Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, we do not have much time, but if I could just summarize, I think we pretty much pointed out first of all why the Democratic tax cut alternative is fairer, because it essentially targets tax cuts on those who need them. As was pointed out by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], we are talking about scarce resources here. This is a balanced budget plan. We want to give tax cuts where they are needed. That is really essentially what the Democrats are all about: making it fair, making it primarily for those who need them. It is obviously a lot better for working families. We talked about the per-child tax credit. We talked about how it is better for education, because it gives more money to people who have the need, whether they are in the first 2 years of college or they are in 4 years of college, whether they are in graduate education. Lastly, and certainly no less important, is it is so much better with regard to the deficit. I think there is the really telling point, if you will, when I talk to my constituents. When they listen to what the gentleman from Washington said, if we go through this process and at the end of this process, 10 years from now, we end up with an even larger deficit than we have now, basically we are lying to the American people.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas, and particularly emphasize again that in many ways what I think the Republican leadership is trying to do is to pull the wool over the American people. They talk about capital gains and estate tax relief. We know in certain circumstances if it is targeted, that can be very beneficial to certain middle-income people. But the problem is that through various gimmicks essentially what they are doing is having across the board, if you will, changes in capital gains and estate tax, and then using gimmicks so the amount of money that is available, particularly after the first 10 years, grows. What that essentially does is gives most of the relief to wealthy individuals. What we need to do, and I think that is what all of us are doing tonight, we need to point out that we are in favor of capital gains tax cuts, we are in favor of estate tax cuts, but we want them to be targeted. We want the capital gains tax cuts to be targeted to the average homeowner, as the gentlewoman pointed out. We want the estate tax relief to be targeted to family owned businesses, small businesses, farmers, those who need this kind of relief. Mr. Speaker, I just think it is very important for us to continue this discussion and make our colleagues and the public understand, because too often people just hear tax relief, capital gains, estate tax, and they think somehow that is going to benefit them. It does not unless we do it in a way that benefits and targets so it helps the average person. That is what the Democratic alternative is really all about.

Mr. PALLONE. And that is exactly what most people think that we are avoiding with this balanced budget bill, that we are talking austerity measures now to help the people later down the road, the kids, the grandchildren, and in fact it is just the opposite. I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of moving America's Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and to require U.S. Government publications refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I would also like to take this opportunity to urge the Palestinian Authority to increase its efforts to minimize the horrors of terrorism and encourage commerce between Israelis and Palestinians. My support for moving the embassy is not to say that I do not support the peace process, it is merely to state that I feel Jerusalem should be Israel's capital and our embassy should be located there. In every country in the world, in which the United States has diplomatic relations, we have our embassy located in its capital, except Israel. How can America claim support for Israel, and support for its sovereignty over Jerusalem, and not have our embassy located there? As the peace process continues, it will be important for the Palestinian Authority and Israel to know where America stands. Mr. Speaker, Jerusalem is not negotiable. As Israel's closest ally, the United States has the responsibility to defend the permanent status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Most Members of Congress support Israel's right to exist, and most recognize that Jerusalem is its capital. Therefore, it is time not only to express our support for Israel, but to prove it by moving our Embassy to Jerusalem. Mr. Speaker, this week Congress celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Six Days War. Israel was attacked by its neighbors on all sides. Yet, Israel's will to survive and establish itself as a young nation ruled the day. Now, 30 years later the time has come for America to recognize Israeli accomplishments and celebrate these accomplishments by declaring Jerusalem the true capital of Israel. On this historic occasion, I feel America has the opportunity to send a clear message to Israel, and her new found friends in the Middle East, as well as her enemies, that we will always support Jerusalem as the proper capital of Israel, and will prove our support by moving our embassy there by 1999.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to report that a leading national business publication has discovered what I have known all my life--that the Monmouth-Ocean County area of New Jersey is one of the best places to live in the United States. I would also like to note that Middlesex County, also in my district, is part of a region which moved from 83d to 29th in the national ranking. I grew up in Long Branch, NJ, a city in historic Monmouth County, where right at my doorstep were the Atlantic Ocean, beautiful rivers and even a few lakes. New York City, with all of its cultural attractions and employment possibilities, was a 1-hour drive away. Locally, a light industrial economic base combined with a thriving tourist season resulted in the creation of many jobs for area families. Monmouth County scored high on the criteria ranked as important by the readers of Money magazine which conducted the survey. These criteria included a low crime rate, excellent health care, and a clean environment. The high scores in these areas don't just happen by accident--they are the result of a great deal of hard work by the citizens of central Jersey over a period of many years. I would like to include for the Record an article which appeared in the Asbury Park Press today which describes the Monmouth-Ocean County area and why it has earned the designation as the third most livable place in the United States. The article follows: [From the Asbury Park Press, June 12, 1997] Happy? We Shore Are! (By Dennis P. Carmody) If you want to live someplace better than Monmouth and Ocean counties, better pack your parka and trudge on up to Nashua, N.H., or Rochester, Minn. At least that is what Money magazine concluded in the publication's annual survey of the best places to live. In the survey released yesterday, Monmouth and Ocean counties placed higher than ever before, coming in third behind first-place Nashua and second-place Rochester. It came in first among metropolitan areas with a million or more residents. ``We're just elated!'' said Pat Padula, tourism representative for Monmouth County. ``I think this will make a great impact.'' ``It's great news and an independent evaluation of why we're all proud to call this area home,'' said John C. Bartlett Jr., director of the Ocean County Board of Freeholders. The region's ranking has proved very volatile in the 11 years since the magazine started the list. Just two years ago Monmouth and Ocean counties fell to 167th place; the region's lowest mark ever. Last year it jumped to 38th place. ``Magazine come out with lists because lists sell magazines,'' cautioned Jack Preston, president of the Monmouth County Association of Realtors. Still, this ranking will lead some folks to take a second look at the area. ``You can be in the countryside here and five minutes later you're at the ocean,'' Preston said. ``Two minutes after that you can be by a river.'' Sue Tauriello, president of the Ocean County Association of Realtors, said she planned to make copies of the story to hand out to all her agents at her Dover Township office. She said the good news would help counter some of the bad national impressions the area has received of late, such as the cancer scare in Dover Township and the murder of Kathleen Stanfield Weinstein, a schoolteacher abducted from a Dover shopping center. Each year the magazine asks a cross-section of readers to rank 41 different factors that affect a town's quality of life, such as health care, sunny weather and nearby professional sports, said Richard Eisenberg, executive editor for Money. The magazine's editors then weigh the nation's 300 largest metropolitan areas against those preferences to come up with its list. Changes in reader preferences, economic booms and busts and new sources of data sometimes lead to dramatic shifts in rank, Eisenberg said. For example, while a low crime rate was considered the most important attribute for the second year in a row, health care issues rose in prominence in this year's survey, Eisenberg said. That helped Monmouth and Ocean counties, home to 10 major hospitals, Eisenberg said. The counties' low crime rate, about 65 percent below the national average, also helped, according to the magazine. So did the beaches and parks. Monmouth and Ocean counties benefited from a new way of ranking the arts. For the first time, the two counties were considered close enough to New York that they could bask in its cultural glory, Eisenberg said. The two counties lagged in transportation. About 40 percent of residents here work outside the two counties, and their average commute of 27 minutes was seventh-highest on the list, the magazine reported. Monmouth and Ocean counties were not alone in their improvements. The seven other metropolitan regions in New Jersey all rose in the ranks too. Central New Jersey, which includes Middlesex, Somerset and Hunterdon counties, saw its placing improve from 83rd to 29th, the magazine reported. Bergen and Passaic counties jumped further than any other area of the list rising 158 slots from 228th to 70th. Mercer County had the second-highest jump, rising 139 slots from 265th to 126th. Northwest New Jersey, comprised of Essex, Morris, Sussex, Union and Warren counties, rose from 240th place to 136th. Cumberland County rose from 223rd place to 166th while Atlantic and Cape May counties rose from 268th to 199th. Rounding out the state was Hudson County, which improved from 290th to 220th. Improvement in the state's economy is a factor, said James W. Hughes, dean of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University, New Brunswick. ``In the past year the gap between New Jersey and the rest of the country in both the unemployment rate and job growth has really started to close,'' Hughes said. In April, New Jersey's unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, just 0.3 percent higher than the national average, according to the state Labor Department. Monmouth County's jobless rate was even lower at 4.3 percent, while Ocean's tied with the state at 5.2 percent, according to the department. The magazine's top 10 places were dominated by New Hampshire and Florida. After Monmouth and Ocean counties, Punta Gorda, Fla., came in fourth, followed by the New Hampshire towns of Portsmouth and Manchester. Last year's list-topper, Madison, Wis., came in seventh this year, followed by the highest-ranked large city on the list, San Jose, Calif. Jacksonville and Fort Walton Beach, Fla., rounded out the top 10. Davenport, Iowa, took last place in this year's survey because of its high crime rate and poor economy.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington as well as the chairman of the committee. I totally support this amendment. I am not going to repeat the background of what occurred there and the brutal killing of the second hostage that was mentioned by the gentleman, but I do feel that we need to send a message to the Al-Faran and I believe that this will accomplish that. I just wanted to say that while I was in India, I talked to former Prime Minister Devde on the hostage situation, and he informed me he could not confirm nor deny the status of Donald Hutchings, but he did assure me he would continue to investigate the situation and the Indian Government would do all it can to find and release the hostages. Before my trip to India this year, I had the opportunity to meet with Donald Hutchings' wife, Jane Schelly. Obviously, she was upset and would like the safe return of her husband, and although the safe return of her husband does not look promising, she continues to hope. In her heart she believes her husband is alive and will return back to home in the United States. Mr. Chairman, we cannot lose hope. We need to support this amendment and we must urge the State Department to work with India, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway in securing the release of these hostages. I think the gentleman's amendment will help in that regard and thank him for sponsoring it.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to stress that the resolution states the U.S. reaffirms its neutrality in the conflict. What we have purposely done here is to craft language that would avoid the underlying issue of territorial integrity versus self-determination or some of the other principles that are now being discussed in the context of the negotiations. So we purposely have not used any of those principles in crafting the language.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word on the en bloc amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], as well as the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and the ranking members for including my two amendments as part of the en bloc amendment. Just very briefly, if I could comment on the two amendments. One that was already mentioned by the gentleman from Nebraska directs the Clinton administration to work closely with Indian Prime Minister Gujral in strengthening relations with the U.S., protecting U.S. interests in South Asia, and creating peace and stability in the region. I just believe that this is important, because U.S. relations in South Asia are at the critical point, and I think it is imperative that we recognize and support the ``Gujral Doctrine'' which basically has been an instrument to bring peace between the various nations in South Asia. I think many of us know that after three wars and 50 years of tense relations, India and Pakistan have finally agreed to work together to promote peace and economic prosperity, not only through bilateral relations, but also through other countries in South Asia. The main reason for this amendment was to basically indicate U.S. support for the Gujral Doctrine which says that these countries should work together, not only diplomatically and to avoid possible conflict, but also economically and in terms of their trade. The other en bloc amendment relates to democracy, sovereignty and human rights in Belarus. Again, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member. This amendment expresses the sense of Congress that our President should strongly urge the government of President Lukashenka of the Republic of Belarus to defend the sovereignty of Belarus, maintain its independence from the Russian Federation, abide by the provisions of the Helsinki Accords, as well as Belarus's own constitution, and guarantee freedom of the press, enforce separation of powers and allow for the Belarusan language and culture to flourish. That may all seem very simple and something that any nation would normally do and any president would normally do. But as I think most of us know, the recently installed parliament of Belarus approved an integration deal with Russia last week, and this parliament was created after a preferential referendum last year and has been criticized as being a rubber stamp for the hard-line President Lukashenka. Many opposition leaders in Belarus, as well as Western observers, believe that last year's referendum was illegitimate. Essentially what we have in Belarus is an effort to suppress the Belarusan language and culture and to integrate it almost in terms of one nation ultimately with Russia. What we are saying in this amendment is that that is not the way that Belarus should go. The Belarusan-American community feels very strongly that this integration deal is not the way to go and is a sellout of Belarusan national interests. Again, I want to thank the chairman and others who have been supportive in including this in the en bloc amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say, which I think is very obvious, my other colleague from New York pointed out, $3 billion into the local economy. Let me just say as a resident and representing New Jersey, I know that a significant amount of that money also comes to our State. I am sure it goes to Connecticut. I am sure there are people that fly down to Miami or other places in Florida and spend their vacation. The bottom line is that the U.N. is a good deal for the United States in terms of having its center located here in New York in this country. It makes no sense, by any rational sense of the imagination, why we would want it to move out. We still have to pay dues. We still have to do the other things to be part of the organization. Why not have it here where the people are spending all this money in our local economies and, as the gentleman said, not only in New York but in a lot of other States. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Dickey]. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I am submitting this amendment on behalf of myself and my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg]. The provision reaffirms the current U.S. Government position of neutrality in working for a negotiated settlement to the conflict over Nagorno-Karabagh. The U.S., as was mentioned in the amendment, is a cochair of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Minsk Group, which is charged with negotiating a political solution to the Nagorno- Karabagh conflict. The amendment would also encourage direct talks between the parties to the conflict, Armenia, Nagorno-Karabagh and Azerbaijan. As was mentioned when the amendment was read, part of the amendment is basically asking the U.S. to take a greater leadership role in working for a negotiated settlement of the conflict and, in particular, that the U.S.'s activities as cochair of the Minsk Group be a priority of the Department of State. The U.S. has identified a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict as a vital interest and we have actually appointed a U.S. special negotiator for this purpose. Although a cease-fire has mostly held for about 3 years in the area, the OSCE-brokered negotiations intended to produce a political settlement are deadlocked. Congress can help to jump-start the negotiating process by going on record in support of a negotiated settlement and reaffirming U.S. neutrality. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into a lengthy historical discussion, but I did want to mention that the collapse of the Soviet Union allowed the formerly captive nations to have a rebirth of freedom. Unfortunately, the end of the Soviet Union also exposed problems created by the way borders were drawn during the Stalin era, setting the stage for subsequent ethnic conflicts. In the case of Karabagh, historically populated by Armenians, as it still is today, but assigned to Azerbaijan, this is really a striking example of some of the problems that resulted from the lines that were drawn during the Stalinist era. While it is ultimately up to the parties directly involved to agree to a negotiated settlement, the power and the prestige of the United States counts for a great deal, and I believe that people listen to us and our influence can be of great help in moving forward on the peace process.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I really could not have said it any better, so I am going to pretty much stop here as well. But I wanted to just reiterate one of the things that my colleague said before we end, and that is that what we really are trying to do here is build upon the existing system. That is, we know that most people get their health insurance through an employer-based system; and we want to build upon that with some of these private health care reforms. Medicaid generally has worked and it can be expanded and made better. Lastly, with the matching grant programs, there are a lot of State private-public partnerships that are out there. A lot of States have done some very innovative things with private-public partnerships. I hope the matching grant program, if we can get that into effect, will build upon those various States' activities as well. So, idealogically, this really is something that can cross party lines because it does not really have any idealogy, it builds upon existing programs and it is something that I believe can be supported on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio Mr. Strickland for his comments. He brought up a number of things that I think are very important. I have tried and sometimes I am partisan, sometimes I am not. On this particular occasion, I tend to be very partisan. Really, for a long time, the Republican leadership was essentially ignoring this issue of kids' health insurance, the 10 million uninsured children that my colleague mentioned. Now that it is in the budget agreement, and presumably there is a pot of money, I think about $16 billion over 5 years, that is available for this. It is not likely that that amount of money would cover, as my colleague said, more than about half of the 10 million children. But, obviously, what we want to do as Democrats is to make sure, on the one hand, that the $16 billion that is available covers as many kids as possible. Then we also feel very strongly as a group, and I know the Democratic task force does on health care, that we need to go beyond that and try to find a way to insure the other kids that are not currently insured. There are obviously various ways to go about this. The gentleman from Ohio mentioned the Medicaid program, which is of course our primary program now for those who are below the poverty level or close to the poverty level. One of the things that we have noticed in the task force in some of the hearings and meetings that we have had is that there are actually 3 million children who are now eligible for the Medicaid program that do not sign up for one reason or another. After meeting with some of the families and talking with some of the health care professionals, what we found is that there are a lot of reasons why those 3 million kids are not covered. First of all, as my colleague mentioned, a lot of times the parents are both working and they just do not have the time to be bothered. They are not aware or they just find that the bureaucracy of having to sign the kids up, I do not mean they do not want to be bothered in the sense they do not want to help, but they are just not aware, for whatever bureaucratic reasons, they just do not know to sign the kids up. There is also an extreme element of pride. I know a lot of people, unfortunately, I think see Medicaid as a welfare program. And if they are working, which most of these people that are eligible that are not signing up are overwhelmingly working, they are reluctant to sign up for Medicaid, they say they see it as some sort of Government handout. What we have done in our Democratic task force proposal is to, at least initially, and the President has talked about this as well, try to find a way to get these 3 million children who are eligible for Medicaid signed up. And our plan, basically, provides grants to States to help local communities in the outreach programs to basically reach out in a flexible way to try to find ways in the community to do that. The other problem with the Medicaid program is right now many kids are not covered for the full year. In other words, what they do is they determine eligibility every three months or so. And so, a kid can be on Medicaid for one or two months and then off Medicaid again. So one of the things that we have said in our plan is that we want to make sure kids are covered year round; in other words, if they are enrolled initially in Medicaid, that they at least stay on the rolls for 1 year. I think that that allows a certain amount of continuity and probably also would encourage people who are eligible for Medicaid but have not signed up to do so. The other thing that my colleague mentioned is obviously we have the Medicaid program and we can find ways to expand it to stay just above the poverty level or a certain percentage above the poverty level, but I think we also need to go beyond the Medicaid program. Many people are simply not going to be eligible because they have a little higher income, but if their income is just a little higher than the so-called poverty level, they are still competing for this resource with the rent, with food, with clothes, and if they have to make a choice, a lot of times the choice cannot be to pay for health insurance because of the circumstances. They may not be eligible for a group policy. They may not be offered through their employment. So what we have talked about, basically, is what we call Medikids, which is sort of a matching grant program. That is, you provide a certain amount of money to the States with a matching grant, and they, again in a flexible way, try to find ways to expand health care coverage for people that are not eligible for Medicaid and cover people possibly up to maybe 300 percent of the poverty level. I think that will take us up to, depending on the situation, maybe up to something like 35 or 40,000 for a family of 4. Now, the other thing that we have talked about in the task force and as part of the legislation we put forward was a proposal or a component actually developed by another one of our colleagues on the Committee on Commerce, the gentlewoman from Washington Ms. Furse. What she has pointed out is that many times families are eligible for a group plan, which of course means lower costs than if they have to buy health insurance individually. But many group plans do not offer kids-only insurance, and the parents may find that they cannot afford to pay for the whole family but they would like to pay for the kids. So what we are doing in this proposal is mandating that they be able to buy kids' health insurance only if they want, if they are eligible for a group policy. The other thing is that under the Federal law, the COBRA legislation, which people who, for example, if they lose their employment or they want to take advantage of the COBRA law, oftentimes they also cannot buy a health insurance policy just for the kids. So we are saying also to mandate the COBRA provide kids-only health insurance. I believe very strongly with our task force proposal that we could get at almost all the 10 million children, because essentially what we are doing is expanding Medicaid, we are then providing a matching grant program for those above the Medicaid level, and then for those who get to the level of maybe 40, 45 thousand and above, who can afford private insurance, we are making those changes in the insurance law so that they would be able to buy kids-only insurance. These are the ways that we have talked about over the last 6 months of trying to enroll as many of these 10 million kids as possible. The last thing I want to mention, too, is that the number continues to grow. The estimate that I have seen from some of the advocacy groups is that by the year 2000, this number is going to be 12 million. So if we do not act now or do not act in a way that is going to provide as many kids as possible, we may cover five million and find out we have another 7 million by the year 2,000 that are not eligible.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I am submitting this amendment on behalf of myself and my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich]. The amendment simply recognizes the importance to U.S. national interests of promoting regional cooperation between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. Encouraging the construction of an oil pipeline from Azerbaijan through Armenia to Turkish ports is a tangible way to support regional cooperation. The Caspian Sea area has been identified as one of the world's most abundant sources of oil. Given the need to decrease U.S. energy dependence on Middle Eastern oil, it makes sense for the United States to promote the development of this resource. Indeed, U.S. oil companies are already involved in this process. Mr. Chairman, to be a commercially viable resource, the oil has to be transported to world markets. The most logical way to bring the oil to the outside world is via an overland pipeline from the source to Mediterranean ports in Turkey. The most direct route would pass through the Republic of Armenia. Alternative pipeline routes have been proposed. I want to stress, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment would in no way prejudice these other routes. Indeed there are likely to be and could be other routes. Armenia, as a stable democratic region, would be able to safely maintain the stretch of pipeline stretching through its territory. In addition, giving the three neighboring countries a shared stake in the maintenance of the pipeline would improve confidence and cooperation in this troubled region and help provide economic benefits, I believe, to all of the nations and the Caucasus. Given the important role that the U.S. is playing in developing this resource, we believe it makes sense for Congress to go on record in support of encouraging the Azerbaijan-Armenia-Turkey pipeline route. As is indicated in my discussion of the previous amendment dealing with Armenia, the tensions in the Caucasus region frequently generate emotional rhetoric. We have tried very carefully, Mr. Chairman, to craft language that is straightforward and noncontroversial in this case.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been active in trying to provide health care coverage for uninsured children, and since the last Congress Democrats developed the Families First Agenda that basically puts families first and insists that there be, as part of our legislative agenda in this Congress, a kids' health care initiative. The initiative that we have put forward was basically developed by the Democratic Health Care Task Force, which I happen to one of the co- chairs. I wanted to mention, Mr. Speaker, that our task force has held numerous meetings and hearings on the issue of kids' health insurance. Testimony has been submitted from child advocacy groups, health care providers and actual families. In addition, discussions have been held with the Health Care Financing Administration, representatives from the insurance industry and some of our Nation's Governors. Democrats have been dedicated, basically, and shown a commitment to developing a workable plan that will first build upon the foundation of Medicaid; second, provide States with additional resources to meet the health care needs of children in working families; and, third, enact private insurance reforms to make it easier for families to purchase children only policies. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that if it were not for Democrats leading the charge on children's health care, it probably would not have been included in the budget resolution that we will be considering tomorrow in conference. In 1996, dozens of my Democratic colleagues joined me in writing a letter to the President, to Secretary Rubin and to Secretary Shalala urging inclusion of funds to provide assistance for the Nation's 10 million uninsured children. As the Speaker knows, the President's initial fiscal year 1998 budget did include monies for children's health care. I want to commend the President, because President Clinton basically held his ground and insisted on including monies for children's health care in the balanced budget agreement that will be coming back from the conference tomorrow. What I am hoping is that the Democratic initiative, the Health Care Task Force initiative, will be included as part of this budget resolution. It will be ready for reconciliation, which we will of course begin to consider next week. Without getting into the details of the Democratic caucuses plan, though, right now, I would like to yield some time to one of my colleagues on the Committee on Commerce, who has been very active in the kids' health insurance issue, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Strickland.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in the coming days, I am hopeful that a children's health care initiative will emerge as a result of the budget reconciliation process. It is my understanding that approximately $16 billion over 5 years has been set aside in the budget to provide money to help families obtain health coverage for their children. Since last year, Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats developed the Families First agenda, children's health care has been a high priority. Although Republicans have failed to realize that 10 million uninsured children in this country is a problem that needs to be addressed, I have to assure my colleagues that Democrats have not let the needs of these children fall on deaf ears. As one of the three cochairs of the Democratic Health Care Task Force, we have held hearings and meetings with child advocacy groups and various health care providers who have all been very clear in expressing the need for Federal involvement in this issue. Two months ago, I and a number of my colleagues on the Democratic side sent a letter urging that the Republican leaders move legislation forward by Mother's Day that would benefit the uninsured children. Since then, the GOP has really done nothing about the issue while each day more children enter the ranks of the uninsured. Just as an example, Mr. Speaker, in my home State of New Jersey, over 200,000 children are currently without health insurance, according to a very good estimate. That many children should not be without health insurance in this Nation if we think about what it means nationwide. Many do not realize that over 90 percent of all uninsured children are in working families whose employer does not offer health insurance or who just cannot because the family or the policy that the employer provides, they just cannot afford to pay the skyrocketing costs. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that Democrats understand these statistics and the Democratic Health Care Task Force has developed a proposal to address the problem of uninsured kids. Our task force plan would strengthen Medicaid, create a new flexible matching grant program for working families and enact important health insurance reforms. And this proposal, the Democratic Health Care Task Force proposal, can be considered now that Republicans are being forced to address this issue as a result of the $16 billion set aside for children's health care under the balanced budget resolution. Of the 10 million uninsured children, approximately 3 million are already eligible for Medicaid. But what we do in our plan is provide grants to States to help local communities in developing outreach programs to take these 3 million children out of the ranks of uninsured, with maximum flexibility to employee communities resources. So first, what we are doing is to try to get to the kids that already are eligible for Medicaid but for whatever reason are not signed up. In addition, our Democratic plan will enable children to remain eligible for Medicaid for a full year from the time they are determined eligible. At present, the status is evaluated many times in a given year, oftentimes leading to children having health care insurance one month but not another. This change will offer continuity and allow parents to be more at ease with the guarantee that their child will not lose health care coverage from one month to the next. The Democratic plan creates Medikids, which is a new matching grant program that will provide States with the necessary resources to seek innovative State solutions to meet the needs of uninsured children in working families. States would be eligible for extra money if they expand Medicaid coverage to cover pregnant women up to 185 percent of the poverty level and all children through the age of 18 in families below 100 percent of the poverty level. Just to give an example, Mr. Speaker, my home State of New Jersey already covers pregnant women up to 185 percent of the poverty level, but they only cover children up to the age of 13. So if they expand that to 18, they then will not only have an expanded Medicaid Program, but they would be able to take advantage of the new Medikids matching grant programs to expand health insurance even beyond Medicaid to a lot more working families. Under this grant program or Medikids Program, States may provide assistance on a sliding scale, and they have flexibility to determine the level of assistance. They could use the money, the additional funds they get, to pay for programs already helping uninsured children in their State, but the benefits package must be comparable to what is offered under Medicaid. What we are trying to do is to basically get at children whose families have an income between 100 and 300 percent of poverty. So we are going beyond Medicaid to working families who still cannot afford health insurance for their kids but are making more than the poverty level. The last thing I wanted to mention, Mr. Speaker, is that we do have a component in our Democratic proposal for private health insurance reforms. This consists of requiring insurers to offer group-rated children-only policies thereby making--what we are essentially doing, Mr. Speaker, if I could summarize it, is we are trying to say that, if a group policy is offered, they have to offer kids-only insurance so that parents basically can say, maybe we cannot afford to buy insurance for the whole family but we can afford to buy it for kids. In summary, what we are doing is expanding Medicaid, granting more money to the States to go beyond Medicaid to cover more kids and making it possible for people who have group insurance to buy kids-only policies to cover kids in those categories. I think it will work to cover most if not all the 10 million uninsured children.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans decided to go home for Memorial Day vacation last week, even though they still have not provided disaster-stricken families with the emergency funds needed to rebuild their lives. It has now been more than 2 months since the President sent disaster relief legislation to Congress; yet Republicans still have not finished their work and passed the bill. Last month Republicans loaded the bill up with provisions to freeze spending on education and other priorities for working families, a provision the President warned them would force him to veto the bill. This emergency disaster relief bill that Republicans are holding hostage would help thousands of families rebuild their lives after a massive flood devastating their homes, businesses, and farms. It also included in the bill emergency funds to keep 360,000 women and children from being kicked out of the WIC child nutrition program. Mr. Speaker, Democratic leaders and Members of Congress from States hardest hit by this flooding will be gathering today to deliver a simple message to the Republican leadership: Just do it, pass a straightforward disaster relief bill now.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Exactly. I see that my colleague here, my neighbor from New Jersey is now in the Speaker's chair, so I will gladly yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PALLONE

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