Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, we are getting perilously close to default. When I listen to some of the comments that are being made by Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership about the debt ceiling and when we are going to bring up a clean debt ceiling, or whether we even will, I get very concerned. Yesterday I listened to the Speaker, and he said that the debt ceiling or the possibility of bringing up extension of the debt ceiling was going to be linked in some way to a budget agreement, or further action on other legislation before this House. I think that is the wrong way to go. President Clinton said very emphatically in his State of the Union Address that we should have a clean debt ceiling and we should not wait around much longer to do it. Already it is a possibility that after today we will not be in session either next week or for a few weeks thereafter, and so far I have heard no statement by the Republican leadership that they are going to bring up a clean debt ceiling bill to extend the debt and to allow us to prevent default. When is this going to come up? How much longer are we going to have to wait around here for the Republican leadership to play around with this issue? Already it is having a negative impact on our economy and I think it is about time that we faced up to our responsibility and brought up a clean debt ceiling bill so this Government does not go into default.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the President challenged the Congress last night not to turn the clock back on environmental protection. Unfortunately, that is what has been happening in this House. Whether it is Superfund or enforcement within the EPA, in each case over the last year we have seen significant threats and efforts to turn back the clock on environmental protection. Right now the Superfund Program is in shambles. Enforcement within the Environmental Protection Agency has been suggested, and pursuant to the CR that we passed, cut back by 25 percent. Lobbyists and special interests, as the President has said, the polluters, are now in the room writing the environmental bills and trying to weaken environmental laws. We need to heed the President's call. In this year in Congress we have to make sure there is adequate funding for Superfund and for environmental protection. This was always a bipartisan issue. As the President mentioned, much of the environmental laws were passed when President Nixon was President and the Democrats controlled Congress. The President also looked at the future and he said we can expand the economy; we can create jobs at the same time we protect the environment. He had a vision for the future in this country which is proenvironment, and this Congress should heed his call.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to pay tribute to a superb diplomat who has done a great deal to improve relations between the world's two largest democracies, the United States and India. Ambassador Siddhartha Shankar Ray, India's envoy to the United States since 1992, will be leaving Washington on February 20 and returning to domestic politics in his country. While many of our colleagues are sad to see Ambassador Ray finish his tour in Washington, we all gratefully acknowledge his many contributions to the improved climate in Indo-U.S. relations. Ambassador Ray's appointment to Washington with the status of a Federal Cabinet Minister is indicative of the great confidence his Government has in his abilities. That confidence was well-placed. During Ambassador Ray's years in Washington, he was tireless in his promotion of India, not only as the world's largest secular democratic nation, but as a major emerging market for United States consumer products and business investment. The last 4 years have been trying times in South Asia. Sharing a long border with China and facing an insurgency in Kashmir supported by outside forces, India has had its share of challenges. Throughout these years, my colleagues and I could always rely on Ambassador Ray to articulate India's concerns with eloquence and precision. But, Mr. Speaker, these past 4 years have also been extremely exiciting times. India, under the leadership of Prime Minister P.V. Narosimha Rao, has embarked upon a historic economic reform policy that has opened up unprecedented opportunities for United States companies, large and small, as well as for Indian entrepreneurs. At the same time, the end of the cold war has forced all nations to rethink their security arrangements. Both of these historic developments are leading the United States and India to seek greater cooperation and partnership on many fronts. Many Members of this body were greatly impressed by the Prime Minister's address to this Chamber in 1994 in which he addressed many of these same points. The appointment of a statesman with the stature and experience of S.S. Ray--with his years of service as an attorney, Member of Parliament, Cabinet Minister, and top posts at the state level-shows the degree of importance that the Government of India attaches to its relations with the United States. Mr. Speaker, we will also miss the Ambassador's extraordinary wife, Mrs. Maya Ray. Prior to their service in Washington, both Mr. and Mrs. Ray enjoyed distinguished legal careers as barristers, as well as Members of Parliament. Mrs. Ray's contributions to her husband's work in Washington will indeed be remembered with fondness and appreciation. In my capacity as cochairman of the bipartisan Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, I look forward to working with Ambassador Ray's successor during this period of strengthened partnership between our two great nations, building on Ambassador Ray's excellent work. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my good wishes and those of my colleagues to Siddhartha and Maya Ray as they enter the next phase of their careers back home in India. Their many friends in the Congress and throughout our Nation hope they will return to visit frequently.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to follow up in part of my 5 minutes and also pay tribute to Mike Synar as my colleague from West Virginia just did. Mike Synar was the first person, actually, from Washington, or a Congressman, if you will, who came down when I first ran for election in 1988. He was also a champion of the environment, and I was largely elected to Congress back in 1988 because during that summer in New Jersey we had our beaches closed and huge washups of debris that came ashore and caused us to lose billions of dollars in our tourism industry. Mike came down as a leading environmentalist in Congress and did a press conference with me and met with some of the editorial boards. It was for the first time I saw him on the train coming from New York to New Jersey. I never met anybody who was so dynamic and cared so much about the environment and about the principles of the Democratic Party and the Nation as a whole. I watched him here. He was sort of a mentor in a way because he was on the Committee on Commerce, then it was called the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is the committee that I am now on, that deals so much with environmental issues. He encouraged me to become a member of the committee and helped me to get on the committee. I often looked to him for advice. He was almost exactly the same age that I am, and when I heard about his illness and when I heard that he had actually passed away, I was very saddened because there really were very few people in the House of Representatives who had the dynamism, who cared so much about his country, who cared so much about the principles that he espoused and was able to translate that into action. He will be sorely missed. budget cuts impact on education Mr. Speaker, I came here today because I was concerned about the budget and where we are going in terms of education programs in this country. Last night during the State of the Union address, President Clinton stressed education. He stressed the need for a properly educated America because of the challenges that we face in the future, particularly with regard to job opportunities, competing in the global marketplace. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a shame, and he certainly challenged the Congress to do something about it, but it is a shame that in the last year in this House of Representatives the Republican majority has really cut funding for education programs, whether it is on the secondary school level or the higher education level. I think over the next few months, unless something dramatically changes and the Republican leadership decides that they are going to prioritize education as they promised, we are going to see dramatic change in the ability of our schools and our colleges to provide affordable educational opportunities for the average American. The budget, as many of us know, manifests itself in many ways. There has not been appropriation for the Education Department. The budget that the Republicans passed actually cuts back significantly on a number of education programs. The CR, the continuing resolution that we are operating under now that was proposed by the Republican majority, cuts funding or lets the Department operate its various education programs at significantly lower levels than what is necessary to keep going with the programs that we have. Already, we are beginning to hear that some of the Republican suggestions for spending or appropriation levels for next year will also severely impact our educational programs. One of the things I am most concerned about is the GOP proposal to eliminate $1.9 million in direct student loans. They do not favor the direct student loan program. In the last couple of years, the Democrats put forward this new program where the loans would be coming directly from the colleges and universities rather than banks and financial institutions. In my district, at Rutgers University, Rutgers has been able to take advantage of this program and provide a lot more loans to a lot more students than would be available under the existing institutional student loan program. Officials at Rutgers, and a lot of other colleges in the State, have told me that if this program is abolished or limited, as the Republicans propose, to certain schools and eventually phased out, that there will be a lot less student loans available. We have also seen programs with the Pell Grants because of the shutdown and the uncertainty. The Education Department now really does not know what kind of schedule or information it can provide to the colleges and universities about student loan availability for next year or Pell Grants and other higher education grant availability for next year. I think that what the Republican majority is forgetting is that when we talk about higher education loans or grant programs, students need to know in advance what kind of funding levels are available and what kind of student loans are available. This process of shutting down the Government and not having an appropriations bill, not being able to plan for next September or even next semester is having a terrible impact on our educational programs. Mr. Speaker, we need to wise up and prioritize education. That is what President Clinton said last night, and I hope the Republican leadership gets the message.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, January 27, 1996, the Quinn Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Atlantic Highlands, NJ, will hold its 17th annual women's day luncheon. This year's guest speaker is the Reverend Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson, the pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Mt. Vernon, NY, and a religious leader of national and international renown. Dr. Richardson, a man with a vision of empowerment for African- American people, will no doubt provide an inspiring message. As pastor of Grace Baptist Church, a post he assumed in 1975, and through numerous other clerical, civic and community organizations, Dr. Richardson has sought to provide spiritual sustenance reaching far beyond the walls of the church. A native of Philadelphia, Dr. Richardson was ordained at the age of 19, becoming pastor of the historic Rising Mount Zion Baptist Church in Richmond, VA. In addition to leading the congregation of more than 500 parishioners, Dr. Richardson also established outreach services to the surrounding economically and socially depressed community. In his current pastorate, Dr. Richardson is responsible for pastoral and administrative duties of more than 3,000 parishioners, with a multiministerial staff. Under his leadership, a $4.2 million restoration and expansion of the church facilities has taken place, membership of the church has more than tripled and community outreach programs have increased. Since 1982, Dr. Richardson has served as the general secretary of the National Baptist Convention USA. The National Convention consists of more than 30,000 churches and 8 million Baptist members across the country. He is a member of the General Council of the Baptist World Alliance and the governing board of the National Council of Churches, representing more than 400 million Christians from 150 countries. Dr. Richardson has traveled and preached on six continents, and has served as a member of the 1980 Preaching Team of the Foreign Mission Board of countries on the continent of Africa. In 1990, Ebony magazine listed him on its Honor Roll of Great Preachers. Dr. Richardson is featured each Sunday at 7 a.m. on the Grace Radio Ministry, heard throughout New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. He serves as adjunct faculty member to the Certification Program in Christian Ministry at the New York Theological Seminary. He is the author of ``The Power of The Pew,'' and edited and wrote the introduction to ``Journey Through a Jungle'' by the late Dr. Sandy F. Ray. He was a contributing author to ``The State of Black America'' on church and economic empowerment. A graduate of Virginia Union University and Yale University School of Divinity, Dr. Richardson has received honorary degrees from seven colleges and universities throughout the United States. He serves on numerous boards and commissions. Dr. Richardson is married to the former Inez Nunally, and they have two children. Mr. Speaker, Quinn Chapel started out as Paul Quinn A.M.E. Zion Church at Riceville in Navesink, NJ. In the winter of 1850, Julia Stillwell and her children had experienced religion at the white M.E. Church in Riceville but wanted to belong to an African-American church. The early services were held at the home of Julia Stillwell. The Reverend Moses M. Hall was sent as the pastor. In the spring of 1851, fundraising began to purchase land on which to build a church edifice, and the cornerstone for the Paul Quinn Chapel of Riceville was laid on November 26, 1852. Eli Hall was the first pastor. The cornerstone for the present chapel was laid in the spring of 1894. In later years, a parsonage and educational wing were built. Quinn Chapel's current pastor, the Reverend Alyson Browne Johnson comes from a long line of preachers--both male and female--in her family. The family's lineage goes back to Rev. Browne Johnson's great- great-grandmother, Evangelist Mattie Stewart. A graduate of Bloomfield College and Drew University Theological School, she was ordained a deacon in 1975 and an elder in 1977 in the New York Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Rev. Browne Johnson has served in many community and religious capacities and has received numerous awards. She serves as general secretary of African Methodist Episcopal Women in Ministry and is editor of its newsletter, ``Bricks Without Straw.'' She is a charter member of the South African Leadership Development Program. Her ministerial career has been distinguished by numerous firsts, including the first woman to pastor each of the charges she has been assigned. Rev. Browne Johnson is the proud mother of two children. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a pleasure to pay tribute to Quinn Chapel AME Church, its great leader the Reverend Alyson Browne Johnson and their distinguished guest, the Reverend Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has agreed to a 7-year balanced budget using CBO numbers. The problem is that the Republicans do not want to protect the priorities that the President thinks are important, such as the environment, Medicare, Medicaid, and also education. I would like to pay particular attention to the environment. The Republicans are saying they want this huge tax cut or tax break, yet they want to cut back on environment enforcement. They do not want to properly fund the Superfund Program to clean up toxic waste sites. In my home State of New Jersey, we have 114 Superfund sites, and a lot of those sites are not being cleaned up now and will not be cleaned up if the Republicans do not agree to fully fund the Superfund Program, which they have not agreed to do so so far. The President has stood strong. He agreed on a balanced budget and he agreed on the Republican terms, but he wants to protect the environment and he wants to make sure the Superfund Program moves forward so that in States like New Jersey those toxic waste sites that pose a direct threat to the health of many Americans who live nearby, he wants to make sure that those sites are cleaned up, and I commend him for it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about continued efforts to use the Corrections Day Calendar for exceptions to the Clean Water Act, particularly with regard to the overall goal of the act of achieving fishable and swimmable waters. As we know, water bodies are in no way isolated. They are all part of the cycle. I am concerned, and I believe a lot of other people who swim, boat, and fish would be concerned, if water in water conveyances were being held up to a lesser standard than any river, lake, or stream, because one is not mutually exclusive of the other. I share the concern of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], which I believe is also shared by the administration, that this bill will have a broader impact than is necessary and that, as a result, the negative impacts of the legislation will be greater than anticipated by its sponsors. No one can know the impact that relaxing standards on all conveyances will have on water quality overall, and substandard water that may flow from a conveyance into navigable waters will have a varying degree of impact over time. However, this impact will be cumulative, and receiving water will in some ways degrade. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that maintaining certain water quality standards for conveyances will in no way interfere with the intended purposes of conveyance systems. It will, however, ensure the safety of those that fish and swim in our Nation's waters, as well as protect invaluable aquatic habitat. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I do urge opposition to the bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I was very surprised and disappointed when I saw that the Republican leadership walked away from the budget negotiations with the President about a week ago. Frankly, I thought that the President went very far, maybe even too far, just before we adjourned 2 weeks ago when he not only agreed to a balanced budget, which we all support, but agreed to a 7-year budget, put it on the table, agreed to put forward a budget that was based on CBO estimates. The President essentially did everything the Republicans asked for as part of the negotiation and, instead of reacting and saying, OK, now we have a 7-year budget and it is CBO and it uses our numbers, instead of sitting down and saying now we can work out the differences over our priorities and still protect Medicare and Medicaid and the environment and education, instead they said, ``No, that is not good enough. We are going to walk out. We don't want to have any negotiations.'' That is incredible. We have gone on now for, I guess, about 6 months, and all during that time the Republican leadership has said that they supported the priorities of Medicare and Medicaid and also to protect the environment and education, but now it is abundantly clear that is not really what they are all about. They are insisting on the level of tax cuts or tax breaks, mostly for wealthy individuals and for large corporations, that would make devastating cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. They are saying that, ``We want to use those cuts to pay for a tax cut or tax breaks primarily for the wealthy Americans.'' It really seems to me at that point there is not much more the President can do. There was an article in the Star Ledger, which is the largest circulation daily in my home State of New Jersey that I just wanted to quote from briefly today in the time that I have left because I think it says it all. It says that, ``We need an agreement on a balanced budget, but we don't want a budget agreement at all costs,'' which is essentially what the Republican leadership is asking for, and I quote from the Star Ledger. It says, ``The cost is too great if the budget agreement includes a tax cut benefiting mostly those in the upper income brackets, as this Republican one does. In fact, there is no reason for a tax cut at all. Balanced budgets and tax cuts are goals that work at cross purposes. The cost is too great if it means turning over Medicaid, medical care for the indigents, to the States. That would mean ending the right to medical care for those who can afford it least and are most vulnerable. It would be a great leap backward for this country. And the cost is too great if it means slashing Medicare to the point where the cost to the aged for their premiums becomes painful, which is what is proposed in this Republican budget. If there continues to be no national health care program, then some cost adjustments must be made in financing Medicare to prepare for the crush of retiring baby-boomers in the next century, but to include the overhaul in a political budget that is meant to work against aid for the indigent and the elderly is not the proper context. The cost is too great.'' And that is what I would say to my colleagues on the other side. We would like a balanced budget, but we cannot have it at this great cost to our priorities.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have to say this is the kookiest proposal I have ever heard. I have to oppose the rule. I was in my district last week, and I went to an EPA lab where they are in charge of Superfund cleanup and it has all been shut down. There was no one in the office. Under this proposal, all the employees would go back to the EPA office in Edison, NJ, but they would not be allowed to do any work. They would not be allowed to answer inquiries because they would not have an appropriation to deal with the Superfund. The contractors who would do the Superfund work would not be able to actually go on the job and do the cleanup. The people that have to do inspection or enforcement want an appropriation for the gas for their cars so they could go out and look at the site. It is the craziest, I call it the kookiest thing I have ever heard. I cannot believe that the Republican leadership is now asking us that this is our only alternative. I will vote for it because I want to see the workers go back. But I think that we should bring up a clean CR, a continuing resolution, and we should not be held hostage to this attitude now, which is approaching fanaticism on the Republican side.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to be amazed by what I hear from the Republican side. I think truly they have gone over to become a bunch of kooks this morning. I heard that they are finally going to bring up a continuing resolution to send the Government workers back to work and to pay them, but I understand they are not going to be able to do their work. They are not going to be spending money or appropriating money so they can actually do their job. They will be on the job. They will be paid, but they will not be able to perform their job. Then I heard another kooky thing this morning. They are suggesting that the Secretary of the Treasury be impeached because he is trying to avoid a Government default. Truly now, I realize that the Republican side, the Republican leadership has really gone over into the realm of the unbelievable. They are acting like a bunch of crazies who want to impeach the Secretary of the Treasury because he wants to avoid a default, who want to send the Government workers back to work and get paid but they are not allowed to perform their jobs.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to follow up on what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] said before. I listened to what the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman, said about how we are picking and choosing items here tonight. Then I listened to what the gentleman from California said about how we are not going to deal with regulatory issues; that perhaps they are not essential; we are only dealing with the essential issues here tonight. Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear that the list does not include any Federal Agency that deals with quality of life issues, whether it is the environment, whether it is safety, whether it is consumer protection. All those things are completely eliminated and they are not going to be funded, and the people are going to be sitting in their offices in the EPA and not doing a thing. Mr. Speaker, I know that it was said before that we are only going to deal with the issues that both sides can agree on, so I suppose that means that the Republican party, or at least the Republican leadership, does not care about the EPA; does not care about consumer protection; does not care about OSHA; does not care for a very simple reason, I believe, which is that basically the corporate interests here are going to have a field day. Mr. Speaker, the polluters are going to be out there polluting and the people in the corporations that do not want to take care of worker safety, they are not going to have to worry about it. Those out there who do not care about the consumers are not going to have to worry about it. It is special interests. Nothing is being done to go after the corporations and the special interests and the polluters. They will remain unregulated. They will be able to ply their trade and we are not going to include any money to go ahead and deal with those enforcement and those investigation issues that affect the quality of life of many Americans. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Republican leadership has finally revealed itself and what it is all about in the quality of life issues.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to follow up on the ``Alice in Wonderland'' analogy that the gentleman from Massachusetts made before, because that is what I feel like I am hearing today. I have the utmost respect for the gentlewoman from Ohio, the gentleman from New York on the Committee on Rules, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, but this suggestion that somehow this resolution here is here in order to bring up legislation rather than to just allow the Congress and the House to go home is just nonsense. The majority and the Committee on Rules have the prerogative at any point to bring up legislation next week, to bring up appropriations bills, to bring up budget bills, authorization bills, of any kind they please. The only reason why this resolution is before us today is because they want to go home. There is a lot of business that has to be done here. The last time a resolution like this came up we went home for about a 10-day holiday between Christmas and New Year's. They are not going to come back in 3 days and look at what is going on and then come back 3 days later. They are just going to go home for 3 weeks. They are going to give the impression to the public that somehow they can bring up legislation next week or 2 or 3 days from now. That is not what this is all about. Everyone knows that informally everyone has been told this a 3-week opportunity to go home. Again, the Government is going to be shut down. The Federal workers are going to go back to work, but they are not going to have any work to do in many cases. The other CR that is going to come up later that deals with the balanced budget and opens up the Government again if the President agrees to certain terms, every one knows if that is passed here it is going to die in the Senate or not be passed into law. It is just a farce. That is what this is all about. We have major disagreements here on Medicaid, on Medicare, on the environment. The Democrats want to preserve those programs. We need to sit down over the next few weeks with the Republicans and work out the differences so we can preserve Medicare, preserve Medicaid, preserve environment and educational programs that are important to Americans. This is not the time to go home.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today is day 20 of the Government shutdown. The fault lies entirely with the House Republican leadership. Yesterday there was an opportunity or there would have been an opportunity because the Senate sent over a continuing resolution to allow the Government to operate once again. But Speaker Gingrich and the House Republican leadership would not bring the resolution up. There are 198 Democrats on our side that are prepared to vote to keep the Government operating. We only need 20 Republicans in order to accomplish the goal of reaching 218 and opening up this Government again. My understanding is that in the House Republican conference there are enough votes to do that. But the Speaker, Speaker Gingrich, and the House Republican leadership will not allow a vote to come to the floor. Instead, we understand today they want to bring up a resolution that would allow them to recess this House for 2 or 3 weeks until January 23 and the Government would be shut down that entire time. I say no to that motion to recess. Let us stay here and let us get this Government going again.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I just wanted to add something, because I am so glad that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] brought up how profound the differences are in some of these budget issues, particularly Medicare and Medicaid. I was very aggravated, if you will, last night when I listened to some of our Republican colleagues suggest that, oh, there is nothing really to this, you know, the President can just sit down and split the difference on some of the numbers in terms of Medicare and Medicaid with the Republicans and everything will be fine, and he can sign the bill and all the Government employees can go back to work. These are profound differences. Just briefly, on the Medicaid issue, which I consider really probably the most important issue, they are talking, the Republican leadership, essentially, with this budget, is talking about destroying Medicaid as we know it. The whole basis of Medicaid is that if you are below a certain income and need health insurance, that you are guaranteed the health insurance and that you are guaranteed a certain package of health insurance that provides for health care, that is necessary for a lot of low-income people. Again, most of the money goes to pay for senior citizens, and what they are doing here is just saying we are going to block grant, we are going to cut the amount of money available, we are going to send it to the States, and we are going to let the State decide whether or not they want to cover certain people and what kind of benefits they want to give them. Now, we know that is going to mean a lot of seniors who are now in nursing homes are not going to be eligible for nursing home care paid for through Medicaid. We know a lot of disabled people are probably not going to be on the eligibility list. Of course, all the other things built into the Federal program that you mentioned, the nursing home standards, the fact that they cannot go after certain spousal assets or go after the assets of children, all of these things are thrown by the wayside. So we are talking about the end of Medicaid as we know it, and unless there is some sort of Federal guarantee that the people who now receive Medicaid would continue to receive it, the President cannot possibly agree to this. So it is not just a question of splitting the numbers. You know, the Republicans, I think are talking about cutting $185 billion in Medicaid, and the President has said, well, perhaps the program can be cut by $35 billion or so. It is not just a question of splitting the numbers. This is a profound difference. The Republicans are trying to basically eliminate the Medicaid Program as we know it. The same is true for Medicare.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] for yielding to me tonight, and also to praise her for the fact that she is focusing tonight on how the shutdown particularly affects senior citizens and veterans. I think it is important that we zero in on certain groups, because I think that is what the Republican Majority has done. Last night we talked a great deal about the EPA and environment and health and safety measures that are not being taken during the shutdown because the Republican majority effectively zeroed in on environmental protection and quality of life issues and has taken it upon themselves not only to shut down EPA and other such agencies, but also to cut back on funding and cripple these agencies in the future. I think we are seeing the same thing happen with senior citizens. This whole debate over the budget is largely a function of Medicare and Medicaid. The fact that Democrats are opposed to the idea of giving huge tax breaks to wealthy Americans and taking money away from Medicare and Medicaid in order to fund those tax breaks. Well, senior citizens are mostly impacted by cuts in Medicare as well as Medicaid, and I think it is no surprise, therefore, that a lot of the impact of this shutdown is falling squarely on senior citizens and also on veterans. I just wanted, if I could, to spend a couple of minutes talking about what is happening in my home State of New Jersey. New Jersey right now is facing a financial crisis because of the Federal Government shutdown. It is particularly impacting senior citizens. In order to pay for human services in New Jersey, the State borrowed yesterday $250 million to pay for Social Security services for the poor and elderly. The interest rates on these loans will be picked up by New Jersey taxpayers, while these same taxpayers watch services deteriorate. Mr. Speaker, this is costing us money. Our constituents are seeing less and less services and they are going to have to pay more for it. If we look at the services provided to the elderly under the Older Americans Act, they are very much threatened right now in the State of New Jersey. In Middlesex County in my district, over 11,000 seniors directly benefit from the Older American Act programs, including Meals on Wheels. The State is seeking to provide my county Offices on Aging with just enough money to keep the Meals on Wheels and the senior nutrition programs going for the rest of this month, but all the other programs funded under the Older Americans Act are threatened. This includes home health care, visiting nurses, critical care management, friendly visits, information referral services, legal services. There is no money available for these programs, many of which are essential for seniors' well-being and avoiding institutionalization. I know that the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] has always stressed, as I have, preventive care. We do not have any prevention anymore during the shutdown. Another example is the loss of money for emergency housing assistance for seniors who cannot pay the rent. We know that nationwide 10,000 Social Security workers have been laid off, putting a strain on the entire operation during what is the busiest month of the year, the beginning of the year. And it has been impossible for seniors to get through to the 800 number in the northeast region, and my office got a lot of calls complaining about this. Apparently, because of the lapse of the tax on airline tickets, the airline 800 numbers have been swamped with calls and, therefore, that blocks the use of the Social Security 800 number. It sounds like a minor impact, but it is very important. Mr. Speaker, I called the Small Business Administration in New York- New Jersey and found it shut down completely and this affects the statewide SCORE program, in which retired businessmen provide assistance to small businesses and other businesses which help accommodate the elderly. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk briefly about veterans. Every work day that Congress fails to provide funding to the Department of Veterans Affairs, 500 widows and other beneficiaries will not be paid the proceeds of veterans life insurance policies. There is no staff available to handle the claims because of the furloughs. Think about it. How would my colleagues like it if their spouse was unable to collect their life insurance benefits if they were to die? For this reason alone, I think the Republicans should support the continuing resolution. As my colleague from Connecticut mentioned, employees of veterans hospitals are being forced to work without pay. I commend them for their dedication, but these employees are going to lose their motivation to work for the VA at some point. We are talking about veterans who dedicated their lives to this country. I just think it is totally outrageous. The gentlewoman from Connecticut mentioned Medicare and Medicaid. It is reported in today's Star Ledger, which is our largest circulation daily in New Jersey, that in the State Human Services Department, the Secretary has said that the department faces the greatest potential for disruption at this point. Each day the Federal dispute goes on, the likelihood increases that a scheduled $130 million payment for Medicaid is going to be delayed and, of course, Medicaid, the majority of it, is used for medical care or nursing home care for senior citizens. Let us look at the headlines of some of the papers about how our State, New Jersey, is really feeling the impact of this, and again the major impact or a significant part of the impact is on senior citizens and veterans. I just think it is so unfair. So many of us started this whole budget debate, if you will, and came to the floor months ago because we were concerned about the impact of these Republican cuts on Medicaid and Medicare, and now we are seeing the same senior citizens immediately affected by this Government shutdown. I wanted to say one thing, and I will yield back, which is that I am somewhat encouraged by the fact that the gentlewoman mentioned that we only need 20 Republicans in order to get this continuing resolution passed and the Government open again. I heard that yesterday in the Republican conference there were 54 Republicans who wanted to vote for that. Really, the blame now is entirely on the Republican House leadership, on Speaker Gingrich and the others, because they are afraid to bring this up because they know if they bring up the continuing resolution, we will get enough Republican votes to pass this with all the Democrats. Hopefully reason will prevail and if we keep this up, as the gentlewoman has so well, we are going to see some light over the next few days.

Mr. PALLONE. I just wanted to say that I am really pleased that the gentlewoman from Connecticut stresses the basic differences that there are here on this budget and how this is really a budget battle that concerns major differences on the issues of Medicare and Medicaid, education, and the environment. I am so afraid that the public, in some ways, has got a distorted impression of why we feel that it is incumbent to bring up a continuing resolution to open up the Government again. Historically, in this House and in the Congress, when there have been differences over appropriations bills, differences over the budget, everyone has agreed to continue the Government, let it operate while those negotiations go on. That is all we are asking. We want the Government open while these budget negotiations go on. And I think there is a responsibility of the Republican majority to do that.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. No. But again, if I could----

Mr. PALLONE. What I just wanted to say to the gentleman from Georgia, for whom I have the utmost respect, I have a basic disagreement with many of my colleagues on the other side because I believe the differences over this budget between Democrats and Republican, even if you compare the coalition budget to the budget that the Republican majority passed, the differences are significant. They are going to take weeks to work out. This is not something that can be worked out at the stroke of a pen. There are differences over entitlement status of Medicaid; over standards that are going to be applied for Medicaid for nursing homes; difference over environmental protection. I think in many ways it is sort of naive to suggest that somehow this can be worked out in 48 hours or 72 hours or a week or even 2 weeks. So, as these negotiations go on, and we eventually reach an agreement that both sides can live with, it makes sense to keep the Government open. There is no way this is going to happen overnight.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. I think the reality is that they are afraid. That actually the House Republican leadership, Speaker Gingrich is afraid to bring this resolution up, because as the gentlewoman from New York said, we only need 20 Republican votes and we could possibly get them if we could only have the continuing resolution brought up to the floor for a vote. But we have been thwarted in that effort and now we are told that tomorrow we are going to recess.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think it is incredible, but I have heard it over and over again, many of our colleagues saying that they were in fact elected to come here and shut down the government. That is what we are hearing. It is part of this radical extremism that we are seeing come into play every day. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green for participating. He pointed out that these problems that we are facing with the shutdown are throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Does that mean, therefore, that we cannot continue?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, just so I understand, is there any process now for us to proceed or are you suggesting that we do not have one?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary, inquiry.

Mr. PALLONE. If the gentleman would yield, I simply disagree with what you are saying about a continuing resolution. First of all, I would point out that when you talk about a 7-year budget or a 10-year budget or whatever, you are basically guessing, if you will, about what is going to happen beyond the first year. The bottom line is that you could, first of all, let us point out we are only talking about certain agencies of Government maybe about half of the appropriation bills or half of the agencies right now. If you were able to craft a continuing resolution either for a day or a month or right until October 1, that basically appropriated funds at the level that you anticipated in your, in the first year of your 7- year budget, you would accomplish that goal, and there are many people who maintain, there are many people who maintain the only real part of a 7-year or even a 10-year budget is the first year because that is the only part that you really have specific control over. So I would maintain that if you craft the CR so that it is exactly like what you are proposing in the first year of your budget, then your concerns disappear, and we continue to operate and try come to an agreement.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank everyone tonight for participating in this. I know it has been going on now for about 2 hours, or maybe more, and I think it has been very productive and I just wanted to thank all of my colleagues. I have to be honest and say that all of my colleagues, particularly those who have been here debating like this now for on a regular basis during special orders for months or maybe it is almost a year now, they should understand that from my perspective, and I know it is true for my Democratic colleagues that, we have the utmost respect for you because you have been willing, as have many of us, to come to the floor and debate some of these issues. Mr. Speaker, I thought this was very productive and I really appreciate the opportunity.