Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, although I support the conference report for H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995, I must rise in opposition to the provision in the bill that bans discussions about abortion on the internet. This is a high-technology gag rule, and it is unacceptable. Section 507 will apply portions of the Comstock Act to the internet. In addition to banning the dissemination of obscene materials, the Comstock Act also bans the dissemination of information about abortion. As a result, section 507 of H.R. 1555 will ban both the sending and the receipt of information about abortion on the internet. This ban will have a chilling effect on the rights of millions of Americans. Violation of the ban bill be a felony, punishable by 5 years for the first offense and 10 years for each subsequent offense. Obviously, most American women will not risk a jail term, even to share necessary information about abortion--a legal medical procedure that is an integral part of basic women's health care. Proponents of this provision have argued that because this provision is old and has not been enforced for decades, it will have no impact on women's speech about abortion. They say that it is dead letter law, and at worst case it only bans some types of advertisements and commercial speech. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing whether the proponents of this provision are right about whether this provision will be interpreted very narrowly--as they claim--or very broadly. Either interpretation is possible, because the provision's scope is unclear. That is what makes this provision so dangerous. No one knows what it will do. One problem is that no court has addressed this provision since the Supreme Court's decision in Roe versus Wade. In fact, the only Court decision directly addressing this ban on information about abortion was decided in 1915. Obviously, quite a lot has changed since then--most notably, the Supreme Court has held that abortion was a constitutionally protected right. What does this provision mean in a world where abortion is legal? Would H.R. 1555 ban all discussion of abortion on the internet? Or, would it only apply to information about unlawful abortions, as the court in the 1915 held? And what, in 1996, does unlawful abortion mean? For example, abortion laws vary greatly from State to State. If a person receives information about abortion services that are legal in her State, but illegal in the State from which the information was sent, would she go to jail? Would the provision only apply to advertisements and commercial speech, as some proponents claim? If it does, this provision potentially bars the providers of reproductive health services from having websites detailing the medical services they offer. This could also potentially bar many internet discussions of RU-486--discussions which could be described as facilitating the sale of a drug for use in producing abortions. Whatever its breadth, this provision--by limiting the information that women can get about abortion--puts the health of American women at direct risk. Including this restriction on speech concerning the reproductive rights of Americans in the telecommunications reform bill--a bill that has nothing to do with abortion--will impede the reproductive rights of all American women. To bar all internet users from discussing abortion is outrageous. To bar any American from discussing a medical procedure flies in the face of every ideal that we hold dear as Americans. Unfortunately, under parliamentary rules, I cannot offer an amendment to the conference report to strike this provision. However, I have already begun discussions with many of my colleagues about working to have this provision repealed on a future technical corrections bill. Again, although I support this conference report, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in working to remove this ban on discussions about abortion on the internet. This high-technology gag rule must not stand.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, with that assurance, I feel comfortable supporting this bill, and I hope that my colleagues who were also concerned about this provision will now feel comfortable supporting this bill. I thank the gentleman for clarifying this point and for his hard work on this bill.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman of the committee, and other members of the conference in bringing this very important conference report to the floor today. However, I would like to bring to your attention one section that is very troubling to me. Section 507 amends the preexisting section of the Criminal Code (18 U.S.C. 1462) and applies it to the Internet. Now, it was my understanding that your intent behind adopting this provision was to place reasonable restrictions on obscenity and indecency on the Internet. I support this goal. However, a section of this act may be construed to curb discussions about abortion. It seems to me this provision would certainly be unconstitutional.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I visited with some high school students in Ryenek high school and we were talking about the Endangered Species Act. They wanted to know what the Congress was doing. They wanted to know how the debate was proceeding. I also visited with students in another school to talk about education and what the Federal Government was doing or could do. It is hard for me to believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is almost 5 minutes to 1 in the afternoon. We are not working on the Clean Water Act or education, the Endangered Species Act or Head Start. We are here on the House floor because the Republican leadership cannot get their act together, and we are debating whether we should shut the Government down or not, whether we should allow a default of the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, a default of the Federal Government should be unheard of. It should not even be discussed, to even put in question the credit of the United States, to even think that we would talk about adjourning to just before the brink of March 1 when the Government could default. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the effort to be bipartisan, and I do so hope we could. Look, I think it is a fair debate to talk about the programs, to talk about what is efficient, what is not. That is what Al Gore's reinventing government was all about. In fact, the Government is 200,000 positions smaller because of President Clinton and Al Gore's reinventing government program. We have already reduced the deficit because of courage in 1993 by $500 billion. We have already done that. Now we know that the deficit was cut in half this year. It is $160 billion rather than $300 billion when the President took office. So we have already done some things. No one ever thought in my district when I went home it was the subject of conversation that we would ever, the Congress of the United States, led by the Republicans, would shut down the Government. Twice. In fact, if that had not happened, I am sure no one would even believe, anyone in their right mind, that we could even think about the United States Government defaulting, putting our credit at risk. That is unheard of. I was on the phone the other day with the head of the National Cancer Institute. Because of the Government shutdown, six cancer drugs were not released. In fact, the Geological Survey could not release maps to businesses that wanted to build projects. In fact, the SBA could not make loans to small business. We are still trying to figure out what the impact of shutting the Government down was. I know it is difficult for Newt Gingrich and the Republican leadership, because they are a group of freshman that feel that it is their way or no way. I have always worked in a bipartisan way. I saw my colleague the gentleman from New York, Ben Gilman, was here before. I wish my colleague from North Carolina, Walter Jones, Jr., was here now, because I would have liked to have applauded his father, who was the chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on which I served. We did all kinds of good things on that committee. We passed the Coastal Zone Management Act, we worked to preserve Long Island Sound, we passed an ocean dumping bill. There is a lot of work that has to be done in the Congress of the United States for my constituents and for the country. We should be working on these issues at 10 minutes to 1, not talking about a possible default of the Federal Government. The President put a balanced budget on the table. Now, originally I heard day after day the Republicans saying ``We need a balanced budget, we need a balanced budget. We need it scored by the Congressional Budget Office.'' I apologize to all our constituents. They probably may not be aware of all these details. But the President did put a balanced budget on the table, scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Now the Republicans are saying ``That is not good enough.'' Well, let us bring that bill to the table. Let us bring that balanced budget on the table. We can agree on $711 billion. Let us vote on it. Let us balance the budget and move forward and get to work. I am very worried about how we are going to educate the next generation. I visit our schools. We can do so much more. It is legitimate to talk about what is the Federal role, what kind of investments can we make. There was an article just this week on the success of some boot camps. Can we invest in more boot camps so we can ensure our kids can get that education? Let us not talk about default. That is an outrage. Let us get to work at 1 o'clock.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the previous speaker, my colleague, for saying that this just does not make any sense. I was in my office this evening. I really had not planned to come down, but I was listening to so many of the speakers who kept talking about how they were shutting down the Government and waiting for the President to take action. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the President and the Speaker have been meeting around the clock. I spent a weekend just a couple of weeks ago meeting around the clock trying to work out a balanced budget. I have been in this House now about 7 years, and I have never been part of a time like this. It is really an embarrassment, and I imagine that the people who are watching are embarrassed. We want to work together in balancing a budget, but I cannot see why closing down the Government, causing such pain to so many people, helps us accomplish that purpose. There are meetings going on. I have been receiving calls from constituents in my district, and last night the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], my friend, and I were talking about this issue, and I mentioned the fact that at the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Veterans Hospital in Montrose they were having a bake sale in order for the employees who were working there, over 1,400, to get the carfare to go to work. Many of them work from paycheck to paycheck. Mr. Speaker, the VA Hospital in Montrose is the largest Federal agency in Westchester County. They are deeply affected by this shutdown. The 700 beds in the hospital are full of many elderly patients, including one World War I veteran about to celebrate his 100th birthday. The hospital also cares for 75,000 veterans on an outpatient basis. Many of these are also elderly. The 1,400 dedicated employees of the Montrose Hospital received 1 week of pay for 2 weeks of work, and they do not know when they are going to get paid for the work that they are doing. Mr. Speaker, in fact, as we know, many of the employees at the FDR Veterans Hospital are veterans themselves. So, by holding employees hostage, we are penalizing men and women who served our country along with other Federal employees. This week, in fact, the hospital employees were forced, as I mentioned, to hold the bake sale. In talking to them again this evening, they still do not know how they are going to survive. It is hard to believe the veterans who are working in a veterans hospital have to be subject to such indignities. They cannot get fare to go to work. They cannot pay for gas or their MetroNorth train passes. And I know it may be very difficult for some of my colleagues to believe this is the case, but it is true. There is also a food drive being started in the local community to help needy employees. I spoke with Lisa Jackson, a registered nurse. She told us, and the local paper in fact, that so many of the employees are living paycheck to paycheck, and today I also learned that many of the hospital's vendors who are not being paid may soon be forced to stop making deliveries of important supplies. If vendors stop making deliveries to a veterans hospital, they would then have to close down portions of the hospital and some patients would have to be discharged. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to share with you this story, because listening to speaker after speaker so sanctimoniously telling this body that they have to shut down the Government to get their way and balance the budget their way, it does not make any sense. I thought we were all adults. I am a mother of three children, and it sounds to me like children standing in a corner saying, ``I am going to hold my breath and turn blue if I do not get things my way.'' We should be opening the Government. Democrats signed on to a resolution to make it clear that we all support opening the Government now. What we really need is only 20 votes over there on the Republican side to join us so we can open the Government and continue the very serious discussions about balancing the budget. As we have shared before, this is a battle, this is a serious discussion about the basic priorities of our country. The President has made it clear that he wants to balance the budget in 7 years, protecting Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment. Now, there are differences of opinion. I understand there are about 80 Republicans that said they will not compromise on a tax cut of $245 billion. Well, I would hope as we conclude, my colleagues, that we can continue to talk, to share our different views, but let us open the Government now and continue serious discussions about balancing the budget.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. If I could respond to the gentleman?

Mrs. LOWEY. I want to conclude by saying let us continue the discussion, but let us open the Government, and let us not have people suffer anymore, because these are taxpayers. They work hard. They should not have to be suffering with the Government closing down. Let us continue this debate.

Mrs. LOWEY. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, with the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], we have been in meetings with the same people who talk fancy rhetoric about balancing the budget. We will give the Pentagon $7 billion more than they asked for. Now, it is a matter of priorities. I will fight for after-school programs for children, for Head Start, for the National Institutes of Health, for breast cancer research, where I think we can make cuts in other areas. I feel strongly we have to reform welfare. We have to reform Medicare and Medicaid. There are serious discussions going on with the President and leadership of both parties. All I am saying, in conclusion, is let us balance the budget, let us continue to work to reform these programs and see if we can get together on a methodology, be it in Medicare or Medicaid, that makes sense, and my colleagues and I know there are some people in the Republican Party that do not even want to see Medicare continue, so I am happy we agree on that.

Mrs. LOWEY. Well, I will respond and say good night again, but since the gentleman referred his comments to me, I want to respond again to make it very clear that I support the efforts to balance the budget, and I think all of us in this debate do as well.

Mrs. LOWEY. If the gentleman would yield.

Mrs. LOWEY. If the gentleman will yield for 10 seconds, we have reinforcements here. I just want to say that if we are not looking back and we are looking forward, the President is working very hard with your leadership, working in a bipartisan way, to see if we can work out some of these difficulties. So I would just like to say in closing, let us in good faith continue the serious discussions, try and work out our differences, but please, let us not have any more pain and suffering among taxpaying citizens. Let us open the government tomorrow, let us vote for the resolution that 198 Democrats support. All we need is 20 Republicans. Support that resolution, open the government, and I pledge, and I think we all pledge, to continue to work with the administration, with the Republicans, to work out our sincere differences. I respect the differences in opinion. I do not deny anyone their honesty, their sincerity. I respect those differences. So let us respect each other, continue to debate, but open the government tomorrow.

Mrs. LOWEY. I want to respond to my good friend from Georgia and then California in talking about the appropriations process. I would hope all listening tonight would understand that if the appropriations bills had been completed by October 1, we would not be in this predicament now. I would assure my good friend, who is the Chair of the Foreign Operations Committee on Appropriations, who is totally frustrated because extraneous provisions are constantly being tacked on that cannot get through the Senate, and instead of the normal process where people could agree to drop it, they are standing firm, and that is why aid to Israel, aid to other critical parts of the world, again, I hate to use the word, are being held hostage to those who want to eliminate all family planning. That is just one example. There are other extreme provisions that have been tacked on, and I know many of us feel, although I am an abortion advocate, I do not want to have to debate this on the floor anymore. Abortion provisions are being tacked on to appropriations bills. So if you are saying that the President has to be held hostage and agree to some of those extreme provisions or we cannot open the Government, I would just say to my good friend, that is wrong. I would suggest that you perhaps go back to your caucus and say take off some of those extreme provisions, and then send the appropriations bill to the other body, who will not even deal with Labor-Health-Human Services, as you know, because they do not agree with what the leadership wants to do with it, and let us get some agreement and then send it to the President. That is my first point. The second point that I just wanted to make, I do not believe that our forefathers, if they were here today, would say ``Let's have a debate. But if we cannot agree, let us shut down the Government.'' I do not think that provision is anywhere in the Constitution either that provides for shutting down the Government if there is sincere differences of opinion between Republicans and Democrats or between the administration and this body. We have to have a serious debate, we have to continue the discussion, but let us open the Government. One other point I would like to mention to my colleague from California, which follows up on what my colleague from Florida said: I was with a group of businessmen this week talking about the budget and talking about options, and I would like to say there are serious people on both sides trying to come to some kind of compromise. These were CEO's of major corporations that meet with me regularly and give me advice. They said, ``We can't be sure of economic conditions one year from now or two years from now.'' I think we could all agree on that. So we have to respect differences of opinion.

Mrs. LOWEY. If the gentleman will yield further, I just would like to respond to my good friend from Arizona. There are various interpretations of the last election. Some feel it was mandate. Some feel it was a mandate for a revolution. In my district, I think most of us feel we had one revolution in this country, that is enough. There was frustration, there was anger. People wanted change. Yes, they wanted welfare to be changed. Yes, they felt that there are too many people without health care. So I think this debate is very healthy, and we all have differences of opinion within our own party and also among parties. So what we are saying is let us have this healthy debate. Let us put in place a continuing resolution. Let us open the Government. But I still do not understand, and I know we have been debating for over an hour, why we have to deprive researchers at the National Institutes of Health from getting the resources that they need to fight breast cancer, to fight Alzheimer's disease. I do not understand why we have to say to someone who is turning 65 today, ``Happy birthday, but, sorry, you cannot sign on for Social Security.'' Let us open the Government. Let us not stand in the corner and say unless you do it my way I am going to turn blue. Let us open the Government and continue this very serious debate. Many of us in this room have similar priorities, but there may be real differences in priorities among us, and the American people deserve to hear those differences, but not close down the Government.

Mrs. LOWEY. Maybe we will continue tomorrow night. Thank you very much.

Mrs. LOWEY. Let me finish this. What we are saying is that there are real differences of opinion in how to resolve Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, among other issues. There are real differences of opinion. So, why can we not continue this debate? And the President is involved. He is involved in the discussion. He has been there all day, I understand, working around the clock, and this has been going on for more than a week. Why can we not open the Government? My good friend from Georgia, one other point. I still cannot understand why we cannot continue this debate, talk about how we reform Medicare, and the gentleman mentioned welfare. I had a welfare reform bill that I worked on 2 years ago, because I understand welfare is not working. I want to shake up the system, but I do not want to close down the Government and put all these people out of work, hurt our economy irreparably. These businessmen who have contracts are not going to get these contracts back to make up for all the lost opportunities they have and the damages to their business. I hope they can stay in business. So why can we not open the government up, continue our discussion about welfare, Medicaid, education, and the environment? We may still differ, but that is the democratic way. Why should we have a constitutional crisis where some people are saying, ``If you cannot do it my way, it is no way''? That does not make sense to me, and I know my good friend and I could sit down and iron out our differences. Let us all do that together. Open up the government and let us continue this discussion.

Mrs. LOWEY. If my good friend from Georgia would yield, I think we can go back, you and I are on the Committee on Appropriations and we can talk about the $7 billion increase in the military budget that the Pentagon did not ask for. We could talk about the cut in afterschool jobs and heating assistance for the elderly. Let us talk about where we are today. It seems to me from all accounts, from personal accounts and talking to my colleagues, from reading the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, and Democrats and Republicans both, I do not know that we all respect it but we certainly read it, the President is very engaged in the process, as my good colleague from New Jersey said.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Just briefly I would like to respond to my good friend from Georgia, because he asks a very key question: Should we not be focused on the balanced budget rather than the shutdown. And I think that is what my colleagues and I are saying this evening. Let us open the Government. Let us make sure these people go back to work. Let us make sure that the Head Start centers and the Meals on Wheels and the nutrition sites and the parks and the businesses continue operating and let us focus together on the balanced budget. I think many of us would have differences of opinion if we took the Republican budget and talked about specific parts of it, I do not think that is what we are doing tonight, or talked about the President's budget, talked about his forecast for the next 7 years or the next 6 years, or 5 years. In fact, there was an outstanding article in the Wall Street Journal, I believe most of us have read it, talking about the Republican budget and how its predictions are questionable, and what happens after the 7th year, and does the deficit rise, and should a tax cut of that magnitude be put in place. There are some real questions that I think we could debate in a healthy, open way. So I would like to just say to my good friend from Georgia, let us just focus on the balanced budget. Let us have a healthy debate about Medicare, Medicaid. The President wants to preserve Medicare, Medicaid. He may want to change it differently from my colleagues, from myself, or others of us, but let us open the Government. And, in fact, is it not strange that the leading contender for President on the Republican side wants to have a continuing resolution, agrees with the President, but that in our body we cannot get that done? I think that is the best way to focus on a balanced budget. Open the Government and let us focus all our discussion on the balanced budget.

Mrs. LOWEY. No, but I would be very pleased if the gentleman would yield for a response to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mrs. LOWEY. No, but I would be happy----

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you so much. This is a very helpful discussion and I want to thank my good friend on the Committee on Appropriations from Georgia, Mr. Kingston, for yielding, for you both yielding to me. I think there really is a difference in priorities, and that is a healthy debate, as we said before. We can talk about Medicare, and you mentioned medical savings accounts. Some of us feel it should be done differently. We can talk about Medicaid. We can talk about education, the environment. You and I may differ on the depth of the cuts in the environment. But I do believe that we can agree that there should be a balanced budget. In my judgment, the President, Democrats, and Republicans for the most part, have agreed there should be a balanced budget. This kind of a debate is healthy. We do not have to hold all the Federal employees hostage while we are debating very serious questions in this country. I do not have a national park in my district. But when a national park closes, it is not just the visitors who are on Christmas vacation that could not get into the national park. In the United States of America, seeing a closed sign to me is outrageous, but it is all the small businesses around that national park that are being deprived of their livelihood. People who want to get mortgages from the FHA cannot get those mortgages. People at veterans hospitals are not getting the services. Meals on Wheels, Head Start. Why can we not agree to open up the Government, like adults, and then continue our serious discussion. I would respectfully disagree with my colleague, my distinguished colleague from California, that we can have this discussion in an adult atmosphere. Why do we have to hold these Federal employees hostage. That seems very wrong to me.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, because I will be delighted to answer the question. I think you raise, as do all the gentlemen raise, some very important issues, and in fact I think it would be important that we continue this debate on the priorities of our Nation. We serve on the Committee on Appropriations, and you and I know that there are differences of opinions. There are differences of opinion between Democrats and Democrats and Republicans and Republicans. So I would suggest to the gentleman, and I certainly appreciate the gentleman yielding, that we continue this debate on the priorities of our Nation, but let us open the Government.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] for calling us together. I want to reiterate once more that it is strange that this is an election year, and Senator Dole has joined with the President, Democrat and Republican, in a bipartisan way and joined with the Democrats of the House to say, ``Let us open this government and do it now.'' So, it is the extreme Republicans of the Republican Conference in the House that are controlling the party, because all we need is 20 Republican votes to join with the Democrats and the government would be open again. I just want to take a few minutes to talk about the impact of this shutdown on the environment. We have been hearing a lot about the monuments that are closed, and certainly the impact of the economy in those areas, all the small businesses that are not doing well, but there are a lot of other areas that are severely impacted by this shutdown. For example, EPA's role in helping to ensure safe drinking water has been halted. EPA's role in helping to ensure that the air we breathe is free of harmful pollutants has been shut down. EPA's role in helping clean up toxic waste that pollutes our drinking water and fouls our air has been suspended. EPA's civil enforcement actions against polluters, which bring in $3 million in fines on an average day, have been terminated. In the EPA region that includes the States of New York and New Jersey, and we have worked so closely on protecting the waters in our areas, nearly all of the 1,000 EPA staff are suspended. These are the environmental cops on the beat, the people who protect our health from polluters. To step back for a moment, let us not forget that the shutdown is part of a larger, concerted effort to roll back a host of laws that my colleagues and I have been speaking about to protect our natural resources and the environmental health and safety of the American people. They have already gutted the Clean Water Act. They have already put in place a 21-percent cut in the Environmental Protection Agency's budget, including a 50 percent cut in the enforcement activities and a 20 percent cut in the program that cleans up hazardous waste sites; a 40 percent cut in funding for land acquisition for National Parks and Wildlife Refuges; a 24 percent cut in major wetlands conservation programs and a measure that would terminate altogether the EPA's role in protecting wetlands; a measure that speeds up the desecration of our National Forests by increasing timber sales and the construction of logging roads; and, a 30 percent cut in loans to States to help keep raw sewage off our beaches and out of our rivers; 40 percent cut in funds that provide critical assistance to local communities to keep drinking water safe in my district, and on and on and on. I know we have two colleagues that want to share a few words, so I will not continue; I will save it for another day. But I want to make it very, very clear, this is unacceptable to the majority of American people. They have to understand, and the ones that understand, understand it very clearly, that this environment, our precious water, the air we breathe, should not be destroyed by a right-wing extreme group of Republicans. We all want to balance the budget, but it is priorities that we care about, that has made our country strong, that must be preserved. So, we are going to continue to fight for our environment, and I know we are all going to do it together. But right now I ask again that at least 20 Republicans come join the Democrats, come join the bipartisan effort in the Senate. Let us get this Government open and then let us continue this very serious debate about the priorities of our country. We can do it civilly and not close the Government down and create all this hardship for thousands and thousands of people in my district and all of our districts. I want to thank the gentleman again for calling us together, and I hope we will gather another night until we get this Government open.

Mrs. LOWEY. All we need is 20 votes from Republicans who understand that this kind of pain and suffering is wrong. And, incidentally, I want to add that I got a call today from someone who works in the Veterans Administration at the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Hospital in Montrose. They had to hold a bake sale because some of their employees who are so loyal, they want to go to work, but did not get their paycheck that was worth anything. In fact, it was 2 weeks that included all the deduction, but it was really less than 1 week's pay that they got. And, in fact, they cannot afford to get to work at the Veterans Hospital in Montrose. So people who are working, taking care of our veterans, who gave their heart and soul, and some made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, cannot afford to go to work to take care of our veterans. So I just want to say to my colleague that I understand his anger, because I know all of us share it, and we cannot just blame the freshmen Republicans who are standing in the corner saying my way or no way, but the moderate Republicans have a chance now to join with Senator Dole in the Senate in a bipartisan way to open up this Government and then we can have and continue to have a debate. This is a serious debate about the priorities of our country. We really disagree. We want to protect Medicare, Medicaid, the environment, and education, and they want to give tax cuts to those who really do not ask for it. This is a serious debate. Let us have it, but not to shut down the Government and cause so much pain. And the impact on the economy, my colleague mentioned, which is also so very important. It is not just the national parks, but it is all those small businesses around the national parks that are not making the income and contributing to our tax base. So I want to thank the gentleman very much.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and I will save my comments on the environment for a little while later, but I just wanted to respond and thank my colleague from Minnesota before he leaves for his comments and for his well-placed anger. I want to make one point that he made so well and add to it; that we talk about the freshmen who are standing in the corner like children, holding their breath and saying if we do not do it their way, it is no way. But I think we also have to put the blame on the so-called moderate Republicans. After all, the Democrats passed a resolution in our conference; that we wanted to pass a clean CR that would support the bipartisan resolution passed in the Senate to open up the Government. So we have to hold them responsible, because we have 198 votes; is that not correct?