Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my serious concern about what I consider a troubling case of the manipulation of historical fact under the guise of academic integrity. This is happening at a university in my own State, Princeton University, an Ivy League university and one of the leading institutions of higher learning in the Nation and in the world. As the New York Times reported yesterday, Princeton accepted $750,000 from the Government of Turkey to endow a new Attaturk Chair of Turkish Studies in the Department of Near Eastern Studies and hired a professor, Heath W. Lowry, who worked for the Turkish Government as executive director of the Washington-based Institute of Turkish Studies. Professor Lowry has written and spoken extensively, questioning whether or not the Armenian genocide committed by the Turkish Ottoman Empire between the years 1915 and 1923 actually occurred. Mr. Speaker, last month, on April 24, more than 40 Members of this body from both sides of the aisle took part in a series of special orders commemorating the 81st anniversary of the unleashing of this genocide against the Armenian people. It was planned and executed in the name of Turkish nationalism in the final years of the Ottoman Empire. Eventually, 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children were murdered in this first, though sadly not the last, genocide in the 20th century. Although the word ``genocide'' had not yet been coined, genocide is what happened. It is a great and noble effort for this Congress to recognize that the genocide occurred. I will be working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to enact a resolution officially recognizing the historic fact that the genocide occurred and urging Turkey, the recipient of millions of dollars in United States assistance, to finally end its deceitful policy of denying that the genocide ever took place. While remembering the Armenian genocide is important in its own right from the standpoint of honoring the victims and providing future generations with an important example of what can happen when ethnic hatred goes unchallenged, one of the most important reasons for commemorating the genocide is to challenge the efforts of those who deny that it occurred. Now we see this genocide denial has been given a platform at one of our most prestigious universities. Professor Lowry, who is recognized as one of the leading specialists in Turkish studies, does not necessarily deny that many Armenian people suffered and died during that period of time, but he claims that the word ``genocide'' is not the most accurate word to describe this tragedy. Coincidentally, this has been the line put out by the Turkish Government and its apologists. The Turkish spin that has been put on the genocide is disputed by a large volume of documented evidence, much of it collected by American diplomats and journalists on the scene. There is also the testimony of the survivors. There was, in conjunction with the physical destruction of the Armenian people, the effort to erase all traces of the Armenian presence in the areas now in Eastern Turkey by changing geographic names and destroying Armenian religious and cultural monuments. This was not a random violence, Mr. Speaker, but a concerted program to eliminate the Armenian people and culture. It was, as we now use the term, ``a genocide.'' While Professor Lowry and others have the freedom to publish, obviously, what they like, I question whether it sets a good precedent for a major university to accept funding from a foreign government to essentially promote its propaganda. Many scholars agree, and have sharply criticized Princeton because that is exactly what is happening. I would hope that Princeton would seriously reconsider taking money from the Government of Turkey for this purpose or, at a minimum, would somehow build into its program certain safeguards to prevent the Turkish Government influence over essentially what the professor or others might say. Mr. Speaker, I know that this is just one example, if you will, of how the Turkish Government tries to influence what goes on in this country, not only here in Congress, but also through our institutions of higher education, but I think it is terribly important that Princeton University and other universities like it do not continue to let their academic programs be influenced because of the money that is being donated, in this case by Turkey, or other foreign governments. Mr. Speaker, I would like, if I could, to include the article that was in the New York Times on Wednesday, May 22, entitled ``Princeton Is Accused of Fronting for the Turkish Government.'' (By William H. Honan) A group of prominent scholars and writers contends that Princeton University is allowing itself to be used by the Turkish Government as a center for propaganda about Turkey's role in the massacre of a million Armenians during World War

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to what my colleagues from Arkansas and from Wisconsin said on the other side, and I am amazed how little understanding they seem to have about the person who is affected by the minimum wage. As my colleagues know, I heard statements about how, well, we will deal with the earned income tax credit, or we will make adjustments with food stamps or other government programs. What are we talking about? A lot of the people that work on minimum wage, they do not even necessarily apply for food stamps. They do not even necessarily apply for the earned income tax credit. Many of them even do not have the knowhow or ability or even want to get involved with the Government bureaucracy. If we are talking about Washington and thinking about how we do things here, I would venture to say that my colleagues on the other side are too Washington oriented; they do not understand what the average person has to deal with on a daily basis. If they are getting a set salary now based on the minimum wage and we increase that salary somewhat under this very modest proposal, then they will see an actual increase in their wages. Mr. Speaker, we cannot look at the bureaucratic procedures that they are talking about here. I think the earned income tax credit is great. I think people need food stamps. But a lot of people do not even apply for them who are on minimum wage. They just do not understand on the other side what it is like for the little guy on a daily basis. And let me tell my colleagues in my own State of New Jersey, because I am afraid that somebody or I think somebody on the other side is going to talk about loss of jobs, let me tell them in New Jersey we had a modest increase in the minimum wage that was similar to what is being proposed here on the Federal level. The results are that this moderate hike actually increased total employment in the State of New Jersey, and the reason is that minimum wage earners do not have the ability to save. They spend their money on basic necessities. Raising the minimum wage puts more money into our local economy. The money in New Jersey was used to purchase more goods and eventually an increase in profits for local businesses. So raising the minimum wage actually increases economic activity; it means more jobs, not less jobs. Mr. Speaker, this exemption that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] has proposed, do not listen to what the gentleman from Wisconsin said about how it is not going to affect them. It is a broad exemption that is going to repeal the minimum wage.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening, the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations is marking up the fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill for our international assistance and export financing programs. Yet, ironically, we just learned yesterday that President Clinton has waived one of the most important provisions in the fiscal year 1996 Foreign Operations bill: the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. The Corridor Act, which was included in the fiscal year '96 bill with broad bipartisan support, prohibits U.S. assistance of any kind from going to a country that impedes the delivery of humanitarian aid to a third country. I think most Americans would just assume that such a basic condition would apply to any recipient of U.S. aid, but it isn't. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is really targeted at the Republic of Turkey, which has maintained a cruel and illegal blockade of neighboring Armenia for the past 3 years. This blockade has prevented the delivery of food, medicine and other humanitarian relief supplies-- much of it originating in the United States--from reaching Armenia. The most direct route for aid to Armenia is through Turkey. Thus, the Turkish blockade makes it far more difficult and expensive for relief supplies to reach the people of Armenia. Turkey is a country that has received billions of dollars of United States aid. They are a military ally of the United States, part of NATO. Yet here is Turkey, a large and militarily powerful nation, maintaining a stranglehold on Armenia, a tiny land-locked country. This is shocking outrageous behavior. Last year, Congress finally said to Turkey: enough. If Turkey wants to continue to benefit from American generosity, they must open their border with Armenia and let the long- suffering people of Armenia get the assistance they need and deserve-- assistance which Congress has voted to provide to Armenia, as well assistance originating from private sources. Unfortunately, the law gave the President authority to waive the requirement that Turkey open its borders based on, ``the national security interest of the United States.'' Quietly, President Clinton last week invoked the waiver. Mr. Speaker, I have often come to the floor of the House to support the policies of this administration. But tonight, I am completely disappointed and perplexed by the administration's action. First of all, Congress wasn't even notified. We learned about the waiver almost by accident--from, of all people, the Turkish Foreign Minister Emre Gonensay, who is here in Washington on a working visit. In response to a question at a press conference yesterday the Foreign Minister announced that the waiver had in fact been granted. Thus, we see the Turkish Foreign Ministry was informed before the U.S. Congress. This is completely unacceptable. Given the strong statement of congressional intent, we believe it would have been appropriate for the administration to have advised Members of Congress of its plans with regard to the waiver, and I hope the administration will consult with Congress on this issue in the future. A further disappointment is that the language in the Presidential Determination contains no reference to the Turkish blockade of Armenia. Failure to at least mention the blockade in the context of the determination to waive the Corridor Act sends the disturbing signal that the United States is not concerned about the ongoing, illegal blockade of a small country striving to establish democracy and a market economy. I once again call on the administration to make a top priority of imploring the Turkish Government, the recipient of so much United States aid, to lift its blockade of Armenia and accept Armenia's offer to normalize relations without preconditions. Tomorrow, I am sending out a Dear Colleague letter asking Members to join me in signing a letter to the President expressing our opposition to the waiver and urging that all efforts be made to lift the blockade. Mr. Speaker, while relations with Turkey are important, I cannot accept the view that maintaining good relations should entail turning a blind eye to the outrageous actions committed by Turkey. Given the generosity the United States has shown toward Turkey, we have every right to attach some conditions--particularly such a basic condition as allowing the delivery of aid to a neighbor in need. I believe such a condition should be a basic requirement for any recipient of U.S. aid, and I think most Americans would agree. Armenia is a small, land-locked nation dependent on land corridors through neighboring countries for many basic goods. Armenia has been one of the most exemplary of the former Soviet republics in terms of moving toward a Western style political and economic system. The Armenian people respect and admire the United States. There are more than one million Americans of Armenian ancestry. The bonds between our countries are strong and enduring. But the people of Armenia face a humanitarian crisis which is not the result of any natural disaster but the deliberate policy of its neighbor to choke off access to needed goods from the outside world. I believe the exertion of U.S. leadership can play a major role in easing tensions and promoting greater cooperation among the nations of the Caucasus region. Enforcement of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act must be an important component of those efforts. Mr. Speaker, last year I founded the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, which I co-chair with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. We now have 49 Members from both parties and all regions of the country. The support for the Armenian people is strong in this Congress, and we will continue to challenge the pro-Turkish lobby here in Washington and, if necessary, the administration, to fight for stronger ties between the United States and Armenia.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, what a cruel hoax the last speaker from the other side of the aisle is trying to pull on the American people. The choice here essentially under this rule is either vote for the minimum wage increase for some workers and at the same time eliminate minimum wage protection for probably the vast majority of those 10 million or so Americans that are now receiving the minimum wage, or simply vote the rule down and we will not bring up the minimum wage at all. That is exactly the cruel hoax we are playing on the American people today. What the Republican leadership is doing is setting up this bill for defeat because they know that, if they have this exemption under the Goodling amendment that is going to take out so many people from any minimum wage protection, they know that the President cannot sign that bill. So they are making it impossible for a real minimum wage increase for the average American worker to be brought up on this floor and to be passed by both Houses and go to the President. It is a hoax because they are opposed to minimum wage protection. They do not care about the little guy.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am sometimes asked what does it mean to be a Democrat, and what it mans to be a Democrat is that you care about working people and their concerns and whether they are going to be able to earn a decent wage. That is what this vote is all about today. All of a sudden the Republican leadership is forced to bring up a vote on the minimum wage, but instead of bringing it up in a clean fashion, what they are really doing is repealing it and making it so that a lot of people right now, who would be getting a minimum wage, even at the low amount that it is, are going to be not eligible, unfortunately, for the minimum wage. So instead of bringing up a clean bill, where the minimum wage is increased and people have a decent wage, now we see the Republican leadership actually trying to repeal the minimum wage. That is what they are all about. Just like they talked about repealing Medicare or letting it wither on the vine, now they want to let the minimum wage wither on the vine because they do not care about working people. I heard what my colleague from Arizona just said. He is against the minimum wage, and that is what is going to happen here today. They are going to bring up a vote and use it as an excuse instead of raising the minimum wage to eliminate something like 3 to 7 million Americans from having any treatment and getting any minimum wage.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Chernobyl explosion. Although one decade has passed since this deadly explosion, the aftermath and the truth remain very clouded. The 7.6 tons of 200 different radioactive substances released into the atmosphere over Ukraine and neighboring nations continue to cause sickness and misery. I am especially concerned about the state of the millions of children who suffered and continue to suffer from the long-term effects of radiation. The highly toxic heavy metals have caused an increase in children's thyroid gland cancer, children's diabetes and anemia. The medical effects still plague the affected regions which include parts of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Scientists discovered inherited genetic damage in victims exposed to Chernobyl's radiation spillage. In fact a study in the Nature journal states that children born in Belarus in 1994 to parents who lived in the area during the meltdown suffered from twice the normal rate of a specific type of mutation. I should say, Mr. Speaker, particularly the point about Chernobyl and, as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] mentioned the fact, that there has been so much support and humanitarian relief provided to the countries effected by private citizens, really mostly here in the United States, was brought home to me very vividly a few years ago when in my own district, that has a large Ukraine and Belarussian population, there was a fund raiser, basically a relief fund raiser to help the victims of Chernobyl. I had been to some of those efforts that have been held in my district, again by private citizens and organizations over the last 5 or 6 years. I was particularly impressed with the efforts on the part of some of the Belarussian organizations in my district. My wife happens to be of Belarussian descent. She also has been very concerned to make sure that we continue to help those victims of Chernobyl. In addition to the medical effects, the impact of the environmental damage is still felt today. The 1986 meltdown contaminated 100,000 square miles of once arable lands in Belarus. That is about 20 percent of the agricultural land; in Ukraine, 8 percent; and even within the Russian Federation, 1 percent. This irradiated soil poses seemingly endless problems for these countries' agrarian communities. On April 26, 1991, the fifth anniversary of the meltdown, I introduced a resolution in the House urging the Soviet Government to take steps to evacuate people still living in the affected areas to decontaminate the Kiev reservoir, cease the planning, construction, and operation of other nuclear facilities in the Ukraine and asked for international supervision of existing facilities. In an effort to build cooperation between the United States and Ukraine, I believe our country should provide technical and medical expertise to assist the people who continue to suffer while working with all of the newly independent states of the former USSR to make sure that a disaster on the order of Chernobyl never happens again. As world leaders, we must continue to urge the United States to lead international efforts to prevent future disasters. Last year our Government joined with Ukraine and several other G-7 nations in a memorandum of understanding to close the Chernobyl plant by the year 2000. I just want to say that this action in the memorandum will not only close the nuclear plant but it will assist Ukraine in developing a safer, more vibrant self-sustaining energy sector. I think it is very important to help Ukraine in trying to find alternatives to nuclear power and to eventually close the Chernobyl plant.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the rule allows for the President's budget to be considered along with some of the other options, and I think the contrast is clear between the President's budget and that of the Republican leadership. Again, the President's budget does achieve a balanced budget; it reaches a balance in 2002 that is certified by the Congressional Budget Office in the right way. The President's budget also provides a moderate tax cut targeted to the middle class. The difference between the President's budget and the Republican leadership budget is that the President's budget preserves priorities that are important to the American people, priorities like Medicare and Medicaid, like education, particularly higher education, and also protecting the environment. The Republican budget is the same thing that we had last year. It hurts the average American because it goes against these areas that the average American is so concerned about. When we talk about Medicare, we are talking about a $167 billion cut in Medicare in the Republican leadership budget that will force hospitals to close, that would make seniors have to pay more money out of pocket and will also move them into HMO's, into managed care systems. On the other hand, the President's budget achieves the requirement of keeping Medicare solvent in the same way as the Republican budget, but it does not make these radical changes to Medicare that will hurt the average senior citizen. The same could be said about education. The President's budget retains the direct student loan program, retains Goals 2000, retains the National Service Corporation, the AmeriCorps, an option which basically has allowed a lot of college students now to find another way to pay for their higher education costs. The Republican budget would either cut back or eliminate each of those programs. And finally, on the environment, again the President's budget provides sufficient funding for environmental protection. The Republican leadership budget goes far toward cutting back on environmental protection, about a 15-percent cut in enforcement, the environmental cop on the beat. I have said over and over again on the floor, ``If you can't enforce our environmental laws, then what's the use of having good environmental laws?'' The same is true about the Superfund Program and others. The bottom line is the President's budget preserves the American people's priorities, the Republican budget does not.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker on Friday, May 31, 1996, at the Waterview Pavilion in Belmar, NJ, the Neptune High School Naval Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps unit will hold its Military Ball and Awards Ceremony. It is with great honor that I pay tribute, on this day, to the Neptune High School Naval JROTC unit. Existing since 1977, this 4-year program is designed to teach high school students leadership and citizenship. To achieve this, the program stresses self-discipline, patriotism, and high self-esteem. All of this is practiced within the organization and administrative structure of the U.S. Navy. The Neptune High School JROTC boasts a membership of 103 members with 47 of its members recently completing a 3-day mini-boot camp training weekend at Fort Dix, NJ. On November 20, 1995, the unit successfully completed their 1005-96 Navy area manager inspection with an overall grade of outstanding. I would like to take this opportunity to applaud these outstanding young men and women for their commitment and allegiance to the JROTC and also for their overall outstanding grade. Mr. Speaker, this ceremony is an important event, not just for the proud members of the JROTC but for all of us. It should remind us all of the importance of citizenship and patriotism and what it means to be an American. REVEREND JACQUELINE McCULLOUGH

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I heard what my colleague from Arizona just said. The bottom line is the President is not leaving. He is not going anywhere, because he has to stay here and protect the average American from the hurt that is being inflicted by this Republican extremist Congress. What Bob Dole knew and we all know is that he could not stick around because, after this budget was unveiled again last week, the one we are going to be voting on again, he realized that the same old song, if you will, of cutting Medicare, cutting Medicaid, trying to cut back on education and also on environmental protection was not something that the American public wanted to hear. They realize that they are being hurt severely by this Republican plan. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is environmental enforcement is going to be cut back. Educational programs are not going to be cut back. Educational programs are not going to be available to the average American. Of course, for seniors, they have to suffer once again under the Republican proposal to cut back on Medicare and change Medicare so they will not have choice of doctor. They will be paying more out of their pocket or maybe they are going to be forced into a managed care system that they do not like. So Bob Dole had to leave; he could not live with the extremist agenda. The President will stay and protect the average American.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that I followed my colleague from New Jersey, who I have the greatest respect for. But I think that the point that I would like to make this evening is that it is certainly true that our goal with this budget and with every budget has to be to achieve a balanced budget over the next 6 or so years, and that in the process of doing that certain types of tax breaks, if you will, if they help the average American, can be accomplished. The President's budget does that. The President's budget achieves a balanced budget, if you will, by the year 2002. There is a family tax credit and there are education tax benefits, if you will, to pay for tuition for higher education. So I would maintain that the difference between the President's budget and the budget that we are going to be voting on tomorrow, that has been presented by the Republican leadership, is not over which achieves a balanced budget, because they both do; or over which accomplishes giving certain tax credits or benefits for families or for education, because I beleive actually in that respect the President's accomplishes more; but rather over the priorities in spending. That is where I think the difference really lies between these two proposals, that of the President and that of the Republican leadership. The priorities are the same priorities that Democrats articulated last year during the budget battle, and our point was then and our point again now is that we can protect senior citizens' health care, we can protect Medicare, we can protect Medicaid, and we can also protect our environment and we can protect education programs at the same time that we balance the budget. There, I think, is the major difference between what the Republican leadership has proposed and discussed tonight and what the President has proposed. Essentially, if we look at this Republican budget, it is more of the same on the issues of Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment. I thas a negative impact on each of those areas for the average American. I talked earlier this evening about the Medicare Program, and I believe strongly that the $167 billion in Medicare cuts over 6 years will definitely have a negative impact of the Medicare Program. It will cause many hospitals to close. In our own State of New Jersey, both myself and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] have hospitals that are more than 60 percent dependent on Medicare, and I believe that many of those hospitals are going to face the real possibility of closure bacause of the level of Medicare cuts in this Republican budget. But I would also like to talk about Medicaid. Medicaid is the program that exists right now. It is a Federal and State joint program that pays for poor people, or people below a certain income, and primarily pays for mothers with dependent children, and children, as well as for senior citizens who are in nursing homes. What the Republicans are proposing is a $72 billion cut in Medicaid funding but block granting the program, just as they did in 1995, so they are essentially sending less money in real terms back to the States and leaving it up to the States to decide who is going to be covered and what kind of coverage there will be. So what is going to happen is that many States will simply not provide the same level of funding. They will decide not to cover certain senior citizens, perhaps certain nursing home coverage; or they will say that certain children at a certain age, for example are not covered by Medicaid; or certain families, because they do not fall below a certain level of income, will not be covered by Medicaid. We will see a larger and larger number of people who do not have health insurance, or a crisis perhaps in the nursing home situation, where many senior citizens will either not have access to nursing home care that they need, or they will not have the quality of care that they have now because there will not be a certain amount of supervision or nurses checking on the situation in nursing homes, for example. So we are seeing a ratcheting down, if you will, of the Medicare program and the Medicaid program, and that is the same thing that we saw last year; that is hurting average Americans, particularly the senior citizens and those who depend on Medicaid. Now, what about on the education front? Well, on the education front, it is pretty much the same thing again. We see the elimination of the direct student loan program. In my home State of New Jersey, Rutgers has depended on this a great deal. It has expanded educational opportunities, provided more money for loans for students in various universities and colleges around the country. We see an end to new funding for Perkins loans, another form of funding to pay for higher education for many students. We see the elimination of the AmeriCorps Program; and the Republicans have been very critical of the national service program. So whether it is education, whether it is Medicare, Medicaid or even the environment, which once again has significant cuts, that is the difference here between those two proposals.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say the seniors in this country are scared and they have reason to be because of these Republican proposals on Medicare. There is no question in my mind what is going on here again is the same thing that we saw last year. That is that senior citizens are being made to pay for the cuts that are being proposed in this budget and that Medicare is taking a bigger hit, almost as big a hit as it did last year, and all to pay for tax breaks essentially for wealthy Americans. Now why should a senior citizen be scared? They should be scared because when the Medicare program was established in 1963, they were basically told that they were going to have at least three things: One, they were told they were going to have an unlimited choice of doctors and hospitals. Medicare would reimburse for that. Second, they were told that they would have protection against having to pay a lot of money out of their pocket. Right now it is limited to 15 percent. And then they were told they would have guaranteed coverage of all Medicare benefits for the premium that was established by law. All these things are at risk in this Republican budget today. First of all, because of the reimbursement rate, the fact of the matter is that seniors will be pushed into HMO's or managed care. They will not have their choice of doctors and hospitals. Secondly, the protections against balanced billing are eliminated. The doctors, if you stay in the traditional Medicare program, can charge anything beyond the 15 percent that is provided under current law. So more money out of pocket means you do not have the health care if you cannot afford it. Lastly, with the MSA's, with the medical savings accounts, basically seniors are going to be encouraged to go into this two-tiered system where they have only catastrophic coverage, and they have to pay out of pocket for anything short of a catastrophic health care. So why should not senior citizens be scared? All the basic tenets, if you will, of the Medicare program are at risk under the Republican budget. They do not know for sure if they can have their doctor anymore. They could very easily have to pay a lot more out of their pocket for going to a doctor or other Medicare or other health care expenses, and they do not even know if they choose an MSA that they will be able to have a lot of the services that Medicare now provides. I would be scared. They should be scared because of what the Republicans are doing here today.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Klink for organizing a special order to commemorate the 55th anniversary of the Battle of Crete. Throughout history, the Greek people have been champions of freedom and self determination and their actions in the Battle of Crete were instrumental in defeating fascism in the 20th century. In October 1940, Mussolini's Italy invaded Greece, entering that country by coming through Albania. Responding to this crisis, the British rushed to Greece's aid and quickly sent Army and Royal Air Force units to Crete. With Italian troops bogged down in Greece and delaying his brutal campaign of world domination, Hitler sent German troops into Greece and directed that the Nazi war machine take control of Crete. In May 1941 the Nazis began executing Hitler's directive and launched an airborne invasion on a scale unprecedented in history. With lightning speed, the Germans dropped some 20,000 troops on the island by air; in addition, the Germans and Italians launched a land invasion, sending troops by sea from the Greek mainland, which had fallen to the Nazis a few weeks earlier. The ensuing battle put up by the people of Crete and other Allied forces against the superior Nazi war machine was one of the most significant of World War II. And though the Germans won the battle and took the island, they did so at the highest possible cost--they would eventually lose the war. Karl Student, the Nazi general in charge of the invasion, called the battle ``the fiercest struggle any German formation had ever had to face * * *'' The German High Command would never again attempt an operation of that size. The unanticipated heroism and ferocity with which the people of Crete fought delayed Hitler's planned invasion of Russia by 3 months. There were heavy losses on both sides. Strengthened by the knowledge that they were defending a concept--democracy--that had originated from their homeland, Cretan civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, joined the battle against the Nazis, wielding pitchforks and fashioning homemade weapons. By the battle's end, the Cretans and the Royal Air Force had inflicted so much damage on Hitler's elite 7th Air Division that it was rendered useless to the Nazi effort to conquer the Middle East. The battle, moreover, continued long after the 11 days it took Hitler to finally take the Greek island. The Cretans organized a resistance movement, which for the remaining 4 years of the war zealously fought the occupying Nazi force. They suffered horrendously for their resistance; the Germans executed thousands of civilians and randomly decimated entire towns, villages, and communities. They did not, however, suffer in vain. The resistance the people of Crete mounted against the invasion forced the Germans to attempt to invade Russia during the oppressive Russian winter--a task that proved to be too much for the Nazis. Their failure in Russia has since come to be recognized as the beginning of the end of Hitler's Third Reich. We here in Congress should do our best to ensure our citizens never forget the role the citizens of Crete played in defeating fascism. Indeed, we honor ourselves by honoring them--many of those who participated in the Cretan resistance movement emigrated to the United States and became American citizens. I am proud to have been able to participate in the remembrance of a historical event as important as the Battle of Crete. As the sacrifices the Cretans made 55 years ago demonstrate, we are indebted to Greece not only for giving the world the system upon which our country was founded, but for shedding the blood of their sons and daughters to protect that system as well. I strongly encourage all Americans to join me in honoring Greek-Americans of Cretan decent, and our friends in Greece and Crete, for their contribution to one of the most important battles of the 20th century.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I will be glad to talk about taxes.

Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman. First of all, I would point out that the level of cuts that the Republicans are talking about in this budget are not necessary for Medicare solvency. Basically what the Republicans are proposing are cuts that are $44 billion more for Medicare than what President Clinton has proposed in his budget. Let us keep in mind that the President proposed a budget earlier this year, and now the Republican budget that is coming up this Thursday for a vote is basically a counterproposal to that. The President acknowledges, as every Democratic Congress has in the past, that it is necessary to deal with the Medicare program and make sure that the trust continues to be solvent. That is why he has proposed a certain level of cuts in Medicare. But those are strictly to keep the trust fund solvent. Mr. Speaker, the level of cuts that the Republicans are proposing, which is significantly more than the President, these are the things that I have a problem with, and I believe that those are being used primarily to pay for tax breaks. More important than that, and I stressed earlier this evening, is that the very nature of the Medicare program changes with this Republican proposal. Basically what you are doing is cutting down and eliminating choices. You are pushing a lot more seniors, in fact I think eventually all seniors, into managed care or HMO's where oftentimes they are not going to have a choice of doctors or even hospitals. You are allowing for a different reimbursement system, basically providing a higher level of reimbursement for HMO's or managed care than the traditional fee-for- service system where you can choose your own doctor, and then you allow balanced billing. In other words, doctors can charge more for people who stay in the traditional Medicare so there will be a larger out-of- pocket expense for those who continue to stay in the traditional fee- for-service program where they have their choice of doctors. In addition to that, you have introduced this notion of medical savings accounts, which basically establishes a catastrophic health insurance policy which only the healthiest and the wealthiest senior citizens are going to be able to afford. So three major points in the existing Medicare Program have existed essentially for the last 30 years. One is unlimited choice of doctors and hospitals. Second is a limit, I think it is 15 percent, on the amount that can be charged as a co-payment by the physician beyond Medicare, plus the guarantee that if you are in Medicare, you are going to have a certain level of health services that are provided for. All three of those things are negatively impacted by the Republican proposal. What I am saying is that those are not necessary in order to guarantee the solvency of the program, if you simply implement the level of cuts that the President has proposed, and then you will keep the Medicare Program solvent. Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a choice Thursday. It is going to be the Republican budget. There is going to be the President's budget, and there may be a lot of other alternatives. What I am saying is the President's budget is far superior and solves the problem of solvency. So, the Republicans in raising this issue of solvency are using it as an excuse to cover all the other changes that they are suggesting to make in the Medicare Program.

Mr. PALLONE. Let me say this: I think there are times when having a debate like this back and forth is valuable, and there are other times when it is available to just have one side represented for 1 hour and the other side for another hour. Why do we not see how it goes.

Mr. PALLONE. If the gentleman will yield further, let me say this. I am not in charge of the rules process but I believe that there will be an opportunity on Thursday to vote on the President's budget as an alternative and, yes, I will vote for that assuming that that is in order and that we have that opportunity. I am also concerned about the level of cuts in the President's budget but obviously I think it is far preferable to what the Republican leadership has proposed and I will support it. The concern I have is that the level of cuts, and obviously even more aggravated in terms of what the Republican leadership has proposed, is going to have a very negative impact on hospitals. In other words, if you look at the level of cuts in the Republican budget, most of the money that is proposed to be cut comes out of Part A which is of course primarily paying or reimbursement for hospital care. We know, because that same level is basically what was proposed in 1995, that many hospitals will not be able to absorb that level of cut primarily because they are 50, 60 in some cases better than 60 percent dependent on Medicare. So I do think that there is a danger and that we are kidding ourselves here if we think that we can continue to make these level of cuts that you propose. I know it is a little better than 1995 overall but it is not really better in terms of Part A and what that means for the Nation's hospitals. I would venture to say that the President's proposal is significantly less in terms of the level of cuts to hospitals and that is far preferable because it will mean that many of these hospitals, and I think in particular of my home State, will be able to survive with that level of cuts, whereas they may not be able to, or most likely will not be able to under what the Republican leadership has proposed. But even beyond that again it is the changes in the Medicare Program that you are proposing that bother me the most. I think it is going to significantly change the nature of the Medicare Program and not provide the guarantee that seniors have had for the last 30 years in terms of the unlimited choice of doctors and being protected against additional costs that would be charged by physicians.

Mr. PALLONE. I would like the gentleman to yield me some time if I could talk about this. If not, there is no point, if I am not going to be given a couple of minutes or so to respond.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, you are probably asking the wrong person, because I did not vote for the original gas tax increase, and I would have no problem and would certainly vote for the repeal. I only mentioned the tax breaks because of my concern over the fact that the Medicare cuts as well as the Medicaid cuts I believe will be used to finance them. I know that one of the things that the gentleman said before, which I am very concerned about, he said we were going to have a guarantee that you could stay in the traditional fee-for-service plan and that whatever cuts were implemented by the Republican leadership would stay in the Medicare Program. I would say that those promises are not real. First of all, because in 1995, when we discussed the issue, we tried to put an amendment in the budget that would say that all the money that was saved in Medicare and Medicaid would only be used for those programs. That amendment was actually defeated on the floor of this House. I voted for it. So I think it is a false promise. Second, when you talk about the guarantee that you will be able to stay in the fee-for-service or traditional Medicare Program, again, the guarantee does not mean anything if you build into your proposed changes in Medicare a different reimbursement rate for managed care and HMO's versus the traditional fee-for-service program where you can choose your own doctor. That is the problem here. You are building in incentives that basically make people or force people to go into HMO's, because the reimbursement rate because of the caps will be higher for HMO's and managed care and lower for the traditional fee-for-service system. Under the traditional fee-for-service system you are going to allow balanced billing. You are saying the doctors can charge more than the 15 percent now allowed under current law. Basically what is going to happen here, even though there may be something written in the legislation that says you can stay in the traditional Medicare system, the reimbursement rate, and money drives everything, is going to push people into managed care and into HMO's. I am not saying managed care and HMO's are always bad. There are some that are very good. The bottom line is a lot of seniors are used to having their own choice of doctors, and depending on the area, they may not be able to get into an HMO or managed care system where their doctor is covered by that system. So this notion of choice, that somehow the Republican leadership plan is going to guarantee choice or provide lots of other choices, I think is a false promise, and particularly when you talk about the MSA's. I believe you brought up the issue of the medical savings accounts. That is nothing more than catastrophic health care coverage. What I think is going to happen is once again the healthy and wealthy people will choose that because they can afford to put the money aside and not worry about whether they are going to have to pay out of pocket for the health care and just have this catastrophic coverage. The people remaining in the Medicare system are going to be the sicker and probably the poorer people. That is going to drive up the cost for the Government for those that remain in the system. I am fearful what you are doing here is creating a sort of two- tiered system, pushing certain seniors into managed care, having a lot of them opt out for this catastrophic coverage that they may not necessarily know what they are getting into. When you say you are still going to be able to have your traditional Medicare, the bottom line is you really are not, because you are creating incentives that will make it more difficult for that to happen. I also wanted to address the issue of fraud. This was a big issue for the Democrats in the last Congress. Again, I was in the Committee on Commerce, I am a member of the Committee on Commerce, and we specifically tried to change the language that was in the Republican bill that made it easier for those who were committing fraud or were basically abusing the Medicare system to get away with it. The standard of proof that was put into place in that budget last year, and I suspect it is the same this year unless you show me differently, was actually watered down, so it would be more difficult to prosecute those who were violating Medicare and abusing the system. I am 100 percent for trying to crack down on fraud and abuse. I think you can save a significant amount of money if you do that. Do not weaken the standard of proof and make it more difficult for the Justice Department and others to go after those committing the fraud and abuse. Otherwise you will have a worse system in terms of prosecuting those people. Lastly, I do not want to get into semantics. I have said over and over, I think the gentleman from Georgia was here when I said it in 1995, we are talking about a cut in the growth of the program. I keep using the term ``cut.'' Maybe you do not like the term ``cut'' in growth, but I will say one thing, I use it for both the President and for the Republican proposal. The bottom line is that if you do not have enough money in Medicare to continue to service to the growing number of people who are going to be in the system, because we know there are going to be more seniors, the baby-boomer generation is getting older and there are going to be more and more seniors in the system, if you do not have enough money to cover that growth, in reality what you are doing is cutting the amount of money to be available to these people and the need is going to be there and there is not going to be the money to take care of the growing number of seniors. I do not see this as a political issue. I know that has been raised many times on the floor. I am someone who has cared about seniors for a long time. I have worked for protective services for the elderly in various capacities. There is a lot of politics in this House of Representatives. The bottom line is we have to look at the substance of what is going on here. We are talking about the substantive changes of what would happen, what changes would exist in the Medicare Program, if this Republican proposal goes through. That is why I think we need to continue to fight against it. Even if it passes on Thursday, which I suspect it will, I will be continuing to speak out against it as I have tonight. I appreciate the time that you gentlemen have given me this evening.

Mr. PALLONE. I certainly would like to debate these issues, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. I do not think the issue really is whether we are talking about a cut in the increase or an overall cut after inflation. To me the problem here is----

Mr. PALLONE. If the gentleman will yield further, I have said over and over again that the President's budget which came out earlier this year guarantees the life of the Medicare trust fund in my opinion for as long as the Republican proposal. What I am saying is the additional Republican cuts, this additional $44 billion more in Medicare cuts, is not necessary for Medicare solvency. There is over $120 billion remaining in the trust fund. Although it did not perform as well as projected in 1995, the difference between the actual and projected performance was within the typical margin of error. The fund comes out with a report every year. In 1993 the President made certain corrections and signed into law a bill extending the life of the trust fund for 3 years. Now, he had an additional proposal to extend the life of the fund. We are not talking about his agreement about the fact that Medicare has a problem that needs to be tinkered with. I am saying these Republican proposals go much further than that and are not necessary and are proposals to change radically the nature of the Medicare Program. If we adopted the President's position and budget, we would solve the solvency problem, just like the Republican budget does as well. I wanted to say one more thing in closing. I know the gentleman mentioned there are some seniors in HMO's. But they are still a relatively small percentage. My point only is we should not be pushing seniors into HMO's establishing a different reimbursement rate and providing a financial incentive to go into HMO's. In my home State of New Jersey, there happen to be very few seniors in HMO's. Some of them are good. I think there are a lot of problems with HMO's in terms of disclosure, advertising, in terms of seniors and people in general not knowing what they are getting into. I would say one thing. You are right when you talk about the budget we are going to be voting on this Thursday basically being a skeleton. I know once that is adopted, and I am not going to support the Republican budget, that over the next few months we are going to be hammering out the details as to how this is going to be implemented until we get to reconciliation in the fall. The point I am making tonight is let us not in trying to hammer out that budget end the details, because the devil is in the details. Do not do the types of things that the Republicans proposed last year in terms of changing the Medicare Program, because I think that, going beyond the financial aspects and the level of cuts, that would be the most damaging thing that could be done to Medicare as we know it. But, again, I want to thank the gentlemen for giving me some of their time tonight to participate in this debate.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. If I could, Mr. Speaker, I will sum up a statement on the arms transfer to Pakistan and the United States response to Chinese nuclear transports. This is with regard to events taking place over the weekend. I wanted to express my strong concern about these two recent developments that will affect the proliferation of nuclear and conventional arms in the South Asia region. First, after months of negotiations, it was announced last Friday that the United States will not punish the People's Republic of China for its sale to Pakistan of 5,000 ring magnets, devices used for the production of weapons-grade enriched uranium, in direct violation of provisions of the nonproliferation Act. The official rationale for taking no action against the Chinese was that Beijing had committed itself not to make any such transfers in the future and that the Chinese would help us to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and consult with us on export control policies. Secretary of State Christopher indicated that the United States had no hard evidence to counter China's denials of any knowledge of the transfers to Pakistan, even though there is strong evidence that the particular Chinese companies that sold the ring magnets have in fact been identified. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong concern about two recent developments that will affect the proliferation of nuclear and conventional arms in the South Asia region. First, after months of negotiations, it was announced last Friday that the United States will not punish the People's Republic of China for its sale to Pakistan of 5,000 ring magnets, devices used for the production of weapons-grade enriched uranium--in direct violation of provisions of the Non-Proliferation Act. The official rationale for taking no action against the Chinese was that Beijing had committed itself not to make any such transfers in the future, and that the Chinese would help us to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and consult with us on export control policies. Secretary of State Christopher indicated that the United States had no hard evidence to counter China's denials of any knowledge of the transfers to Pakistan--even though there is strong evidence that the particular Chinese companies that sold the ring magnets have, in fact, been identified. Interestingly, in last Saturday's New York Times, accompanying the article about the decision not to sanction China for the nuclear equipment transfers, was an article entitled ``Tread Carefully With China, Business Leaders Urge U.S.'' Leaders of the Business Council, meeting with government officials in Williamsburg, VA, urged that differences with China over not only nuclear proliferation, but also a wide range of human rights concerns and piracy of American music, movies, and software, should not get in the way of our economic relationship with China. Now, in today's Washington Post we read that there may have been even less to the Chinese pledge of cooperation than initially met the eye. In the official Chinese statement, there was no specific reference to future sales of ring magnets, nor was there any specific pledge that sales of similar, nuclear-related gear to would-be nuclear proliferators would not recur. In a clever bit of diplomatic slight of hand, our diplomats essentially said that they thought the Chinese meant to make these promises, and as long as the Chinese didn't publicly contradict our statement, it would look like we had a deal. I fear that we got nothing more than another empty promise from the Chinese leadership. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that this administration has sought to expand American trade and investment in the emerging markets of the world, and there is much that is positive about this strategy. But, when it comes to China, I believe we had to draw a line--particularly with regard to this reckless Chinese policy of assisting the nuclear weapons development program of Pakistan, a country that has repeatedly shown itself to be unstable, a country that has trained and financed terrorist movements, a country that has openly shown itself to be hostile to United States and Western interests. Sadly, it appears that the Clinton administration is pursuing the same policy as the Bush administration pursued with regard to China, arguing that increased business links would help modify Chinese behavior. This policy has essentially forced us to sweep one outrage after another under the rug, with the nuclear proliferation issue being only the latest in a series of outrages. Mr. Speaker, in another issue that could have lasting effects on security in the strategically important South Asia region, I regret to point out that the administration is also going forward with the shipment of $368 million worth of sophisticated conventional arms to Pakistan. Plans call for shipping the weapons to Pakistan after the completion of the elections in India--the logic being, apparently, to avoid making the arms transfer an issue in the elections, despite the fact that it has been widely known for weeks that the shipment would happen. This ill-advised proposal that will only contribute to instability and weapons proliferation in the region. A provision in the fiscal year 1996 foreign operations appropriations authorizes the transfer of $368 million in sophisticated conventional weaponry, including three Navy P-3C antisubmarine aircraft, 28 Harpoon missiles, 360 AIM-9L missiles, and other Army and Air Force equipment. This provision, known as the Brown amendment, after its Senate sponsor, passed the Senate last year. Although the provision was never debated in the House, it carried in conference. I drafted a letter to the conferees, which was signed by 40 other Members from both sides of the aisle urging that this provision not be included in the bill. But, owing in large part to the support of the administration and the influence of the pro-Pakistan lobby, the provision was included in the bill and became law. As far back as last summer, many of us in Congress--Democrats and Republicans, Members of both bodies--argued that providing these weapons to Pakistan was a bad idea, given Pakistani behavior. About a year ago, it was reported that Pakistan received Chinese M-11 missiles, in direct violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime. These missiles, in direct violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime. These missiles are capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and can strike cities within a 275-mile radius. It was also reported last year that Pakistan developed its nuclear weapons from a blueprint provided by the PRC, and Pakistan then gave this blueprint to Iran. Pakistan remains an unstable nation, where the military does not seem to be under strong civilian control, a country which supports the embargo of Israel and does not recognize the State of Israel. Yet here we are, Mr. Speaker, forgiving the outrageous behavior of both Pakistan and China. It is important to recognize that Pakistan has not agreed to do anything in exchange for the release of the arms--the shipment of which was seized pursuant to the Pressler amendment. Named for its Senate sponsor, the Pressler amendment, mandates an annual Presidential certification that Pakistan does not possess a nuclear explosive device. If such a certification cannot be made, under the law, all United States military assistance to Pakistan must be ended--including weapons already paid for but not delivered. In 1993, President Clinton did offer to return all or some of the weapons in the pipeline if Pakistan would agree to cap its nuclear program. Pakistan rejected this offer. In fact, by receiving the ring magnets from China, Pakistan was continuing to act--in defiance of the United States--to further its nuclear ambitions. Finally, the administration came up with a compromise: while 28 F-16 fighter jets would not be delivered to Pakistan--they already have 40 F-16's--the $368 million worth of military equipment would be delivered with no strings attached. Thus, Mr. Speaker, Pakistan gets its weapons--our weapons--and we receive nothing in return. Mr. Speaker, the delivery of these weapons to Pakistan will be seen by India as a slap in the face. India, the world's second most populous country, is in the process of completing the largest exercise in democracy in world history. India's elections, despite a few isolated incidents of violence, were conducted very smoothly. While the implications of the election results are somewhat unclear, what is clear is that this election represents the free expression of hundreds of millions of citizens in a vast, diverse, and free nation. Contrast these democratic elections with the dictatorship in China. Contrast the ability of hundreds of millions of people to express their views without fear of reprisals with the ongoing atmosphere of political violence that continues to tear Pakistan apart. In addition to sharing our democratic values, India has also been pursuing a historic free-market economic reform. In fact, the United States has in the past few years become India's largest trading partner. Mr. Speaker, I urge the administration to end this tilt toward Pakistan and China. We must work to promote not only free markets, which are an extremely important consideration, but also democracy. Based on these criteria, we should be working for improved relations with India.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my support for H.R. 2967. The legislation was considered in the Committee on Commerce and voted out with full support from both sides of the aisle. I did have some concerns about provisions affecting deed records so that potential homeowners would know whether or not a property had been polluted and, if so, whether the problem had been remediated. Fortunately, we were able to work this out to everyone's satisfaction in the committee. I want to thank Chairman Schaefer for his assistance in perfecting this legislation. I am very happy to support it today.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 31, 1996, at the Sheraton Hotel in Eatontown, NJ, the National Coalition of Title I/Chapter 1 Parents--Region II will hold its 22d Annual In-Service Parent Training Conference. It is with great honor that I pay tribute to the National Coalition of Title I/Chapter 1 Parents and proclaim this day as ``Title I Day''. Title I is the largest federally funded elementary and secondary education program. Evolving from President Lyndon Johnson's Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I has provided academic assistance to economically and educationally disadvantaged children. In a time when spending cuts for educational programs are threatening the futures of our children, I have stood up to defend and maintain the educational system in this country. It is a welcome relief to see the fine work that this organization is responsible for and to know that parents everywhere are receiving the necessary assistance for improving the quality of their children's education. Mr. Speaker, this 22d annual conference is an important event and one that should remind us all of the importance of a sound educational system and the future of our children that we hold in our hands.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Medicare provides quality health care benefits for over 32 million senior citizens, but the Republican leadership wants to transform Medicare into a program of substandard care. The Republican leadership says that Medicare is in crisis--that it is now running at a deficit. I would argue that minor adjustments, not a major overhaul, could ensure Medicare's solvency. When Democrats were in the majority, we made sure that Medicare was being adequately funded. In 1982, the Medicare trustees predicted that the Medicare trust fund would run out of money by 1986. Obviously that did not happen. Democrats protected Medicare and maintained a level of quality care for senior citizens into the 1990's. Now the Republicans are scaring seniors by saying that Medicare is again going to go bankrupt in the early part of the next decade and using the words like ``reform'' to disguise their efforts to destroy the Medicare Program. Senior citizens are not in danger of not receiving health care, but Speaker Gingrich still claims that a major overhaul is necessary. His real motives lie in an earlier speech he gave during last year's Medicare debate, where the Speaker said he wanted to see Medicare wither on a vine. Only minor adjustments need to be made to ensure Medicare solvency. When Democrats were in the majority, Medicare never ran deficits. It is a sign of the misguided Republican leadership that Medicare has run its first ever deficit in its 31 years as a health care program for senior citizens. Enough is enough with Speaker Gingrich and his band trying to dismantle Medicare yet one more time. The new Republican budget calls for over $168 billion cuts, reductions, or whatever you want to call them, in the Medicare Program. Basically, the Republican leadership is proposing to take money out of the Medicare Program for their $176 billion tax break for wealthy individuals. Although the amount of money being taken from Medicare is significant, the devil is really in the details, because the Republican leadership is proposing a major overhaul of Medicare to make it less efficient and more costly for seniors. Their proposed calls for coopting senior citizens into managed care. I do not have a problem with managed care per se, but I do not believe in Speaker Gingrich's attempts to force seniors into managed care and call it ``Medicare Choices.'' The only choice that the Republican leadership is giving to seniors under this radical Medicare plan is the choice to receive substandard health care. Where Medicare historically offered patients their own choice of doctor, protected against high out-of-pocket costs, and offered a guaranteed level of coverage, the Republican leadership's proposal would take it all away. In addition, the Republicans are again proposed to incorporate medical savings accounts--or healthy wealthy tax breaks--into the Medicare overhaul. Last year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stated that these tax breaks would actually cost Medicare several billion dollars. This proposal is largely untested and very controversial. Unfortunately, this is all a repeat of the failed Republican attempts to overhaul Medicare last year. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this impractical budget proposal on Thursday and urge senior citizens to call on Congress to protect Medicare from further raids by Speaker Gingrich.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. If I could reclaim my time, I just want to follow up on what you said about Medicaid, particularly this issue of the rate of growth and not taking into consideration what is actually happening out there in the real world. What they are proposing for Medicaid, which, as you mentioned, the majority of the people think Medicaid is just for poor people, the reality is the majority of Medicaid funds are used for senior citizens in nursing homes. One of the things that I mentioned in the past, going back to last year, was that we are going to have a crisis. There was an article in the New York Times back in November that says, ``Critics say Republican budget will create shortage of nursing home beds for elderly. The reason for that is exactly what you said, which is that the number of people who are over 85, the over 85 population is growing dramatically and will be over the next 10 or 20 years.'' So the numbers that the Republicans are using for Medicaid, and they are going to block grant them to the States, do not take into account how many more seniors are going to be out there that are going to need nursing home care. It completely ignores it. So we know there is going to be a shortage of beds in nursing homes. The same thing with regard to children. Medicaid historically over the last 5 or 10 years has been able to absorb the number of children who are no longer covered by private health insurance. In other words, ever since the late 1980's, with all the downsizing and we had large unemployment then and we continue to have an unemployment problem, a lot of parents, when they lost their health insurance, their children were not covered. Because the Congress, under the Democratic leadership, had actually expanded the opportunities where Federal money went to the States, particularly to cover children, and States were encouraged to match those funds on a one-to-one basis, most of the children who were taken off health insurance, because their parents lost it when they lost their jobs or changed jobs, were actually covered by Medicaid. Because as those numbers of children without health insurance grew, Medicaid took up the slack and expanded. This is a survey that was done by the Journal of the American Medical Association, published again in November's Washington Post, at a time when we were having the big budget battle here. They point out again that that is going to be completely reversed. If you block grant this money to the States and give them leeway and you cut the rate of growth, so to speak, as the Republicans put it, a lots of States will just cut back on the number of children that are covered. And we will see a lot of children that are simply not covered by Medicaid or by any kind of health insurance whatsoever. I know that we want to yield the rest of our time to one of our other colleagues. I appreciate the fact that you came, that Ms. DeLauro is on the floor here joining me on this. I know that she and I share the concern about what would happen with Medicare and Medicaid if this Republican budget goes through. Even though it is coming up Thursday and is going to be voted on, we will continue to fight this battle to the end.