Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman so much for his comments because I know how strongly he feels, and there is no question that he is absolutely right about what is going on out there. I just wanted to give two examples, if I could, following up on what the gentleman mentioned. I do not have the specific physician, but there was something on TV that I watched one night, and I do not even remember what channel now, but the gentleman was talking about in Pittsburgh how so many medical breakthroughs took place, polio and some of the other things a few years ago. In many cases, what is happening now with managed care and the way that it is operating is that those physicians who are on the front line and who are coming up with new ways and new techniques of doing things are almost penalized. We had the example with the physician, and I do not have his name in front of me, unfortunately, who had grown up with a deformed ear or deformed ears, and he had gone to medical school and made it his life's ambition that he was going to develop a way of cosmetic surgery to do cosmetic surgery to make particularly children's ears so that they would look normal, so to speak, again. He had developed this surgical method, and was doing a great job and handling these specialty cases, and all of a sudden found that the HMOs would not pay for it. They would rather send someone, a young person, to another physician who had perhaps not developed this breakthrough technique because it was costing less to do so. He actually ended up spending most of his time on cosmetic surgery, not to denigrate it, but with people who were trying to lose weight or take material off their thighs or whatever to make themselves look better, and could not devote his time to cases of children who had these kind of deformities. This is what we are seeing now. We are seeing those physicians who have developed new techniques, new technologies, who are the best of the bunch, basically not allowed to practice their profession anymore because of decisions that are made by these insurance companies. It is an awful thing.

Mr. PALLONE. The other thing the gentleman mentioned that I wanted to bring up is this whole issue of cost, because we know that those who are against the managed care reform and the patient protections keep talking about costs. We have numerous studies that show that legislation like the Patients' Bill of Rights will not result in any additional costs. To be honest, even if it did cost an extra dollar or two a month, which is probably the most it would cost, I do not think the average person would even care. But, interestingly enough, these same health insurance executives that are out there talking about the costs of managed care reform are the ones that are benefiting so much and getting these huge salaries. It will not take too much time, but I had this document given to me that was put out by Families USA, called Corporate Compensation in America's HMOs, and it is long, but I just wanted to give you some of the summary here. It says in keeping with the industry's extenuated focus on costs, this report analyzes the very different facets of managed care cost, namely the costs associated with compensation for high-level HMO executives. The report examines 1996 executive compensation for the 20 for-profit publicly traded companies that own HMOs with enrollments over 100,000. These were the key findings. The 25 highest paid executives in the 20 companies studied made $153.8 million in annual compensation, excluding unexercised stock options. In 1996, the average compensation for these 25 executives was over $6.2 million per executive. The median compensation for the 25 was over $4.8 million. Of the 25, the one with the largest unexercised stock option package in 1996 had stock options valued at $337.4 million. The average value of unexercised stock options for these 25 executives was $13.5 million. The last thing it says, in conclusion, which I thought was interesting, it says that publicly traded for-profit managed care insurance companies are considerably more cost conscious when they oppose the establishment of consumer rights than when they approve compensation for their top executives. For a publicly traded managed care company, remuneration in annual compensation and unexercised stock options for top executives routinely reaches millions of dollars; indeed, for many, reaches tens of millions of dollars. The managed care insurance industry's protestations about costs appear to be highly selective. While they argue they will need to raise premiums to be able to provide basic protections for consumers, their top executives make millions of dollars each year. I am not trying to begrudge anybody making $1 million. The economy is good, so be it. But in the case of the managed care organizations, the bottom line is more and more of the premiums are going to pay for profits and for top executives' salaries, and the squeeze is coming in terms of the quality of care provided. So they have no business complaining about costs, which I do not think are really going to go up anyway. But it is interesting, I think, the selectivity and the way they go about it. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman again. I know that she has spoken out on this issue many times and how important it is to her, and I appreciate her joining us again this evening. The gentlewoman mentioned the bipartisan nature of this. We have an example here on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), who is a physician, who has been outspoken on this issue of the need for patient protections. I would like to yield to him at this time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the reason that I was so impressed with the gentleman's comments earlier is because he was pointing out, really, how basic these patient protections are. I think that we cannot emphasize enough how this is really a floor. We are not doing anything radical here. These are basic patient protections that I think most people probably think are already there until they are faced with the reality of how to deal with the managed care organizations in certain circumstances. I loved the gentleman's analogy of the emergency room situation, because that is really so typical. I do not think people can imagine that, if they need a hospital or other kind of care in an emergency, that they have to get prior authorization. What we do in the Patient Bill of Rights, and I think that the Parker bill does the same thing, is to basically say that you use the prudent layperson standard. In other words, if I am in an emergency situation, I have to go to an emergency room, then the standard about the level of care that should be ensured is what the average layperson would think should be ensured in those circumstances. Of course, the average person is not going to think that they have to have prior authorization or that they have to go to a hospital that is 40 miles away, the example I used before. The average person would think that they would go to the closest emergency room, and they would just walk in and get the care, because it is an emergency. It is a pretty simple phenomenon. It is very basic. It is nothing really abstract. Those are the kinds of patient protections, the sort of floor, if you will, of patient protections that we are talking about here which make sense, I think, to the average person. That is why, I think, we are getting so much support from our constituents saying, do something about this, because it is not acceptable, what we have to face now.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the self-insured that come under the Federal law are actually a majority in many cases. The gentleman can tell us a little more about that.

Mr. PALLONE. That is incredible.

Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely. Mr. Speaker, if I can comment on that, and one other thing that the gentleman said so eloquently, the reason is because when we talk about insurance plans that are basically for the self-employed, if you will, we have the ERISA preemption. Essentially what that means is that if the State, like my home State of New Jersey, passes a patient protection act, if they will, which they did, I should say, is now law, it does not apply to the majority of people who have health insurance in the State because of the Federal preemption, so to speak. So if we do not pass a Federal bill like the two that you have mentioned, then the majority of people in New Jersey are not actually impacted by the State Patient Protection Act. So that is why we need Federal legislation.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to talk about the issue of managed care reform. This issue has without question become one of the most important issues on the minds of Americans today. Accordingly, it has also become one of the most pressing issues before Congress. In the last few weeks, there have been front page articles in the New York Times and in the Washington Post on the fever pitch the debate has assumed on Capitol Hill. This debate, as I will discuss tonight, has assumed a clear and identifiable framework. The debate is now one between supporters of managed care reform and the Republican leadership and insurance industry who are fighting tooth and nail to undermine the various managed care reform proposals that have been introduced. The issue has reached the dimensions it has because patients are being abused within managed care organizations. Patients today lack basic elementary protections from abuse and these abuses are occurring because insurance companies and not doctors are dictating which patients can get what services under what circumstances. Within managed care organizations, or HMOs, the judgement of doctors is increasingly taking a back seat to the judgment of insurance companies. Medical necessity is being shunted aside by the desire of bureaucrats to make an extra buck and people are literally dying because they are not getting the medical attention they need and ironically enough are, in theory, paying for their premiums. Mr. Speaker, this is not an exaggeration. I decided tonight to bring a few examples. Actually there are a number of examples of some pretty horrific examples that have been put together from news clips from various newspapers nationwide to just give some examples of some of the awful stories that have come forward about abuse by managed care organizations. I just wanted to give a few tonight. I have in front of me about 140 of them and I am certainly not going to go through all of them but I would like to give just a few. This one is actually from the New York Post, September 20, 1995. It describes a 4-year-old girl who ran a high fever following a 5-hour hospital stay for a tonsillectomy, which is considered an outpatient operation by HMOs. Her mother took the girl to her HMO pediatrician who did not take the girl's temperature, did not examine her throat and did not refer the girl back to the surgeon, a routine procedure for postoperative problems. Unfortunately the girl died of a hemorrhage at the surgical site. I have another example. This is from the Long Island Newsday, February 11, 1996. A mother in Atlanta called her HMO at 3:30 a.m. to report that her 6-month-old boy had a fever of 104 and was panting and limp. The hot line nurse told the woman to take her child to the HMO's network hospital 42 miles away, bypassing several closer hospitals. By the time the baby reached the hospital, he was in cardiac arrest and had already suffered severe damage to his limbs from an acute and often fatal disease and both his hands and legs had to be amputated. A court subsequently found the HMO at fault. I do not like to give these examples because they really are horrific, but there are so many of them. I am just going to give another couple because I think that it is important for all of us to understand some of the problems that people face out there on a daily basis. This one is from the Enterprise Record from January 21, 1996. It describes a 27-year-old man from central California who was given a heart transplant and was discharged from the hospital after only 4 days because his HMO would not pay for additional hospitalization, nor would the HMO pay for the bandages needed to treat the man's infected surgical wounds. Well, the patient died. A lot of these examples do not necessarily involve people who have died but who have had severe problems and severe handicaps, lifelong handicaps that have resulted from their experience with HMOs. I have said because of the importance of this issue there are a number of legislative proposals that have been introduced to give patients the protections that they deserve. Working with our Democratic Caucus Health Care Task Force, which I cochair, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) introduced legislation which would provide patients with a comprehensive set of protections for managed care abuses. This is the Patients' Bill of Rights, as it is called, that so many Democrats have now cosponsored, and also some Republicans. I should say that the Patients' Bill of Rights is not an attempt to destroy managed care. It is an attempt to make it better. Some have suggested that in reforming managed care and putting forth a bill like the Patients' Bill of Rights that somehow we or those of us who support this legislation do not like managed care. That is simply not true. We are simply trying to make managed care better because of the problems that we have faced with managed care and HMOs in the last few years. Mr. Speaker, I cannot emphasize that point enough. Supporters of managed care reform want just that, reform, not a dismantling of managed care. The Patients' Bill of Rights would help bring about that reform by putting medical decisions back where they belong, with doctors and their patients, and we have, as I said, seven Republican cosponsors for our bill, so it really has become a bipartisan bill. Unfortunately the Patients' Bill of Rights does not enjoy the support of the Republican leadership, and that is really the rub here. In fact, if we are to believe what we read in the paper, it is not just the Patients' Bill of Rights that the Republican leadership opposes, they appear to oppose the larger notion of managed care reform. They are simply not willing to cross the insurance industry in order to give patients better protections and doctors greater power over medical choices. The week before Congress broke for Memorial Day, the chairman of the Republicans' health care task force, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) announced that he would have a outline of a proposal before the recess, the day before the Congress adjourned for the Memorial Day recess, and Speaker Gingrich quashed the managed care reform proposal that was put forward by his own Republican task force, the Hastert task force, and I have to say I think this move even surprised some of the Republicans who favored some kind of managed care reform. But following the Speaker's rebuke the Washington Post reported that, and I quote, ``Gingrich's foot soldiers realize that they did not know exactly what he wanted. They weren't quite sure, said Representative Harris Fawell. The Speaker did not like what he saw and sent his fellow Republicans,'' to use their words, ``back to the dugout.'' So now we know it is clear that the Speaker has rejected the Republican proposal, the Republican Task Force on Managed Care Reform proposal, because it had too many patient protections on it, and I have to repeat that. His own task force, speaking here of his own task force, presented him with a proposal that included patient protection similar to the Democrats' Patient Bill of Rights, and he rejected the proposal because of their inclusion. Last week we had the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means' Subcommittee on Health and a member of this Republican health care task force, call some of the ideas for patient protection being pushed by his fellow Republicans asinine. What the Speaker and Mr. Thomas are after here is what I call a cosmetic fix. They understand that the public is clamoring for managed care reform, that the public wants something like the Democratic Patient Bill of Rights, but what they are probably going to do is come up with something that sounds like a patient bill of rights or a patient protection bill without any real patient protections. And that is why I think it is so important for us to keep coming to the floor on a regular basis explaining why patient protections are needed, why we need this managed care reform, and demanding that this House take up this issue and pass it in time before we adjourn and before this Congress runs out of time. I have a lot more that I could say on this issue, but I do not know, and I see that my colleague is here from the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink), and I know that he has been out there on a regular basis talking to his constituents, having forums on this issue of managed care reform, and as I have. We have gotten a tremendous response from our constituents, who really are demanding that we take up this issue. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. What the gentleman is bringing up again is so important, because we had a forum in New Jersey with Senator Torricelli and myself in my district, and the people that came and talked about the problems they had with managed care, their biggest concern was the bureaucracy of having to deal with a denial; in other words, denial of certain services, denial of certain equipment, and how they had to go about appealing that or finding someone who would hear their case. I just could not believe the hours and hours parents or a relative would spend trying to get through that bureaucracy to try to have someone hear their case on appeal, or whatever the grievance procedure is. I think that that is a very important part of the legislation that we are talking about here today, because how many people can do that? A mother maybe can do it for her child if she is not working, but most of the time you have to call during the day, and a lot of people just cannot take the time to go through the morass that has been set up in these organizations. Again, I just want to say to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) that the reason it is so valuable to have the gentleman here tonight if he is just pointing out how common-sense these patient protections are. The gag clause, again, I think most people would not believe that their physician is not allowed to tell them what the proper treatment should be or make recommendations because of some gag clause, or the circumstance the gentleman just described. We are only talking about things that I think most people would expect would be the norm, but unfortunately, they are not. That is the problem.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everyone for joining us. This was certainly worthwhile. We have to keep pressing to have patient protection legislation brought to the floor.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I, like most Members of the House, strongly oppose the Republican Leadership's budget, because it betrays the values of working American families on several fronts. We have heard of the painful cuts to seniors' and children's programs. But just as devastating are the cuts in environmental protection, in particular the cleanup of our nation's 1,300 toxic waste sites--known as Superfund sites. As a representative from New Jersey, which has 117 of these 1,300 sites--more than any other state, I am offended by this blatant disregard for the health and safety of those families that are forced to live every day with the threat of a Superfund site in their midst. One in every four Americans, including 10 million children below the age of 12, now live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. These sites can pose serious health and environmental risks to surrounding communities--and particularly children. Fifty percent of the Superfund sites assessed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in fiscal years 1993 through 1996 were classified as definite public health hazards, and another 30 percent were of indeterminate hazard. Already this year, cleanup work at up to 171 of these Superfund sites around the country has been delayed due to the Republicans' refusal to provide the funding necessary to expedite cleanups. This includes cleanups at sites in 44 of the 50 states--and three sites in my district alone. And now with the Kasich budget and its $5 billion cut in environmental spending, the Republicans are asking 1 in every 4 Americans to hold on--and live with that nearby Superfund site just a little bit longer. The Republicans are telling 1 in every 4 Americans, including 10 million American children, that cleaning up these toxic sites is simply a luxury we can't afford, something that the federal budget simply does not have room for. Democrats want to speed up the cleanups of these public health threats. We want to fund the Superfund program at a level at which two- thirds of all toxic waste sites in the country will be cleaned up by the year 2001. I urge my colleagues, on behalf of 1 in every 4 Americans, to vote for a healthy environment for our children and against the Republican Leadership's budget.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening, Thursday, June 4th, the Greater Asbury Park, NJ, Chamber of Commerce, will present its Tenth Carousel Awards Dinner at Christie's Restaurant in Wanamassa, NJ. It is a great honor for me to pay tribute to this year's recipients. The Carousel Awards express the recognition and appreciation of a grateful community to individuals and organizations who have contributed in many ways to the revitalization of Asbury Park, making this great American city a better place to live and work. The recipients of the 1998 awards are: New Jersey Natural Gas Company, Spirit of Asbury Park Award; Monmouth County Freeholder Theodore J. Narozanick, Special Recognition Award; The Monmouth Ocean Development Council, Special Recognition Award; Kleenzie-Benje Carpet Specialist, Business Achievement Award; Burger King of Asbury Park, Community Service Award; and Asbury Park Fire Department & Emergency Medical Services, Community Service Award. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to represent the City of Asbury Park in the U.S. House of Representatives. Asbury Park, on the Jersey Shore, is a city of legendary proportions. Many Americans from other regions of the country may only recognize its name from the title of Bruce Springsteen's first album, ``Greetings from Asbury Park, New Jersey.'' For years and years, people from all walks of life have come to Asbury Park to enjoy the boardwalk, the night life and the sandy beaches. But, besides launching the career of one of America's best- loved singer-songwriters and being a favorite tourist destination for decades, what Asbury Park is really about is a thriving, diverse, tight-knit community, proud of its illustrious past and working hard to build a better future. The recipients of this year's Carousel Awards have all contributed significantly to the advancement of this very special community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if anyone out there was worried that the Republican leadership of the House was straying from their extremist agenda, fear not, because the budget resolution coming to the House floor today is as extreme as they come. First and foremost, the Republican budget resolution fails to protect Social Security, but it does not stop there. The budget resolution also cuts funding to educate our children, protect our environment, and provide adequate health care for working American families. What is really upsetting about this Republican budget resolution is that these extreme cuts are not done in the name of fiscal responsibility or debt reduction. No, instead what Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership want to do is provide more tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of American seniors, kids and working families. The Republican budget resolution clearly demonstrates that the Speaker's priorities lay somewhere beyond the American working family. The Republican leadership has not learned any lessons since 1995, and we will see today that the Speaker will not even get the support of many of his own House Republicans, much less the American people.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 27, 1998, Dr. Donald Warner was honored on the occasion of his retirement as Superintendent of the Red Bank, NJ, Regional High School District, after 23 years of service. Dr. Warner's many friends and well-wishers, joined to show their gratitude and admiration at a reception at the Shore Casino in Atlantic Highlands, NJ. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Warner began his long and distinguished career in education 40 years ago, starting out as a classroom teacher. He earned his Bachelor's Degree at Temple University and his Doctor of Education Degree at the Pennsylvania State University. Over the years, he has received school and community awards too numerous to mention. In his nearly a quarter-century in the Red Bank area, he has taken on significant community and professional responsibilities, serving on various boards of trustees, foundations and task forces in Monmouth County and throughout the State of New Jersey. A native of Pennsylvania, Dr. Warner now lives in Tinton Falls, NJ, with his wife Mercedes, a teacher in the Tinton Falls District. The Warners' three children have all achieved impressive success--not surprising, given the commitment to hard work and excellence instilled in them by both of their parents. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Warner's retirement will leave a tremendous void for the Red Bank Regional High School District. But Dr. Warner's tremendous legacy will be felt for years to come, through the admirable example he set for other administrators and teachers, and through the thousands of students who have been inspired by his devotion to education. A scholarship being established in Dr. Warner's honor will further that legacy by providing opportunities for students to expand their educational opportunities for years to come. I wish Dr. Warner * * * on his retirement, and hope that he will continue to contribute his energy, enthusiasm and experience to our community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kirti (Kenny) Desai, President of TAK Construction, Inc., of Clark, NJ, has been nominated by the Newark Minority Business Development Center of the Interracial Council for Business Opportunity, Minority Business Development Agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, for Minority Construction Firm of the year 1998. It is for me a great honor to pay tribute to TAK Construction, and to its President, Mr. Desai, a resident of Livingston, NJ. Last December, TAK Construction, Inc., celebrated its 10th anniversary. Mr. Desai is the driving force behind the company's success. He is a graduate of the M.S. University of Baroda, India, where he received a Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering. More recently, he earned his Masters Degree in Civil Engineering from Stevens institute of Technology in Hoboken, NJ. Prior to founding TAK in 1987, Mr. Desai was a project manager with a large construction company through which he achieved a broad background in various phases of the construction industry. During the past ten and one-half years, TAK has completed more than 150 projects valued at more than $100 million. The company has demonstrated steady annual growth, taking great pride in its commitment to using new materials, practices and innovation, and working to stay on-time and on-budget. Kenny Desai clearly takes very seriously the company's slogan of ``Building for the 21st Century.'' Despite his significant investment of time in his business, Mr. Desai still manages to find time for a wide range of professional and community affiliations. He is a partner in the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's Regional Alliance, and a Member of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, as well as local Chambers. He serves as Secretary of the Rotary Club International and is an Honorary Special Deputy Sheriff of Hudson County, NJ. Deeply devoted to his Indian heritage, Mr. Desai is Director and a founding member of the Indo-American Cultural Society of North America, a Trustee of ``VRAJ'' Religion Institute and Gandhi Mandir, and founding member of Kapol Samaj of North America and Vice President of Vegetarian Vision Inc. Kenny Desai is a true American success story. As a minority business owner, he has had to overcome significant obstacles on his path to success. In so doing, he stands out as a fine role model for our young people. I wish him and the employees of TAK Construction continued success, and congratulate Mr. Desai on this richly deserved honor.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about a continuing concern for our Nation's foreign policy, and that is maintaining our close ties with the Republic of Armenia and the need for a negotiated settlement in Nagorno Karabagh. I am afraid the U.S. negotiating position in this conflict has gotten seriously off track, and I am hoping that recent events will create momentum to get us in the right direction. As I have mentioned in this House on several occasions, the people of Nagorno Karabagh fought and won a war of independence against Azerbaijan. A cease-fire has been in place since 1994, but it has been shaky at best. The U.S. has been involved in a major way in the negotiations intended to produce a just and lasting peace. Our country is a co-chair of the international negotiating group formed to seek a solution to the Nagorno Karabagh conflict along with France and Russia. But, unfortunately, the U.S. position has sided with Azerbaijan's claim of so-called ``territorial integrity'', despite the fact that this land has been Armenian land for centuries, and the borders which gave the land to Azerbaijan were imposed by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. Last week, international mediators from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, traveled to Armenia's capital of Yerevan to discuss the new Armenian government's position on the Nagorno Karabagh conflict. The American, Russian and French Armenia's negotiators heard Armenia's new foreign minister, Vartan Oskanian, reiterate Armenia's opposition to the OSCE peace plan, which calls for a phased solution to the dispute. Foreign Minister Oksanian called for a resumption of face-to-face talks between the parties to the conflict, Karabagh and Azerbaijan, without preconditions. Mr. Speaker, in late March, the people of Armenia elected Robert Kocharian as their president. Mr. Kocharian, who actually hails from Karabagh, has insisted that the OSCE plan is essentially a non-starter since it fails to guarantee Karabagh's security and self-determination. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the previous Armenian government of President Levon Ter-Petrosian fell largely because the former President had publicly come out in support of the highly unpopular and unworkable OSCE plan, after considerable pressure from the United States I might add. Unfortunately, it appears that we have not learned our lesson. The U.S. is still sticking to the original, unworkable plan. Worse still, I am afraid we may be trying to pressure Armenian and Karabagh into going along with this plan, suggesting that there could be repercussions from the U.S. This is clearly the wrong way to deal with the government of a friendly country like Armenia, particularly when that government is merely standing up for the legitimate security concerns of its people. The recent change of government in Armenia affords an excellent opportunity for us to offer a new approach to the Karabagh conflict, one that recognizes the need for long-term, ironclad security arrangements and full self-determination for the people of Karabagh. I am concerned that the U.S. and our OSCE partners are taking their cue from the government of Azerbaijan, which has refused to budge. But the bottom line is that Azerbaijan will not budge until the United States and the international community force it to negotiate in good faith. Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about the failure thus far to deliver the U.S. aid to Nagorno Karabagh that has been promised and appropriated. In 1998, the Foreign Operations appropriation bill provided for the first time direct aid to Karabagh in the amount of $12.5 million for humanitarian needs. The humanitarian infrastructure needs in Karabagh are severe, as I have witnessed firsthand. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is not clear that any aid has yet been provided to Karabagh. At a hearing two weeks ago of the House Committee on International Relations, officials testified that aid would soon be provided to Karabagh but would be disbursed by a non-governmental organization that would have broad discretion over how the aid was spent. Furthermore, it appears that the State Department does not intend to spend the entire $12.5 million in Karabagh itself, although that is what was intended by Congress. Several of my colleagues are also pressing for the aid to be spent in Karabagh, as Congress intended, and we plan to keep up that pressure. While working to get the aid that has already been appropriated to its intended recipients in Karabagh, I am also urging the Foreign Ops Subcommittee to build upon its historic achievement in the FY 1998 bill to earmark assistance to Nagorno Karabagh at $20 million and make it even more clear that the aid is intended for disbursement within that Nagorno Karabagh. I also urge that aid to Armenia be increased and not decreased, as the Administration has proposed. Armenia is making great progress in terms of democracy in free markets. We should not back out of that commitment now that our investment in democracy in this former Soviet Republic is bearing fruit and particularly not if the intent is to use the aid as a form of leverage against Armenia and Karabagh in the stalled peace talks. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to again stress the importance of maintaining the current ban on direct government aid to Azerbaijan until this country lifts its blockade of Armenia and Karabagh. This ban was enacted as part of the Freedom Support Act of 1992, it is good law. Now, Congress is reexamining the issue of the prohibition on aid to Azerbaijan. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday postponed a markup on legislation known as the Silk Road Strategy Act. I think that that legislation should not be passed, because we do not want to see a repeal of section 907. The House International Relations Committee is soon expected to consider similar legislation. While ostensibly an effort to enhance U.S. engagement in the region, the purpose of the bill seems now more than ever to be an attempt to repeal Section 907. Mr. Speaker, for the ban on aid to be lifted, Azerbaijan need only lift its blockades of Armenia and Karabagh. Until then, there should be no consideration of asking U.S. taxpayers to support the dictatorship in Baku.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address this amendment offered by Mr. Gilman (Prohibition on Restriction of Armed Forces under Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change). First, I want to clarify whether DoD's technical changes were made to this amendment. Of course I support protection of our national security interests and want to make sure that no provisions of U.S. law enacted to implement U.S. obligations under the Kyoto Protocol would jeopardize our military readiness. However, while I support the principle behind this amendment, this should not be used as an opportunity to undermine the Kyoto Protocol nor U.S. efforts, as one of 160 nations who were involved in negotiating this treaty, to protect our global climate. Undersecretary of State Eisenstat has emphasized repeatedly that the U.S. will not take steps that would require mandatory action at the macroeconomic level or with respect to specific sectors of our economy in order to reach the Kyoto target before the President has obtained the advice and consent of the Senate. Further, Undersecretary Eisenstat consulted with top national security and military officials and had their assurances that the Kyoto Protocol does in fact meet our national security needs and interests. We secured exemptions for bunker fuels and for other activities that are covered under other existing agreements. If this Protocol were ever signed or ratified by the Senate, our domestic legislation would ensure protection of our national interests. Nor would we trade emissions credits with any other nations that with whom we would not otherwise conduct transactions. Thus, I do not understand the purpose of, nor the need for, this amendment. I also want to clarify that this amendment should not be interpreted to be able to prevent the U.S. Armed Forces from continuing to adopt practical energy efficient measures. More efficient heating and cooling systems for military buildings, energy saving engines, and other such technology applications would save money and could improve the readiness and capabilities of our Armed Forces. The Defense Department has stated this position, as well. To date, the Defense Department actually is on the forefront of implementing energy efficient measures that have saved substantial amounts of money and energy and increased our environmental protection.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as you know, last week, the Republic of India conducted five underground nuclear tests. The Clinton administration imposed sanctions after the second set of tests and I believe was correct in doing so. These sanctions are extremely severe and may affect as much as $20 billion in funds to India. Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned now that U.S. policy proceed toward an increased dialogue with India. We have made tremendous strides in improving relations between our two countries in recent years, and we must not go back to a Cold War strategy. Unfortunately, there are Members of this body who feel that there is a need to impose further trade and economic sanctions. There may be an attempt to attach an amendment to the House defense authorization bill that would remove Most Favored Nation's status to India on textile and apparel products. Mr. Speaker, imposing further economic sanctions on India is meritless and counterproductive to current relations. It would only hurt the workers in India who make the textiles. This amendment to the defense authorization bill would derail U.S.-India relations at times when dialogue between the two democracies is paramount. I was pleased to read that, at the G-8 summit in England, President Clinton stated that, although sanctions were necessary, he did not want to isolate India. Mr. Speaker, India cited the threat from China and Pakistan as major reasons for conducting the nuclear tests. For years, Pakistan and China have cooperated in nuclear and missile development. A recent Congressional Research Service Center study showed that the Chinese government had transferred missile technology and nuclear equipment and materials to Iran and Pakistan numerous times. All of these transfers were clearly in violation of international and U.S. law, but they were not met with economic sanctions by the administration. Mr. Speaker, China is a nuclear-armed dictatorship that had a border war in 1964 against India. Much to India's concern, China continues to maintain a nuclear presence in occupied Tibet and a large military force in Burma. It is unfortunate that the administration and Members of this body continue to overlook these facts. India's nuclear tests must be understood in the context of the huge threat posed by China. The United States should be taking the military and nuclear threat from China's dictatorship more seriously. Mr. Speaker, It is important that the United States continue dialogue with the Indian government at this time. We must urge the Indian government to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty immediately, without conditions. By signing the treaty, India could assume leadership on international negotiations on capping the accumulation of weapons-grade fissile terms. It is also important that we not encourage an arms buildup in south Asia. I would urge Members of this body to oppose any effort to repeal the Pressler amendment. Repeal of the Pressler amendment would allow for the delivery of 26 F-16 jet fighters to Pakistan. U.S. national security adviser Sandy Berger confirmed that the delivery of fighter jets was one of the proposals made to the Pakistan government recently to prevent them from conducting their own nuclear tests, and this is very bad policy. The repeal of the Pressler amendment and the delivery of the F-16 fighters would only increase tension within the region. The U.S. cannot help bring peace to south Asia if it continues to fuel an arms race in that region. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge President Clinton to continue with his plans to visit India later this year. It has been over 20 years since an American President has visited India. The President has not said he would cancel the trip, but I suppose there is some doubt about that. The President's trip would accelerate negotiations and dialogue on nuclear nonproliferation. Furthermore, it would show to the Indian people that the United States wishes to maintain a long-term relationship with India. Mr. Speaker, now is the time to continue our dialogue with India and try to get India involved in signing the test ban treaty and trying to promote peace in south Asia. Let us move forward. Let us proceed with a dialogue. Let us not move backwards with our relations with India. We have come a long way, and this is the time now to show there can be restraint on both sides.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the substitute amendment to H.R. 512. I opposed the bill as it was reported from the Committee on Resources because it imposed unjustified restrictions on the use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to establish national wildlife refuges. This issue was debated on several occasions within the committee and on the floor over the last two years and, in my opinion, the supporters of this proposal never made a convincing case that there was something fundamentally flawed with the process used to establish new wildlife refuges. Increasingly, land and water fund monies are used to acquire refuge lands to protect endangered species or threatened wetlands. In fact, Federal ownership of habitat for threatened and endangered species is one of the best ways to relieve the burden on landowners of endangered species protection and to avoid costly controversial endangered species listings. Further, there is often a need to act expeditiously to acquire land to prevent harmful development. Yet, because of the Fish and Wildlife Service's policy of acquiring only from willing sellers, property rights are respected. In summary, the bill, as reported from the Committee on Resources, was unnecessary and harmful in my opinion to the National Wildlife Refuge System. We have now, however, worked out a compromise that addresses concerns about public notice of and Congressional oversight over new refuge designations without unduly hampering the designation process. Through NEPA and at the Administrative Procedures Act, there is already a process for providing public notice and soliciting input into the establishment of a new refuge. In addition, Congress has control over refuge land acquisition through appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Mr. Speaker, no process is perfect and there is always room for improvement. The bill before the House today provides for even better public notice and input, as well as making sure that any Member of Congress whose district includes lands being considered for inclusion in the new refuge will be amply notified. It also explicitly states what is already the case under current law, that the designation of a proposed refuge boundary does not give the Fish and Wildlife Service any regulatory authority over private lands within the proposed boundary unless and until that land is acquired by the government. In other words, the proposed boundary is a wish-list for acquisition, and nothing more. By ensuring that the local community is fully vested in any new refuge and by laying to rest landowners' fears that their property rights will be compromised, it is hoped that H.R. 512 will actually facilitate the establishment of new refuges. So, Mr. Speaker, I support the substitute. I commend the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for working with the minority and the administration to craft such a reasonable compromise, and I urge the House to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2556. This bill helps protect wildlife habitat and will enhance the management of nongame wildlife. I want to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) for bringing this legislation before the House. The bill reauthorizes the highly successful North American Wetlands Conservation Act and will improve the management of nongame species of wildlife by reauthorizing the program of Federal matching grants for such activities. In the seven years of its existence, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act has resulted in the protection of millions of acres of wetlands in the United States, Canada and Mexico. $244 million in North American wetlands programs grants for this voluntarily, non-regulatory program have been matched by more than $510 million in funding by conservation partners, conserving valuable habitat for migratory birds and many non-migratory species as well. The amendment also reauthorizes the Partnerships for Wildlife Act, which provides matching grants for nongame wildlife conservation and appreciation. Unfortunately, we do not have a dedicated source of funding like the Wallop-Breaux Fund for nongame conservation. Lacking a dedicated source of funding, conservation needs for these species are mounting. For example, the states currently estimate their unmet needs for management and conservation of nongame species at over $300 million annually. Mr. Speaker, I hope we have the opportunity to give permanent funding for nongame species serious consideration in the near future. But, in the meantime, we will continue doing what we can under the Partnerships for Wildlife Program. In summary, this is sound legislation to benefit wildlife through non-regulatory programs that leverage scarce Federal resources, and I urge the House to support H.R. 2556.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Waxman amendment and in strong opposition to the underlying bill. The Republican majority has become quite adept over the last few years in carrying out their anti-environmental agenda by tacking riders on to appropriation measures and other unrelated bills. This stealth approach allows them to claim a clean environmental record without necessarily cleaning up the environment. In fact, in many instances, they are doing quite the opposite. Just a couple of weeks ago, for example, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill was brought to the floor with at least three anti- environmental riders relating to paving our parks and allowing big oil companies to rob American taxpayers for the use of public lands for private financial gain. The Waxman amendment would establish a point of order and allow for the opportunity for debate and a vote on provisions like these that would weaken current environmental law. In this way, we would be able to put an end to the stealth attack on the environment and instead debate these issues out in the open, as all business should be conducted in this House. Unfortunately, however, even if the Waxman amendment passes, this is still an incredibly bad bill, and I would still urge my colleagues to vote against the bill. The bill is, again, just another attempt to block the open consideration of vital environmental worker safety and human health legislation. An incredible concept, this bill establishes a new point of order against legislation based on the cost to the private sector. What this means is the cost of any legislation to private companies would be universally considered by Congress as more important than any benefits of that legislation to human health, worker safety or the environment. For example, and I use the Clean Water Act because the gentleman from California used it, if we were to try to bring the Clean Water Act to the floor under the new rules established by this bill, it would be subject to a point of order. In order to avoid having to be recorded as voting against a good environmental bill like the Clean Water Act, under this bill Members could simply vote not to consider the Clean Water Act at all; or, even worse, in order to have the Clean Water Act considered, the American taxpayer would have to foot the bill for cleaning up our Nation's waters and not the polluters. But it gets even crazier, and this goes back to the Moakley amendment. This bill makes it so revenues raised for a certain purpose cannot be used for that purpose unless there are equivalent tax cuts included in the bill, regardless of where those tax cuts are taken. That means, for example, that if a bill includes a tax on chemical and petroleum products, I will use the example of the Superfund tax, and the revenue created is to be used for cleaning up toxic waste sites, that bill would be subject to a point of order. However, if the same bill included an equivalent tax break for the wealthy, there would be no point of order. In my opinion, this makes no sense. It is obviously weighed heavily procedurally against any environmental initiatives. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Waxman amendment. Even if the Waxman amendment passes, I still urge my colleagues to vote against the bill. It is bad, extremely unwarranted, and it would drastically change the way we do business in the House of Representatives.