Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. The American people, whether it is public opinion polls or just my own talking to people, my own constituents believe very strongly that the President is the last person who is not trying to come to an agreement and not trying to negotiate in good faith. He is the one who constantly says, ``Let us negotiate. Let us sit down.''

Mr. PALLONE. The bottom line is, if the gentleman would yield.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, let me just say this first of all. I guess I am somewhat amazed and trying to contain myself because I have never seen anyone as a Chief Executive who has been more willing to sit down and negotiate and spend time.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to use a brief amount of time. First of all, I would point out, and, again, I will not use the word ``hostage'' anymore this evening, although I feel that way, but I will not use it. I would point out, first of all, that the coalition has on many occasions tried to bring their budget before this House. They have tried it on a privileged measure, they have tried many times. I have seen the gentleman from Mississippi, Gene Taylor, and the gentleman from Texas, Charlie Stenholm, and I have seen many others over the last week or so before the Christmas break try to bring the coalition budget to the floor. So the suggestion that somehow the coalition budget is not on the table, the only reason it has not been brought up again is because the leadership, the Republican leadership, has not allowed it to be brought up. I think one of the reasons for that is because it may very well be it would get enough votes to pass. Let me say one more thing, and then I will not talk for a while. I am listening to the debate tonight. I think it is very, very instructive and very helpful, but the bottom line is that right now the Government is shut down, and if tomorrow we bring up this motion and we allow the Speaker to have recess authority and the Government is shut down for another 2 or 3 weeks, I do not believe that the leverage that it seems that your side is trying to use to bring the President to do certain things is going to work. In other words, we have been at this now for several weeks. This is the 19th day. The whole notion that somehow shutting down the Government is going to exercise some leverage over the President or over the Democrats is just not happening. So I guess I am wondering, how long is this going to go on? Will this go on for another 2 or 3 weeks or another month, another 6 months, or whatever? At some point there has to be a recognition of the fact that this effort to leverage, if you will, the Government shutdown, is not accomplishing its goal, and that the budget negotiations, which actually are happening between the President and the Republican leadership, does seem to have some positive value. They are meeting every day. They are talking. Both sides claim that it has been very positive. So what is the point? The only people, it seems to me, that are suffering are the Government employees and the American taxpayers who are not getting the services. So even if we buy the leverage theory, I do not think it is working and everybody is meeting now and talking about the budget anyway.

Mr. PALLONE. Let me finish, if I could. Historically, while that process went on, there were continuing resolutions passed so that the Government could continue to operate. As the gentleman from Florida stated, those continuing resolutions, even the ones we passed for a brief time in November or December, were at a much lesser amount than the current operations of the Government. So one would make a very legitimate argument to say that there was significantly less money that was being spent. And if, in fact, we were to continue operating the Government for the rest of the year at those lesser amounts, we would probably be saving a tremendous amount of money. I do not see any argument other than this hostage theory; this theory that if we pass a continuing resolution, if we let the Government continue to operate, even at a lesser amount, which meets the budget demands or the budget parameters, that the problem with that is that the Government will continue to operate and we will not be able to come to an ultimate agreement over a balanced budget. So, basically, what we are saying is, we do not want the CR, we do not want the Government to operate because we want this leverage with the President.

Mr. PALLONE. I again appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Arizona has yielded us the time, but I am extremely frustrated, and I listened to the gentleman from California, who has been here in previous sessions with me, and the problem that I have with what the gentleman has laid out and what some of my colleagues on the other side have laid out is that they are acknowledging in essence that what they are doing is having the Government shut down, the Government if you will, being held hostage to what they want to accomplish. I say this, I am trying to say this in a calm fashion. The reality is that historically here procedurally, the procedure has been that the Congress passes the appropriations bills or the budget and they send them to the President, he vetoes them or he approves them. If he vetoes them, he sends back a message which he did in each case with each appropriation bill and each budget, and also with the budget bill, and then the opportunity exists to either sit down with the White House and work out an agreement or to bring up another appropriations bill or budget bill that reflects in some measure what the President has said, so that a compromise can be reached.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate the gentlewoman's remarks. I think she is pointing out that, in fact, the shutdown even more severely impacts, and it is selective in a sense, in that the agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, that the Republican majority has targeted for these severe cuts, are the very ones in many cases that are being shut down. So the ideology even goes to which agencies are being shut down, which is one of the reasons that we are talking about the EPA and other such health and safety regulators tonight. I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to basically express shock, if you will, tonight over the fact that the Republican majority here in the House continue this process of leaving a significant part of the Government shut down. I guess I was pretty much amazed before the Christmas recess, if you will, when we voted here on the House floor to give Speaker Gingrich the power to recess the Congress over the holiday between Christmas and New Year's, and I suddenly realized that that meant that Government workers and the services that they provided would essentially cease to exist. The workers would be furloughed, and the services would not be provided between Christmas and New Year's. When I heard yesterday that the Senate, after repeated requests by the President, that the Senate had finally gone along and decided that they were going to pass a continuing resolution to keep the Government going, at least for the next week or so, I fully expected that when we reconvened that I would be coming back today to vote in the House on that Senate resolution and the Government would be up and running by tomorrow and even though the budget negotiations would continue, that at least we would not have the continuation of this Government shutdown. I guess I was very naive in assuming that. When we came here today and we had a vote on the motion that the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], made to try to bring that Senate resolution up that would reopen the Government, the Republicans on the other side, almost all of them, voted to table that motion, and now we face the real possibility, based on this motion or resolution that has come up before the Committee on Rules again at the request of the Republican majority, that tomorrow we may go into recess again and possibly until January 23, which I guess is the day when the State of the Union address is given by the President, that the Government would continue to be shut down and the Congress would not be in session. I wonder who the Members on the other side are listening to when they go home to their respective States or their respective districts. When I went home over the last week or 10 days, in my district office we repeatedly got calls from individuals, some of whom are Government employees who were not getting paid for the Christmas holiday or for the part of the time that they had already worked; others, people who were missing services, whether it was passports or Social Security applications or student loans or small business loans or whatever it was, and my phones never stopped ringing for the whole period of the recess from people who were paying their taxes but were not able to receive Government services and from Government employees, many of whom were asking how they were going to pay their rent, how they were going to pay their mortgage, how they were going to get through the next day. So I think it is incredible and it really is shameful, the fact that we are now facing the real possibility that for the next 3 weeks this Government continues to be shut down because Speaker Gingrich, and particularly the freshman Republicans, want to hold the Government hostage to their own particular ideology on the budget, and the blame is squarely with the House Republicans, with Speaker Gingrich and the Gingrich Republicans because as we know, the Senate, the other body, has already acted on its continuing resolution. I am joined here tonight by several Democratic colleagues from various parts of the country, and we wanted to highlight, if we could, in the time that we have, the fact that the shutdown is affecting the quality of life for many Americans, particularly with regard to the environment, the EPA, which is one of the Government agencies that is shut down, particularly with regard to the Superfund program, which we were told today is about to shut down completely for all practical purposes over the next 5 days, and also highlight some other areas where the Government, through its inspection, through its enforcement, provides for the health and safety of Americans but cannot do so because of the Government shutdown that has been put upon us, if you will, by the Republicans. So I would like to now yield, if I could, to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate what the gentleman said. I think it is particularly important that we zero in today on the fact that this is now strictly the House Republicans that are holding up this process. Because the Senate, the Senate majority leader specifically said, he has been quoted over and over again, enough is enough, it is time to put the Government back together, to send the employees back to work, to provide the services. They sent over a resolution today which we were going to vote on, and we are being thwarted. We cannot even bring the resolution to the floor that was passed in the Senate because Speaker Gingrich and the Republican House leadership here refuses to bring it up. I think the reason they refuse to bring it up is because they think it will pass if it comes up. So they just do not bring it to the floor. I would like to yield now to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for those remarks and, obviously, he is very concerned. I want to say briefly, and then I want to yield to someone else, that I think, as I have been watching this debate, and some of the comments by our Republican colleagues, I just see this radicalism, this extremism, taking over amongst them. It is the whole idea that their ideology is the only ideology, and unless they get their way on the budget, they are going to close the Government down. There is a lack of concern for Government workers, lack of concern for constituents who need Government services. The whole idea that somehow Government itself is bad and, therefore, it is not a problem to shut it down because the Government is evil, the Government should not even be here. Almost an anarchistic approach, that I think the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] mentioned before. It is an extremism. It is a radicalism that seems to be taking hold on the other side of the aisle. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

Mr. PALLONE. Exactly.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentlewoman is saying. That is a good point. We keep talking about the extremism and the radicalism of the freshman, but all we need is 20 votes, 198 plus 20 votes from anybody on the Republican side and we can reopen the Government. And now, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman. I really want to thank all my Democratic colleagues for participating in this special order this evening. I think all we are really asking is that we be allowed to bring a continuing resolution, that has already passed in the Senate on a bipartisan basis, to the floor of the House so that we can vote on it. Unfortunately, what we are hearing from the Republican side, from Speaker Gingrich and the Republican majority, is not only are they not going to allow the continuing resolution to come up either today or tomorrow--they did not let it come up today-- or tomorrow, so that we can vote on it and open up the Government again, but they are actually considering another motion to put us in recess for as much as 3 weeks. Today is the 19th day of the Government shutdown. If it goes from today until the 23d of January, which is what the motion that passed out of the Committee on Rules today and which we will probably consider tomorrow would allow, you would have to add another 20 days, almost 3 weeks, to that 19 days that the Government has already been shut down. It is already unprecedented, and we hope that that does not happen and we are going to continue to make the point that it should not happen.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate what the gentleman said. Going back to what I said before, he points it out so well, that this shutdown is selective and it is those departments in many cases that provide health and safety protection. They are the ones that are shut down and are not being funded. You mentioned OSHA, safety complaints, a minimum wage, other types of labor violations. These are the agencies that are shut down and are not able to do their work, so clearly health and safety is impacted in a significant way. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. PALLONE. If I can just follow up briefly on what the gentleman said about the Superfund Program. I have, in New Jersey, in my State, the largest number of Superfund sites in the country of any State, and in my particular congressional district a large number of Superfund sites, and already this shutdown has delayed indefinitely cleanup work at about, I guess five of the sites in my congressional district. In fact, last Wednesday I actually went to the EPA lab and center in Edison, in the heart of my district, and was in an empty room. The entire place was closed down. I think there were two staff personnel involved not only in Superfund, but all the EPA research activities that took place in Edison, NJ. Basically, what it means is that a number of these sites, not only in my district, but around the country, if we do not continue to do that work, a lot more work will have to be done. There were some contractors that were quoted in a lot of the newspapers today that were saying that because they are not able to do the contract work on Superfund sites, when they go back again there is going to be even more hazardous waste, and they are going to have to spend even more money in order to do the cleanup. So not only is it a question of health and safety about being at risk for these hazardous waste sites in terms of people's exposure to hazardous waste because the sites are not being cleaned up, but also more money is likely to be incurred for the Superfund, which again goes back to the taxpayers, if the shutdown continues, particularly the way we are hearing now that it might go on, if we recess tomorrow, for 2 or 3 weeks or indefinitely.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I yield now to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, when I was home in New Jersey the last week and in my district office, I received many calls on a regular basis from Government employees, some of whom were almost in tears because they have not been able to pay their rent, pay their mortgage, creditors are calling upon them, and there really was not a great deal we could do. I naively expected when I came here today that because the Senate had moved a continuing resolution that would reopen the Government, and because the President supported it, that we would take that continuing resolution up today, but we did not. The only thing I can say is that finally we know where the blame is. The blame is with the House Republican leadership and those Republicans that they represent here in the House who want to keep the Government shut down, who want to hold the American people, the Government workers and the taxpayers who are paying for services they should be getting, hostage to their own ideology about what the budget priorities should be. I have said from the very beginning that is not the way to operate.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if I could just ask for some time to thank everyone.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as soon as today, or at least by the middle of next week, our Department of Defense will sign a letter of offer and acceptance [LOA] with the Government of Turkey, to complete the sale of 120 Army Tactical Missile Systems [ATACMS]. The ATACMS--pronounced attacks 'ems--is a ground-launched surface-to-surface, conventional, semiguided ballistic missile which carries an antipersonnel/ antimateriel cluster warhead capable of spraying shrapnel over a 150- square-meter area. Turkey already has the multiple launch rocket system from which to launch these very nasty, destructive weapons. What this weapon does is essentially deliver 950 small bombs, some of which do not immediately detonate and remain on the ground, posing a threat to noncombatants--including children. Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong weapon sale to the wrong country at the wrong time. Earlier this month, I circulated a letter with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] which was signed by 35 Members from both sides of the aisle, calling on President Clinton to reconsider this sale, based on our very serious concerns over how these weapons would be used. The Turkish Government's domestic and international behavior-- including the ongoing campaign against the Kurdish people, the occupation of Northern Cyprus, and the blockade of Armenia--makes us deeply concerned that providing such destructive power to that Government has the potential to cause terrible, and preventable, human suffering. Today I am joining with my colleagues, Mr. Torricelli and Mr. Bilirakis in introducing House Concurrent Resolution 124 expressing the sense of Congress that the President should suspend the proposed sale of the Army Tactical Missile System to the Government of the Republic of Turkey until the Government takes significant and concrete steps to end the military occupation of Cyprus, lift its blockade of Armenia, cease its ongoing campaign against the Kurdish people, and demonstrate progress on the protection of human and civil rights within Turkey. Mr. Speaker, the timing of this sale is peculiar to say the least. The Foreign Operations appropriations bill includes a cut in economic assistance to Turkey. This provision, which has strong bipartisan support, was enacted in response to the concerns cited above. We believe that the message we are trying to send with this provision would be undermined by approving a new sale of military hardware at this time. In Ankara, the conclusion would inevitably be that, beyond limited symbolic measures, Americans do not take seriously the shocking breaches of international law and decency committed in the name of the Turkish Government. The proposed transaction represents the first sale of these weapons to any foreign nation. The Turkish military track record is not consistent with what we would expect of any recipient of United States arms, much less a NATO member. The Human Rights Arms Project has cited numerous examples of the indiscriminate use of weapons by Turkish forces in Kurdish civilian areas. We are also concerned about the evidence strongly linking Turkey to unauthorized transfers of United States and NATO weapons to the Republic of Azerbaijan. While it is our contention that the weapons sale should be halted entirely, in our letter to the President we recommended that, are the very least, strong conditions governing the use and transfer of these weapons be attached to any sale, and that these conditions be strongly enforced. Mr. Speaker, this sale has been strongly opposed by Greek-American, Armenian-American, and Kurdish-American organizations, as well as Human Rights Watch, the Council for a Liveable World, and the Federation of American Scientists. And for good reason. Turkey claims it needs the ATACMS as a deep strike weapon against the threat of tanks in Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Yet, in Greece, Turkey's neighbor to the west, there is deep concern about the threat posed by these offensive weapons. In the regional arms race, Turkey already has a substantial edge, with F-16 fighter jets, attack helicopters, and antiarmore missiles. In addition Turkey has imported more than 1,000 tanks from the United States alone in the past 5 years. The Government of Turkey is conducting a war against the Kurds within Turkey and has made incursions into Kurdish areas of Iraq, resulting in thousands of civilian casualties and millions of refugees. This cruel war is one part of an overall effort to essentially negate the Kurdish people as a distinct entity within Turkey. Many people are concerned that these missiles could be used as part of this military campaign, resulting in terrible civilian casualties. Also, Turkey continues its occupation of one-third of the territory of Cyprus, having declared a ``Northern Republic of Cyprus,'' an entity that has no international recognition, and resisting good-faith efforts of the United States, Greece, and other nations and international bodies to end the conflict. The occupation of Cyprus is well into its 21st year. There is no sign that it will end if we continue to send the message to Ankara that there are no significant consequences to this illegal occupation, and that our protests are largely symbolic and rhetorical. Another illegal and immoral Turkish Government policy is the blockade of its border with the Republic of Armenia. This blockade has blocked the delivery of American humanitarian aid to Armenia and complicated its delivery. In the foreign ops bill, we have language, with strong bipartisan support, known as the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which restricts aid to those countries that block the delivery of aid to other nations. Although the language does not mention Turkey by name, clearly that is the country that would be targeted. Why are we taking these seemingly significant legislative steps-- Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, cutting aid to Turkey--and then turning around and giving them this terrible weapon system? Mr. Speaker, we also have to worry about whether Turkey will see fit to transfer this technology--our technology--to other nations. Strong evidence has linked Turkey to the unauthorized transfer of Untied States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization weapons to the Republic of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan and Armenia are engaged in a tense conflict over the region of Nagorno-Karabagh. A tenuous cease-fire is holding, and the administration has recognized the importance of resolving this crisis by appointing a special negotiator with the rank of Ambassador. Why, again, do we turn around and take steps that will potentially undermine our efforts to negotiate a just and lasting resolution to this conflict? International human rights organizations continue to cite Turkey for egregious violations of the basic human rights and freedoms of its own citizens. Earlier this year, an American journalist was jailed in Turkey because of her reporting on the campaign against the Kurds. She was released, thank God. Unfortunately, there has not been such a happy ending for those few brave Turkish journalists and human rights activists who try to tell their countrymen and the world the truth about what's going on. These brave souls languish in prison, largely forgotten by all but a few friends and supporters. Mr. Speaker, I am very discouraged and disappointed by the reaction of Western governments--not only our own--to Turkey's continued flouting of international law and standards of decency. Just last week, the European Union admitted Turkey into its Customs Union, a likely first step toward full membership in the EU--despite the strong objections from many legislators and activists on the other side of the Atlantic. Why are we doing this? Sadly, we are witnessing the triumph of Realpolitik, in other words, putting economic or strategic interests ahead of our own values. The argument is that we need Turkey because of its strategic location and as a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism. Well, in the first place, I believe that these goals could be achieved by more positive means than weapons sales. But I also wonder whether we're making a terrible strategic mistake over the long term, investing billions, sending our most advanced weapons and otherwise hurting America's good name by associating with a regime that isn't very stable and may collapse anyway. While it may be too late to stop this ill-advised weapons sale, I urge all my colleagues to work with me and other Members of this House to stop coddling the regime in Ankara, to stand with Turkey's neighbors, and to stop basing our foreign policy on the bad bet represented by the Government of Turkey. It may be too late to stop this ill-advised weapons sale to Turkey. I urge all of my colleagues to work with me and other Members of this House to stop coddling the regime in Ankara, to stand with Turkey's neighbors, and to stop basing our foreign policy on the bad debt represented by the Government of Turkey.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is day 7 of the Government shutdown, and, once again, the Republicans come to the floor without a continuing resolution to keep the Government going. But yesterday they passed a resolution that allows them to go home next week for a holiday. We all know that is what is going to happen today. The House is going to recess sometime this afternoon, the Republican majority is going to send everyone home for at least a week, and over the Christmas holiday and through New Year's the Government will continue to be shut down. Veterans will not get their benefits, AFDC children will not get their benefits, we do not know what is going to happen to Medicaid and all the other benefit programs that many people rely on during the holidays and all seasons in order to keep their lives going. It is not fair what this Republican majority is doing. They are not governing. The Constitution says that the majority party has the responsibility to govern. They should not simply go home for a nice Christmas vacation while the Government is shut down and so many other Americans do not receive the benefits they should be getting from this Government. I am outraged at what is occurring.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have two children who are very young, and they were actually on the floor the other day. I also served in the State legislature in New Jersey for 5 or 6 years, and I mention that only by background because I am very concerned about the policy impact of this conference agreement and what it means for children in this country and my home State and other States. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned particularly about the elimination of the entitlement status. What I see happening in this conference report, and in many ways it is a lot worse than the bill that originally passed this House, is that we are making it a policy, essentially on AFDC, on Medicaid, to some extent also on some of the other programs, that it will be up to the States to decide who is eligible and what kind of cash benefits children get. Mr. Speaker, I think that because we are dealing with such a vulnerable population, particularly with AFDC recipients, the tendency always is if there is a budget crunch, to cut back on the vulnerable amongst our population because they do not have the political clout. They are not the ones who can go to the State legislature and say, ``We are not going to vote for you, or vote one way or another, because of your position on these benefits.'' Mr. Speaker, if we look at the statement that some of the Senators made, that some of the Republican Senators made in the letter that they sent to Senator Dole, they pointed out, for example, with regard to Medicaid, that unlike the House and the Senate bills, Medicaid no longer is an entitlement under this bill. They estimate, the Republican Senators, that we could be denying Medicaid eligibility to millions of women and to children over the age of 13. Mr. Speaker, the same thing is true with SSI benefits, that due to significant changes in the definition of disability, the conference agreement would create a new 2-tiered system of eligibility which would result in a 25-percent reduction in SSI benefits. Mr. Speaker, my concern here is that if we do not provide the entitlement status for some of these programs, whether it is Medicaid or AFDC, and then as the gentleman from Maryland said, we actually cut the amount of money that is available by as much as $14 billion, where are we going? A lot of people who are now receiving these benefits will not receive them. It is unconscionable and we have the obligation to ensure that the guarantee is there.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed at what the Republican majority does, and what they have been doing, in the last few days with regard to the Government shutdown and not moving forward in a positive way on the budget. This I guess is the sixth day now for the second shutdown that we have had of the Government, and amazingly, rather than coming forward with a continuing resolution today in some form that would allow the Government to continue to operate, but what we received instead was a motion or a resolution that was recently voted on, which I voted against, and which most Democrats voted against, that would allow the Speaker to recess the House of Representatives throughout all of next week. Let us not kid ourselves. Regardless of what rhetoric was on the floor before by the Republican leadership, the authority has been given now to the Speaker, to Speaker Gingrich, to basically go into recess, beginning tomorrow, into January 3. If that happens, and I fully expect it to happen, we will not only to through the sixth day, today, of the Government shutdown and the seventh day tomorrow, but by my calculations probably another dozen days with the Government being shut down. Basically, we, the Congress, goes home for Christmas and the Federal employees who do not know whether or not they are going to get a check; although they have been promised it, how can they presume that there is any guarantee of that, and they have to worry over the Christmas holiday about whether or not they are going to be able to make ends meet, whether their children are going to be provided for while we in Congress go home. I find it totally objectionable. I was particularly amazed today with the continued onslaught, if you will, against children that is taking place in this Congress by the Republican majority. There was a brief dialog with the Republican leadership an hour ago about whether or not AFDC payments or SSI payments or Medicaid payments, much of which goes to children, were going to be made within the next couple of weeks without a continuing resolution. I do not know if the Republican leadership is even aware of it. The suggestion was, ``Well, maybe tomorrow we'll take up AFDC. We don't know if we'll take up Medicaid, we don't know if we'll take up SSI'' or some of these other things. They do not even seem to know whether or not with the Government shut down these benefits are going to be paid. And if we do shut down and then we find out next week that some of these benefits are not going to be paid to children or to other people who are disadvantaged in some way, how are we going to be in a position to make those benefits payable? What are we going to do when we are not even here? Additionally, today a welfare reform bill came up and amazingly, even though the House of Representatives and the Senate a few weeks ago voted for welfare reform that still guaranteed Medicaid or health care coverage for all children who are now receiving Medicaid payments, all of a sudden the conference report comes back and eliminates that guarantee. So when we talk about the Nation's children at Christmastime, whether it is the Government employees, whether it is the unfortunate children who may not receive cash benefits during the holiday season, or whether it is the ongoing concern over whether or not children in this country will receive health care, I do not see any real concern on the part of the Republican leadership or the Republican Representatives that make up this majority. They just do not seem to care. I have said over and over again that my biggest concern in this whole budget debate is what is going to happen with Medicare and Medicaid. There were two things that happened today on those two fronts, so to speak, that were particularly disturbing. It was indicated in several newspaper reports today that we should expect large increases in MediGap premiums, as much as 30 percent on the average, over the next year. The reason for that is because of what is happening here with Medicare. Right now many senior citizens who do not feel that Medicare covers them sufficiently, because they have to make copayments or pay a lot of money out of pocket for things that are not covered by Medicare, purchase supplemental insurance called MediGap insurance. MediGap premiums are going up as much as 30 percent. Why? Because increasingly the Medicare program does not cover what is necessary for health care for seniors. So if we cut back, as the Republican majority is proposing, on the amount of money that is available for Medicare for seniors, it is inevitable that that supplemental MediGap insurance will go up and continue to rise. The other thing that happened today, and this is the last thing I wanted to say in the time that was allotted to me, is that we had an event with a number of people who are taking care of elderly parents who are covered by Medicaid. They are terribly concerned, and I listened to their stories today, over the Republican budget and what it is going to mean for Medicaid. Under the Republican budget, Medicaid is no longer guaranteed for anybody, and many people who are children or care givers, whatever, are concerned that without the guaranteed eligibility for Medicaid there will not be nursing homes available for their loved ones or there will not be payments under Medicaid for their loved ones. Again, the process continues, the Government shutdown, the Republicans do not do anything to move toward these budget priorities on Medicare and Medicaid, and it is truly tragic that we are not going to be here next week to try to address these concerns.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Exactly.