Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate India's new Prime Minister, Inder Kumar Gujral, for winning the vote of confidence of the Indian Parliament this past Tuesday. This vote of confidence has put an end to the 24-day government crisis and provides yet another indication that India's democratic institutions remain very strong. Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Gujral is committed to strengthening United States-India ties. He has assured foreign investors that he will support free market reforms and initiatives. These reforms have opened India to United States businesses and industries. In a recent meeting with the Indian President Sharma, he assured the President that all the economic policies of the previous government will continue and be strengthened. Prime Minister Gujral has already shown that given the opportunity he will bring peace to South Asia. His policies as Foreign Minister in the previous government have been coined as the Gujral Doctrine. He has already laid the groundwork to ease tensions in this traditionally volatile region. As Foreign Minister for Prime Minister Gowda, Mr. Gujral helped orchestrate the Bangladesh Water Agreement, a water treaty that ended years of dispute over water sharing rights between India and Bangladesh. He supervised an accord in which India and China agreed to reduce troops along the Himalayan border. But most important, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gujral has vowed to improve relations with Pakistan and made this the priority of India's foreign policy. Mr. Gujral helped initiate peace talks between India and Pakistan after a lull of 3 years. He is confident that the two neighbors can reach agreement in many areas through bilateral talks, and on May 12 of this year Prime Minister Gujral and Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif will meet in the Maldives to discuss peace. Mr. Speaker, what is extraordinary about these accomplishments is that they were achieved within 10 months since the united front first took charge of the Indian Government. An even stronger sign of Prime Minister Gujral's ability to bring peace to the region can be seen in the troubled region of Jammu and Kashmir. This morning Kashmiri leaders stated that they believe that the new Prime Minister could help normalize relations between Pakistan and India and bring peace to Kashmir. A popular Kakshmiri separatist leader told Reuters News Service that if Mr. Gujral continues to be Prime Minister of India for a long period, I believe he can play a historic role in bringing India and Pakistan closer and solve the Kashmir problem. Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Gujral is India's third Prime Minister in the last 11 months. However, as we have seen, democracy remains strong and vibrant in India. As the Prime Minister said in a speech on Monday, we can change government but the system goes on, democracy continues, and it is strengthened. As cochairman of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian- Americans, I believe that Prime Minister Gujral can best lead India toward the 21st century, and I look forward to working with the Prime Minister in strengthening United States-India relations. I want to also urge the Clinton administration, Members of this House and the Senate to support Prime Minister Gujral and assist him in bringing peace to South Asia. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add that this year marks the 50th anniversary of India's independence. Since her birth in 1947, India has hosted free and fair elections through a multiparty political system and has maintained an orderly transfer of power from government to its successor. In light of this achievement, I would urge President Clinton and more Members of this body to visit India this year and to support this momentous occasion.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from California has nothing else, I would thank him for participating with me.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as my colleagues and I do every year at this time to join in remembrance and commemoration of one of the most horrible events of the 20th century and, in fact, in all of human history. That is the systematic extermination of 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children during the final years of the Ottoman Turkish empire. This was the first genocide of the 20th century, a precursor to the Nazi Holocaust and the other cases of ethnic cleansing and mass extermination of peoples in our time in Bosnia and Central Africa and in other parts of the world. We must, Mr. Speaker, call what happened to the Armenian people between the years 1915 and 1923 by its correct name, and that is genocide. Tomorrow, Thursday, April 24, marks the 82d anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian genocide. Armenian-Americans throughout the United States and people of conscience everywhere are commemorating this event in various ways. Our annual tradition of holding a special order here in the House of Representatives on or near the anniversary of the genocide is always a proud moment for this institution, a time where Members come together on a bipartisan basis to remember, to try to counter the indifference and the outright distortions of history. Yet, regrettably, I would say incredibly, the United States does not officially recognize the Armenian genocide. Bowing to strong pressure from Turkey, the U.S. State Department has, for more than 15 years, shied away from referring to the tragic events of 1915 to 1923 by the word ``genocide.'' Successive U.S. Presidents have annually issued proclamations on the anniversary of the genocide expressing sorrow for the massacres and solidarity with the victims and survivors, but always stopping short of using the word ``genocide,'' thus minimizing and not accurately conveying what really happened beginning 82 years ago. In the 1970's, the U.S. House passed a resolution officially recognizing the genocide, but it did not become law. In June 1996, just last year, during debate on the foreign operations appropriations bill, the House passed, by more than 300 votes in favor, an amendment withholding economic assistance to Turkey until and unless that country acknowledged the genocide. But again, that provision was removed in conference. Today, there are some 30 countries from Australia to Russia to Lebanon that have adopted resolutions officially recognizing the Armenian genocide. When I speak to Armenian-American groups, many people are shocked to learn that the United States does not officially recognize the genocide. Armenian-Americans love this country and are very proud of the stands, the brave stands that we have taken throughout our history. Many people, Armenian-Americans and people of other ethnic backgrounds, probably just naturally assume that the United States, usually at the forefront of defending human rights and the cause of confronting history head on, including the difficult parts of history, that we would have been in the lead in this effort to remember the past. The fact that we have failed to go on record proclaiming the truth about the Armenian genocide must be rectified. The United States should go on record clearly and unambiguously recognizing the Armenian genocide in setting aside April 24 as a day of remembrance. To that end, I urge renewed effort on the part of Congress to pass a resolution that puts the United States firmly on record on the side of the truth, and I pledge to keep up the pressure on the President to call the genocide by its proper name. Mr. Speaker, I have a lot more comments that I would like to make about the genocide this evening, but I would like now, if I could, to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern], who has joined me on many occasions on the floor on Special Orders, and I am very pleased to see him here tonight on this occasion.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I know that the Armenian community is a very large one in Massachusetts and continues to grow. Basically, I think in many ways it was the first State that really did have a large Armenian community, so I thank the gentleman for joining us tonight. Mr. Speaker, I would like to report some good news on this issue. That is that on Monday, just this past Monday, April 21, the California General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide, as well as the more recent anti-Armenian pogroms committed in Azerbaijan. Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian, a Republican representing north San Diego, authored the resolution and guided its passage through the legislature of that State. I know members of the California delegation will be joining this special order today, and I know they are very proud of their State today because of what happened with this resolution. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] for the statement that he made, and again, his State just this past week passed this resolution commemorating and recognizing the genocide for what it is, and certainly everyone in California can be proud of that fact. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from California mentioned, and I would like to reiterate again, the problem, or certainly one of the most serious problems we face, is the fact that Turkey goes right on denying that the genocide ever took place. Yesterday my office received, as I am sure many other offices did, a document from the Turkish Democracy Foundation. This document repeats the well-worn claims that the genocide did not happen, or that the number of victims is overstated, or that relocation of a certain portion of the population was limited, et cetera, et cetera. The document concludes, and I will quote: ``The U.S. Congress is not the proper place to discuss historically controversial issues, and it should not pass historical judgments.'' I would like to say right now on the floor, with all due respect to the Turkish Democracy Foundation, I would say that the Congress is the proper place to discuss the genocide, as well as classrooms and civic organizations and religious institutions throughout this country. We must not deny the truth. Our responsibility on the floor is to make sure that the truth is told, and told over and over again, so that genocide does not occur again. That is the point we need to make. Just to give some facts, again, and these are simple, documented facts, on April 24 of 1915 some 200 Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders from Constantinople or Istanbul were arrested and exiled in one fell swoop, silencing the leading representatives of the Armenian community in the Ottoman capital. This was the symbolic beginning of the genocide, the occasion we commemorate tonight. But over the years from 1915 to 1923, as the gentleman mentioned, there were over 1.5 million men, women and children were deported, forced into slave labor, tortured and exterminated by the government of the Young Turk Committee. The deportations and killings finally ended with the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, although efforts to erase all traces of the Armenian presence in the area continued. After years of imprisonment, slave labor, acts of torture and 1.5 million murders, the Turks tried to erase the evidence of the Armenian presence in the region by changing place names and destroying Armenian culture and religious monuments. But this entire shameful and appalling period of history meets every definition of the term ``genocide.'' Turkey has to come to terms with its past. After all, Mr. Speaker, Turkey is a member of NATO. The gentleman from California mentioned that it is a member of NATO, a defense alliance that was basically set up to defend freedom. Many of our NATO allies, as well as some of the eastern and central European nations moving toward NATO membership, have very painful and horrible aspects of their history, in some cases very recent history. But some have done a better job than others in confronting their past. Turkey, at least at the official level, has made no attempt to face up to the truth. Those independent Turkish voices that have tried to tell the truth have been intimidated into silence. Mr. Speaker, I mention this again only because there is such merit in the fact that, for example, in the case of Nazi Germany, that the German Government recognized that the Holocaust took place. They give reparations for the Holocaust. They commemorate the Holocaust. They put up memorials to the Holocaust. That makes such a difference in terms of the Jewish people, to recognize that the German Government acknowledges that this took place and it was a terrible thing. When Turkey refuses to acknowledge it, it is almost as if the genocide continues to occur, because the government officially will not recognize it.

Mr. PALLONE. Yes.

Mr. PALLONE. I think the gentleman is right. I am not saying that they do not acknowledge that some people were killed, but they refuse to acknowledge the numbers, certainly, and they refuse to acknowledge there was any systematic effort to kill people in the nature of a genocide or ethnic cleansing. Of course, the fact that they are willing to say that a few people were murdered or a few people were involved in some conflict is simply not acceptable. That is not what happened. This was a systematic effort at the government level by the Ottoman Empire to exterminate a whole people.

Mr. PALLONE. If I could just say, I just want to say that in January I had the opportunity to go to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh and visited the genocide Memorial Museum, which was a really amazing place and really valuable to just be there to see it. But when I went into the museum, which is actually still being completed, it was almost embarrassing, because I went through a particular room where they had collected the various countries, and there are 30 now, that have recognized the genocide. The director of the museum, who was a wonderful man who basically, you know, made this his life ambition, to continue and complete this museum, sort of under his breath said, you know, the United States does not recognize the genocide, even though Russia and so many other countries have. It was really embarrassing to think that our country, the bastion of freedom, has not recognized the genocide when some of the other countries did, including Russia as one of the ones that did. The other thing was, it goes back to what we were saying before about the Turkish Government recognition. They are in the process of constructing in the museum a sort of memorial that looks like a court. In other words, it is in the round, and in the center is basically where the judge would sit, and then on each of the walls of this round room they have a testimony from eyewitness accounts, contemporary eyewitness accounts, of what occurred, including one from the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the time, Henry Morgenthau. He testified, repeating what actually happened, that it was genocide and what occurred. It was explained to me, but it needed no explanation, that this is their idea, the Armenian idea of the Nuremburg trial. In other words, that in the case of Germany and the Jewish Holocaust, trials were held and the people were brought to justice that in some, not all of them, but some of them who had perpetrated this crime. But in the case of Armenia, the Armenian genocide, no trial took place. So in a sense the museum is creating the trial using contemporary documents and eyewitness accounts. It just brought home again how important and how valuable from a cleansing point of view, if nothing else, it is to have a trial or have a public pronouncement by the government or the perpetrators that this took place and that we still do not have in the case of the Armenian genocide.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, we have. There is legislation that has actually been introduced by the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich], I believe, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] on a bipartisan basis and obviously we would like to get that moved. I think we are moving in that direction with what we do tonight and with other actions and statements by our colleagues.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me, if I may, I wanted to just elaborate a little more, if I could, on why we attach such significance to insisting that the world community, including the United States, recognize the tragedy of the genocide and call it by its proper name. As I said, Turkey stubbornly maintains its disgraceful policy of denying that the genocide we solemnly remember today ever took place, despite the lack of factual or historical basis for Turkey's denial. From the eyewitness accounts of journalists and diplomats on the scene to the eloquent and horrifying testimony of the survivors, the historic record is clear: that in the name of Turkish nationalistic ideology, the rulers of the Ottoman Empire conceived, planned and executed a program to eliminate ethnic minorities. The primary victims of this cruel policy were the Armenians. At that time the word ``genocide'' had not been coined but genocide is what it was. And I said there were no Nuremburg trials. There has been no official atonement by the Turkish nation, and statements by me and other Members of Congress about the Armenian genocide are routinely met with contemptuous responses by Turkey's ambassador to the United States. But the denials of the revisionists fly in the face of the preponderance of evidence from American and other Western diplomats, from journalists on scene and from the survivors themselves, many of whom are still alive and some of whom are American citizens. The U.S. National Archives holds the most comprehensive documentation in the world on this historic tragedy, more than 30,000 pages. Formal protests were made by the U.S. Ambassador Henry Morganthau, and Congress approved of allowing a private relief agency to raise funds in the United States. American consular officials and private aid workers secretly housed Armenians, distributed aid and helped in their escape to other nations during the years from 1915 to 1923, and many times these Americans acted at great personal risk to themselves and in direct defiance of Turkish orders not to help the Armenians. We have to continue to persuade the leaders of the Republic of Turkey, a country that receives hundreds of millions of dollars each year in U.S. aid, to officially acknowledge the truth. As one way to make amends, Turkey should immediately lift its blockade of Armenia and accept the Armenian government's offer to normalize relations without preconditions. I believe that these steps would ultimately be in Turkey's long-term interest as well. By doing the right thing and accepting historical responsibility and improving relations with the nation of Armenia, Turkey can help its own cause in terms of gaining admission to the European community and recognition in other historical forums. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Sherman].

Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman from California. He specifically mentioned the appropriation process and some of the provisions that the Armenia caucus, which the gentleman is a member of and that I am a member of, some of the things that we are trying to accomplish. It is sort of ironic in a way or coincidence that tomorrow, April 24, is not only the anniversary of the genocide but also the day when the appropriations subcommittee on foreign affairs or foreign operations is going to meet, and that has been, that subcommittee and the bill that comes to the floor has been the vehicle in the past for us to make a point on a number of issues. The gentleman mentioned the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which has been one of the main pieces of legislation that the caucus has worked on in the last few years. It really makes perfect sense. Here all we are really saying is that if one country, in this case it happens to be Turkey, but it could be any country, accepts U.S. assistance, they have to allow humanitarian assistance that the U.S. is providing to its neighbor to pass through that first country's borders. I cannot imagine anyone, I cannot imagine any American who would think that it would be possible for a country that receives American assistance to deny safe passage of humanitarian assistance through its borders to another country. I think if we told any of our constituents that the U.S. government allowed that first country to deny access, they would be outraged. Yet not only is that done routinely by Turkey through its blockade, but when we passed the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, we see year after year the administration coming forward and waiving it and saying, for national security reasons, whatever the reasons they gave, I thought were rather poor, it is okay to waive this corridor act and allow Turkey to blockade humanitarian assistance to Armenia. It just totally flies in the face of any notion of humanitarian assistance or human rights.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I also wanted to make reference, I know that I was at the international relations subcommittee, one of the subcommittee hearings that the gentleman was a member of when we talked about trying to provide some assistance to Nagorno-Karabagh. I know the gentleman made reference to that. Again, if I could just mention that, and perhaps you would like to comment as well, right now under the Freedom Support Act, section 907, there is no direct assistance to Azerbaijan, no direct U.S. assistance, because they also have a blockade of Armenia. So Armenia is really effectively blockaded on almost all sides between Turkey and Azerbaijan. However, the U.S. continues to provide humanitarian assistance to Azerbaijan through nongovernmental organizations. Unfortunately, none of that assistance goes to Nagorno-Karabagh. Nagorno-Karabagh is an Armenian country, between Azerbaijan and Armenia, that fought a war of independence about 5 years ago, successfully, and is in the midst of trying to gain recognition by Azerbaijan and Turkey and other countries of its existence. And I was there in January at the same time that I went to Armenia. I will say, as I have said, that the humanitarian needs are great and there is absolutely no reason why the U.S. should provide nongovernmental assistance, if you will, to one side in this conflict, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabagh, when the need is just as great, if not greater. So one of the things that we are trying to do this year is to provide some humanitarian assistance, probably through nongovernmental organizations, to Nagorno-Karabagh. I know the gentleman at that hearing was very supportive of that and I appreciate that, and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. There is no question that there is a need for humanitarian assistance to Nagorno-Karabagh, and I have to say that I saw that firsthand. And I think the bottom line is that the United States policy needs to be more evenhanded. It does not make sense to say we are going to give money through the nongovernmental organizations to Azerbaijan and not to Nagorno-Karabagh. The other thing I wanted to say, if the gentleman would bear with me, is having been to Karabagh, and of course our caucus has brought this up on a bipartisan basis many, many times, the concern, the need I should say, for the United States to play a larger role in trying to bring a peaceful settlement to Nagorno-Karabagh. Obviously, there has been a cease-fire now in effect between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabagh for a few years, and overall it has held. Although there was an incident last week where Azerbaijan did violate the cease-fire and there were some people actually killed, which was certainly unfortunate, but, overall, the cease-fire has held. But there needs to be a peaceful settlement of this conflict and I believe very strongly the only way that that will occur is if the United States plays an important role. Earlier this year the United States agreed to be the cochair of the MINS group, as it is called, which is a group of nations that are trying to come to a peaceful settlement with regard to Nagorno- Karabagh. But, unfortunately, the United States really has not played a major role in trying to come to a peaceful settlement. In fact, I thought that the United States' position that it took back in late 1996, where the United States signed onto this Lisbon Accord, where they recognized Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, thereby assuming that Nagorno-Karabagh was part of Azerbaijan, but at the same time did not recognize Nagorno-Karabagh's self-determination. And we know there are two principles in international law, territorial integrity and self-determination. The United States was clearly siding with the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and not the self-determination of Nagorno-Karabagh. We need to turn that around and then the United States has to be an advocate for Nagorno-Karabagh's self-determination and then be willing to play a more significant role. We have seen the President, for example, get involved in the Bosnia situation, in the Dayton accords, we have seen the President play a major role in the Mideast, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the same type of role needs to be played, I think personally by the President, but certainly to not continue this policy of not recognizing or not promoting Karabagh's self-determination. I bring this back again to the genocide issue because one of the things that was certainly brought home to me when I was in Nagorno- Karabagh is the fact that the history of what has occurred in that region of the world not only at the time of the genocide between 1915 and 1923, but certainly before and after makes it almost impossible for people who are Armenian, who live in Nagorno-Karabagh, to think that they can ever be protected or ever have any kind of security if they live under the suzerainty of Azerbaijan. I met a woman outside of Yerevan who was a refugee, and really a victim of three genocides. She was basically deported or had to escape from western Armenia at the time of the 1915 genocide; she went to Sushi, which is a town, a religious center, in Karabagh, and was expelled or deported from there a few years later; then she ended up in Baku, which is the capital of Azerbaijan, and she was about 5 or 6 years ago she was expelled and deported from there and ended up in Yerevan. So there are people who in the course of their lives have been the victims of deportation or genocide on many occasions. They are never going to accept the notion that somehow they are part of Azerbaijan or that they can live peaceably under the suzerainty of Azerbaijan. That is why I believe very strongly that the United States has to recognize that fact. We cannot have another genocide in Karabagh, so the speak, and the only way we will make sure it does not happen is if we play a major role in trying to bring about a peaceful settlement. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. If I could, I think maybe we have another 5 or 10 minutes in our special order, and I just wanted to take this opportunity, if I could, to mention that although we, the Members of the House, are doing this commemoration this evening, many Members, yourself, myself and other Members of the House and Senate will take part in a Capitol Hill commemoration ceremony that is organized by the Armenian National Committee next Wednesday, April 30. I wanted at this time, Mr. Speaker, to cite the work of both the great organizations representing the Armenian American community here in D.C., the Armenian Assembly of America and the Armenian National Committee, and they both deserve praise for their continued hard work and dedication to both Armenia and the United States. The gentleman from California did mention the caucus, and if I could just say something briefly about the caucus. Two-and-a-half years ago Congressman Porter and myself founded the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues basically to be a voice for a stronger United States- Armenia partnership and to better represent the interests of the Armenian American community. We now have 55 members. There is a lot of sympathy and moral support for Armenia in the Congress and the administration, among State legislators. Your own State I mentioned earlier passed a resolution recognizing the genocide just earlier this week, I believe. But the bottom line is we cannot kid ourselves. We are up against very strong forces. Unfortunately, the State Department, I believe, continues to take a basically pro-Turkey policy or adhere to a very pro-Turkey policy, and among United States and international business interests whose concerns with profits and sources of raw material often outweigh their concerns for the people of Armenia. So we have to constantly work against some of these others that are out there not really standing up for the concerns of Armenia and the concerns of the people of Karabagh. In closing today, if I could just say one thing. Obviously, there is a need to pay particular tribute to the survivors of the genocide. I was in Michigan, actually, over the weekend at a commemoration service and there were many survivors there, I would say maybe about 15 or so people who survived the genocide. Of course, they are usually in their late eighties or nineties, or even 100, and one of the gentlemen actually gave me a book that he signed that talked about his whole eye witness account of the years 1915 through 1923. And it really was amazing to talk to someone who could directly explain what went on then. But of course there are thousands of accounts like that in the archives, in the U.S. archives and around the world. I just wanted to mention, if I could, that we had many Members of Congress here tonight who wanted to join in this special order but because of the schedule, everything was a little crazy this evening. I think we have about 15 or 20 statements to submit for the Record.

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 this special order on the Armenian genocide.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the House tonight on the subject of Earth Day. Since the House is going out of session this evening and will not be returning because of the Passover holidays until Wednesday for any legislative action, this is the only opportunity before Earth Day, which is next Tuesday, April 22, to talk about the significance of that occasion, not only to Congress but to the American people. Next Tuesday, April 22, is in fact Earth Day. I believe it is the 26th Earth Day. Earth Day has always been a day to celebrate the environment and our natural heritage. It has also served to raise people's awareness about the quality of their environment and the importance of environmental protection and responsible living. In more recent years, however, Earth Day has become a time for people to grandstand on the environment, particularly politicians, and although it is very popular, it is not always easy to be green. We cannot simply feign interest, particularly politicians, in environmental quality, we actually have to do something about it here in the Congress. Even though the quality of the environment has substantially improved over the last 20 years, the environment is still high on people's lists. If you do poll or talk to your constituents, they always tell you they are very concerned about the environment. That is because, in my opinion, they understand the connection between the environment and public health. People want their representatives in Washington to be working to protect their families from environmental health hazards, and people want us to help them protect themselves by providing them with the information that they need to formulate their own decisions about the environment. Finally, people also want to know that their children and their grandchildren will be able to enjoy the same outdoor experiences that they had the opportunity to experience. This also happens to be the Week of the Young Child, and I do not think it is any surprise, if you will, that Earth Day follows on that, because I think in many ways one of the major reasons why adults are concerned about the environment is because they worry about their children and their grandchildren and their future here on this planet. Mr. Speaker, I have to say, though, that in the last Congress, the Republican majority really launched a relentless attack on the basic environmental protections that ensure the safety of the water that our children drink and the air that they breathe. In fact, the Earth Day founder, Gaylord Nelson, declared that the 104th Congress had the worst environmental record in history. I think that is very fair to say. Republicans basically showed their antienvironmental hand in the last Congress, but I think that what they found out is that as the election in November 1996 approached, that bashing the environment really was not a very good thing to do politically, and so all of a sudden we saw less bashing of the environment, and I think this year we are not seeing it much at all. I think there is fear, really, on the part of the majority of further reprisals from the voters if they try to weaken environmental legislation, and so essentially the Republican leadership is trying to avoid openly bashing the environment this year. But as the Los Angeles Times observed on April 7, and I quote, ``Their language masks a reality. Behind these gentler words, the Republican majority is still working hard to relax or abolish many environmental regulations.'' Just to give the Members an idea in terms of the antienvironmental battle this year, the House Republican whip, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLAY], who last year said he did not believe that acid rain or global warming existed, this year told the House committee that drinking mouthwash or milk is more likely to give you cancer than air pollution is to be damaging to a person's health. Mr. Speaker, fortunately we see the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLAY] making these comments because he is at least openly expressing some of his antienvironmental views, but we do not see as much of it on the floor, and I think what we are seeing is that the effort to weaken environmental laws in many ways is now taking place in the back rooms, or as part of some action that may come later in committee. Democrats, however, still feel it is very important to move ahead with a proenvironmental agenda, and Democrats will continue to put forward environmental initiatives this year, and will press the Republican majority for action on these bills. I think that we can often get Republican Members to join us, even if the leadership does not necessarily support us with this proenvironmental agenda. Today, in anticipation of Earth Day next Tuesday, leading House Democrats announced a 5-point environmental challenge to the Republican majority. We issued a special report detailing that challenge. Democrats are basically challenging the Republicans to enact legislation to protect the health and safety of American children and put the Republicans essentially on notice that Democrats will oppose any attempts to roll back environmental protections. I just wanted to describe, if I could, for a brief time during this hour these five legislative challenges that the Democrats put forward today. The first, and I think a very important one, is the challenge to enact the Defense of the Environment Act by July 4. The Defense of the Environment Act basically allows for a separate debate and vote on any legislative provision that would weaken environmental protection. Some may say, why do you need something like that? Well, there are a lot of reasons for that. Congress needs to act, I think, as a steward of the Nation's environment and natural resources. We owe that to our children and grandchildren. A critical step we can take for them is to ensure that there is full and open debate on any provisions that would weaken the protection of the environment. The Defense of the Environment Act will put a spotlight on backroom attempts to weaken our environmental laws. This was a bill that was introduced by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt]. Basically what it does is allows for a separate debate and vote on these legislative provisions. Mr. Speaker, again, we might say why is that necessary? Well, to be honest, it is necessary because of what we saw happen in the last Congress with the Republicans in the majority. In early 1995, Congress adopted procedural steps that ensured that unfunded mandates and tax increases cannot be enacted unless specifically considered and approved by the House. The Defense of the Environment Act simply extends this protection to provisions that weaken environmental protection. The need is clear. When Republicans took control in 1995, they compiled the worst environmental record in history. What we essentially saw was an effort to do this weakening of environmental legislation either in committee or on the floor, but articulating a position that was totally to the contrary. So what we are saying with the Defense of the Environment Act is that we do not want to let the industry lobbyists rewrite legislation; we do not want, with regard, for example, to toxic waste, to let Republicans turn polluter pays into pay the polluter. We want to be able to bring these provisions, these weakening provisions, to the floor for a separate vote whenever possible, when legislation comes up that might impact the environment. The second challenge that the Democrats, again, are making to our Republican colleagues is that the Republicans drop the attack on the basic protections of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, Republicans need to abandon their version of regulatory reform that would undermine the fundamental principles of the Clean Air Act, including health-based standards. I have to say that I believe that the Clean Air Act has been a tremendous success. Nothing, really, has been more important in protecting the health of American children than both the clean air act that was initially enacted in 1970 and the Clean Air Amendments of 1990. If we look at these two and we look at the statistics, they show that the air our children breathe is dramatically cleaner as a result of these two measures. The EPA recently put out a report entitled ``The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990.'' That just documents some figures that I think are really important; first, that in that 20-year period airborne lead emissions were reduced by 99 percent, carbon monoxide emissions were reduced by 50 percent, and sulfur dioxide emissions were reduced by 40 percent. If we look specifically at the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, just to give some of the results of that, over 50 percent of the cities that did not meet the air quality standard for urban smog in 1990 now meet that standard. Over 75 percent of the cities that did not meet the air quality standard for carbon monoxide in 1990 now meet the standard. So clearly we have had success. But the Republican regulatory reform bills would roll back basic clean air protections. During the last Congress, House Republicans used these regulatory reform bills to make backdoor attacks on America's most important environmental laws, but most important, the Clean Air Act. One such GOP proposal was their risk assessment bill, H.R. 1022, a key part of the Republican Contract With America. This passed on February 28, 1995. The risk assessment bill had a supermandate that supplemented all the public health standards of existing environmental laws, requiring, in effect, that the EPA design all standards to minimize the compliance costs for polluters first. The bill would have undercut the Clean Air Act standards that are now set solely in the best interests of protecting public health. The EPA would have been compelled to select the cheapest pollution reduction option, rather than the most effective option for protecting America's children at a time when childhood asthma rates are rising very sharply. The GOP bill would also have added additional roadblocks by dramatically expanding the cost-benefit analyses needed to justify new public health standards and giving polluters broad new rights to sue the EPA to block improvements in clean air rules. This Republican risk assessment bill would also have allowed parties with a financial interest in weakening clean air requirements to sit on mandatory peer review groups that would assess EPA's proposed air standards. Fortunately, the House and the Senate GOP regulatory reform bills did not get to conference and therefore died at the end of the Congress, but we expect that they will come up again in some form and we are saying today, do not do it. We are tired of these, the use of these regulatory reform bills as a method of trying to weaken the Clean Air Act and other environmental legislation. Our third challenge in our report, our third challenge to the Republicans, is to pass the brownfields initiative by July 4. This is linked to the cleanup of hazardous waste material primarily in urban areas but also in suburban areas, old industrial sites, hence the term ``brownfield.'' Again, it is linked to children and children's health needs. Kids need cleaner cities. They need a strong economy. Democrats have been offering to work with Republicans to promptly move the brownfields legislation, but so far Republicans have refused. They have been saying and insisting on a broader Superfund bill or Superfund reauthorization that would transfer cleanup costs from polluters to taxpayers. And each day of delay, again, on the brownfields measure basically denies funding for another cleanup. Currently there are about, there are actually several million children who live within 5 miles of these polluted sites, the so-called brownfields. If you clean up the sites, they can be replaced with different kind of businesses or commercial activities that actually would create jobs in the cities. Just a little discussion, if I could, about what the brownfields initiative does. It basically provides for the establishment of a new partnership of the Federal Government with States and local governments and the private sector to undertake cleanups. Two broad purposes: One is to significantly increase the pace of cleanup at the sites by promoting and encouraging the creation, development, and enhancement of State voluntary cleanup programs; and second, to benefit the public health, welfare, and the environment by cleaning up and returning these sites to economically productive or other beneficiary uses. Essentially, what we are doing is trying to recognize the key role that States have played in cleanup and will continue to play in identifying, assessing and cleaning up brownfields. A lot of people think that the Superfund Program, which is the Federal program for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites, covers all the sites. Actually, it only covers, I think, certainly less than 50 percent. In my home State of New Jersey, we have about 6,000 hazardous waste sites but we only have less than 150 Superfund sites. So you can see it is only a very small portion of the number of hazardous waste sites. So to the extent that the Federal Government can expand the Superfund program to provide for more cleanup of sites that are not on the national priority or Superfund list, it actually would help significantly in the State efforts, in the overall effort to clean up a lot of these toxic waste sites. Under the Democrats brownfields bill, the EPA would give flexibility to the States so that they can get the job done. The bill calls for specific funding for State grants, $15 million per year for 5 years to develop and enhance State clean-up programs. It also contains $45 million per year for 3 years to local governments to inventory and cleanup brownfields where local officials, developers and purchasers and citizens believe that these redeveloped sites have the most chance of creating new jobs and new opportunities. A lot of my colleagues on the Republican side have expressed support for the brownfields initiative. It has broad bipartisan support. However, what is happening is that the Republican leadership is insisting that the brownfields initiative be tied to much more controversial legislation; that is, the GOP version of Superfund reform. And, of course, we cannot support that because essentially it is like the Superfund bill that the Republicans tried to push through in the last Congress that would weaken the Superfund law, that would allow cleanup to be temporary rather than permanent, that would cap the number of sites that can be put on the Superfund list, that would essentially rather than requiring those who caused the pollution, the toxic waste, to bear most of the cost of the cleanup, would in fact put most of the cost of the cleanup on the Federal Government and essentially let a lot of polluters get off. So what we are really calling upon the GOP leadership is to say, look, pass the brownfields initiative that can expand the Superfund Program in a very effective way by giving money back to States, which is something that many Republicans say is part of their ideology, but at the same time let us get that bill passed. That would be a very proenvironment bill that would help a lot with toxic waste cleanup. Do not link it to this overall effort to weaken the Superfund Program, because all that means is that nothing is going to pass and nothing progressive to move on an environmental agenda will occur here in the Congress. The fourth challenge that Democrats are making again to the Republicans for Earth Day this year is to increase funding for national parks and to reform unjustified natural resource subsidies. Right now we know that, I should say that we know that beginning with President Teddy Roosevelt, who was a Republican, preserving our natural resources has been a bipartisan enterprise. But unfortunately that was not the case in the last Congress. We need a bipartisan effort in this 105th Congress in the tradition of someone like Teddy Roosevelt. With regard to the need for funding for national parks, the inadequate funding for national parks is highlighted by a statistic, if I could just quote, that says in constant dollars the total National Park Service's appropriation has declined by more than $200 million between fiscal year 1983 and fiscal year 1997. In the 104th Congress, the last Congress, the Republicans constantly voted to cut the funding for the National Park Service many times. I do not want to get into all the details but there were actually park shutdowns, the Republicans actually shut down and closed every park for the first time since the National Park Service was created in 1916. At that time, when the Government was shut down because of certain actions that were taken here, we actually had about 725,000 visitors that were turned away at the park gates. There are also a number of tax subsidies, if you will, unjustified subsidies to natural resource companies that also need to be addressed in this Congress. Part of our challenge with regard to natural resources also affects these subsidies. The most egregious example of the need for reform is with regard to an 1872 mining law. Many people are familiar with this but not everyone. It is an anachronism, basically, from the 19th century that allows the mining of gold, silver, and other valuable minerals on public lands without payments of royalties to the Treasury. The 1997 annual report of the Council of Economic Advisors points out that between May 1994 and September 1996, the Interior Department was forced, by this 1872 mining law, to give away over $15.3 billion worth of minerals in return for which the taxpayers received only $19,190. This is probably the most egregious example of a government subsidy. Imagine, $15.3 billion in revenue lost, and we received only $19,190. I could go on with some of the other subsidies, but there are a number of natural resources subsidies that are just totally unjustified and need to be reformed and should be addressed as part of this environmental challenge. The last Democratic challenge to our Republican colleagues is, some may say that is not very significant, but I think it is, because one of the things that is so important is that Congress set an example and apply the laws that it passes to itself. We actually have a rule or provision that was passed in the last Congress that says that you have to do that. But it is, nonetheless not always followed in practice, even if it is theoretically the law. So our fifth challenge refers to the House of Representatives recycling program. We are calling upon the Republicans to repair the House of Representatives recycling program. We know millions of kids carefully recycle their glass bottles and paper but not the Congress. If you talk to your children or your grandchildren, you know that most of them are very concerned about recycling. It is the way for an individual to interact and get involved in environmental protection. So all the kids around the country or certainly a good portion of them are out there recycling their glass bottles and paper but not the Congress. Sam Gejdenson, a Democratic Congressman from Connecticut, has introduced a resolution that will ensure that Congress plays by the same rules that our kids do with regard to recycling. Specifically, he has introduced a resolution that provides for a mandatory recycling program in the House of Representatives. And we challenge the Republican Congress to adopt this resolution over the next few months and get the House back on the right track on recycling. Just to give you some example of how recycling has declined under the Gingrich Congress, I think it is very important that we set an example. Under the leadership of the Speaker, it has declined. I just want to give you some statistics, because I really think it is interesting. Since the Republicans took over, the percentage of House offices participating in recycling programs has declined, dropped from 90 percent in the 103d Congress to about 50 to 60 percent in the 105th Congress. With regard to bottles, since the Republicans took over, the tonnage of bottles that are recycled has fallen by 83 percent. Specifically, the tonnage of recycled bottles has fallen from 109.76 tons in 1994 to 18.15 tons in 1996. Let me give you some statistics with regard to recycled cans. Since the Republicans took over, the tonnage of recycled cans has fallen by 74 percent. Specifically, the tonnage of recycled cans has fallen from 10.76 tons in 1994, to 2.83 tons in 1996. Now, specifically, what Congressman Gejdenson's resolution does is mandatory implementation. It provides in the resolution that each Member and each employing authority of the House of Representatives shall participate in the office waste recycling program. The Architect of the Capitol has to ensure that all employees of the House of Representatives whose responsibilities include custodial duties are adequately trained in the implementation of the office waste recycling program. The Architect of the Capitol shall require any contractor under a contract with the House of Representatives for carrying out the office waste recycling program has to ensure that all personnel are adequately trained in the implementation of the program. And finally the architect has to submit semiannually to the Committee on House Oversight a progress report on compliance with the office waste recycling program. Again, I think this is important. Democrats are calling upon the Republicans to adopt this resolution and work with us to turn the House into a model for recycling for the country, rather than an embarrassment, which I think in many cases we have become with regard to this recycling program. Again, before I conclude, I just want to say that I think that we need to all join together on this anniversary of Earth Day. And I am pleased with the fact that at least on the floor so far this session, we have not seen any overt efforts to turn back the clock on environmental protection, but I believe very strongly that there is certainly momentum out there on the Republican side with the Republican leadership to start moving towards some of the same measures last year with regard to the Clean Water Act, with regard to the Superfund program, with regard to the Endangered Species Act that would seek to bring up legislation that would weaken some of these very important environmental provisions. And rather than even have the status quo, I think we need to move forward on progressive legislation such as some of the things that I mentioned as part of this Democratic 5 point challenge. The bottom line is that although the environment has been significantly cleaned up, there is still a lot that needs to be done. The health and safety of our children and our grandchildren depend upon our taking action in a positive way towards cleaning up the environment and setting an example, if you will, for the House of Representatives in that regard. I wanted to talk a little bit more, if I could, about the brownfields program, because I think that that is something that right now we could move on a bipartisan basis and that there is essentially a consensus to get it accomplished. Just to give you a little more information about the brownfields program, essentially what it consists of, it is called the Community Revitalization and Brownfield Cleanup Act of 1997. And I think I mentioned before the specific amounts of money that are dedicated, both for inventory, doing an inventory of sites that would be potential cleanup sites for this program and also the amount of money that the Federal Government would provide. But it also allows a State to request the EPA to make a determination that the State's program is a qualified program, if it provides, one, for response actions that are protective of human health and the environment; two, opportunities for technical assistance; three, meaningful opportunities for public participation. And let me stress that. One of the best aspects of the Superfund program now has been community involvement. I know that in my own district in New Jersey, the sixth district of New Jersey that I represent, many of the local community organizations, citizens action organizations, if you will, have become directly involved in proposing cleanup and the way to go about cleaning up a Superfund site. So we are asking that the same thing be done with the Brownfields Program, that basically the community be involved in the decisions about how to go about the cleanup. That is really a very important part of any environmental initiative. Anything that we pass in Congress should contain a community involvement program, a citizen action program, because that basically gets the initiative from the grassroots and at the same time teaches local citizens, if you will, about how they can become involved in environmental protection. I think that is a very important aspect of Earth Day, and part of the lesson of Earth Day is getting people involved on an individual basis as well as on a community basis. But ultimately we in Congress have to make the decisions, we have to move forward on a positive environmental agenda and hopefully this Earth Day next Tuesday will be our opportunity to launch that and to get our Republican colleagues involved as well in a bipartisan way. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 120) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today I received very disappointing news from the State Department. The President determined today to permit assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act to the Republic of Turkey. This is in spite of the fact that Turkey is maintaining an illegal and downright cruel blockade of the Republic of Armenia. Mr. Speaker, for the past 2 years, the Foreign Operations appropriations legislation has contained a provision known as the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act which prohibits U.S. economic assistance to those countries blocking delivery of humanitarian aid to third countries. While this provision is not country-specific, it clearly applies to Turkey, which for more than 4 years has maintained a blockade of neighboring Armenia. While the people of Armenia are struggling to build democracy and reform their economy according to market principles, the blockade imposed along their border with Turkey disrupts the delivery of vitally needed humanitarian supplies. The Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, unfortunately, lacks enforcement teeth since it grants the President the power to waive the provisions on very vague national security grounds. In order to make the Corridor Act mean something, last year this body approved an amendment to the Foreign Ops bill, sponsored by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky], that would limit the Presidential waiver authority to provide U.S. economic assistance to countries that violate the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. More than 300 Members of the House voted for this amendment, which would have essentially given the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act some teeth and not allowed the Presidential waiver in most cases. Unfortunately, the amendment was stripped in conference and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] included language instead that required the President to provide a justification for determining that it is in the national security interests of the United States to provide the economic assistance despite the fact that the recipient country, in this case Turkey, is in violation of the Corridor Act. I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for putting that language in, because we did at least get a semblance of a justification from the State Department. But I have to say that the justification issue today was not very convincing. Mr. Speaker, this action by the administration comes at a particularly bad time. Next week marks the 82d anniversary of the beginning of the genocide against the Armenian people which was perpetrated by the Ottoman Turkish Empire. This genocide, which the Republic of Turkey has refused to acknowledge, ultimately claimed the lives of 1.5 million Armenians. Another 500,000 Armenians were deported. Many Members of this House will take part with me in a special order next Wednesday to commemorate this solemn occasion. To have made this determination at this time I think is very inappropriate. Mr. Speaker, I bear no ill will to the Turkish people. I am simply saying that maintaining good relations should not entail turning a blind eye to the outrageous actions committed by the Turkish Government. Given the generosity the United States has shown toward Turkey it is inappropriate, or I think I should say in this case it is appropriate for us to attach conditions, particularly such a basic condition as allowing the delivery of aid to a neighbor in need. I think most Americans would assume that a condition for U.S. aid should be that that country allows other U.S. aid to go through its country or its borders to another country that needs the aid. People, I think, in this country would be shocked to know that such a provision is not already a requirement on the recipients of U.S. assistance. I want to say in conclusion that Armenia is a very small landlocked nation, dependent on land corridors from neighboring countries for many basic goods. Armenia has been one of the most exemplary of the former Soviet republics in terms of moving toward a Western-style political and economic system. I traveled there earlier this year and can report that the blockade is having a devastating impact. The Armenian people respect and admire the United States. There are more than 1 million Americans of Armenian ancestry here. The bonds between our countries are strong and enduring, but the people of Armenia face a humanitarian crisis which is not the result of any natural disaster, but a deliberate policy of its neighbor to choke off access to needed goods from the outside world. We believe the exertion of U.S. leadership can play a major role in these intentions in promoting greater cooperation among the nations of the Caucasus regions, but the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act is an important part of this component. If we do not adhere to the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act and if the administration and the State Department continue to allow it to be waived, I think in the long run it is going to be detrimental to peace and better cooperation between Armenia and the other nations of the Caucasus and the United States, and I think this is a mistake that the State Department continues to exercise this waiver.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman. I really believe that we are starting to be heard. We know that, for example, on the Senate side there is a movement on a bipartisan basis to try to address this issue, and I just noticed during the Easter time, when we were out of session for 2 weeks, there was a lot of attention in the news media about it. So I believe that the more we talk about it, the more we will see some action on it. I wanted to say, if I could, before our time is up, that there was some really good information provided by the General Accounting Office that talked about why children are uninsured, the categories, whom we are dealing with. They basically talked about three categories: First, children who are eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled. According to the General Accounting Office, an estimated 3 million uninsured children are eligible but not enrolled in Medicaid. So that is the first category. We might say, why is that the case? There are a lot of socioeconomic reasons. As we mentioned before, most of these kids have parents who work, sometimes two or three jobs. It is very difficult a lot of times for them to even get involved with the bureaucracy where they would go to Medicaid and sign up and fill out a lot of papers in order to enroll their children. There is also a sense of pride, that Medicaid, probably wrongly, is in many cases now associated with welfare. So there is a stigma attached to it, and a lot of working parents, even if their children are eligible, simply will not enroll their children. The second category are parents who earn too much for Medicaid but too little for private coverage. Again, as the number of employers simply do not provide insurance, if there is no group policy and they have to go out and pay for an individual policy, as the gentleman also knows, that is almost impossible for the average working family. The third is parents who change jobs. Nearly half of all children who lose health insurance do so because their parents lose or change jobs. So, again, if we look at this over the 2 years that Families USA is looking at it, we can see there are times when kids are covered and not covered, that there are a lot of gaps because of the fact people are changing jobs. And a lot of people in the lower income categories but who are working have temporary jobs and are subject to tremendous fluctuations in their job. They may change every 6 months or whatever because it is not a job necessarily that has a lot of permanence. So it is a real problem that we have to look at the various aspects of it. And I am not saying there is an easy solution. All the gentleman and I are saying is that we want this addressed. We want the Congress and the House of Representatives to take it up. I appreciate the gentleman's participating, again, and all the gentleman has done to speak out on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say I will be joined tonight by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano]. We are here, once again, to talk about the lack of health insurance for children throughout this Nation. The figure of 10 million children who are uninsured has been put forward on this House floor many times, and it really is a scandal and, in my opinion, completely unacceptable. The number of children without health insurance is growing and it is increasingly children in working families who are without the coverage. Just in my own State alone we estimate that over 200,000 children are without health care coverage. In one of the dailies in my district, the Home News, just a few weeks ago in April, they did an editorial saying how inadequate coverage for children was in my home State. And they specifically mentioned that the Families USA organization here in Washington estimates there are 553,000 children in New Jersey receiving inadequate or no health coverage. So whether it is 200- or 500,000 in New Jersey alone, it clearly is simply unacceptable. What this really means is that many children simply do not get any care unless they get very sick and end up in an emergency room, and that procedure makes no sense. It makes no sense to not have a child be able to go to a doctor, get very sick, and end up in an emergency room. It costs a lot more to treat an ailment once it has gotten to a very critical stage as opposed to preventing it when it first starts to occur, and it is also very harmful to a child's future health. Obviously we do not want children to be sick and be impacted in terms of their adult life. And I think a problem clearly exists here where working families should not have to be in a position of constantly worrying about whether their child will get hurt at the playground or catch the cold or a flu that is going around at the school. In other words, what we have is working parents who basically have to make choices about whether they are going to take their child to a doctor or not as opposed to paying the rent or doing something else. I just wanted to say that, and I think we have said it over and over again on the House floor, Democrats have for a long time been committed to helping families provide health care for the children. It was last June, it will be almost a year now, that the Democrats rolled out their families first agenda. And one of the priorities was to ensure adequate coverage for the Nation's children. We also started at the beginning of this session a Democratic health care task force, once again, with its major priority being to try to address the problem of children without health insurance. So Democrats have been there concerned about this issue. What we need to have is the Republicans who are in the majority join us. There was some progress in this regard in the last few weeks, I have to say. The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means did have a hearing on the issue of kids health care. I want to applaud him for taking the initiative and at least recognizing the problem. But action has to follow. My concern is that, even though there was one hearing in the Committee on Ways and Means, that there was not any indication as a result of that hearing that any bill is going to come to the floor or any effort is going to be made to mark up a bill and take some action on this issue. Several Democrats, including myself, sent a letter to the Republican leadership in the last couple weeks urging them to move forward by marking up legislation and bringing a bill to the House floor by Mother's Day and Father's Day respectively, and that, we are saying, is mark up a bill that addresses the issue of lack of health insurance for children, mark it up in committee by Mother's Day, bring it to the floor for a vote on the House floor, on this floor by Father's Day. And it is our hope that we can create such a ground swell of support behind making children's health care a reality that House Republicans will be forced eventually into action. I wanted to say, before I introduce my colleague from New York, that the Democratic health care task force at this point is not necessarily saying that we have to have any particular solution in terms of legislation. Some of us are in favor of expanding Medicaid. Others have talked about block grants to the States along the lines of the Kennedy- Hatch bill, which is gaining momentum now in the Senate. Some of us have actually introduced the Kennedy-Hatch bill here in the House, myself included, but we want to see some movement on this issue. But whether it is tax credits, vouchers, Medicaid expansion, or block grants to the States, we want to see action, and we want to see a deadline set when we are going to address this issue of 10 million American children who do not have health insurance. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano], who has been on the floor with me and others many times over the last few months, trying to bring attention to this issue.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate what the gentleman said and also the fact that he makes the point of reaching out and having the average person thinking about their own situation and how they may have coverage for their children and have that security but so many other American parents do not. That is really the crucial issue here, that so many people lack that security, basically live the day and night knowing that if something happens to their children, they are not covered by health insurance. I just wanted to say that our Democratic task force last week had a hearing, and we will probably have more hearings, but the basic purpose of this hearing was to get factual material about the nature of the problem. In the future, we will probably have hearings on specific legislation. Families USA at that time had just put out a report, and it was really interesting in terms of what the gentleman just mentioned about how this primarily affects kids who have working parents. It is not very long, and I wanted to make reference to some of their key findings in that regard. They were talking about their data that provides information about children without health insurance during a 2-year period, and the data showed the following: That almost half of uninsured children, 47 percent, had uninsured spells of 12 months or longer; that one out of seven, 15 percent, lacked health insurance for the full 2-year period. Then they went on to say that the uninsured child population, this population we are talking about, was comprised primarily of children whose parents worked. Of the children who lacked insurance for 1 or more months, 9 out of 10, 89 percent, lived in households where the head of household worked during all or part of the 24-month period. Then it said that uninsured children are two times more likely, 69 percent versus 31 percent, I know these statistics get a little difficult, the uninsured children are two times more likely to live with a married rather than a single parent. Children uninsured for the entire 24-month period are four times more likely to live with a married parent. And of the children who were uninsured throughout the 24-month period, over one out of three had a head of household who was employed full-time throughout that 24-month period. So, again, we are talking about children where both parents are working. Some of them are working two jobs. It is amazing, the statistics about the nature of this population. The other thing that I just wanted to say again that comes from this Families USA report is that we are really talking about prevention. What the gentleman and I want to do here is provide a mechanism for kids to have preventive care. That is what really this is all about. Most of the time, not all the time, but most of the time, if a kid gets really sick, they can go to an emergency room. I am not saying that is always true, but usually it is. But the problem is, when they get to that stage, it is almost too late. Oftentimes there is permanent damage. Families USA at our Democratic task force hearing used the case of a young girl, this was not her real name, but they used the name, Maria. It is a real case, and they called her Maria. It said that when Maria entered a new school as a third-grader, her teacher believed she was performing below her potential. A health examination arranged by the school's Healthy Start Program revealed that Maria had suffered multiple ear infections, probably over a period of several years. Maria's father ran a small nursery business and could not afford health insurance. Without insurance to pay for her care, Maria's ear infections were not treated. As a result, scar tissue built up within her ears. Maria became deaf in one ear and lost hearing in the other, and it took a year and a half to equip Maria with hearing aids after they had discovered this. This would appear this was some sort of school clinic that detected the problem and, as a consequence, started the rehabilitation that eventually led to her having a hearing aid. But this is what we are talking about. We are talking about lack of care, not being able to see a doctor, which leads to permanent damage. Ultimately, this child, although she now has a hearing aid, probably will never be able to fully hear and, with a small amount of money and a couple of visits to the doctor at the initial stage, before this started, probably would have had no problem at all. So we need to think about the psychological and the physical consequences, and think about the costs, because how much more will it cost for the hearing aid and apparatus down the road as she becomes an adult as opposed to just a simple doctor visit in the beginning?

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of this body and the American people a terrible tragedy that recently occurred in India's State of Jammu and Kashmir. On March 21, in the village of Sangrampora, 15 unidentified terrorists rounded up eight members of the Kashmiri Pandit community and shot them outside their homes. Seven of the victims died. While the cold-blooded murder of innocent people is always shocking and horrifying, what makes this incident even more appalling is the indication that the victims were singled out simply because they were Hindus. Mr. Speaker, for thousands of years Kashmir has been inhabited by Hindus known as Kashmiri Pandits. These original inhabitants of the Valley of Kashmir have lived peaceful lives in one of the most beautiful areas of the world. Sadly, the efforts of the Kashmiri Pandits to live their lives peacefully and constructively has been disrupted by militants armed and trained by outside forces intent on changing Kashmir from a secular, multireligious land into a fundamentalist state. The effects of this proxy war, which the evidence strongly indicates is supported by Pakistan, have been the death of thousands of people, the devastation of the economy, and the creation of a huge refugee population. Virtually the entire population of 300,000 Kashmiri Pandits has been forced to leave their ancestral homes and property, living in refugee camps in various cities in India in subhuman conditions. Only 2,000 Kashmiri Pandits still remain in the Kashmir Valley, and they have been turned into refugees in their own country. The current round of violence is not the first example of the victimization of the Kashmiri Pandits. For centuries, they have been subjected to the atrocities and subjugation committed by invading peoples. On October 22, 1947, 2 months after India became independent, Pakistan attacked Kashmir to annex it by force. Four days later, Maharajah Hari Singh, the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, requested India's military assistance to save Kashmir from the Pakistani invaders and took the case to the United Nations, which called for a cease-fire, followed by complete withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the occupied area, as a precondition to a plebiscite under U.N. supervision. Sensing the anti-Pakistani mood of the Kashmiri people, Pakistan did not comply with the U.N. withdrawal condition. Instead, Pakistan made two more futile attempts in 1965 and 1971 to annex Kashmir by force. Although Pakistan maintains that they are only providing moral and political support for the insurgency, evidence shows that Pakistan has been playing a direct role in arming and training the militants. I have met with members of the Kashmiri-American community who have told me that Hindus and Muslims can and have lived in peace in Kashmir. The real tragedy is that outside influences are fueling religious rivalries and foreign policy agendas that pit Indian against Indian. Mr. Speaker, as the cochairman of the Congressional Caucus on India, I believe that the United States and the international community must not allow the practice of ethnic or religious cleansing to continue. India has tried hard to help the Kashmiri Pandits. India deserves our support, both in assisting the refugees and in ending the proxy war being waged in Jammu and Kashmir. Programs such as USAID, the Agency for International Development, could be one vehicle for the United States to provide more direct aid, humanitarian aid, I should say, for these displaced people. We should also use our considerable influence with Pakistan to urge that nation to cease support for the militants and to crack down on terrorists harbored within their borders. I want to applaud India and Pakistan for trying to break decades of tension by having their foreign ministers meet in New Delhi recently. It has been the highest level meeting between these south Asian neighbors in 7 years. The foreign minister's meeting, Mr. Speaker, actually took place yesterday. I hope this will be a sign of the relaxation of tensions that will benefit all the people of India and Pakistan. Especially with this new climate of cooperation, I think ultimately it will help the Kashmiri Pandits go back to their ancestral homeland and resume their peaceful lives, which is really all they want to do.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the spirit of Hershey does live on, and I would say to the gentleman that I enjoyed the time that I spent at the conference on a bipartisan basis. My concern today, however, and I suppose in a sense this is sort of a reaching out to the other side of the aisle, is that we need to address the issue of campaign finance reform. I say this not in the spirit of trying to attack anyone or to suggest that anyone has a solution to the problem or that the problem necessarily can be decided on either side of the aisle, but the bottom line is that the Republicans are in the majority in the House of Representatives, and the Democrats increasingly, including myself, have been frustrated by the fact that we have been unable to get the Republican majority to bring up the issue of campaign finance reform either in committee, with hearings or markups, or on the floor of this House. Many of my colleagues know that in the President's State of the Union Address he called upon the House of Representatives, both Republicans and Democrats, on a bipartisan basis, to address the issue of campaign finance reform. Democrats have increasingly, over the last few months, requested that the House Republican leadership address the issue, again have hearings on legislation, bring the legislation up in committee, and set a deadline on when campaign finance reform reaches the floor of the House of Representatives so we could have a debate and be able to vote on a bill that most of us could agree on. Unfortunately, that has not happened, and, as a result, the Democrats have been forced to use procedural motions, as we did this afternoon on one of the suspension bills, to raise the debate and to allow us the opportunity to discuss campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, on several occasions during special orders over the last couple of months, myself and other Democratic colleagues have come to the floor to both speak out on the issue and also to talk about some of the proposals that have been put forward, many of which have been introduced, many of the bills, on a bipartisan basis. But, unfortunately, we still see no action. I think the issue is important for a number of reasons. First of all, as I mentioned earlier today, when I returned to my district for the 2- week break that we had, the 2-week district work period, it was repeatedly mentioned to me by my constituents at every location, a supermarket, a coffee shop, wherever I happened to be, many people came up to me and said: What is the Congress doing? It does not appear to be doing anything. The term has already been coined by the Washington Post, which on this last Monday did an editorial, calling the Congress the do-nothing Congress. I think this editorial has already been read into the Record, and I will not repeat it again, but the bottom line is that we have taken up almost nothing of substance in the first 3 or 4 months of this Congress. When I talk to my constituents, they say, well, it seems the only thing Congress does is to call upon investigations of the White House or investigations of campaign financing, but, at the same time that they are spending money on these investigations and doing subpoenas and calling for hearings about investigating finances or campaign finances out of the last November campaign, no one in the majority, no one on the Republican side in the leadership, is proposing that we move forward on campaign finance reform. I would maintain, just based on talking with my own constituents in the last 2 weeks, that that is not acceptable. The public is really tired of hearing about all the investigations and all the problems with the campaign finance system. We all know there are problems. We know there is too much money in the system. We know that Representatives, Senators, the President and the Vice President, and everyone who is a Federal officeholder has to spend too much time raising money, which takes away from the time for them to do substantive business. So the system cries out for change. It just cries out for change. Whether it is public financing or it is a cap on spending or it is the various proposals that have been put forward, the bottom line is that we have to address the issue. It is time for action. It is time to stop worrying about all the myriad of investigations and all the myriad charges and to simply do something legislatively to make the system work. That means campaign finance reform. Just to throw out an example, in New Jersey we are now in the midst of a gubernatorial race, and for a number of years in my home State of New Jersey we have had a system in place where there is a cap on the amount of money one can spend, and if a candidate raises a certain amount of money through individual as well as political action committee contributions, they get public funds to match it, with the understanding that there is a cap on the amount of money that they spend on the campaign. Now, I do not have to get into all the details of the New Jersey system, but the bottom line is, it is essentially a way of trying to reduce the amount of money spent on a campaign, trying to provide some sort of private funding either through political action committees or individuals at a certain amount, which is also capped, and then to match it with public funds. As a consequence, our gubernatorial races in New Jersey are reducing the amount of money that has to be spent. If we look at how much is spent on a gubernatorial race in New Jersey statewide as opposed to how much is spent on a senatorial race where there is no public system of financing or no restrictions in the way that we have in spending on the State level, there is a big difference. Really, at this point in New Jersey, it is not that difficult to run for Governor, raise the money to do so, if an individual wants to. On the other hand, it is very difficult to run for Senator because of all the money that one has to raise without any matching requirements. So I do not want to get into the details of the specific proposals today, although I think some of my colleagues may decide they would like to, and that is fine, but the bottom line is, we are calling for action on campaign finance reform by the Republicans. They are in the majority; they have the obligation to bring up the bill, to have the hearings, to mark it up and bring it to the floor. We suggested that that be done by Memorial Day. The President suggested it be done by July 4. In either case, it needs to be done and we need action. Mr. Speaker, I know I have some of my colleagues joining me today, and I would like to yield at this point to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman wants to be kind, but I have to say that, you know, the ultimate irony in this whole idea of foreign governments is that, and one of the reasons that I believe that the chairman of your committee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], is not willing to open this up to include the House, both Democrat and Republican, and the Senate, is because he himself has been under investigation. There have been allegations, as you know, that he in fact----

Mr. PALLONE. What I would like to do, with the indulgence of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, is if I could yield back my time with the understanding that the Chair will grant that time to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney].