Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I would like to thank my friend from Missouri for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. We are asked to conjure up happy images of parents going to parent-teacher conferences and picnics with their children and camp visitations. When you read this bill, it paints a very different picture of what it will do to the American family and the American worker. Picture this: An employee who always chooses cash overtime and never chooses comp time will not get offered overtime any more by many, many employers. That employee will not get overtime. They will get the right to sue their boss at their expense and have to carry the burden of proof in the trial. Picture this: An employee who has built up a lot of comp time over the years and then gets a layoff notice or sees that his or her employer is going into bankruptcy. They do not get comp time converted into cash. They get left holding the bag because their employer is long gone and the cash is long gone and the income that they counted on is long gone. Picture this: An employee who goes in and says, I want to use my comp time next Thursday because I just found out that is when my parent- teacher conference is, and here is the answer: No. Mr. Chairman, you do not get the right to go to the parent-teacher conference. You get the right to sue your boss. That really is not worth very much to the American worker. If you really want to help people that are in so much turmoil and trouble, why do we not bring a health insurance bill to the floor that makes sure that every American worker gets health insurance when they go to work? Why do we not expand on the Family and Medical Leave Act so people can get paid when they have to deal with a family medical health or other kind of emergency? Mr. Chairman, this bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. I am going to vote against the bill and slay the wolf and defeat the bill today.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time. The issue raised by the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens], which I strongly support, is how much leverage does the janitor who cleans the building have over the person who owns the building and pays his or her paycheck? The way this bill is set up is it says that the employer will, I believe, have functional control over whether you choose cash or comp time. If you do not like what the employer chooses, you have the right to sue your boss. If you make less than $10 an hour, I do not think you will get very far doing that. The Owens amendment is pointed in the right direction. I strongly support it on behalf of all of the people out there who have no leverage, no leverage over that choice whatsoever. I commend the gentleman for offering it, and I support it.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to commend and acknowledge the children who participated in the 14th Annual South Jersey Elementary Festival Choral Concert. The chorus which performed on March 15 was comprised of fourth, fifth, and sixth graders from South Jersey elementary schools. The children are from Burlington, Cape May, Cumberland, Atlantic, Camden, Gloucester, and Ocean counties. After being selected through an audition, they rehearse for a full day, then perform for parents and the community in a different venue each year. The sopranos this year were: Carissa Ambrose, Melisa Appenzeller, Niamah Ashong, Lauren Badessa, Erika Bair, Taylor Bandy, Robyn Barbera, Jillian Bauman, James Bishop, Ciarra Black, Jenna Buechler, Darla Bunting, Yesenia Camero, Joshua Carlleer, Monica Carney, Charisle Chrisopher, Casey Cipriani, Allison Coremin, Claire Cossaboon, Adam Crane, Jenna Crimaldi, Cherelle Crook, Jessica Curtin, Krystal Deegan, Mykalann Depack, Danielle DiAmore, Suzanne DiBenedetto, Katherine Dippalico, Kyanna Ellerbe, Vanessa Flaharty, Brittany Floyd, Casia Frake, Leayne Freeman, Kiara Froding, Monique Gale, Christy Gallagher, Liz Getman, Maria Gullo, Kelly Gunning, Rebecca Hill, Aaron Homan, Julie Horner, Michael Mowell, Rion Hunter, Paige Hyman, Jessica Jardel, Alicia Jenkins, Becky Johnson, Ashley Jones, Justine Kanla, William Kraemer, Jennifer Krystek, Jared Lacovara, Jillian Lewis, Sabria Lindsey, Kirsten Louis, Allison Lakacsy, Jessica Mills, Cassie Milone, Andrew Morris, Monica Morris, Lisamarie Musumeci, Autumn Neube, Michael Nurthen, Laura Palimeno, Rebecca Polito, Zebbria Price, Kristen Prost, Jamila Ramsey, Lidia Ramos, Nikita Riggler, Jessica Rishel, Lachelle Robinson, Heather Roeske, Allison Rossl, Halleym Sackedis, Laura Sayer, Jonathan Sharpless, Diana Shreiner, Stephanie Simpkins, Caitlin Smith, Tiffany Spingler, Matthew Spittal, Jamela Staten, Jenna Stump, Lakeisha Sydnor, Quiana Thompson, Kathleen Tibbels, Janet Torres, Christina Turner, Molly Watson, Kimberly Weidman, Elizabeth Wintersteon, Ashley Wuzzardo, and Gillian Young. The altos who performed were: Erin Alden, Julie Annise, Katelyn Archer, Rachel Barlow, Melissa Barna, Sarah Bearry, Rebecca Black, Amanda Botto, Amber Boyer, Derek Burgin, Courtney Calloway, Gene Carey, Jennifer Carroll, Kelly Clark, George Colli, Chelsea Conner, Jeffrey Corgan, Letasha DeJesus, Kevin Diduch, Elizabeth Donahue, Sara Donovan, Amy Dunn, Richard Evans, Meagan Fagotti, Ashley Falconi, Michele Fitzgerald, Ferin Ford, Jennifer Frattom Loian Glovanetti, Tiffany Gligor, Amber Gonzalea, Gina Gorneski, Natacla Graves, David Gwinn, R.J. Heil, Marissa Hines, Joshua Hoagland, Patrick James, Cynthia Jenkins, Joy Keeton, Terrence Kelley, Jonnae Knospe, Sara Konkol, Kristen Lakjer, Brian Lapann, Alan Laroco, Robert Larrabee, Gabrielle Lawson, Phillip Love, Brittany Lynch, Jennifer MacMillan, Joshua Main, Lilian Matos, Douglas McGeroge, Nicholas Michaluk, Sara Morris, Sean Moyer, Cassie Muhlbaier, Katelyn Mullen, Matthew Murphy, Denise Myles, Shawn Newberry, Andrew Nugent, Jennifer Parks, Peter Permito, Roxanne Povernick, Tyler Reed, Kristin Reynolds, Amanda Richman, Nicole Ritchie, Michael Russell, Rachel Samuels, Sara Schreiner, Steven Sharpe, Tatiana Shockley, Heather Sipps, Christine Spicer, Courtney Stetson, Rachel Teyssier, Cheryl Tirtak, Jeff Totten, Julie Truxton, Adrienne Valentino, Corey Victor, Megan Waldow, Katherine Walsh, Hayley Wells, Ashley Withers, Brianna Wyatt, and Audrey Zikell.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, within every community, there are individuals who, through their acts of kindness and selflessness, touch many lives. Quite often, they are the silent leaders following a path that many others have traveled. Those who travel with them find prosperity at the end. One such leader is Jean Miller. In April 1997, Ms. Miller will be retiring as president of the Southern Chester County, PA, Emergency Medical Services, Inc. For Ms. Miller, this marks the end of an impressive and rewarding career. She served 25 years in the Navy, including three tours as a surgical nurse during the Vietnam war. Ms. Miller was also an active member of the West Grove Fire Co. She has been admired by her colleagues for her skills in the operating room as well as the warmth she displayed in the recovery room. Credited for improving ambulatory services in the Chester County community, Ms. Miller expanded the services to include routine ambulance transportation and emergency basic life support services. In addition, she was the guide for providing basic life support professional staff to local ambulance services, augmenting such services during daytime hours when volunteer help was limited. On March 16, the citizens of Chester County will honor Jean Miller for a lifetime of unselfish service. As she receives accolades from the citizens present at this event, individuals across the country who were touched by Ms. Miller's caring hands will once again feel her touch as the last chapter of an illustrious career comes to an end. As chairman of the Congressional Fire Service Caucus, it is my honor to pay tribute to Ms. Miller on behalf of the 320 Fire Caucus members.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an individual who has given of himself to make his borough a better place to live. I am speaking of Matthew Capano, former mayor of the borough of West Paterson. Matthew Capano's dedication to West Paterson and his fellow citizens is exemplary. Mayor Capano is a lifelong resident of West Paterson. The mayor has demonstrated his dedication to West Paterson through his long service to the West Paterson Democrat Club, including serving the club as president. Mayor Capano served his borough as a council member for the borough from 1987 until 1992. Matthew Capano took this worthy dedication to service even further during his term as mayor from January 1, 1994, to December 31, 1996. As mayor, Matthew Capano conducted himself with a single goal, embodied in his motto: ``West Paterson first!'' Mayor Capano had a number of impressive achievements during his term as mayor. Mayor Capano brought financial stability to West Paterson by refusing to increase municipal taxes. He united all borough departments, organization, and residents into the single goal of working together for the good of West Paterson. The West Paterson Municipal Alliance became a model for the rest of Passaic County as a result of Mayor Capano's dedication to efficiency. Mayor Capano advanced his belief in efficient and responsible government by transforming the police department and the Department of Public Works; this transformation greatly improved their ability to respond to the needs of the people of West Paterson. All who know Mayor Capano are honored by his service to the borough of West Paterson. I know that Mayor Capano's wife Donna and children Gina, Sarah, Matthew, and Rebecca are as proud of his accomplishments as we all are. Matthew Capano's service has been remarkable, and I congratulate and thank him on behalf of all the citizens of New Jersey.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring a group of citizens that glorify the State of New Jersey. On May 14th of this year the city of Camden held its' Police Awards Banquet. The event recognized citizens and police officers that went beyond the call of duty in their particular areas of service. I would like to highlight the officers of the Rutgers University Police Department who protect our communities and place our lives before their own. Their dedication and service to the people enables us to live in safety. Moreover, their example serves as a model for all citizens. The following Rutgers University Police should be recognized for their meritorious service: Capt. Guy Still, Lt. Edmund Johnson, Sgt. Michael Amorim, Sgt. Louis Capelli, Officer John Denmark, Officer William Singleton, Officer Lynn Vrooman, Officer Tracy McGriff, Officer William Princiotta. The following officers were killed in the line of duty: Officer George F. Jefferis 1951, Sergeant Carmin Fuscellaro 1961, Officer George Schultz 1969, Officer Charles Sutman 1969, Officer Rand Chandler 1969, Officer Elwood Ridge 1973, Officer Stuart Roberts 1975.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor to Freeholder P. Marvin Padgett, a member of the Cumberland County Board of Chosen Freeholders in New Jersey. Mr. Padgett has announced his retirement. He will be leaving office at the end of his term in 1998. Mr. Padgett, a resident of Fairfield Township has dedicated his life to public service. He is currently concluding a 9-year stretch as Freeholder, which began in 1988. Prior to this he had served a 3-year term from 1971-73. Mr. Padgett has been affiliated with many Camden County Departments during his illustrious career. Freeholder Padgett began his community involvement as an active member of the Bridgeton Jaycees in the 1950's and has also held the post of President of that organization. Following his involvement with the Jaycees, the Freeholder was appointed a member of the Bridgeton Housing Authority. Mr. Padgett was later elected to the Fairfield Township Board of Education. In 1964, Mr. Padgett was elected to the first of his two terms as County Coroner. He was later appointed to the Cumberland County Utilities Authority where he served for a total of 8\1/2\ years, the final 3 as Chairman. In 1978 he was elected Camden County Democratic Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and thank Mr. Padgett for his lifelong commitment to his community. Through his years of hard work, Freeholder Padgett has shown uncompromising dedication to his family, his colleagues, and to the people of his community.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring a group of citizens that glorify the State of New Jersey. On May 14 of this year the city of Camden held its' police awards banquet. The event recognized citizens and police officers that went beyond the call of duty in their particular areas of service. While I have formerly acknowledged some of these individuals, due to a clerical error certain police officers were not mentioned by name. Therefore, I would like to highlight these officers who protect our communities and place our lives before their own. Their dedication and service to the people enables us to live in safety. Moreover, their example serves as a model for all citizens. The following Rutgers University Police should be recognized for their meritorious service: Capt. Guy Still; Lt. Edmund Johnson; Sgt. Michael Amorim; Sgt. Louis Capelli; Officer John Denmark; Officer William Singleton; Officer Lynn Vrooman; Officer Tracy McGriff; and Officer William Princiotta. The following officers were killed in the line of duty: Officer George F. Jefferis (1951); Sgt. Carmin Fuscellaro (1961); Officer George Schultz (1969); Officer Charles Sutman (1969); Officer Rand Chandler (1969); Officer Elwood Ridge (1973); and Officer Stuart Roberts (1975).

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Resource Conservation and Development Program [RC&D] whose efforts have improved the economy, the environment, and the living standards of this Nation. I would like to designate September 15, 1996, as a day of recognition for the Resource Conservation and Development Program. The RC&D, initiated in 1962, serves 2,016 counties in more than half of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. The 20,000 volunteers involved in the organization's projects contribute their time and resources to revitalize and sustain their communities. The comprehensive efforts of the RC&D have focused on protecting the environment and fortifying the economy of this Nation. The program's resource protection initiative has improved 40,264 acres of wildlife habitat, and has increased the quality of water in 56,052 acres of lakes and 2,523 miles of streams. Furthermore, RC&D council and partners have added to the economy by creating 164 new businesses, resulting in 3,209 jobs. Their educational projects have helped 82,878 people develop new skills in areas of development, entrepreneurial training, and resource assessment. From saving the environment to creating jobs, the RC&D has touched the lives of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, we all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the RC&D for their dedication and service to this country. Their accomplishments illustrate the power and strength of volunteer organizations in this Nation. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring the Resource Conservation and Development Program on this day.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on H.R. 3759, to reauthorize one of the most egregious examples of corporate welfare in the Federal Government, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation [OPIC]. OPIC provides subsidized loans and insurance to large corporations for overseas investments, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. OPIC gives corporations risk insurance at bargain-basement prices, to promote their expansion in unstable regions around the world, where private markets would be unwilling to lend at such low rates. OPIC has placed at risk over $8.7 billion of taxpayer money. OPIC's generosity is extended to many Fortune 500 companies. DuPont received $200 million in loan guarantees. Coca-Cola obtained a loan guarantee of $165 million. Citicorp, with a net income of $3.5 billion in 1995, received $842 million of OPIC insurance. US West received $100 million in financing last year, while making a $1.3 billion profit. OPIC has helped other profitable companies, including McDonald's, Motorola, and Pepsi Cola. H.R. 3759 doubles this corporate welfare, by increasing OPIC's ceilings for insurance and subsidized loans. H.R. 3759 doubles OPIC's cap on investment insurance, from $13 billion to $25 billion, and doubles OPIC's financing authority from $9 billion to $20 billion. Recently, we reduced welfare for the poor. We should not now double welfare for rich companies. OPIC's corporate welfare hurts American workers. In 1994, Kimberly- Clark obtained $9.27 million from OPIC; the same year, the Labor Department certified that 600 of Kimberly-Clark's U.S. employees were adversely affected by the company's increased imports. Similarly, Levi- Strauss obtained $1.8 million in OPIC insurance, while the Government stated that 100 Levi-Strauss workers in the United States were hurt by the company's overseas trade. We should not encourage the largest corporations in America to invest abroad rather than reinvesting in America and creating jobs here at home. OPIC puts taxpayer dollars at risk. OPIC obligates American taxpayers to underwrite the insurance for the possible loss of private investments by America's richest companies. OPIC has risked over $8.7 billion of U.S. taxpayer money in these markets. If there is political turmoil in an unstable country, and large companies lose their assets, the American taxpayers will have to bail them out. Taxpayers have already paid $80 billion to bail out Savings and Loans--we should not ask them to pay if OPIC's projects go bust. OPIC wastes scarce Federal dollars. Proponents of OPIC claim that it has actually brought $2 billion to the Treasury. But OPIC does not generate income. Rather, OPIC generates reserves against possible potential insurance claims, which is not income to the Treasury and will not help offset the deficit. If there are claims against OPIC's outstanding insurance, these reserves could be wiped out. And OPIC gives loan guarantees, as well as insurance. If borrowers default on OPIC's outstanding loan guarantees, taxpayers will have to bail it out. OPIC supports unnecessary projects. McDonald's received $14 million in loan guarantees to build 16 fast food restaurants in Brazil. OPIC guaranteed $27 million in loans for the renovation of a luxury hotel in Jamaica. OPIC even gave loan guarantees to a Costa Rican banana plantation, an Ecuadorian shrimp farm, and an art gallery in Haiti! I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the massive expansion of corporate welfare in H.R. 3759.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I share the laudable goal of H.R. 3863, to reduce the costs to students of borrowing for educational expenses, and I applaud the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities for its efforts to achieve this goal by cutting student loan fees. I would note that student loan origination fees were initially intended as a temporary measure, and it is high time that we repeal this tax on borrowing for all students. However, this legislation remains flawed, because it will create an unpredictable and unequal student loan system, in which some students will see their loan fees cut, while other students will receive no benefit. As originally written H.R. 3863 would have given lenders the discretion to pay loan origination fees for some borrowers but not others. In all likelihood, the lenders would waive the fee for the most affluent students, who are better lending risks, in order to attract their business. Thus, the most needy students would have been required to pay more to participate in the same lending programs as affluent students. Thus, the bill would have created incentives for lenders to pay the fee for students who are perceived as better lending risks. As a result, certain institutions would have a competitive advantage over others. This would have forced smaller lenders out of business, and might have led to less access to loans for needy students. To address these concerns about potential discrimination among students and schools, I offered an amendment in committee, which I was pleased was adopted, to help prevent this possible unintended consequence of H.R. 3863. My amendment makes clear that lenders cannot vary the fee that they charge to student borrowers based on their credit risk. Additionally, my amendment gives the lender some discretion to further cut the origination fee for some student borrowers if they, in fact, show a greater need. Lenders, thus, are prohibited from discriminating against lower-income students and are empowered to offer them further assistance at their discretion. Unfortunately, the bill as currently written would permit lenders to pay origination fees for some students, but would not provide the same opportunity for cost savings to students who receive loans under the Direct Loan Program. The result will be discrimination among students based on the program from which they receive their student loans. Students, colleges and universities, and the taxpayers are best served if there is free, open competition and choice. Competition means that students and families can evaluate all the different loan options available to them and make the choice that is best for them. To ensure free competition in the student loan arena, the basic ground rules should be equal for all kinds of loans. Loan fee cuts must be applied equitably to benefit students without regard to whether their institution participates in the Federal Family Education Loan Program [FFEL], the Direct Loan Program, or both. It is important to keep terms and conditions as nearly the same as possible, both to provide a level playing field so that students and institutions continue to benefit from the healthy competition that currently exists between the two programs, and to ensure that students in equivalent financial situations are treated equally. We should not only reduce the fees on the bank- and guaranty agency-based unsubsidized loans, but we should also extend that fee reduction to students who receive direct loans. If it is a good idea to reduce these fees for students who borrow from banks or from guaranty agencies, then it is an equally good idea to extend that same opportunity to all students who would borrow from the Direct Student Loan Program. This committee has the opportunity to provide relief to all students, regardless of where they get their loan, while achieving our goal of a balanced Federal budget. Cutting fees will help students who are faced with rising college costs and declining Federal aid. Over the past 15 years--1980-95-- tuition at private 4-year higher education institutions has increased by 89 percent and at public 4-year institutions by 98 percent. In the same period of time, median family income has increased by 5 percent and student financial aid per student has increased by 37 percent. Clearly the ability of students and their families to pay for higher education has diminished significantly. Student financial aid has clearly not kept pace with rising costs. In the mid-1970's about 76 percent of the financial aid which students received from Federal programs was grants and 21 percent was loans. In the mid-1990's the proportions have been reversed, with 26 percent of the Federal student aid in grants and 72 percent in loans. Another problem with H.R. 3863 is that guaranty agencies could take the so-called excess reserves accumulated from students who have already borrowed money, draw down those excess reserves in order to help finance this cut in the fees, and in effect, use the money paid by a student 5 years ago under a fee to help reduce the fee for a student who borrows next year. Banks would not have that same opportunity to get capital at basically no cost, nor would the Federal Government. In order to level that playing field, we should cut loan fees for all students, whether they borrow from a guaranty agency, a bank, or the Federal Government through direct lending. To pay for fee reductions for all students, regardless of where they get their loan, we should apply savings already identified in the budget process but not yet used: recovery of these excess guaranty agency reserve funds and an increase in the lender loan fee. We have already concluded in our budget process that lenders and guaranty agencies are in a better position to bear these costs than students are. In summary, under H.R. 3863, students who take out an unsubsidized loan from a guaranty agency or a bank get a fee cut, which will lower their cost of borrowing for school. Yet their next-door neighbors on campus, with the same family income and the same tuition, who happen to receive their loan through the Direct Loan Program, are not offered the same savings. This inequity makes no sense, and it is a serious flaw in the legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, sometimes the measure of a legislative body is who it listens to. The majority this year listened to a certain elite group of citizens who said they wanted to renounce their citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes, and they got what they wanted. The majority this year listened to corporate America that wanted to continue to flood our campaigns with political contributions, and they got what they wanted. The majority this year listened to the huge argribusiness that get billions and billions of dollars of welfare checks from the public Treasury, and they got what they wanted. Today a bipartisan majority of Republicans and Democrats is going to listen to the people who sweep our floors, wash our dishes, take care of our children, and do the hard work of America, and finally they are going to get what they rightfully deserve, an increase in the minimum wage of this country. We have lad a lot of talk on this floor this week about the desirability of work. Talk is cheap. What is more important about the desirability of work is to say to someone who washes dishes or sweeps floors or works in a child care center, your work counts, too. By rising today in support of this rule and this bill, we are finally going to say to the Americans that no one ever listens to, thank you for a job well done. America does need a raise. Today the most deserving Americans are going to get one.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] for yielding me this time. He will be missed, his presence, around here as well next year. This is a good bill and I rise in support of it and the rule that supports it. It is a good bill because it works for a number of Americans. But we have some work left to do for a lot of other Americans. This bill says to someone who has had breast cancer or a triple bypass operation, if you lose your job and you have to look for new coverage, you cannot be denied that coverage because you were so unlucky that you got sick. That is a good thing. I believe there are mechanisms in this bill that would make sure that you would be offered that coverage at about the same rate everybody else would, and that is a very good thing. This bill says to the person who is the next victim of corporate downsizing that they will have the right to stay in the health care plan that they were in when they were working until they find their next job, or maybe even after they find their next job for awhile. They will have to pay for it, and that is very difficult for a lot of people, but the fact of the matter is it is a lot better to be able to write a check to stay in the plan that they are already in than to have to go look for new coverage after they have lost their job, and that is a very good thing. It is a good thing that self-employed people are going to be able to deduct more of their premiums now than they were before from their income tax return. They ought to be able to deduct 100 percent of it, but it is a very good thing that we have increased that. It is a good thing that people who buy long-term care insurance, who if they have to go into a nursing home will have to have an insurance policy to cover it, can get some help on their tax return if they do. That is a good thing. But there is work we have left to do. This bill works in that way for a lot of people. There is work we have left to do. This bill does not really help the family that is sitting there tonight, that is so upset because one of the people in the family has a severe mental illness, is a manic depressive, let us say, and they are worried that that person's next hospitalization is going to bankrupt the family because there is a $10,000-a-year limit on mental health benefits. There are good things, but there is work we have left to do. I support the bill and the rule.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, today there are 40 million Americans with no health insurance. There are millions of Americans who will go to bed tonight with a knot in their stomach about whether they get a layoff notice tomorrow at their jobs. There are rivers that need to be cleaned, highways that need to be built, seniors who need health care in their homes, and what are we doing this afternoon? We are passing a law that says it is illegal for the Federal Government to print a document in a language other than English. If I have ever seen a solution in search of a problem, this is it. I know, Mr. Chairman, what this is really about. It is about millions of Americans who are sick to their stomach and worried to death that they are going to lose what they have worked for their whole life. What is the solution? It is to beat up on and demonize people who do not look like we do or talk like we do. Mr. Chairman, if we want to do something to address the real problem of those very real people, then give paid leave to people so they can leave work and take care of their children, stop corporations from raiding the pension funds of their employees, provide health benefits for every working American in this country, fund bilingual education, so people can read and write the English language, and put our constituents back to work. This is a shameless and shameful attempt to take the real anxieties of real people and direct them at people who are not like some of the rest of us. We are better than this bill. We should have aspirations better than this. Should, God forbid, it become law, I urge my colleagues from the Republican and Democratic party, from urban, rural, and suburban districts, be better than what is behind this bill. Vote no, and let us get to work on the real problems of the American people.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman I rise to oppose this legislation. I fully appreciate the demands of balancing family and work, as my colleague from North Carolina just mentioned. Tonight is my 3-year-old daughter's back to school night at her gymnastics camp. Her mother will be there; I will not because we are not always able to balance our work and time schedules easily. There are some flaws in this bill, though, that I think do not hold out the promise that my friend just talked about. First of all, is the bill truly voluntary? Is the choice truly voluntary? I believe that in the situation here where an employer systematically grants overtime to the employee who chooses comp time and systematically denies overtime to the employee who chooses cash, that the employee who chooses cash, the employee who chooses to have a few more dollars in his or her paycheck, is going to be denied a truly voluntary choice, and I think that employee has no meaningful or realistic remedy. I think the employee has a burden of proof that would be almost impossible to sustain. I think there are some legitimate question as to under which specific circumstances that employee could, in fact, recover her attorney fees or his attorney fees. I do not think this is truly a voluntary choice, and I think an employee who exercises his or her right to choose cash rather than comp time would not be able to achieve an effective remedy if the employer wanted to punish him or her for making that choice. Second, we hear comparisons about the public sector and the private sector, and we hear how employees in the public sector in many cases have had this situation for many, many years. I would say there is an important difference between the public sector and the private sector, and it is this: Most public sector employees are under some form of civil service protection, meaning if they are in fact singled out because of the choices they have made or because of some other reason on the job, there is a set body of law that provides for both substantive remedies and meaningful procedures in order to enforce their rights. That does not exist in the private sector. Finally, I think there are real questions as to what happens here. I think there are very significant questions as to what happens under this bill should it become law. If an employee chooses comp time and her comp time adds up and adds up and adds up, and then the employer files bankruptcy, the employer goes out of business, how realistic is it that that employee is going to be able to recover the cash that she or he is owed in response to having that comp time? Finally, I would say this to my colleagues. There is no question that working families in this country need help. Working women, in particular, in this country need help. What they really need is paid leave in many cases. They need to be able to take time off if they have a child, or a death in the family, or a need to pursue a family obligation with pay, not without it. What they really need is an assurance of health benefits so that the millions of Americans who go to work every day and have no health insurance coverage will have some. Now, there are a lot of different theories of proposals of how to accomplish that. I do not know which one is the best. But I would like to implore my friends and colleagues in the Republican leadership that maybe we ought to spend some more time talking about that before we adjourn in October. We ought to bring to this floor some ways that people can have paid leave and health insurance benefits instead of the bill that we see before us today. I oppose the bill; I urge its defeat.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill and I frankly oppose the rule because there are some unanswered questions about this legislation that we are rushing to judgment and ignoring. The first question is, How do we assure that it is truly voluntary for the man or woman who chooses comp time over cash? This bill, I do not think, provides for that. It says to an employee who feels that he or she has been coerced into this choice that they must meet an unmeetable burden of proof. They must prove that the employer intended to deny them that choice. I would submit to you that there will be very few employees anywhere who will be able to meet that burden of proof it is not truly voluntary. Second, Mr. Speaker, what happens to buy-back provisions? What happens if the employer owes you hours and hours of comp time and then goes out of business and does not have the cash to pay you back the cash value of the comp time? Unanswered question. We hear from our friends on the other side that well, this works in the public sector so it will work here in the private sector. There is a difference. The first difference is that most public sector employees are protected by civil service protections. If you believe that the employer in the public sector is coercing you, you have a hearing, you have the ability to process a grievance. Most private sector employees do not have such a right, and except for this one, most governments are not on the verge of going out of business because of bankruptcy. So I would suggest to you there is a very important difference there. Finally, this is really, with all due respect, citizen Dole's rush to close the gender gap. That is what this is really all about. I would suggest to you if the majority wants to speak to working women in America, let us talk about expanding the family medical leave that most Members opposed. Let us talk about getting health insurance for all working women, which most of the Members had very few ideas about.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation of objection, I want to concur in the comments of my friend and say this is really the Youth Job Protection Act. This is going to help a lot of young people get jobs in grocery stores and supermarkets and protect their health and safety at the same time. I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] for their excellent work on this bill, and the other members of the committee and also representatives from labor and management. I concur in his remarks, am happy to work with him.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do not intend to object. I ask the gentleman from North Carolina, the subcommittee chairman, if he would explain the legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the truth hurts and the truth is that what the Speaker asserted in 1995, that Medicare should wither on the vine is still true in his opinion in 1996. The truth also is that this is a Congress that has reacted when people have opposed their positions in very negative and harmful ways to all of us. In 1995 they threw a national temper tantrum and shut the Government down because they could not get what they wanted. And now in 1996 when working men and women who are members of unions like the laborer's union exercise their constitutional right to protest statements like this, they try to intimidate, coerce, and shut them down with hearings like those that are happening today. Real crime is happening on the streets of America but the crime is not happening with statements like this. We ought to give people the right to say what they want. The truth, indeed, hurts.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, if each of the associations that my friend from Virginia cites are opposed to the bill, it does not surprise me. Taxpayers are in favor of this bill, because all it really says is if you are really saving money, you ought to prove it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner].

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The purpose of this amendment is rather simple and straightforward, and it is that the taxpayers that we represent have a right to know how and where their money is being spent. This is a phenomenon that is happening across our country right now. State governments, in an attempt to save money, are laying off public employees by the score. People are losing their jobs, they are losing their careers, they are losing many of the things they depend on for their families. These are longtime, hard-working public employees. The justification that is offered time after time for this contracting out and for these employees losing their jobs is that it saves money. This amendment simply says to a local government using Federal taxpayer dollars in transportation projects, it says to that local government: If you want to lay off public employees, if you want to take away the jobs of people who have been on the payroll for a long time and done their job as they have been asked, then you have to show us, you have to show the public, that the savings of money that you assert are there are, in fact, there. Here is the way it works: When a local government using Federal funds from the transportation trust funds decides to contract that work out, if the work is work that has been traditionally done by public employees, traditionally done by public employees, if they decide to contract the work out, this amendment requires the local government to go through a cost-benefit analysis. It requires a local government to weigh the costs and benefits of contracting the work out versus the costs and the benefits of keeping the work in-house and being done by public employees. The record of that analysis is then spread before the public, and that is it. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues what the amendment does not do. The amendment does not require that work that has been done by the private sector for years be changed. If, as in most States, the actual construction of these projects is done in the private sector and not by public employees, this amendment does not apply. It applies only to work traditionally done by public employees. It does not create a massive and new bureaucratic gauntlet for State governments to run. I would hope that every State and local government that is spending the hard-earned tax dollars of our constituents is already doing this. I hope they are already sitting down and saying what would option A cost to contract the work out versus what would option B cost to keep the work inside. This really simply requires then to disclose what I hope they are already doing. Finally, this amendment does not, does not, require that there be some new obligation placed upon States or that some new category of work be kept in house that would otherwise be contracted out. This is common sense. It even says, Mr. Chairman, that after the cost benefit analysis has been done, if the State still decides to contract the work out, there is nothing in this amendment that precludes them from doing so. It protects the right and discretion of States and local governments. This, Mr. Chairman, is a truth-in-government amendment. It simply says if a local official, using Federal taxpayer dollars, if a State official using Federal taxpayer dollars, decides to lay people off the public payroll because they claim that it saves money, they have to show that it saves money. That is all. It is a truth-in-government amendment. I believe it deserves broad support, and I would ask that it receive that support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.