Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on subject of this special order.

Mr. PALLONE. I agree. I think we are almost out of time, but I just wanted to say that, obviously, this is the beginning. The budget passed at least in the House and presumably in both Houses by tomorrow, but this is really the beginning of our effort. And I stress again the Democrats because we have been really talking about this as part of our family first agenda for at least a year now. I know the gentleman does, and I certainly do and everybody within the task force wants to make sure that these Democratic priorities in terms of making sure that these tax credits and deductions go to help working families pay for education programs, and that we do have the priorities as far as education programs, including things like the school construction fund, are ultimately included. So I want to commend the gentleman again for his efforts with the task force, and unless the gentleman wants to add anything, we will yield back.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate what the gentleman said. And the other thing I was thinking, too, with the President, President Clinton, is that I think he has not only focused attention on the need for us to prioritize education at the Federal level, including higher education, but also the whole philosophy of a lot of these changes and new initiatives is very good. In other words, the philosophy that you should be working, in other words, with the Americorps, that you actually put in time, you work to pay back your loan, the idea with the HOPE scholarships, that you have to maintain a certain grade point average and you cannot be on drugs, he is linking--I was worried, if I could sort of digress, I remember a few years ago when the President was first elected, and I was having some town meetings. I was talking about the need to expand some of these higher education programs. And most people, I think particularly because Rutgers is in my district and so there is a lot of people associated with Rutgers who were very receptive to the idea. But I had a few people in the audience who sort of harked back to what I call an earlier day, an earlier America, because I do not think what they are saying is realistic anymore. We are saying, the students should simply work, if they have to work 5 or 10 or 20 years in order to save, and then they can pay to go to college or to graduate school, we should not have loan programs or work study or other programs available to them. And the idea of some of these people, that we are saying, that this is, somehow a handout, that these programs that we have on the higher education level are a handout, I think that to the extent that the President has stressed the work aspect, the maintenance of a certain grade point average, being drug free, they have taken away from the notion that somehow these Federal programs are handouts. I do not think they are. I think we would be in very bad shape, certainly on a competitive basis with other countries, if we told everybody they had to work in a low paying job until they were 40 and then go to college because then their productive years would be behind them in many ways. But it is important to stress the philosophy, I think, that many of these things do involve work. Work study. AmeriCorps. All these things. And to put sort of an incentive on it that the President has done. I know many of the things we have talked about in Congress have been the same way. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, when my colleague was talking about new schools and how much a difference they make, renovations to schools, that is so true. Just to focus a minute on the school construction and modernization proposal, because it is not in the budget agreement now, and I think it should be included as we work down the road, first of all, I think that it should be known, and you already stated, that the issue of school construction modernization is not just for core city areas or rural areas. It runs the whole gamut. My district is primarily suburban. I do not think we have any real rural areas. We have some areas that would qualify as urban areas, but the bottom line is whether you go to the most suburban school and the wealthiest school or the poorest in my district, every day or in most cases they have school construction and renovation needs. It was very interesting because one of the urban areas that I represent is Asbury Park. I had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to go to a brand-new school which they had a hard time building because of limited resources. Their tax base is very difficult to generate moneys for new construction or renovation with their tax base. It was amazing. The school was maybe a year old, maybe not even, and it was just amazing to see the difference on the kids' faces and the attitude being in a new school. I actually was there because we had gotten some books from the Library of Congress for their library. It was just wonderful to be in the new library and to see how much they had progressed. I think that that is, if you listen to a lot of our colleagues, I think many of us were surprised today to see that this school construction initiative was not in the budget because it really is something that cuts into every district and has an impact. All we are really doing is leveraging money. We are not really providing money for construction, we are making it easier for towns based on the interest rates or bond issues that they would have to provide. But that can make a difference because a lot of these towns simply do not have the tax base or the authorization to provide the funding or the bonding to do the new construction. So it would make a difference. Mr. Speaker, the other thing I wanted to say, too, because I think it is so important, is that, I know we have seen it with the education task force. I think right now many people are having a hard time getting their kids through college that we forget how far the President really has brought us forward over the last 4 or 5 years. Really until President Clinton made it a priority at the Federal level, education really was not, and we still really are not there, but it really was not seen as a Federal priority. I have to say that he, more than anyone else, has stressed that the Federal Government needs to get involved. Just in the first administration, the first 4 years, we had the change of the student loan program to a direct loan program. That has made a big difference at Rutgers University. I know you cited your study of Rutgers. At Rutgers they have been really able to expand the national student loan program because they give the loans out directly and bypass the bank. The other thing is the, I call it AmeriCorps, or the volunteer program where students, their opportunities for loans have been expanded now because they work their way, work to pay the loan back or do voluntary work in the community. I have to say that that AmeriCorps program has been very helpful in my district and provides another way for students to get some money to pay for college. There has been a lot that has already happened in addition to what the President is putting forward and even in addition to the things that the task force says, and I agree we need to go beyond.

Mr. PALLONE. Maybe one of the things that we should mention, I know myself and a number of people mentioned it during the budget debate yesterday and leading up to the budget debate, I think it needs to be stressed even more. I am assuming that tomorrow the budget, some sort of budget conference between the House and the Senate will be adopted. I guess that is still questionable depending on what the other body does. But if it does happen, we will be going back to our districts during the Memorial Day break. And as much as this is a historic agreement because it does lead to a balanced budget, this is just a preliminary work. As we know, a budget resolution in the House, I often compare it to the budget in your house. It is not like a municipal budget or a State budget. It is more like the budget in your house. It is not binding on anyone. It is just a plan of action. Of course the spending bills or the appropriation bills and the reconciliation and the tax cuts, all that has to follow. We have to make sure that we keep not only our colleagues but I think primarily the Republican leadership in line over the next few months to make sure that we make good and that they make good on these commitments to make sure that these education tax credits are there, that this Pell grant money is there and that these various education programs that we talked about tonight are included in the final package. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, because it is essentially recommendatory, there is no reason why we could not have a refundable tax credit or we could not include the $5 billion for the school construction program. I have been here long enough to see those things change dramatically from when the budget resolution is passed to when we do the budget reconciliation. I think we need to stress that over the next few months, many of the things that maybe we were not discussed or not specifically laid out in this budget resolution can still be implemented. I would like to see the school construction component included, and I would like to see the refundable tax credit, the way the gentleman outlined.

Mr. PALLONE. I think that makes a lot of sense.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman has stated. Obviously, he has a lot of expertise on a number of these education issues. That is why it is good to have him here talking about these issues on the floor, as the co-chair of the Democratic Task Force. My understanding is that the HOPE scholarship is an up to $1,500 amount per student for tuition and fees. It can be claimed in 2 tax years for any student who has not finished the 13th and 14th years of education, and it is expected to help about 4.2 million students. It is a nonrefundable tax credit, and of course in order to receive it a second time, the student has to have at least a B-minus grade-point average. This is what the President has proposed. The problem is that, as with any tax cut or any tax deduction, if you are not paying taxes at a certain level you are not really going to be able to take advantage of it. The theory, I understand, and one of the things that a number of the Democrats have talked about, is to simply make that available as essentially a grant, to the extent that you cannot take advantage of it as a tax credit. Again, I think, and I do not want to take away from what we have done in the budget agreement and what the President proposed, because I do think that middle-class people, and I define middle class very broadly, are having a much more difficult time these days paying for higher education. It is primarily because of what we said before, which is that these various scholarships, tax credits, work study, whatever it is, direct student loans, have not kept up with inflation over the last 20 years. But the problem is that if everything we do or if most of what we do is strictly oriented toward people or parents that are paying taxes, then you are not going to really help the lower-income students that much. Although there is an increase in the Pell grant, a very significant one in this budget agreement, that in itself will not make up for the difference. So the idea is to perhaps provide this, this $1,500, as an additional source of funding, even if you are not eligible for the tax credit. I think that makes sense.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to talk about the Democrats' education agenda. As many Americans know by now late last night the House passed a budget agreement that would balance the Federal budget by the year 2002, and this agreement was very much a compromise between Democrats and Republicans. Like any compromise, it does not have everything that both sides wanted, and while I voted for the agreement and I am pleased that it addresses some of the country's most pressing education needs, I want to stress that I believe strongly that there is a lot more work that needs to be done. As I said, however, there are a number of positive developments in this budget agreement with respect to education. The President's America Reads Program was included; this $2.75 billion program aims to teach every child in the country to be able to read independently by the end of the third grade. Other elements of the Democrats' education agenda that are a part of this budget agreement include an expansion of Head Start. One million children will be covered in Head Start by the year 2002. The President's technology literacy challenge fund will also will be fully funded. It will play an invaluable part in preparing our children for the future by teaching them how to use computer and other technologies and giving them the resources on which to learn. Every classroom in America will be connected to the information superhighway, every teacher will receive the needed training, and all students and teachers will have access to the needed technology. For higher education, which is obviously very important, the budget agreement includes $35 billion in targeted tax cuts. This $35 billion includes cuts consistent with the Democrats' family first agenda and the President's HOPE scholarship and tuition tax deduction proposals. These tax cuts have been a major part of an education agenda the Democrats have been pursuing for some 2 years, and they are an important component of our larger plan to make everyday life more affordable for the average working American family. The agreement, I should say, Mr. Speaker, also includes a $300 increase in the Pell grant award and that increase brings the maximum Pell grant award to $3,000. Mr. Speaker, I want to stress again that the inclusion of these items in the balanced budget agreement is without question a vindication for Democrats. President Clinton and congressional Democrats place education at the very top of the country's priority list, and we have been successful in getting some, and again I will stress some, of our goals accomplished. I have alluded a number of times to this notion that there is still work to be done with respect to education, and I can use the Pell Grant Program, I think, as an excellent example of that. While the $300 increase in the budget represents the largest such increase in over two decades, the fact of the matter is that a much larger increase is needed. I know that there are many students in this country that depend upon the Pell grant, and the Pell grant is essentially the cornerstone of all of our student aid programs. It is a means through which millions of students who would otherwise have been unable to attend college have been able to attend college. But a lack of adequate increase in the program over the years has resulted in a substantial decrease in the real value of Pell grants. It is very easy to understand. Basically what we are saying is that even though the amount available for the Pell grant has increased, inflation has been much higher than the amount of the increase that the Federal Government has been providing. So if you look to a January 1997 report from the Congressional Research Service, it says that although the maximum grant level increased by 34 percent from 1980 to 1997, after you adjust that for inflation, the real value actually decreased by 13 percent. Increases, again, in the Pell grant funds have not kept up with inflation. This has obviously made it very difficult for students dependent on such grants to meet the cost of college. At a New Jersey State university, Rutgers, which is in my home district, 8,498 of the approximately 20,000 students receiving Federal aid received a Pell grant during the last academic year. However, these students as well as millions like them in schools across the country would obviously have had an easier time paying for college if we could simply keep the Pell grant funding levels even with inflation. We can see, of 20,000 students at Rutgers, this is really almost getting close to 50 percent that depend on the Pell grant and have found that they cannot keep up with inflation with the grant that they are getting. Now, another issue that I am concerned about is the potential inability of tax benefits to help those on the lowest end of the income scale. In other words, I, for one, am very much in favor of the education tax cuts that have been promised as part of this budget resolution, but the problem always is that tax cuts or even tax credits are not that helpful if one is not paying taxes. So again, as valuable as they are, they are not addressing those on the lowest end of the income scale. What we are saying then is we need to look beyond, if you will, and target more, if we can, to lower-income people who no longer have any tax liability to pay for college. Still another important element of our education agenda that was not included in the budget agreement was school construction. Those of us of the American public who listened to the debate during the budget resolution last night noted that many of the speakers lamented the fact that the school construction component of the President's budget proposal was not included in this agreement. According to the General Accounting Office, one-third of our Nation's school are in need of major repair or complete replacement. While I am glad that the budget agreement includes money to hook every classroom up to the information superhighway, as I mentioned, I think we should not have put the horse before the cart. Before we begin equipping our schools with technology for the 21st century, we should make sure the physical structures of the schools themselves are in proper condition; otherwise, it is very difficult for children to learn. During consideration of the budget yesterday, I did support the substitute proposal of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] that would have included $5 billion for school construction. The proposal would also have set the maximum Pell grant award at $3,700, $700 higher than in the agreement that eventually passed. Not only would it have balanced the budget, but it would have produced a $2.5 billion surplus in that year as well. Now, I mention this again because I think it is an important point that the Kennedy budget substitute illustrates that we can increase funding for education even beyond what has been proposed and still balance the budget. In other words, it shows that in providing ample funding for education, what we are really doing is deciding where our priorities are going to be. One can devote more money in this budget to education if one makes changes and cuts somewhere else. That is why I am here today, to urge all of my Democratic colleagues to join me in building on the momentum for education that we have established in the budget resolution. Now, I should point out, I am not a member, but there is a Democratic education task force that has been working now for some time, trying to put together, looking at the President's proposals, looking at the budget agreement, and basically trying to put together a Democratic proposal or series of proposals, if you will, to address education needs. Mr. Speaker, one of the cochairmen is here tonight, and I would like to have the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge] join me, if I could yield to him at this time, and maybe he could give us some information about what they have been doing and comment further on some of these issues. I am pleased to see my colleague here tonight.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 408. Mr. Chairman, I believe this legislation allows for the altering of the dolphin-safe definition and permits fishermen to chase and net dolphins. Under H.R. 408, tuna would be labeled as dolphin-safe and permitted to enter the United States even if dolphins were chased, netted or harmed, seriously injured or even killed, as long as the dead dolphin was not observed. I think that was brought home by the gentlewoman from Oregon in what she said. The current U.S. embargo on nondolphin-safe products has been effective in reducing the number of dolphin deaths. Last year there were only 2,374 dolphin deaths. Unfortunately, the enactment of H.R. 408 will allow for a doubling of last year's mortality rate to be at 5,000. If we look at this chart here, we can see basically the difference between the two piles of dolphins that were killed in 1996 as opposed to the numbers that would be authorized by H.R. 408. Obviously, it is a doubling, a significant difference. Mr. Chairman, I think that it needs to be stressed that there are other options. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] has introduced the Dolphin-safe Fishing Act, which I have cosponsored. The Miller bill would retain the current definition of dolphin-safe, ensuring that dolphin-safe cannot appear on cans of tuna in which the dolphins were chased, netted, killed, or seriously injured. So we are not talking about something that is pie in the sky. There is an option. We do not need this bill. And I have to say that, as in the 104th Congress, I will not support a bill that does not include the dolphin-safe definition that I voted for under the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act. This is deception. People expect that, when they see the dolphin-safe label, that it means that dolphins are not being killed or seriously harmed or the other things that are going to be allowed under this bill. I would urge Members of this House not to buckle to foreign demands and not to change our laws without the input from those who fought so hard to make sure the consumer safety standards and environmental concerns are enacted. I feel very strongly that what is going on here is a serious deception to the American public. When they take that can of tuna and it says dolphin-safe, it should mean that.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for leading the fight to protect Democratic priorities in the deliberations of the Committee on the Budget. I intend to vote for the balanced budget resolution today, but the final product of our deliberations must reflect the Democrats' families first priorities in order to gain my support further down the road. Those priorities include significant investment in education, a children's health care initiative to provide coverage to as many of the 10 million uninsured children as possible, and strong environmental protection and enforcement. Mr. Chairman, it is my fear that the Republican right will highjack the budget process as it continues towards reconciliation and the details begin to be worked out. The Democrats will not support tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy at the expense of the average American family. Concerning the children's health care initiative, the Democratic health care task force has worked hard over the last year to develop a proposal that will cover the greatest number of uninsured children. Our families first plan includes enhanced outreach to those 3 million children already eligible, but not enrolled in Medicaid, increase Federal help to expand Medicaid, State flexibility which allows children to remain eligible for Medicaid for a full year after eligibility is determined, and grants to States to assist with providing public or private health insurance. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, I believe that this family first kids' health initiative can be contained within this balanced budget resolution. I know that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has assumed the specifics of our Democrats' Family First health care initiative within his substitute and he calls for spending $32 billion for the proposal. I would say, whether it is $32 billion or $16 billion, as in the Committee on the Budget's proposal, it is important to recognize that Democrats will fight to ensure that the sum set aside for children's health care truly benefits most, if not all, of the 10 million uninsured children. I feel very strongly that this is the beginning of the process. We should support it at this point, but we have to make sure as we move along that we contain and we include as many of the 10 million uninsured children as possible.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that today's vote on the balanced budget resolution is essentially a plan of action without the details. While there is tentative agreement concerning Democratic tax cut and spending priorities, Republicans can still try to eliminate many of these Democratic priorities when the details are worked out. According to today's Washington Times, the House Republican leadership has signaled that it is not opposed to the Republican right's conservative action team budget proposal, which may eliminate many of the Democrats' Families First priorities, including the HOPE education scholarship and the children's health care initiative, all in favor of larger tax cuts for the wealthy. Democrats, Mr. Speaker, will be watchful to make sure that this does not happen. Both the tax cuts and the spending priorities must primarily benefit working families.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, today Congress will likely vote in favor of a historic balanced budget proposal and at the same time we as Democrats must not forget that this is merely an outline, a road map, that gives general spending guidelines. Many of the details still need to be worked out, and that is basically where my concern lies this morning. While President Clinton and Republican leaders have articulated a general agreement on the budget, I am very leery of the Republican leadership's true priorities. A recent memorandum dated May 16 from Speaker Gingrich's office emphasizes that ``there is not a limit on the size of the capital gains and estate tax relief'' in the budget resolution. The Republican leadership has consistently made tax cuts for the wealthy a cornerstone on any budget agreement, and I believe that once we pass this resolution Republicans will attempt to do this again. Democrats have consistently indicated support for a balanced budget agreement, but one that benefits the average American family, and we will be vigilant in protecting the family first priorities that are paramount in any budget agreement. Now after Congress passes the budget resolution this week, the real process of determining fiscal priorities will begin. Democrats stand ready to roll up our sleeves and ensure that our priorities; that is, education, health care, and the environment, are worked into the final details. I mention this because last year the Republicans are on record for voting to cut education spending, gut Medicaid, and cripple environmental protection and enforcement, and this year it is really unknown what the Republican leadership will produce by way of details on many of these budget questions. Madam Speaker, Democrats will fight to make sure that the Republicans stay true to their word in providing $35 billion in tax cuts for education initiatives. These initiatives are but a small investment to ensure America's competitive edge into the future. At the same time, the additional moneys for increased Pell grants and HOPE scholarships will benefit those Americans who want to better themselves and remain productive citizens in our society. The Democratic education proposal is an important part of this budget agreement, and it must remain intact throughout the long process to ensure my support and the support of my Democratic colleagues. In addition to the Democratic education initiatives, it is equally important that the money set-aside for children's health care coverage be used for just that, the expansion of children's health care coverage for approximately 10 million uninsured children. Now Democrats again have worked hard to get children's health care moneys into the budget since last summer. In January of this year I authored a letter with 32 of my Democratic colleagues to President Clinton urging that funding for children's health care should be a cornerstone of any budget reconciliation. Today's budget agreement appears to include approximately $16 billion to expand children's coverage, and Democrats remain committed to ensuring that these moneys truly benefit families with uninsured children. We as Democrats have a task force on kids' health care, and we have worked out a proposal that we think can be used to implement this $16 billion budget package. Our plan is to build on three prongs, strengthening the Medicaid Program for lower income children, providing matching grants to the States targeted to children and working families who are uninsured and require private, and the third point, I should say, is to require private insurance reforms to benefit children and families of all incomes. We believe that with this pot of money in the budget, if we implement this 3-pronged approach, we can actually cover most, if not all, of the 10 million children that are now currently uninsured, and it is a very reasonable approach within the confines of the budget. Again, as with the education investment, Democrats will find it difficult to support any budget that does not provide families with assistance to provide health care for their children and to insure as many of those 10 million children as possible. Finally, I also want it to be known to the Republican leadership that we need to make sure that environmental protection is a priority in this budget. It is very important to give the EPA the tools to ensure safe drinking water, clean air, and clean oceans, and I personally will fight to keep the commitment to American families for a healthy environment. Again, Madam Speaker, although I think the problem that I see right now, there are already rumblings by the Republican right to increase the amount of the tax cuts with further cuts in many of these important family first agenda programs, and if the Republican extremists succeed, then American families will be the ones who suffer in the end. Hopefully, this budget agreement, which I expect to be adopted today, will be the beginning of a process that makes sure that the tax cuts in the budget are mainly targeted to the average working American, and the same is true with the spending priorities, that they help the average American family and not just the wealthy.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, after weeks of resistance the Republican leadership yesterday finally allowed the House to vote to provide the full $76 million in funding needed to keep thousands of children and pregnant women enrolled in the Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, nutrition program. I must say, we are far from home free on this issue. The Senate, unfortunately, has provided only $58 million for WIC, and Democrats today will offer a resolution on the House floor stating that the House should stand firm in its negotiations and demand that the Senate agree to restore funding for the remaining 85,000 at-risk women and children. Republicans also voted yesterday for automatic cuts that could undermine the commitment for WIC by freezing funding for it at current levels, this year's level. The President has made it clear he will veto this funding bill if that is what it includes, but I have to say that we still have a lot of work to do to make sure that the full funding is provided for WIC. The Democrats are determined that we will see that through and there will be full funding for the WIC Program.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I know that the hour is late and I do not intend to use much of the 60 minutes this evening, but I did want to take to the well tonight, to take to the floor to talk about what I expect to be happening here on the floor of the House next week, and that is when the Republican leadership brings up the budget. I think as my colleagues know, there has been a proposal that in its broad outlines has been agreed upon by both President Clinton and the Republican leadership, and there will be a budget resolution most likely adopted on the House floor at some time next week. However, as a Democrat I am very concerned about the need for this budget to reflect Democratic priorities. Over the last year, at least since June of 1996, the Democrats have outlined a Family First agenda that includes prioritization, if you will, of education, health care, environmental and other needs for the average American family. The President clearly articulated those priorities during the negotiations over a budget agreement, and I know fought very hard to make sure that those priorities were included in the balanced budget proposal. The fact of the matter is, however, that many of us on the Democratic side are concerned that the end result may not reflect some of these Democratic priorities. Already Members of the Republican Party are stating that there is no guarantee, for example, that they will include Democratic education initiatives in the budget reconciliation process. As the budget discussions continue, my goal and our goal is to further an agenda that helps the average American family. Without getting into all the bureaucracy of the budget process, the budget resolution, which will be presented most likely next week on the floor of the House, is basically a broad outline or plan about what the budget agreement should be. But after that is passed, and once it finally is agreed to by both Houses, there will be a fleshing out, if you will, of the spending priorities through the various appropriation or spending bills. There will also be a reconciliation act that will essentially tie together the spending with any tax cuts, and there is also likely to be a tax package that will essentially put together and be more specific about the various tax cuts that are proposed. What I would like to do is to basically outline if I could, very briefly, what President Clinton sees and what I see as a Democrat and most of us as Democrats feel that the balanced budget agreement should accomplish. To the extent that it does accomplish these Democratic priorities, it is something that all of us or most of us can support. But we have to keep the feet to the fire, so to speak, on the Republican side, and particularly the Republican leadership, to make sure that this balanced budget agreement does make good, so to speak, on the promises that reflect the concerns of the average American. The critical investments, if you will, that the President has talked about achieving in this balanced budget agreement relate to education, health care, and the environment. There is also a very real need to make sure that Medicare and Medicaid are strengthened and modernized so that they are available and they are solid programs, they are solvent, if you will, into the next century. The balanced budget agreement should cut the deficit 63 percent. Well, I should say that actually over the last few years we have succeeded in cutting the deficit 63 percent, from $290 billion in 1992 to $107 billion last year. But the idea is that this balanced budget agreement would essentially finish the job and achieve a truly balanced budget with no deficit by the time that the 5-year period that it is including is ended. I want to talk about some of these priorities, though. We call them the Democratic Family First priorities that the budget needs to reflect. With regard to education, the President's initiative says that every 8-year-old can read, every 12-year-old can log on to the Internet, and every 18-year-old can go to college. The education initiatives are really in many ways the most important Democratic priority that we have been trying to achieve. The way to achieve this is essentially to provide the largest Pell grant increase in 2 decades, 4 million students to receive a grant of up to $3,000, an increase of $300 in the maximum grant; tax cuts, and here again there are tax cuts and there are tax cuts. Tax cuts that we as Democrats would like to see would be targeted to higher education, to make college more affordable for the average American. Now, if we have tax cuts that emphasize the education, higher education programs, then that certainly makes sense as part of this overall agreement. On the other hand, if the tax cuts are mainly targeted to help corporate interests or to help wealthier Americans, then we will not achieve a balanced budget that works to help the average working person. We have also talked about expansion of health care to achieve for the first time coverage for about 10 million uninsured children in this country. There are about 10 million children that are uninsured and the numbers keep growing. It is estimated that by the year 2000 it would be as high as 12 million children. So the President has included as part of this balanced budget program essentially Medicaid improvements and a grant program has been suggested that provides additional dollars to supplement States' efforts to cover uninsured children and working families. Last night on the House floor I specifically talked about the kids' health care initiative that the Democratic task force that I cochair has put together, that would try to achieve, within the context of this budget agreement, coverage for as many as possible of the 10 million children who are now uninsured. It is also very important that this budget strengthen environmental protection and enforcement. The President has talked about accelerating Superfund cleanups by almost 500 sites by the year 2000. He has talked about expanding the brownfield redevelopment initiative to help communities clean up and redevelop contaminated areas through this brownfield proposal, and also to boost environmental enforcement to protect public health from environmental threats. I have often said that it does not make much sense to have good environmental laws on the books if you do not have adequate enforcement, and enforcement means money. We have to have investigators to go after the polluters, we have to have those enforcement officers who will impose fines and make sure that polluters are brought to justice. So again, the priority under this balanced budget agreement has to include a major environmental component. Also, in the aftermath of the President's welfare reform that was signed into law last year, there needs to be, and the President has talked about a welfare-to-work tax credit to help long-term welfare recipients get jobs, and also the need to restore disability and health benefits for legal, as opposed to illegal immigrants in this country. Right now under some of the provisions that were passed last year by the House and Senate and signed into law, there are legal immigrants who do not have access to certain benefits, such as Social Security disability, Medicare, Medicaid, depending on their circumstances. All these Democratic priorities, if you will, need to be incorporated as part of this balanced budget, if it is really going to achieve success to help the average working American. I think that I cannot emphasize enough that there are essentially three goals here. One is to make sure we do have a balanced budget, which we all, I think, in this House are very much in favor of, whether we are Democrats or Republican. Second is to make sure that the priority spending on health care for kids, on education, on environment, on some of the other areas that the Democrats have outlined as part of their Families First agenda, that these priorities are where the spending or where the dollars go under this budget agreement. Last, but certainly not least, is that the tax credits or the tax cuts, if you will, are primarily targeted, again, towards the needs of the average American. There is proposed a child tax credit to make it easier for families to raise their kids; tax cuts, again targeted to higher education, to make college more affordable. The President has talked about not only expanding the Pell grant, but also providing a certain amount of deductibility, that parents would be able to deduct for college tuition they pay for their children. There is also a HOPE scholarship program for the first 2 years of college if you maintain a B average; that you would have, I believe, $1,500 a year made available as a scholarship to pay for your tuition or education expenses. There were also provisions that the President has talked about to establish additional empowerment zones and enterprise communities. But again, the issue here is whether or not this budget agreement, not necessarily the resolution that we deal with next week, but even beyond that, the so-called budget reconciliation bill, where the actual taxes and the cuts and credits will be struck, and where, in the appropriation bills, where the actual spending will be indicated, these need to reflect the Democratic Families First priorities. They need to have tax cuts that will help the average person and not just the wealthier elements in our society. My point tonight, and this is a point that I and others I am sure will be making over the next few weeks or next few months as we delve into the budget in its various aspects, is that a balanced budget agreement that does not reflect the priorities of the average American, does not provide tax cuts that help the average working family, really is of no value. That is what we want to see as Democrats. We want to see the budget balanced, we want to see the priorities that are important for the average American, and we want to see tax cuts and tax credits that will help the average American as we move forward and we prioritize our spending needs in this Congress.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I wanted to say that what the gentlewoman is saying about this being perceived as a national security issue I think is very legitimate because the bottom line is that the number of uninsured children is growing. I keep pointing out to my colleagues, my constituents as well that a few years ago when the President took up the issue of health care and was trying to put together a universal health care plan at the Federal level, he was doing it because he realized that the number of uninsured in general in the country was growing. We had figures then by the year 2000 there were going to be, I do not know how many, I think then it was 30, now it is 40 million uninsured and it would be even higher by 2000. That problem has not gone away. The number of children that are uninsured continues to grow. We had information from the Children's Defense Fund which has been one of the organizations that has been taking a lead on this issue, and they said that back in June 1996, which is when the Democrats first started to put together this families first agenda that they just gave an exponential chart about how the number just continued to grow. Since 1989, the number of children without private health insurance has grown by an average of 1.2 million every year, or 3,300 a day. If this trend continues, there will be 12.6 million children without private coverage by 2000. What the gentlewoman is saying about this being a national security problem I think is totally legitimate. Of course it is true for a lot of adults as well, but particularly for children it makes no sense not to cover them because it is their future, it is the future of the country, plus it is very cheap. As the gentlewoman pointed out when she was giving some figures about Oregon and what it takes if you have a children-only policy, it is unbelievable how inexpensive it can be, particularly if you are just covering kids.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is right, and I know for a fact that there are people in that category. I think it is a twofold problem, and I think it relates to the issue of health insurance for kids in general. On the one hand there is the fact that there are a lot of people increasingly who do not even realize that they need to do this, and then of course, once they do, not having the access, because as we know, vaccination is not as widespread as it once was, particularly in urban areas or certain rural areas where people just either are not aware or they do not have access any more. I wanted to just mention, if I could, the gentlewoman talked about enrolling, and we mentioned before there are 3 million children of the 10 million who are eligible for Medicaid and who are not enrolled. We spent some time with the task force, as the gentlewoman knows, trying to figure out how to deal with this, because outreach is not really something that oftentimes is effectively done on the Federal level. What we have in our bill is grants to States to help local communities to develop outreach programs with maximum flexibility to employ community resources. There again, I know it is a little different from what the gentlewoman was saying, but I think it is the same thing, that we need to motivate these community groups, regardless of the nature of the group, that will do the kind of outreach and get them the grant so that they can go out and find kids that are eligible for Medicaid or, as the gentlewoman says, kids that have not been vaccinated, kids that have not been able to either access preventive health care or whose parents are not knowledgeable of it. That is a big problem today. A lot of people are not aware of it, and obviously the gentlewoman is aware of it. I yield back.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for pointing these things out, because if we think about it, there is really no reason why this should be a partisan issue at all. I think that hopefully we are moving in the direction of trying to get our Republican colleagues and leadership on the Republican side to join with us. I think that the fact that they agreed with the President to at least include a pot of money for children's health care in the proposed balanced budget agreement which will come to the floor in some fashion over the next few weeks, shows that we have been making some progress, and I guess, if I could just emphasize that again, that this Democratic proposal can all be achieved within the context of the balanced budget agreement. I believe, and I think it is only fair to say, that it was because of the consistent and strong pressure from the Clinton administration and congressional Democrats that funding for the Children's Health Care Initiative was included in the bipartisan budget agreement that was announced on Friday, May 2. Including funding for this initiative was a victory for the congressional Democrats who have been saying for the last year that this program needs to be included as one of our priorities, one of our budget priorities. I should say that the budget agreement leaves the details of the children's health insurance initiative undefined. The agreement simply states that it assumes $16 billion in funding over the next 5 years to extend health insurance to up to 5 million uninsured children. Under the agreement, the expanded coverage may be achieved by extending Medicaid and providing cap grants to the States. So basically the agreement lends itself to the Democratic proposal that our task force has put together, in that the pot of money is there and it has the Medicaid expansion as well as the matching grant program to the States. But we believe very strongly, the way we put this package together, that we can capture a lot more than 5 million uninsured children; that we can, through a combination of going after those who are not currently enrolled but eligible for Medicaid, as well as the expansion of Medicaid, as well as the matching grants, as well as changes to the private insurance, in the private insurance area, that we can capture almost all, if not all, of the 10 million children that are not insured. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, in closing, that I believe very strongly the Democrats will continue to move forward on this issue because we understand the nature of the problem. We understand that 9 out of 10 children without health insurance are in working families. We understand that children without health insurance are less likely to receive the care that they need when they are injured or they are sick, and I have to say that as a parent myself, I would hate to have to worry about my child getting hurt at the playground because I do not have the health insurance coverage for him or for her. Families should not have to worry about whether or not they can afford to take their child to the doctor if their child becomes sick. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Republican leadership sees this issue in these terms. If they did, I believe that they would be more aggressive in trying to develop a solution for America's uninsured children. Democrats want to help the average American family, and we believe that our plan will do just that. We are going to continue to speak out on the House floor and by whatever means we have, in our districts, until such time as a plan is put forward, is marked up in committee and comes to the floor of the House that will address the problem of these 10 million uninsured children.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver]. an issue relative to h.r. 1469

Mr. PALLONE. I agree, and I want to thank you for pointing out in particular how right now the private insurance field does not necessarily allow the people or does not make it affordable enough for people to buy insurance policies just for their children. Basically, if you look at what our task force has proposed, we are sort of looking at this 10 million children and we are trying to sort of attack it from different points of view because we realize it is a complex problem. It is not something that you can address in just one stroke, so to speak. And as I mentioned before, you do have about 3 million who actually are eligible for Medicaid, and I know that when we tried to get a little information about why those 3 million are not on Medicaid, we got different reactions. We found out, first of all, that the people, many cases the parents of those 3 million, are both working because of the bureaucracy, perhaps of not knowing how to, either not having the information or not having the time or not thinking it is worthwhile, they are just not knowledgeable enough or do not have enough time to enroll their kids. Plus, people are very proud. Mr. Speaker, Medicaid, unfortunately I think, is viewed by many people as sort of a welfare program handout, and so in many ways it has a negative connotation that people think that they should not apply for it if they are working, that somehow it is a handout. And I think that is wrong, but you know it takes a certain amount of education to make people understand that it should not be viewed that way. So then you have that component. Then you have the expansion of Medicaid; in other words, right now there are many States that take Medicaid up to a certain percentage of poverty but do not take it beyond that in order to attract Federal funds. So what we like to do is expand the Medicaid Program to higher levels to take in more people at higher levels of poverty or percentage of poverty. And then with the Medikids Program, we are giving the States the matching grants to capture people up to 48,000 in income. Now some people would say to themselves, well, gee that is high, 48,000, but surprisingly I think the estimate was that there are something like 1\1/2\ million children out of that 10 million that are not covered that are with parents who make above that 48,000, above the 300 percent of poverty. So the only way that we are going to attract those people is essentially what you have put forward, which is to make some changes in the private insurance program so that we can attract some people who just have not been able to afford it for whatever reason. And I know that in New Jersey, 48,000 may sound like a lot of money, but it is not if you have two children or more and, you know, if maybe only one parent is working and the other one is staying home with the kids. It is not unusual for people to find out that they cannot afford health insurance.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of the bill H.R. 1053.