Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 17, 1997, the Italian American Memorial Association [IAMA] of Long Branch, NJ, will celebrate its Golden Anniversary--50 years of serving the community. As a life- long resident of Long Branch and the son of a World War II vet, I am indeed proud to pay tribute to this great center of civic and social life in our community. Mr. Speaker, the IAMA was established as a living memorial to Italian-Americans who made the supreme sacrifice for their country, giving their lives in World War II. Its prime purpose is to promote physical fitness, build good character in our youth, and aid in the development of the mind and body through civic, social, recreational, and athletic services in the city of Long Branch. On April 19, 1947, a certificate of incorporation for the IAMA, drawn up by Attorney Theodore Mirabella, was approved by the New Jersey Secretary of State. Its charter members were Joseph Tomaine, Leon Giordano, Angelo Francese, Philip Tomaine, and Joseph P. Tomaino. Membership was originally limited to men of Italian descent, although the membership has since been opened up to other ethnic groups. Association meetings were at first held in members' homes, but as the membership grew the organization moved to several different locations until 1953, when the members purchased Temple Beth Miriam on North Bath Avenue. Two years later, a youth baseball league was established by IAMA. But in 1958, disaster struck: the IAMA hall burnt to the ground as members were preparing for a New Year's Eve Gala. But the members did not let this tragic incident stop them. They went back to meeting in basements, homes, and businesses until they purchased from the city of Long Branch, in 1959, a piece of land on West End avenue. The facility was later physically moved to the corner of West End and Indiana avenues, with IAMA members pitching in to do the construction, carpentry, and other work. Into the 1990's, IAMA continues its work of promoting social, cultural, and recreational activities for the citizens of Long Branch, especially the young people. In addition to starting the baseball league, the IAMA organized a Pop Warner football team and the Long Branch Boxing Association, and holds drug and alcohol-free dances for high school students. Each holiday season, the organization donates to the Long Branch Middle School Thanksgiving Food Drive and Christmas food baskets, as well as the school's Operation Sleighbell project, which distributes toys to kids who might not get Christmas gifts otherwise. IAMA has raised money for children in need of special medical attention at Ronald McDonald House. It supports forensic and debating teams at Long Branch High School, as well as special programs for disabled athletes. The IAMA building also houses a variety of athletic facilities and equipment. The association always comes up with a variety of exciting and enjoyable activities to raise funds for these worthy goals. Albano Hall was dedicated last November in memory of Anthony Albano, a life member who was noted for bridging the gap between the new and the old organization, and the man responsible for restarting the memorial services after a 25-year lapse. As a recent article in the Atlanticville newspaper of Long Branch put it, the IAMA is an organization that has become part of the identity of the community it serves. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute to the 50th anniversary of the IAMA, and I look forward to participating in the celebration of this momentous occasion.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I just, if I could, I just wanted to talk a little bit about the matching grant program because I know that that is one that has received a lot of press attention both in the Senate as well as in the House in terms of what we are doing. As I said, we are trying with our proposal to expand Medicaid and bring it to higher levels of poverty or percentages of poverty, but the matching grant program is a little different, and we call it Medikids because what it does is it targets those families basically who make between approximately 16,000 and 48,000. Those are the ones who make too much to be eligible for Medicaid right now but still we feel need some help from the Federal Government with matching money from the States. But there is a lot of flexibility in this program, just to mention that how this additional money can be used. States can form public or private partnerships, they can use the money to build upon existing State programs. You mentioned Oregon. I know New Jersey has an existing State Program. New York; there are a number of States. Or they can just create a new initiative, if they want to, and it is totally voluntary to the States. If they do not want to do it, they do not have to, but hopefully they will. Now in order for States to qualify for this Medikids matching grant, they have to provide Medicaid coverage for pregnant women up to 185 percent of the poverty level and children through age 18 and families up to 100 percent of the poverty level, or 16,000 a family of four. Gets a little bureaucratic here, but basically there are about 30 States right now that meet this first requirement. But just for my own State of New Jersey, for example, we only cover kids up to 13 now; OK? So we would have an incentive, if you will, to take advantage of this matching grant program, but we would have to raise the threshold up to 18 at 100 percent of poverty. So it is basically creating an incentive, if you will, for the States to expand the Medicaid Program, and then they get this additional money beyond that to take to include people that would not be eligible for Medicaid under any circumstances. I think that that is sort of a good way to go about it, because again what we are trying to do is to capture some Federal moneys, get some State moneys, and then at the same time implement the changes in the private insurance market, or COBRA, that you have suggested, and if you think about it, between the outreach, between expanding Medicaid, between the matching grant program and the private insurance changes, I think we can go pretty far. I mean certainly all of the 10 million children who are not now covered by insurance could be covered under one of those various factors that we are putting forward, and at the same time it can be fit into the budget proposal, which is coming up next week and presumably over the next month or so. So our goal is to have this included as part of that process. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentlewoman from Oregon again for all her help in this.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take a little more time, if I could, to talk about some of the reasons why we need a plan like the Democratic proposal with regard to children's health insurance. As I mentioned before, Democrats have been talking about this as part of our family first agenda at least since June 1996, and the reason again is because the number of kids or children who do not have health insurance continues to grow. But I wanted to stress, if I could for a few minutes, how this is essentially a problem for working parents and that our task force and our Democratic proposal was essentially trying to craft a program that would primarily address the concerns of working parents. Right now, 9 out of 10 children without health insurance have parents who work, and nearly two and three have parents who work full time during the entire year, and these parents either do not get health insurance benefits through their employer, they get the benefits for themselves but not for their kids, or they get such a small contribution towards their kids' insurance that they cannot afford to make up the difference. As I said before, Medicaid helps the poorest children, and families who are well off can afford private coverage, but there are millions of working parents who are trapped in the middle, unable to afford health insurance for their kids. A family health insurance policy can cost $6,000 or more, which frankly is out of reach for many working families. We talked about possibly families up to $48,000 a year for a family of four. Six thousand dollars is a lot of money for a family that is making up to $48,000 a year. Now even for families who do get health insurance for their kids through their employer, insurance has gotten very expensive. In 1980, 54 percent of employees at medium and large companies had employers who paid the full cost of family coverage. By 1993 more than 79 percent of these employees were required to pay for their insurance. And the average employee now pays over $1,600 a year for family coverage, and employees of small businesses are paying an average $1,900 a year. Mr. Speaker, some people say well, you know, so what? You know this is a capitalist society; the Federal Government cannot do everything for everyone. But there are severe consequences of children not having health insurance. This is highlighted by cities that show that uninsured children tend to receive significantly fewer health care services than insured children. If I could just provide some facts regarding the consequences of children not having health insurance: First of all, reduced care when sick. Uninsured children are less likely to have their health problems treated and less likely to receive medical care from a physician when necessary. For example, uninsured children obtain care half as often for acute earache, recurring ear infections and asthma as do children with public or private coverage. Reduced care for injuries. Children with no insurance are less likely than those with insurance to receive care for injuries. Reduced medical visits. Uninsured children are 2.3 times less likely to have obtained a medical care visit in the past 12 months than are insured children. Reduced well child visits. During the course of a year, fewer than half, or 44.8 percent, of uninsured preschool children have any well child visits, and fewer than one-third receive their age-appropriate recommended scheduled visits. And finally, no regular source of care. Uninsured children are seven times as likely as insured children to be without a source of routine health care, and when they obtain health services, they are far more likely than insured children to utilize high-cost hospital emergency rooms as their usual source of care. So what are we talking about here? We are essentially saying that these children do not get preventive care, and when they do not get preventive care, they get sicker, and in the long run the costs of providing for their medical care goes up, and much of that cost ends up coming back to the Government or ends up being passed on to people who are paying for their health insurance through uncompensated care costs. The main thing we are trying to emphasize here is that it makes no sense whether it is as Ms. Furse said from her national security point of view or from a cost point of view or from a preventive point of view nothing--it does not make sense to not try to insure these 10 million children, and we believe that with our health care task force and our Democratic proposal we have a plan that can provide for insurance for most, if not all, these 10 million children within the confines of the balanced budget proposal that the House will be considering over the next few weeks or over the next month. And at this time I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson- Lee] who again has been on the forefront of this issue and has come to the floor many times to argue for the need to cover the 10 million uninsured children.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, at this point what I would like to do is to move into the issue of kids' or children's health care. Before I do that, I just wanted to say that Democrats in general have been concerned for almost 2 years now, and have put forth as part of their families first agenda an effort and a program to try to cover the 10 million children in these United States that do not have health insurance coverage at this point. We have been very upset, I would say, over the fact that the Republican leadership really has not made an effort to address the concern of children's health care. In fact, over the last 2 weeks what we have seen sort of on the opposite end is an effort to cut money for the Women, Infants and Children's Program, the WIC Program, which hopefully will be addressed tomorrow when the supplemental appropriation bill comes up but still has not been adequately addressed by the Republican leadership. Just by way of background, last month the Republicans on the Committee on Appropriations, largely along party lines, voted to limit the funding for the WIC Program. For those who do not know, the program provides milk, formula, and other nutritional benefits for our Nation's children. It is short about $76 million for this fiscal year. Most of the request, actually, for this funding to make up for the cut, most of the request came from the Governors of our 50 States, many of whom, the majority of whom actually are Republican. Today when the supplemental appropriations bill came up on the floor to be debated for the first time and the rule was being considered, we saw the Republican leadership essentially playing a shell game with the fate of approximately 180,000 children who need the WIC Program and are not going to be funded if we do not get this additional money. What the Republican leadership did, basically, was to tie additional funding to WIC to this controversial rule and effectively gag all debate on any further amendments to meet these Governors' requests for additional WIC funding. I cannot emphasize enough how important this WIC Program is. There are certain States like Nebraska and Arizona who have already begun to cut off nutritional assistance to many children because they are not getting this money that is needed. Believe me, more States are going to be following suit very soon if we do not have some action on the WIC Program. I think it is important because, again, WIC is a priority. The Republican leadership has not made it a priority any more than they have made the issue of children's health care a priority. Many of us in our Democratic task force on children's health care have been complaining now for several months about the fact that the Republicans have not addressed this issue. Last summer, Democrats began beating sort of a drum on the need to provide assistance to working families with uninsured children. This is primarily a concern of working families, because if they are of very low income, then they are eligible for Medicaid for their children. But if they are not, if they are above the Medicaid threshold, and in that case most of the people are working, then they are not eligible for Medicaid and they are not able many times to cover health insurance for their children. About a month ago, the Democrats finally called on the Republican leadership to move forward with a health care proposal by Mother's Day. Mr. Speaker, Mother's Day passed and the Republicans still have not produced anything. So our Democratic task force basically developed a plan of our own. I would like to go into some of the details of this plan but I am just going to briefly, if I could, mention some of the important points. Then I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] because she has developed a very important part of this overall package. Let me just say that the Democratic proposal consists of, first, an outreach program to cover the 3 million kids eligible for Medicaid who are not currently enrolled. Of the 10 million children that are not covered by health insurance right now in the Nation, approximately 3 million are actually eligible for Medicaid but for one reason or another are not enrolled, so we have an outreach program to cover them. Second, we are expanding Medicaid to make sure kids are covered year round when they are enrolled. What happens now is oftentimes, every 3 months or so, there will be a review of the child to see whether or not they are eligible for Medicaid. That has created a lot of disruption and caused a lot of kids to not be covered by health insurance. What we are saying is that if they are eligible for Medicaid, that the child stays in the program for at least 1 year. Then we have a Medikids grant to help cover more children in working families beyond the Medicaid Program. We are estimating that this could help working families up to $48,000 a year in income for a family of four. Then we have the insurance reforms to provide access to children-only health insurance policies. The gentlewoman from Oregon will explain that in more detail. Basically what that involves is, for those who cannot afford private health insurance, to make sure that they have access to it for their children. Lastly I wanted to mention that what the Democrats are putting forward as part of our health care proposal for kids guarantees that the funds in the balanced budget agreement go directly to covering as many kids as possible. I want to commend the President. The proposed budget agreement which we will probably consider next week on the House floor does provide for a certain amount of money, I think it is estimated to be about $17 billion over the next 5 years, to provide expanded coverage for children's health care. But we as Democrats want to make sure that this money goes directly to cover as many of these 10 million children as possible. With that, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last month Democrats urged Republican leaders to move forward on legislation to help provide health care coverage for America's uninsured children by Mother's Day. Instead of developing a plan for the more than 10 million uninsured children, Republican leaders have been outspoken in denying milk, formula, and other basic nutrition needs for approximately 180,000 children in the Women, Infants and Children, or WIC Program, that my colleague from Alabama just previously spoke about. Since the Republicans have failed in developing a plan to assist the Nation's uninsured children, Democrats have taken the initiative and have put together a children's health care proposal which we unveiled last week. The proposal is called the Families First Health Care Coverage for Children, and it seeks to help those working families who do not currently qualify for Medicaid, because they are above the Federal poverty level, but are nevertheless without health insurance for a number of reasons. I would like to discuss, Mr. Speaker, this plan right now. It is basically a three-pronged approach. First, it encourages, but does not mandate, States to expand the Medicaid floor for health insurance for low-income children, while assisting local communities in developing outreach to the 3 million children who are uninsured, but already do qualify for Medicaid assistance. Now, what we found is that a lot of children are out there and qualify under the current Medicaid law, but are not taking advantage of it, so we do need an outreach program. Most children in families at low income levels currently receive their health care from the Medicaid program, and we are just trying to ensure that these low-income families do not fall through the cracks. The second prong of the Democrats' families first children's health care proposal creates a matching grant program for the States, and it is called Medikids. It is a grant program that will be targeted to those families, if we use a family of four, who make between $16,000 and $48,000 a year. Medikids will give the States the flexibility and the additional moneys they need to be creative in meeting the needs of a State's uninsured children's population. Now, when I talk about flexibility, States can form public-private partnerships, use the money to build upon existing State programs and to create new initiatives unique to the State's own needs. Again, Medikids is voluntary to the States, but in order for States to qualify for the Medikids matching grant they must provide Medicaid coverage for pregnant women up to 185 percent of the poverty level and children through age 18 of families up to 180 percent of the poverty level, or $16,000 in a family of four. So what we are doing here, Mr. Speaker, is expanding Medicaid, the floor of the Medicaid Program, and then providing matching grants so States can go beyond that up to families of four with incomes of $48,000. Finally, I wanted to say that our third prong, which basically came from the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse], who is part of our health care task force, this would seek private health insurance reforms and make it easier for families of all income levels to provide for their children's health care needs. It is not income-based. This third prong would require insurers to offer group-rated policies for children only, which means a relatively inexpensive health insurance policy. Additionally, families who qualify for health insurance under current law, the COBRA law, that cannot afford the premium for the entire family, will have the option to purchase a children's only health insurance policy. This last portion, again that was provided and suggested and is in a bill that the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] has introduced, basically benefits working families of all income levels. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that this Democratic proposal can all be achieved within the context of the balanced budget agreement that was announced by the President a few weeks ago. Democrats, I believe, Mr. Speaker, are moving forward because Republicans in effect are lacking leadership in this arena of children's health. I once again have to point out that instead of seeking a solution to children's health care, we see the Republican leadership determined to stop full funding of the WIC Program that their own Governors have requested. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out, the Democrats from last year, when we put forward our families first agenda, were trying to respond to the real needs of the average American family, and I think that is what this health care initiative does again. It addresses the fact that we have so many children out there who are not covered, who are responding to that need, and we hope we can get bipartisan support for this initiative.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Republican leadership will have a chance to redeem itself and prove they are for America's children. A few weeks ago in the Committee on Appropriations, Republicans largely voted to gut the women, infants and children's WIC nutrition program. Republican leaders denied the nutrition needs of approximately 880,000 at-risk children by not supporting the full funding request that was made by all 50 Governors and the administration. Republican extremists are arguing that WIC does not need full funding. They would rather deny children their nutrition needs than make up the $38 million shortfall. Mr. Speaker, many religious and antihunger advocates such as Catholic Charities, U.S.A., have written me citing that WIC is effective, efficient, and cost-beneficial. They are urging Congress to be compassionate to children, and meet their needs. Mr. Speaker, let us do the right thing and get our priorities straight as we go into the budget process. In order to accomplish that, we need to fully fund the WIC Program.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, how can the Republicans deny milk, cereal, and formula, I have some dry milk up here, that is provided by the WIC Program to young children, to infants? I cannot imagine how they do not see this as a priority. That is what the Federal Government should be trying to do, to protect people who fall through the cracks. I have two young children myself, and I just cannot imagine the situation where I would not be able to provide them with the basic necessities of life. I know that the Republicans are saying that they do not need this money, that there is already carryover money from last year to pay for this WIC Program, but that is simply not true. What the Republicans fail to understand is that the 1996 funds have already been calculated into determining what funding is necessary to keep the WIC Program afloat. We need the supplemental appropriation to make sure that the kids get food in the morning. Republicans have to listen to their own Governors. It is the Republican Governors in California and Louisiana who are saying that this program has been cut and that they already have had to start denying children milk and cereal. Let us get together on this one. Let us make sure that we are not denying these kids the basic necessities of life.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 478 is an extreme and environmentally dangerous bill that expands the waiver of the Endangered Species Act requirements to a broad range of nonemergency situations. This bill would allow for an ESA waiver for the daily routine maintenance and repair of any existing flood project anywhere in the Nation. This exemption would apply to all projects, Federal and non-Federal, at any time regardless of flood threat. H.R. 478 would subject large tracts of land to environmental hazards and damage by denying them the protection of the ESA. The Boehlert- Fazio substitute is a bipartisan substitute that is in response to this excessive measure. The substitute allows for ESA exemptions to true emergencies including prospective emergencies. H.R. 478 proposes extreme sweeping changes to the ESA legislation, changes which I cannot endorse. The Boehlert-Fazio substitute allows us to address emergency repairs and gives us the opportunity to debate broader ESA issues at a later date. I am very much in support of the Boehlert-Fazio substitute for this reason.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to contradict what my colleague from Ohio on the Republican side just said about the WIC Program. The bottom line is that the $76 million in supplemental funds are needed for the WIC Program. The information submitted by 50 States to the Agricultural Department in early April specifically says that they will have to drop, many of those States will have to drop women, infants, and children from WIC before the end of the fiscal year if no supplemental funding is provided. And the documents that these States filed with the Agriculture Department in early April basically took into account all unspent funds from fiscal year 1996. The proposed $76 million supplemental funding requested by the administration takes these funds into account. So it is simply not true that there is carryover money that is going to be available to make up for this difference. When we are giving these estimates and we are saying that we need the $76 million extra, it takes into account those carryover funds. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that these estimates in these reports and the requests for this additional funding in many cases is coming from States governed by Republican Governors.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this fall, the acclaimed poet Robert Pinsky will take his place as America's 39th poet laureate. I am very proud to point out to my colleagues that Mr. Pinsky was born and raised and graduated from the public high school in my hometown of Long Branch, NJ, a historic seashore community that was the inspiration for many of his poems. Mr. Pinsky is truly the right poet laureate for our time in history. In announcing his appointment, the Librarian of Congress, James H. Billingham, noted that his accomplishments in translation, his interest in making poetry accessible through digital technology on the Internet, and his own probing poetry promise an exciting year for us in Washington. He follows in the footsteps of many great poet laureates, including Robert Frost, Gwendolyn Brooks, Robert Penn Warren, and Conrad Aiken. The duties of the poet laureate have traditionally included promoting poetry in this country through seminars, workshops, and speaking engagements. Judging from Mr. Pinsky's rich imagination and creative use of language in the computer, I am sure we can count on him to make his mark on the poet laureates' role in a significant and lasting way. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pinsky is the author of five collections of poetry, including his most recent publication, ``The Figured Wheel: New and Collected Poems 1965 to 1995.'' He is the poetry editor of the weekly Internet magazine called Slate. In 1994, Mr. Pinsky translated Dante's ``Inferno'' from the Italian and won great national acclaim for the deep poetic talent displayed in this formidable task. The students at Boston University where he is a professor are certainly fortunate to have him teaching in their creative writing program. I know that I reflect the views of my constituents when I express how proud I am that a native son of the Sixth Congressional District of New Jersey will hold the esteemed and historic title of Poet Laureate. So at this time I would like to share with my colleagues a few of Mr. Pinsky's poems so that we might welcome him to Washington with a deeper appreciation of his outstanding poetry. First of all, these are from the Figured Wheel which I mentioned. The first one, if I could read it briefly, Mr. Speaker, is about my home town of Long Branch, which is also Mr. Pinsky's home town, and he talks about the ocean, which we are all so very fond of since Long Branch is along the shore. It is called ``A Long Branch Song.'' Some days in May, little stars. Winked all over the ocean. The blue Barely changed all morning and afternoon. The chimes of the bank's bronze clock; The hoarse voice of Cookie, hawking The Daily Record for 35 years. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that brings home to me because I remember Cookie who was hawking the Daily Record, our local newspaper, for a long time when I was growing up. The next poem is also about Long Branch. It is a little longer but not much. I would like to read it, if I could, to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker. It is called ``Long Branch, New Jersey.'' Everything is regional, And this is where I was born, dear, And conceived, And first moved to tears, And last irritated to the same point. It is bounded on three sides by similar places And on one side by vast, uncouth houses. A glum boardwalk and, As we say, The Beach. I stand here now At the corner of Third Avenue and Broadway. Waiting for you to come by in a car, And count the red carlights That rush through a fine rain To where Broadway's two branches--North Broadway and South Broadway--both reach To the trite, salt, welcoming ocean. I like to read that one, Mr. Speaker, because not only is Broadway near where I was born and grew up but it is also where my congressional office is, on Broadway. The last one I would like to read, I hope there is time in the time I have allotted, is called ``To My Father, for Milford S. Pinsky,'' who I remember was Robert Pinsky's father, a local obstetrician in Long Branch. The glazed surface of the world, dusk. And three mallard that land In the dim lake, each Scudding in a bright oval . . . What chance, man, for the thin Halting qualities of the soul? Call this, prologue to an explanation, Something like the way Uncle Joe Winograd With a carpenter's flat silence Might act on some given stretch Of Uncle Italo Tarantola's lifelong Lawyerly expanding monologue. What I wanted, was to dwell Here in the brain as though At my bench, as though in a place Like the live ongoing shop-- Between kitchen and factory-- Of a worker in wood or in leather. Implements ranged in sizes and shapes, The stuff itself stacked up In the localized purposeful clutter Of work, the place itself smelling Of the hide, sawdust or whatever. I wanted the exact words; I wanted the way to pronounce Evenly the judgment which a man Who was quiet holds back as distinct But not final in the presence Of a good talker. I a good talker Ask you a quiet man to recall the inside Of a shop, glassdust and lenses Everywhere, broken eyeglasses, forms And odd pieces of paper, voices Like phones ringing, tools Broken and whole everywhere, mail Unread, the sign--``Milford S.'' or ``Robert''--hanging like a straight face . . . Surface, tyranny of the world visible, Images that spread outward From the brain like lines crazing-- Or like brief silvery ovals That glide over the dark, Ethereal, yet each wingbeat Firm in time, of more Substance than this, this mothlike Stirring of words, work or affection.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in this effort to focus more attention on the plight of the Kurdish people. I want to thank my colleague from California, Mr. Filner, for taking this time to discuss the ongoing human tragedy in the mountains of Kurdistan. About half of the worldwide Kurdish community lives within the borders of the Republic of Turkey, where their treatment is an absolute affront to the basic fundamentals of human rights. At least one-quarter of the population of Turkey is Kurdish. Yet, in Turkey, the Kurds are subjected to a policy of forced assimilation, which is essentially written into the Turkish constitution. To date, 3,124 Kurdish villages have been destroyed, and more than 3 million of their residents have been forced to become refugees, either in Kurdistan or abroad. While the situation for the Kurdish people in such nations as Iraq, Iran, and Syria is also deplorable, I wish to draw particular attention to the situation in Turkey for some basic reasons. Turkey is, after all, a military ally of the United States, a member of NATO. As such, Turkey has received billions of dollars in military and economic assistance--courtesy of the American taxpayers. In addition, Turkey aspires to participate in other major Western organizations and institutions, such as the European Union. Mr. Speaker, I believe that most Americans would be frankly appalled to know that a country that has received so much in the way of American largesse is guilty of so many breaches of international law and simple human decency. I have joined with many of my colleagues in denouncing Turkey's illegal blockade of Armenia, its failure to acknowledge responsibility for the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923, its ongoing illegal occupation of Cyprus, and its threatening military maneuvers in the Aegean Sea. The brutal treatment of the more than 15 million Kurds living within Turkish borders offers a major argument for cutting back on military and economic aid to Turkey, or to at least attach very stringent conditions to the provision of this aid. If Turkey wants the benefits of inclusion in Western institutions that are supposed to be founded on the defense of democracy and human rights, then that country should start living up to the agreements it has signed. Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on behalf of one of the most prominent victims of Turkey's cruel irrational anti-Kurd policies. Mrs. Leyla Zana was elected to a seat in the Turkish Parliament in 1991, representing her hometown of Diyarbakir. She was elected with 84 percent of the total vote. She became the first Kurd to break the ban on the Kurdish language in the Turkish Parliament, for which she was later tried and convicted. She had uttered the following words: ``I am taking this [constitutional] oath for the brotherhood of the Turkish and Kurdish peoples.'' On May 17, 1993, she and her colleague Ahmet Turk addressed the Helsinki Commission of the United States Congress. This testimony was used against her in the court of law. On March 2, 1994, her constitutional immunity as a member of Parliament was revoked, and she was arrested, taken into custody, tried, in a one-sided mockery of justice, convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Leyla Zana, who is 35 years old and the mother of two children, is in the third year of her 15-year sentence at a prison in Ankara, the Turkish capital. Leyla Zana's pursuit of democratic change by non-violent means was honored by the European Parliament, which unanimously awarded her the 1995 Sakharov Peace Prize. She has twice been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I know that some of my colleagues are circulating a letter to the President on her behalf, and I hope a majority of the Members of this House will join with the European Parliament in defending the human and civil rights of this brave woman--and, I might remind my colleagues--a fellow Parliamentarian, a fellow-elected official. We owe her our moral support, and to urge our ambassador in Ankara to raise Mrs. Zana's case with the Turkish authorities at the highest levels. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the Members of this Body, and anyone watching us, some of the basic goals of Mrs. Zana and of the repressed Kurdish people of Turkey: The Kurdish identity must be recognized; The use of the Kurdish language in conversation and in writing should be legalized; All cultural rights should be conceded; Kurdish political parties must be given full Constitutional rights; and A general amnesty for all political prisoners must be granted. Mr. Speaker, we often hear--from our own administration, from other apologists for Turkey--about what a great democracy the Republic of Turkey is. Yet this is how a duly elected representative of that so- called democracy is being treated, for the crime of speaking her language and defending the rights of her people. Mr. Speaker, this cannot go on. For many years we have witnessed a clear pro-Turkish tilt on the part of the State Department. We often hear about the strategic importance of Turkey, its pivotal location. I don't discount these arguments completely. But we have to balance these factors against some other very important considerations. Turkey continues to spend billions of dollars on obtaining sophisticated weapons systems, not only from the United States, but from France, Russia, and elsewhere. Much of this military hardware is then used to repress and terrorize the Kurdish people, citizens of Turkey who should be extended the protection of their country's armed forces, and not be victimized by those armed forces. Meanwhile, Turkey does not have a strong industrial base and is lacking in infrastructure in many key areas. Why is Turkey, our ally, throwing away so much of its limited resources on sophisticated weapons to use against its Kurdish residents, when it could be investing in better schools, health care and other services that could help put Turkey on a par with the Western nations it seeks to be associated with? Mr. Speaker, last week I led a special order in this House commemorating the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923, committed by the Ottoman Turkish Empire. Just yesterday, I joined with members of the Armenian-American community for an observance of the anniversary of the unleashing of the Genocide. In recalling this well-documented part of history, the existence of which Turkey continues to officially deny, we often point out that the importance of remembering the past is to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future. Mr. Speaker, we are currently witnessing a similar tragedy in Kurdistan. True, the Kurdish people have not been slaughtered on the scale that the Armenians were in the early part of this century. To some extent, the greater scrutiny that exists today--through satellite imaging and instantaneous communication--may be playing some role in restraining the Turkish Government. But there is a certain similarity to the pattern: A concerted effort by a Turkish government to wipe out the presence of a nonTurkic people which has lived in the region for centuries. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close my remarks with a statement from Lord Eric Avebury, the chairman of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group of the British House of Lords, who recently visited Turkish and Iraqi Kurdistan. He cited a quote, dating from AD 84, from the Roman historian Tacitus describing the Roman conquest of Britain: ``Ubi solituneinem faciunt, pacem appelant.'' ``They made it a desolation and called it peace.'' Mr. Speaker, let us resolve not to let the entire land and nation of Kurdistan be made into a desolation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge] for participating in this special order. The gentleman mentioned a number of things that I thought were really important. I just want to reiterate, if I could, two things that the gentleman mentioned, because I think they are so true. One is the juxtaposition, if you will, of the amount of money that we spend on prisons versus education. Of course, we all know we have to have prisons and the Federal Government, of course, has been providing funding to build more prisons. But the bottom line is that I think that our whole reason why we think education is such a priority is because it builds a foundation for the future and is essentially preventive. People that are well educated, it is less likely that they are going to have to be committing crime or going to prison. If we leverage the amount of money that we would spend, for example, on school construction and compare that to what would have to be spent on prison construction down the road, clearly there is no comparison. That is why it makes sense to spend Federal dollars on school construction and renovation. I yield to the gentleman again.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to talk about the Democrats' education agenda. Before I get into some of the details, however, I wanted to briefly touch on the evolution of our plan to expand and improve the Nation's education system. I think it is particularly important to keep the history behind our plan in mind as negotiations over the budget continue the next few days or the next few weeks. The Democratic Party has historically been the champion and defender of education in this country. The 104th Congress, in fact, illustrated this observation in very stark terms. Upon taking the majority for the first time in some 40 years, Republican leaders immediately set out to dismantle Federal education programs. Led by Speaker Gingrich and primarily the freshman Republicans who were elected for the first time in the 104th Congress, the GOP proposed the largest education cuts in history. A look at the record shows that on August 4, 1995, the Gingrich Congress christened its attack on education when 213 House Republicans voted for the largest education cuts in history, voting to slash education programs by 15 percent, or $3.6 billion. These cuts across the full spectrum of education were particularly heavy on student loan programs. But the proposed cuts left no stone unturned. They targeted Title I, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Goals 2000, Head Start, vocational and adult education, as well as student loans. Two times the GOP shut down the Federal Government because the President and congressional Democrats refused to allow the extremist Republican agenda to move forward. As we all know now in the face of mounting pressure from the American public, Republicans eventually relented and restored most of the billions of dollars that they were trying to cut in education programs. Democrats on the other hand did not just fight to prevent Republicans from gutting education programs, we developed positive plans to improve and expand Federal education. That is basically where we are today, trying to convince the Republican majority to incorporate our education agenda in their budget plans. One of the most important aspects of the Democrats' education program which I would like to dwell on for a few minutes is higher education, and particularly expanding access to college by making it more affordable for middle-class and lower income Americans to attend college. We are essentially trying to accomplish this goal through a combination of scholarships, grants and tax breaks. The President in his State of the Union Address talked about the HOPE scholarship program which has probably received the most attention in terms of higher education programs. This is based on a plan in Georgia and basically what the HOPE scholarship program offers is refundable tax credits of up to $1,500 to students in their first 2 years of college who maintain B averages and stay off drugs. Our agenda also includes a $10,000 tax deduction for families with college expenses for every year that they have such expenses. All told, taking the tax credits and the tax deductions for postsecondary tuition and the fees, it would provide $36 billion of tax relief for working families and students over the next 5 years. Another component of this higher education agenda that is extremely important is the proposed increase in the Pell grant program. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the Pell grant program is really the cornerstone, or has been the cornerstone, for a number of years of the Federal student aid program. It provides a means for students who would otherwise be unable to pay for college to get a college education. The plan that the President proposed in his State of the Union address and that he is now pushing in his budget is in fact the largest increase ever in the Pell grant program which would provide $40 billion of assistance to needy students over the next 5 years. I just wanted to stress the importance of Pell grants and just bring it back to my home State of New Jersey if I could for a minute. At Rutgers University, which is in my home district and is the largest State university in New Jersey, approximately 20,000 students at Rutgers received Federal assistance in the 1996-97 academic year. Of that 20,000 students, 8,498 received Pell grants. In other words, close to half of all students who receive Federal aid at Rutgers to help pay their tuition costs are getting it through the Pell grant program. As we can see, Mr. Speaker, tax breaks and increases in the current programs are the foundations of our higher education agenda, but I want to stress that they are not the only elements. We are also proposing cuts in student loan origination fees that would save $2.6 billion over the next 5 years. We would continue our programming of injecting competition by expanding the direct lending program. In other words, rather than have the student loan industry, the banks and financial institutions, provide the loans, or as an alternative through competition, we would let the colleges and universities provide the loans directly. Our plan also includes a proposal to provide tax incentives to employers who provide tuition assistance to their employees, to expand those opportunities for higher education as well. I have to stress that most of these higher education proposals were developed by Democrats in the spring and summer of last year. The American public, I think, has essentially sent a very unequivocal message about education and even about these proposals. They have indicated that we need assistance in meeting the runaway costs of a college education, and I think people in general are eager to see these Democratic proposals become law. I know that in my own district when I talk to my constituents about what they would like to see us do on the Federal level, education and particularly higher education is one of the major priorities. It is my hope that the Republican leadership learns from its mistakes during last year's budget battle and includes some of these Democratic proposals in this year's plan. Working families, students and average Americans, I think, are counting on Congress to help. We are simply waiting for the Republicans to agree to help us make life a little easier and a little better for the average American.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman, there is no question that it is a national problem. I know in my district in New Jersey we have a variety of schools, inner-city older schools, growing communities that are operating with portable classrooms because they cannot find the funding to build new schools. In the last few years in many of the communities in New Jersey there has been an expansion, a huge expansion in school enrollment. I guess there is sort of a new baby boom that is coming along now. The school districts simply cannot afford to spend the money on renovations or new construction. I do not know that we actually brought it out tonight, but the gentlewoman and I are certainly aware, as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts, that the President has called for this $5 billion to be spent over the next 4 years to help pay for up to half the interest that local school districts incur on school construction bonds, or for other forms of assistance that will spur new State and local infrastructure investment. Basically this financing assistance, this $5 billion, can help to spur $20 billion in new resources for school modernization, a 25 percent increase above current levels over the next 4 years. What we are saying basically is that we want the Federal Government to get involved with the school infrastructure, which they have really not been in a significant way, and even though $5 billion may not sound like a lot over 5 years, it can really be leveraged with what the State and local governments can do to make a difference to address some of these needs. But it is clearly national, it is not just in New Jersey or Texas, it is all over, and there is plenty of information from the General Accounting Office to verify that. Mr. Speaker, I notice the gentleman came on the floor, and I would like to yield some time to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I just wanted to mention, if I could, and develop a couple of things the gentleman has mentioned. When he talked about the Pell grants, one of the things we need to stress, and the gentleman did so, is that the Democratic education initiative does put a lot of emphasis on the need to expand the Pell grants, as does the President's. I think a lot of the media focus or attention has been on the HOPE scholarships and the tuition tax credits, but I think we all understand that if we do not expand Pell grants then the neediest, if you will, of students that really depend on Pell grants in order to finance their college education will not be able to continue. Throughout this debate about whether to provide tax credits versus scholarships or Pell grants, we just need to continue to focus on the fact that if we do not expand these Pell grant programs, then the needier students will not be able to go to college, because I know that the cost of tuitions and fees has gone up so much, and that Pell grants basically have not kept up with it, even though the Democrats have continued to stress the need to expand those Pell grant programs.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield now to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], who I know has been involved again with these education issues and promoting the need for the Federal Government to do more on education.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman for being here. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern]. Mr. McGovern. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for organizing this special order on education. As the gentleman knows, no other issue before this country, in my opinion, is as important as the education of our children. Like a number of my colleagues, a couple of weeks ago I attended the conference at the White House on early childhood development. As the gentleman knows, this conference focused on new scientific research that confirms what many parents have suspected for a long time, that those very first few years of a child's life are critical to that child's social and intellectual and emotional development. I think the President and the First Lady deserve enormous credit for taking a lead on this issue, and raising awareness on this issue. I have taken to this well many times to speak of my support for improving the scope and quality of American education. But we must never forget, as I said, that a child starts learning long before they enter the first classroom. If one believes, as I do, that education is truly the key to this Nation's economic future, we must begin early. I would just like to highlight the fact that I have joined with the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. Rosa DeLauro, and the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Steny Hoyer, in introducing a bill that kind of addresses some of the concerns that were raised at that White House Conference on Early Childhood Development. The bill specifically would increase funding for Head Start and the Early Start Programs. It would also expand the Family and Medical Leave Act, and it would provide competitive State grants for child care and family support services. I think it is vital and it is crucial that this Congress address this issue of early childhood development. Again, anybody who attended that conference at the White House could not help but be moved by the testimony from scientists and academics and parents who talk specifically about how important some of these programs are. Earlier today I joined with a number of my colleagues at a gathering that was entitled a ``Head Start Day Hearing'' in the U.S. Congress. I sat down and had lunch with a bunch of Head Start kids. I am convinced more than ever that this is a very important program and deserves the support of this institution. But supporting those kinds of programs I think is vital if we truly are serious about education. Mr. Speaker, I might add one more issue that I think is very important for this Congress to address. That is the issue of expanding the amount that we grant currently for Pell grants and the eligibility. The cost of higher education continues to go up, and yet State and Federal grants continue to go down. The way people right now tend to finance their education is almost exclusively on loans. The idea of providing more money for Pell grants, I think this is the time to do it. I think parents would appreciate that kind of movement. Certainly college presidents and those associated with various universities and colleges would appreciate it. I get concerned when it appears that many people who would like to go to college do not go to college simply because they cannot afford to go to college. I think anybody in this country who wants a college education should be able to get one, regardless of where they are in terms of economic status. If we are truly serious about building that bridge into the 21st century that the President talks so eloquently about, if we truly want this Nation to continue to be the economic superpower in the next century, then education is the key. Education really is the key to almost everything: Economic stability, economic development, as well as dealing with so many of the social and economic problems that we talk about often on this floor. I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey for organizing this special order, and I will certainly join with him and the President in the initiatives that he has outlined here today.

Mr. PALLONE. I agree, and I thank the gentleman for his comments and for the legislation he has introduced. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens], and I again assure him that what he is talking about in New York City is throughout the country. We had some statistics about the General Accounting Office that says one-third of the Nation's schools needs major repair, outright replacement, 60 percent need work on major building features, sagging roof, cracked foundation, 46 percent lack even the basic electrical wiring to support computers, modems and modern communication technology. My colleague talked about the magnitude in New York, but it is true throughout the country. I think that is why the school construction program the President is talking about has so much appeal because it really affects every district, every congressional district in this country, as do so many of these proposals the Democrats have put forward on education. So I am just hopeful that our colleagues on the other side, the Republican leaders, who are in the majority, take heed of this because I think there is no question that education is a priority and that there is a lot more that can be done on the Federal level, and we as Democrats have put forward those proposals and we would like to have our Republican colleagues join us in passing those in this Congress before we adjourn. So thank you again, I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the other thing the gentleman mentions is the emphasis on early childhood education. I guess in the last couple of weeks we have heard a lot about that in the media. I think the President, and Mrs. Clinton in particular, have been going around the country talking about the need for early childhood education. The First Lady was actually at Princeton University in my State, I believe just a couple of days ago. Reading some of this material that has been coming out over the last few weeks, it is just amazing to me. I have two small children, one is 2 and the other is 3\1/2\, and I have listened to what some of the educators are saying and I can just see how true it is, that we need to spend more time. A lot of it of course is just the family, that the family spends time reading to their children or spending time with their kids, but also in terms of resources as well, on very early childhood education, because so much happens in those formative years. That is why I think programs like Head Start, which really do not even start that early, but start fairly early, and that has been a very successful program. One of the things that we have been talking about as part of the Democratic agenda is expanding Head Start and early childhood education, because it is so crucial. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Mother's Day is fast approaching and there has been no committee action to date on passing legislation to cover America's uninsured children. Last week, the House Committee on Appropriations failed to pass an amendment to fully meet the President's funding request for the Women, Infants, and Children's Program. According to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Public Priorities, 180,000 participants will be cut off from this vital nutrition program by this September as a result of Republican actions. Even though the General Accounting Office has reported that each dollar invested in the prenatal component of WIC averts over $3.5 of Medicaid and other spending, Republicans felt that this prevention program did not warrant their full support. Last week's vote on the Committee on Appropriations sends the wrong message to the American people. We should be working to ensure that our children are healthy and expand insurance options instead of rejecting proven preventive programs. Maybe the Republican leaders will surprise us by passing children's health care legislation through the committee process before Mother's Day. Democrats are waiting for Republican leaders to join us in helping our Nation's children.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues probably know, over 10 million American children are without health insurance, and Democrats have been aware of this growing problem for some time. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has been full of inaction. Since the beginning of the 105th Republican-controlled Congress, an additional 372,900 children have lost private health coverage, according to the Children's Defense Fund. Essentially this has been due to inaction by the Republican leadership. But at the same time, Republicans in the House Committee on Appropriations voted down an amendment last week that fully met the President's funding request for women, infant, and children, the WIC Program. This nutrition program has been cited as one of the most successful Federal programs, and I have to say that I have witnessed this firsthand. I have been in some of the places where people have signed up for the WIC Program. It has been responsible for reducing low birth weight, infant mortality and anemia, while improving the diets of mothers and children. The WIC Program has a proven track record in providing preventive health care benefits. According to the General Accounting Office, each dollar invested in the prenatal component of WIC averts $3.50 of Medicaid and other spending. Instead, the Republicans have voted to cut 180,000 participants of this program by this September. Some States like California, for example, are already directing health clinics to deny WIC benefits to children. Mr. Speaker, I consider these cuts in the WIC Program to be unacceptable. Democrats support the President's funding request for WIC because we understand the value of early intervention and prevention in health care. It would appear that the Republican leadership does not. The WIC Program that the Democrats are concerned about is just basically another example of how we can address, through preventive measures, children's health care. When we talk about the problem of children's health care and the number of uninsured growing, at least if we were involved in trying to support and back up the WIC Program, we would be able to say that we were doing something and continuing to do at least a decent job with preventive care for children. It is relatively inexpensive, and I have said this many times on the House floor, to provide health care for children, and there are many approaches to achieving this. Many legislative proposals are circulating that reduce the number of uninsured children and assist families in providing for their children's health care needs. I have introduced legislation that mirrors the Hatch-Kennedy proposal by providing block grants to the States to help families afford coverage for their children. Under this proposal, States would have the flexibility to administer the program and use innovative methods unique to their particular State. The only requirement is that children's health care plans must be comparable to Medicaid, meaning the inclusion of important and cost-saving preventive benefits. I have to say that the Kennedy-Hatch proposal is only one option that is being offered by Democrats or others on a bipartisan basis. There are many others to choose from, singularly or in combination. But instead of talking about these proposals, the Republican leadership barely acknowledges the problem of uninsured children and appears to be stonewalling against it. I think a good start for the Republican leadership would be to support full funding for WIC when it comes to the House floor for a vote. Their next move should be to move children's health care legislation through the committee process by Mother's Day, as Democrats have urged. Congress should be expanding health care options for children, not making matters worse by cutting children's nutrition programs. I just hope, and I urge that my Republican colleagues will join with us to make sure that the WIC Program is adequately funded. At least that would be a beginning to dealing with the issue of preventive care for children, and then we can at least show that there is support, I believe, on a bipartisan basis ultimately for passing a piece of legislation that will cover all, if not most, of the 10 million children that are now uninsured.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today the Medicare trustees will release the latest numbers on Medicare's impending insolvency. The Republicans are in the majority, so what is their solution? Instead of passing legislation to fix the trust fund, they have wasted the last 2 years trying to ram through deep Medicare cuts to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. Last week Republican leaders argued for an additional $30 billion in Medicare cuts. The Medicare legislation that the Republicans passed in the last Congress would have forced seniors to pay double premiums for lesser quality care. The Republicans fought the Medicare Program when it was created under Democratic control, and now they are relishing the opportunity to let it die under their watch.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 1997, the Borough of Allenhurst, NJ, will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the founding of their community. A reenactment of the first meeting of the board of commissioners will take place at the Allenhurst Beach Club on Saturday at 3 p.m. The celebration of the borough's centennial will continue with a variety of community events throughout the rest of the year. Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago, in April 1897, the Borough of Allenhurst had the first meeting of its board of commissioners. Of course, this was not the beginning of the history of life in the area as we now call Allenhurst. A Scotsman named Gawen Drummond bought the land for native Americans. The land was for many years part of the Allen Farm, and there were two hotels, the Allen Hotel and the Crow's Nest. In 1896 the Coast Land Office was built at the corner of Page and Corlies Avenues, and in the next 20 months 58 cottages were constructed. The Coast Land Company placed ads in New York and Philadelphia newspapers extolling the borough's wise exclusiveness. The following year, the borough was incorporated. Mr. Speaker, a lot has changed in Allenhurst, NJ, and America since the founding of Allenhurst. One hundred years ago, Grover Cleveland was President, San Francisco had a massive earthquake, the Spanish-American War was being fought, the first World Series was held and construction of the Panama Canal began. But much has remained the same: The beauty of the ocean and beaches of the Jersey Shore and the deep sense of community pride felt by the residents of Allenhurst. On April 26 at 3 p.m., the minutes of the original meeting will be read. Mayor Coyne and Commissioners Ruocco and McCarthy will be dressed in 1896-style costumes. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the borough officials and all the residents of this beautiful oceanfront community on this historic occasion and look forward to working with them to make the next 100 years every bit as good as the first century.