Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tonight I join some of my colleagues on the House floor to remember a horrific act taken by Turkey against the citizens of Cyprus 30 years ago. On July 20, 1974, the nation of Turkey violated international law when it brutally invaded the sovereign Republic of Cyprus. Following the Turkish invasion, 200,000 people were forcibly displaced from their homes, and a large number of Cypriots, who were captured during the invasion, are still missing today. Until 3 years ago, both Democratic and Republican administrations here in the U.S. consistently condemned the Turkish government for its illegal occupation and pressured the government to come to the negotiating table in an attempt to finally reunify Cyprus. Past administrations understood that the invading nation of Turkey was to blame for the division and should therefore be punished accordingly. As a result, past administration specifically forbid trade with the illegal government of the occupied north. Our government also prohibited direct flights into the occupied north. As long as Turkey continued its intransigence and refused to leave Cyprus, U.S. administrations correctly believed they should not be rewarded. While this has been consistent U.S. policy, I have grown increasingly concerned that over the past 3 years we have witnessed a blatant shift in Cypriot policy from the Bush administration, specifically from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The Bush administration is punishing Cyprus for overwhelmingly voting in a democratic election against the United Nations Annan Plan. The U.S. State Department and Secretary Rice seem more interested in rewarding those who illegally occupied the northern third of the nation back in 1974, than in actually reunifying the island. Over the past 2 years, our State Department decided to allow Americans to fly into the occupied north in direct violation of international law and the law of the Republic of Cyprus. I joined many of my colleagues from the Congressional Hellenic Caucus in objecting to this action. The State Department responded by saying that it was interested in encouraging the elimination of unnecessary restrictions and barriers that isolate and impede the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community. Unfortunately, it didn't end there. The State Department pursued the option of resuming trade with the occupied north, a direct violation of both domestic law in Cyprus and international law. I am deeply concerned that the State Department's drastic policy reversal towards the government, and the people of the occupied north, will only delay reunification of the entire island. If the U.S. allows direct trade through routes in the north, what incentives do the illegal occupiers have to make any concessions? It's as if the State Department has completely forgotten who is responsible for the invasion of Cyprus in the first place. Mr. Speaker, the Annan Plan was unfair to the Cypriots in many ways, but the issues of property were the ones of most concern to many of the Cypriot Americans that I have talked to. Cypriot Americans are among the refugees that are being denied access to their property by Turkey. Since these Americans cannot return to their illegally seized property, I believe these Cypriot Americans should be allowed to seek financial remedies with either the current inhabitants of the land or the Turkish government itself. Earlier this year I introduced the bipartisan American Owned Property in Occupied Cyprus Claims Act. This legislation authorizes the President to initiate a claims program under which the claims of U.S. nationals, who Turkey has excluded from their property, can be judged before the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. If this commission determined that Cypriot Americans should be compensated for their property, negotiations would then take place between the U.S. and Turkey to determine the proper compensation. My legislation would also empower U.S. district courts to hear causes of action against either the individuals who now occupy those properties or the Turkish government. For 35 years now the people of Cyprus have been denied their independence and freedom because of a foreign aggressor. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in remembering what the Cypriot people have suffered and continue to suffer at the hands of the Turks. I also urge my colleagues to join me in pressuring the Bush administration to return to a policy that once again takes into consideration that entire 33-year history of this conflict. The people of Cyprus deserve nothing less.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that 70 percent of Americans support withdrawing almost all U.S. troops from Iraq by April, and despite a growing number of retired generals and senior Republican Senators joining Democrats in calling for a new strategy in Iraq, many House Republicans remain staunchly in favor of the President's failed Iraq policy. In fact, just last week, the leader of the House Republicans referred to the Senate Republicans who have spoken out against President Bush's failed policy as ``wimps.'' And it begs the question, doesn't the minority leader believe 70 percent of Americans and numerous retired generals are wimps as well? It's a much easier thing to toe the line and keep rubber-stamping the President's failed Iraq policy, as many Republicans in this body continue to do. It's a lot easier to do that than break from your party and the will of our President to take a principled stand for what you believe. Those Republicans who are against the President's policies are the true patriots. Mr. Speaker, despite the name calling, Democrats will continue to push for a responsible redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq, and we hope that some of our Republican colleagues here in the House will join with us.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I'd be very pleased to do that. And if I could, maybe I'll talk; first of all, let me thank you for doing this hour tonight and for everyone who's joining you, because it is really important. And maybe I'll talk about three things, and then I'll turn it back; and that is, one, how we came about with the SCHIP program because I think that relates to the whole bipartisan nature of it, which is what you stressed and is so important. And then maybe I can talk a little bit about the preventative nature of it because you talked about the emergency room and the President's comments about using the emergency room. And then I'll give you my one story. I'm glad you're here, in part because last week we had some of my Republican colleagues, including some on the Health Subcommittee that I chair, who were talking about this program as if it was an entitlement, as if it was almost socialism, you know, sort of raising the specter that we wanted the government to run the health care system. And nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, first of all, you know they neglected to mention that this was bipartisan. And remember, when we're talking 10 years ago, this was the Gingrich Congress. This was the Republican majority that hadn't been the majority for very long. I mean, they were on the crest of this conservative right wing wave and in the midst of that were willing to adopt this bipartisan measure. And the reason was because, in fact it wasn't an entitlement; it wasn't government control. It was just a practical solution to the problems that we faced at the time and still face. I mean, we all know that if people are very poor and likely not working, then they're eligible for Medicaid. And we have a lot of kids, and we have a lot of adults and, you know, people who find themselves because they're not working and their income is very low, having to use the Medicaid program, which is a very legitimate program and covers a lot of people very successfully. But what we found 10 years ago was that there were a lot of other people who, because they were working, for the most part, were above the Medicaid guidelines. Their income was too high. But what were they making? Maybe 20,000 a year, 30,000, in some cases maybe 40,000 a year and they still had kids. And because they were working in jobs where there wasn't a health insurance option available to them, the employer just didn't offer it, or when they went out in the private market, you know, the costs were so prohibitive for them to buy insurance on the private market, which, you know, in New Jersey you might be paying $12,000 if you want to go out and buy insurance on the private market for a family of four, today that they simply couldn't get health insurance. And so there wasn't any ideology involved here. In fact, it was a block grant. It was set up as a block grant which, I don't know if you guys remember because you haven't been here as long as me, but that was like the Republican mantra at the time; that everything should be block granted, all Federal Government programs should be block granted; this shouldn't be an entitlement. And that's what we did. We said, okay, fine. You want to make it a block grant. You know, President Clinton was the President, so we had a divided Congress, and we said, that's fine. Send the money to the States. We'll set up certain guidelines that, you know, you had to be up to 200 percent of poverty. And then if the States wanted to, they could go get waivers and go to 300 percent or higher. And we will give the money to the States. They will match it, and we will cover these kids. Now, the second point I wanted to make is this is a preventative measure, as you pointed out. For President Bush to say people can always use the emergency, that's not the point. The point is we want people to have health insurance so that they go to the doctor on a regular basis, so they take preventative measures, and they don't get so sick, particularly if they are kids, that they have to go to an emergency room to get care. As you said, that is not the way to operate. So we save money because through prevention, and everyone will tell you, any doctor or medical professional will tell you, that the most important thing for a person is to get health care in those first 4 or 5 years of their life. If they are properly cared for and they have the type of preventative care and regular doctor care and dental care that you mentioned in those formative years, then they are likely to be healthy for the rest of their life because that is the most important time. So it makes sense; right? And then I will tell you my story. My story is that before this was enacted, about maybe 11 years ago, I don't go there as much anymore, but I used to go to a luncheon place that was like a diner, but not a New Jersey, but more of a luncheonette, we used to call it then. It is like an old-fashioned word, I guess. And there was a waitress there who I knew for a long time, and she had young children. And she would always say that her husband worked and she worked as a waitress but she was never able to afford health insurance for her kids. She wasn't eligible for Medicaid. She and her husband were both working. I don't know how much they made. But she had tried repeatedly and asked me about getting private insurance. I even gave her some ideas about how whom to contact. And they couldn't afford it. The day that we passed SCHIP, I went back there. I forget how long it was going to be enacted, maybe a couple months from then, and the President signed it. And I said, We are going to have this program now. You can go sign up for it. I went back there whenever it went into effect, and she had signed up her children, and it was the nicest thing that could ever happen. You know how we always say we want to do things for people but a lot of times we are not able to? For me to be able to go back there and have lunch and have her say, Well, now my kids are covered through this program, it was such a wonderful thing. And I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania said that right now there are about 6.7 million kids that are covered by SCHIP. There are about 6 million that are eligible and not enrolled. And the reason they are not enrolled, in part, is because the States have run out of money. Some of them ran out of money in March of this year, and we had to do a supplemental appropriation. So we are not talking about all this extra money in a vacuum. We are talking about needing it in order to try to cover as many of these kids as possible. And our reauthorization will not only include more money but also ways of getting them enrolled. One stop so that they sign up for one Federal program. They can get this so that they don't get dropped. This is a streamlined application. These are all the things that we are doing in addition to the dollars in order to try to cover as many kids as possible. I am staying but I will yield back to the gentlewoman.

Mr. PALLONE. I just think the President has been very inconsistent. You talk about his experience as governor of Texas. But keep in mind that for the last 6 or 7 years, he has actually been granting the waivers. For example, right now the law says 200 percent of poverty, is what the law says in terms of eligibility. But it allows for waivers, and he has given waivers for so many States, I think as many as around 15 States, to go to 300 percent of poverty, to allow adults in some cases. His administration had to approve all those. So I was very surprised in the early part of this year when he said that he wanted to keep it at 200 percent, he didn't want to cover any of the adults, because he has allowed that flexibility during his administration. One of the things that the National Governors Association said unanimously was that they wanted States to have the flexibility. Again, I point out, this is a block grant. The States don't get any more money because they cover adults or go to higher levels of poverty or lesser levels. There is also flexibility, and some States don't count assets in determining that 100 percent or the 300 percent. I think it really makes sense, and the National Governors Association said it makes sense to leave it to the States to have that flexibility, and the President historically has been in favor of that kind of flexibility. So I really don't understand where he is coming from. The other thing I wanted to mention is we were talking about alternatives. When I listened last week to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, some of them were saying, well, people can go to community health centers. That was another thing that I heard. Well, the President talked about emergency rooms and some of our colleagues on the Republican said, well, they can go to community health centers. Well, I am all in favor of expanding community health centers, but in my district I think we have maybe four Federally sponsored, maybe 5, community health centers. There is absolutely no way that the kids and the parents are going to line up. They don't have the ability to handle all the kids. So what you said is true. They are going to end up being in an emergency room. They are part of charity care whose responsibility is on the rest of the taxpayers. Then I heard another one of our Republican colleagues say, well, what we really need is, and I wrote it down, competition in the marketplace. And I was saying, what are we talking about here? Again, this is people who are working, who can't afford health insurance. What competition? They can't go out and buy it on the individual market. So we hear a lot of inconsistencies. I don't want to be so critical of our Republican colleagues, because I want them to join us on this. But some of the statements that have been made by the President in the last few days. I would point out in the Senate, as you know, the Republicans and Democrats came together and they are about to pass a bipartisan SCHIP expansion. So the Republicans in the Senate hopefully can talk to the President and the Republicans in the House and say, what are you doing? We want to continue with this on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. PALLONE. If I could point out one thing, too, because I know there is some debate about this. The States don't get any more money because they cover kids at a higher percentage of poverty or because they cover the adults, and I think there has been some debate about that. Remember, as I said before, this is a block grant, and the money that goes to the States is dependent upon the number of children that they have. So the fact of the matter is that if a State decides, like Connecticut did, that they're going to cover the adults, they just have to stretch out the Federal funds and contribute more State dollars to pay for it. They don't get additional money. I know that this sounds like such a bureaucratic comment, but some Members are worried, well, is my State going to get more because they cover kids at a higher level of poverty or another State covers adults. They don't. It's just a question of usually they're providing more State dollars and having the flexibility to include the parents so that they can cover the kids.

Mr. PALLONE. You know, when you relate your own experiences, I can relate so much to it myself. I have to say, I was thinking back about 10 years ago when we first started the program. Of course, my wife and I were just starting to have kids. My oldest daughter now is 13, so she was three at the time. And I guess I had my son at the time, he was only one. And we were starting to realize at the time about the fact that, first of all, as parents, the idea of kids not having health insurance, you know, young kids at that age was really an awful thing. And that's why we got involved. I say ``we'' because my wife got involved in the whole issue as well. And to think about the fact that you have children and they can't have health insurance or you have to take them to an emergency room is just an awful thing. I worry myself even now because a lot of times your health insurance doesn't cover everything. Like I was faced with the orthodontist bill a couple years ago. And I suddenly realized our insurance doesn't cover orthodontistry. And that was upsetting, but to think of parents that can't even take their kids to the doctor is just an awful thing. One of the things that my wife would always say to me that she observed was that many times government officials, and I don't want to speak about ourselves because I don't want to be critical, but a lot of times politicians don't think about kids because of the fact that they don't vote. And I would almost kind of differ with the gentleman from Maine when he says that, you know, one of the things that we found and one of the reasons why States like Connecticut and New Jersey have covered some of the parents is because they have noticed that a lot of times the parents wouldn't enroll the kids unless they were eligible themselves to be enrolled in the program. And I again go back to, this is really a very practical thing. If some States have found that the parents won't enroll the kids unless they're enrolled, they actually allow the parents to enroll as an incentive to get the kids enrolled. Because you can be cynical. I mean, you have to say that unfortunately sometimes parents don't care or sometimes politicians don't care. And the fact that we were able to do this and basically do a kids' health initiative program and get the political support for it in some ways was an amazing thing. You would say, well, gee, that's a basic thing, why wouldn't that happen? But it wasn't that easy. And we're going to have to continue to fight to expand it today. I just wanted to answer your question, because I know that the gentleman from Maine did, but you said, what would happen if we don't reauthorize? Well, I will just say, first of all, essentially this has happened in some fashion in the last few years. States have run out of money because there wasn't enough money as early as March in a given calendar year. Georgia ran out of money this March. And my own State started to run out of money by May. So we had to actually do a supplemental appropriation. The world knows it as the ``Iraq supplemental,'' but actually it was the supplemental that included the funding for Iraq, and it included about $750 million for SCHIP because States, in fact, were running out of money. In my own State of New Jersey a couple of years had to cut back on the program and actually lower the eligibility and eliminate parents because of the fact that they started to run out of money. So we have experience of what actually happens if we don't provide the additional funds. The other thing, too, is that until last year, every year for the first 9 years of the program, the number of uninsured kids in the country was going down. But last year, for the first time, the number of uninsured kids went up. So this is a crisis. I mean, if we're going to get to those extra kids, we really have to do something.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the irrefutable fact of the Armenian genocide. Looking at the history of this catastrophic event from 1915 to 1918 and the impact it had on the Armenian people, it is impossible to deny that this was indeed genocide by all accounts. But one way, Mr. Speaker, to bear witness to the truth is to make reference to personal accounts when the genocide occurred at the hands of the Ottoman Turks. Thousands of Armenians have their own account of the horrific events their families had to endure, but tonight I would like to tell the story of one person, Mrs. Haigoohi Hanessian, from Syracuse, New York. Mrs. Hanessian was born in 1906 in Taurus, Turkey. In 1909, her family fled from their home after receiving word that the Turks were leading a massacre on all Armenians in the area. They took refuge in an institution, and I should say they took refuge, Mr. Speaker, in an American institution, and finally returned to their home only to find it burned to the ground. After traveling and staying with family in different areas, they eventually moved back to Taurus, Turkey. Yet, again, in 1915, the Armenians were being exiled. Her family was forced to board a train with an unknown destination. With thousands of others, they were herded into these trains, confined in small boxcars for days with no food and no water. Mrs. Hanessian recalls that if someone died on the train, they were simply thrown off the train and were left on the side of the tracks. When they finally arrived at their destination, they were placed in barracks. She speaks of the sentiments towards the Armenians at the time, stating, ``They wanted all the Armenians to vanish from the Earth. Instead of killing them, they suffered and died.'' The Armenians were then marched through desert towards Syria in extreme heat, again with no food and no water. On the way, many died and were left to rot. After they reached a small village in Syria, they stayed until they were told to move again. She remembers, ``An order came from all the General Headquarters that all Armenians either be killed or deny their religion and become Muslims.'' Many people converted to save their lives, while others died to preserve their faith. The Armenians were forced to relocate from village to village. They were left with no money and no supplies, and had to find ways to survive. She said, ``You couldn't get in touch with anybody. You didn't know what to do. We were hungry. It was terrible. We were all dying. We were just skeletons, no food, no nothing.'' Unlike much of Mrs. Hanessian's family who died or disappeared in the genocide, she survived and was able to relocate to the United States and rebuild her life in Syracuse, New York. She has since passed away, but not before she left her story behind, and I am proud to be able to retell her memories, which must never be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my support this evening for swift passage of H. Resolution 106, reaffirming the Armenian Genocide. The resolution now has a majority of the Members of the House as cosponsors on a bipartisan basis. As the first genocide of the 20th century, it is morally imperative that we remember this atrocity and collectively demand reaffirmation of this crime against humanity. By properly affirming the Armenian genocide, we can also help ensure its legacy and rightfully honor its victims and survivors like Mrs. Hanessian.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Armenian genocide that was orchestrated by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1918 is an irrefutable fact. Looking at the history of this catastrophic event, it is impossible to deny that this was genocide on all accounts. Now, one way to bear witness to the truth is to make reference to firsthand accounts which were made at the time that the Armenian genocide occurred. Henry Morgenthau served with dignity as U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916. In the wake of surging nationalism in Turkey and alarmed at reports of the Armenian genocide, he repeatedly appealed to the U.S. Government to intervene, without success. Morgenthau addressed the genocide of the Armenians in a 1915 dispatch to the State Department in which he warned that ``a campaign of race extermination is in progress.'' He then appealed to Ottoman rulers, also without result, and finally, he published his opinions in his 1918 book of memoirs, ``Ambassador Morgenthau's Story,'' which documented his experiences while in Turkey, including his vivid views of the Armenian genocide. Morgenthau wrote, ``When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to the whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact. I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no terrible episode as this.'' In one of his addresses, Morgenthau commented on the U.S. efforts during the Armenian genocide. ``If America is to condone these offenses, if she is going to permit to continue conditions that threaten and permit their repetition, she is party to the crime. These people must be freed from the agony and danger of such horrors. They must not only be saved for the present but they must be given assurance that they will be free in peace and that no harm can come to them.'' At great personal risk and sacrifice, Ambassador Morgenthau chose to intervene on behalf of the Armenians and even managed to help rescue an unknown number of Armenians. Of course, in the end, his efforts were unsuccessful. Drained by his efforts to avert this disaster, Morgenthau returned to the United States in 1916 and, for the remainder of World War I, dedicated himself to raising funds for the surviving Armenians. He is considered a hero in Armenia and an American man of courage and character. Mr. Speaker, if America is going to live up to the standards we have set for ourselves and continue to lead the world in affirming human rights everywhere, we need to follow Ambassador Morgenthau's example. We must stand up and recognize the tragic events that began in 1915 for what they were, the systematic elimination of a people. By recognizing these actions as genocide, we can renew our commitment to prevent such atrocities from occurring again. I'm here this evening because I want to give a firsthand account that the Armenian genocide occurred. I wish to express my support for swift passage of H. Res. 106, which reaffirms the Armenian genocide. We now have a majority of the House of Representatives, both Democrats and Republicans, as cosponsors of this bill. It's time that it was brought to floor. As the first genocide of the 20th century, it is morally imperative that we remember this atrocity and collectively demand reaffirmation of this crime against humanity.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I am extremely proud to say that the bill before us is a product of a bipartisan effort to ensure that the Food and Drug Administration has the authority and resources it needs to ensure that American consumers have timely access to safe and effective prescription drugs and medical devices. This bill accomplishes a number of important goals. First and foremost, the legislation will empower the FDA to protect patients from potentially harmful prescription drugs. Over the past few years, it has become clear that consumers have been placed in harm's way due to the failing of our current drug safety system. The legislation we are passing today will lay the groundwork for restoring public confidence in the FDA by giving it the tools it needs to safeguard the public health. There are many other significant measures included in the bill before us, such as the reauthorization of two important user-fee programs that will provide the FDA with the financial resources it needs to approve applications for new drugs and devices to be marketed. In addition to new funding for the pre-market review activities of FDA, this bill includes a substantial amount of new funding for post-market safety activities. The bill will also reauthorize two important programs that will help encourage drug makers to conduct research into the appropriate use of prescription drugs in pediatric populations. Similarly, we are providing new incentives to device manufacturers to develop products that are specifically designed for use in children. Finally, this bill establishes the Reagan-Udall Foundation, which will help build public- private partnerships designed to advance the mission of the FDA. I would like to thank all the Members who devoted so many hours and days to developing this bill. Specifically, I would like to thank Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member Barton, Mr. Deal, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Markey, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Rogers and Dr. Burgess, as well, all of them, for their hard work and devoted staff, as well, because of all the support that the staff did in their efforts in making this bill possible. In closing, I would just like to reiterate that this bill has strong bipartisan support as well as support from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries and a number of consumer advocacy organizations. Few times in the past do I recall that we have achieved such a wide-ranging consensus on a bill of this size or importance. I strongly urge my colleagues to support its passage.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to the vote on H.R. 2900, I yield myself time to acknowledge the months of work that Members have done leading to this bill coming before the House today. It truly was a bipartisan effort, and everyone worked so hard. I also wish to take a moment to recognize the efforts of the staff who worked long hours in ensuring we produced a quality piece of legislation. In particular, I thank Warren Burke and Ellen Sutherland, professional staff with the Office of Legislative Counsel, for their outstanding service. I also want to thank the staff of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I'm not going to mention the Republicans, not because they didn't do as much work, because they certainly did, but I don't remember all their names. I don't want to eliminate anybody. As far as the Democratic staff is concerned, I do want to specifically mention John Ford, Pete Goodloe, Jack Maniko, Melissa Sidman, Jessica McNiece, Bob Clark and Virgil Miller. And from Mr. Waxman's staff, because Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey played a major role in this bill and Mr. Waxman's staff in particular, Karen Nelson, Rachel Sher and Stephen Cha. And again, everyone worked very hard on this. I think it is really remarkable that we were able to achieve a consensus and bring this up today, particularly under suspension.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) who had a great deal to do with putting this bill together.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Exactly. And where do these kids go? They have no place to go. The only place they go is if they get sick or they need attention, they have to go to the hospital emergency room. And what kind of a way is that to operate a health care system where you have to take your kid to the hospital emergency room because they can't see a doctor on a regular basis. Now, one of them said community health centers. I'm all for community health centers. I think it would be wonderful if every town in the country had a community health center and you could go there and get free care, but that's not the reality. In my district, we have maybe three or four of these community health centers. I represent about 650,000 people, and we have maybe three or four of these federally sponsored community health centers. There is no way in the world that these parents that take their kids, all who are uninsured, to these community health centers. There is absolutely no way that that's going to happen.

Mr. PALLONE. Right. And we're not talking about anything new here.

Mr. PALLONE. We're talking about $50 billion over the next 5 years, about $10 billion more per year, to cover the rest of the kids that are currently eligible for this program.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I just want to follow up on what you said. You know, this money that we give to States to help cover these kids in the last few years has run out very early for a lot of States. And, again, it was the gentleman from Georgia's own State, it was State representatives, Secretary of Health and Human Services, whatever they call that person in the State, came down here in February. And they were over in the Speaker's office, and I was asked to come. And there were Republicans and Democratic Congressmen in that room. Now, I can't say for sure that the gentleman who spoke tonight was there, but there were other Republicans. He may have been, but I don't want to say for sure because I don't remember. But there definitely were Republican Congressmen from the State of Georgia in that room over in the Speaker's office, along with Democrats. And they said, you've got to pass an emergency supplemental bill to give us more money for SCHIP because we're going to run out of our yearly allotment on March 1; two months into the year. So they said, please, do something. Well, what we did is we attached that to the emergency supplemental bill. Some people know that as the Iraq supplemental, but it really covered a lot of different things. And as you say, we put $750 million just to cover Georgia and other States to the end of this year. And you know how difficult it was. The President threatened to veto it three or four times. We finally got it passed. And every month I would get calls or letters from the Georgia delegation saying, when are you going to pass this money because we're going to have to tell these kids that they don't have any health insurance. So I don't understand how they come down here on the Republican side and complain about this program that they helped start, that their State is asking for money. Most of the people in that room from the State of Georgia were Republican, not Democrats, okay. And we're just practically saying, okay, look, we don't want to have to run out of this money every year because obviously this program is growing because the number of uninsured kids, again, from working families, keeps getting bigger every year. It's up to something like nine million children nationally that don't have any health insurance. Okay. And what we're saying is, let's come up with a larger pot of money over the next 5 years to pay for these kids so that, there is about six million of those nine million that are eligible for the children's health SCHIP program right now, eligible under the current law. There is about 6.7 that are covered, there are another 6 million that are eligible under the current law that President Bush and the Republicans have been supporting for the last 10 years, and there just isn't enough money to cover them. So all we're saying is, let's take some money, in this case over 5 years it would cost about maybe $50 billion to cover these kids that are already eligible for this SCHIP program. Now, how in the world the Democratic initiative to simply pay for kids that are already eligible for this program that's already on the books becomes socialism or entitlements or some kind of radical procedure here. For the life of me, I simply do not understand. I mean, there is nothing here that's new. There is nothing new here. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate it, and I know you want to get back to the Iraq war, as I think you should. I want to thank you again, and just say in conclusion from my part of this tonight, what I really don't like is trying to make this into an ideological debate. When I hear my colleagues on the Republican side, instead of being practical and looking at what is going to accomplish something, to start making it ideological and talk about entitlements and socialism and the whole thing, we don't need that. We don't need that rhetoric here. We as Democrats are trying to accomplish things in a practical way, without ideology, without right or left and all this jargon that we are hearing from the other side. I just hope that it doesn't continue, because otherwise I am going to come down here every night and talk about why practically speaking the children's health initiative is a good program.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from Florida, first of all, for being here tonight and for being here for so many nights for so many years now. I know they call them the ``30-Something,'' but it's several years now that you've been doing this on a regular basis, and drawing attention to what the Democrats are doing, and of course when we were in the minority, pointing out the contrasts between ourselves and the Republican majority. I don't want to give a course in history here tonight, but I have to take issue with what my colleagues from Tennessee and Georgia just said with regard to the children's health initiative. First of all, I think it's really important, and I know you say this all the time, that we're not here as ideologues. I'm not here because I'm a liberal or a conservative or because I want a government-run program or a privately run program. As far as I'm concerned, if everybody could get health care under some kind of privately run insurance program and it was all affordable and we could cover everybody, that would be fine with me. The only reason that the SCHIP or the children's health program was set up about 10 years ago, and I was there and I was part of it at the time, and it was done on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats supported it, was because we realized that there were more and more children in this country that were going without health care. And we did not set up an entitlement. I heard my colleagues from Tennessee and Georgia on the Republican side repeatedly refer to this as an entitlement program. It is not an entitlement program. It is a program that simply gives money in a block grant. I mean, nothing could be less of an entitlement than a block grant, to States like Georgia and Tennessee that they match to try to cover children that don't have health insurance. Now, let me stress this is for parents who work who have children. We have a Medicaid program for people who are very low income. But what we found 10 years ago, and again, on a bipartisan basis, just as many Republicans as Democrats, what we found 10 years ago was there are a lot of people who work for a living, but they don't get health insurance on the job and they cannot afford to go out in the individual market privately and buy it. I mean, that could cost you $12,000- $15,000 a year if you have to go out for a family of four and buy health insurance. If you're making 20, 30, $40,000 a year, you can't afford to pay $12,000-$15,000 a year for health insurance for yourself and your children. So the Federal Government decided, let's give some money to the States. They will match it, and they can help cover these children of working parents whose income is a little too high so they don't qualify for Medicaid, but they can't get health care on the job because their employer doesn't offer it, and they can't afford to go out and buy it on the individual market. Now, what is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with that. I cannot understand how anyone on the other side of the aisle, including my two Republican colleagues that just spoke, would come out and say that we don't want kids to have health insurance. I mean, what are they talking about? There is no alternative for these people other than to go to the emergency room or the hospital. They can't get it on their job. They can't afford to buy it privately on the individual market. They have no alternative. And that is simply all we offer to do. And now my colleagues on the Republican side are talking about entitlements, raising socialism. I mean, this is not an ideological issue. This is just a practical way of trying to deal with a problem. Now, let me tell you something. You already made reference, my colleague, to the fact that some States this year ran out of money to pay for this children's health initiative very earlier, and the State that came here crying first was the State of Georgia.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, a week does not go by without at least one or two Republican Senators coming forward and saying what many of us have known for months, that the President's Iraq strategy has failed. First it was Senators Lugar and Voinovich. Then last week Senator Domenici joined them in saying that a serious change in course is needed. And then on Monday Senator Snowe told NBC News that the time has come for binding legislation to bring home most of our troops. The Senate Republican comments are welcome, but actions speak louder than words. Senate Republicans can't just say that a change in direction is needed; they have to actually help us change the course of the war. And where exactly are the House Republicans? Does their silence indicate that they will once again rubber-stamp the President's failed Iraq policy? If they won't listen to us, they should at least listen to respected members of their own party who are saying that we simply cannot continue on this same failed course. Mr. Speaker, this month Democrats will once again demand change in Iraq. And it's time that our Republican colleagues join us.