Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have noticed, I am certainly not an expert on it, but if we look at some other countries in Western Europe and other democracies, many of them do in fact have the free TV time or the free newspaper time or whatever. It is not an unusual thing to do that. In fact, I think it is very common in a lot of other democracies. So there are precedents for doing that, and I think we need to look at some of these precedents in deciding what kind of a forum we should make. I guess we are running out of time, but I just wanted to finish our special order.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I think what the gentlewoman described is a very typical situation. I know in New Jersey I have people come into my office with very similar types of situations, either because maybe they are not working full time at the same job, or they have several jobs. It is just very common. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], who has been out front on the issue of health care coverage for a long time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, once again, today I rise to draw the attention of my colleagues to the problem of so many children in our country who do not have health insurance, and I am very pleased that I am going to be joined today by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley], who is here also to talk about the same issue because of her concern about the fact that this Congress so far has not addressed the issue. I have been talking over the last few weeks, and I guess a couple of months now, about various reports that have come out in various States; we had one in New York City, and we had another one in Massachusetts. We have had accounts in some of the Nation's major newspapers pointing to the problem of increasing numbers of children that do not have health insurance in this country. Well, yesterday the Children's Defense Fund, which is certainly one of the leading organizations that is an advocate for children, and particularly on the issue of health care for children, released its annual report on the state of America's children. And like so many other reports congressional Democrats have been talking about here on the House floor in recent weeks, the Children's Defense Fund report is full of disturbing information about the number of children that lack health insurance. It is information, of course, that congressional Democrats have cited time and again in our ongoing effort to convince the Republicans that the issue of uninsured children is one of the most, if not the most important issue the 105th Congress should examine. I emphasize the word should, Mr. Speaker, because to date the Republicans have yet to incorporate a health insurance program for children into their agenda for Congress. Well, among the all too familiar information contained in the Children's Defense Fund report is the total number of uninsured children in this country: some 10 million American kids lack health coverage. Since 1989, the number of children without private health insurance has risen by an average of 1.2 million per year. I stress that: 1.2 million per year. Nearly 90 percent of uninsured children have at least one working parent, and 64 percent have a parent who works full time, so we are talking about working parents here. Every day that goes by without congressional action, 3,300 more kids are added to the ranks of the uninsured, a trend that has been exacerbated in recent years by the growing number of working parents who do not qualify for Medicaid but remain unable to afford insurance for their kids. As I said, these numbers continue to grow. I have to say, though, that we must be careful not to get too caught up in the practice of simply reading the numbers. I do that a lot, and I do not want to just emphasize that. The emphasis has to be placed on who exactly are the uninsured children, why they are uninsured, and what are the consequences. Perhaps if we can help our Republican colleagues understand the consequences, we will have greater success in convincing them that providing health insurance to children is of the utmost importance. I just wanted to talk a little about this CDF report. It does an excellent job of explaining what really is the issue here. Just a quote from the report. It says: The human costs of children's lack of health coverage are high. Study after study have shown that children and adults lacking health insurance are more likely to see doctors less often, even when they are sick, or to go without preventive care and to emergency rooms when they need treatment. Seven of 10 uninsured children live in families with incomes below 200 percent of poverty. Many such families must choose between paying the full cost of prescriptions and doctor visits for uninsured children and paying for other basic family needs like the rent, utility bills or whatever. Care is sometimes delayed when children are sick, with parents hoping that no harm results. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about families where one or both parents work. These hard-working parents, as the CDF report puts it, are playing by the rules, and more often than not their wishful thinking does not work. The report notes, and I just want to mention this quote, because I think it is really true, that the report notes that ``perhaps less obvious, quote, perhaps less obvious, but no less damaging are the educational, social and economic costs to the children who lack health insurance and to the Nation.'' Children who are unnecessarily ill can miss days, weeks, or even months of school and their parents can miss significant periods of work. A child who cannot see the blackboard well and his parents cannot afford a visit to the eye doctor or eyeglasses cannot learn up to his or her potential. Uninsured pregnant women without adequate prenatal care are more likely to deliver babies with dangerously low birth weights, and the average hospital costs for a low-birth-weight baby are 10 times the cost of prenatal care. Mr. Speaker, this is the yearbook that the Children's Defense Fund put out. It is called ``The State of America's Children,'' and I would suggest that every one of our colleagues take a look at this document. This afternoon, actually this morning, I had a number of physicians from my district that were down to visit me from the New Jersey Medical Society, and some of them were on a cable TV show that I had earlier this afternoon. I asked about the issue of preventative care, and one of the physicians was an eye doctor. He specifically pointed out how in the case of eye disease, prevention and being able to see an eye doctor and getting help when problems start is so crucial and really prevents serious eye disorders down the road. Also, I would note how very inexpensive it was to deal with preventative care to make sure children were seeing a doctor, as opposed to having to go to a hospital or having a very expensive operation later. At some point during our special order, I would like to talk about some of the legislation that my Democratic colleagues have put forward to try to solve this problem, as well as the proposals that have been put forward by President Clinton. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley].

Mr. PALLONE. Exactly. That is true. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention briefly that obviously there are various proposals that Democrats have put forward about how to deal with this problem. The President has a proposal, some of our leaders in the House of Representatives have proposals. I just thought I would mention a few of them. We do not, not necessarily saying which ones are better than others. One of the things is to just mandate that insurance companies provide a kids-only policy because there are a lot of parents who cannot afford, for example, or may decide that they do not want to cover themselves but still want to cover the children. My understanding is it is very difficult to buy that kind of policy. So you could actually say that any insurance company that does business with the Federal Government, for example, has to provide a kids-only insurance policy. The other options that have been put forward, one is H.R. 560 by the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] that establishes a new Medicare- like entitlement program for children under age 18, so we could expand Medicare. We could expand Medicaid to bring in some of the children. The other one, another one, H.R. 561, by Representative STARK again, authorizes a refundable tax credit for 95 percent of the costs of children's health insurance. So again, we could use tax credits as a way of trying to provide coverage. I wanted to also mention Senator Daschle has S. 13, which establishes a Federal program of subsidies for children and families with income under 75,000. So we could basically subsidize care, based on sort of a sliding scale, based on what a person can afford. And of course the one that, the proposal that has probably had the most coverage in the media was what President Clinton proposed in his budget. Basically he has a number of provisions to expand health insurance. He has a State administered program of temporary health insurance premium assistance for unemployed workers and their families. He has a Federal grant program to encourage the development of voluntary health insurance purchasing cooperatives, and then he has grants to States who expand children's health insurance. Mr. Speaker, I just mention these because there really are a variety of ways to accomplish this. Frankly, it is not that costly. The more children you include, the less the cost actually becomes per child. I think that I want to leave everybody with this tonight, and of course we have been saying this over and over on the floor the last couple of weeks or the last couple of months now, is that as Democrats we feel very strongly that this issue needs to come to the House floor. We would like the Republican leadership to give us a date certain and say as of such and such a date, I think the President throughout the date of July 4, that as of such-and-such a date, a children's health insurance proposal or some combination thereof will come to the House floor. We will have an opportunity to consider it and to vote on it. What was really bothering me is that in discussing their priorities, the GOP basically has not included this issue. And I think that is wrong because it is an issue that must be addressed. That is why we are going to be here almost every day or at least several times a week talking about the nature of the problem.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman, and I think particularly what she said at the end there about how unfair it is, or the disincentive it creates, that in fact people who are working oftentimes do not have health insurance for their children, and yet people who fall below a certain income are on welfare, and end up having health insurance. We certainly do not want to encourage people not to work, which is basically the disincentive that is sometimes built into the system. I think that is very important. I appreciate her comments in that regard. I wanted to also mention, going back to what my colleague from Oregon said, the situation with regard to self-employed, part-time temporary workers, independent contractors, parents working for very small businesses or service sector companies. These are the areas that the Children's Defense Fund points out where they are very likely to have parents who work, but they are not having any health coverage for their children. What is interesting about it is, if we look at it from a cost point of view, because we always have to be worried about cost in the Congress, is that the parents who do not have access to a group policy through their employer often have to pay $6,000 a year or more, according to the Children's Defense Fund, if they buy a family health policy on their own. Obviously when you talk in those kinds of numbers, it is completely out of the question for many of these working families. The other thing, going back to prevention, because I think we continually have to stress that, the cost that is saved, the amount of money that is saved through preventative measures, and they give some very good examples with the Children's Defense Fund report where they talk about preventative care and say that each dollar invested to immunize a child saves between $3.40 and $16.34 in direct medical costs. Nine months of prenatal care costs $1,100, 1 day of neonatal intensive hospital care for a low-birth-weight baby costs $1,000. On the average, hospital costs for low-birth-weight babies are 10 times the costs of prenatal care. Mr. Speaker, they give an example in Florida where a rural county provided all children and pregnant women access to outpatient health care and the rate of premature births dropped by 39 percent. The percentage of children receiving checkups doubled and emergency room visits were cut by nearly 50 percent. We had some discussion in our children's health care task force that the Democrats have about the costs and estimates basically around $500 per child if we were actually covering every one of the 10 million children who do not have insurance. So compare that $500 to the cost that some of these families are paying annually, well, they can't afford it. But if they could afford it, I mean the bottom line is that, if you devise a program that takes in most of these children, it can be a very relatively, a very cheap policy as opposed to the costs of insuring an adult or senior citizen.

Mr. PALLONE. I agree completely. Again, I want to thank not only the gentleman but also the gentlewoman from Oregon because she continues to point out, I think a major point here, we are talking about working people who are willing to pay either all or some of the cost of the health insurance for their children. But unless we establish some system, as the gentleman from New York said, to build on the existing plans that are out there, they just do not have access to it, or it is too costly for them because they do not get it through a group plan, through their employer or whatever. We are talking about working people. We are going to continue to do this over the next few weeks and the next few months, I hope not the next few months because I hope our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle will be willing to bring this up at some point in the next few months. But we have to keep talking about it because it really is a crisis, as the Children's Defense Fund report points out.

Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman. And I particularly appreciate what he says about getting our constituents to reach out and other constituents to reach out to their Members of Congress to make them aware of the fact that this is a crisis and that it needs to be addressed. I do not like to give out what I would consider unfavorable statistics about our country, because I am so proud of our country, but you mentioned about our situation here in America versus other countries. If you look at, again, this is from the Children's Defense Fund, this report we have been talking about this evening, they point out that in every industrialized country children get better health coverage than in the United States. Every other industrialized country provides health coverage to all its people. America, of course, does not even cover all its children. The United States ranks 18th in overall infant mortality. Only Portugal does worse. And if the United States matched Japan's infant mortality rate, more than 15,000 American babies who died before their first birthday in 1994 would be alive today. The United States ranks 18th in the percentage of babies born at dangerously low weight. No industrialized country does worse. Again, it is not because we want to point out bad things about our country, but it is really shocking and it is really shameful that in the greatest country and the wealthiest country in the world that we have to point out those statistics with regard to infant mortality and health care.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, again I think the Children's Defense Fund report that both of us are making reference that really explains to us what the nature of the problem is. Some people have said to me, why is it that the number of children who do not have insurance has gone up in recent years, because Congress has made an effort over the last 10 or 20 years to expand Medicaid, which of course is the program for those below a certain income, and many States have actually instituted programs to try to cover those children who were not eligible for Medicaid on their own. So we had this effort over the last 10 or 20 years to expand Medicaid on the Federal level and to also have States address the problem. I think the Children's Defense Fund report explains very well, the reason why those efforts have not been enough is because during that same period, the last 10 years or so, we have seen fewer and fewer employers that provide any health insurance coverage for children, and also they increasingly charge the employee either the full cost of a group plan or a significant portion of the cost, which makes it unaffordable. We also have the phenomenon now increasingly where an employer will pay either all or part of the cost to the employee, but not for the family. That was not the case so much in the past. Just to give some statistics again from the report, it says that more workers are on jobs that either provide no health insurance benefits or require employees to pay unaffordable amounts. In 1993, more than three-quarters of employees at medium and large companies had to pay some or all of the cost of family health insurance provided through their employers. In 1980 the proportion was less than half. Then it gives some statistics from the Health Insurance Association of America that says the total cost of family health coverage in 1992 averaged $4,500 to $5,000 a year, but in 1993 employees of medium and large companies themselves paid an average of $1,300 a year for family coverages. Employees of small companies were even worse off. They paid an average of $1,900 a year. So what we see is moderate-income working families who live from paycheck to paycheck who simply cannot afford, even if the employer offers a policy, they cannot afford that coverage. That is why all our efforts, and of course they were good efforts on the part of Congress and the State legislature, have helped, but we continue to slide back because of increasingly the situation with people not getting health benefits through their employer.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano], who has been on the floor several times in the last month or so talking about this issue.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, following up on my colleague from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], I want to reiterate again this report that came out from the Children's Defense Fund that was in today's Washington Post. Once again there is another article in another major newspaper on the number of children in this country who do not have health insurance. According to the General Accounting Office, this is an all time high. Not only one out of seven children, as was mentioned, do not have health insurance, but if we do not make this a top priority, we are going to have even more serious problems. The Children's Defense Fund report says that unless action is taken now 12.6 million children will be uninsured by the year 2000. This news is only for the Republicans. Since last spring Democrats have been developing legislative plans to provide health insurance to the Nation's 10 million uninsured children, but to date there is not a single Republican plan to address this situation. Nor does it look like the GOP has any intention of giving this issue the attention it deserves. The House Republican agenda announced last week made no mention of a plan to insure the Nation's uninsured children.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the important role that the arts and humanities play in communities throughout our country. As a strong proponent of the arts and as a member of the Congressional Arts Caucus, I believe that slashing funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities would be an irreversible blow to the arts and humanities in America. These influential agencies encourage lifelong learning, promote participation within civic organizations, and preserve our country's cultural and intellectual heritage. The National Endowment for the Arts continues to lead all other arts organizations in encouraging the expansion of American art. The NEA strives to support excellence in our disparate American society. This organization fosters new design initiatives, encourages a renewed interest in dance, opera, and literature, and assists in the growth of new and previously established museums. In addition, the NEA remains a staunch advocate of arts in education. Studies illustrate that a student's desire to learn is facilitated by the mere presence of arts in the curriculum. As a Congressman representing New Jersey's sixth district, I have seen, first hand, how the NEA has directly benefited my constituents. The NEA provided a $6,000 grant to the George Street Playhouse, located in New Brunswick, a city that has been revitalized due to the explosion of the arts community. This $6,000 grant helps support the Touring Theater which reaches over 70,000 New Jersey students through issue- oriented plays. These plays use theater as a vehicle to discuss both personal and social issues facing the youth of today. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey also received a $12,500 grant from the NEA, to help fund a graduate-level internship in the Department of Prints and Drawings at the Jane Voorhees Zimmerli Art Museum, located on the Rutgers campus which is also in my district. In New Jersey alone, the National Endowment for Humanities, in conjunction with the New Jersey Council for the Humanities, provided a $525,000 grant making it possible for scholars at Rutgers University to edit Thomas Edison's notes for publication. A challenge grant from the NEH totalling $550,000, has allowed the New Jersey Historical Society to raise $2.2 million in private funds to renovate the building that contains its collections. The NEH also provided programs that enable Americans nationwide to participate in political, social, and cultural programs. Without funding to the NEH, New Jersey residents would not have access to free videotapes, radio programs, and traveling exhibits. Supporting current funding levels for the NEA costs each taxpayer approximately 70 cents per year. A mere one-hundredth of 1 percent of the national budget goes towards these organizations. Federal funding for the arts and humanities has provided Americans with more than 1.3 million jobs. The new jobs in turn pump hundreds of thousands of dollars into our local economies. For every dollar that the NEA spends, $11 is generated in the form of tourism, hotels, restaurants, and cultural community activity. If our Government cuts funding and decides to privatize the NEA and NEH, only the large agencies and institutions would survive. The smaller institutions, on the other hand, would suffer an untimely demise without the necessary Federal funding. These nonprofit organizations generate close to $37 billion in economic activity in America while supporting 1.3 million jobs. In addition, the arts typically produce $3.4 billion for the Federal Government in the form of income taxes, $1.2 billion in State government revenue, and $790 million in local government revenue. New Jersey's flourishing art community benefits greatly from the continued assistance from the NEA and NEH. New Jersey's 47,000 professional resident artists, and 800 cultural organizations provide approximately 15 million people with the opportunity to experience the arts in New Jersey. Close to 2.3 million school children benefit from arts projects that include student matinees, study guides, and classroom workshops. The youth of today need art to help express themselves. As this year's cochair of the Congressional Art Competition, I know the importance of art in our daily lives. ``An Artistic Discovery'' provides our youth with the opportunity to express their creative spirits. This unique, nationwide high school competition brings students together from all over the United States to celebrate the arts and their importance in our society. The students' passion for the arts, epitomized in their work that brightens the Cannon Tunnel, makes a statement to the millions of visitors who pass through the tunnel that connects the Cannon Building with the U.S. Capitol. The arts provide channels for emotional expression, and a chance for experimentation. Without the arts, our society would be devoid of all imagination. The arts permeate our culture and speak in a language all their own. We need to support our national endowments, as well as all other vehicles that generate art that enriches our lives. Continued support for these institutions can expose our communities to diverse and even necessary schools of thought. These agencies help provide our country with a living record of civilization and society. The NEA and NEH stimulate local economies, preserve our national heritage, and encourage educational enrichment programs. I urge my fellow colleagues to vote against slashing funding for the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, and to help ensure the survival of the arts in our society today.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address my colleagues on this. I do support the resolution. I want to commend also the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the sponsor of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I recently visited India, and I had the opportunity to meet with Prime Minister Gowda at the time. In citing the achievements of his multiparty coalition government, the Prime Minister mentioned with great pride the agreement that India signed last December with Bangladesh to share the water resources of one of the world's great rivers, the Ganges. While some critics have questioned whether such a broad coalition with so many diverse parties can govern effectively, the Prime Minister demonstrated that strong leadership can be brought to bear on an issue that literally affects the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and the agreement is a tribute to the leadership of both nations. Also last year, as was noted, the Governments of India and Nepal signed and ratified a treaty enabling the joint development of the water resources of the Mahakali River, again a tribute to cooperation between neighbors in a part of the world that has often been more marked by conflict. Mr. Speaker, the Ganges and the Brahmaputra River Basin comprises an area less than one-fifth the size of the United States but with twice as many people. Millions of people who reside in this area suffer from poverty and the effects of environment degradation. Yet, the area has great potential in terms of irrigation, fisheries, hydropower generation, and navigation. The agreements we celebrate today with this concurrent resolution begin the process of allowing that potential to be realized for the benefit of all the people in the region, but the people of these nations need some help and technical assistance. That is why it is important for us to encourage the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the international community in general to provide the necessary support and encouragement, as this resolution does. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say as co-chairman of the bipartisan Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, I have tried to lobby our colleagues here as well as the administration to make America's relations with India a higher priority. India this year celebrates the 50th anniversary of its independence. It is a democracy, and the country has for the past 5 years been pursuing a historic policy of economic reform. This is the second most populous nation on Earth and it offers huge potential for trade and investment. I am convinced that the current Government of India is committed to this path, as are the Indian people. Mr. Speaker, too often the relations between these two democracies, the United States and India, are marred by misunderstandings or simply by benign neglect. That is why it is important to send positive signals whenever possible. The resolution that we debate today will send just such a positive signal that the United States recognizes the efforts of the South Asian nations to foster greater regional cooperation and that we support these efforts. We hope these efforts will be the beginning of greater cooperation in South Asia and will serve as a model for other developing regions to better utilize their resources for the benefits of all their people. I want to congratulate again the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and the others that have cosponsored this resolution.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, for several weeks now I have been coming to the House floor on a daily basis to talk about the need for this Congress to enact legislation that would ensure every child in the country has access to health insurance. Many of my statements have focused on how the Republicans were blocking progress on the various Democratic proposals to provide health insurance to the Nation's 10 million uninsured children. I stress that again, 10 million uninsured children in this country. It is now 3 months into the 105th Congress and literally we have really barely done a thing. Today was just another indication of that. Just last week, the House Republicans basically put together an agenda. It appeared in the Washington Times, and I talked about it a little bit this morning. Again, much of this agenda is just a rehash of what the Republicans had been talking about since they took control of the Congress back in 1994. Most importantly, nowhere in this 12-point agenda is there a plan to pass a health insurance plan or a health coverage plan for children. Despite the fact that these 10 million children remain uninsured, despite the fact that the congressional Democrats have expressed a willingness to work with the Republicans to fashion a bipartisan agreement, the GOP still could not find it in its heart to make children's health insurance a congressional priority. I do not know why they left this out of their agenda. I find it truly disturbing. I will continue to mention it. Over the last several weeks there has been a steady stream of studies, visits by children's organizations, and media reports detailing the problem with the lack of health insurance coverage for children. Yet, still nothing from the Republican leadership. This week we had 4 different children's organizations, the March of Dimes, the Children's Defense Fund, the Child Welfare League, and the National Association of Children's Hospitals, had been and are still making visits to congressional offices all over the Capitol. They are not limiting their visits to Democratic officials. They have, Mr. Speaker, been urging all Members of Congress to do something about the growing number of children who do not have any kind of health coverage at all. With respect to stories in the newspapers, and they continue to grow, in yesterday's USA Today there was a lead story on the front page which really did a very good job of outlining the problem with the 10 million kids in the country that lack health insurance. The article talks about various proposals floating around the Congress that address the problem. It provides many details about the nature of the problem, including the observation that 86 percent of uninsured children live in families with one working parent, 63 percent live in two-parent families, 500,000 of the uninsured are infants younger than 1 year old, and 65 percent live in families with annual incomes of $25,000 or less. A lot of interesting information here that shows increasingly that this is a problem that affects primarily working families, two-parent families, people whose incomes are not as low as one might expect. Another disturbing trend noted in this article and others within the last few weeks is the decline in employer-based coverage. Between 1985 and 1995 the percentage of children covered by private employer-based coverage has dropped 12 percent, from 65 percent to 53 percent. This decline in worker-based coverage is an indication that working parents are finding it increasingly more difficult to purchase insurance for their children. I think a lot of people increasingly, or many people think that if you are working, particularly if both parents are working, that they are going to be covered through their employer by a health insurance policy for the kids. Increasingly, that is simply not the case. The article in USA Today also provides examples of those struggling to live without health coverage for their kids. I like to use examples because, as much as we talk about statistics, it is always better to have specific examples where you can bring the problem down and show how it affects an individual. I wanted to mention in the USA Today article a person named Dee Sweat of Liberty, MT. She works at a salary of $14,000 a year. She does not have health insurance for her 15-year-old daughter. Paying out of pocket, in the last year she paid $1,700 or 12 percent of her yearly salary for medical treatment for her daughter. She has not been able to take her daughter to the dentist for 5 years. Five years without going to the dentist. I repeat that. She simply cannot afford health insurance. I wonder how many in this body have gone 5 years or would even contemplate letting their children go 5 years without going to the dentist. The working parents that are mentioned in this USA Today article, who oftentimes earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford health insurance for the kids, are the individuals the Democrats are essentially trying to help. If you and your children qualify for Medicaid, we will work to get you enrolled. For those who do not, we will continue working to convince the Republicans that the time to act is now. Every day that goes by is a day that another parent stays up late at night suffering through the hard reality of not being able to provide for a sick child. As a parent myself, Mr. Speaker, I can think of few things that could be more difficult to confront. In the coming weeks, Democrats will be redoubling their effort to jump-start this process. We have asked Speaker Gingrich for a date certain for consideration of legislation that would ensure that every child in America has health insurance. I just wanted to talk a little bit about the issue and about what I think should be the basic principles of a kids' health insurance proposal. As far as the issue is concerned, the figure of 10 million American children has been mentioned several times. The number of kids with no health insurance coverage reached an all-time high of this 10 million figure in 1994, according to a recent General Accounting Office report, and that is one out of seven children. Again, the problem is getting worse. According to the Children's Defense Fund, 3,300 kids get dropped from private health insurance coverage every day. If this trend continues, there will be 12.6 million uninsured children by 2000. Again, this is a problem of working families. Nine out of 10 children without insurance have working parents. Medicaid helps the poorest children, and families who are well off can afford private coverage. But millions of working parents are trapped in the middle, unable to afford health insurance for their kids. Again, many of these parents, I am sure, are staying awake at night worrying about what would happen if their child fell seriously ill. Also, what we really need is preventative care. It may be that when a child gets very sick, that they can go to the emergency room and have access to care. But children deserve to see family doctors and not go to the emergency room. Many children without health insurance never see a family doctor. The only time they get health care is when they are so sick that they need to be taken to the emergency room, where they often get treated for medical conditions that could have been prevented through regular care at much less cost. For those who talk about the cost, I think they have to continue and should realize that in the long run the lack of preventative care, the lack of having a child being able to visit a doctor on a regular basis, in the long run only costs more when the child gets sick and has to have more serious care that involves hospitalization or other kinds of institutionalization. Well, I think it is important when I continue to talk about the problem of our Nation's children, or 10 million of them not being insured, that I have to basically say what we would do about it; what would be the outlines, if you will, of a children's health bill. And basically if you think about the basic principles the Democrats have been talking about, we have been saying that a children's health proposal must first make health insurance available for every uninsured child up to at least age 18; second, make insurance generally affordable for all families; third, give all uninsured children access to policies that provide for the range of appropriate benefits; fourth, provide for prenatal care for uninsured pregnant women; and, last, build on, not replace, the current employer-based system, Medicaid and public private programs that already exist in a number of States. The Children's Defense Fund has done an excellent job of putting together a fact sheet that basically gives some further details about the nature of the problem, and I do not want to read the entire fact sheet, but I just wanted to highlight some of the things that they brought out because they have been going around visiting with Members of Congress this week, as I mentioned before, and I think they basically summarized the nature of the problem very well. What they have been saying again is the fact that Medicaid helps the poorest children, but that millions of working parents in the middle cannot provide their children with health insurance. Again, why are these 10 million children uninsured? Because a lot of people are saying to themselves, you know, how is it that they fall through the cracks? Why are they uninsured? And what we are finding is that increasingly, again, it is the problem of working parents. Since 1989, the number of children without private coverage has grown by an average of 1.2 million a year. In 1980, the majority of employees at medium and large companies had employers who paid the full costs of family coverage. By 1993, more than three-fourths of these employees were required to help pay such costs. Most employers now require large payments for family coverage. For health insurance that covers the entire family the average employee must pay over $1,600 a year, $1,900 in small companies. And when families cannot pay these costs, basically their children go uninsured. Other parents work for employers who offer no health coverage. Self-employed, part-time or temporary workers, independent contractors and parents working for very small businesses or service sector companies often have employers who offer no health insurance. Parents also must pay very high prices, $6,000 a year or more, if they buy family health insurance on their own rather than through an employer, and, as many cannot afford these costs, the children go uninsured. So if a parent is not able to tap into a health insurance policy for their kids through their employer, you can see the level of a premium up to $6,000 a year or more and why that would simply be unaffordable for somebody unless they are making a very large salary. Why is it crucial to help working parents buy health insurance for their children? And again this gets into the whole issue of prevention and how providing health insurance for kids in the long run would be saving the government money. Uninsured children are at risk of preventable illness. Most families with uninsured children live from paycheck to paycheck with little room to spare in the family budget. Many such families must choose between paying the full costs of prescriptions or doctor visits for an uninsured child and other basic family needs, including food and utility bills. So they are sitting there in the house deciding if they are going to pay for health insurance versus the rent versus utilities versus putting food on the table. Essentially it is a game of Russian roulette with their children's health, delaying care and hoping that no harm results. Again some information about the children with untreated health problems. They are very much less likely to learn in school. Many children with undiagnosed vision problems do not get glasses and cannot even see the blackboard. Children in pain or discomfort may have trouble concentrating. I guess that is obvious. If lead paint poisoning is not detected and treated early, children can suffer permanent mental retardation. Certainly the Federal Government has addressed the issue of lead poisoning from paint and its impact on children, but again without health insurance, without regular checkups, it will not be detected. And finally taxpayers save money when their children receive early preventive care. Each dollar invested to immunize a child saves between $3.40 and $16.34 in direct medical costs. Nine months of prenatal care costs $1,100. One day of neonatal intensive hospital care for a low birth weight baby costs $1,000. On average hospital costs for a low birth weight baby are 10 times the cost of prenatal care. Just an example, and again this is from the Children's Defense Fund, when one rural county in Florida provided all children and pregnant women access to outpatient health care, the rate of premature births dropped by 39 percent, the percentage of children receiving checkups doubled, and emergency room visits were cut by nearly 50 percent. In every industrialized country children get better health coverage than in America in terms of the percentages that are actually covered. Every other industrialized country provides health coverage to all its people. America does not even cover all its children. The United States ranks eighteenth in overall infant mortality. Only Portugal does worse. If the United States matched Japan's infant mortality rate, more than 15,000 American babies who died before their first birthday in 1994 would be alive. And the United States ranks eighteenth in the percentage of babies born at dangerously low weight. No industrialized country does worse than that. Now again I do not want to keep coming up here and giving horror stories and talking about all the problems that we face because of the fact that the 10 million kids are not covered. But I think that the magnitude of this problem is such that if we do not do something quickly and if this House and this Congress does not address the problem fairly quickly, the problem only gets worse, the costs only get greater, and from a humane point of view it simply is something that we need to address, and so myself and other Democrats will be here on a regular basis tomorrow, the next few weeks or the next few months until our Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree to take this up in a timely fashion.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Washington Times reported that at long last House Republicans have finally developed an agenda for the 105th Congress. The news was also accompanied by a report that in the first 2 months of the 105th Congress the House was in session for a grand total of 58 hours, compared with 296 hours in the first 2 months of the last Congress. Mr. Speaker, one would think that with all this spare time and with daily pressure from congressional Democrats, the Republicans would have included as a goal in their agenda the implementation of a plan to provide health insurance for the Nation's 10 million uninsured children. As far as the Republican agenda goes, however, health care for children is apparently not meant to be. There is no mention of any kind of children's health insurance plan in the Republican's vision of the future. Since last spring, Democrats have been working to push the issue of children's only health care to the top of Congress' agenda, and our Families First agenda included a children's only plan. Day after day in this Congress Democrats have taken to the floor to protest the Republicans' failure to basically address anything more substantive than the propriety of hanging the Ten Commandments on the walls of Government buildings and courthouses. This is what we dealt with last week. Mr. Speaker, Democrats are intent on passing a children's only health bill. Two weeks ago our Minority Leader Gephardt and our Senate Minority Leader Daschle sent a letter to Republican leaders Gingrich and Lott asking them to allow this issue to move forward. Last week we sent another letter, signed by over 175 members of the Democratic Caucus, asking the Speaker to provide a date certain for the consideration of a children's only health bill, and to date the Democrats have literally heard nothing from the Republicans on this issue. I have to say, though, we have heard plenty from elsewhere around the country. We learned the week before last from New York City's public advocate that despite the existence of a State plan to insure children in New York, the rate of uninsured children in New York City grew by 6 percent in the last 5 years. We also learned that this happened at a time when many of New York's parents were working for companies that had over 1,000 employees. The public advocate's report, Mr. Speaker, underscored the need for a Federal children's only health plan for parents who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford health insurance for their children. Again I would say that, not having time to wait for this Congress to do something, many States around the country have taken matters into their own hands. Massachusetts, for instance, has implemented a children's only plan, similar to various proposals developed by congressional Democrats, that assists parents who would otherwise be unable to afford health insurance for their children. The Massachusetts plan is an important example to cite, in that it illustrates the value of not only providing health care for a sick child but of providing preventative care that obviates the need for more expensive care further down the line. I want to stress how important preventative care is. It is wise not only for budgetary reasons but, simply put, it is the humane thing to do. More than half of the uninsured children with asthma, just as an example, never see a doctor during the year. Many of these children end up hospitalized with problems that could have been prevented and could have cost less to treat. Similarly, one-third of uninsured children with recurring ear infections never see the doctor. Many suffer permanent hearing loss. Democrats believe these problems should be prevented because they can be prevented. Our concern, again, Mr. Speaker, is rooted firmly in the notion that the right thing to do is to make sure every child in this country has access to medical care. I have to point out that in their agenda released last week the GOP claims it wants to strengthen America's families by fighting child abuse and neglect. I find it ironic that this goal can be included in their agenda and yet they propose to do absolutely nothing about health insurance for children. Mr. Speaker, I believe the GOP needs to go back to the drawing board. It is incredible that a health plan for children did not make it into their agenda, and I hope, and we will continue to press, that they will change their minds and bring up legislation that addresses the issue of kids' health insurance.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, over 175 Democratic Members have signed a letter to the Republican leadership urging a date certain for floor consideration of legislation that provides health insurance coverage for the 10 million American kids that do not have it. So far the Republican leadership refuses to address the issue of kids health insurance. Last week many of my Democratic colleagues discussed a recent New York City survey that pointed to the growing numbers of children without health insurance. Today the GOP is supposed to unveil its long-overdue legislative agenda for the 105th Congress. A present view of that agenda published in today's newspapers does not mention kids health insurance. Nor did the Republicans include the issue when they talked about a bipartisan agenda with President Clinton a few weeks ago. I want to assure my colleagues, though, that this issue will not go away because the Democrats will not allow it to. It is a disgrace that 10 million American children, most of whose parents work very hard, do not have health care coverage.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to once again talk about the need for Congress to pass a children's only health care bill and the Republicans' continued refusal to let this Democratic plan move forward. Again we are here in the middle of another week, in the third month of the 105th Congress, and the Republicans basically have nothing to do. Ten million American children have no health insurance, yet day after day after day the Republican leadership schedules no real business for the House of Representatives to consider. Yesterday was a perfect example of just how little the Republicans have to do. Even though Democrats have legislative plans to provide health care to the Nation's 10 million uninsured children ready for consideration, the Republican leadership decided it was more important to debate a symbolic measure about the Ten Commandments. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker, because it is really kind of unbelievable when one thinks about it. Instead of allowing legislative plans to ensure that all American children have health insurance to be considered, the House Republican leadership felt it was more important to consider a symbolic measure on how Congress feels about the display of the Ten Commandments in Government offices and courthouses. The point is that children's health care, pure and simple, is something that needs to be addressed. The problem of uninsured children continues to grow as Congress watches from the sidelines. Indeed, last week I was joined by colleagues, some from New York, to discuss a report released by the New York City public advocate, Mark Green, that found a disturbing rise in the number of uninsured children in New York City. As congressional Republicans continue to prevent the Federal Government from taking action to confront this problem, what is happening, essentially, is that various States around the country are trying to make some progress on the issue. An excellent example of such action was just published in an article about the action the State of Massachusetts has taken to implement a children's only health plan. This was in the New York Times on Friday. I am pleased today to talk a little bit about that, because I think that the Massachusetts children's medical security plan, which is the name that is given to this proposal, is basically a good plan, designed to insure children whose parents earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid coverage but still cannot afford to purchase health care for their kids. We have been through this before. If the family is eligible for Medicaid, then they have health insurance coverage. But we have a lot of people, working people, people that are on the job, in many cases both parents working at separate jobs, who do not get health insurance through their employer. They are not eligible for Medicaid because their income is not low enough, and so they simply go without health insurance for their children because they cannot afford to pay a premium that they would have to obtain privately or through some other means. So basically what Massachusetts did was to try to come up with a plan to deal with those individuals who were above the income level for the Medicaid threshold but still do not get health insurance on the job for their children or who cannot afford to pay for health insurance privately. The article in the New York Times details some individuals. For example, Mark Leary, of Lawrence, MA, was able to take his 3-year-old daughter to doctors to receive treatment for an ear infection even though the supermarket he works for does not offer health insurance. It also talks about another individual, Paula Lincoln of Rockland, MA, who was able to still bring her children in to the doctor for checkups after she lost her teaching job. It mentions another self-employed person, Elaine Choquette of Blackstone, MA, who uses the program to pay to bring her two sons to the doctors as well. Miss Choquette was quoted as saying, ``I pay my taxes, and I never thought of it being anything compared to welfare.'' This is not a welfare program. This is a program in the State of Massachusetts for working people. The program in Massachusetts is very much like many of the proposals that Democrats here in Congress have developed. Most of the programs awaiting consideration are like the Massachusetts program. They are designed to help hard working parents who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid yet still cannot afford health insurance for their kids. The really big difference between the Massachusetts program and the various Federal programs awaiting consideration is that theirs has been enacted. In other words, the Massachusetts Legislature actually considers and passes legislation in response to societal challenges, and the Republican-controlled 105th Congress clearly does not. The New York Times article on the Massachusetts plan reports that Representative Bill Thomas, the California Republican who heads the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means, said in early February that he would soon hold hearings to get a sense of the scope of the problem of kids not having health insurance. But it is now March, and although we have debated the merits of hanging the Ten Commandments on the wall of Government buildings, I have yet to see a hearing on the issue held or a legislative plan examined. Again, every day the Republicans waste is another day that parents have to endure the reality of being unable to take their children to the doctor. This is no small price to pay. I have to say that the Massachusetts State Health notes that while uninsured children had always had access to emergency treatment, the State's health plan now allows parents to bring their children in for routine medical visits, check on immunizations, and tests for lead poisoning. One of the points that we have been trying to make during this debate on kids' health insurance is that it may very well be that in some cases, perhaps even in most cases when an uninsured child gets really sick, that they end up going to the emergency room and they get some type of care. But that is not the way the health system should operate. They need preventative care. They need vaccinations. They need to go to the doctor for routine checkups. We do not want a situation where the only time children get any kind of medical treatment is if they really get ill and they have to go to the emergency room. It is my hope that the Republicans will recognize that while we seek to enable children to receive treatment, the matter itself is not routine. This is an urgent matter. Any kind of obstructionism on the issue of kids' health insurance I believe is really callous, and the Democrats, of course, continue to articulate and move forward with various plans that both the President and other of my Democratic colleagues have put forward. I just wanted to talk a little about some of the things that Massachusetts does to give an idea of how this would actually work. Again in Massachusetts, very similar to what happened here at the Federal level, there was an effort a few years ago to try to come up with a universal health care system where the State would basically provide health care or health insurance, I should say, for everyone. But in the same way that we were not able to accomplish that on a Federal level, the effort instead began to focus sort of in a piecemeal fashion on what elements of the uninsured could be insured effectively and at a reasonably affordable price. One of the points that we keep making, those of us who would like to see kids' health insurance enacted, is that it is very affordable. It does not cost a lot of money to provide health insurance for kids. And we are talking about 10 million children right now that do not have health insurance. If you look at it in the spectrum of things, it is relatively cheap to provide insurance for them. Basically, Massachusetts recognized this. They figured that if they could not move for health insurance for everyone, at least they could move for health insurance for children. Just to give some idea of how they did it, they expanded both their Medicaid program and the Children's Medical Security Plan, which was a State plan they had in effect beginning in 1993. Medicaid paid for a significant part with Federal dollars but now covers everyone up to 133 percent of the poverty level or all families of four with incomes up to $20,748 a year. So what they did is they expanded Medicaid so that it covered a little higher income level, 133 percent of the poverty level, for families of four with incomes up to $20,748 a year. But then they have this supplemental plan, the Children's Medical Security Plan, which provides a somewhat less generous package, if you will, than Medicaid, more limited mental health and prescription drugs; but for families with incomes of less than $31,200 a year, 200 percent of poverty, the coverage is free, and they have a copayment of $1 per doctor's visit. So now we are getting up to people, families at the 200 percent of poverty level. For families with incomes of $31,200 to $62,400, the charge is $10.50 per child per month, and the copayment is $3. And above that level, the charges are $52.50 a month and $5 a visit. So essentially what they are doing here is, on a sliding scale, making it possible for people at these higher income levels, they are not terribly high income levels, but at higher income levels would still be able to opt into this program. It is a way to guarantee that every child who does not have health insurance now would be able to take advantage of this program. Ultimately, no child would be ineligible for this type of program unless the parents, on their own, voluntarily decided that they did not want to participate in it. Everyone would be eligible on a sliding scale up to any income level. The program is administered for the State by the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company at a charge of $10.50 a month for each child, and it allows parents to take their children to any doctor in the State. So again you have complete choice in terms of where you go to the doctor or the hospital. Again the reason why this is so successful is essentially because of what it means for preventative care. In the article in the New York Times there is a Dr. Robert Sorrenti, a pediatrician who is a vice president of John Hancock, and he said that the sort of routine treatment, regular doctor visits, vaccinations, the preventative type care, was often avoided by parents who were short of money, but 90 percent of the registered children in this program are now seeing a doctor on a regular basis for preventative purposes. In Massachusetts, approximately 150,000 uninsured children, about 60,000, will be covered through the expanded Medicaid program that Massachusetts now offers, and they expect that the expanded Children's Medical Security Plan program would reach 40,000 to 60,000 more children. It has enrolled about 7,000 more children since the expansion took effect in November. So if you are taking that full range of 150,000 uninsured children, between the 60,000 covered by Medicaid and possibly another 60,000 that would be covered under this supplemental insurance program, you can see how you are getting very close, really, to almost 100 percent of the uninsured children that would be covered by the plan. Of course, the real key is what we are going to do on the Federal level. Obviously, it is very good for States like New York and Massachusetts and others to experiment and to come up with different ways of trying to provide health insurance for children, but the problem will not be addressed on a universal basis on the Federal level unless this Congress takes up the issue. I myself and many of my colleagues are determined that we will continue to raise the issue, we will continue to point out the problem of the uninsured and how many children there are out there until the Republican leadership and our colleagues on the other side decide to finally bring this up, give it a hearing, bring the legislation to the floor, and move toward making sure that every child in this Nation has the opportunity to have health insurance. In the long run if we do not do this, the negative impact not only on our children but on our Nation as a whole, I think, could be catastrophic because the numbers of the uninsured continue to increase on a regular basis.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in today's New York Times the Speaker attacked Democratic fund-raising and compares it to the Watergate scandal. Specifically, the Speaker is quoted in today's New York Times saying, ``The Democratic fund-raising machine was the most systematic, large-scale effort to get around the law that I have seen since Watergate.'' This comment is especially strange coming from someone who has admitted to abuses of the campaign finance system. The abuses were on such a scale that the Speaker has been fined $300,000. There is an old saying about people in glass houses not throwing stones, and I think it especially applies to the Speaker of this House. If the Speaker really cares about campaign finance reform, he should bring legislation to the floor immediately to correct the system. So far all we have seen is inaction by the Republicans on campaign finance reform.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I just wanted to say, if I could just follow up on one thing he said before, I am an advocate, as the gentleman has indicated he is as well, of universal health care. I believe very strongly that--and I did believe when the President 4 years ago came forward and said this is the issue, No. 1 issue that we must deal with, and we have to make sure that every American has health insurance. I believed that. However, we know and the gentleman mentioned that, politics being the way it was in the last 4 years, we really realistically, politically realistically, cannot envision this Congress moving toward a universal health care system. So we did last Congress at least address the issue of portability and preexisting conditions. The reason I believe that children's health and covering children is the next step in this sort of piecemeal approach that we have to follow because of political realities, is because not only of compassion which we all share for children but also because it is doable. If we look at the actual costs, it is cheaper to insure children than it is for the adults or their parents. And from a prevention point of view it makes the most sense because if we-- we are all advocates of preventive care, but preventative care is so important for children, because if they do have proper health care in the early years, that prevents a lot of things happening later that are more costly and cause more damage to them later in life. So it is a logical extension. Even if one does not believe that everyone should be covered or it is the government's responsibility to do that, at least understand that this is the next logical step. I think maybe that is what we can get across to our Republican colleagues. It has not worked so far, but maybe that is how we can emphasize it as the next step. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. PALLONE. I think the gentleman is absolutely right, and that is why this is a important part of the Democrats' ``families first'' agenda. What my colleague pointed out, though, if I could follow up--and we have I guess about 15 minutes left, and we do not have to use the whole time for our one hour--but if we could just focus a little bit on solutions, because there are solutions, and as we mentioned before, in many ways this is an easy problem to solve. It just takes the will, in this case, of the Republican majority to bring this bill or something like it to the floor. There are really a lot of ways of looking at this, but in the case of the New York public advocates' report, they actually advocate two things which I think I favor, and maybe I could mention one other thing that they did not mention. One is, they suggest essentially expanding the Medicaid program to cover people at higher levels; in other words, Medicaid now may take in people at 100 or even 200 percent of poverty, but not above that. Also, New York State, from what I understand, and maybe my colleague from New York would be more familiar with it, has a State-developed child health plus insurance program that essentially goes beyond Medicaid. The State subsidizes it, but it takes in people who would not normally be eligible for Medicaid. And most approaches to expanding health care coverage for children that I have seen either approach it by expanding Medicaid or looking at some other government subsidized, usually nonprofits program that would cover people that are not on Medicaid. The third arm of this, though, that is not mentioned by the public advocate, at least to my knowledge, but I think is just as important, is outreach, because what the public advocate in New York City actually identifies is that there are a number of people that are eligible for the Medicaid Program or eligible for the child health plus program that are not using it. So I think whatever we develop has to have an outreach program, because there are a lot of people who are not taking advantage of existing programs, for whatever reason, either because they are not aware of it, or if you talk about children, if their parents are not aware of it, they cannot take advantage of it. I do not know if she wants to talk a little bit about this, but I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate that.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman for his contribution and appreciate him participating in this special order, because I know that in his State in particular many efforts have been made to try to expand health care coverage. But, as we noticed in this New York survey, even with the States going out of their way in many cases to expand coverage it still--we still see an actual decline in the number of insured. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. PALLONE. I agree, and I want to thank the gentleman. I know we are winding down.

Mr. PALLONE. I think the gentleman is absolutely right. For example, in referencing the New York City report, I would take note of the fact that the last year that we were making reference to was 1995, well before any of these changes in the laws with regard to immigration would take effect. So there is no question that taking more people off the rolls as a result of those immigration policies would impact the numbers and create more uninsured. I would also suggest, again here I am speculating, that a lot of the problem is not even reported. In other words, the figures that our colleague from Texas is looking at on that map have to be based on some reporting that was actually done, and I would suspect that there are a lot of people, legal or otherwise, people that were born in the United States, who simply do not even get reported, so I suspect that the figures are much larger and there is no question that they are growing.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentlewoman brought up the community-based health clinics. I have some in my district, as well. The problem, of course, they face is scarce resources. In other words, increasingly the amount of money that has been made available to them has dwindled. That is another reason why we see the ranks of not only the uninsured but even people who have access to health care, because they are really dealing with the uninsured in many cases, but the access becomes more limited as resources become scarce. I yield to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Serrano].

Mr. PALLONE. Let me say, and I think that basically our colleague from New York has addressed this, that I think the problem with the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, is that they are following this philosophy that somehow it is the people's fault, it is their own fault. If you are faced with these overwhelming statistics that show you not only that there are 10 million American children that have no health insurance but that the numbers continue to grow every year and it is working people who are trying to make ends meet, the only conclusion I can draw is that you somehow, and I think many of my colleagues on the other side have convinced themselves that somehow it is not something that they can deal with, it is the people themselves that have created the problem. There is just no truth to that, no basis to that. One of the things that is most upsetting to me, and I will mention it briefly and then maybe yield to the gentleman from New York, is that when the Republican leaders of both the House and the Senate met with President Clinton just a few weeks ago to try to come to agreement on priorities, even though the President said emphatically in his State of the Union address and provided in his budget message to provide for a program that would cover at least half of these 10 million children and said he wanted action on that in this Congress, the Republican leadership refused to make that one of their priorities, so that these task forces or groups that were set up to try to move legislation through Congress on a bipartisan basis do not include children's health insurance, do not include the President's proposal, because the Republicans said that that was not a priority. So clearly we are not getting the message out, and we need to. We need to make our colleagues on the other side understand that this is a most important priority but we are not there yet. I yield to the gentleman from New York.