiations between both sides have shown significant progress, and at this time of significant progress in south Asia, giving the President the authority to waive sanctions in exchange for significant agreements from India and Pakistan will help to move the process forward.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Seventh Anniversary of the Independence of the Armenian Republic, which was celebrated last Monday, September 21st. Mr. Speaker, last month, we showed on the floor of this House that the Armenian people and nation have many friends in the Congress. During the debate on the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, we succeeded in rolling back an effort to repeal Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act--a provision barring direct aid to the Government of Azerbaijan until that country lifts its blockades of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. I'm extremely proud to have been involved in that bipartisan effort. My goal, and that of my colleagues, as American elected officials, was to ensure that we keep a valuable and moral law on the books. But I'm also glad that, the way things worked out, it turned out to be a nice Independence Day present to Armenia. Mr. Speaker, the story of the Armenian people--one of the world's most ancient and enduring cultures, the first nation to adopt Christianity as its national religion--is an inspiring saga of courage and devotion to family and nation. It is also an unforgettable story of the triumph of a people over adversity and tragedy. Earlier in this century, in one of history's most horrible crimes against humanity, 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children were slaughtered by the Ottoman Turkish Empire. Every April, Members of this House join in commemoration of the Armenian Genocide. We can never relent, and we will never relent, in our efforts to remind the world that this tragedy is an historic fact--despite the efforts of so-called ``revisionists,'' many of them funded by the Turkish government, to deny the truth--and to make sure that our nation, the world community, and especially the Turkish nation, come to terms with and appropriately commemorate this historic fact. During the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the people of Armenia briefly established an independent state. But the Armenian lands were absorbed either into Ataturk's Turkey, where traces of Armenian history and culture were completely wiped out, or the Soviet Union, where at least some Armenian cultural presence was maintained, even if most of the political shots were called in Moscow. Mr. Speaker, it was the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that allowed the Armenian people to re-establish a state and a nation, to create a society where their language, culture, religion and other institutions would be able to prosper. The progress made in seven short years by the Republic of Armenia has been an inspiration--not only for the sons and daughters of the Diaspora, but for all Americans who support the cause of freedom. Having survived the Genocide, and having endured decades under the domination of the Soviet Union, the brave people of Armenia have endeavored to build a free and proud nation, based on the principles of democracy and a market economy. Mr. Speaker, as they have for so much of their history, the Armenian people have accomplished all this against daunting odds. The tiny, land-locked Republic of Armenia is surrounded by hostile neighbors-- Turkey and Azerbaijan--who have imposed blockades that have halted the delivery of basic necessities. Yet, independent Armenia continues to persevere. While democracy has proven to be elusive in much of the former Soviet bloc, democratic Armenia held multi-party Presidential elections this year that continued the steady progress towards the permanent taking root of the institutions of democracy and civil society. As the founder and co-chairman, with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], of the Congressional Caucus on Armenia Issues, I consider U.S.-Armenia relations to be one of our key foreign policy objectives. Support for Armenia is in our practical interests, helping to support a stable nation in a strategically important and often unstable part of the world. Standing by Armenia is also consistent with America's calling to support democracy and human rights, and to defend free peoples throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the people of Armenia want good relations with their neighbors and the entire world community, and I believe the moral, political and economic power of the United States can go a long way toward helping Armenia achieve that goal. Mr. Speaker, I hope that as we mark future Independence Days of the Republic of Armenia, we can look back with pride on building peace and prosperity in the entire Trans-Caucasus region, so that the people of Armenia and their neighbors can enjoy a stable, hopeful future. I hope that the Republic of Turkey and Azerbaijan will have responded positively to Armenia's offer to normalize relations, exchanging diplomats and allowing the free flow of goods and people across their borders. I hope that, with the active participation of the United States, we will have resolved the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, in a manner that guarantees the security and self-determination of the people of Karabagh. I hope that the effort to tap the vast Caspian Sea oil reserves will finally culminate in the construction of a pipeline carrying the oil west to Mediterranean ports through Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey--thereby further linking those neighbors in mutually beneficial security and economic ties. I hope that our policy in the region will not be overly influenced by the development of these oil reserves, at the expense of the values of democracy and human rights. Thus, Mr. Speaker, while the reality for the people of the Republic of Armenia continues to be difficult, let us take this occasion to wish them well on the occasion of their Independence Day, and, more important, on their ongoing journey to establish a stable, democratic republic and a permanent homeland for the Armenian people in the Caucasus.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to congratulate the Republic of Cyprus on the 38th anniversary of its independence today. I came down to the House floor to speak about Cyprus's Independence Day because I think it is imperative that Congress take every opportunity to highlight the fact that the Republic of Cyprus does not enjoy true independence as we understand it in the United States. For 24 of the 38 years since Cyprus became an independent State, the northern 37 percent of the island has been occupied by an illegal Turkish occupation force. Today, some 35,000 Turkish troops remain entrenched in the self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which has been recognized only by the regime in Ankara. This occupation continues to destabilize the region, and sadly, the Turks appear to be growing only more and more intransigent and unreasonable in moving the peace process forward. Despite numerous outstanding U.N. resolutions calling for a negotiated settlement, and a standing offer by Cypriot President Clerides to demilitarize the island, the regime in Ankara deliberately set the peace process back. Over the last several months, there have been some actions by the Turkish side that have been of particular cause for concern. In May, as most of us who follow the Cyprus issue know, a new attempt to resuscitate peace talks led by Ambassador Richard Holbrooke collapsed when the Turks abruptly insisted on three new and unfounded preconditions to meaningful negotiations. These preconditions, Mr. Speaker, were absolutely ridiculous. They prompted a public rebuke from Ambassador Holbrooke, who noted that peace talks are useless when only one party truly wants peace. Frustrated with the almost instantaneous collapse of these talks, I wrote to President Clinton urging that he adopt a hard-line policy, and use American influence with the Turkish military to get the Turks to cooperate. Specifically, I asked that the U.S. government communicate to Ankara that there would be severe consequences in U.S.-Turkey relations if it did not prevail upon its puppet regime in Northern Cyprus to abandon these new demands and cooperate in the peace process. I have, unfortunately, seen no indication that any such message was communicated. While I do not question the administration's commitment to bring peace to the region, I have nonetheless been disappointed with its tepid response to this newest spate of Turkish obstinance. I am also very wary of the administration's response to another issue that I have been following closely and working on over the last few weeks. Shortly after the collapse of the peace talks, the Cypriot foreign minister was in town visiting Washington, and came to Capitol Hill to meet with Members of Congress. At that meeting, some Members raised the issue of illegal Turkish transfers of American weapons to Northern Cyprus. This was very troubling to learn of, in light of the collapse of the peace talks, and because it was consistent with other reports of similar Turkish behavior. The illegal transfer of weapons by Turkey in fact was something I was already concerned about. On trips I had taken to Armenia, I saw firsthand American weapons that had been seized from the Azerbaijanis. Following the meeting with the foreign minister, I decided that we ought to pursue the idea of holding congressional hearings on this topic of weapons transfers. I teamed up with the gentleman from California (Mr. Brad Sherman) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn Maloney), and sent a Dear Colleague to all Members of the House asking them to sign a letter to the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, asking him to hold hearings. As it was being circulated, it came to the attention of Ambassador Tom Miller. Ambassador Miller is now the State Department's special coordinator for Cyprus. He subsequently contacted myself, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and asked if he could come to talk with us. During the meeting, he informed me that in response to the inquiries by Members of Congress about Turkish arms transfers, the State Department would prepare a report on the matter, and that report is at this time being prepared. In addition to the report, Ambassador Miller indicated that he would be willing to come to my district to talk to leaders of the Greek and Cypriot communities, which he did on September 13. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the Ambassador's visit to New Jersey. Everyone there, myself included, told Ambassador Miller that it was our very strong belief that Turkey with not change its behavior unless it was clear that that behavior would bring serious consequences from the international community and the United States, in particular. But our concern was that the U.S. has not indicated to the Turkish government there would be any serious response to their activities. If anything, the U.S. gives the impression that Turkey is more important as an ally today than it was in the past, and that the administration was going out of its way to show U.S. support for Turkey in the context of its application to the European Union, its strategic significance in the Middle East, and in many other respects. Even our condemnation of human rights violations in Turkey, particularly with respect to the Kurds, I think has been insignificant. What I would like to emphasize, though, Mr. Speaker, before I conclude tonight, is that I, along with quite a few other Members, are intent on holding Turkey accountable for its actions and bringing true independence to Cyprus. We have seen success in Northern Ireland and Bosnia. With continued vigilance, we can bring success to Cyprus. With hard work and a hard-line policy, I must emphasize, harder than we have now, we will one day surely be able to celebrate the true independence of Cyprus on a future Independence Day.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to talk about several important issues affecting the relationship between the two largest democracies in the world, that is the United States and India. Yesterday, Congress took an important step towards getting those relations back in a positive direction. The House-Senate Conference on Agricultural Appropriations approved a provision that would give the President authority to waive sanctions that were imposed on both India and Pakistan as a result of the nuclear tests that those countries conducted earlier this year. Mr. Speaker, it is important and necessary to provide the President with proper sanction waiver authority so that he may have more flexibility in negotiating with India and Pakistan. Pursuant to the Glenn amendment to the Arms Export Control Act, the President was required to invoke severe economic sanctions after the nuclear tests in May. These unilateral sanctions prohibit a variety of commercial and technical transactions between the United States and India. U.S.-India economic relations were growing in a positive direction at the time of the tests. In fact, the U.S. was India's largest trading partner. The sanctions that were imposed after the nuclear tests have disrupted a variety of bilateral assistance programs, including technical support for the development of financial institutions and other market reforms. These reforms offer short- and long-term opportunities for U.S. companies, large and small, to gain greater entry into India's vast consumer market and to help meet India's significant infrastructure improvement needs. Under the unilateral sanctions, we stand to lose many of these opportunities. In addition, the sanctions require the U.S. to block international financial institutions from making loans to India. The sanctions have not achieved the desired result, namely gaining India's support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. However, several rounds of negotiations between our deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott, and the special envoy of India's Prime Minister Vajpayee, Mr. Jaswant Singh, have shown significant progress. Giving President Clinton the authority to waive sanctions in exchange for significant agreements for India, as well as Pakistan, will help to move forward the process and ultimately enhance our nuclear non- proliferation efforts. Mr. Speaker, I was joined by 21 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in this body in sending a letter to the conferees, to the ag conferees, urging them to support this important sanctions waiver provision, and I congratulate the conferees for approving this provision last night. Yesterday evening, India's Prime Minister Vajpayee left the United States after a brief visit to New York that included a significant speech before the United Nations, as well as a meeting with his Pakistani counterpart Prime Minister Sharif. Prime Minister Vajpayee's speech to the U.N. General Assembly provided a positive foundation for improving U.S.-India relations. I was also heartened by the new chapter in India-Pakistan ties signalled by Thursday's meeting between the two prime ministers of India and Pakistan. By expressing India's readiness to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Prime Minister Vajpayee has helped to vastly improve the climate and relations between the United States and India. I hope our administration will redouble its efforts to work with the Indian government to achieve results on nuclear proliferation of other issues. I was also very encouraged by the outcome of the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers' meeting, particularly with regard to peacefully settling the Kashmir issue establishing better communications between the two governments and increasing economic and trade cooperation. I agree that these issues, particularly the Kashmir issue, should be addressed on a bilateral basis between the two countries. The prime minister of India's appeal for a concerted international plan to combat terrorism and safeguard human rights is consistent with American views on these issues and deserves the support of the United States and the international community. In fact, the leadership that the prime minister expressed on all of these issues points to the importance of finally granting India a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. Besides the obvious justification for this step, the fact that India has one-sixth of the world's population and has contributed significantly to U.N. peacekeeping efforts, India offers a model for developing countries based on democracy and tolerance and as the prime minister's speech showed yesterday, India has important ideas on global stability issues that the rest of the world should listen to. I have sponsored legislation expressing support for India's bid to become a permanent member of the Security Council and I hope that the prime minister's visit will add momentum to that effort. I also hope that the progress we have seen in the last few days creates the conditions to allow President Clinton's trip to South Asia to go forward in the near future. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to remind my colleagues here and the American people of an important milestone. October 2, this Friday, is the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi, who led India's independence effort. I mention Gandhi's birthday because this House recently approved legislation, that I cosponsored with my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), that would authorize the government of India to establish a memorial to honor Mahatma Gandhi in Washington, D.C. There is similar legislation pending in the Senate, and I hope our colleagues in the other body will approve that legislation, ideally in time for the commemoration of Gandhi's birthday on Friday, and as another expression of friendship between our two countries.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this debate on fast track is not about whether or not the United States should be participating in the global economy, because we all agree on that. It is about how we are going to participate in that economy. Are we going to allow multinational corporations to bargain down the environmental protection standards of nations around the world in the name of economic competitiveness? Are we going to allow our own strong environmental and health laws and regulations to be knocked down as barriers to trade? I urge my colleagues to consider our experience with NAFTA. Thanks to NAFTA and the environmental side agreement to NAFTA, we now have more factories along the heavily polluted U.S.-Mexican border dumping an even greater amount of hazardous waste, mostly illegally. Risks to the health and safety of American working families are increasing as food imports rise while the number of inspections plummet. These environmental and public health problems are the result of inadequate free trade agreements that create pressure on neighboring governments to relax environmental regulations in an effort to lure manufacturers across the borders, allowing these companies to profit by polluting and abusing natural resources. I urge my colleagues, do not be fooled again. We already were fooled once with NAFTA. We need a trade policy that opens markets while at the same time setting high health, environmental and labor standards. I urge my colleagues to vote no both on the rule, because it is essentially unfair, not allowing other amendments, and also to vote no on fast track. Let us not make the same mistake again.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleagues what my constituents are saying about this bill and why they want me to oppose this Republican tax plan. What they are saying is that a few years ago; I think it was in the 1970s; this Congress passed a tax increase in order to provide more money for the Social Security Trust Fund through the payroll tax essentially because there was a recognition that in a few years there would be a lot more baby boomers who turned 65 and we would need more money in the Social Security Trust Fund to pay benefits for that baby boom generation. But that money now is being borrowed by the general revenue, by the budget in general, used for purposes other than Social Security, and now we are being told that even though that surplus is there in the Social Security Trust Fund to be paying benefits in the future, we are going to take even more of it and spend it on a tax cut that primarily, I would say, goes to wealthy individuals. Well, my constituents are saying that that is not fair, it is not fair to raise taxes on the average guy, on his earnings, on his payroll tax and then take it away in a tax cut when that money is supposed to be saved for the future when it has to be paid out in benefits. And my constituents are saying what Congress is telling me is that the money is not going to be there to pay out the benefits when I get to be 65 even though I have been paying more to make sure that it is there. And then they are saying we know what is going to happen in the future. We are going to have to raise taxes because we have taken the money away that supposedly we were saving. So the consequence of this Republican action is that 5-10 years down the road we are going to have to raise taxes more, most likely, on that wage earner, on the payroll taxes, to make sure money is there for Social Security or, alternatively, that there will be pressure to cut back on Social Security benefits, to cut back on the COLA, to raise the age before one can get Social Security or to even suggest other kind of crazy ways to deal with retirement because there is no money in Social Security. This is wrong, and that is why we have to vote against this rule and vote against the Republican tax cuts.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let us make no mistake about it. The Republican tax bill is a direct assault on Social Security. The budget surplus the Republicans want to use to pay for their tax cuts does not exist. The only portion of the Federal budget that is in surplus is the Social Security trust fund. In fact, without Social Security, the Federal budget would still be in a deficit this year. Instead of voting on an $80 billion tax cut that is paid for by raiding Social Security, we should pass the Democratic proposal to save Social Security first. It would require by law that the entire amount of the Social Security surplus in each fiscal year be transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York to be held in trust for Social Security. Mr. Speaker, the point is that Democrats could support many of these tax cuts, and we could pass a tax relief bill, if the Republicans agreed to do it without using Social Security to pay for it. But they will not. They are not going to do that. That is why we have to vote down this Republican bill and save Social Security first.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are moving full steam ahead with their plan to raid the budget surplus to pay for tax cuts, instead of putting that money where it rightly belongs, into Social Security. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax bill is a direct assault on Social Security. The budget surplus the Republicans want to use to pay for their tax cuts do not exist. The only portion of the Federal budget that is in surplus is the Social Security Trust Fund. In fact, without Social Security, the Federal budget would still be in deficit this year. Mr. Speaker, hardworking American families deserve tax relief, there is no doubt, but we should not be gambling with the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for it. Let us put every penny of this surplus back where it came from and keep it there until we are sure we have protected Social Security for the long haul. Let us show seniors and future generations that we will be disciplined with the money Congress has been charged with managing for their retirement years. Let us stop the GOP's $80 billion assault on Social Security dead in its tracks. I would urge all my colleagues to vote no on this irresponsible Republican tax plan.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from Washington. The gentleman really articulates well what we face tomorrow. If I could just develop a couple points you make, because I think they are so important. First of all, there is no question that this debate over the next two days is totally political and being done by the Republican leadership because they are looking for votes in the November election, because we already know that it is very unlikely that the Senate would even take up this legislation, and the President, of course, has vowed to veto the legislation. So we are not even talking about anything that could possibly happen or be signed into law in time before the Congress adjourns. So the whole debate on the Republican side is totally partisan, totally oriented towards the November election in an effort to garner votes. The other thing that my colleague from Washington pointed out that I think is so important is that the money that has been generated by the Social Security surplus has been generated because we know that the baby-boom generation a few years from now is going to be very large and there are going to be a lot more seniors that need Social Security benefits. I believe it was maybe 20 years ago in the seventies that the Congress and the President signed legislation that actually increased the tax, the FICA tax on Social Security, with the anticipation that the baby-boomers would pay this higher level, generate a surplus, and that that money would pay for their benefits because there would be so many more of them in 2010 or 2020. What happens if that money is not there because it has been borrowed and spent on tax cuts or other things? Well, what happens is that either there will have to be another tax increase, which future generations will have to pay, which is very unfair to them, or, alternatively, they would have to cut back on the benefits. We have already heard talk about cutting back on the COLA for Social Security, raising the age, and those are the consequences or likely consequences of this irresponsible Republican policy, that ultimately in the future we might have to raise taxes that people pay or their earnings amount in order to pay for Social Security, or cut back on the benefits. So it is a very irresponsible, totally political proposal that we are going to be seeing the next two days. I would now like to yield to my colleague from Arkansas, who has worked with me on our Health Care Task Force. We put together the proposal, the Patients' Bill of Rights to reform HMOs, and the Kids Health Care Initiative that has been very successful last year, and he has been speaking out on the Social Security issue quite a bit for the last few weeks. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank my colleague from Arkansas. I think that what the point the gentleman makes very effectively is that our position, the Democratic position, is essentially the fiscally conservative position. Our colleague from Washington State (Mr. McDermott) was making the point that for so many years the Republicans and the leadership on the other side of the aisle kept making the point about how we should not be going further into debt, and now here we are essentially arguing what is the fiscally sound thing to do to save for the future to make sure the money is there, and we are getting opposition from them. So it is amazing to see how, I guess, the ideologies change somewhat. But I know the gentleman has always stood on the side of fiscal conservatism, and this is obviously a manifestation of that. I am proud to be with the gentleman saying the same thing, because I think it is so important if we are going to have this money available for Social Security in the future. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out again what the Democrats are proposing. The Democrats have a proposal to save Social Security first, and our proposal would require by law that the entire amount of the Social Security surplus in each fiscal year be transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be held in trust for Social Security. If we pass this bill today or tomorrow or Saturday, the President would sign it immediately. It is that simple. But, unfortunately, the Republicans have decided to make this a political issue, and there is no question in my mind about what they are doing. First of all, the President has stated unambiguously that if the Republicans send him a bill that pays for tax cuts with the Social Security surplus, that he will veto it. So we are not against a tax cut. The Democratic proposal would essentially have the same tax cuts. What the President has been saying, and he just reaffirmed it last week, is that we have been waiting so long, 29 years, for a balanced budget, and it is a mistake for us to basically when we see the ink, so-to-speak, turn from red to black and watch it dry for a minute or two before we get carried away. He is just saying let us not squander the surplus on tax cuts before we save Social Security. Today the Democrats had a rally in front of the Capitol. Vice President Gore was there with a number of Democratic House Members and Senators. Vice President Gore reiterated this point today when he said that we are not going to basically rip up the Balanced Budget Act. We care about the Balanced Budget Act and we want to make sure that we save Social Security and do not just rip up this Balanced Budget Act by passing this tax cut. I think that it is important to know that many of the tax cuts included in the Republican bill were proposed and sponsored by Democrats. This is what my colleague from Washington was saying. The marriage penalty relief, the $500 child credit and the Hope Scholarship, expanding the deduction of health insurance for the self- employed, these proposals were actually rejected by the Republicans when they were offered by Democrats at the committee level. So it is not that the Republicans really are pushing these proposals, because they have had ample opportunity to do it before. The point is that now, just a few weeks before the election, they are suggesting that this be done, but their intention really is not to have it passed here and go to the Senate and be signed by the President. They know that none of that is going to happen in the next few weeks. The main thing that Democrats are saying tonight and will be saying over the next few days is that we have to have some fiscal discipline. We can show seniors and future generations that Congress will be responsible with the money the American people have entrusted us to manage for their retirement years. What we are saying is that the Republicans should abandon this ill-conceived proposal to undermine Social Security and spare itself the futile exercise of passing a bill that is speeding basically down a road to nowhere. I can assure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that if they drop this proposal and really move on to a legislative agenda that has some meaning, addressing HMO reform, addressing environmental and education concerns, the things that the American people want to see addressed, we could actually accomplish something here, rather than wasting our time with this tax proposal, which basically has no chance of passing and only jeopardizes Social Security.