Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, today's payroll tax conference agreement will provide $1,000 in the pockets of more than 160 million Americans and ensure that approximately 3.5 million Americans will continue to benefit from much-needed unemployment insurance. We've also protected seniors' ability to see their doctors with an SGR fix through the end of the year. Despite these critical provisions, though, this is a difficult vote to take. I'm greatly disappointed over how these extensions are offset. First, the unemployment extension is paid for on the backs of middle class Federal workers. These hardworking men and women continue to be targeted in this Congress, but yet they are not the reason for our Nation's deficit. Meanwhile, my Republican colleagues refuse to require the wealthiest few to pay their fair share. Secondly, the SGR fix is being paid for with critical health care dollars. In fact, the bill slashes one of the most important investments this country has ever made in preventative health. This is extremely shortsighted. We cannot continue down that path or we'll never address the real cost concerns of our health care system. And, sadly, the bill also manages to cut from one provider, hospitals and nursing homes, to pay for another, physicians. We can't rob Peter to pay Paul, and our health care system can't sustain further provider cuts. Meanwhile, there's still no permanent solution to an ongoing SGR problem that can't continue to be kicked down the road. I will vote in favor of this bill, but I do so with reservations. I know that on our Democratic side, our conferees fought very hard for the best deal that they could get. So I think we have to vote for this bill because it does a lot of very important things, but I also have to express my reservations.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 50 I was at an important hearing of the Health Subcommittee. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wasn't planning on coming to the floor this evening; but when I heard my Republican colleagues' Special Order that was just completed, I couldn't help but come down because I think I have to correct the record on many of the statements that they made this evening about Medicare and their efforts with regard to Medicare. First of all, I have to point out that when Medicare was first adopted in the House and in the Senate back in the sixties when President Johnson was in office, the Republicans overwhelmingly opposed it. They were opposed to Medicare. They voted against it. It would never have passed if it was for their votes. It only passed as a Democratic initiative. And over the years, Democrats have been the ones to protect Medicare. Republicans have consistently opposed Medicare, tried to repeal it, tried to privatize it, voucherize it. And basically as a Republican Speaker once said--I was here at the time when Newt Gingrich became the Speaker back in the mid-nineties--he said that we want Medicare to wither on the vine. And that's basically what the Republican leadership has been doing consistently in the 20-something years that I have been in Congress. Certainly, if you look at the budget that was adopted by the Republicans last year, it does exactly that. The Republican budget would end the Medicare guarantee, replacing it with a voucher in 2022. And what that essentially means is that right now and under the Medicare program, when you get to be 65, you immediately become eligible for Medicare, which is a government program; and you are guaranteed that you have your health insurance through the government, through Medicare. But if you establish a voucher, which is what the Republicans tried to do in their budget last year--fortunately, they didn't succeed--they would simply give you a voucher or a set amount of money for you to go out into the private sector and try to buy health insurance for that amount. And of course the amount that would be available wouldn't keep up with inflation. So even if you were able to buy health insurance when you were over 65 as a senior--which many people would not be able to--eventually you would not be able to; and you would simply have to pay more and more money out of pocket in order to buy the health insurance. In fact, we estimate that the Republican budget would double out-of-pocket costs by 2022 and cost an additional $6,000 for each senior, and out-of-pocket costs would triple by 2030. So what I want my constituents and everyone to understand is, the reason that Democrats started Medicare in the sixties under President Johnson was because people over 65 were not able to get health insurance privately. They weren't able to go out and buy health insurance because, basically, insurers didn't want to cover seniors. They had too many disabilities, too many times that they had to go to the hospital or see the doctor. So it was impossible to get health insurance if you were over 65. And I would maintain that if you let the Republicans move forward with their voucher proposal, which they still talk about constantly-- the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, keeps talking about it--the same thing would happen again. Seniors simply wouldn't be able to buy health insurance with a voucher or without one. The cost of it would get so prohibitive. And the consequence is that Medicare would disappear, both as a guaranteed health insurance plan for seniors, and many seniors would simply not have health insurance at all. The other thing that my colleagues tried to suggest tonight is that Medicare was going broke. They tried to convince you that Medicare is going broke. But if you believe that, then that sets the stage for the fact that you should either get rid of Medicare or voucherize Medicare because the notion is that somehow the government isn't going to continue with the program or can't afford the program; and, therefore, we need to change it drastically. I would maintain that's simply not true. Actually, right now there are 40 million seniors and 8 million people with disabilities below age 65 who have Medicare. Medicare is efficient, per capita spending at nearly half the per capita increase for comparable benefits provided by private insurers. And the fact of the matter is that the Medicare trust fund could certainly use some more money, but the way to deal with that is essentially to solve the economic crisis. In other words, as more people are employed, as unemployment goes down and the economy grows and more people pay into the Medicare trust fund, the Medicare trust fund would be just fine. The same thing goes for Social Security. The problem with the trust funds, whether it be Medicare or Social Security, is that in a slow economy, in a recession, less and less people who are working pay into the trust funds. So the answer is not to get rid of the trust funds and not allow people to have a pension, which Social Security provides, or allow people to have Medicare and health insurance when they're over 65, but, rather, to grow the economy, reduce the unemployment, have more people pay into the trust funds, and they become financially solvent for a long time in the future. And that's what the Democrats have proposed. Our answer to the Medicare program is to try to put more money into the trust fund, grow the economy, and keep Medicare as a Federal guarantee, as a Federal program that's guaranteed to all seniors. Now, I also heard my Republican colleagues tonight talk about how the Affordable Care Act, that's the health care reform--some people call it ObamaCare--the health care reform, the Affordable Care Act, that somehow that was going to destroy Medicare. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that the Affordable Care Act strengthens Medicare. The only cuts in the Affordable Care Act are to providers. There are no cuts to beneficiaries. In fact, programs for beneficiaries and benefits for senior citizens are actually expanded under the Affordable Care Act, and many seniors have already seen that. First of all, the hallmark of the Affordable Care Act, the health care reform, is prevention. And so what the Affordable Care Act says is that if you have some kind of health care, whether it's a mammogram or some kind of diagnostic test, you don't pay a copay. All prevention methods under the Affordable Care Act are provided without a copay. That's mammogram, testing for prostate cancer, any kind of diagnostic test or any kind of prevention program. And the reason for that is because we don't want people to go to the hospital. We don't want people to get sick. We want them to be diagnosed at an early stage. And so we know that if people have to pay a copay, a lot of times they won't have the test done. So that's number one. The other major benefit expansion under the Affordable Care Act or the health care reform is with regard to part D and prescription drug benefits. Many seniors know that when the Republicans passed Medicare part D, they left a huge, what we call, hole or doughnut hole so that when you pay out of pocket up to a certain amount, in other words, when you incur Medicare expenses up to a certain amount in the course of the year, it was $2,000, now $2,500, whatever the figure is, then everything that you incur beyond that is not covered, and then you have to go to a catastrophic level, something above $5,000, to get your coverage again. So many senior citizens, when they start the year, are getting their prescription drugs, but by August, September, or October, sometimes even earlier, they reached that threshold or doughnut hole and their Medicare prescription drugs were not covered under the original Medicare part D proposal. So what the Democrats did in the Affordable Care Act, what the President did in the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, if you will, was to gradually fill in that doughnut hole over the life of the program. So the first year, there was a $250 rebate, and then prescription drugs in the doughnut hole were discounted 50 percent. And gradually, over the next few years, that doughnut hole will disappear so your prescription drugs will be completely covered and you won't have the doughnut hole. Again, these are benefit expansions under the Affordable Care Act. So when the suggestion is made by the Republicans that somehow the Affordable Care Act is going to hurt or destroy Medicare, nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that the Affordable Care Act strengthens Medicare, strengthens the benefit, expands benefits, whether it be for prescription drugs or diagnostic testing or prevention. It also provides a free wellness test every year where there is no copay. It actually pays money back into the trust fund. So the life of the Medicare program, if you go along with what the Democrats are proposing, whether it is their proposals to improve the economy, grow the economy, would actually shore up the Medicare program, contrary to what some of my colleagues said here tonight. You know, they mentioned different organizations. There was a group of doctors, they mentioned AARP. Most of the organizations, and I didn't listen to the whole hour, but most of the organizations that they mentioned, the American Medical Society, specialty doctor groups, the AARP, these are the groups that supported the Affordable Care Act, that supported the health care reform, because they knew that it was strengthening Medicare and making Medicare more viable for the future and expanding benefits for seniors and the disabled that are covered by Medicare. This is part of the historic nature of the Democrats and Medicare. We started Medicare. We strengthened Medicare. We have done everything we can to make Medicare more secure as a guaranteed Federal program. Republicans opposed Medicare from the beginning, continue to try to either repeal it, or, in the words of Speaker Gingrich, make it wither on the vine. And now in the latest proposal, the Republican budget here in the House of Representatives, my very Republican colleagues that spoke tonight all voted for the Republican budget that would essentially get rid of Medicare, make it into a voucher, not provide the Federal guarantee, and make it so the seniors were essentially thrown out with a voucher or a certain amount of money and had to go out and buy private health insurance, which they'll never find. So I had to come to the floor tonight, Mr. Speaker, and really tell the truth about the parties and where they stand on Medicare. The fact of the matter is that the Democrats started the Medicare program and continue to make it viable. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) as that organization celebrates its 30th anniversary. Since AHPA's founding in 1982, the organization has been at the forefront of promoting the responsible commerce of herbs and herbal products and providing leadership in the herbal products community. Started by a handful of growers, processors, manufacturers and marketers of herbal products, AHPA has now grown into a diverse trade association, representing nearly 300 companies in the herbal products industry and their affiliated businesses. AHPA has distinguished itself in the herbal and dietary supplement trades for the quality of its work and advocacy before lawmakers and regulators. Legislatively, AHPA was an active participant in the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, which is the law that established a separate category for dietary supplements under a robust regulatory framework. AHPA also played a seminal role in the passage of the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2006, which established a Federal serious adverse event reporting mechanism for the dietary supplements. Since its inception, AHPA has also been tireless in its efforts to communicate respectfully and clearly with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and other Federal agencies on the unique aspects and needs of the herbal trade. In recent years, the supplement industry has encountered a number of substantive regulatory issues, including a new rule for Good Manufacturing Practice compliance, guidance on New Dietary Ingredients, and implementation of various Food Safety Modernization Act requirements, to name just a few. AHPA has been at the forefront with each of these and others, actively and effectively interacting with regulatory agencies on proposals that impact the regulated community and providing guidance and training to regulated businesses. AHPA and its members should be commended for their ongoing commitment to supporting the responsible commerce of herbs and herbal products in the United States. I once again rise to recognize this momentous occasion and to wish AHPA a happy 30th Anniversary.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Michael Ryan of East Keansburg, New Jersey. Mr. Ryan will be honored as the 2012 Hibernian of the Year by the Ancient Order of Hibernians Volunteer Patrick Torphy Division 2 of Monmouth County. This prestigious honor is well-deserved in light of his tremendous contributions to the Irish American community. Mr. Ryan is known to his AOH brothers as someone who will always be there to support his community and those who are in need, and his charitable actions are undoubtedly worthy of this body's recognition. Mr. Mike Ryan was born in Newark, New Jersey to Dick and Nancy Ryan. Together, the Ryan family moved to East Keansburg, New Jersey in 1955 and have continued to serve the residents of the Monmouth County community. Mr. Ryan joined the Ancient Order of Hibernians Volunteer Patrick Torphy Division 2 of Monmouth County in 1998, where he serves as the Division Marshall. Mr. Ryan serves as a core member of the organizing committee for the annual Irish Festival at the Jersey Shore. In upholding the AOH motto of friendship, unity, and Christian charity, Mr. Ryan tirelessly assists in raising funds for a multitude of causes, including Catholic school education, local food pantries and shelters, and the Wounded Warrior Program. Mr. Ryan is also a proud member of the Knights of Columbus Council #2858. He is a graduate of Saint Catherine's School and a member of the Middletown High School class of 1974. Mr. Ryan is a 25-year employee of the United States Postal Service and currently resides in East Keansburg, New Jersey with his wife, Christina, and their three sons, Sean, Danny and Matthew. Mr. Speaker, once again, please join me in congratulating Mr. Michael Ryan upon receiving the 2012 Hibernian of the Year award and thanking him for his service to the Irish American community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Kevin Guerin of Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey. Mr. Guerin will be honored as the 2012 Irishman of the Year by the Ancient Order of Hibernians Volunteer Patrick Torphy Division 2 of Monmouth County. Mr. Guerin is an outstanding leader and member of the community whose contributions have continued to promote, preserve and uphold Irish heritage, as well as embodying the AOH motto of friendship, unity, and Christian charity. His actions and dedication are undoubtedly worthy of this body's recognition. Mr. Kevin Guerin was born in Miltown Malbay in County Clare, Ireland, a region commonly known for its traditional Irish music. As the second youngest child of 11 siblings, Mr. Guerin attended St. Joseph's Vocational School in Miltown Malbay and received his certification in carpentry. In addition to his professional career, Mr. Guerin is an accomplished musician and earned the title of All Ireland Tin Whistle Champion. After immigrating to the United States in 1973, he continued to pursue his passion for music. Mr. Guerin began playing with several Irish bands throughout New York and New Jersey, ultimately starting his own band, ``The Biddy Earlys,'' which was later named ``Round The House.'' Mr. Guerin has admirably served on numerous boards for various organizations throughout Monmouth County, New Jersey. He is a valued member of the Knights of Columbus Bayshore Council #2858 and continues to dedicate countless hours to the Irish Federation of Monmouth County and the Frank McGovern Association of Newark. Mr. Guerin is a hardworking member of the John F. Cryan Association of South Orange, the Irish American Society of Union and is committed to upholding the mission of the Joseph Nugent Association of Elizabeth and the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick of the Jersey Shore. Kevin is the founding member of the famous Hoboken St. Patrick's Day Parade and the Jersey Shore Irish Festival of which he served as Chairman in 1999. As a result of his impressive actions, Mr. Guerin was recognized by the Irish American Fenian Society in 1987, Jersey Shore INA in 1996, the Order of St. Brendan in 1999 and is the highly deserving recipient of the Patrick Torphy Award in 2008. Kevin and his wife Kathleen are the proud parents of Fiona, Delia, Mike and the late Siobhan. They are also grandparents to Quinn Morgan. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in congratulating Mr. Kevin Guerin upon receiving the 2012 Irishman of the Year award and also for his leadership and service to the Irish American community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Nick Brown and Mrs. Tracy Brown for their immeasurable contributions to their community and the subsequent honor they have received during Prevention First's ``Fly Me to the Moon'' Gala on February 4, 2012. The Browns are valuable members of my district and assets to their communities and country. Their actions are truly worthy of this body's recognition. Mrs. Tracy Brown has admirably served on numerous boards for various organizations throughout Monmouth County, New Jersey. She is a hardworking member of the Monmouth Medical Center Foundation Board and has dedicated countless hours to the Ranney School Annual Fund committee. Mrs. Brown has also co-chaired the Count Basie Gala, Prevention First Gala and the Visiting Nurses Association Show House Gala. Tracy is a member of the Prevention First Executive Committee and remains an integral part of its Board. Together, Tracy and Prevention First's continued efforts have had a resounding effect in preventing alcohol and other drug usage in young adults throughout the local community. Nick Brown's generosity as a philanthropist and valued member of the community is evident through his service. Mr. Brown is the Managing Director and head of Financial Product Brokerage, North and South America, at GFI Group. He is a partner of Jersey Partners, serves as a director of the Financial Markets Association and was formerly a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's Foreign Exchange Steering Committee. In addition to his professional endeavors, Nick currently serves on the boards of the Center to Prevent Youth Violence and the Count Basie Theatre in Red Bank, New Jersey. He also served as a high profile board member for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for 12 years. Nick remains an active board member of HELP USA, a charitable organization dedicated to providing quality housing and on-site supportive services to guide individuals towards independence and self- sufficiency. Together, the Browns have been blessed with five beautiful children, Kristina age 24, Kelli age 22, Peter age 12, Laney age 6, and Lexi age 5. Mr. Speaker, once again, please join me in congratulating Nick and Tracy Brown for receiving the honors bestowed by Prevention First. Mr. & Mrs. Brown's unending generosity and charitable activities have undoubtedly touched many lives and have helped countless people throughout New Jersey.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the champion for senior citizens, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. PALLONE. I yield, Madam Chair, 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, can I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. PALLONE. I yield myself the balance of the time. Madam Chair, I just want to stress again, you know, I hear from the other side of the aisle over the years how people should take personal responsibility. The idea of the CLASS Act is that people pay into the trust fund, and then when they become disabled, they take the money out to pay for services so that they can stay in their home and don't have to go to a nursing home. Now, when they do that, they save the government money because this is their own money that is being spent to keep them in their home, to keep them in the community so they don't have to spend down and then eventually become a ward of the State, essentially, because Medicaid ends up paying for their nursing home care. So this is a solution to a long-term care problem. Not a complete solution, but certainly a partial solution. I agree with Mr. Pascrell, which is that when I listen to the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Texas was quite clear: Let's repeal the entire Affordable Care Act. If we can't repeal the whole thing, then we'll repeal it piecemeal piece by piece, which is what's going on here today. Well, again, it's not a very responsible position unless you come up with an alternative. We're in the Energy and Commerce Committee. We've had hearings on this. I've yet to hear anyone come up on the Republican side with an alternative. All they keep saying is let's just repeal this and we'll figure something out down the line. The problem with that is that Mr. Pascrell said there are 10 million Americans who need long-term care. Soon it will be 15 or eventually 20 million. So every day that goes by there is not a solution for these people, and the disabled community and the senior citizen community are crying out for some kind of relief. So all I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is, don't just keep talking about repeal. I'll use the term ``mend it, don't end it.'' Let's not end today the effort to try to find long-term care solutions for America's seniors and for the disabled. It simply isn't fair to come here on the floor repeatedly and say ``repeal, repeal, repeal'' and not have an answer. At any time, I am more than willing to sit down with the chairman of the subcommittee or with any other Member and come up with a bipartisan solution, but I haven't heard it yet.

Mr. PALLONE. I suggest that you go next because I only have myself, and then we're going to move to Ways and Means.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, there are millions of Americans currently in need of a long-term care program and many more that will require these services in the future. Despite the great achievements of our country, the U.S. lacks an affordable and ethical system of financing long-term care services. The CLASS program is a significant step towards finding a realistic solution to this problem. However, many of my Republican colleagues have taken a stance against CLASS without proposing any real solutions for long-term care access in America, and I strongly oppose H.R. 1173 and consider it to be a blatant disregard of a growing crisis in this country. Madam Chair, Republicans continue to propose repeal of various aspects of the Affordable Care Act. We heard my colleague from Georgia today. And how many other times how many on the other side have said, well, let's just repeal the Affordable Care Act, let's repeal pieces of the Affordable Care Act? But they never come up with any meaningful alternatives. And the same is true today. They're talking about outright repeal of CLASS without any meaningful suggestion of an alternative. My message to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that we should mend the CLASS Act and not end it. This country is already facing a long-term care crisis, but the problem is only going to get worse. As our population continues to age, an estimated 15 million people are expected to need some sort of long-term care support by 2020. If we don't solve the need for affordable long-term care in this country soon, we will also jeopardize our entitlement programs. Currently, Medicaid pays 50 percent of the cost of long-term services, and that price tag is quickly rising every year. The CLASS program was designed to allow people to stay at home and prevent the cost of nursing home care that burdened Medicaid. Now, I want to correct one thing. I know in the Rules Committee some of my colleagues talk about the administration's position on this bill. The administration made it quite clear in a hearing that we had on this bill that they're opposed to repeal of the CLASS Act. They acknowledge that there are workable solutions under the CLASS program, but didn't feel that they have the legal authority--I stress legal authority--to implement them. So the Department of Health and Human Services has more work to do, and I have suggested on numerous occasions that the CLASS Advisory Council, which is organized under the legislation, be convened in order to offer their expertise. The CLASS program is a framework that will facilitate a solution to our long-term care crisis. However, all I continue to hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that Congress can't do anything. It's this negative attitude, the idea that Congress can't address any problem. And I just sincerely hope that my colleagues, when they come to the table, come up with a workable solution. Don't just tell me we have to repeal things, we can't do anything, and the government can't do anything. Cowardly running away from the problem through repeal is simply not the answer. Overall, the CLASS Act promotes personal responsibility and independence. Those are the values that you talk about a lot. It allows the government to put choice in the hands of consumers while saving Medicaid dollars. American families have too few long-term care options, and they need our help. Rather than repeal CLASS, we need to continue the dialog in the development of a viable plan forward. Again, let's mend it, not end it. Moving forward with H.R. 1173 shuts the door on a problem that simply cannot be ignored. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Marine Corporal Kevin J. Reinhard of Colonia, New Jersey. On January 19, 2012, Corporal Reinhard was on a helicopter mission in the southern Afghanistan province of Helmand, Afghanistan, when his aircraft went down, killing the Corporal and five of his fellow Marines. He was 25 years old. Corporal Reinhard's valiant and heroic actions during his deployment in Afghanistan are truly worthy of this body's recognition. Marine Corporal Kevin Reinhard is remembered as a loving son who was committed to his family and friends. A resident of the Colonia section of Woodbridge, New Jersey, Corporal Reinhard is a proud alumnus of St. Joseph's High School in Metuchen, New Jersey. He attended Ramapo College and later transferred to Middlesex County College in Edison, New Jersey where he majored in Criminal Science. In the spring of 2008, he admirably enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and was stationed in Hawaii. He soon rose to the rank of Corporal and proudly served as a Crew Chief, flying on a Sikorsky Sea Stallion with HMEI 363, also known as the ``Lucky Red Lions.'' In January 2012, Corporal Reinhard was serving his second deployment in Afghanistan when his helicopter crashed, tragically taking his life and the lives of five other Marines. Corporal Reinhard leaves behind his mother, Kathleen Rose, his father, James, sister, Kathleen Marie, as well as his paternal grandparents, James and Mary Ann Reinhard. He is pre-deceased by his maternal grandparents, John and Veronica Gerrity of Colonia. Corporal Reinhard was an outstanding individual who proudly embodied the motto of the United States Marine Corps. Mr. Speaker, once again, please join me in commemorating the life of Corporal Kevin J. Reinhard, an American hero who courageously served his country. His legacy has served as an inspiration to us all and he will truly be missed.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that the House Republicans will not allow the Senate bill to come up today that would extend the payroll tax cut, that would provide unemployment benefits for so many million Americans that are out of work, and also allow seniors to have their Medicaid reimbursement paid to their doctors so the doctors will accept Medicare. I cannot believe that, at the end of the year now, is this the Christmas present? Is this the New Year's gift that we're going to give to the American people, that their taxes are going to be raised, that they're not going to be able to have unemployment insurance if they're unemployed? And what does this mean for the economy, Mr. Speaker? Do the House Republicans want to send a message to the President right now when the economy is actually starting to improve slightly? This could easily send us back and make the economy go back into a tailspin. Do they dislike the President so much that they would risk the economy for that? I cannot believe that we're not going to have an opportunity today to vote on the Senate bill and to make sure that these things are extended, particularly the payroll tax cut, because that is very important for the economy. It's very important for small businesses. It is an outrage, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. You know, I love Christmas, too, but when the gentleman on the other side of the aisle suggests that somehow they are going to stay around here after today, I don't believe that for 1 minute. I guarantee you that at the end of the day, the Republicans are going to go home. The difference is they're going to go home without passing the Senate bill that allows people to get their payroll tax cut, their unemployment insurance, and the seniors to go out and be able to access Medicare. If you really cared about these issues, then you would pass the Senate bill. You wouldn't put up a vote that rejects the Senate bill and doesn't allow us to consider it at all. Don't kid anybody here. At the end of the day, the Republicans are going to go home, but the consequence for the American people is that the economy is in a very perilous situation right now. If you take this tax cut and you don't extend it, then it's very possible that people won't have money to spend, the economy won't grow, and this teetering economy could easily fall back into a recession again. So I don't know what's going on here. All I can think of is that the Tea Party Republicans--the extremists on the Republican side--are wagging the Republican dog and saying to your leadership: We don't want to do this. They don't want the payroll tax extension. They don't want the unemployment extension. I don't know why they don't care about the American people, but that's the bottom line here. You're going to go home at the end of the day, there isn't going to be any bill passed here, the deadline is going to be reached on January 1, people are going to be without their unemployment insurance, and they're going to have a tax increase. That's the consequence of this. I've been hearing the Republicans for years saying they don't want a tax increase. Well, they don't care if the tax increase is on the middle class. If it's on the wealthy, oh, they don't want that, but it's okay to increase taxes on the middle class.