Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have to say I was amazed to hear the gentleman from Michigan who previously spoke to actually admit that the Republican leadership is using the debt ceiling as leverage in a political way. The effect on the economy, as was mentioned previously by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, is incredible. To think that the Government might go into default in order to achieve a political purpose on the part of the Republican leadership is incredible to me. I do not think that the voters last November, when they went to the polls, thought that they were voting to put the Federal Government in debt, into default. I was just reading from American history, remember when I was in grade school, how proud we are that over the history of the American Republic we have never defaulted on our debts and how important it was to just get our financial act together from the beginning of the United States to make sure that we would not default on our debts. Here is a Member of this body saying that the debt ceiling is being used as leverage in order to accomplish a political purpose. To me it is shocking. I cannot believe that he actually admitted that that is the case.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] for reluctantly yielding me 4 minutes to discuss the bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to say in starting out that this is a good bill which I intend to vote for, but it has two points which I think are bad and which I would like to address at this point. First of all, with regard to aid to Azerbaijan, which I talked about previously under the rule, I am hopeful that if this bill is vetoed by the President, and it does come back to conference, that there will be an opportunity in conference to address the issue of aid to Azerbaijan again. I know the gentleman from Texas has in fact submitted slightly different language from what was rejected by the House. However, the substance of the language is the same. And basically what the language does is allow direct American Government assistance to the Government of Azerbaijan. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] previously pointed out that the difference in the language, the way he sees it, is essentially that now, unlike before, the aid can go strictly to refugees, does not include democracy building, and basically allows the President to determine whether the aid is appropriate. But I would submit that when we had the debate on the floor back in June on the old language, it was understood and it was part of the debate that it was understood that we were talking about humanitarian aid to refugees, that we understood that the President would make a determination as to whether or not this aid would be given to Azerbaijan. So essentially there really is no difference here. The language is substantively the same. The reason why those of us are opposed to this aid to Azerbaijan is because a decision was made with section 907 of the Freedom Support Act that it was wrong for Azerbaijan to continue its blockage of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. That blockade continues. There has not been and cannot be a certification by the President that the blockade is over or that any progress has been made to end it. And so it is inappropriate for us at this point to simply reward the Azerbaijan Government which continues the blockade of Armenia by saying that we are going to give you some direct government assistance. It is also true that through nongovernmental organizations aid does go to the Azerbaijan refugees for humanitarian purposes. They are receiving that. I am just hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that if this bill comes back to conference we can address this again because we did not have an opportunity today. The other bad point in the legislation refers to assistance to Pakistan. I object to the language that permits the transfer of seized military equipment to the Government of Pakistan. This provision was not part of the House-passed bill. I am concerned that this language would undermine our Nation's commitment to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, will heighten regional instability in South Asia. And as the New York Times stated recently in an editorial, send the wrong message to Pakistan. Why should we be rewarding Pakistan with $370 million worth of conventional weaponry when Pakistan deliberately lied to the United States about its nuclear program. It is important to remember that Pakistan has not agreed to do anything in exchange for the release of the seized equipment and the language in the conference report imposes no new conditions on Pakistan. In 1993, President Clinton offered to return all or a portion of the weapons if Pakistan would agree to cap its nuclear program but Pakistan rejected this offer. This language should not be in the bill. Having noted those two bad points or two bad provisions in the bill or mentioned them, I did want to thank the chairman and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] and also the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and others for including some provisions in the conference report that are very favorable to Armenia. There is an $85 million earmark for Armenia. There is the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which we have been pushing for a long time. There is also the transcaucasian enterprise fund which is recalculated. I would be supportive of the bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise also in opposition to the rule because it waives all points of order. Yesterday I went before the Committee on Rules and urged that the point of order not be waived with respect to my opposition to language that essentially repeals section 907 of the Free Support Act relating to aid to Azerbaijan. Let me explain why I believe that this is a very serious procedural breach, if I can. As was mentioned by some of the previous speakers, we had an extensive debate, 2\1/2\ hours, on the night of June 29 on the issue of section 907. Under current law section 907 prohibits direct United States aid to the Government of Azerbaijan because of their blockade of Armenia and Karabakh. What happened in the subcommittee was that language was added that essentially repealed section 907 and said that direct government aid could be sent to Azerbaijan for humanitarian purposes assuming that the President decided that that was appropriate. We had extensive debate on the House floor on the issue, and we voted by voice vote overwhelmingly, to take that language out that repeals section 907, and during the debate on the House floor it was abundantly clear that we were talking about humanitarian assistance, that we were talking about the discretion of the President of the United States to grant that humanitarian assistance, and that we were talking about assistance that was going to go to refugees. Now when the conference met, new language, which is essentially the same as the old language, was put into the conference bill contrary to the vote on the floor of this House that says the same thing, that says that it is OK to give humanitarian assistance to refugees in Azerbaijan if the President decides that that is what he wants to do. There is no difference between this new language and the old language that was deleted by the House of Representatives. Substantively it is the same, and the way I understand it, that means that we should be able to raise the point of order today and take that language out of the conference bill because it is substantially the same. All we are asking for today, and the reason we are opposed to the rule, is because we are not given the opportunity to reiterate our opposition to this language and to reiterate what the House has already said. I certainly hope there will be an opportunity, if this bill is vetoed or if it is not passed in the Senate, to reopen the conference and that we will have that opportunity in some future weeks to deal with this again, but the bottom line is that this rule is inappropriate because we have the same substantive language here, and do not let anybody say that it is not the same. There is no question that the debate was complete for 2\1/2\ hours and this was understood by everyone.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman and also the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] for their support in this legislation, and urge support of the conference report. Let me say first of all that the conferees and certainly the House bill originally rejected the administration's proposed new role, limited role, I would say, for the Army Corps of Engineers in terms of flood control, shore protection, and also small navigation dredging projects. I am very pleased to see the conference adopted this approach and essentially rejected what the administration had proposed for the corps, because what it would have meant is that only projects that were nationally significant would have moved into subsequent phases and actually have been accomplished. Smaller projects would not have been done, whether they were flood control, shore protection, or dredging, and that would have meant essentially the States would have been left on their own to come up with funding and to provide the engineering for these kinds of projects. I said all along the State do not have the resources or ability to do that, and so effectively what the administration proposed would have meant these projects would not have been done. I think that the chairman and the ranking member understood this and that is why the policy is not articulated in this legislation. It would have also been particularly detrimental to coastal States, one of which I represent. I also wanted to praise the conferees for continued support for the continuing authorities program. They have instructed the Secretary to continue with all projects that are currently being conducted under the continuing authorities program, regardless of what stages they are in. This is again particularly beneficial to smaller communities like I represent. For relatively modest cost, the Federal Government puts money into these projects and lets a lot of the smaller towns do the projects, and they are very cost-effective. I have one in my district that I share actually with myself and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] on Poplar Brook. Again, a small amount of Federal dollars is used very cost effectively to achieve a good result. I just wanted to put in a word of praise to my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], who spoke earlier. He really did an excellent job in supporting the projects in New Jersey, some of which, of course, are in my district. There has been a lot of support for the shore protection project along the Atlantic Coast which has been continuing for a number of years, has been very helpful to us, the tourism industry. We also were successful in getting the House version of funding on a lot of projects in New Jersey, some of which were not in the Senate bill, particularly the South River Dam, a flood control project, a very important project to me. I appreciate that.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to talk a bit about the conference report on the foreign operations appropriations bill which was passed just in the last hour or so. As I mentioned on the floor, it is sort of a mixed bag. I supported the bill because I think overall it is a good bill. But there are some good and bad items in it. I want to talk about one good aspect and one bad aspect, if I could in the time that I have allotted this evening. First of all, I was very pleased to see that the conferees actually reduced the amount of economic assistance to Turkey. Last year Turkey received $45 million in United States economic support. This year it will be down to $33.5 million, significantly less than the $100 million that was requested by the administration. I think in large part that is due to the efforts of Congressman John Porter from Illinois and the amendment that he had successfully adopted on the House floor back in June, which was supported by myself and others. That amendment basically pointed out that Turkey has been involved in a number of issues that are detrimental both to the United States and to a lot of other ethnic groups as well as other countries in its vicinity. First of all, the reduction in aid, I believe, clearly recognizes the unlawful blockade by Turkey of Armenia. It also recognizes the treatment that Turkey has been giving to the Kurds, an ethnic minority within its borders and even beyond its borders. Turkey has been systematically annihilating Kurds, tearing down, burning burning villages. In the conference report specific reference is made to one of my constituents, a U.S. citizen by the name of Aliza Marcus, who is a Reuters journalist and a New Jersey resident who is being tried in Turkey on charges of provoking racial hatred for reporting on the Turkish military's forced evacuation and destruction of villages in southeastern Turkey. The conferees say they expect that the Government of Turkey will protect freedom of expression and information by interceding with the military-sponsored state security courts on behalf of Aliza Marcus. This woman has done nothing more than do her job and now she is being tried in Turkish courts. In addition to that, I believe the reduction in aid to Turkey recognizes that Turkish intransigence on the Cyprus issue. I believe very strongly that Cyprus should be reunited, that the Turkish military should pull out and, in fact, the conference report specifically earmarks $15 million for Cyprus among other things aimed at reunification of that island. So I believe that our efforts on behalf of both Armenia, the Kurds and the Cypriots to point out that Turkey really is no ally of the United States is clearly reflected in the conference report. I am concerned, though, and I did want to express my concern, that the conference report does include the Senate language which permit the transfer of seized military equipment to the Government of Pakistan. This provision was not part of the House-passed bill, and I regret that this ill-advised and dangerous provision is in the conference report. During the conference I was joined by 40 of my House colleagues from both sides of the aisle in writing to the conferees urging that they not recede to the Senate provision with regard to the arms sales to Pakistan. As we noted in our letter to the conferees, during the last decade Pakistan was the third largest recipient of United States military assistance. Pakistan asked for the help of the United States in becoming conventionally strong militarily and, in exchange, promised not to develop nuclear weapons. But by 1985, United States intelligence had strong evidence that Pakistan was taking United States arms while going back on its word about developing nuclear capability. In response to Pakistan's confirmed assurances in 1985, the Congress enacted the Pressler amendment to allow Pakistan to continue to receive United States assistance so long as the President could annually certify that Pakistan does not have a nuclear device. But in 1985, after passage of the Pressler amendment, Pakistan contracted for the delivery of 68 F-16 fighters and other military equipment totaling $2.6 billion. In 1990, Pakistan had received 40 of the 68 planes and a considerable amount of other equipment had been delivered when President Bush was forced by overwhelming evidence to find that Pakistan had the bomb. The Pressler amendment was invoked ending all military assistance, including weapons contracted and paid for. Unfortunately, this provision, which is in the conference report, would essentially take away the strong force of the Pressler amendment and allow significant amount of these arms sales to take place and be transferred to Pakistan. I think that that is unfortunate. It violates the Pressler amendment, and it contributes extensively to more instability in Southeast Asia. Overall though the conference report is a good report and that is why I supported it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to take this opportunity to talk a little bit more about the motion to instruct the conferees on the budget reconciliation bill which we voted on just a few moments ago, actually. I felt very strongly, I had a chance to talk a little bit about it, but I just wanted to elaborate a little more. I felt very strongly during the debate today on this motion that the motion really got to the heart of the issue on Medicare, the cuts in Medicare, the cuts in Medicaid, and the cuts essentially to our health care system in general and how this Republican budget has essentially targeted, if you will, Medicare and Medicaid in order to primarily pay for tax cuts for wealthy Americans. The motion to instruct the conferees pays attention to that and essentially says that the conferees should try to do whatever they can to minimize both tax cuts for the wealthy and tax increases on low- and middle-income working families in order to preserve and protect the health and income security of senior citizens and to avoid increasing the number of Americans lacking access to health care. From the very beginning of this debate on the budget, on the one side concern about Medicare and Medicaid, on the other side the issue of where tax cuts are going to go and how those two are going to interplay, from the very beginning I thought it was possible and the point needed to be made that there was a relationship, a direct relationship between the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and the tax cuts that were going to be implemented for wealthy Americans. In fact, if you eliminate a lot of the tax cuts for the wealthy Americans or for those of us who happen to have higher incomes, if you eliminate those tax cuts or you cut back on those tax cuts, you could add more money into Medicare and Medicaid and not have the situation where both of those health care programs for seniors as well as for low-income people are seriously threatened by this Congress and by this budget bill. The other thing that is in this motion to instruct that I thought was so important is that it pointed out that there are a lot of people who simply will not have any health care coverage if these cuts in Medicare and Medicaid go through. Let me explain why I feel very strongly about that. First of all, right now Medicaid, which is the health care program for low-income people in this country, is basically an entitlement. In other words, if your income falls below a certain amount, you are entitled to Medicaid, to health care coverage. Well, no longer under this Republican budget bill is Medicaid an entitlement. In fact, it is left up to the States with money that they get in a block grant from the Federal Government to decide who they are going to cover in various categories for low-income people. So it is very possible that a lot of low-income people, seniors, children, disabled people, will simply not have health care coverage at all if the States decide not to provide it. Now, on the Senate side, on the Senate side they decided to continue the entitlement for pregnant women, children, and for disabled persons. So one of the points that the motion to instruct makes is that we should agree with the Senate version to at least guarantee health care coverage for low-income people who fall into those three categories. There are also a lot of people on Medicare. There are also a lot of senior citizens on Medicare who may not get health care coverage under this bill because you have to remember that part B of Medicare, which pays for your doctor bills, is not a guarantee. Right now if you are a low-income senior, part B of your Medicare is paid for by the Federal Government. But this bill has eliminated that guarantee. So if you are a low-income senior who is eligible for Medicaid, you no longer have the guarantee of part B, and you have to pay for it out of your pocket possibly unless the States decide to pay it for you. Again, a large group, in this case low-income seniors, may not have health care in terms of having physician care. These are the problems that we face unless in this conference an effort is made to try to cut back on this tax cut for wealthy Americans and put more money back into the Medicare Program and back into the Medicaid Program. The other issue that came up, and I think it is a very important issue again, is on the pensions. In the Senate bill there is no change with regard to pension funds. But in the House-passed bill we have this provision that basically allows corporations to raid pension funds of their employees and use it for almost any purpose that they want, perhaps for a hostile takeover. Again, the Senate has seen that that language is not the way to go. Our motion to instruct, which did not pass today, urges that the conferees go along with the Senate bill to guarantee some protection for workers and for their pensions. I think that is safe to say that some of these provisions where there has been disagreement between the House and the Senate, particularly when it comes to providing Medicaid-guaranteed coverage for a lot of low-income people, providing the protection for workers and their pensions and also with regard to nursing homes, right now the House- passed bill does not provide any guarantees that nursing homes are going to be up to standard, because the standards are essentially eliminated. We hope that we will see the conferees adopt the better Senate language.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to urge support for the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]. Let me point out to my colleagues on the other side that all this motion does is to ask the conferees to recede to the Senate position on the pension reversions. So essentially what we are saying is these pension provisions in the House bill are not wise, and the Senate, to their credit, has essentially said they are not wise, and that was done by the majority party. I think that is a recognition of the fact that the concerns that we have over the pension provisions in the House bill are real and, therefore, the conferees should listen to what the Senate has done because of their concern. I just wanted to go back and point out from the very beginning that the reason why I support this motion to instruct is primarily because it recognizes the fact that we should not destroy Medicare by providing tax cuts for the wealthy. What the motion said is that we can provide more money for Medicare, more money for Medicaid if we simply decrease the amount of tax cuts that are going for wealthy Americans. At the same time the motion also says do not increase taxes on poor people. The earned income tax credit, which has been the subject of much of the debate here today, put more money back into the earned income tax credit, the way the current law would provide, so that we do not have a higher tax in this budget bill on poor people; the same thing with regard to Medicare part B. Medicare part B is doubled in this legislation. Let us avoid some of those increases. Let us avoid taxing poor people or poor elderly or elderly in general, who cannot afford to pay for that tax increase. The other recognition I think that in this motion to instruct is that a lot of people may simply not get health coverage, may not have access to health care because of what is in this legislation, low-income seniors who no longer will be eligible for part B and have their Medicare part B premiums paid, States that may decide they are not going to provide the guarantee of Medicaid coverage in certain categories. I urge support for the motion. It makes sense and takes away from some of the terrible things that are in this bill that are passed last week in the House.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I do intend to vote for this resolution. I do respect the sincerity of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert]. However, there is no question in my mind that this is a gimmick on the part of the Republican leadership. Here we have a bill between Medicare and Medicaid that is going to increase taxes on senior citizens by doubling part B premiums, has a means test, eliminates a guaranty for low-income seniors to pay their part B premiums. This is a tax increase in this legislation, and that means that more seniors are going to have to go out and work. What happens if they go out and work? They are going to see the amount of Social Security that they earn be reduced. It is not fair to suggest that somehow this Republican leadership could not incorporate expanding this earnings test in the context of this bill. They did not because they are trying to save $1 billion, $1 billion that is going to be taken from working seniors. These are seniors that are going to have to go out and work, and a lot of them are working right now. They are going to face major tax increases. The least that could have been done is to make it a little easier for them to work. More taxes, and they do not even get the benefit.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out that in the gentleman from California's district 22,750 taxpayers will see their taxes increased under this proposal. Basically what we are seeing here are huge cuts in Medicare/Medicaid and other programs for middle-income Americans and low-income Americans in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. I wanted to just talk briefly about those low-income seniors, mostly windows, which were discussed last week on the Medicare bill, and how they are going to be negatively impacted by this Medicaid bill and the refusal of the committee on Rules to include a provision, an amendment, today that would have protected them. Right now those seniors who are eligible for Medicaid have Medicaid pay for their part B premium under Medicare which means that that $46 per month, which will go up to and double under the Republican proposal to almost $90 per month that these low-income seniors have to pay in order to get their part B Medicare premium, that pays for their doctor's bill. Right now that is paid for by Medicaid, but this bill would eliminate that guarantee for those people, for those millions of widows and other low-income seniors, who right now have their doctor bills and their doctor benefits paid for by Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, I went before the Committee on Rules yesterday, and I asked that that amendment be considered that would provide that guarantee, and we were denied that even though last week on the floor of this House at the conclusion of the Medicare debate the Speaker, Speaker Gingrich, said that this legislation was going to provide that guarantee for those widows and for those low-income seniors. Mr. Speaker, I want all my colleagues to know that there is no guarantee in this bill for those individuals, particularly those widows. The Speaker said that he was going to provide the guarantee. There is no guarantee. When we went before the Committee On Rules and asked that that be placed in order today, we were told, no, it would not be considered. I think it is really terrible that in a context where it is suggested and it is being implemented that all these major tax cuts for wealthy Americans and those low-income seniors will not have their physician's bills paid under this legislation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, as Congress takes up the budget, the American public fears the Republicans plan to curb Medicare spending, scoffs at their tax cut and flatly does not believe that the plan would produce a balanced budget by 2002. That is from the latest New York Times CBS News poll that came out yesterday. Mr. Chairman, I do not normally pay attention to polls, but this time the polls got it right and the American people got it right. The Republicans call this the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act, but how do we begin balancing the budget by implementing such a large tax cut? We estimate that after 7 years the national debt will be at least $268 billion higher because of this tax cut that provides generous benefits for the wealthy. The legislation actually would raise taxes on taxpayers earning less than $30,000 a year. Mr. Chairman, with all these tax cuts for the rich, and without a balanced budget, what are we getting in return? Well, essentially we are abolishing Medicare and Medicaid. The Speaker indicated in the quote earlier, Speaker Gingrich, that it is not being abolished right away but eventually we will get rid of it. For Medicaid recipients, for seniors, they are doubling the part B premium, increasing their taxes. They are imposing means testing. They are squeezing the hospitals so much that providers and other providers at hospitals will close or scale back their quality. And also seniors are going to lose their choice of doctors. Medicaid is actually abolished in this. Instead, we have block grants going to the States without any strings attached, really. So there are no guarantees that poor people will get health care. Also, we lose the nursing home standards. So much money will be squeezed out of this system we can be sure those nursing homes are going to decrease in terms of the quality of care. I went before the Committee on Rules and I asked that there be a guarantee for low-income seniors who no longer will have their part B premium for the doctors paid under this legislation. The Speaker said last week there was going to be that guarantee. There is no guarantee. The public is right, the poll is right. Medicare and Medicaid are essentially abolished and there will be no balanced budget.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, could I just inquire, does that mean that I have 5 minutes or that I have how long? The SPEAKER pro tempo. The gentleman has a maximum of 22 minutes remaining.

Mr. PALLONE. I thank the Speaker and I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me the balance of her time. Cyprus Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk about the Budget Reconciliation Act that we passed today. But before I do that, if I could just spend a couple of minutes on a matter that is very important relating to the state of Cyprus. Mr. Speaker, Earlier today Cyprus's Minister of Foreign Affairs met with the International Relations Committee for a briefing on the United Nation's and United State's continuing efforts to bring about a peaceful resolution to the illegal occupation of Cyprus by Turkey, which is now in its 21st year. I am, consequently, here tonight to once again lend my support to Mr. Michaelides and all of the Cypriot people in their fight to restore independence to their country. Mr. Speaker, over the last two decades the international community has demanded that the Turks--who today manage their illegal occupation with a heavily armed force of over 30,000 troops and 300 tanks--allow the Cypriot people to live as a free and independent people in various forms over the years. Most recently, in July of last year the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 939, which mandated that any settlement of the Cyprus issue must be based on a state of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded. During this time period the United States has also repeatedly urged Turkey to abide by the various United Nation resolutions that have been issued. Just a few weeks ago on September 18, the House passed House Concurrent Resolution 42, which insists that all parties to the dispute regarding Cyprus agree to seek a solution based upon the relevant United Nations resolutions. House Concurrent Resolution 42 also urges the Turks to build upon a gesture of goodwill made last year by Cyprus's President Glafcos Clerides and agree to remove all foreign troops from the island. For 21 years the entire region surrounding Cyprus has been in a volatile state, casting a pall of instability that feeds the specter of war. The Secretary General of the United Nation has called Cyprus one of the most highly militarized areas in the world. As an international champion for both the notion of self-determination and respect for international law, the United States has an obligation to make sure that when the Foreign Minister leaves our country, he will leave knowing that American people fully support the demilitarization of the island as part of the larger effort to secure a free and wholly independent Cyprus. As I said when I spoke in support of House Congressional Resolution 42 last month, a Turkish refusal to act on this proposal can only be read as an unwavering determination by Turkey to ignore the rule of law. Indeed, the Secretary General of the United Nations has also noted there has been a lack of progress on this issue due essentially to the lack of political will on the Turkish Cypriot side. There is, however, no shortage of American political will when it comes to assisting Cyprus in its struggle for independence. Indeed, as the House's decision earlier this year to cut United States aid to Turkey demonstrated, there is an ample supply of American political will, and the sooner the Turks realize it, the better it will be for them, for Cyprus, and for the maintenance of international peace. 1945 Mr. Speaker, I would like to now turn, if I could, back to the legislation that we spent most of our time on today, and that is the budget reconciliation bill. When I had a few minutes during the debate today to talk about why I was opposed to Speaker Gingrich's budget reconciliation plan, I made reference to something that I rarely make reference to because I do not really think that surveys or polls are necessarily a good indication of the way people think. But in the poll that was actually done by the New York Times and CBS News that was in the New York Times today, there was reflected essentially what I have been hearing from my constituents relative to the budget, relative to the purported tax cuts and relative to the changes that the Republican leadership is making in both Medicare and Medicaid in this budget bill that was passed today. Essentially, what the New York Times poll showed was that the public in general feels that and Medicare Medicaid are going to be seriously diminished for the worse as a result of this Republican bill that passed today, also that the tax cuts really are a sham, that they essentially go mostly for the rich and that ultimately this Budget Reconciliation Act, which is purported to have the purpose of balancing the budget, will not accomplish that goal. I mention those things because I think that essentially they are true. They not only reflect what my constituents say but they reflect the reality of the legislation that was passed today. If you look at the whole idea of balancing the budget, why would you start out with a tax cut? We all know that, in terms of the revenue that comes in, it is not sufficient to balance the budget. So if the revenue is reduced, and particularly if it is reduced in order to give some cuts to mostly wealthy people, then the balancing of the budget is going to be more difficult, and that is, in fact, what happens with this Republican proposal. After 7 years, the national debt will be at least 250, some estimates even higher, because of the tax cut, and if you look at the tax cut, it provides more generous benefits at higher income levels. We know that the legislation actually would raise taxes on those earning less than $30,000. So it is not even a tax cut unless you are making more than $30,000. We are asking the American people to implement this tax cut mostly for wealthy people and at the same time that we are raising taxes on those below $30,000. And what are we doing it for? Well, I mean, if you look at what has been the debate for the last week or so on the House floor, you know that what is happening in this bill is that Medicare and Medicaid, Medicare being the health care program for the elderly, Medicaid being the health care program for low-income people, are both being seriously diminished, some would argue ultimately abolished, because of this budget bill. It is no surprise, really, over and over again today on the House floor, and I will repeat it again, we made mention, the Democrats did, at least, to the Senate majority leader, Bob Dole, Speaker Gingrich, and the statements that they made with regard to the Medicare program. We know that from the very beginning, when Medicare was passed back in the 1960's, that most of the Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate actually opposed it. And Senator DOLE, who is actually running for president now, was one of the 12 Members of Congress who voted again the Medicare bill at that time back in the 1960's. Well, again, this Tuesday, earlier this week, he reiterated in a speech before the American Conservative Union, ``I was there fighting the fight, voting against Medicare, one out of 12, because we knew it would not work in 1965.'' What a message that is being sent here by a candidate for President of the United States. He is essentially saying Medicare is a terrible program, and certainly it is no surprise that he and the Republican leadership are trying to essentially gut Medicare today. Speaker Gingrich went even further, in a sense. He pointed out that maybe we are not abolishing Medicare today, but that is ultimately what will happen. He says, ``Now, we don't get rid of it in round 1, because we don't think that that is politically smart, and we don't think that is the right way to go through a transition period, but we believe it is going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it.'' So what he is saying, in a sense, is he is saying very straightforwardly to, I think it was, to an insurance group, and this was actually today, that, ``Well, we may not be totally destroying Medicare today, but the changes are so radical that it ultimately will disappear,'' and that is exactly what is going to happen under this legislation. In an effort to try to achieve tax cuts mostly for wealthy people, not to balance the budget, we are destroying both Medicare, and I would argue also Medicaid. At least now, though, the Republican leaders are saying that they never liked Medicare from the beginning and that that really is what they are trying to do, get rid of Medicare. How do they get rid of Medicare? Well, basically, what they do is they squeeze the program in Medicare and Medicaid so much. In other words, they take so much money out of it and they set limits on the amount of Federal dollars that are actually going to be available over the next few years so that it is not possible essentially to operate Medicare and Medicaid the way we have known them. They also increase taxes on Medicare recipients, on the senior citizens who are part of the Medicare program. They doubling the Part B premium. Part B is the program that pays for physicians care. It could go from something like $40 today to something like $90 over the next 7 years. They means-test Medicare Part B for the elderly; those who have higher incomes will have to pay more. But most importantly, what they are doing here, and this is why the Speaker says that ultimately people will get out of Medicare and it will disappear, is because they make it so difficult to stay in the traditional Medicare program where you choose your own doctor and he gets reimbursed in what we call a traditional fee-for-service program. So little money goes to that traditional system where you choose your own doctor and Medicare reimburses it, most of the increased dollars that are going to be available or most of the dollars that are going to be available go to HMO's or managed care systems. So if you decide you do not want to choose your own doctor and you want to go to a HMO, you are encouraged to do, because more money is going to be available on that side for seniors who go into HMO's or managed care than for seniors who stay in the traditional fee-for-service system where they choose their own doctors. That is how they get to the situation where the Speaker says ultimately Medicare disappears because more and more people will not be able to take advantage of the traditional Medicare. On Medicaid, the abolition of Medicaid is even more direct under the bill. Medicaid right now is an entitlement, which means that if you are eligible because of your income, you get the health insurance benefit. But instead of providing a continued entitlement, we estimate maybe 35 million or so Americans who take advantage of Medicaid all of a sudden now their future and their ability to get health care is left up to the States. The money that the Federal Government provides, which again is capped and is limited, goes to the States in a block grant and the States decide who they want to cover, how they want to cover, and when they want to cover those individuals, and so essentially they could decide that they do not want to cover certain people or they could make it so difficult for those people to become eligible and so little money would be available that essentially they do not have adequate health care. The worst the examples of this are that, I think, for myself, and again where you can see a link between what is happening with Medicare and Medicaid, was brought out last week and again today on the House floor where we mentioned that right now part B Medicare recipients, these are senior citizens who want to have their physician services covered, if they are below a certain income, if they are eligible for Medicaid, Medicaid now pays for their Part B premium. That guarantee, which exists under current law, its abolished. There are a lot, we estimate about 7 million, widows in this country who are low-income, who right now Medicaid pays for their Part B premium. They no longer have a guarantee anymore that Medicaid will pay for that. Although the Speaker last week indicated that this bill, or either the Medicare or this reconciliation bill, would take care of those low- income seniors, the reality is that they are not covered under this legislation that passed today. So I think that when the American public, based on that New York Times poll or based on what I hear from my constituents say, that they are very scared about the future of Medicare and Medicaid because of the legislation that was put forward by the Republican leadership and passed rather narrowly today almost on a partisan vote, there is reason for them to be scared because the Republican leaders, because the leaders, whether it is Senator Dole or Speaker Gingrich, basically----

Mr. PALLONE. Oh, you mean the Senate? All right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I forgot that I am not allowed to make personal references to Senate Members. What I wanted to say, though, in conclusion, is that it is abundantly clear that the Republican leadership in both houses, both the Senate and the House of Representatives, essentially are not in favor of Medicare, certainly the Medicare that we know of, and so when seniors express their concern and say they are fearful that this bill is going to abolish or significantly change Medicare or Medicaid for the worse, they are certainly accurate in their concerns. We have some time, though. We have some time because even though this bill passed today, it still has to pass in the Senate. President Clinton has said that he intends to veto the legislation, and the vote today, which was rather narrow, I think it was about 232 to 200, so there were over 200 Members who were opposed to it, I think will send a message to the administration that this is not a bill that should be supported and that it should be vetoed, and when it is vetoed and it comes back to this body, we will join with all of those who have expressed concern about it to make sure that we can come up with a better bill that does not severely impact Medicare and Medicaid and that ultimately achieves the balanced budget that is necessary to achieve deficit reduction and get this country back on the road to economic prosperity.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PALLONE. Oh, absolutely. You know, I guess I should point out to you today that I had a problem with the, some problems with the Democratic substitute that was proposed, and so I ultimately did not support it. But I think that, in general, what that substitute indicated was that it is possible to achieve a balanced budget in 7 years within the time frame that the bill that was passed today proposes and that you can achieve that without having the level of cuts in Medicare and Medicaid that this bill seeks. One of the ways that the Democratic substitute achieved that was, of course, by eliminating the tax cut. I think the bottom line is that it is possible to achieve deficit reduction to balance the budget within the 7 years. It certainly is a worthy goal, but you do not have to do it on the backs of America's seniors, which I think is what is happening.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. PALLONE. The amount of money that you propose to spend on Medicare would increase in absolute dollars, but what I would say to you is that the problem is that the rate of increase is insufficient to keep a quality health care system. I do not like to get involved in this debate over whether it is a cut or an increase. I think I will acknowledge that it is an increase in the actual amount of dollars, but if you look at the inflation rate and you look at the amount of money that is going to be necessary to keep a quality Medicare and Medicaid system, I think it is inadequate. That is my point.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just speak briefly in opposition to the reconciliation bill in part because of the opening up of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. Mr. Chairman, this is an example of the corporate handouts that the Republicans on the Committee on Resources included in the reconciliation bill. This bill gives away one of the last most valuable pieces of wilderness that the American taxpayer owns, in order to boost up falling revenues in the oil industry. In return we get nothing more than a few dollars we could get anyway if we reform our mining and grazing laws to guarantee a fair return to the American taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, energy security is not the issue. I am a member of the Committee on Resources, but also the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power. I can tell my colleagues that oil consumption is on the rise, but we are not doing the things we need to do to ensure that security. We are not investing in mass transit or renewable fuels research or alternative fuel vehicles. That is the way to ensure our security. Opening up ANWR will only prolong our addiction to oil. It does nothing to wean the United States of its oil addition or to wean corporations from the welfare rolls. Mr. Chairman, at a time when Republican Members are raising Medicare taxes on our seniors to provide a $270 billion tax break to the wealthiest Americans, I really find it appalling, but not surprising, that the Republicans on the Committee on Resources would include this corporate welfare for the oil, mining, and cattle industries.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding time to me. I wanted to indicate support for the conference on two fronts. One is with regard to the office of pipeline safety. I think some of the Members know that almost 2 years ago now in my congressional district in New Jersey we had an explosion, a natural gas pipeline explosion in the area known as Durham Woods. As a consequence of that, I realized how significant funding levels for pipeline safety were, not only in terms of what has to be done in terms of investigation but, even more important, in terms of prevention. The amount of money that is provided in this conference bill for pipeline safety is better, significantly better than what I thought might result. I am very pleased with that because I know it will allow us to continue to do the kind of work that needs to be done to prevent accidents as the one that occurred in Edison, in my district. I also wanted to congratulate the conferees and the bill on the fact that, with regard to the small boat Coast Guard stations, there is language that would prohibit their closures. Those of us who fought very hard on the House floor, who felt that the small boat plan that the Coast Guard had put forward was not going to save a significant amount of money and would actually cost lives appreciate the fact that there is language in this bill now that would prohibit those small boat station closures. It was not something that was going to save money. So I think that it is consistent with the effort on the part of the committee to try to reduce expenditures, but allowing those stations to close would not have accomplished that fact. So I want to congratulate, thank again the gentleman from Texas as well as the chairman of the subcommittee for their efforts in the conference and urge support for the conference bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just have to, if I can, interrupt. I had previously quoted from this New York Times story of the same day, yesterday. It is interesting, it is not the same one but a different one from what the gentlewoman has. They bring up how the Republican leaders are basically over the next few days going to emphasize this $500-a-child tax credit. What this article says, and I would just quote from it briefly, it says the tax credit would do little to help children in low-income households, and families that have no Federal income tax liability other than exemptions, after other exemptions and deductions, would not be eligible for refunds. For example, a family of four with both parents working and both children in child care programs would not qualify for the credit if it earned less than $24,000 a year. It says the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington research group with a reputation for accurate statistics, has calculated that 23.7 million children, or 34 percent of the Nation's children, live in families too poor to qualify for the credit. Another 7.1 million children, or 10 percent, would qualify only for a partial credit. The real winners from the Republican tax and budget plans are likely to be affluent children who receive relatively little direct Federal spending. So again there is going to be all the emphasis on this $500-a-child tax credit. It is not a bad idea. But the bottom line is the way they put this together ultimately means that it is primarily affluent children who benefit, and many of the children who really need it are getting nothing.

Mr. PALLONE. It is amazing. There are some school districts that I represent where overwhelming majorities of the kids take advantage of the school lunch program. Sometimes they get it free or sometimes they have to pay something. But without that school lunch program a lot of them just would not eat. So, again, I yield back, but it is just incredible to think how this impacts children.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I know we have other speakers, but the gentlewoman mentioned certain things that are really so important. Head Start, which I did not even mention, we have waiting lists, long waiting lists in New Jersey in most of my towns for Head Start. It is a prudent program that was supported by President Bush and President Reagan before him. It was never a partisan issue. All of a sudden now we are talking about cutting back on Head Start. The earned income tax credit, which again I did not get into, basically goes against the whole philosophy which says that you want to encourage people to work. The main reason why that was put in place, again, not just by Democrats but also by Republican Presidents beforehand, the way I understood it, was to get people off welfare and let them have a little extra money through a tax break so that they could use it and be discouraged to go back on welfare. Now we are talking about eliminating that earned income tax credit. Third, you talk about nutrition programs. I spent some time, I guess it was a couple months ago now, going into some of the schools in my district and actually partaking of school lunch with the kids.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am here today because I think it is absolutely imperative that a proper amount of attention be given to the disturbing facts about the seemingly endless growth of the U.S. international trade deficit, and the impact of that growth on the American economy and American jobs. In the first two quarters of 1995, the U.S. international trade deficit was over $64 billion, compared to $50 billion last year for the same period, and the second quarter's deficit of $33.8 billion was the largest since 1987. What these numbers signify is a growing assault on American jobs as foreign goods and services pour into the United States at a pace that far exceeds the exit of American exports. When one stops to consider these facts, Mr. Speaker, it becomes quite clear that the incessant push to enter into free trade agreements without first stopping to insure they include fair trade safeguards is, pure and simple, reckless. Perhaps there is no better example to illustrate this point than the recently broken-down negotiations between Congress and the Administration over the reauthorization of fast-track trading authority, and the relation of those negotiations to the runaway momentum in both the Congress and the executive branch to expand NAFTA. The debate over fast-track's reauthorization has centered on the Administration's position that U.S. trade negotiators should continue to be allowed to address labor and environmental concerns and the Republicans' drive to revoke that authority. In my opinion this difference represents a flawed point on which to base negotiations as it begs the very fundamental question of whether fast-track should be reauthorized at all. While the Administration's position is imminently better than the Republicans', it is not a good alternative. It is, rather, the lesser of two evils. For even under a fast-track program that safeguards the right of U.S. trade negotiators to address both labor and environmental concerns, Congress would still have to agree in advance of seeing a trade agreement. Mr. Speaker, I think it is tragically wrong for Congress to agree to stifle itself and surrender its constitutionally granted authority when considering trade pacts that will have far reaching effects on American jobs. Those pacts should, on the contrary, be scrutinized from top to bottom in order to prevent the type of disaster that is currently going on as a result of the NAFTA pact. Indeed, those who would see fast-track reauthorized and subsequently support the use of that tool to expand NAFTA must be living under rocks. As the last 20 months have shown, the impact of NAFTA on the American economy has been anything but what its proponents promised. To push for expanding that ill-conceived trade pact represents nothing short of a callous disrespect for the notion of protecting American jobs. Consider, for instance, the claim made often by NAFTA's strongest supporters before the NAFTA agreement was approved by Congress that the trade pact would create 200,000 jobs by 1995. That claim was made by using the calculation that every billion dollars of net exports creates 20,000 jobs. It is with no pleasure, and I assure you with no pleasure on my part, that I point out that in the first 6 months of 1995 the United States recorded an $8.3 billion trade deficit with Mexico, where-as last year during the same period the U.S. had recorded a surplus of $1.1 billion. In order to reach the goal of 200,000 new NAFTA jobs, the United States would have to run a yearly trade surplus with Mexico exceeding $8.6 billion. Thus what is clear is that the reality of the situation is drastically different from what NAFTA's champions promised the American people; with a projected $15 billion 1995 trade deficit with Mexico, and the situation with Canada not being much better, by the year's end, instead of creating 200,000 new employment opportunities, NAFTA probably will have eliminated some 800,000 American jobs. What is, moreover, as equally disturbing is the Labor Department's recent report that as of September 30 it had certified 42,221 citizens as eligible for NAFTA-related trade adjustment assistance. In light of these facts, the push to expand NAFTA is not just bad policy, it is shockingly bad policy. Congress need to get its priorities in order. Before we worry about expanding a trade agreement that has done nothing yet but consume American jobs, I would suggest that we first attempt to both offer better help to those Americans who have already lost their jobs and stop further hemorrhaging. For the immediate future this means ensuring that fast track will indeed, as reports now indicate, be kept out of the reconciliation bill, killing the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which proposes to grant one-way NAFTA privileges to 23 Latin American countries without any reciprocal benefits for the U.S., and opposing the inclusion of Chile in NAFTA. For the long term this means working to implement policies that have the effect of actually creating jobs in a fair and equitable manner. Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly about this. I think that NAFTA has hurt the United States, hurt our economy, and I do not want to see it expanded.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to emphasize that this bill will not damage the peace process. In fact, it complements the peace process in terms of when construction would actually begin on the embassy and when it would actually be completed. Mr. Speaker, I think that we have to stress that an undivided Jerusalem needs to be recognized as the capital of Israel and that our embassy should be moved there. This move is long overdue. Particularly now, with Jerusalem's 3,000th anniversary as the capital of Israel, I think it is time to support it and support it on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Speaker, I would stress that this is not a Republican bill; it is not a Democratic bill; it is a bipartisan bill and will, I think, complement the peace process and not take away from it in any way. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the legislation.