Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], and also the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and my colleagues the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen] for their help in correcting a FEMA problem in my district as part of this legislation. I also appreciate the need for belt- [[Page H 7835]] tightening as identified by the chairman, but I must point out that the Environmental Protection Agency, I believe, is treated too harshly in this bill. Mr. Chairman, the bill contains about eight pages of provisos limiting the EPA's ability to improve, implement, and enforce regulations related to the environment and particularly with regard to the Clean Water Act that passed this House, which I opposed. If it does become law, this legislation would attempt to accomplish much of its negative impact through the appropriation process. Just as examples: If the Clean Water Act was not reauthorized by October 1 of 1996, funds are not available or are limited under this bill for implementation or enforcement of the stormwater permitting process, enforcement of permit limits or compliance schedules for combined sewer overflows or sanitary sewer overflows. There is also cutback in implementation in enforcement of the wetlands programs and pretreatment standards. For these reasons, unless some of the amendments are passed by the ranking member, I would oppose.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago a contract with our senior citizens was created when the Medicare program was enacted, and now the Republican Congress is proposing to end Medicare as we know it and balance the budget, I am afraid, on the backs of senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party was against Medicare when it was enacted in 1965, and now that Republicans have regained control of Congress, one of the first things that they want to do is take $270 billion out of the program and for senior citizens to foot the bill for a balanced budget. While I believe in a balanced budget, I feel the Republican approach is incorrect, wrong and draconian. Medicare has had a lot of success since it was established. Poverty rates for senior citizens have declined dramatically. Medicare has given seniors universal health coverage and protected them from depleting their hard-earned resources. Without Medicare, many seniors would be forced to choose between health care, food, and shelter. Mr. Speaker, I want to read an excerpt from testimony submitted to Congress during the Medicare debate from a concerned citizen in 1963. It is from the Congressional Record: ``My mother is now 85 years old, and since she has been hospitalized before, the insurance company cancelled out her policy, and now I am paying the bill. Her sole income is a social security check for $40 a month. I hope my children will not have the same choice to make to either pay the bills or put dad on relief.'' That is from the Record on November 21, 1963. Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Republicans have not discussed the specific details of how they plan to change Medicare, because they are afraid to tell seniors what will happen with this $270 billion in Medicare cuts. One plan, though, that the Republicans are floating is a voucher plan, which basically limits the health care coverage of senior citizens. This voucher plan would basically give seniors substandard health care unless they have a lot of money and can afford their own health coverage. Essentially, a senior will be told that once he has used up the voucher, that he will have to pay for health care insurance out of his own pocket, and I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans do not realize that most seniors are on a fixed income and simply will not be able to afford the extra cost that will be entailed under this proposed voucher program. There are other Republican plans that have been discussed that will either force senior citizens into HMO's or the managed care systems that are like HMO's, and essentially what that does is to tell the seniors which doctors they can and they cannot see. I have talked to a lot of senior citizens over the last few months about some of these alternate plans that Republicans have come up with, and most of the senior citizens I represent are very happy with their doctors and do not want to be told which doctors that are going to serve them. They are very afraid of the fact they will not be able to choose their own doctor. Nobody really knows exactly what the Republicans are going to do, because they have not put specific proposals forward. But their proposed Medicare cuts are so large, I am convinced it is only going to hurt senior citizens. I am afraid the Republicans will end Medicare as we know it, without telling the American public the true story of what these $270 billion in cuts are ultimately going to mean to them. Some estimates figure that seniors will have an additional $1,000 per month of our-of-pocket costs to maintain the same health coverage that they are currently receiving, and if health costs rise faster than the growth in Medicare to seniors, then seniors are either going to get less services or pay more money. It is that simple. Mr. Speaker, finally, during the last few nights, I have heard Republicans state that they are really concerned about saving Medicare and that is why they are putting forth these cuts in the program and the changes that we are hearing about. But I would maintain that if Republicans are truly concerned about saving Medicare and reforming it, then they should not be approaching it in the backward way that they are approaching it. Republicans are starting with $270 billion in cuts, the largest amount of cuts in the history of the Medicare program. Then, after they make these cuts, they want to gut Medicare to achieve the cost savings. The American public should not be fooled by these Republican plans. Senior citizens should watch closely over the next few months to see what the Republicans do to the existing Medicare program, and the Republicans should not be allowed to break Medicare's contract with America's seniors.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day in this House in my opinion. When I was first elected to the House of Representatives back in 1988, it was a fall after a summer when the Jersey shore and many of the States along the eastern coast had experienced very severe ocean pollution problems, beach washups, problems from sewage discharge and from other pollution that was dumped into the ocean. I thought at that time after the very strict laws that were passed, the Clean Water Act and various other legislation, that we had learned the lesson that we cannot dump in the ocean. Today I find out that that simply is not true. The message that we are sending today to the American people is that it is OK to dump in the ocean. It does not matter. This Congress does not care. How ironic that on the first Corrections Day, instead of dealing with things that are really arbitrary or ludicrous or capricious like the $250 toilet seat or other agency actions that we know should be taken up on Corrections Day, instead we are granting an automatic and permanent waiver for the ocean discharge of waste. I guess the idea of protecting our environment, our water, our oceans in which we swim and fish is something that this House now considers, and I think one of the gentleman said, arbitrary or ludicrous, since this is a substantive requirement of Corrections Day. The whole idea of trying to achieve secondary treatment is not ludicrous and it is certainly not arbitrary. It makes a lot of sense. That is why we have laws on the books which this is trying to change that require secondary treatment. Secondary treatment is critical to the removal of organic material from sewage. This is the material that is linked to diseases like hepatitis and gastroenteritis for swimmers. Mr. Speaker, we have in the Clean Water Act an effort to try to go down this slippery slope. Let us not kid ourselves. This is not just San Diego. Today it is San Diego, tomorrow it is going to be other California cities, then other cities around the country. We remember during the Clean Water Act that the Clean Water Act reauthorization specifically allows waivers, not only for San Diego but for a number of other cities around the country. Then they added the provision that said that for cities that were under 10,000 or municipalities that had under 10,000, that they might be able get a waiver. Then they added Puerto Rico, then Alaska. This is the beginning of the end in my opinion for secondary treatment and the requirement that that imposes. The notion that somehow that is okay and that we are going to take this material and dump it further and further out to sea and somehow it is not going to come back, that is the ludicrous part of what we are considering today. In light of what occurred a couple of months ago in the Clean Water Act, I guess there is no reason to be surprised today. We are dealing with a number of efforts to degrade the environment. The Interior appropriations bill, the cuts in funding for both NOAA and EPA which we are about to address, all of these things are gradually taking us down the slippery slope. In addition to that, I think we have to understand that this bill eliminates a number of things that are very important. It eliminates the public review of the decision to allow the waiver. Essentially without this bill under the existing waiver process that is already law, there would be a public review that would start occurring sometime this summer or sometime in the near future. This is eliminated under this bill. Also there has been a lot of mention about the scientific basis for this. Another thing this bill eliminates is basically the ability to look at the science in the future, because once the waiver is granted, if we find out that this process does not achieve what the authors are saying it is going to achieve, what opportunity is there to go back and look at the future science of the process? I guess my problem here today, Mr. Speaker, is that I just think that the process of considering this bill on the Corrections Day Calendar is really improper because it is essentially saying to this House that Corrections Day is a day when we can make exemptions to environmental laws. Coastal and ocean waters do not recognize State boundaries. We learned that a few years ago in New Jersey when medical waste from New York washed up on our shores. As a representative from a coastal State, I can tell you that my constituents do not want ocean disposal of waste. They do not want environmental loopholes and waivers. They certainly do not consider environmental regulations that protect our water, our estuaries, our wetlands and our beaches as arbitrary and capricious. Although today we are talking about California, this sets a very dangerous precedent. Today it is California but next Corrections Day it may be your neighboring State. There is absolutely no way that we are going to ultimately obtain the goal of the Clean Waste Act which is fishable and swimmable waters around this Nation if we continue this process.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, 27 years ago, on July 3, 1968, my predecessor in Congress, the late James Howard, spoke eloquently on this floor in honor of the second anniversary of the Medicare Program. Medicare was enacted during Congressman Howard's first term in Congress. I know he looked upon this opportunity to be part of that Medicare debate as a great honor. I just wanted to quote something that he said in the Record on that day in 1968. He said: As we celebrate the second anniversary of Medicare, we are really celebrating the enrichment of many lives, the elderly who are already served by Medicare, those who will be served in the coming years and the rest of us whose lives are enriched daily as we watch our elders lead more productive lives. Now, I would like to compare what Jim Howard expressed so eloquently to what the Republican leadership of today is saying about Medicare. According to one of the Republican leaders recently, ``Medicare is a program I would have no part of in the free world. Medicare,'' he said, ``teaches seniors the lessons of dependence.'' Mr. Speaker, the differences between Congressman Howard's statements and those Republican statements and the differences in the philosophies underlying them could not possibly be more stark. On the one hand you have Congressman Howard, a man of great compassion, expressing what most Americans believed then and still believe now, that Medicare is a hugely successful program which have been responsible for dramatically enhancing the quality of life of senior citizens and that this, in turn, has enriched the lives of all Americans, young and old. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, you have the Republican leadership of the 104th Congress tearing down Medicare as somehow unAmerican and implying that senior citizens should be ashamed of themselves for using their hard-earned Medicare benefits to pay for their health care, that participating in Medicare is somehow learning the lessons of dependence. Of course, none of this is at all surprising. It is exactly what congressional Republicans have been saying about Medicare since it was started. After all, the congressional Republicans of today are indeed the direct ideological descendants of the party that did everything it could to prevent Medicare from ever being enacted. Next week, we will be marking another anniversary, the 30th anniversary of the House passage of the Medicare Program. Unfortunately, unlike when Jim Howard came to the floor 27 years ago, this anniversary is not an occasion for celebration. Rather, it is a time to rally against yet another wrong-headed Republican attack on Medicare. So far the Republican side has tried very hard to keep the specifics of their plans to change Medicare a secret from the American people. Who can blame them when you consider that the vast majority of Americans are against them. But last week we noticed in the papers that Senator Gregg of New Hampshire announced legislation with the goal of replacing Medicare coverage with a voucher program. Mr. Speaker, a voucher system, no matter how you cloak it, amounts to turning back the clock 30 years and abrogating the contract Congress made with America's seniors. Republican proposals to implement a voucher system are motivated exclusively by their desire to reduce the Federal budget by $270 billion at senior citizen's expense. The amount the voucher provides will not likely be based on the cost of a quality health care plan but, rather, what level of funding is politically acceptable in a given fiscal year. The Federal Government would, in effect, be walking away from Medicare and saying to seniors, Here is what we can afford; you make up the difference and fend for yourselves. Since the overwhelming majority of seniors live on fixed incomes, they will not be able to pay more. Most would be forced to buy inadequate coverage. Some may not be able to find any health insurance and, rather than having choice, as Republicans claim, seniors would struggle in an increasingly expensive insurance market to buy diminished coverage with limited funds. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from a statement that a senior citizen named Arthur Martin submitted to the Committee on Ways and Means on November 20, 1963. It poignantly conveys just why Medicare was needed then and why we need it today. Mr. Martin said that his total income is his Social Security check of $174, out of which he pays rent, utilities, food, et cetera. Three years ago, he said, he contracted bronchial asthma and was hospitalized five different times. The only remedy he had available was charity. The stigma and indignity to self-respect to a resident of 50 years in the same community leading a respectable life as a taxpayer and in the evening of his life having to resort to charity was unbearable and humiliating. Whatever savings he had were wiped out in hospital and medical care. Mr. Speaker, unless these Republicans plans are stopped in their tracks, we are going to turn back the clock and create another generation of seniors who face the same indignity and pain that Mr. Martin endured 30 years ago, before we had Medicare. That would truly be an American tragedy, which I think that we in this Congress have to stop.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to stress that my colleagues and I have spent a lot of time over the last 6 months looking into this issue and our concern is over human lives. We know and we can document that people's lives can be lost if this amendment is not passed. What is happening, by closing small boat stations, we are creating great distances between the stations and increasing the Coast Guard's response time and basically making it impossible for the Coast Guard to be successful in responding to life-threatening situations. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about $6 million for something like 23 stations and even more that are going to be downsized. It seems to me that $6 million is simply so small an amount of money to talk about a few lives that are going to be saved by passing this amendment, that it really is almost unconscionable for us to worry about that $6 million when we are talking about human lives.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the chairman of the subcommittee, and also the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], the ranking member, for the work they have done in this bill to maintain the pipeline safety program in the country. Pipeline safety is extremely important for my constituents, because just over a year ago a natural gas pipeline explosion occurred in Edison, NJ, in my district, and leveled the Durham Woods apartment complex, and dramatically altered the lives of thousands of my constituents. I have learned in the last year that in order to maintain pipeline safety in this country, we need a competent Federal program with the knowledge and manpower to get the job done. The only way we get that is to adequately fund the Federal program. Last year, in the wake of the Edison accident, Congress appropriated some $37 million for the Office of Pipeline Safety. We finally gave this consistently underfunded program some teeth. This year, the President recommended $42 million for pipeline safety in his budget, an amount I think would go a long way toward improving the Federal program and enhancing State programs through Federal grants. Although I fully support the President's request, I understand that the pipeline operators, whose user fees fund the program, do not want to pay that much. I do not agree with these operators, because I think the President's request does not place an undue financial burden on them, because I know that the $20 million they favor is not enough to run a good program. However, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] who worked very hard to take a middle ground, a compromise, that I think is very acceptable, that places about $29 million or $30 million into the Office of Pipeline Safety. It essentially reduces the burden on the pipeline operators, but gives the office enough money to do its job. I urge my colleagues to support this committee's appropriation level. I think that both the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] have done a great job in coming up with this figure. I want to commend them. I also want to point out that the committee report highlights the importance of the one-call notification system, and provides $1 million for grants to States to implement one-call systems. A one-call notification system would help many of the problems that are responsible for nearly two-thirds of all pipeline accidents in the Nation. The language that the chairman of the subcommittee has included in this bill makes me more confident that we can move a bipartisan Federal one-call bill in this Congress. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to touch on one other subject that is very important to the lives of the people who live along our Nation's coasts. I am greatly concerned about the Coast Guard's proposal to close 23 small boat unit stations around the country. There will be an amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] during title I that I cosponsored with others to basically transfer $6 million from the Office of the Secretary's account to the operation and maintenance account of the Coast Guard in order to provide funding for these small boat units, and to prevent their closures. I think this is a very important amendment. The closures would come at a time when the Coast Guard has reported increases over the last 10 years in injuries and accidents. A larger burden is being placed on the Coast Guard, and closing stations is not the way to respond. I think the safety of lives is going to depend upon passing this amendment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 542 on H.R. 1976 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay''. I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record immediately following rollcall vote No. 542. amendment offered by mr. hall of ohio

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the late Herman O. Wiley, M.D., of Red Bank, NJ, who passed away last month. Dr. Wiley was born on June 12, 1912, in the Bronx, NY, the only son of William and Ethel Wiley. He was educated in the public schools of New York and was a graduate of Virginia State University, where he met and married Maeble Harston Wiley, his devoted and loving wife of 60 years. He subsequently attended and graduated from Howard University Medical School. Dr. Wiley was a veteran of World War II, and served as a captain in the Medical Corps of the U.S. Army in Italy and North Africa. A long-time resident of Red Bank, Dr. Wiley was elected to and served on the Red Bank Board of Education for 18 years. He was also active and held office in numerous civic and social organizations, and received many awards and commendations for his devoted service to his community. Among the awards were Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity's Regional Man of the Year award, a Distinguished Service award of the Red Bank NAACP and the Westside Ministerium, and an award as Man of the Year from the Kiwanis Club. He was a charter member of Zeta Episolon Lambda Chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity and a member and past president of the Red Bank Men's Club. He was also a member of the National Guardsmen, Inc., and a member of the H.M. Club of America. He was a member of the New Jersey Medical Association and the American Medical Association and was formerly affiliated, before his retirement in 1994, with Monmouth Medical Center, Long Branch, NJ, and Riverview Medical Center, Red Bank, NJ. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to pay tribute to Dr. Wiley, a patriot who served his country with distinction during a time of war, and then came home and continued to serve our society in many ways; as a physician, a leader in community affairs and as a devoted husband and father. He will be missed deeply by his family, friends, colleagues and by our entire community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness and frustration that I rise tonight to commemorate the anniversary of an international crisis that has to date defied resolution. Twenty-one years ago, demonstrating a gross disrespect for both international law and human life, Turkish troops stormed into the Mediterranean island nation of Cyprus and stole its independence. Defiantly ignoring the calls of the United Nations and NATO to allow Cyprus to resume its existence as a free and sovereign country, Turkey currently maintains its illegal occupation of the island with a force of over 30,000. As we gather here to remember those who have died, as well as those who today live in a divided country, we must also be sure to vigorously communicate our determination to persevere until Cyprus is once again free. We must continue to point out, as I and my fellow cosponsors have done in House Concurrent Resolution 42, that the presence of 30,000- plus Turkish troops ``hampers the search for a freely negotiated solution to the dispute regarding Cyprus.'' Calling for a complete demilitarization of the island, House Concurrent Resolution 42 asks for nothing more than Turkish compliance with the numerous resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council. And if the Turks continue to resist the idea of a sovereign, independent Cyprus, let there be no doubt that we will continue--just as I and many of my colleagues joined together to do in voting for the Porter amendment to the fiscal year 1996 foreign operations bill--to cut U.S. assistance to them. Mr. Speaker, we should be proud of our efforts in the Congress to resolve this situation, but there is much work that still needs to be done. Answers must be found for those who have disappeared, including five Americans who were in Turkish held territory, following the 1974 invasion; in the absence of a complete Turkish withdrawal from the island, human rights improvements for the Cypriots must be secured; and the regional instability caused by tension between Greece and Turkey must be contained. Thus, although we hope we will not have to return to commemorate this event next year, be assured that we will return for as many years as it takes to once again see a peaceful and independent State of Cyprus. Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] for organizing this special order and for his leadership on this issue and on many others.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago this month, Congress enacted what has become one of the two most successful and popular Government programs ever conceived--the Medicare Program. The other, of course, is Social Security. Given the indisputable success of Medicare, you would think that even its most bitter critics from 30 years ago would have to admit that the program has been instrumental in improving the lives of millions of American senior citizens. But the Republican leadership in Congress is not interested in learning from their party's past mistakes. Although they haven't seen fit to reveal the details of their plan to the American people, it has become all too clear that the Republicans want to rewrite the history of Medicare by gutting the program and charging seniors more for coverage. In effect, the Republican leadership wants to take us back to the years before Medicare was enacted in 1965--a period when millions of American senior citizens faced either the poor house or premature death if they contracted a serious illness. It is a simple fact that before 1965, millions of middle class senior citizens who found themselves seriously ill faced bankruptcy in order to pay for care. Those who were already poor faced even greater indignity and often went without any health care at all. According to the National Council of Senior Citizens, prior to 1965 and the enactment of Medicare, only 50 percent of Americans over the age of 65 had health insurance. Yet then, as now, the Republican Party in Congress again and again expresses a sort of gut reaction against Medicare. Thirty years ago, one Minnesota Congressman absurdly stated that Medicare ``puts the Nation dangerously close to socialized medicine.'' One of his colleagues from Colorado went so far as to say: ``By passage of this bill [Medicare], we shall make a shambles out of Social Security.'' Of course, he didn't mention that he probably would have opposed the creation of Social Security too. The comments we are hearing from the leadership on the other side today demonstrate clearly that the Republicans in this Congress are indeed the direct ideological descendants of the party that fought tooth and nail to prevent Social Security and Medicare from ever becoming reality. Just a week ago, one of the Republican leaders stated ``I deeply resent the fact that when I'm 65 I must enroll in Medicare.'' He went on to demean the program--and the millions of seniors who have earned their Medicare benefits--by saying that Medicare ``teaches the lessons of dependence,'' and that it is ``a program that has no place in a free society.'' Mr. Speaker, when the new leadership in Congress claims to have won a mandate in last fall's elections, do they actually believe that their supposed mandate includes the dismantling of the Medicare Program? A mandate comes from the people, Mr. Speaker. And if the leadership of the Republican Party in Congress were interested in pursuing a true mandate--if they truly had the interests of the people at heart--there would be no discussion of pulling the rug out from under senior citizens by gutting Medicare. The vast majority of Americans--seniors and nonseniors alike--oppose the Republicans' views on Medicare. Rather than acting on a mandate, what the Republican leadership is doing, in effect, is attempting to rewrite the conclusion of the Medicare debate of 1965. What is the real agenda here, Mr. Speaker? It sounds suspiciously like this generation of Republicans, under the cloak of concern of Medicare's solvency, is simply trotting out the same tired arguments that failed 30 years ago. And we need to expose this for what it is--an effort to destroy Medicare, which in the Republican view, is somehow un-American.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the chairman, but I have to say from listening to the debate today, it is very obvious to me that it is inappropriate for us to move this Strategic Petroleum Reserve without having a hearing, without having action by the authorizing committee. We have not had a single hearing on this issue in our subcommittee. The talk about the environmental impact, we do not really know what the environmental impact is. Just listening to the debate in the last few minutes here, you can see there is great variation in terms of how people feel the environmental impact is going to be or what it is going to mean to move this reserve component. In addition to that, we are talking about a situation now where something like 50 percent of our oil that we use in this country is imported oil. We know this is a major problem. I listened to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the chairman, before when he talked about a previous amendment and he talked about how we do not want to go back to the long lines that existed in the 1970's during the oil crisis. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is designed to prevent that from happening again. It makes no sense, at this hour when we really have not looked at the issue, when the authorizing committee has not had a hearing, to move on such an important issue on an appropriations bill. I ask that this amendment by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] be supported.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, just very quickly, I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], but I have to disagree with them strongly on this issue and certainly agree with what the Speaker said. The gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned children and the gentleman from Texas mentioned education. I cannot think of anything that is more important in a sense, in an overall sense for children and education, than trying to preserve the species. If anybody, and I am sure many of you have, have ever taken your children to a zoo to see elephants or rhinoceroses, the type of pleasure children get out of seeing those species, so many of the programs that children watch on TV, whether it be cartoons or educational programs, have elephants, rhinoceros and tigers. There is really a great thrill that children get in seeing the species, the animals themselves, as well as seeing the representations on TV. I think the bottom line here is that these species are seriously threatened. A small amount of tax dollars will only help these nonprofit associations raise money. For the small amount of money we are talking about here, I think it is wisely intended, and we should oppose this amendment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to commend the full Committee on Appropriations and, of course, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.Yates], for their action to restore a moratorium on offshore drilling along the U.S. coastline in this bill. The committee action puts Congress back on the right track in the protection of our coastal resources. For more than a decade, Congress has recognized the need to impose sensible safeguards against the exploitation of our offshore areas. While some in Congress and, of course, the oil companies want to reopen these areas to drilling, the overwhelming consensus among those of us who live and work in the coastal areas is that it is simply not worth the risk to open these areas up to drilling. Offshore drilling off New Jersey in my State and other mid-Atlantic States is not environmentally sound and also threatens the economies of coastal areas that depend on a healthy coastal environment. In the areas off the Jersey shore and other Mid-Atlantic States, studies have indicated that the expected yield of oil and gas is rather low. Still there are strong expressions of interest in exploratory drilling which would have disastrous effects on our environment and coastal economy. We must keep the door firmly shut to any drilling or preleasing activities. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to mention that there are other parts of the bill that I do find objectionable, particularly the committee's decision to derail the Endangered Species Act by defunding the program. This is the wrong way to address individual problems with the Endangered Species Act. I also object to the bill's drastic reductions in funding for land acquisition under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In New Jersey, the most urbanized State in the Nation, we have refuges that are under severe threat of development and the $14 million that is provided is not enough to cover even New Jersey's preservation needs, let alone the needs of the Nation as a whole. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to speak out against any further cuts in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. These influential agencies encourage lifelong learning, promote participation within civic organizations and preserve our country's cultural and intellectual heritage. New Jersey takes advantage of these funds very effectively and I think it would be a mistake for us to make any further cuts in those programs.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is basically to reduce the amount of money that is set aside for interim storage of nuclear waste and essentially make the point that there is not enough funding for a permanent repository. As the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, I believe we have a responsibility to both the taxpayers and the ratepayers of our county to ensure that we have a safe and environmentally sound permanent repository for our Nation's nuclear waste. I also believe that we need to make good on the Federal Government's commitment to utilities to assume responsibility for this waste. However, I do not think it is fair to anyone to sacrifice long-term disposal for short-term gain. In fact, in the course of two comprehensive hearings held by the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, it became abundantly clear that long-term storage was the priority for all interested parties. That is why I am concerned about the language that is in this bill that funds interim storage yet directs DOE to downgrade or terminate its activities at Yucca Mountain. This language, in addition to being at odds with existing law, I believe, jeopardizes the important gains we've made in the last 2 years toward siting a permanent repository by focusing funding on an unauthorized interim storage facility. The amendment I am offering makes a token reduction in the waste disposal fund, which is necessary for the amendment to be in order, but my intent is to redirect the focus of the program back to building a permanent waste repository. I understand the desire to have interim storage, even though onsite storage is safe, and I am not opposed to the idea of interim storage. However, I believe the Federal Government has a moral and statutory responsibility to continue with site characterization work for a permanent repository. My amendment would allow the Government to fulfill its responsibility to permanently dispose of nuclear waste by indicating the intent of Congress that funds appropriated in this bill for the DOE and NRC be used for site characterization of Yucca Mountain. This is the most responsible approach we can take at this time. I don't think I have to remind my colleagues that what we are talking about here is ratepayer money. This program is wholly funded by monies paid in good faith by the users of nuclear power. In fact, nuclear utility customers have paid billions of dollars into the fund beyond what has been spent and they continue to pay more each year than we appropriate. So restoring proper direction to this program is, in effect, only an effort to make good on the agreement we made with the ratepayers. These ratepayers provide us with more than $600 million in funding for this program each year: It's only fair that we use that money for the purpose it was intended. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a moment to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], for their work on this bill, particularly with regard to the Army Corps policy and the recommendations made by the administration. Mr. Chairman, I do support the bill. I think it is an excellent bill. But I think, in particular, the fact that the committee in its report language specifically says that they are not abiding by the recommendations of the President with regard to Army Corps projects is significant. I cannot think of any proposal that has been made in the last 6 months [[Page H 6778]] that is more ill-conceived than the administration's proposal with regard to Army Corps flood control, shore protection, and small scale navigational dredging. I think we all recognize that flood waters do not recognize state of coastal boundaries. Just to give you an example, if this policy that was put forward by the administration were to come into effect, a large state like California, for example, would be responsible for flood control projects within its boundaries, which would easily qualify as interstate projects in another area of the country. So just because a state happens to be large or because a state happens to be largely along the coast of the United States, all of a sudden, because 50 percent of the flood waters that are affecting or damaging and resulting in the need for a flood control project are not within the state or not interstate, if you will, the project would no longer qualify. In effect, I think the chairman and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] mentioned that what we would be doing if this policy were to come into effect is simply not providing for these flood control or shore protection projects to move forward, because most of the states and the localities would not be able to afford to pay for them, particularly if the cost sharing, which is now 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal, were to switch and become 75 percent non- Federal or local. Just to give you an example, in my own district, we have a major shore protection project along the coast. We have towns, I will give you an example, such as Bellmawr, where we have a few thousand residents, but in the summer are besieged by thousands of people who use the beach from Pennsylvania, New York and other states. There is no way that a small town like Bellmawr, and I have others that are even smaller, could possibly afford to contribute the amount of money that would be necessary for the state to go ahead with that project. Even though the flood waters are totally from within the state, if you will, because it is the ocean, the bottom line is that the people that use the beaches and take advantage of that shore protection project are from a number of states and many times not even a majority from our own State of New Jersey. So the policy simply makes no sense. Also I think about the fact that the Federal Government and the Corps have the expertise, the consulting, engineering and construction expertise to do these projects, which the state and the local municipalities do not. So overall, I just wanted to commend again the subcommittee for moving ahead with projects and basically setting aside the President's recommendations. One of the things I am still concerned about though is I do think it is necessary and I know that the subcommittee in its report asked the administration to essentially reverse its policy. I think that is important, because theoretically, even though we pass this bill and even though it ultimately is signed by the President, there still could be a certain amount of discretion on the part of the administration to withhold funds for some of these projects, unless they decide to reverse their policy. So I think it is also important that in the subcommittee report language, they specifically call upon the administration, and I call upon them as well, to reverse this policy because I would not want to see the various projects that are funded in this legislation to be jeopardized at all. I think that the overall presidential/administration policy was ill-conceived and should be reversed.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a community activist whose passing has left a void in the lives of our many friends at the New Jersey shore and in the lives of many other people who did not know her personally but who have been touched in one way or another by her good work. Sharon Portman of Ocean Township, New Jersey died last week at the age of 54 after a two-year battle with cancer. She was one of the most caring members of our community in Monmouth County. Sharon received much praise and honor for her many years of kind and generous contributions to both the Jewish community and the community at large. Back in September of 1993, on the occasion of the historic signing of the peace accord between Israel yell and the Palestinians on the White House lawn, I brought Sharon as my guest. She had dedicated so much of her time and energy to working for a strong and secure Israel. She believed passionately that one day Israel would achieve peace with her Arab neighbors, and she recognized that the best way to accomplish this goal was to build a State of Israel that remained true to the values of Jewish teaching and a democratic political system process, while maintaining the ability to resist military invasion and terrorism. When the PLO leadership finally decided to give up its relentless hostility against Israel and work for mutual recognition and peace, the view that Sharon Portman had always supported and worked for was finally vindicated. Sharon Portman was a lot of things to a lot of people. She was a staunch environmentalist and advocate for the [[Page H 6820]] disadvantaged, a women's rights advocate, a friend of animals, and a businesswoman, as well as a wife and mother. I knew her best because of her love of politics. She exemplified for me that motto that we often see on bumper stickers that says, think globally, act locally. She commented incessantly on international and national issues, but she understood that the best way she could influence public policy was by working in New Jersey for candidates and causes in which she believed. But Sharon did not just work herself. She had an incredible ability to get others involved. At her funeral service last Sunday, I was talking about politics with a group of people and one person said that he had little interest in running for office. If Sharon were present, she would have talked to that man and encouraged him to participate for the future of his local community, for the state and for the country. She would know how to get him involved. Sharon was above all a friend to me and everyone else that she could help in difficult times. She suffered for two years from a brain tumor, and she refused to give up. She wanted to help others who were afflicted by the same disorder. Last summer my father-in-law was diagnosed with brain cancer, and every time I spoke to Sharon she asked me about him and wanted to help. She suggested literature, hospitals, methods of treatment, and just general information on how our family could deal with the problem and all this while she suffered so much herself. Sharon Portman will be remembered by me and others for a long time because she served as such a wonderful example of what helping others is all about.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on three issues that will come up in the context of the fiscal year 1996 foreign aid appropriations bill. First is the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. This is a provision in the bill that would bar U.S. assistance to countries that bar the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid to another country. The Republic of Turkey, a major recipient of United States assistance, has maintained a blockade on its neighbor Armenia. Asking our allies to allow American humanitarian assistance to reach its intended recipients is a reasonable condition for U.S. aid, and any country that fails to abide by this basic condition is undeserving of our aid. This provision was approved by the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, and [[Page H 6253]] was part of the foreign aid authorization bill which has already passed the House. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has also adopted this provision. Any attempt to remove the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act from the bill must be opposed. Second, Mr. Chairman, I support conditional aid to Turkey on compliance with human rights. Our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] a member of the Foreign Ops Subcommittee and the cochairman of the Armenian issues caucus, is planning to introduce an amendment that would cut assistance to Turkey until that country makes substantial improvements in its human rights record. The Porter amendment is intended to draw attention to Turkey's immoral and illegal blockade of Armenia, the Cyprus issue, the rights of the Kurdish people, and the restrictions on free expression in Turkey. I strongly support the Porter amendment. Third, I would urge the House to maintain the economic sanctions on Azerbaijan until it lifts its blockade of Armenia. Language was inserted into the foreign aid appropriations bill which severely weakens section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which became law in 1992. This provision prohibits government-to-government assistance between the United States and Azerbaijan until that country lifts its devastating blockade of Armenia. Given that the Azerbaijani Government has not made any progress toward lifting its blockade, as was previously stated by my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky], there is no basis for changing the law, and Azerbaijan should not be rewarded for its intransigence. Indeed, the law has not prevented humanitarian aid disbursed by nongovernmental and private voluntary organizations from getting to Azerbaijani refugees. Our colleague Peter Visclosky of Indiana, a member of the Appropriations Committee and also the Armenian issues caucus, may offer an amendment to strike this provision or to explicitly forbid direct governmental assistance to Azerbaijan. The Visclosky amendment would prevent the gutting of the existing law, and I urge support for that amendment. Finally, Mr. Chairman, Armenia has made tremendous strides toward democracy and a market economy since the breakup of the Soviet Union despite the relentless hostility of its neighbors, Turkey and Azerbaijan. Turkey and Azerbaijan, in my opinion, continue this blockade illegally. The United States should support countries that share America's values and not give encouragement to those countries that oppose our principles so flagrantly.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express concern about a provision that has been included in this bill which would effectively change existing law through the appropriations process. The provision, which was put in the bill in the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, would severely weaken section 907 of the Freedom Support Act of 1992. This provision bans direct United States Government assistance to the Government of Azerbaijan until Azerbaijan lifts its blockade of neighboring Armenia. This law made good sense when it was adopted 3 years ago in the wake of the breakup of the Soviet Union. It is morally justified and in U.S. interests, It should not be gutted through the appropriations process. Mr. Speaker, the Azerbaijan blockade of Armenia has continued for 5 years, cutting off the transport of food, fuel, medicine, and other commodities. This ruthless blockade has caused a humanitarian crisis that has required the United States to send emergency assistance to Armenia. At a time when Armenia is trying to move forward with major market reforms and integrating its economy with the West, the Azerbaijan stranglehold has forced a shutdown of Armenian industry, caused massive unemployment, and obstructed rebuilding of areas damaged by the 1988 earthquake. Armenian children have had to do without schooling, and hospitals have been unable to care for the sick and the dying. There is no justification for this type of behavior. American taxpayers should not be asked to reward or appease these actions by Azerbaijan. On the positive side, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the Foreign Ops Subcommittee, and in particular the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], for the inclusion in the legislation of language incorporating the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. This provision would deny U.S. assistance to countries which block the shipment of American humanitarian aid to other countries. This has been the case with the Republic of Turkey, which has maintained its own blockade of Armenia while collecting generous amounts of United States aid. Mr. Speaker, I think common sense and decency would argue that countries that block U.S. aid to other recipients should not themselves benefit from American largesse. I commend the committee for including this language, which was also part of the American Overseas Interests Act, and would urge Members to oppose any efforts to remove this provision. I also understand the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has also an amendment to limit assistance to Turkey in part linked to its blockade of Armenia. I would also urge support of this amendment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, June 24, 1995, the Middletown, NJ, Veterans of Foreign Wars Post No. 2179 and ladies auxiliary will be celebrating its 50th anniversary at the Post Home with the slogan ``Golden Pride Since '45.'' The event will include a rededication of the post's street sign, known as Veterans Lane, to commemorate both the 50th anniversary of the founding of the post as well as the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. There will be a memorial service, speeches by officials and veterans, and then hours of music and dancing. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to pay tribute to the fine men and women whose pride and patriotism have made Post 2179 and the ladies auxiliary such a great part of our community. In 1945, as America emerged victorious from World War II and our Nation entered into a new era, a group of returning veterans and their wives formed the Middletown Post. In those days, the post met over a store in Belford section of Middletown Township. Social events were held in the basement of St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church. Later the post met in a former hospital building purchased from nearby Fort Monmouth. Now, the members meet in a modern, $1.5 million facility. Through the years, Post 2179 has distinguished itself for its charitable works, its help and support of the Menlo Park and Lyons Hospital VA facilities, its championing of veterans rights and benefits, its advocacy on behalf of POW's and MIA's, and its participation in Memorial Day and Veterans Day activities and at VFW conventions each year. The post has received many distinguished visitors, including President Bush in 1992. Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous honor for me to pay tribute to Post 2179 on the occasion of their 50th anniversary.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, 149 years ago, this June 19, the New York Nine played the Knickerbockers at Elysian Fields in Hoboken, planting the seeds that led to organized baseball in the United States. The rules which were established by Alexander J. Cartwright, who umpired the game, preceded the game between the Knickerbockers and New York 8 months later in Abner Doubleday's Cooperstown, NY. America's favorite pastime has been a part of the scene in every State across the United States ever since, bringing together people of all backgrounds, races, beliefs, and economic strata in a fun-filled afternoon or evening of recreation, friendly competition, festivity, and vitality. When Carl Stotz created the Little League in Williamsport, PA, in 1939, and encouraged baseball competition among youths between 9 and 12 years of age in the Keystone State and New Jersey, a competition that has grown to include the entire country, he did it with full knowledge that, as the Newark Evening News had said earlier, ``An American boy can no more be separated from baseball than he can from the dinner table when he's hungry.'' For many, the American pastime, baseball, is the American dream. For 20 youths in the Sandy Hook Little League, bringing the great American pastime to the shores of the land their ancestors left, is the American dream of 1995. The youths, accompanied by eight of their coaches, and attired in identical jackets, sweaters, and parkas depicting them as American ambassadors of friendship, will visit seven countries of Europe, beginning June 21, [[Page E1237]] playing baseball and cricket against competing teams from each of the countries. When they return to their native United States on July 4, the 219th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, they will be carrying the message of thousands of European youth who believe, like themselves, that competition on the ballfield as a child will wipe out conflict on the battlefield as an adult. These youths of the Sandy Hook Little League are astute scholars, all achieving their academics to the best of their abilities. They are dedicated ball players, hard playing and energetic. They represent more than award-winning, unscored against, record-breaking Little Leaguers who can outclass the best that has ever appeared on a baseball diamond. They are, simply put, good, decent, wholesome American boys, the kind of kid the country can be proud of, the kind of kid who will be the leader of the Nation in the 21st century. They're the youngster with a fishing pole, sitting on the side of the river; the youngster with peanut butter on his nose and a smile across a freckled face; they're the imp who chews on a pencil before finishing that last question on a history quiz, or the big brother who hugs a baby sister, wondering why she cries. They are the ones who can carry the message of friendship; the message that, while an ocean may separate us from the lands of our ancestors, a common interest in sportsmanship, fun, and friendly competition that can narrow the gap that divides people of different cultures, ethnic backgrounds, or religious beliefs. While the United States enjoys lazy, languid days of summer, beginning June 21, our ambassadors of friendship will be visiting their contemporaries in England, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland, and France, competing with them on the baseball diamond, and learning their backgrounds and beliefs across the dinner table, in the park, or on the slopes of the Alps. While the United States resorts to the shore or mountains for summertime recreation, our youthful ambassadors will be touring the historic sites, enjoying the recreational facilities, learning the cultural highlights of the various nationalities they will meet on their historic journey back to their roots. In short, the Sandy Hook Little League representatives will be representing each and every one of us, using the laces of the baseball glove to tie together friendships and the sparkle of a baseball diamond to demonstrate to our European neighbors the jewels of America. I ask you to join me in congratulating special ambassadors: Sean Andrews, Howard Paronto, Shane Kochon, Brian Wolcott, John Bellavance, Louis Collins, Ryan Collins, Chris Springsteen, James Murray, Donnie Hinchman, Lee Murchie, Brian Burton, Matt Smock, Brian Martin, Nick Riker, Chris Kaasmann, Sean Alvator, Scott Strohmenger, Matt Morin and Jason VanDeventer. I ask you to join me in wishing a safe journey to these ambassadors and their coaches: Thomas Andrews, Director, Herb Kochon, Substinence specialist, Rich Martin, security and first aid, Art Post, communications officer, Tom Barry, quartermaster, Lou Collins, field marshal, Herb ``Cappy'' Kaasmann, aquatics director, and Howard Paronto, navigator. I invite you to join me in asking our special ambassadors to carry the message of peace and friendship, of healthy athletic competition and international camaraderie to our friends across the Atlantic Ocean in seven nations of Europe where many of us have roots, memories, or familial ties. I urge you to applaud the efforts of these special ambassadors to spread their message of sportsmanship, friendship, and international peace as they travel through the nations of Great Britain, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland and France. I call on you to recognize these special ambassadors as they travel by plane, bus, boat, train, and on foot spreading the word of an America that is young enough to enjoy the baseball field yet mature enough to recognize that it is the leaders of tomorrow who will forge the future of a nation still considered a youngster in the eyes of its European friends. I welcome your wishes for a safe journey, a successful ambassadorial experience and a lifetime memory for these young ambassadors, our hope for the future, the leaders of the greatest Nation in the world during the 21st century.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 9, 1995, Mr. John Addeo, Jr., of Ocean, NJ, will be honored with a retirement dinner at Squire Pub in West Long Branch, NJ. It is a great honor for me to pay tribute to Mr. Addeo on this occasion. Mr. Addeo has served as the principal of the Woodmere School in Eatontown, NJ, since 1968. In total, Mr. Addeo has dedicated 34 years of his life to education. A 1957 graduate of Long Branch High School and a 1961 graduate of Monmouth University, Mr. Addeo began his teaching career in Asbury Park. He received his master's degree from Newark State College in 1968 and became prinicpal at Woodmere later that year. He also was an instructor at Brookdale Community College and serves as a member of the Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association and the New Jersey Education Association. John and Theresa Addeo are the parents of John Addeo III and Melissa Addeo Ardito. The list of Mr. Addeo's current and former community affiliations is a long one. He is a former member of the Italian- American Association and the Eatontown Lion's Club. He is a charter member and first vice president of the Eatontown/Tinton Falls Kiwanis Club, former Little League baseball and softball coach in Ocean Township, a former member of the Ocean Township Zoning Board of Adjustment and the organizer of Boy Scout Troop 376. Mr. Speaker, throughout his career, John Addeo has exemplified the very best qualities of America's proud tradition of public education. Generations of students who have passed through the Woodmere School-- many of them fully grownup and now in important positions of responsibility, some of them now parents themselves--have benefited from his dedication and leadership. As his friends, colleagues, and students pay tribute on the occasion of his retirement, I am proud to add my voice in recognition of the fine job that John Addeo has done for nearly a quarter of a century in one of the most important jobs I know of: the education of our young people.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the House Republican budget resolution in my opinion is heading us toward block granting Medicaid with strict caps on funding provided by the Federal Government to the States. These proposed caps in Federal spending will reduce services to individuals who benefit from Medicaid. As with Medicare, I believe that Medicaid should be reformed, but in the context of health care reform. One-third of the spending for Medicaid provides benefits to senior citizens, especially in obtaining long-term care such as nursing home care. Another third of the funding assists those who are disabled or blind. As the program is currently structured, by the beginning of the next decade, every child and pregnant woman will receive health care services, universal coverage in effect for children. My fear is that by making the proposed cuts in this program, many of these people will see a reduction in their health care services, and may not even continue to receive health benefits. This is a very negative effect of the House Republican budget, and I hope that we can in Congress over the next 6 months prevent these changes in the Medicaid Program.