Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. We get more than that in Iowa.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. I compliment him. He has been a great leader in agriculture. I am going to miss his leadership in the years to come on the Senate floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his comments. He has long been a champion of inspectors general. I ask the Senator again, with his long experience in the area of inspectors general and what they do, is it not true that this is real money we are talking about? In other words, we always pass bills and they say this is going to save us so much money in the future. We are all akin to doing that. But this is money right now, and every single day the inspector general's office is out there getting fines, payments. I just read examples from last year. This is real money that people have to pay back to the Government. Is that not true?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. Again, it seems to me--I know the Senator said something about having them hold a gun at our head. The House is in session. They are in session subject to the call of the Chair. If they can hold a gun at our heads, why can we not adopt this, which saves the taxpayers' money, and send it back to them? We will see what they do. We have until midnight. I bet they can pass this in 5 minutes. I cannot imagine there would be any opposition to this whatsoever. So why do we have to not save the taxpayers' money because they have a gun at our head? Why do we not adopt this amendment and send it back and let the gun be at their head. I bet they will pass it in a New York minute--whatever that is; I do not know what that is because I am not from New York. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that Act for the purposes of the pending amendment and the underlying bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator has been a great leader on this issue, and I commend him for it.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, thank you. I just want to again thank my colleague from Utah for his very eloquent remarks on the drug problem, especially on marijuana. I say to my friend, I was listening, and he points out some very good things. I, being the parent of two teenage daughters, am as concerned as he is about the lyrics I hear on some of these songs promoting the use of drugs, such as marijuana. I cannot add to anything my friend from Utah said, except I heard him say that hard-core drug users always start when they are young--and that is true--and they usually start with something like marijuana. Before that, they start on cigarettes. And unless and until we can get to that root problem of doing something about how these cigarette companies are pushing their products on young people we are fighting a losing battle. We have to get to that too and stop them from getting hooked on cigarettes, because it is cigarettes and alcohol and then right on to illegal drugs. So I thank the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I came to the floor today to talk about a letter I received just yesterday from the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. President, over the last 6 years I have spoken frequently on the Senate floor about the problem of fraud, waste and abuse in the Medicare Program. For several years I chaired the appropriations subcommittee that funded the Health Care Financing Administration. Every year I would have one full day of hearings on fraud, waste and abuse in the Medicare Program. Through the use of our subcommittee we have had a number of GAO investigations and the inspector general's investigations. I was wondering just what might be happening to these investigations because of some of the Federal Government shutdowns and slowdowns. As background, let me just say that the GAO has estimated that up to 10 percent of Medicare spending is lost to waste, fraud and abuse. And 10 percent out of a program running about $180 billion a year means that is $18 billion a year going for waste, fraud, and abuse. So it is not just a small item. It is a big item, and it is a direct hit to the pocketbooks of taxpayers. One of the main activities and one of the main positive forces we have going after waste, fraud and abuse is the inspector general's office. It is our main line of defense against Medicare fraud. As I pointed out before, even at last year's level, they did not have enough resources to do the job. But it is absolutely essential in stopping this terrible waste of taxpayers' dollars and saving us money. So I was concerned about the possible impact of the Government shutdowns and the low level of temporary funding that the inspector general is operating under, and what that would mean in our fight against Medicare waste, fraud and abuse. Last year I wrote to Inspector General June Gibbs Brown to ask her what the impact was. Mr. President, I received her letter yesterday. I want to share it with the Senate because it is absolutely shocking. The inspector general has said that literally billions of dollars are to be lost to fraud and abuse if action is not taken now. Let me read some portions of this letter. First of all she says: Dear Senator Harkin: Thank you for your recent letter expressing concern about the extent to which the critical anti-fraud and abuse activities of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are suffering from the government shutdowns and under the current stop-gap spending bill. Specifically, you asked the following questions: Were major enforcement initiatives, investigations, and audits suspended? [Second,] [a]re fewer initiatives, investigations, and audits being initiated? [Third,] [w]hat is the potential impact on Inspector General activities of being forced to operate under another short-term funding measure similar to the one currently in effect? As I said, Mr. President, the answers are shocking. I am not going to read the whole letter. I will put it in the Record. A few points need to be highlighted. On my question on investigations and audit activity, listen to this, Mr. President. Cases to U.S. attorneys offices for prosecution dropped from 92 in the first quarter of last year to 51 in the first quarter of this year. Indictments fell from 50 to 34. Criminal convictions dropped from 84 for the first quarter of last year to 36 for the same period this year. Investigative receivables fell from approximately $77.7 million for the first quarter last year to about $30.8 million for the same period this year. The Office of Inspector General issued 33 percent fewer reports, processed 30 percent fewer non-Federal audits, and identified 40 percent fewer dollars for recovery to the Federal Government compared to the same period last year. The shutdowns [she went on to say] prevented us from excluding individuals and entities from participation in Medicare and Medicaid. Providers were allowed to continue to bill the Medicare and Medicaid programs even though they should have been excluded due to convictions or because they [have been] abusive to patients. Understand what she is saying. She is saying that certain individuals and entities should be excluded from participation because they have been convicted of criminal activities. They could not even keep them out because of the their lack of funds caused by the shutdown in the Government and because of their underfunding. In comparison, she states that last year at the same time there were 493 health care exclusions versus only 210 exclusions for the same period this year. Starts on 100 audit assignments were delayed or postponed. But here is really the central point of the whole letter. . . . Under the continuing resolution scenario, [the Inspector General said] the number of completed inspections may drop to approximately half [of the number of last year, which was 68.] Considering the program savings generated in past years as a result of such reports, as much as $1 billion could be lost from the drop in program inspections alone. That is $1 billion. Program inspections identify sources of fraud and abuse and recommend program adjustments to prevent future occurrences. That is what will not be done this year, as she said, under the continuing resolution scenario. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the inspector general's letter be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. President. Much of the problem is they have no funds for travel. It is interesting that their auditors and their investigators can come to work and sit at a desk, but they cannot do anything. Much of the investigative work of the inspector general is involved in traveling and in investigative activities. So we have hundreds of these people sitting at their desks unable to do their jobs. Every day that the Government is either shut down or every day that they operate under the continuing resolution, with the short funding that they have, the crooks and the con artists are picking Medicare's and the American taxpayers' pockets costing us billions, as the inspector general said, if we fail to act. So this is not just again some little item. It is very odd to me, Mr. President, we can pass a continuing resolution to provide a full year of funding to a number of important programs, including the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts--that is fine--and yet we do not fully fund the inspector general's office that goes out after the crooks and the con artists and stops them and recovers money for the taxpayers. We cannot fund that. I just wish somebody could justify that to me. I do not understand it. I guess we are going to be considering a new continuing resolution tomorrow. I want to take this opportunity today to let my colleagues know that I intend to insist that that continuing resolution provide adequate funding for the Office of Inspector General in the Department of Health and Human Services to fight Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse. If we do not, then it is the crooks and the scam artists who will be smiling as they rip off the taxpayers even further. I just want to point that out, Mr. President. If there is a continuing resolution and they are going to fund some portions of the Government to go on, this is one portion of the Government that this Senator is not going to let sit there and not be adequately funded. People are talking about cutting Medicare and making our beneficiaries pay more for their monthly premiums to make up for Medicare shortfalls in the future. I say, wait a minute, if the General Accounting Office is saying that up to 10 percent of Medicare money is lost to waste, fraud, and abuse, that is $18 billion a year each year for 7 years. We already have more money than we need right there to make up for the Medicare shortfall that we face. So this is an important matter and I intend to pursue it. I hope Senators will do so on both sides of the aisle--I do not say this is a partisan issue. I just hope we pay some attention to this issue and make sure the Office of Inspector General is fully funded.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Oklahoma is seeking the floor. I am going to take a few minutes on a different topic. I want to mention how greatly concerned I am that Congress appears to be set to go into recess for a month while the details of the 1996 farm program remain unresolved. Farmers have been waiting for a long time to know what the program will be for this year. They need to be able to make plans to line up seed, fertilizer, chemicals, and credit. As we all know, and as I know the occupant of the Chair knows from representing his State and the farmers in his State, farming is a very capital-intensive business. Farmers need to know what type of Federal policy they are operating under so they know what they need in terms of capital in order to arrange the credit for this year's expenses. Second, the farm bill is not just for farmers, it is for everyone. It is for our consumers as well as our farmers. It is for exports. It is for the whole infrastructure of processing, making and distributing our food products in this country. The fact that we do not have a farm bill has broad ramifications. We should have had a full farm bill debate last year. I know of no one on my side of the aisle who either filibustered or in any way indicated that he or she would filibuster a farm bill. We had some committee meetings last year under the able leadership of the Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar. I will be very up front about it. Those on my side of the aisle, the Democrats, proffered a farm bill proposal. We debated it, we voted on it, and we lost. I understand that, but at least we had the opportunity to debate it and vote on it. Then the majority party, the Republicans, offered their farm bill in committee. We debated it and we voted on it. They won. I have no problems with that. That is the way it ought to be. But then I expected the bill to be brought to the floor of the Senate so that other Senators who have equal interest in agriculture and agriculture policy could have their day to offer amendments, debate the bill, and then pass it. Maybe some of those amendments would have been adopted, maybe some would not have been, but that is the way the Senate should operate. To this day, we still have not had an agriculture bill on the Senate floor for debate, amendments, and passage. What happened was--I do not cast any broad nets or use any broad brush, but some people in the majority party decided that they would sit down behind closed doors, write a bill, and put it into the massive budget reconciliation bill. Again, there was no realistic opportunity to debate, offer amendments, or to reach compromise and do what is right for rural America and our Nation. Now I understand someone in the other body is saying that if there is going to be a continuing resolution, he wants to put his version of the farm bill on it. That proposal is basically the same as was put in the budget bill. Well, that is not the version I like. Maybe that is the version that might eventually get through. I do not know for certain, but I do not think so. I do not think it would have the votes to pass. But at least it ought to be debated, and we ought to have a full and fair opportunity to discuss it, vote on it, and amend it. That proposal should not be rushed through as part of a continuing resolution. Farm policy is too important to be ramrodded through here without adequate time to debate it and amend it. We do not need much time. If we had a day or two to debate a farm bill, I think we could pass it. It probably would not be exactly what I want, but at least we would have our day to debate it, offer some amendments, and maybe we could reach some compromises. All I can say about that so-called Freedom to Farm Act that the chairman on the other side wants to attach to the continuing resolution is that they ran that up and down the flagpole a number of times last year. It does not have the votes to get through. It cannot pass either the House or the Senate on its own merits. So on that so-called Freedom to Farm Act, we ought to just say the last rites, move on and try to find some compromises we can work from, and let us do it in a bipartisan fashion. I have worked on a number of farm bills in the past. At times they have generated a lot of emotional and intellectual debate on farm policy. They have been good debates, some of them pretty tough, but in the end, we fashioned a bipartisan compromise, and we moved on. That is the way we ought to do it again this year. So, Mr. President, there are steps we can take. It is getting very late in the year to try to fashion some entirely new program. I had hoped that we would have had a new program for this year, but we do not. More and more, it seems the only feasible thing to do appears to be extending the present farm bill for 1 year, and making some immediate changes that we can all agree on--planting flexibility, for example. Both sides agree it is needed. We agreed on that in committee. That is no problem. We can reach agreement on how to deal with the repayment of the 1995 advance deficiency payments. I think both sides agree on working that out. We could do that. So we could resolve those important issues, and at least farmers would know what to expect this year, and they could get on with their business. If I had my druthers, I would rather we did not have an extension of the 1990 farm bill, but it is too late to do anything markedly different now. So that seems the most likely outcome we are faced with now, to extend the 1990 bill, make a few needed changes that we agree upon and then move on. Mr. President, I thank you and yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object. I hope I am not held to absolutely 5 minutes. I would like to have a little leeway. I do not think I will go for 10 minutes, but it will be less than 10 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here we are in the 18th day of a partial Government shutdown, the longest in our history. The Senator from Alaska just said the taxpayers ought to be irate. They should be irate--all taxpayers--because it is not just the more than 700,000 Federal employees who are either working and not getting paid, or are staying home and not getting paid, but who know they will be paid some time in the future who are being affected. The fact is, this shutdown is estimated to cost taxpayers $40 million a day. Mr. President, 18 days, that is $720 million. We are approaching $1 billion that this unnecessary shutdown has cost the taxpayers of this country, and yet those who prolong it fancy themselves as fiscal conservatives. They are willing to throw the taxpayers' money away by shutting down the Federal Government. Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, has offered time and time again a clean continuing resolution that would continue the Government operations to a date certain. This would put these Federal workers back to work and end the waste, yet that has been turned down time and time and time again by the Republican side. All we've asked is to pass a clean continuing resolution, keep the Government operating to a date certain and we do not care what that date is. We can do it once a week or something similar, but at least get these people back to work and stop the $40 million a day waste of taxpayer money. I forget how many times Senator Daschle has tried to offer that or has offered it here and has been turned down. More than 10 times, I believe. So we have tried on this side of the aisle to save the taxpayers this $40 million a day and to try to have some compassion and understanding toward Federal Government workers who have to make their house payments and their car payments and pay their doctor bills and everything else. Yet they are not getting their paychecks. Oh, they will get it some time in the future, but how do they make those payments right now? And to have done it over the Christmas season to me is just being hardhearted at its worst. However, Mr. President, one group stands above it all: Members of Congress. Unlike Federal workers, our pay is guaranteed no matter what happens. Senator Boxer from California and I have offered on a number of occasions a bill that says that Members of Congress should not be treated differently, they should be treated like other Federal workers. It has passed three times in the Senate. Yet, it always seems to die someplace in conference or in the House of Representatives. Here is an article that appeared in the Washington Post just today. The headline is: ``Don't Touch Our Pay, House Republicans Say.'' The article goes on to say that the House majority whip, Tom DeLay of Texas, the third ranking House Republican, said that ``I'm not a Government employee. I'm in the Constitution,'' when he was asked about this bill that says that we should be treated like other Federal employees. On CNN's ``Talk Back Live'' on December 19, asked whether he would support congressional pay cuts during a shutdown, he told the audience participation show: ``No, I would not. I'm not a Federal employee. I'm a constitutional officer. My job is in the Constitution of the United States. I am not a Government employee. I am in the Constitution.'' That statement was made by House majority whip Congressman DeLay. Talk about the arrogance of power. I ask the House majority whip, who signs his paycheck? Is it signed by the U.S. Constitution? No, it is the Secretary of the Treasury. It is the Federal Government. You may be in the Constitution but first of all, we are all Federal Government employees. We are paid by the taxpayers of this country. Our bill is being held up by arrogance, an arrogance of power. Some Members obviously see themselves as above the average person. They are above Federal employees. Senator Boxer, I and others have offered, and we will do so again, an amendment that says that if the Government is shut down, Members of Congress should be treated like the most adversely affected Federal employee. If they are not getting their pay, we should not get ours either. If they are going to get paid back sometime in the future we would get paid back sometime in the future. It is, again, an arrogance of power for us to say to a Federal employee, you have to go to work but you do not get paid. That is what we are saying. Or, you can stay home and not get paid, but you will get paid later on sometime. I think we should cover Members the same way and make sure that Members of the Senate and the House are treated just like the most adversely affected Federal employee. Last, Mr. President, this Government shutdown is not about whether or not we have a 7-year budget agreement. The shutdown is related to whether or not our annual appropriations bills are passed and signed into law. They are not. And I again point out, at the end of the fiscal year, last September, only two appropriations bills had been passed. Only 2 of 13. We did not filibuster any of them, Mr. President. We did not filibuster one appropriations bill on this side. We wanted them to go through. The President, then, of course, has his constitutional prerogative to veto them and we try to work out something that he will sign. I heard the Senator from Wyoming earlier say he mentioned November 14 when the negotiations started. I say that this summer, is when appropriations bills should have been passed and sent to the President--before September 30. Let the President, if he wants to veto them, he has that right, and we could have spent October and November working out appropriations bills that would pass. That was not done. Last year we passed every appropriations bill on time before September 30 last year. Again, we should not get this confused. The reason the Government is shut down, the reason it is costing taxpayers $40 million a day has nothing to do with reaching a 7-year balanced budget agreement which we all support. It has to do with whether or not we are going to do the job we should have done last year before September 30 in getting the appropriations bills passed and down to the President. We should not confuse those two. We have to be about getting a balanced budget agreement. We have to make sure in reaching that in balancing the budget which I strongly support--and I know the present occupant of the chair supports--we may have a difference in how we get there--but I believe there is room to negotiate as long as we do not hurt people, as long as we do not take it out of the elderly and our young students in order to give big new tax breaks for the wealthy in this country and we cut down on corporate welfare. Yes, then we can reach a balanced budget in a way that is fair, decent, compassionate and caring to people of this country. If we can agree on that we will have a balanced budget in 7 years. However, if all we want to do is give new tax breaks to the highest income Americans and we want to make the elderly pay a lot more for their Medicare, I do not see how we can do that. We have to hold firm. We have to hold firm that we are not going to balance this budget in 7 years on the backs of the elderly or on the students or on hard working people in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Additionally, destroying weapons saves taxpayers' money. Just look at the current defense authorization bill. As my friend from New Mexico pointed out in the report to the Defense Authorization Act, the act ``proposes a nuclear weapons manufacturing complex sized to meet a need of a hedge stockpile far above the active START II stockpile of 3,500 weapons.'' The total cost of producing our nuclear weapons to date is about $4 trillion. Compare that with our $5 trillion national debt. In 1995 alone, $12.4 billion was spent to build, operate, and maintain strategic nuclear weapons. If we ratify START II we can give taxpayers the double peace dividend of higher security at lower cost. Even if START II were fully implemented, we would have more than 3,000 deployed strategic missiles--500 warheads on missiles in silos, 1,680 warheads on submarine-launched missiles, and 1,320 on airplanes. Furthermore, an additional 4,000 nuclear weapons would remain in our stockpile. Surely, this will be more than enough atomic fire-power to counter any conceivable threat to the United States. Mr. President, Russia and other former Soviet Republics are more open than ever before. We have all seen the unprecedented pictures on television of Russian missiles and airplanes being destroyed. This new openness will make START II even more verifiable then START I. With the recent Russian elections and the presidential election season just starting, we must act now to keep this olive branch from withering. In conclusion, Mr. President, we need to ratify START II quickly. It is not in the national interest to play politics over the ratification of any treaty. Russian President Yeltsin needs quick American ratification of START II to help get the Russian Parliament to ratify it. We need the security of fewer Russian warheads now. We need to stop spending so much money making our nuclear weapons now. We can use the warheads we have now to defend America. We need to ratify START II now.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today--at long last--we discuss START II. I urge this body to ratify it quickly. START II is a truly historic treaty. It will cut the number of the world's nuclear weapons in half, getting rid of nearly 4,000 deployed H-bombs in Russia and about the same number here. An overwhelming number of our citizens favor implementing this treaty, and a large number of elected officials on both sides of the aisle have expressed their support for it. Mr. President, START II should be ratified for many reasons. First, START II destroys weapons. This reduces the risk of an accidental launch. Second, every Russian weapon destroyed is a weapon we don't need to defend against. The following table, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record, shows the numbers and kinds of ICBMs that can be eliminated under START II.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, our welfare system is broken. It is failing the taxpayers and those who are on welfare. It must be reformed. And I have been working hard to bring about bipartisan reforms that will work. I worked to enable innovative reforms in my State of Iowa. I introduced, along with Senator Kit Bond of Missouri, the first bipartisan welfare reform bill 2 years ago based on successes in our states. And I worked to support and improve the comprehensive reform bill that we passed in the Senate earlier this year by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 87 to 12. Unfortunately, all of the hard work done by the Senate to design bipartisan common sense reforms has been lost in the conference agreement before us. Not only will this bill fail to move people from welfare to work and self-sufficiency, it is filled with provisions that have nothing to do with welfare reform. How does raising the retirement age for individuals to receive SSI from 65 to 67 get welfare recipients off the dole and into jobs? Or is it a foot in the door for Newt Gingrich and his followers to raise the Social Security retirement age? How does cutting school lunch assistance to children reform the welfare system? How does gutting protections for abused and neglected children and major revisions to programs to assist in the adoption of abandoned children fix welfare? Well, the answer is clear. Those provisions do not do anything to reform welfare. Nor do many of the other provisions of the pending legislation. And I said, this bill will not move people from welfare to self- sufficiency and it will not require responsibility from day one. Central to this is the failure to include the Senate bill provision added by an amendment I offered to condition the receipt of welfare benefits on the signing of a strong personal responsibility contract. As we require in Iowa, welfare recipients would have been required to accept responsibility from the first day on welfare by signing a binding contract stating what they must do to get off of welfare and a date by which welfare benefits will end. Responsibility would begin on day one, not year two. Failure to abide by the terms of the contract would mean termination from the welfare rolls--immediately. Each individual starting a new job is given a job description which outlines precisely what is expected to receive a paycheck. At the present time, an individual on welfare is simply sent a check without requiring anything in return. We need to fundamentally change welfare as we know it. Welfare is not about getting something for nothing. It is about responsibility and accountability. But not this bill. There is no contract. There is no accountability. My amendment corrected that situation, but my provision requiring a personal responsibility contract is gone. For the past several weeks we have been told by Newt Gingrich that we need to listen to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] because they are the experts. There analysis is accurate and should be trusted. Well, the CBO tells us that this new Republican welfare bill will not work. Their analysis indicates that most welfare recipients won't be put to work. They say that states would be forced to cough up a whole lot more of their money to meet the mandates in the legislation and that this won't happen. CBO says that the bill falls $7 billion short of what would be required to put welfare recipients to work. Further, work programs will also cost more money than is provided by the legislation. So in spite of a lot of nice sounding rhetoric by Newt Gingrich and his supporters, if we pass this bill, welfare will not be reformed in most states. Taxpayers and welfare recipients will not see the promised changes in the system and local communities will be left paying the bills. Iowans pay taxes that go to support those on welfare in New York, Texas, California, and other states. This bill shirks our responsibility to insist that those tax dollars aren't just wasted away. That is not acceptable. This conference report makes deep cuts in essential safety-net programs for children. It provides deeper cuts in food stamps and child nutrition programs than were proposed by the Senate bill. It also unfairly cuts assistance to fully 65 percent of children with disabilities. In addition, changes to the foster care and adoption programs will place abused and neglected children at greater risk of harm. Ronald Reagan advocated the maintenance of a safety net for children. This bill shreds that safety net. I have always thought that things worked best when we all worked together. For months, in fact for several years, I urged my colleagues to work together in a bipartisan manner to reform welfare. That's the way we did it in Iowa, and it is working. We had bipartisan cooperation for a brief time in September. And working together outside of partisan politics we put together a good, commonsense plan. But that sentiment quickly deteriorated and the pending legislation was negotiated behind closed doors without any significant bipartisan cooperation. We we are left with a phony, partisan bill. The President has said he will veto this legislation and has called for bipartisan cooperation on welfare reform. Again, I implore my colleagues to heed his words. Let us make a New Year's resolution to stop the partisan sniping and work together in a bipartisan manner on this issue as well as the many other items on our agenda in the second session of the 104th Congress.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here we are now in the fourth day of another Government shutdown. I do not know how many more days it is going to go on. I hope there is some reason for optimism. But I want to point out, once again, as I have with the Senator from California, that over 200,000 Federal employees are not at work and, as a matter of fact, no Federal employees are getting paid for these 4 days. Right before the holiday season, right before Christmas, Federal workers all over this country are unsure of just how much money they are going to be paid or when they are going to be paid. This is grossly unfair, Mr. President, grossly unfair that Congress would act so cavalierly toward decent, hard-working people. I know it is fun to point fingers at bureaucrats and that type of thing, but just keep in mind, many of those Federal workers who are now not being paid are the same Federal workers, or the same type of Federal workers, who were killed in the Oklahoma City bomb blast--our hearts went out to them--people doing their job, working for their country, doing the best they can to make sure our Government operates fairly and justly and in the best interest of our people. And yet now, right before Christmas, they are told, ``We don't know if we can pay you.'' Some are told to go home, not come to work. But what is so grossly unfair about this, Mr. President, is that Members of Congress who caused this whole thing are getting paid. Senators continue to get paid. Members of the House continue to get paid. Earlier this year, one of the first bills that we passed was the Congressional Accountability Act. As a matter of fact, here is the so- called Contract With America that Members of the House of Representatives put out. The first item in that Contract With America says: ``It requires all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to Congress.'' That was the first bill we picked up this year, and we passed it. I happen to have supported it. I thought it was long past time when Members of Congress should be covered by the same laws that apply to the people around the country. But the country found out during last month's partial Government shutdown that when it comes to paychecks, Congress gets special treatment. Congress is not covered by the same laws as other Federal workers. They do not get their pay, but Congress continues to get its pay during periods of shutdown. We have passed three times this year a no-budget/no-pay bill or amendments that say if Congress shuts down, Members of Congress do not get paid or that we get treated exactly like the most adversely affected Federal worker. It has been passed three times, but what happened? It just sort of got lost when it went to conference. In fact, I am told that the no- budget/no-pay amendment which was attached to the ICC bill was dropped in conference--just dropped in conference. It is still a part of the D.C. appropriations bill that is now languishing in the House. Let us see if the House has the courage to live up to its own Contract With America to make the laws that apply to Federal workers also apply to Congress, so that in periods of shutdown, Members of Congress will be hit in the pocketbook just as well as other Federal workers. I have heard from my constituents. I know that people around the country have now been alerted to this, and they know we are getting treated differently. What difference does it make to the Speaker of the House if the Government shuts down? He gets his paycheck. What difference does it make to anyone in this body or the House? It does not make any difference. If the Government shuts down, Congressmen and Senators still get their pay. So for those of us in the Congress, we do not have to worry about making the house payment or the car payment or buying presents for the kids, because we know that paycheck is going to be there. But for over 200,000 Federal workers, many of whom live in Virginia and Maryland, many of whom live in my State of Iowa and across this land, they do not know. I saw an interview on television last night with some of these Federal workers. One after the other was saying, ``We just don't know what kind of Christmas it is going to be. We don't know whether to buy presents or not because we don't know when and if we are going to get paid, we don't know when and if we are going to go back to work.'' What a terrible thing to do to people. It is unconscionable that we would allow this to happen. I, for one, think we should have gone on a continuing resolution until January or February, keep these people on the job and let us work out this budget arrangement. Let the people go to work, but at least have enough decency and kindness and compassion that Federal workers can at least enjoy their Christmas. That is, unless you just absolutely do not care about them. Maybe there are some who do not care. But I care about them. I care very much about them, because they are doing a good job for our country in carrying out the mandates of Congress and this Government, and it is not right that we treat them differently than we treat ourselves. So we should have no exemptions for Congress, no special deals. We should say that we are like the most adversely affected Federal worker. If we have a Government shutdown, Members of Congress and the Senate should not get their paycheck. So, Mr. President, I will speak about it again tomorrow and every day that the Government remains shut down, pointing out the unfairness of it. I just hope that the House of Representatives will finish their work on the District of Columbia appropriations bill. We will see if they have the guts to leave on the no-budget/no-pay amendment that was adopted in the Senate. Send it to conference and let us get it acted on once and for all. I daresay, if Members of the House and the Senate were treated like the most adversely affected Federal worker, I just wonder how many days we would shut down the Government. I bet the number would approach zero. So, Mr. President, I think it is time Members of the House and Senate be treated just like other Federal workers. With that, I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. So, I think this paper makes it clear why we are in a Government shutdown. This was by design, by the Speaker of the House. This is dated November 29. ``Hold effective hearings, press conferences and communication opportunities between December 4-13.'' They did not want to reach an agreement. This is all a plan and a scheme to make this a political issue. That is sad. I wish I had this this morning when I was on the radio. I did not have it then. If I had, I would have read it on the radio this morning to my constituents in Iowa, saying, ``Here is a piece of paper from the Speaker's office dated November 29, saying that their plan is to shut down the Government on December 15, and here is how you get ready for it. You have all these hearings and you have all these meetings and here is how you discuss it. It is all laid out there.'' I suppose maybe he did not figure anybody would get a hold of this piece of paper. Once again, it shows you, in Washington, if you put something on a piece of paper someone is going to get a hold of it that you did not want to get a hold of it. So, Mr. President, there is only one reason why we are in a Government shutdown and that is because the Speaker of the House and his people over there, his allies over there, have decided that they want to do this to create a crisis, to create chaos, to create a disturbance, because Mr. Gingrich says he is leading a revolution, leading a revolution. I did not get a chance to read much of the paper this morning but I did read a little part of the paper in which Mr. Gingrich is saying something--in the Post this morning he said something like: Well, this is like 1933. It is a revolution like 1933, he said. Well, first of all, I think the Speaker has an overinflated view of himself as a historic person, first. Second, how can he possibly compare himself to Franklin Roosevelt, or compare what they are doing to government to what we did in 1933? The Speaker said, ``This is a historic moment, a moment fully as important as 1933.'' Mr. President, this is a moment when we decide what we are about as a nation and where we want to go. It is a moment where we choose whether we want America to move forward, or to turn it back before 1933. So, Mr. Gingrich is right in one respect. In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt looked at the United States of America, and he said, ``I see a country one-third ill housed, one-third ill clothed, and one-third ill fed.'' Now, if that was Mr. Gingrich in 1933, he would have said, ``I see an America where two-thirds of the people are well fed, two-thirds are well clothed, and two-thirds are well housed,'' ignoring the third that were being left out of our system. There is a difference between Mr. Gingrich's philosophy and Franklin Roosevelt's. Franklin Roosevelt and that Congress decided never again--that we were going to change government to provide that ladder of opportunity for people at the bottom as well as the people at the top. How can Mr. Gingrich, how can the Speaker of the House, in any way compare his philosophy or what he is trying to do to what Franklin Roosevelt did in 1933? I am incredulous. Rather, what the Speaker is trying to do is to undo everything that he did to make this country a little bit more fair, a little bit more just, and a little bit more compassionate. So, yes, we do have kind of a historic moment right now. Are we going to say that everything we have done to build a ladder of opportunity for people at the bottom we are going to take away; that what we did to provide for decency for the elderly in Medicare and Social Security, we are going to take that away, and turn it back to what it was before 1933? We have to decide whether it is right to take $270 billion out of Medicare for our elderly without mounting a real attack on the waste, fraud, and abuse that is rampant in the system--that every senior knows about but we cannot seem to attack. It is a moment when we decide whether to raise taxes on working families and tell them, ``We are not going to only raise your taxes, but we are going to cut your Medicaid, and now you are going to have to pay for your parents' or grandparents' nursing home, too.'' It is a moment when we decide whether it is responsible to make it harder for students to go to college and easier for companies to take their jobs overseas. It is a moment when we decide whether we are going to scrap the direct loan program for students, or whether we are going to let the banks have a nice, cushy deal and make billions of dollars in interest. It is a moment when we decide whether we are going to cut our investment in education and training and give billions more to the Pentagon, more than they have ever asked for. It is a moment when we decide whether we are going to pull the rug out from under family farmers in rural communities and stick them with a farm bill that I call a Welcome to Welfare Act. So, yes, it is a historic moment. It is a historic moment. It is nothing like 1933, though, because what we are doing here is we are turning--if we adopt this budget that the Speaker of the House has come up with, if we adopt that budget, we are turning our backs on progress in America. I swear--some people ask me a lot of times, ``What does Mr. Gingrich really want? What kind of America is he looking at?'' I swear that he will not be satisfied until we have an America that looks like a Third World country where a few rich are at the top and everybody else is at the bottom where there is no way for the people at the bottom to get to the top. I have always believed, Mr. President, because of my background, that in America you ought to be a success. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with making money in this country. There is nothing wrong with being rich. I do not begrudge Bill Gates with billions of dollars. Look what he has done. There is nothing wrong with that. That is the American dream. But I have always believed, Mr. President, that when you make it to the top, when Bill Gates makes it to the top, or if I make it to the top, that one of the primary responsibilities of government is to make sure that we leave the ladder down there for others and that we do not pull it up behind us. This budget proposal that has come to us from the House of Representatives allows those who get to the top to pull that ladder up behind them. It not only allows them to do it, but it encourages them to do it with the aid and the assistance of the Federal Government. Mind you, Mr. President, I said, a ``ladder of opportunity.'' I have always believed in that. I did not say escalator. I did not say something that someone can get on and get a free ride up. I said a ladder, because with a ladder you still have to exert some work to get to the top. But the structure is there. When you take away that structure of prenatal care, the Head Start Program, college student loans, and you take away Medicaid that is going to help the elderly pay for the nursing home bills, and when you cut Medicare and make the elderly pay for their monthly premiums when they do not have it, when you cut out the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program for people that make less than $8,000 a year, and when you turn right around and give more tax benefits to corporations and you do not go after corporate welfare in this country, more tax benefits to those who already have a lot, when 30 percent of the tax relief in the Mr. Gingrich's budget goes to people making over $100,000 a year, when in that budget families making less than $30,000 a year pay more in taxes--when you do that, you are pulling away the ladder. You are destroying the structure that allows people who start at the bottom to get to the top. So, yes, I believe in that American dream. I believe that people ought to be a success. But I am not going to stand here or be a part of the Senate without raising my voice and casting my vote against any budget that would take that American dream away for future generations on the bottom rung of the ladder. And that is as I see this budget. So, I close my remarks, Mr. President, by saying that I think the Speaker of the House really ought to examine what happened in 1933 and take a look at what kind of a historic figure Franklin Roosevelt really is and what he did for this country to move it ahead out of the dark ages of the past and to provide that ladder of opportunity for families like mine. If Mr. Gingrich looks at that and is indeed honest with himself, then he will see that what he is about is undoing all of that and turning us back to where we were before. But maybe that is what he wants. Maybe that is what Mr. Gingrich wants to do. Well, if so, that is his political philosophy. I do not want to turn this country back, and I do not want to take away that ladder of opportunity. I hope that more reasonable Members on the other side of the aisle, both in this body and in the House, will come to a reasonable bipartisan conclusion--that, yes, we need to balance the budget but not just do it on the backs of those on the bottom rung of the ladder. I believe if we work together in a spirit of compromise, We can get it done and we can get out of here for Christmas. But if Mr. Gingrich proceeds with this plan of his in shutting down the Government, well, then it looks like we might be here over Christmas and New Year's, too. If that is what it takes, I am prepared to stay here. If that is what it takes to stop this folly that the Speaker of the House is trying to inflict upon the American people, well, then I guess we will have to stay here. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am sorry that we find ourselves in this present situation. I had thought that we could have worked out an agreement on Labor-HHS appropriations, whereby we would not be faced, again, with another cloture vote on it, but that we could have agreed to have brought up the bill and perhaps even passed it by voice vote. There have been, I know, a lot of discussions. I know my colleague, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, who is the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor and Health and Human Services, has been working very diligently to try to get an arrangement whereby we might bring this bill up and expeditiously move it so we can get together with the House and try to work out our differences. This is an important bill. It is the second largest appropriations bill, second only to defense. It covers not only all of the Department of Labor, job training programs, but it also covers education, all the education programs--everything from title I to college student aid. It covers Health and Human Services, everything from Head Start to funds for the operation of the Social Security system and Medicaid, plus a lot of related agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and biomedical research. Yet, this bill languishes because of the determination of a few to attach riders to it, riders that have no business being on Labor-HHS, riders which should be brought up in the context of an authorization and not an appropriations bill. Now I note for the Record, Mr. President, that other riders that have been put on other appropriations bills have been taken off, clearing them for approval to be acted on and sent down to the President. I will just mention three. The Treasury-Postal appropriations conference agreement, they dropped their effort to attach the so-called Istook antilobbying rider. Once this was taken off, it cleared the bill for approval and was sent down to the President. Also, there was agreement on a compromise on the abortion rider on the Defense appropriations conference report, which cleared for approval for both Houses and was sent to the President. I might point out they dropped all 17 House-approved EPA riders on the HUD-VA conference agreement. It passed and was sent on to the President. I know people attach these riders for well-intentioned purposes. They have a philosophy or a view or something they want to attain, but quite frankly all of these riders that were dropped appropriately belong not on appropriations bills, and cooler heads prevailed, they were dropped, and the bills went through. There is a rider on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that cannot pass the Senate. Three times this year it was brought up, and it could not get enough votes for cloture and there are not enough votes for cloture. That is the so-called striker replacement provision. This side, I might say, earlier on was unable to pass last year, when the Democrats were in the majority, the striker replacement bill that would have prohibited companies, employers, from permanently replacing strikers if it was a legitimate, legal strike. We were unable to get that through. This year, the President of the United States decided, using his constitutional authority--and I do not think anyone has challenged that he does not have the legal authority to do it--implemented a policy at the Executive level that said that the U.S. Government, the Federal Government, would not engage in contracts or renew contracts with those entities doing business with the Federal Government if they did engage in permanent replacement strikers. That was challenged in the court. The court upheld the President. Now there is an attempt by some to overturn that, to say that, no, the President cannot do that, and that is what the rider is on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. We had three votes on it this year. We had one vote on the first rescission bill, and we have had two on this bill, on the Labor HHS bill. Both times it did not have sufficient votes to provide for a cloture. You do not have to take my word for it; you can take the word of the distinguished majority leader. I will quote from the Congressional Record of September 29, 1995, when we tried to get the bill through before the end of the fiscal year. Senator Dole said: I talked with the leader about this bill, and we do waste time periodically in the Senate, but this is a total waste of time to continue on these two bills because they are not going anywhere. I know some want to make a point. I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa that we ought to pass that bill on a voice vote. We cannot get cloture. There were two votes, 54-46, party-line votes. My view is we ought to do it, pass it, and find out what happens in the veto in the next round. I agree with Senator Dole that that is what we should have done, that we agree to take off that rider that they have on it, as others have done on other appropriations bills. I know there are some that want to have a debate and a vote on one or two abortion amendments. I think we can work that out with a time agreement, have a vote on the Senate floor, and move it out. So what we are engaged in now with this motion to proceed is just another waste of time. There will be a vote on Monday or Tuesday, whenever the vote is called by the majority leader, and they will not get cloture. It is a forgone conclusion. They will not get cloture, and we are right back where we started from. It is a shame we have to waste more time of the Senate and go through this exercise again. If cooler heads would just prevail and take that rider off, we could bring the bill out under a time agreement and probably get the bill passed within an hour and then sit down with the House and try to iron out our differences in conference. Mr. President, I was prepared to come to the floor to ask unanimous consent to proceed to H.R. 2127, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, and to have it go through on a voice vote pursuant to what Senator Dole said on September 29. However, I am aware there is no one on the other side to object to my unanimous-consent proposal, so I will not offer that unanimous-consent in keeping with the comity of the Senate. Perhaps when we come back Monday and there are people, I may propound it again at that time, only again to show there is no objection on this side to bringing up the Labor-HHS bill and passing it by a voice vote as long as that rider is taken off. If that rider is taken off, there is not one objection on this side to bringing up the bill and quickly disposing of it. I wanted to take the floor to make that point in the hope that those who have that rider on the bill will listen to the majority leader and listen to Senator Specter if they do not want to listen to me and take that rider off, and we can get this very important bill passed before we, hopefully, go home for Christmas. Lastly, Mr. President, not in keeping with this bill--I guess it is somewhat in keeping with this bill--we are right now in a shutdown of the Government. There are those that work for the Federal Government that are now not going to work today and tomorrow, and I hope by Monday we will at least get a continuing resolution to put us through maybe February. It is a shame we have to do this. I hope that this weekend the President of the United States would exercise his authority under the law to provide funding for the Low-Income Heating Energy Assistance Program. Mr. President, last year this Congress, Republicans and Democrats, appropriated $1.3 billion to provide some assistance for low-income people to heat their homes during the winter. It passed with Republican and Democrat support. It was not a partisan issue at all. Also, earlier this year, Republicans and Democrats, working together, provided for a rescission. We rescinded $300 million of that $1.3 billion. But it still left $1 billion in there to help low-income people heat their homes in the winter. Because we have been under a continuing resolution, that money has been held up. We have not been able to get the money out for the Low- Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Mr. President, I want you to know that people in Iowa, people all across the northern part of this country, have endured a very severe winter thus far. There are people in our northern States who are now really deciding whether they are going to buy some fuel or whether they are going to buy food or pay for their prescription drugs. As Senator Wellstone has so eloquently stated many times here, including yesterday--and I know he cannot be here today, he is on his way to Minnesota--as he pointed out, there are people right now in his State, and I know in my State and I know in a lot of northern States, living in one room of their homes. They have the oven on, because they are trying to cut down on their fuel bills because they do not have the money to pay them. I know in some States, the State authorities that put out the money for low-income heating assistance are saying they only have enough money to put it out in a crisis situation, and that is if an elderly person or low-income person has been notified that they are going to get cut off. Mr. President, 80 percent of the money we put into LIHEAP, the Low- Income Home Energy Assistance Program, 80 percent of it goes to people with incomes of less than $8,000 a year; less than $8,000 a year. In my own State of Iowa there are elderly people living alone in small houses, in small towns--mostly women, elderly women--whose total income is $4,500, $5,000, $6,000 a year on Social Security. That is all they have. Now they are being forced to decide how they are going to pay their heating bills with a very cold winter upon us. We have a window of opportunity. The President of the United States has a window of opportunity. Since there is not a continuing resolution, we now fall back under the old law. The old law provided $1.3 billion. As I said, we rescinded $300 million. There is roughly close to a billion dollars out there that needs to be put out for low- income heating. I am calling on the President, and I hope the President will as soon as possible get that money out. It has been appropriated. We appropriated the money last year. There is no reason to hold it up any longer. I am informed that as of this time, as of January of last year, about 90 percent of the money appropriated for last year was put out. We are not anywhere even near that now. We are not even anywhere near 30 percent of the money being put out. Yet this is the time when people need that money. So I hope the President will exercise his authority and get that money out as soon as possible, this weekend. It is an opportunity, I think, for us to show, however bad this budget may seem to a lot of people, there are still a number of people here who care about ensuring that low-income and elderly people, especially, have enough money to heat their homes in the winter. I do not put this in a partisan context. Mr. President, 53 Senators signed a letter to the President on this very issue of getting the money out, and there were Republicans and Democrats on that letter. So I do not see it as a partisan issue, I see it as just a humane issue, an issue of decency and compassion. We ought to get this money out as soon as possible. So I hope the President of the United States will take this opportunity. It is sad to think we have to do something like this during a period of time when the Government is shut down, but we must take this period of time right now and get that money out so people can heat their homes. Lastly, I came across an interesting document earlier today, this piece of paper. I was on a radio show this morning with a small radio station in Iowa, Webster City, IA. There were a number of questions, people calling in asking, ``Why is the Government shutting down again? Why are we going through this again?'' I have to tell you, maybe I am a little chauvinistic about this, but I happen to think my constituents, Iowans, are pretty reasonable people. They are pretty smart and they have a lot of common sense. One of the callers said, ``You had this last shutdown but the people got paid anyway?'' I said ``Yes.'' He said, ``What is the purpose of it, then?'' I said, ``You tell me. I cannot tell you.'' He said, ``Will the same thing happen now? If the Government is shut down, will these people get paid again?'' I said, ``I suppose so. They are going to get paid. We are going to shut down but they will get paid anyway.'' What is the purpose of it? It makes no sense to Iowans and makes no sense to me. Perhaps with this piece of paper I came across today, maybe it starts to make sense. This is a piece of paper dated November 29, 1 p.m. It is called--it has a title on it, ``Building An Effective Government We Can Afford. Government Shutdown Project.'' That is how it is titled. I am told this piece of paper came from the Republican Caucus-- conference on the House side. It came from the leadership, from Congressman Gingrich's office: November 29. It says, ``Government Shutdown Project.'' This is November 29. Listen to this. The goal: ``Hold effective hearings, press conferences and communication opportunities between December 4-13 to demonstrate mismanagement, politicization of government shutdown or to expose waste in government functions that was evidenced by government shutdown. (see themes below)'' Here are the themes they say. Here are the ``themes.'' Clinton politicized the shutdown--harming people unnecessarily. Clinton is fighting to protect big government and the status quo. Shutdown exposed Government functions that are wasteful and unnecessary. And then they have the hearings here: ``Committee, chairman, date, topic.'' Here is activity one: ``Hearing, Government Reform Subcommittee on Civil Service. Chairman: Mica. Date: 12/6. Topic: Mismanagement of shutdown.'' Here is the next, ``Hearing, Government Reform Subcommittee on National Economic Growth. Chairman: McIntosh. Date: 12/7 or 8. Topic: Rubin''--meaning Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Rubin--``scare tactics and raiding trust funds.'' On and on. I could read the whole thing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed in its entirety at this point in the Record so people can read it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I just wondered if the Senator will yield. First of all, Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for being a leader on this issue. Both the other day when he took the floor and he spoke about it and again today--I did not catch all of the Senator's remarks; I was on my way over to the floor, but I wanted to just ask the Senator if he was aware of all of the ramifications in the States that are taking place right now. I know the Senator spoke very eloquently about what is happening in Minnesota and the fact that this money is not getting out. But there are some really kind of disingenuous things going on out there. If the Senator will bear with me, I will explain it and then I will follow it with a question. I am told that in some States in the Midwest, because of the fact that they do not have the necessary funds for the heating program, the Low-Income Heating Energy Assistance Program, they put the word out that they have just enough money to meet emergency situations, that it is being interpreted in some States as saying an emergency is if an elderly person has been notified by the utility that they are cutting off the utilities. That is the emergency. If you get your utility cut off, then you get it. I ask the Senator, take a typical elderly person in Minnesota or Iowa, from the Midwest, it is colder than the dickens. They are living in a small town of 900 people, 1,000 people like the small towns where I come from. They are living in a small house--usually it is women--living by themselves, on Social Security; their total income is 400 or 500 bucks a month. I wish to point out that 80 percent, 80 percent of this money in the Low-Income Heating Energy Assistance Program, 80 percent of the money goes to people with less than $8,000 a year income. I ask the Senator to take an elderly person--as I said, many times an elderly woman-- living by themselves in a small house in a small town. The heating bill comes in. They know they have to pay it. Would they just say, well, I am not going to pay it because then it will be a crisis and then I will get the money? What would that elderly person do?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for bringing this out and answering those questions. And I look forward to working with him. The Senator is absolutely right, Mr. President, we have a crisis situation out there. We hear all the talk about shutting down the Government and the impact this would have on people who work and, with the Christmas season coming up, what it might mean for their families. And we ought to be cognizant of that. I hope there is not a shutdown of the Government. I hope that does not happen. But for many of these elderly people--and we are talking about elderly people on Social Security, making $400 a month, $500, a lot of times living by themselves--when you do not get that Low-Income Heating Energy Assistance Program, that is more than the equivalent of a Government person losing their job for a few days. It could, indeed, be a very bleak Christmas for a lot of these people out there, too. So I am sorry this has gone on this long. I guess we hoped against hope there would be warm weather. But we have had some really bad weather, really cold.

Mr. HARKIN. Is that amendable? Could an amendment be offered on that?

Mr. HARKIN. I want to join the Senator in making that request. I do not know if there will be a continuing resolution today or not. Who knows. I know they are negotiating right now. Let me further ask the Senator, if a continuing resolution comes to the floor today, let us say for a short period of time, a 3-day--I heard some talk about a 3-day, 4-day continuing resolution.