Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening, Wednesday, March 4, 1998, the Exchange Club of Long Branch, NJ, will honor two officers as Policemen of the Year as part of its annual crime prevention week. Cpl. Howard Townsend and rookie officer Michael Ahart are being honored for preventing a possible case of arson. On May 7, 1997, the police received a call to respond to a person possibly attempting to burn down a house. Cpl. Townsend and Officer Ahart responded to the scene and confronted an individual at the back door of the residence. The subject lit a cigarette lighter and instructed the officers not to come any closer or he would set fire to the house. The two officers responded to the emergency like the well-trained professionals that they are. Cpl. Townsend called for fire engines, paramedics, ambulances and a negotiator. He prudently advised the emergency vehicles not to use their lights or sirens to avoid further alarming the individual in the house. Officer Ahart remained with the subject, talking until he was able to get close enough to take a lighter and a gasoline-soaked rag away from him. It was subsequently discovered that the downstairs apartment--where an 85-year-old man and his disabled 83-year-old wife lived--had been completely soaked with gasoline. Mr. Speaker, the actions of these two police officers are a source of pride to the Long Branch community. While I'm sure that Cpl. Howard and Officer Ahart would object to being described as heroes, and would insist that they were just doing their jobs, their decisive action under severe pressure reminds all of us of the great contributions that police officers around our country make to our security, often at serious personal risk. The Long Branch Exchange Club is part of a national organization of civic clubs devoted to allegiance to the flag and programs to benefit and educate children. They also stage festival events and other community programs throughout the year.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate are unveiling the details of legislation today to improve America's public schools. Our plans are in marked contrast to the Republican leadership that continues to stress tuition vouchers and other efforts that will provide less funding for public schools. Last session the Republicans went so far as to advocate abolishing the Department of Education. Democrats want to give America's towns and cities the ability to reduce class size through hiring an additional 100,000 new qualified teachers. Reducing class size is the best way to raise student achievement, and smaller classes also provide for better discipline. Democrats also want to address the need for renovations to school buildings and new construction. We will provide tax incentives to help States and local districts accelerate the pace of new construction and renovation. Mr. Speaker, Republicans do not believe in public education. The Democrats, on the other hand, want the Federal Government to improve America's public schools.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, four years ago, I introduced H.R. 4394, the Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act, in response to a terrible pipeline accident that occurred in my district. In Edison, NJ, a rupture in a natural gas pipeline caused an explosion that demolished eight apartment buildings and left hundreds of people homeless. The explosion produced a fireball so great that it could be seen in three States, and a fire so intense that it melted the cars parked at the apartment complex. Four years later, I am still trying to pass a Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act. Four years later, I am still working to improve One- Call systems. I am pleased today to join my colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Baker, in introducing the Comprehensive One-Call Act of 1998. This legislation is a modified version of my 1994 bill, designed to encourage the development of better One-Call programs. This bill does not contain any state mandates with regard to One-Call programs. It does encourage states to adopt comprehensive programs to maximize safety assurances for all citizens. To the people in my district, the safety of pipelines is absolutely essential. My constituents were witnesses to a horrible tragedy that they carry with them, even four years later, fears they had never before imagined. In a way however, they were also witnesses to a miracle: only one person lost her life in the accident, tragically suffering a heart attack, and most residents escaped without injury. Certainly, in light of the total devastation of the area, the potential for a greater number of fatalities is apparent. The Edison accident, like the majority of pipeline accidents, was caused by third party damage. Often times, excavators do not know what is buried beneath their work sites. This ignorance can lead to fatal and expensive consequences. The bill we are introducing today proposes three simple solutions to this problem: before they begin digging, all excavators should call a central phone number to learn whether there are any underground facilities at the excavation site. All facility operators should participate in One-Call programs, and, once notified, should accurately mark any underground facilities. Finally, states should strongly enforce their One-Call laws to encourage maximum participation in One-Call programs. These simple measures can save lives, prevent property damage, and prevent the need for expensive repairs. More than anything else, One-Call is about prevention. One telephone call can prevent explosions like the Edison accident. One telephone call can prevent the death of an excavator digging near a gas line. One telephone call can prevent the contamination of the environment by a ruptured hazardous liquid or sewer line. One telephone call can prevent the need for expensive repairs to fiber optic cables. As another example, shortly after the pipeline incident in my district, a cut in an electric line at Newark airport by a contractor resulted in closure of the Airport for nearly 24 hours. One-Call programs--and this bill-- would prevent this type of accident. Today, 49 States have some kind of One-Call system, but Federal action is necessary, as demonstrated by the accidents mentioned above. Many current state systems are inadequate. Some provide exemptions for certain types of excavators. Some fail to cover all underground facilities. Some states have incredibly complex enforcement mechanisms, and some states don't bother to enforce One-Call laws at all. This bill recommends a program that will be successful. The key to this success is the concept of participation by all excavators and facility operators. Excavators will be assured that they are digging in a safe place, and facility operators have insurance that their lines will not be damaged. This bill encourages States to improve their One-Call programs. It contains no mandate that States adopt such a system. Instead, it provides grants to States that choose to institute the principles of this bill and develop effective one-call systems. I believe that once states delve deeply into this issue they will conclude, as I have, that a comprehensive One-Call system is a life-saving device that should be a part of any public safety program. With this bill, we have an opportunity to prevent accidents like the Edison explosion in every community in this country. Let us take the explosion that awoke the residents of the Durham Woods Apartment Complex in Edison as a wake up call to us. Pass one-call.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, few weeks ago, several Members of this body had sent a letter to the Honorable Prakash Singh Badal, Chief Minister of the Indian State of Punjab. The letter alleges that India's security forces and the Punjab state police have been involved in a number of acts of murder, rape, and torture of the Sikh community. The letter also called for the establishment of a state human rights commission to investigate these alleged crimes. Mr. Speaker, there is no need to resurrect these allegations or propose a new way to deal with them. Last year, under the direction of Chief Minister Badal, the Punjab government established a human rights commission whose primary purpose is to investigate claims of human rights abuses committed by government officials, Indian security forces, and members of the Punjab state police. This commission is headed by a former Chief Justice of the Indian High Court. The former Chief Justice is accompanied by retired judges and private citizens from the State of Punjab. The commission was purposely filled with individuals who are of different and unique backgrounds to ensure that all interests are represented. The Indian government several years ago, I should point out, also established the National Indian Human Rights Commission to investigate claims of human rights abuses. That commission has found members of the Indian security force, border patrol, and military to have used excessive force, especially in Punjab. This commission has swiftly disciplined these individuals for the crimes they had committed. I am surprised that there was no mention in this letter that representatives of the International Commission of the Red Cross and Amnesty International have visited India. Many distinguished leaders from the U.S., including Members of this body, have traveled to India to meet with government officials, separatist leaders, and the general population. Last year, Mr. Speaker, the predominantly Sikh Akali Dal party won the majority of seats in the legislature, and the party's leader, Prakash Singh Badal, was named Chief Minister. To show that they are committed to the peace and prosperity of Punjab, the Akali Dal party ran in coalition with the predominantly Hindu BJP party. What concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is that these claims and accusations about the situation in Punjab really are almost 10 years old now. The developments over the last 2 years, three elections with over 60 percent voter turnout and the establishment of the state human rights commission, are in sharp contrast to the claims that are being made in this letter that was sent to the Punjab government. The people of Punjab have demonstrated their preference and commitment to peace and the democratic process. I think it is time that Members of this body look past the problems that formerly plagued Punjab. It is time for us to focus on different issues, such as the major economic reforms initiated by the Punjab government. Punjab is currently trying to attract numerous American companies to invest in the state's infrastructure, information technology, and agriculture projects. We should support those American companies, such as Pepsi, Heinz, and Kellogg, who have already made tremendous investments and have helped bring stability back to the state of Punjab. Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking that we show our support and work with the Indian government, as well as the Punjab government, in keeping peace within Punjab. We should encourage American companies to take advantage of the opportunities that exist in Punjab. Over the last 2 years, the citizens of Punjab have demonstrated their commitment to peace and democracy. I think it is time we put these problems in the past that existed in Punjab behind us. They are being addressed by the human rights commissions that are in place. It is much more valuable for us to talk about what we can do as Americans to bring Punjab and India closer together with the United States, as I know so many of the people in this body, including our Members of the India Caucus, have strived to do.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, the Republican leadership continues its efforts to try to kill managed care reform. Just yesterday the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Newt Gingrich), attacked a reform proposal put forward by some of the members of his own Republican Party. Let there be no mistake, the Republicans do not want to bring up managed care reform. They are aligned with the special interests, who are spending a million dollars to kill managed care reform because they know what tremendous support the issue has with the American people. Meanwhile, the Democrats are moving forward to push legislation that provides Americans a choice of doctors, access to specialists, emergency care, and length of stay in a hospital that is determined by the patient and his or her physician, and not the insurance company. President Clinton issued an executive order last week that will extend patient protections to Federal health insurance programs. The Democrats are determined to move ahead with managed care reform.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of the 10th anniversary of the Nagorno Karabagh movement.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I have come to the floor of the House tonight to pay tribute to a very important milestone for the Armenian people and for people everywhere who care about the values of freedom, human rights and self-determination. Last Friday, February 20, marked the 10th anniversary of the liberation struggle of Nagorno Karabagh. Nagorno Karabagh, or Artsakh as it is known to the Armenian people, is an independent Nation populated primarily by ethnic Armenians and located between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan. The Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin consigned Nagorno Karabagh to Azerbaijan despite the fact that this land has been continuously inhabited by Armenians for centuries. Armenia was the first Nation to embrace Christianity, and Karabagh was an integral part of the ancient land of Armenia. Under the Soviet system Nagorno Karabagh was recognized as an autonomous region because of its distinct Armenian identity. Madam Speaker, in 1988 as Soviet central authority was breaking down, the Armenian people living in Azerbaijan were subjected to harassment, deportation and pogroms, massacres. On February 20, 1988, thousands of Armenians marched in Stepanakert, the capital of Karabagh, inspired by public protests in Armenia the day before. Eventually the people of Karabagh prevailed in their struggle, fighting and winning a war of independence. A cease-fire was signed in 1994, but persistent violations by Azerbaijan continue to make that cease-fire shaky at best. The cause of Karabagh became a rallying cry for the entire Armenian nation and the Diaspora, including 1 million Armenian-Americans. The establishment of the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Karabagh also helped focus American attention on this previously ignored part of the world. Madam Speaker, Nagorno Karabagh's declaration of independence on September 2, 1991 and a referendum which passed shortly afterward were all conducted within the requirements of international law. Yet 10 years into their independence movement, Nagorno Karabagh still has not achieved the international recognition to which it is entitled. I am sorry to say, Madam Speaker, that the United States is among the countries that still refuse to recognize the Nagorno Karabagh republic. In his speech to the national assembly last Friday, President Ghukasian of Karabagh stated that Karabagh has its own state symbols and is able to conduct its foreign and home policies by itself. He expressed certainty that international recognition would only be a matter of time. Madam Speaker, having twice visited Nagorno Karabagh, I can attest to the fact that Karabagh is indeed a functioning state. The sense of cohesion and mission among its citizens is inspiring. I wish I could share President Ghukasian's optimism about international recognition, although I do want to reiterate the fact that the foreign operations appropriations bill for this fiscal year does provide $12.5 million in aid targeted at Nagorno Karabagh. I want to express my admiration for the members of the foreign ops subcommittee who made that happen. I see one of the members is actually on the floor there, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston). I am also concerned that U.S. policy, though, is headed in the wrong direction. The fact that the United States is a cochair of the OSCE's Minsk Group, which was formed to achieve a negotiated settlement of the Karabagh conflict, offers a great opportunity for us to take a stand in support of democracy and the right of peoples to determine their own future. Unfortunately, the United States' negotiating position places far too much importance on the principle of territorial integrity, keeping Karabagh under Azerbaijan's authority. The U.S.-supported negotiating position essentially forces Karabagh to surrender the gains it made on the battlefield with no binding security guarantees in exchange. The Karabagh Armenians would once again be at the mercy of Azerbaijan. I cannot help but conclude that the lure of the potential oil reserves in the Caspian Sea off the shores of Azerbaijan is influencing our policy in this region. Madam Speaker, last Friday I sent a letter of congratulations to President Ghukasian. I wrote that seeing the brave people of Artsakh and the dedicated officials serving in the government and armed forces of the NKR, I was reminded of the founding of our United States. Our Founding Fathers also had to fight for their independence and international recognition. I said I hoped that the United States and the West will base our policies in the Caucasus on the respect for self-determination and human rights on which our own nations are founded. The progress the people of Karabagh have made in 10 years is nothing short of miraculous. In the decade since 1988, the elected government has proven to be worthy of recognition as the legitimate government of the land and the people of Artsakh. In a step that I hope will spur further progress towards that goal, I am pleased to announce that the foreign minister of Nagorno Karabagh, Mrs. Naira Melkoumian, will be in Washington next week and we plan to have a briefing next Wednesday under the auspices of our Armenia Caucus to allow her an opportunity to interact with Members of Congress. It is my hope, Madam Speaker, that future anniversaries of Karabagh will be marked by strong expressions of congratulations from the American people and from our government.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today we pay tribute to Larry Doby. More than just a good professional baseball player, Mr. Doby was the first African American to play for the American League Cleveland Indians. Like his counterpart Jackie Robinson playing for the National League Brooklyn Dodgers, Larry Doby proved to any doubting fan of the game that baseball's color barrier had nothing to do with ability and heart and everything to do with ignorance and fear. The American men who played for the Negro Leagues should be commended for their grace and grit, showing world class athleticism to a country still coming to terms with race. In spite of being kept from the Major League teams, the men of the Negro Leagues, men like Jackie Robinson, Larry Doby and Satchel Page, played the game just as well as their white counterparts, men like Babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio, and Stan Musial. Larry Doby played for the Newark Eagles in my home state of New Jersey. There is another man I would like to mention who played for the Eagles, and his name is John Drakeford. Although Mr. Drakeford played for the Eagles long after Larry Doby departed, his role as a player in the Negro Leagues should not be forgotten. John Drakeford loved the game as much as any Major League baseball player and showed it every time he took the field. His son, Theodore Drakeford, works in my district office in Long Branch. Theodore talks proudly of his dad, his uncle Steve Stephenson who played alongside John Drakeford, as well as his grandfather, John Stephenson, who played for the Philadelphia Hilldales. John Stephenson was an All-Star second baseman and played when Doby played. Men like John Stephenson, Steve Stephenson, John Drakeford and Larry Doby not only contributed to America's pastime by playing good baseball, but also provided a valuable lesson to America's understanding of race. They showed us all that arbitrary labels and discriminatory barriers can do nothing to weaken the heart of a champion.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Mr. A. Leroy Ward, the former police chief of Neptune Township, NJ, who passed away earlier this week at the age of 83. Mr. Ward served 35 years on the Neptune police force, beginning as a patrolman in 1944 and rising through the ranks of sergeant, lieutenant and captain before appointed chief on February 1, 1964. He retired in 1979. A loving husband and father, he is survived by his wife of 61 years, Dorothea, two sons, two daughters, 10 grandchildren and five great-grandchildren. His son James A. Ward currently serves as the Neptune Township Police Chief. Mr. Ward was born in Newark, NJ, and lived for more than 50 years in the Ocean Grove area of Neptune. He was past president of the Monmouth County Chiefs of Police Association and a member of the New Jersey International Chiefs of Police Association. He was a member of St. Paul's United Methodist Church in Ocean Grove, the Wall-Spring Lake Lodge 73 of the Free and Accepted Masons, the Washington Fire Company 1 of Ocean Grove and the New Jersey Exempt Firemen's Association. The obituary for Mr. Ward that was published in the Asbury Park Press of New Jersey quoted political and law enforcement leaders praising the former chief for his consummate professionalism. Mr. Ward served during a time of explosive growth in Neptune Township, and he responded very well to the challenges and opportunities posed by these changes. He reached out to all parts of the community, from young people to senior citizens, and fostered a strong sense of respect between the police and the community. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to this great public servant and fine man, Chief A. Leroy Ward. I extend my condolences to his family, and hope that the many tributes pouring in for Mr. Ward will be a source of comfort to them.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, for over three decades, the National Sea Grant College Program has performed an extraordinary service not only to the State of New Jersey, but also to the nation. Sea Grant is a competitive, merit-based, aquatic science program that benefits marine and freshwater industries, environments, and communities of the United States by applying science and technology to problems of day-to-day concern. Few federal programs have achieved the exceptional economic impact that the Sea Grant College Program has shown since its inception in 1996. Research conducted through the Sea Grant Program is crucial to meeting important objectives in the areas of aquatic resource conservation and management, sustainable development, technology innovation, and coastal and inland water quality. Furthermore, the program has proven to be very effective in transferring its scientific and technical results to industry as well as identifying and communicating local needs and problems to Sea Grant program managers and researchers. Recent examples of Sea Grant supported research and outreach activities that have positively impacted the lives of New Jersey residents include: Sponsoring a commercial fisherman's safety training program. Techniques learned in this course enabled a first mate on a Cape May fishing vessel to save the life of his captain's son during an accident at sea; Supporting a ``red tide'' research effort to examine nitrogen inputs into estuaries. This project has already developed into a full-scale, water quality monitoring and management project with potential for national applications; and Coordinating a partnership of the New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland Sea Grant Programs with the Public Service Gas and Electric Company (PSE&G) for a massive marsh restoration effort on the Delaware Bay. This effort is the largest of its kind in the country and represents a unique collaboration of government, industry, academic and scientific interests. To be competitive in the future, it is essential that the U.S. develop a skilled workforce that is scientifically literate and environmentally sensitive. The National Sea Grant College Program has been a leader in science education from ``hands-on'' science experiences at the K-12 level, to supporting thousands of graduate students in aquatic and environmental science. Informal education of the general public and technical advice for businesses are also important aspects of Sea Grant's education objectives. The National Sea Grant College Program is truly a program worthy of our investment. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for bringing this bill to the floor today, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on this issue as the appropriations process moves forward.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have already said many times on the floor of the House how important it is for us to move on an agenda of managed care reform for consumer protection; and I have to say today that I am very upset to hear that the National Association of Manufacturers is down here today visiting Members trying to basically pressure Members to not support managed care reform. We have an internal memo that basically says that the message the House Republican leadership is going to send is that we are at war and need to start fighting against managed care reform, and Senator Lott says that the Senate Republicans need a lot of help from their friends on the outside. ``Get off your butts. Get off your wallets.'' The Republican leadership is now involved in this special interest activity. They are talking about their wallets and getting off their butts to try to fight against managed care reform. Mr. Speaker, the American people have spoken out. They want managed care reform. They want quality health care. The Republican leadership should not be backed up by these special interest groups that are down here today to fight against these important, very important, consumer protections that the American people are demanding. This is the beginning of the Republican war.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentlewoman has been on the floor before talking about this issue and many other health issues that the Democrats have tried very hard to bring forth in the House of Representatives. One of the concerns that I expressed today earlier in the day when there was a resolution that the Republicans brought up with regard to President Clinton's health care task force, and they were criticizing that, and they brought up some procedural matter related to it. I took to the floor at the time because I wanted to express my concern that we not waste our time here in the House of Representatives dealing with procedural matters about who had a task force and who paid for the task force and what happened with the task force, but rather, we spend our time on substantive ways to try to achieve health care reform. We know that there are about 40 million Americans now that have no health insurance, and we know that there are problems with managed care and with HMOs, quality problems, which the gentlewoman talked about when she talked about the Patient Protection Act and the consumer protections that we all feel should be addressed with regard to HMOs and managed care reform. All I wanted to say today, and I will say it again this evening, and I am sure both of us are going to be saying it a lot more over the next few months to the Republican leadership, because they control the floor and what measures come up and what bills pass, and let us bring up these health care reform issues, let us bring up the patient Bill of Rights so we can reform managed care and HMOs. The President, when he spoke in his State of the Union address the other night, was very clear that a major priority for him was managed care reform and the patient protection concerns that the gentlewoman talked about. The public overwhelmingly, not only the Congressmen and women in the room, but the public in general overwhelmingly said that that was a high priority for them. But it is not going to come up and be debated on this floor unless the Republican leadership allows that to take place. One of the concerns I had today, and that is what this chart is, and I am not going to dwell on it, because we talked about it a lot today, but there is a concerted effort now by certain special interests to fight against the Patient Protection Act, to fight against these managed care reforms and not allow them to come forward, to move forward here in the House of Representatives. Today, the National Association of Manufacturers was actually here lobbying Members and telling the Republican leadership and getting them to go along with this idea of fighting against managed care reform. What we have up here, I will just mention it briefly, this is a blow- up of a memo from the staff person at the Health Insurance Association of America, the for-profit health insurance lobby, and it talks about the Speaker's aides calling up lobbyists to Capitol Hill and giving them marching orders to trash the bill providing consumer protections in HMOs. I think one of the most egregious things that I see where it says here the message we are getting here from House and Senate leadership is that we are in a war and need to start fighting like we are in a war. Well, the reason we are in a war is because we know and the President knows and the Democrats know that people want managed care reform, they want these patient protections, so the war is to fight against that. They are talking about the war because they know that there is so much support for it. Then later on, I think it is Senator Lott, who is the majority leader in the Senate, he said that the Senate Republicans need a lot of help from their friends on the outside, and he says that they should get off their butts, I hate to use that expression, and get off their wallets, reference obviously to the need to finance and provide money, if you will, for campaigns and special interest money, if you will, to support those who fight against the health care and the patient protection reforms. So we have a battle here. I think the gentlewoman and I said the other day that this is going to be a battle. Well, the Republican leadership claims it is a war. Whether it is a battle or a war, I do not know, but we have our work cut out for us. But I wanted to mention very briefly if I could, there were a group of family and health care advocates, organizations that are in favor of these patient protections and the managed care reform.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, and I know we only have a couple of minutes left, and I just wanted to say that I know what some of the arguments are that are coming from the opponents. They are saying that it will cost too much. Well, most of these things do not cost anything; and if there is a slight cost from some of them, it is so slight in terms of the benefits that a person is receiving that I think overwhelmingly people would support these patient protections. The other thing, of course, we hear is that the Democrats, they are trying to move towards national health insurance or socialism. The reason HMOs have become so predominant in the insurance market is basically through the capitalist system. This is not the government. They have actually worked and they have competed and a lot of people have joined them, a majority of people have joined them, but we know that there are times when the system gets out of hand and the government has to step in with some modest restrictions. These are modest restrictions. That is all we are talking about. This is not major tinkering with the system. HMOs will still be out there, and managed care will still be out there. They can still compete, but we are saying that these basic provisions have to be met to provide some semblance of quality health care. Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentlewoman, because she, in fact, organized this special order this evening. But I thank the gentlewoman for having me participate in it.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the reason I would like to go through it quickly together, if the gentlewoman would like, is because a lot of times I worry that we deal in abstracts. Even when we talk about patient Bill of Rights, I am not sure that the public necessarily understands what we are talking about. The great thing about debating this issue of managed care reform and the patient Bill of Rights is that when one sees what we are actually talking about, and then one hears the stories about people who do not have these benefits, then the public becomes even more aware of why it is necessary. The first one says that health care consumers can appeal denials or limitations of care to an external, independent entity. I have had a lot of my constituents, in other words, they seek certain care, they want to stay in the hospital a couple of extra days, they want to see a certain specialist, they want to use a certain kind of equipment for a particular medical procedure, and they are either denied or they are told well, we have to go and it has to be reviewed by a certain party. What we are saying here is that if it is denied or limitations are put on a procedure or access to a doctor, that there has to be some way of externally independently reviewing that decision and overturning it in a quick fashion. Obviously, that is very important. The second thing is, consumers can see specialists when needed. Again, I think one of the biggest problems with HMOs is the fact that increasingly, the gatekeeper, whoever it is, whether it is the primary care physician or more often some bureaucrat with the insurance company that says that one cannot see a specialist, and people need that type of specialty care, so this is an issue. The third thing is that women have direct access to OB-GYN services. Another one is the physician decides how long patients stay in the hospital after surgery. That I think is so crucial. We had this with the drive-through deliveries where women were released from the hospital the same day that they had a child; people that had C-sections were allowed to stay only 2 days in the hospital, and the bottom line is that that decision about how long one stays in the hospital at a particular time after surgery, that should be made by the physician, in cooperation with the patient, not by the insurance company. Health care professionals are not financially rewarded for limiting care. This is the biggest problem that we face. Increasingly, the doctors and the method of payment they receive is dependent on them putting limits on how they care for patients and what kind of care patients receive. How could one possibly have quality health care with those kinds of limitations? It is okay to say, for a doctor to say, okay, this is the number of days that you should have for this particular activity, or this particular surgery, but to have there be a financial incentive for the doctor to do that I think opens the door to abuse, and this is what we keep hearing over and over again is occurring. Then, consumers can see my provider if the providers in their plan do not meet their needs. Again, in many cases where the HMO does not have the specialist or even does not have certain types of hospital facilities that are covered by the plan, well, if they are not covered by the plan, if someone needs a certain type of care or a certain type of specialization, they should be able to have access to it if the plan does not cover it as part of their network. That is essentially what we are saying. Then, consumers have access to an independent consumer assistance program to help them choose plans and understand programs. This is the ombudsman concept. What I find more and more is that the average person does not even know what their plan consists of. They do not know what is in it, they do not know what is covered, they do not know what care they are allowed to have, because there is no requirement in many States for any kind of disclosure when one enters into one of these networks, one of these HMOs, and obviously, it would be a good idea to have someone to go to to provide that kind of assistance. Then we have health plans demonstrate that they have inadequate number mix and distribution of health care providers to meet consumer needs. Consumers get information on plans including how many people drop out of the program each year, amounts of premium dollars spent on medical care and how providers are paid, just basic disclosure. People should know what they are getting into. Finally, this is just of course the most important aspects, is that doctors, nurses and other health care workers can speak freely to their patients about treatment options and quality problems without retaliation from HMOs, insurance companies, hospitals, and others. I think the gentlewoman mentioned before about the gag rule and how we have to eliminate that as well. This is what we are talking about. This is not any abstract science here. It is just simple things that I think most people probably think that they are getting until they actually find out that the HMO or the managed care plan does not provide it and has these limitations. We get this out to the American public, people understand this. That is why better than 80 percent of the people support these kinds of managed care reforms.

Mr. PALLONE. And they sent a letter to Members today, Members of Congress, because they knew that the National Association of Manufacturers was coming down here and lobbying against this managed care reform. So they sent a letter, and this is from Families USA, American Federation of Teachers, United Church of Christ, Women's Legal Defense Fund, AFL-CIO, a number of groups that are involved in this. They said to the Members in their letter, when these people come that are against these managed care reforms and they come to your office today, why do you not just go through the checklist that we will provide you of what this managed care reform does and ask them whether or not--why these are bad things, why they are against these things. If I could just briefly, I have the other chart here, go through this. I know the gentlewoman mentioned a lot of these things earlier today. But I think it is very interesting to sort of pose the question in that way.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the gentlewoman for being here tonight. I think the gentlewoman is the one that organized this Special Order, but I thank my colleague for saying that.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to comment. I want my colleagues to understand why I am on the floor today. I listened to one of the previous Republican speakers who said would it not be a shame if this resolution would not be brought up. And the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) said to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) that he wanted to have an honest debate on what to do about the uninsured. My problem here today is the fact that my Republican colleagues bring up this resolution. They are in the majority. The Republican leadership decides what is brought up on the House Floor, and I do not think this resolution is important enough to waste the time of the House of Representatives. I would like to see an honest debate on how we are going to cover these 40 million Americans that do not have insurance. But the problem here is that they do not bring up those things. The Republican leadership does not allow us to deal with health insurance reform and how to deal with the uninsured. For the last couple of years, every time we wanted to address the concerns that were originally brought up by this President's task force about how to insure the people that were uninsured, whether it was the portability issue or preconditions in the Kennedy-Kassebaum legislation or it was the kids' health initiative that the President talked about in his last State of the Union address, on both of those occasions the Republican leadership blocked any efforts to bring those issues to the floor. And it was only after we repeatedly said, as Democrats, over and over again, this is important, pass Kennedy-Kassebaum, this is important, we need a kids' health care initiative, then eventually they acceded and said, okay, bring it up. The problem is that what the President's task force started 5 years ago, to talk about the need to address the uninsured, those problems are still out there. They are getting worse. More people are uninsured today than were uninsured 4 or 5 years ago when Mr. Magaziner started this task force. So my Republican colleagues should not kid us and say to us this is important and we will deal with that issue later. They will not do it. We have got to constantly pressure and pressure and pressure. Right now, the President in his State of the Union address talked about the need to reform managed care. He talked about a consumer Bill of Rights to deal with the problems that people face with managed care. Bring it up. Bring up the President's agenda that so many people care about and that we know the public cares about. Bring up the problems of the near elderly, the people in the 55 to 65 year range who increasingly do not have health insurance. You have the ability to bring it up. You control the agenda. Do not sit here or stand here and tell us that this is more important than that, because it is not. I want to tell my colleagues why they are not bringing it up. My colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), pointed it out. That is because the Republican leadership is engaged in this war that they want to stop any health care reform. They want to get the money from the special interests. They do not want the public and the agenda that the President has put forward to come forth and be heard on the floor of the House of Representatives. What does Senator Lott say there? He says, the Republicans need a lot of help from their friends on the outside. Get off your butts, get out your wallets. The message we are getting from the House and Senate leadership is that we are in a war and need to start fighting like we are in a war. Do Members know why? Because the President's message that we need managed care reform works. The public wants it. The Democrats are saying, bring it up. They have got to start this war with all the special interest money to make sure it does not happen. That is what is going on here today.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on January 12 of this year, the Clinton administration issued a statement certifying that China had provided clear and unequivocal assurances to the United States that it is not assisting and will not assist any nonnuclear weapons State either directly or indirectly in acquiring nuclear explosive devices or the material components of such devices. This is the first time in 12 years that a U.S. President has granted such a certification. I am greatly disturbed by this statement. As many Members of this body are aware, China is a major supplier of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear and missile technology. We have less than 30 days to take action and either reject or accept the certification. Mr. Speaker, when the United States and China had signed an accord in 1985 to allow American firms to export nuclear technology to China, Members of Congress were concerned over China's sales of nuclear weapons technology to third countries. In response, Congress quickly passed legislation that required the President to first certify that China has not sold or transferred nuclear technology to countries that are not subject to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In granting this certification, the Clinton administration has chosen to overlook China's recent transfer of nuclear technology to unregulated nuclear facilities in Pakistan and Iran. The administration has accepted a so-called assurance by Beijing that it would cancel or postpone indefinitely several projects, especially secret nuclear facilities in Pakistan and a uranium conversion facility in Iran, as the basis for the United States granting the certification. The administration continues to overlook CIA findings that the Chinese have sold 5,000 ring magnets to Pakistan for its uranium enrichment facility. The ring magnets were transferred to a laboratory in Pakistan, and the facility is named after the founder of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. I would like to note that ring magnets are used for the building of nuclear weapons. The administration has overlooked, in my opinion, a CIA report that described the Chinese sale of a special industrial furnace and high- tech diagnostic equipment to Pakistan. The furnace and diagnostic equipment have dual use and can be used to melt plutonium as well as uranium for nuclear weapons. Furthermore, by granting the certification the administration is willing to approve China's continued support of Pakistan's commitment to build a plutonium production reactor and a plutonium reprocessing plant. These facilities are essential for a nuclear weapons program. Despite the repeated protests by Members of this body, China continues to assist Pakistan in building a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. Unfortunately, this nuclear arsenal is not subject to international inspection. Furthermore, the administration continues to look the other way as China continues to export technology and ballistic and missile components to Pakistan. I would like to remind my colleagues that Pakistan is not a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency and bans investigators from several of its nuclear facilities. Members of this body have supported and at times insisted that China receive United States peaceful nuclear technology only if China halts all nuclear exports to nations with unregulated nuclear facilities. Last year a letter was sent to President Clinton by Members of this body stating that China has not earned or behaved in a manner that warrants such certification. The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency's annual report to Congress stated that while the administration could not stipulate a violation, questions remained about contacts between Chinese entities and elements associated with Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. Mr. Speaker, I hope that many of my colleagues will support legislation that rejects the administration's granting of this certification. We have less than 30 days to act. We must send a message to the Chinese that we will not turn our heads away and accept its nuclear weapons relations with Pakistan. We should not accept the assurances made by the Chinese when they have continually failed to be responsible and act responsibly as a member of the international proliferation community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to my colleagues and the Armenian people, as well as the American people, about the situation in the Republics of Armenia and the Nagorno Karabagh. I had actually planned to come to the floor of the House to discuss my trip to the region of Armenia during the January break and the peace process in Nagorno Karabagh and the American role in that process, and I hope to do that during this time. But events today in Armenia require that I first provide an update on important developments in the past few hours. Earlier today, Armenia's power, Mr. Levon Ter-Petrosyan submitted his resignation. According to wire service reports, barely five hours ago, President Ter-Petrosyan announced, ``That I have faced demands to resign. Considering that in this situation exercising the President's constitutional powers may cause a serious destabilization of the situation, I accept this demand and announce my resignation.'' Given president Ter-Petrosyan's academic background, it is not surprising his resignation speech, broadcast on Armenian television, adopted a philosophical tone. But I believe he reflected the broad pro-democracy consensus of his country when he stated, ``I call on you to display restraint, keep the order in the country, and run legal, civilized elections of the new president. That will be a manifestation of the maturity of the state we have formed for the last eight years, and a deposit of maintaining the image abroad. I wish the new president success for the good and welfare of the Armenian people. I am very grateful to you for your trust and support. If I did something good, I do not expect any gratitude. I ask your indulgence for all my errors and the things that I did not do.'' While details about the political situation are still emerging, it is my understanding that a new election will be held within 40 days. What we can say at this early hour is this: Today's developments prove that Armenia has firmly established itself as a functioning democracy, where the rule of law is observed and obeyed. In the midst of political turmoil, president Ter-Petrosyan's decision to step down was done in a peaceful way, in the spirit of a civil government with a clear constitutional framework. In many other emerging Democrats, such a political crisis may well have led to violence and instability. Considering the potentially volatile nature of the situation with Nagorno Karabagh and the ongoing threat of aggression from the neighboring Republic of Azerbaijan, today's developments demonstrate the impressive maturity that the Armenian democratic political system has already achieved in little more than half a decade. Mr. Speaker, President Ter-Petrosyan has served as President of Armenia since the country first gained its independence when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Indeed, he was one of the most important leaders in the struggle by the Armenian people to achieve their independence from Moscow. He also was instrumental in one of the galvanizing issues for the Armenian for the Armenian nation, the independence of Nagorno Karabagh, known to the Armenians as Artsakh, the Armenian ethnic enclave which Stalin's map-makers gave to Azerbaijan, but which is historically Armenian territory. Born in Syria, Mr. Ter-Petrosyan moved to Yerevan, the Armenian capital, as a one-year-old in 1946. He spent much of his life as an academic, writing six books on Armenian history, and was arrested by the Soviet authorities in 1966 for his involvement in the dissident movement. He first came to power in 1991 and was reelected in 1996. I had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of meeting with President Ter- Petrosyan on several occasions, both here in Washington and on my two visits to Armenia. President Ter-Petrosyan first came to this building, the U.S. Capitol, in 1990, when Armenia was still theoretically part of the Soviet Union, at least in the minds of the communist leaders in Moscow. But it was clear at that time that we were in the presence of one of the new generation of post-Soviet leaders, people who until recently have been outsiders, marginalized, even imprisoned, but were now prepared to assume the burdens of leadership in a new era of democracy, market economies and respect for human rights. This quiet and serious scholar impressed many of us with his sincere dedication to the pursuit of truth and his obvious love for his country and people. I believe it was Senator Kennedy who at that time described him as the George Washington of Armenia. Whatever the outcome of the current political situation, several things should be clear: First, Armenia is a stable, constitutional democracy, and the transition of power is being handled and will continued to be handled in an orderly and peaceful way. Second, President Levon Ter-Petrosyan will, I believe, in the long run, earn the respect of supporters and opponents alike for leading his country through the often very difficult and confusing early years of democracy emerging from decades of dictatorship and foreign domination. His country has stayed on the democratic path, despite the stress and economic hardships brought about by the illegal blockades brought about by the illegal blockades maintained by Armenia's neighbors, Azerbaijan and Turkey. During my visit to the region last month, it was apparent that differences on how to address this situation of Nagorno Karabagh were causing deep divisions among the various political factions within Armenia. Yet despite the differences over strategy, the basic goal is clear: The Armenians of Karabagh fought off aggression to protect their homeland. All Armenians, in Karabagh and the Republic of Armenia and Armenian Americans, will not stand idly by to watch the people of Karabagh lose their hard-fought independence. They will not accept any settlement that compromises the security and self-determination of Karabagh. Which brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the issue that I had planned to talk about before today's dramatic political developments happened. On both of my visits to Nagorno Karabagh, I had the privilege of addressing the Karabagh Parliament, and I believe I am the only Member of Congress to do so, although I know several of my colleagues in this body have visited Karabagh. I met with the various civilian and military leaders of Karabagh. On my recent trip, I had the opportunity to go to the front lines in the tense standoff between the Karabagh and Azerbaijani forces. The conflict has become a diplomatic priority for the United States. A special U.S. negotiator for the region has been appointed, and the United States is a cochair, along with France and Russia, of the so- called Minsk Group, the Conference of the OSCE, commonly known as the Helsinki Commission, charged with resolving the Karabagh conflict. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say, I am not pleased with the way these negotiations are going, and I believe that our own U.S. foreign policy is pushing Armenia and Karabagh into accepting proposals that are unacceptable. My primary concerns have always been to promote a lasting peace, guarantee the right of self-determination and maintain a long- term U.S. engagement with all the nations of the Caucasus region. I have been particularly concerned that the Minsk Group process does not result in a settlement being imposed upon the people of Karabagh. In light of my second visit to the region, in which I had the opportunity to inspect frontline areas, as well as to meet the civilian and military officials in Stepanakert, it is now clear to me that the top priority of the negotiations must be better enforcement of the cease-fire. This point was brought home to me in a very powerful way during a front-lines tour when the military officials I was traveling with were fired upon by Azeri forces. The members of my party indicated to me that the incident was fairly commonplace. It is abundantly evident that the cease-fire is shaky, at best. I believe the Minsk Group negotiations must address the following objectives: Establish a separation of the Karabagh and Azeri forces by at least 1 kilometer; and, that an international observer force be put in place to monitor the separation of the parties. The peace process should also set as a priority direct negotiations without preconditions between all sides. As is abundantly clear to anyone who has visited or simply read about this conflict, it pits forces from Karabagh against force from Azerbaijan. While the good offices of the United States, France and Russia can be helpful in facilitating the negotiations, only direct talks between the two warring parties will finally resolve the conflict and establish the confidence-building measures that will help build a lasting peace. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the issue of security guarantees for the people of Karabagh must be addressed. It is my opinion that a phased approach for withdrawal from certain territories while leaving the crucial issues of status unresolved, as the Minsk Group and including the United States has proposed, will continue to cause the Karabagh Armenians to feel insecure. The people of Karabagh are not about to negotiate the very factors that enhance their bargaining positions, the occupied areas, without ironclad provisions governing their status and a clearly stated mandate for safeguarding the security of a future status arrangement. Direct negotiations between the parties would improve the chances of achieving an agreement that leaves the people of Karabagh with a sense that their security needs will be addressed. Mr. Speaker, as the cochairman of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, I have been pleased to work with colleagues from both sides of the aisle to help the people of Armenia and Karabagh. Late last year, just before adjournment, members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations succeeded in approving for the first time direct U.S. humanitarian aid to Karabagh. I am concerned, however, that not all of the relatively modest amount of $12.5 million will even get to the people in Karabagh who need assistance and I will continue to monitor closely the provisions of said aid to Karabagh as I am sure will many of my colleagues, including the Speaker, who is here this evening. As of yesterday, we are beginning the fiscal year 1999 budget process, and I am sure that the pro-Armenia forces of this Congress will again work together to show our support for the people of Armenia and Karabagh, and we will continue to urge our State Department to pursue policies in the Caucasus region that will promote peace and stability, while recognizing the precious value of self-determination for the people of Karabagh. I just want to say once again, Mr. Speaker, that this evening we heard about the President's resignation. It is a momentous occasion, but it was done with an incredible amount of dignity and respect for the democratic process, and I think it bodes very well for the future of Armenia, as well as relations between Armenia and our country.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on January 26th of this year, in Kashmir, India, 23 Kashmiri Pandits, were massacred in cold blood. Unprovoked, 30 militants entered the homes of four Pandit families, opened fire and killed all but one. After the killings, the militants set their home and a small temple on fire. Mr. Speaker, for the last 7 years, Kashmiri Pandits have been subjected to unprovoked and senseless killings. They have been forced to leave their homes in the Kashmir Valley because of the actions committed by terrorists and militants who are armed and trained by the enemies of India. The terrorists' agenda is simple. It is to undermine the restoration of democratic rule and peace that was brought back to Jammu and Kashmir in October 1996. I should note that the killings took place on India's 48th Republic Day. A spokesman for a Kashmiri Pandit organization stated that ``the massacre of the innocent people by the Pakistan trained militants on the occasion of the Republic Day was a mockery of Indians' integrity in the 50th year of Independence.'' This peaceful community, which has been subjected to countless targeted killings, has been forced to live in refugee camps scattered throughout India. Rather than living in their homeland, the Pandit community has been living in ill-equipped camps that lack the proper educational and job training facilities that would enable them to live decent and productive lives. This has resulted in tremendous suffering by the community and the cultural and social deterioration of their community. Mr. Speaker, we must work with the Indian Government in bringing peace and security to this volatile region. We must encourage India's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to play an instrumental role in resolving this issue. I have asked the US State Department to encourage the Indian Government to designate the Kashmiri Pandit community as an ``Internally Displaced People'' (IDP) so that they may receive extensive humanitarian assistance. I urge Members of this Body to work with me with the Government of India in creating conditions in the Kashmir Valley that are conducive to the return of the Pandits.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman again, and I will yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman again. We are obviously going to continue with this over the next few weeks and months until we get this legislation passed. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both of my colleagues. I think that the President sent a very strong message last night on a number of issues, managed care reform, expansion of Medicare to the near elderly. These are common sense ideas that have the support of the American people; and so we are going to pledge, as Democrats in this House, that we are going to fight to make sure that these proposals get enacted. And if we have to drag along the Republican leadership, we will just drag them along. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the gentlewoman. I think she is right on point.