Gene Green

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, legislation temporarily funding the Government expires, and hundreds of thousands of Government workers may be given another paid vacation. Last month this cost us $800 million. Speaker Gingrich and House Republicans have decided they want to use the threat of a Government shutdown as a leverage in the ongoing budget battle, flatly dismissing the importance of keeping many of our crucial programs up and running. Let us make it absolutely clear the Republicans cannot force these mean-spirited cuts on the American people by holding the Government shutdown over our heads. They have targeted such programs as education cuts that help children, the COPS Program to help my Houston community hire over 375 new police officers, and veterans programs, which will result in 600 fewer VA medical center beds, 203,000 fewer inpatient visits, and 430,000 fewer outpatient visits at VA medical centers. The American people do not want a Government shutdown. Let us extend this continuing resolution and finish the job we should have completed 2 months ago. Let us not hold another shutdown over our citizens' heads to try to pass these bills.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recommend to all members an article that appeared in the Washington Post business section last week, which I will insert in the Record. The article reported on a bipartisan round-table discussion on the rising gap between rich and poor, and the shrinking middle class in our country. This trend is no secret. Ask any working American. We have been downsized, laid-off, cut pay, cut jobs to the point that even the Business section reports it. I was pleased to read that some of the speakers--notably Jack Kemp-- emphasized economic growth and economic development as the way to narrow the income gap in our country, not just balancing the budget. Mr. Kemp continues to be one of the few Republicans willing to address the issue of income inequality and the poor condition of our cities instead of treating them as inconvenient facts that should be ignored or denied. Beyond balancing the budget, we need to emphasize education and training for our children and make the necessary public investments to help create economic growth. It is a shame that programs such as the School-to-Work program--which connects high school students to the world of work--could be eliminated by this Congress. I invite those from the other side of the aisle who believe that the income gap is a real problem to speak up--as Jack Kemp has--and give this issue the attention it deserves. [From the Washington Post, Dec. 7, 1995] Income Gap Is Issue No. 1, Debaters Agree (By Steven Pearlstein) The growing income gap between the rich and the poor has become the central issue in American politics, and the party that figures out what to do about it--or that makes the right noises about it--will dominate American politics. That was the message from the left and the right, Democrat and Republican, politician and pollster, economist and financier at a forum on inequality held yesterday on Capitol Hill. ``The main cause of America's anxiety is the growing gap between the haves, the have-nots and those in the middle who feel they are on a treadmill in which they have to run faster and faster merely to say in place,'' said Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who organized the event with retiring Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.). Stanley Greenberg, who conducts polls for the White House and the Democratic National Committee, told the gathering that nearly all recent elections have been decided by ``downscale'' voters who swing between Republicans, Democrats and independents such as Ross Perot in a desperate search for an answer to their declining economic fortunes. ``There is no more central subject in politics today,'' Greenberg declared, ``and no party will be successful without addressing it successfully.'' Kevin Phillips, a free-ranging Republican theorist and author of ``The Politics of Rich and Poor,'' said the reluctance of Republicans to face up to the inequality issue was now costing them the support of one-third of their natural base of voters. Rather than signaling the rise of a new Republican era, Phillips predicted, last year's Republican takeover of Congress will go down as the last gasp of a Republican era that began with the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, but has now been taken over by a coalition of right-wing ideologues and Wall Street interests. He noted that two earlier Republican eras, the Gilded Age of the 1880s and 1890s and the Roaring Twenties, ended when progressives were able to ride into office on the inequality issue. Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin opened the session by declaring that rising inequality has so torn the social fabric that fixing it amounts to not only a moral or political imperative, but also an economic one. If no solution is found, Rubin said, angry voters will soon turn to radical measures such as restoring trade barriers or re-regulating entire industries--moves that he predicts would slow economic growth and ultimately be self-defeating. And former representative Jack F. Kemp, who now heads a Republican tax reform commission, warned that the plight of the urban poor had become morally ``unconscionable'' and politically unacceptable. For that reason, Kemp said Republicans should make boosting economic growth rates, not balancing the budget, their top political priority. Nobody at yesterday's session took issue with a raft of recent reports showing that the household incomes of those in the bottom 40 percent of the economy have slipped over the last 20 years, when adjusted for inflation, while all the income growth has been concentrated in the households in the top 20 percent. But there was a spirited and, in the end, unresolved debate over what to do about it. Steven Rattner, a managing partner at the Wall Street investment firm of Lazard Freres & Co., argued that they key to narrowing the income gap was more and better training programs to get a better match between the jobs demanded by the new economy and the skills of workers at the bottom of the income scale. But Louis Jacobson, a researcher at Westat Inc. in Rockville, said his studies found that such programs inevitably reach only a small portion of the work force that could benefit from them. And Cornell University economist Robert Frank argued that many labor markets now exhibit a ``winner take all'' quality to them that gives disproportionate salaries to whoever is at the top, no matter how much education and training the people below them have. Kemp, along with Rattner, argued that it would be folly to address the problem of rising inequality by expanding government efforts to transfer income from the rich to the poor. ``I don't think poor people are poor because rich people are rich,'' said Kemp in arguing against welfare and other ``redistributionist'' programs. But not everyone agreed. ``Redistribution is not a naughty word,'' said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution in Washington, Burltess noted that the long-term shift in the government's income support programs from the poor to the elderly middle class was a major contributor to growing inequality in recent years. And he noted that countries such as Germany and Japan had been able to finance much more generous social programs than the United States while still turning in as good or better economic performance over the past 20 years. Burltess's comment was seconded by Timothy Smeeding, an economist at Syracuse University whose recent study found that although the United States is the richest nation, its poor have a lower standard of living than the poor of all other industrial countries. ``I think we have no choice now but to take greater account of the losers,'' said Smeeding.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear my Republican colleagues defending Speaker Gingrich today. You heard that right. They are defending the Speaker they elected earlier this year. But that is not what I am here to talk about, I am here to say I am proud that the President vetoed the Republican budget yesterday with the same pen Lyndon Baines Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law, because he believes [[Page H 14179]] that the deep and devastating cuts in Medicare, education, and tax increases on working families is not in line with the priorities that Americans have set. Thank the Lord he vetoed that bill. The budget made devastating cuts in Medicare and Medicaid in order to finance a tax break, a tax break before we even balance the budget. It was unacceptable and I am proud the President did that. Now that the budget has been vetoed, let us do what my colleagues said, let us get about balancing the budget in a fair way. Democrats and Republicans alike agreed in a continuing resolution to balance the budget in a way that protects Medicare, education, the environment, and working Americans. Let us do that bipartisanly and we can have a balanced budget for all of America.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I also place in the Record a letter from the United States Conference of Mayors opposing this. The Commerce-Justice-State appropriations conference report cuts 12 percent from the administration's request. This report eliminates the successful Cops-on-the-Beat Program and replaces it with a block grant to States. We do not know that this block grant will provide more police on our streets, it could be used for many other purposes. In my district in Houston, our Mayor Lanier and Police Chief Nuchia have used the Cops-on-the-Beat to add 376 more police officers on the streets of Houston. It is a success and yet the Congress wants to kill it--I hope President Clinton vetoes this bill because we need to keep these 376 police officers on our Houston streets--not have them lost in the bureaucracy. The United States Conference of Mayors, Washington, DC, December 6, 1995. Hon. Charles Schumer, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Schumer: As the Subcommittee on Crime begins an oversight hearing on the COPS program, I am writing to apprise you of the strong support of The U.S. Conference of Mayors for the program. We worked very hard with Congress and the Administration last year to see the program enacted into law. The U.S. Department of Justice, and the COPS Office in particular, have worked very hard since then to implement it in a quick and effective fashion, and it has already begun to make a difference on the streets of our cities. They have been extremely responsive to the needs and requests of our cities. We are aware that there are proposals in Congress to change the COPS program into a block grant and that, in fact, the conference agreement on the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill would substitute the block grant for FY96. We believe that changing the program at this time would be a mistake. Cities have allocated money and personnel to the program and have budgeted for the future with the COPS program in mind. While a block grant is quite tempting, we have a program on hand which is working. We are concerned that changing the program at this time would represent bad public policy and could jeopardize some of the progress we have made in our cities to prevent and control crime. Change now also seems premature since the Subcommittee is just now holding an oversight hearing. We recommend that Congress examine the program's effectiveness through the oversight process before considering changes in it. At the annual meeting of The U.S. Conference of Mayors last June we adopted a policy resolution which reiterated our continuing support for the COPS program and called on Congress to provide full funding for it in the future. We urge you to help us see this happen. Sincerely, Wellington Webb, Mayor of Denver, Chair, Criminal and Social Justice Committee.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding time to me and for allowing me to rise in support of not only the rule but the bill. The question before our House today is a very basic one. Will we act in an affirmative manner and support the continued existence of the U.S.-flag merchant marine by passing H.R. 1350, the Maritime Security Act of 1995. I for one strongly urge this needed measure because I believe that the continued existence of our U.S.-flag merchant fleet is of utmost importance to our Nation, both in our economic terms and our defense terms. The Port of Houston is in my congressional district and is the largest port for foreign tonnage. Throughout this last century, the Nation's Chief Executives and Congress have recognized the American merchant marine as a national asset. When the prosperity of the American shipping industry was at a low ebb, there was a general recognition by the President and Congress that it should not be allowed to be a wasted asset. Today our U.S.-flag merchant fleet is indeed at its lowest point. One can say that it is a fading asset. However, the enactment of H.R. 1350 will prevent it from becoming a wasted asset, one which we as a nation cannot afford to loose. As the health of our U.S. merchant marine steadily became less robust, this body in a bipartisan effort overwhelmingly enacted maritime revitalization legislation in the last several sessions. Unfortunately, the technical considerations in the Senate precluded passage in that body. It is therefore imperative now that we enact H.R. 1350 to provide the wherewithal to reverse the downward spiral in the American-flag fleet itself. This bill and rule deserves our overwhelming support. Positive and pragmatic action is need to nourish and sustain the growth of our maritime assets. We cannot afford to have any more U.S.- flag vessels exit the American flag. If this legislation is not enacted by this body, be assured that many vessels will leave the American- flag. Is that what we want? I hope not. I believe not. I, for one, wholeheartedly support the rule and H.R. 1350 and urge all my colleagues to also support it.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the President has made a fair compromise offer to our appropriations woes. President Clinton has offered to sign all of the outstanding appropriations bills if we agree to restore $6.8 billion from the $222 billion extreme cuts in those spending bills. The administration wants to restore funding for education, for veterans, and for environmental efforts. Mr. Speaker, this is a hopeful sign. The administration has signaled their effort to compromise and get the issues of the remaining appropriations bills dealt with so the taxpayers do not have to spend another $850 million to give our Federal employees a paid vacation. It is time to compromise. The American people have signaled they believe these Republican appropriations bills cut too much, too fast. They want to restore funding for education, veterans, housing, and environmental programs, and then get about the business of setting the priorities for a balanced budget. With the bipartisan success we saw in the lobby reform bill, the increase in Social Security earnings limits yesterday, and the gift ban last week, I believe we can work together for the good of the American people and pass some commonsense appropriations bills that fund these important programs and cut where needed.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island with whom I enjoy serving on our committee. Mr. Speaker, I will just sum up what he said and what the concern a lot of us have is that balancing the budget requires tough choices, but we should not let the majority balance the budget on education. The proposed budget cuts make only a tiny part in the size of the deficit. Yet they have a tremendous devastating impact on the future of America's children. I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. We serve together on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and we actually sit together and have gotten to know each other over the last 3 years serving on that committee.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from South [[Page H 13774]] Carolina, when he talks about $12 trillion. That is what, for the next hours, the members of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities will talk about. I wish we had $12 trillion to spend on education, but we do not. That is why our committee members are joining today in this special order to highlight the spending cuts that will happen. Mr. Speaker, I do not know about $12 trillion over the next whatever number of years it is, but I know the impact the education cuts are having on my own district from the rescission bill, and the potential for the budget that we will ultimately end up passing, and the lost opportunity we will have, not just for the students who are there this year or next year, but for the next generation that we hope will be the ones who are taking our place here on this floor and taking our place all over the country in the medical schools and in the professions. In the name of deficit reduction, the Congress is cutting the Federal money available for education programs, and I believe we need to balance our budget. However, I do not believe that we must balance it on the backs of those children. The purpose of the deficit reduction is to make America stronger, and we agree with that on a philosophical basis. How can we make America stronger if we are not willing to invest in education? Education is talking about the strength of America, again, not for this year, Mr. Speaker, but for the next 5 and 10 years, and even after that. We should not stand by while the Republican majority destroys the educational system that we have all worked hard to achieve. Mr. Speaker, I know in Houston we have made a solid investment in education and have a lot of individual students who are being successful, part of it because of the Federal funding that goes to the schools in our own district. A good example is Franklin Elementary School in my district, which was recognized by the U.S. Department of Education for its educational improvement. The students at Franklin made exemplary progress in the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills last year. In 1994, only 35 percent to 59 percent of the student body passed the TAAS test as we call it, Texas Assessment for Academic Skills. In 1995, due to innovative teacher methods and a significant Federal investment in Franklin and the freedom that we had last year under title I, that school was classified as a recognized school where 75 percent of those children, at least up to 80 percent, are passing their TAAS testing. So we have a three- quarter success rate in an inner-city school that is eligible and receives both bilingual funding from the State, but also title I. The students at Franklin are especially hurt by the cuts in title I from the rescission bill this year. Currently, Franklin receives about $200,000 in Federal title I funding. If the House-passed Labor-HHS appropriations bill becomes law, Franklin will lose 17 percent or $34,000 of those funds. Harris County in the State of Texas receives $81.1 million in title I funds now. Under the House-passed bill originally, Labor-HHS, Harris County would lose $13.8 million, and under the President's budget proposal, Harris County will receive $8 million more. So what we are seeing is a loss, if we add those together of the cuts, plus the potential of $21 million, $21.9 million in loss of Federal funding. We are having great success in our district. I have visited almost every elementary school in my district. I still have a few left that I go into, and I read, like a lot of Members of Congress do, and I see the success every day. I have an inner-city district that people say, oh, how can you have education success there? We have it every day, and it is because of the dedicated teachers and parents and administrators and people involved in the community. Mr. Speaker, do not take that success away in the name of tax cuts, and that is what I am pleading. I think today the members of the committee will join in that. Other educational programs hit hardest are the basic math and reading programs, efforts to promote safe and drug-free schools, and resources for State and local officials to implement higher standards in educational technology. Cuts in these vital programs will cause irreparable harm to students in our local community and as well around the country. We will be spending $4.5 billion less in 1996, almost a 20 percent of the total Federal aid cut in 1996 than we did in 1995. At the same time, local and Statewide and Nationwide enrollment trends are up. Again, using my own district as an example, our enrollment is up in the Houston Independent School District and in the Aldine School District and the Galena Park School District. We are not seeing declining enrollment. Yet we are saying, okay, you have more students, but we are giving you less money. The Republican budget eliminates also the Goals 2000 funding, severely undermining State and local efforts to reform elementary and secondary education. In the State of Texas alone, we would lose $29.2 million in the Goals 2000, and we have already completed our planning and begun implementation of comprehensive reforms, as provided by Goals 2000. The Republican budget cuts Federal support for drug-free schools and community programs to the tune of $266 million, or about 60 percent, sharply reducing drug abuse and violence prevention activities serving students in 97 percent of our Nation's schools. In Texas, we would lose $18.9 million. The House would cut funds to States ready to implement school-to-work programs by $20.6 million, or by 18 percent. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. I intend to as we proceed during this hour, but I would like to yield time to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], my colleague.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was not planning to follow the other speaker, and I appreciate the changes that my Republican colleagues have made in the education funding, because they have come a long way. He is right. There have been some funding cuts restored, but the House Republicans do not deserve the credit. The Senate Democrats and Republicans deserve the credit for insisting that House Republicans not decimate education funding. We have an opportunity over the next few weeks to work bipartisanly on a balanced budget bill. We have a responsibility to make sure the values and the priorities of the American people are maintained and that we balance the budget while protecting education, and Medicare, the environment, and veterans. Our priorities should be, No. 1, to protect Medicare and Medicaid. We must maintain the high quality of health care we currently enjoy. No. 2, protect students and children. We must maintain current levels of education funding so that students, including those from Aldine High School in my congressional district who are here today from the Close- up program get the education they need to succeed in the 21st century. It is our obligation to make sure that those students have the opportunity to obtain a student loan or Pell grants. They are the future of our country and have a responsibility to make sure they are prepared. Finally, we need to protect tax fairness in the tax system. We do not need to punish low-income Americans by increasing their taxes. I hope we will give serious consideration to a bipartisan effort to balance the budget. The time has come to get our fiscal house in order while maintaining the values and priorities most important to the American people.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this extreme reconciliation budget. Like my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, I would like to have a balanced budget in 7 years, but we need to talk about it without the $245 billion tax cut, and without the extreme cuts to Medicare and education. The Republican budget has its investment strategy backwards. It pushes tax cuts more than it pushes the balanced budget effort. It sets priorities wrong. We need to support a balanced budget, but not to the extent of the cuts in education. In the Republican budget, and my chairman of the committee was right, we are only cutting student loans $4.9 billion over the next 7 years. That is too much. We need to not take away from our future. Education is our future. If we cut education funding, then we are taking away the future of our Nation.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the budget reconciliation and the conference report. Today we are considering a bill with all of the wrong priorities. It includes cuts in education, investment in our future, deep cuts in programs for seniors, especially Medicare. The Republican majority cuts $270 billion in Medicare, while enacting a $245 billion tax cut. We can balance the budget and make Medicare solvent without deep cuts in senior citizen health care and without these tax breaks. The Republicans' $270 billion cut is three times larger than what the Medicare trustees requested. In fact, there is a $36 billion hole in this budget that is a line item that just says fail-safe. That is the amount that will be cut from hospitals and providers if these other reforms do not work. If the Republicans left out their tax cuts, they would not need the budget gimmicks like this fail-safe to make their numbers up. We need to oppose the rule, the conference committee report and let us balance the budget, whether it is in 7 years or not, without cuts in Medicare, and without cuts in taxes.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress, I ask my Republican colleagues to read your lips. Balance the budget before you cut $245 billion in taxes, before you cut $270 billion in Medicare, before you cut educational funding. Let us work bipartisanly on a balanced budget, but not by cutting Medicare and Medicaid, not by cutting and raising premium costs for seniors and limiting seniors' ability to choose their own physician. We can work bipartisanly on a balanced budget but not by cutting Medicare and education. Read your own lips. Balance the budget without cutting $245 billion in taxes.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I would like to, if I may, ask for his words to be read back because I do not think I heard what the speaker heard.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman's words be taken down. Did I hear correctly that he was saying some Members of Congress on the Democratic side were lying?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, are we going to debate this? We will debate it while the words are taken down.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Speaker Gingrich has said he wants to keep open the Social Security and veterans offices temporarily so the elderly and veterans will not have to suffer from the shutdown. Well, I am glad to hear that. The problem though is that once they reopen after this budget impasse, there are not going to be as many benefits for them there. The balanced budget proposal cuts Medicare $270 billion over the next 7 years, and, in my own State, the Republican bill cuts Medicare by over $16 billion in Texas. Such a dramatic cutback would have a severe cutback on the 2 million senior citizens. The veterans better watch out because $6.4 billion is cut over the next 7 years, including increasing veterans' costs for prescription drugs. Let me look at what has happened from 1 day of the Government shutdown: 28,000 American seniors and workers have been unable to apply for Social Security or disability benefits; 200,000 American seniors have tried to call the 1-800-HELP line, oftentimes to report abuses we need to have reported, and they have not gotten an answer; 7,600 veterans have not been able to file for compensation. Let us cut this impasse. We want to balance the budget in 7 years, too, but not to cut veterans and Social Security.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, let me continue briefly. Reports to the Congress are prevalent not just under Republican leadership or under Democrat leadership. In fact, under a bill passed this session already, the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act, which was included in the reconciliation bill, four reports to Congress are required from the Director of OMB. Those four reports over 3 years are just the process of dismantling the Department of Commerce. Similarly, in the welfare bill that was passed earlier this year, there are a number of reports required from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and still more reports to be filed by each State. So this is an issue. We ultimately need to address. But, this bill needs to be passed, no matter who is in the leadership or who is in the White House, because we have to continually monitor the Government to make sure that we do not have duplicative reports or reports sitting on a shelf and gathering dust. We need to make sure we are actually utilizing them. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I hope if we pass 790, we will see health care providers will not have to fill out unnecessary forms and they could provide more direct service to my constituents who need that medical treatment, instead of just filling out a form that they have to send in.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. It is tragic. It happened even before the extreme Medicare plan that is considered by this Congress. I am only concerned that in other pieces of legislation we may make it even worse. But, again, this elimination of the Medicare report on uncompensated care, will not prevent seniors from receiving the care they need if they show up at a health care facility. Some other Republican legislation somewhere down the way may do it, but I have not seen one at this session do it.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time. In response to my colleague from California, the reporting requirement in subtitle F and subsection (d) is not going to stop whatever the decision of this Congress, the Senate and the House, do on uncompensated care for Medicare or anyone else and I share the gentleman's concern. I have a district in Houston where my local hospitals are predominantly Medicare or cash payment, with very little third party coverage. In fact, we already have one hospital in my district which closed.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, if I could reclaim my time and ask that the chairman of the committee, Mr. Clinger, respond on his time.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss, and I am glad my colleague from Georgia talked about the concern of the American people because they hear a lot of different things from the different mikes on the floor. Oftentimes the frustration they have and some of us even in Congress do not know what to believe. But let me just go over some of the poll results because I have never, as a Member of Congress or even in earlier life, serving many years in the legislature, responded to polls because I think [[Page H 12324]] we need to represent people and not just polls. But the polls in the last few weeks are the best things we know, and the last month, of how Congress has been doing. Two polls were released last week suggesting that the American people are increasingly unhappy with Congress and particularly the majority Republican Congress. One of them was conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC and one by the Los Angeles Times reveals that voters are rejecting the Republican agenda and their leaders in Congress and suggest that the battleground issues like Medicare will play a significant role in next year's elections. First of all, the Wall Street Journal and the NBC poll said that 59 percent of American voters disapprove of the job Congress is doing. And this is an all-time high for the GOP Congress and places it close to our congressional disapproval last year before the 1994 elections. The other poll talks about 1 year out from the 1996 elections, the Los Angeles Times poll released this Sunday shows Democrats ahead of Republicans for the first time since the 1994 elections, 44 percent to 42 percent. Again, not a landslide, but a year ago Democrats were down by 5 percent. Among seniors, a key voting block in 1996, Democrats are ahead of Republicans by 18 percentage points, 52 percent to 34 percent. And a year ago, Republicans held the edge among seniors 45 to 40 percent. I am glad my colleague from Georgia talked about the need maybe for some type of truth meter on our mikes because I know the frustration of our constituents all over the country. But I think their frustration is being reflected in the polls I just mentioned. Plain and simple, our Republican majority has mismanaged our financial affairs and our Government. They passed only 5 of the 13 appropriations bills which fund the Government. And the fiscal year started October 1, so we are over 45 days late, well, almost 45 days late. The media has been talking about a crisis within our Government. There is no real crisis if we had just been able to do our work on time by October 1 and passed those bills or to pass a continuing resolution so we can get on about our business of passing those bills. Now the effort to blame the President for his alleged mismanagement. In fact, Republicans controlled both Houses after the 1994 elections, and they have the majority votes to be able to pass all 13 bills, obviously, prior to October 1 and send them on to the President. The President has only vetoed one bill, the legislative appropriations bill that I know is ready for him again to be sent back up, but of the two bills he signed, the Agriculture Department and one other one, those agencies are up and running. Employees are not being furloughed. However, it seems like our majority cannot come to an agreement among themselves on these funding bills, and that is why we are so late. In fact, we saw today in a report that I read just this afternoon that our Republican majority was planning this shutdown in July of this year. So it just did not happen on the 15th of November. It has been planned on because of this showdown and laying off Federal workers or furloughing them whether they are paid or not paid. If they are not paid, we are hurting a lot of hopefully employees that are dedicated to do their jobs, but if we are paying them, then the American people are wondering why are we furloughing people and then paying them when we finally bring them back. It is like an irresponsible student whose assignment, homework is late. My wife is a teacher, an algebra teacher. She has told me this oftentimes that a student comes in and their homework is late. They are going to blame someone else. The dog ate it. I forgot it and left it at home, all sorts of reasons. Well, the Republicans are blaming the President for not getting their work done. The President does not have a vote in this body. To cover up that irresponsibility, they are trying to strong-arm the President into getting their way, including to force him to raise Medicare premiums. I did say raise Medicare premiums, because right now Medicare premiums are $46.10 a month, and they would go up under the continuing resolution that the President, thank goodness, vetoed to $53.50 a month, and either that or shut down government. Now we have the shutdown, and it is estimated it may take 2 weeks. And presenting the President with a choice like that is irresponsible and invites this crisis. Again today, we heard it was reported that as of * * * even in July * * *. I would hope we would have a bipartisan continuing resolution, one that does aim us for a balanced budget but does not do damage to Medicare and education.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to talk about the veracity of polygraph tests.