Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman would yield, I will be very succinct. I do not want to intrude on his time. Frankly let me try to answer your question. Here is how I think we can get the 300 votes, and everyone has their own version of this. The tax cut will be smaller, the money taken from the tax cut will be put back into Medicare. There will be a little bit more taken out of agriculture and energy, put back into the environment and education, and there is your 300 votes, and it will take us 15 minutes.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, if I could offer my own observation as to why we are at this point of stalemate, in all candor, I think the first continuing resolution failed because your party chose, for whatever reason, to attach issues regarding environmental regulation and Federal criminal appeal habeas corpus review, and some other things.

Mr. ANDREWS. And we should make that resolution. Between now and Monday, and I hope we can for family reasons finish by then, but we ought to make it our mission to get that done by Monday, and I think the 300 of us who want to see a 7-year balanced budget will win, which is as it ought to be.

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman that there is a philosophical divide here that has to be dealt with. I think the proper place to deal with that is on the debate over the reconciliation bill. I think we ought to have that debate while the Government is running.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that balancing the budget in 7 years is right and necessary. I think this is absolutely the wrong way to do it. Under this plan, senior citizens will pay more for their health insurance. There will be fewer reading tutors in our school systems. There will be fewer people inspecting the quality of our air and water. That is what is going to happen. Now, is it necessary? I do not think so. And one of the most egregious examples of where we could cut but are not cutting in this plan is through the Republican abolition of the direct lending program. Understand this, ladies and gentlemen, abrogation of direct lending is nothing more than a $6 billion giveaway to the banking industry of this country. In the next couple days or weeks we are going to come back here and we are going to pass a 7-year balanced budget. One of the ways that we will do it, and should do it, is to say no $6 billion giveaway to the banking industry of this country. Put the reading tutors back in the schools. Put the pollution inspectors back in the helicopters back over the ocean and do not raise taxes on janitors to give $6 billion away to banks.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, it appears certain that tomorrow a substantial portion of the Federal Government will shut down. That is a very serious and very negative and very real thing for hundreds of thousands of people who work for the Federal Government in this country. I regret that. I would urge my colleagues to work together tonight and for the rest of this week as long as it takes to prevent that. There is no good reason why these good people have to be put at risk tomorrow. I want to come back to something that my friend from Ohio just talked about a few minutes ago. That is there have been lots of other shutdowns in America in the last few years as well that have nothing to do, directly at least, with the Federal payroll but have a lot to do with the shutdown of economic growth and opportunity. Yes; it is true and it is regrettable that hundreds of thousands of Federal employees will not go to work and will not get paid tomorrow and will not be able to pay their bills. A lot of other Americans will not go to work tomorrow, too; the ones who worked in manufacturing jobs and made $10 or $12 or $15 an hour and saw their job go to Mexico or Malaysia. A lot of other Americans will go to work tomorrow in jobs that pay them 40 or 50 percent of what they need to make to meet their family budget. The man or the woman who was working in mid-management at a bank and making $40,000 or $45,000 a year a few years ago who now is making $20,000 or $25,000 a year. A lot of young Americans will go to work tomorrow at the shopping mall at their part-time job, even though they have a master's degree or a college degree in a field that ought to get them a job at a much higher rate of wages. A lot of senior citizens tomorrow are going to wake up and wonder if they are going to be able to turn their heater above 65 degrees because they are so worried they cannot pay their utility bill. The rest of America, Mr. Speaker, sort of shut down a while ago. A lot of American families have seen their budgets shut down and be ratcheted down. So maybe it is time that we had this confrontation here to talk about our Federal budget and its impact on the family budget. I agree, as a Democrat, with my friends, Mr. Speaker, across the aisle who say that we ought to balance the budget and do it in 7 years, and I agree with them that it ought to be done without increasing the tax burden on the American people. They are already overtaxed as far as I am concerned. I do not agree with the exact way that our Republican friends have chosen to do this. I think that we should be getting rid of accounts that pay for overseas advertising by food companies, not getting rid of remedial reading teachers in the public schools. I think that we can go to some of our agribusinesses in this country that receive welfare checks not to grow food and cut them off instead of raising the cost of going to college for middle-class families. I think that a lot of the tax loopholes and giveaways in the Internal Revenue Code to insurance companies, and banks, and Fortune 500 companies could go by the wayside so we would not have to be raising Medicare premiums on the elderly in this country. Mr. Speaker, I think we can do it differently, but I agree we have to do it. We have to balance the budget, and we ought to do it in 7 years, and we ought to get to work instead of standing around here tonight just talking to each other about it. But we ought to do some other things as well. We ought to fix and change our educational system in this country so having a high school diploma means something again, so people are able to graduate from high school and get a job in a noncollege situation, so that people who choose to be a bricklayer, or computer technician, or a cosmetologist, or an electronics worker, can go to school, get a high quality education, get into the job market. We ought to fix our trade policy so that Americans can compete and sell our products in other countries as well as other countries can sell their products here. We should get rid of some of the foolish and pointless regulations that we have imposed on our businesses that do not clean the water, or protect our workplaces, or clean the air, but simply raise the cost of doing business. Mr. Speaker, it is essential, but not sufficient, to balance the budget in 7 years, but by all means, Mr. Speaker, it is essential for us to get to work, and I hope that what we do in the next couple of days is put aside the posturing over the 1996 election and get to the serious business of worrying about the real problems of real Americans out there tonight, Mr. Speaker, who are afraid they cannot pay their bills, who are watching their incomes shrink, and their taxes rise, and their children's hopes evaporate. America is in a real and deep economic crisis. For us to fiddle as family finances burn, for us to talk about who is going to get elected in 1996 rather than who is going to be able to pay their bills in the next 6 days or 6 months is really a disservice to this country. Let us get to work, Mr. Speaker, and do the job the people sent us here to do.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Republican bill and in support of the coalition alternative. Today I believe that there is a majority of principle for a balanced budget but only a partisan majority for the balanced budget plan offered by the Republican majority. That is because the Republican majority asked those who are best able to help themselves to do the least and those who are least able to help themselves to do the most. Nowhere in this budget is that more evident than in the field of education, and nowhere is that more evident than in the direct lending program which is abolished by the Republican bill. My friends, the Republicans are abolishing the direct lending program because it works so well, because it shows American students and American taxpayers that this program works better than the billion- dollar-a-year corporate welfare giveaway to the banking industry, than to the hundreds of bureaucracies that have sprung up around the country wasting the money of students and taxpayers and families. Direct lending will be preserved after the President vetoes this bill and we come together as a principled majority for a balanced budget. But none of us should vote for a bill that says to a janitor that we will raise your taxes while we lower the taxes of the person whose office you clean at night. No one should vote for a bill that says to the salespeople working for that company president, your children will pay more to go to college or will not go at all, at the same time that the largest argibusiness in America walk off scot- free. It is the right principle. It is the wrong path to get there. Our principled majority will join together after our President has spoken and pass a 7-year balanced budget the right way. This is not it.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate an extraordinary group of young people from my district. On Saturday, October 28, 1995, the Hispanic Youth Advisory Board of Camden County, NJ, will honor 30 students from Camden City and Pennsauken by appointing them to the Peer Mediator Program. Peer mediators are chosen to serve as positive role models to their fellow students; they provide academic tutoring, as well as personal counseling, to adolescents who are struggling with pressures at home and school, and in their neighborhoods. The project is staffed by volunteers whose participation represents a profound commitment to their peers and their communities. The names of the peer mediators are: Michelle Rivera, Neridan Garcia, Evelinda Martinez, Carmen Delia Santos, Angel L. Nieves, Yariana Nater, Henry Martinez, Carlos Parrales, Ivelisse Cruz, Carolyn Dona, Omar Senabria, Noel Caban, Lourdes Caban, David Rivera, Carlos Aponte, Antonella Pagan, Angel Pacheco, Marvin Ruiz, Julio Inostroza, Carlos Martinez, Jr., Willie Rodriguez, Maribel Mendez, Melinda Martinez, Zuejei Quinones, and Evelinda Martinez of Camden; and Madelyn Lopez, Reinaldo Lopez, Melissa Lopez, Ricardo Lopez, and Marisol Reyes of Pennsauken. As these distinguished young people complete their 4-month training and prepare to enter the Peer Mediator Program, it gives me great pleasure to salute their accomplishments and wish them well in their endeavors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee for yielding me the time. I thank him and the staff for their outstanding cooperation throughout this process in trying to improve this bill. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my friend, I rise in support of the bill. It has been a long-standing tradition in our country that very often someone's first job was in a grocery store or a supermarket. It is a way that they helped to pay their way through school or help their family meet its family obligations. That is a tradition that I think we should support and promote, and that is what we are doing by this legislation today. I would not support this legislation if I thought it was going to take jobs away from full-time adult workers. I do not believe there is any evidence that says that it does. Nor would I support this legislation if I thought that it raised significant risks of safety hazards to younger workers. I believe it does not for the following reasons: First of all, it is very important to note that this statute, this bill, does not permit minors to engage in operating or unloading a paper baler or compactor, a cardboard compactor. It only permits the minor, 16 or 17-year-old, to engage in the practice of loading the cardboard baler or cardboard compactor. Second, it is important to note that any compactor or baler, to be in compliance with this law, must meet these standards that are set forth by the national organization. I believe that national organization has every vested and appropriate interest in making sure that the standards are very high and the standards will, in fact, protect people using the machine. Finally, it is very important to note that each of these balers and compactors, to be in compliance with this bill, must have a locking device. The locking device must be in the locked position before the minor may load the baler or compactor, and the key that [[Page H 10664]] would activate the machine must be in the custody of an adult who is supervising the minor worker. In short, I think that this legislation is common sense, I think it is sensible, I think it has very excellent safeguards for the young workers who are involved, and I believe it helps us to continue that tradition of a young person, a 16 of 17-year-old, getting his or her first job in the supermarket or the grocery store. I thank the majority staff, the chairman and subcommittee chairman for their work on this. Again, I thank our ranking subcommittee member for his cooperation and his staff's cooperation. I support the measure. I urge its adoption.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, we are meeting tonight at a time when the esteem of Congress and the esteem of American politics is at an all- time low. The spectacle that is about to unfold in this room in the next 24 hours will do everything to increase that cynicism and skepticism. Mr. Speaker, at about 25 minutes to 11 tonight those watching us probably saw a brief interruption in the proceedings when there was an announcement made that the bill was actually brought forward for the first time. This is a piece of legislation that will affect the health care of over 30 million people. The bill was finished at 25 of 11 tonight. When most people vote on this tomorrow, I doubt that very many will not have read it. All day long today there were meetings between the Republican leadership and the Republican Members to talk about what they could do to get the 218 votes, and we are going to find out tomorrow what they did, because we have not seen the bill until 25 minutes of 11 tonight. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield back to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].

Mr. ANDREWS. We do not know what deals or arrangements were made behind closed doors today, but we do know this. This plan, as it has been presented to us, will result in higher taxes on senior citizens, the choices of many seniors being taken away because they could not afford those higher taxes, layoffs at hospitals around America, and I think eventually higher premiums for those not on Medicare and Medicaid. This is not the way to do the people's business. There should be more time to look at this. It is ridiculous for us to be voting on a bill that was literally produced at 10:35 p.m. tonight, that will affect the health care of 30 million Americans, will take the vote before 4:00 tomorrow afternoon. That is not the way to do the public's business. That is one of the reasons why the majority changed in the last Congress, and I think it is one of the reasons the majority may change in the next one.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, this day, on which we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, I would like to take the opportunity to extend my heartfelt thanks to the men and women who so proudly served their country over the course of those difficult years, both on the battlefield and at home. Over a half-century has now passed since Japan surrendered aboard the U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay; and yet, neither the magnitude of the sacrifice that our World War II veterans made, nor the significance of their accomplishments in the name of freedom and peace, has been diminished in our collective consciousness. It is a privilege to salute these courageous Americans on this occasion. In the 3\1/2\-year history of the Second World War, over 17 million Americans served in the Armed Forces, ensuring the survival of democracy abroad through their valor and bravery in combat. Millions more provided invaluable contributions to the cause on the home front, by working in support of the military effort and by preserving the morale and integrity of the Nation in a period of such utter turmoil. The cost of victory was, indeed, great: over 670,000 soldiers were wounded in combat, and more than 290,000 lost their lives in combat. On this day, we remember the awesome sacrifice which they made to their country, and realize that the legacy of their passing is a world which today is more committed to democratic ideals than it has ever been before, and a global community which has become more vigilant against the evils of totalitarianism and genocide. Today I wish to join with all Americans in acknowledging the 50th anniversary of World War II, and in thanking those who served their country during that conflict, particularly the 40,000 veterans from my district. May their sacrifices to our country never be forgotten.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Boy Scout Troop 28 of Maple Shade, NJ. On October 7, 1995, members of Troop 28 aided in making my Maple Shade town meeting a rousing success. I am heartened by the dedication of these young men, and I feel that it is necessary to honor their contributions. I wish to thank assistant scoutmasters Jim Johnson and Stephen Mandichak, assistant senior patrol leader Michael DeNight, Boy Scouts Louis Fala, Douglas Galson, Douglas Mandichak, Jared Mandichak, and Brian DeNight, Webelo Cub Scout Christopher Fala, and Cub Scouts Richard Fala and Eric Galson. In serving the people of the First Congressional District of New Jersey, I find it necessary to hold regular town meetings. These town meetings cannot possibly become reality without the aid of my constituents. The young men of Troop 28 presented the colors of the flag of the United States in front of the 50 residents who attended the meeting. All those present witnessed a dedication to our country that no one can match. It is essential that the youth of our Nation become exposed to civic affairs. By participating in our government at an early age, these young men have learned a lesson that will last a lifetime. It is my hope that they will continue to be involved in their community and the world around them in the years ahead. I urge all of my colleagues to join with me today in honoring Boy Scout Troop 28 of Maple Shade, NJ.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the Republic of China on Taiwan, our firm and steady ally in the region celebrated its National Day on October 10. Its economic growth and political progress serve as the standard for other developing countries, and its commitment to human rights and democracy deserve our adoration. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing Taiwan continued success in facing the many challenges that lie ahead. While Taiwan has served as a role model for developing nations, it has been unable to participate in many international organizations. When President Clinton meets with President Jiang of the People's Republic of China at the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations in New York, the voices of 21 million people on Taiwan will be conspicuously unheard. Their duly elected government has been frozen out of participation in the U.N. by the PRC. We must seek to rectify this situation. The United States should make clear to China that we respect the pursuit of reunification. But reunification through military action is totally unacceptable. The United States is bound by the Taiwan Relations Act of 1980 to seek a peaceful resolution to the Taiwan situation. Part of the solution may come from equal participation in international organizations. When the United States moved to no longer recognize the ROC in exchange for the PRC in 1979, one of the reasons given was that the 1.2 billion people of China must have a vote. That same argument now applies to the 21 million people in Taiwan. I hope that the United States will not shy away for its responsibility to our long term ally.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in strong support for this legislation and to acknowledge the bipartisan support of the legislation by the gentlemen from Indiana, Mr. Burton, and to thank my friends, the gentlemen from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli and Mr. Menendez, for their excellent leadership on this issue. If we have learned anything in the last 10 years, we learned that America's greatest asset is not our military might or our industrial or economic strength. It is the power of our ideals and the impact that those ideals have on people around the world. Some people argue against this bill by saying America should not be out their by ourselves. I was proud that we were the first to step forward in many ways and lead the effort to dismantle the apartheid regime in South Africa. We did things by ourselves in that effort that we should have done. On the day, Mr. Speaker, that I took office as a Member of Congress, Nelson Mandela was in prison. Today, he is president of his country in a free election. There are those who say that the best policy is incremental change, negotiation with those who would suppress human rights, as Castro has done. There were those who said that about the Soviet Union, and I think that one of the lessons of the 1980s is that where you meet tyranny with appeasement, where you meet tyranny with incremental change, you get more tyranny, not more progress. There are those, and this is the toughest argument, who would oppose this bill because they talk of the very real plight and very real suffering of the Cuban people. Certainly we are sympathetic to that but we have come to this conclusion. As we did with the people of Eastern Europe where there was suffering, when we stood firm against the tyranny of the former Communist rulers in Eastern Europe, when we took the side of freedom and human rights, we have today achieved a result where we are no longer worried about leaders exploiting the freedom of their people. We are worried about people exploiting their freedom to the best use of their countryman and countrywomen. The time has come for us to once again take the lead on the international scene, to stand behind our principles with our actions and our dollars and to support this piece of legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight after listening with great interest to the colloquy which took place between and among my friends, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], with respect to the issue of financial aid for people wanting to go to college or to pursue higher education in the country. First let me say as a matter of record that I know and I accept that the intentions, particularly of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], are entirely positive in promoting higher education. It has been their record. It has been their personal commitment, and I am very honored to serve with them on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. Having said that, I think that the plan that is being put forward is a serious assault on the ability of Americans, particularly middle-class Americans, to go to college or to pursue a higher education. First let me say that the first time that we heard about this plan was tonight. As a member of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, I would expect that there would be more opportunities for both Republicans and Democrats to learn about the plan, debate its merits, and propose alternatives. I am, finally, glad to hear something from the majority as to how it plans to reduce higher education spending by $10 billion over the next 5 years, but I think that the proper way to do this would be to have hearings and a debate within the committee, not do it this way. Having said that, it is my understanding that there are three ways that the committee is considering proposing to meet this $10 billion target. Numbers, Mr. Speaker, fly around here freely. And if our constituents are listening to us, numbers like $10 billion and 5-year appropriations and all of this is very, very confusing. I would like to attempt to cut through that and talk about my understanding as to what the majority is, in fact, proposing and how it would affect students of all ages trying to get a higher education in the country. First of all, they propose the abolition of the direct loan program and claim that it will save $1.2 billion. There is only one way that the abolition of the direct loan program saves money, and that is if you cook the books. With all due respect, that is what the Congressional Budget Office is doing with the direct loan program. It simply makes no sense whatsoever to argue that the taxpayers will spend less money by borrowing it at 5 percent than they will paying a bank to lend it at 8 percent. You do not have to go very far in school to figure that out. In the next couple of days we will be revealing specific evidence which shows that the Congressional Budget Office for partisan political reasons has chosen to distort this issue and to distort the real economic impact of direct lending. It does not save money to abolish direct lending. It costs money. What it does is to take a program that is working successfully on college campuses across this country and turn it back to the maze of banks and guarantee agencies, and, Mr. Speaker, our constituents understand this. They bounce from bank to guaranty agency to financial aid office and back all over again. You sometimes need a degree in educational administration to figure out how to apply for a student [[Page H 8895]] loan and to pay one. It will not save money to abolish direct loans, it will cost money. Second, the plan apparently says they are going to take profits from the bank, I think I heard the number $4.7 billion, from the banks and the guaranty agencies. I find this remarkable for two reasons. First, for the last 10 years every time someone has proposed taking money from the banks in the student loan program by reducing the rate of interest that they are paying, the banks come tripping up to Capitol Hill and say, ``We will not stay in the program anymore if you take profit away from us. It will no longer become profitable.'' Frankly, it has been the very same Republican defenders of the banks on this issue who are now proposing taking profits away from the interest rate that the banks earn. The question I would raise, Mr. Speaker, is were they wrong in 1990 and 1992, or are they wrong now? Because for two decades the banks have said if you take anything away from their subsidy in this program, they will leave the program. They will not make any more loans. I find it miraculous that now all of a sudden that argument has changed. It has not changed, and some of the banks will in fact leave the program. Where do you think the guaranty agencies are going to get part of this $4.7 billion? Mr. Speaker, here is where. When an American student applies for a student loan, he or she usually pays 5 percent of their loan principle as a guarantee fee. That fee will go up, inevitably, under this. Let me say this. The plan apparently proposes that we will end the deferment of payments after graduation. Here is what that means in English. It means the day after you graduate, Mr. Speaker, the day after a student graduates he or she will have to start to pay their loan back before they get a job, whether or not they get a job. If you want a surefire recipe to increase defaults that the taxpayers are liable for, that is the way to do it. This is a plan that hurts students. In the future I will be happy to outline specific ways to save even more money. This is not the way to go.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Let me just say one more thing. My mother did not graduate from college. My father did not graduate from high school. But they sure were smart enough to know that something is amiss in a country's priorities when we cannot afford to help pay for reading teachers for children in schools across this country we can afford to guarantee $30 billion of debt of the Government of Mexico. There is something very wrong with what is going on here.

Mr. ANDREWS. I would like to thank my friend from Connecticut, Congresswoman DeLauro, for giving us this chance to talk about this. Let me say for the Record, because I know we hear all the political rhetoric from the other side, let me say for the record, we understand you cannot solve problems simply by throwing money at them in public education. We are not saying that. Many of us would disagree as to how to do it, but many of us understand the imperative of getting our Government's fiscal house in order and balancing our budget. But in all the numbers and the political rhetoric thrown around, what you have given us tonight is an opportunity to talk about people. I want to talk, Mr. Speaker, tonight about some of the people who are affected by the issues we are talking about. Many of us sense in all of our districts a tremendous sense of frustration that people have about government. They go to work 50, 60, 70 hours a week. if they are fortunate enough to have two adults in the family, the two adults barely see each other, five minutes in the morning before they leave for work, 15 minutes in the evening after the chores are done, after the children are put to bed, before they go to sleep. All the things that they would do during the week they do on Saturday, if they do not work on Saturday at their third job, and they see their children for 3 hours a week at a soccer game or 2 hours a week to take them to Girl Scouts or something like that. People wake up in the middle of the night and look at their husband or wife, if they are fortunate enough to have one, and say what are we doing this for? And we are handing over 30, 40, sometimes 50 percent of our income in taxes to government at all levels, when you add up the State, Federal and local. Now, many of those individuals I talk about, Mr. Speaker, are saying what do we get from the Federal Government for 30 or 40 or 45 percent of our income? What are we getting in return for that? Well, Mr. Speaker, the programs we are talking about tonight are programs where middle-class people get something in return for their tax dollar. Let me offer you a couple specific examples. The daughter of a family where the mother is a paralegal and the father is a real estate salesman, if that little girl has a reading problem, whether she goes to public school or Catholic school or in many cases Christian or private schools, she gets help with her remedial reading teacher, someone who comes in and tutors her on how to read from the Federal Government. That is being cut, the reading teacher for the little girl from that family. The teenager of a mom who is a single woman who works as a nurse, and her son wants to get special training to be an auto mechanic when he graduates from high school, so in addition to his regular high school curriculum of history and math and English and physical education, he gets special vocational education on how to fix a car or truck engine through Federal vocational money. That is being cut and taken away. The daughter of a family where the father is a public employee and the mother is a paralegal, who wants to go to a private university in a State like mine, a Princeton or Rider or Drew University, $25,000 a year to go there, the way she goes to school is this way: First of all, she works in the summer and on weekends and at night. Well, work-study money that would help her get a job when she is in school is being cut. Her parents take a home equity loan on what little equity they may have in their house. They better hope they have a lot more, because the student loan she would get to make up the difference is being cut in the following ways: First of all, it is not clear what we are saying to her, because our Republican friends have not been explicit yet. See, they want to keep this under wraps as long as possible, because, Mr. Speaker, when middle-class America finds out what is hidden under this shell they are not going to like it very much. But here is what we think is hidden under the shell. They are going to say to that young woman, once you graduate and you have got $50,000 in debt and you get your first job, if you are lucky enough to get a first job, that pays $18,000 a year right out of college, you got to start to pay your loan back right away. No deferment until you get a job. The first week after you get your diploma you have got to start to pay your loan back, whether you have a job or not. Forget about your car payment, your auto insurance, your rent, your grocery bills, your health insurance. You got to pay your loan back right away. That is being cut. Or better yet, let us say the young women wants to go to graduate school because many of our people are finding out today a Bachelor's Degree is not enough, you have to have a MBA, a Master's in social work, some advanced degree. Apparently one of the proposals is that she will have to pay interest while she is in school. Now, think about this, Mr. Speaker: She graduates from undergraduate, a $50,000 debt, and now she has got to go to graduate school and it costs $25,000 bucks a year to go to that in many places, and she is working as a teaching assistant or a waitress or doing whatever she can to make ends meet. Now we say you have to pay interest while you are in school too. Or you can defer it, a great gift from Uncle Sam, [[Page H 8787]] meaning your debt will go up by 25 percent, and instead of owing $100,000 at the end of your years in school, you will owe $125,000. That is being cut. Finally, the father in that family, say he is one of those unfortunate shipyard workers that our friend from Maine talked about or he is one of the workers at a Federal military installation, gets laid off in the latest round of base closures. They are happening from California to Maine, all over the country. And what that family decides is that one of them would like to go back to school and learn how to be a computer repair person or a person who works a blood testing machine at a hospital, and it takes money to do that, $5,000, $6,000, $7,000 to go back in the middle of your life, when you are 45, 47, 51 years old, and try to learn a new skill in a job market that says you are too old to start all over again, but not old enough to retire. That is being cut. So if you want to talk about where the cuts are in this bill, they go almost from cradle to grave. The reading teacher for the kid in the first grade, cut. The auto mechanic class for the 16- year-old, cut. The student loan for the person who is smart enough to go to the finest school, cut, because she has to start to pay her loan back the first day when she graduates. We did not have to do that, as my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], pointed out, but she will. The graduate school student who wants to go on and do something has to pay interest in school. Finally the dad or mom in that family, the latest person to get a pink slip in the unending hemorrhage of pink slips in this economy today, tries to go to school to learn a skill, that gets cut. Mr. Speaker, I know there have to be cuts in the budget and specifically cuts in education, I understand that. But imagine how angry our constituents were when they picked up the newspaper last week and read the following story. The Secretary of Interior of this country, under duress and protest, signed a deed conveying $1 billion worth of mineral rights owned by the people of the United States of America, signed a legal document giving those 1 billion dollars' worth of public assets to a Danish mining company for the sum of $265, under a law passed here in 1872. Mr. Speaker, I want to balance the Federal budget. I understand there are ways education could be cut to balance the Federal budget. I may disagree with some of my Democratic colleagues as to how to do that. But all of us ought to understand that in an environment where we are saying to that kid, no reading teacher, no shop teacher to teach auto mechanics, got to pay your loan back the day after you graduate from school, too bad you have to let the interest accumulate, and dad, you lost your job, you need retraining, too bad, look in the want ads, that is what we are saying in this budget. And we are giving away 1 billion dollars' worth of public assets to a foreign company because the majority would not change a law that was passed in 1872? That is the priorities we have in this body today. It is wrong. And you have given us a chance tonight to talk about that. Let us do more than talk about it, though. Let us vote this way. Let us convey this message to the American people, and let us hope they remember in November of 1996 what is going on.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, there are some severe problems with America's pension system as we meet here tonight. There are employees of private companies and pensioners of private companies who are legitimately worried that they may not have a pension someday because of the failure of many American businesses and the extent to which the Private Pension Guarantee Benefit Corporation is thinly capitalized. There is a very real risk if we do not do something about that problem that many Americans may not have the pension check on which they depended. There are Americans who used to work for governments or school districts or who work for government or school districts today who are legitimately worried about their pensions because it has become the practice of some governments at the State and local level around America to borrow from that pension fund or not put enough in in order to meet short-term budgetary or political objectives. That is a real problem that deserves our attention. Tonight as we consider this legislation, however, neither of those problems receives any attention, and instead I rather think that we are looking at a bill that in good faith presents a solution in search of a problem by talking about economically targeted investments. Nevertheless, my friends on the majority side have raised some real and viable questions about economically targeted investments or ETI's. My substitute amendment attempts to address each of those legitimate points and place the Secretary of Labor exactly where he belongs, with respect to economically targeted investments or any kind of decision by pension fund managers. It places the Secretary of Labor out of the picture because the Secretary of Labor, absent his regulatory duties under ERISA, has [[Page H 8772]] no business, none, meddling in the decisions of pension managers across the country. We have heard that people are concerned about spending a million dollars of taxpayer money on a clearinghouse to deal with the ETI's. So I am concerned about that. So my substitute abolishes the clearinghouse and permits the expenditure of nothing on it. We have heard that people are concerned about this bill or the pronouncements of the Secretary of Labor creating a standard of review other than the traditional prudent man standard for ETI's. I am concerned about that, too. So my amendment expressly provides that the prudent man rule will remain the only measure under which investments will be evaluated under the ERISA law. It says the prudent man standard and only the prudent man standard. Here is the difference between my substitute and the bill that is before us: My substitute says that the Secretary of Labor shall not promote ETI's, but neither shall detract from ETI's. My amendment says the Secretary of Labor shall not promote investments in U.S. savings bonds nor shall be detract from investments in U.S. savings bonds or the stock of IBM or any other potential investment. My amendment says that the Secretary of Labor has no rightful place meddling in the investment decisions of our pension funds. My amendment, I would think, in many ways is a quintessential conservative amendment in that it says the Federal Government simply has on place injecting itself in the decisions of investment managers of the pension funds of our country. So to summarize, Mr. Chairman, wish that we had brought to the floor tonight legislation that would address the underfunding of the Private Benefit Guarantee Corporation, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation that put the pensions of many Americans at risk. I wish we had brought to the floor tonight an amendment I offered in committee that would have provided public employees with the right of review if their Governor and the State legislature decides to play budget fiscal politics with their pension and make it subject to some review under ERISA.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, why do we not strike that? I would offer to strike it. Second, let me say this to the gentleman, that to the extent that he is concerned about a prohibition against the promotion of ETI's by the Government, let me just read to him section 3. It will be section 516(a). No agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government may establish, or maintain, or contract with or otherwise provide assistance to any other party to establish or maintain any clearinghouse data base or any other listing, sub 2, for the purpose of encouraging or providing assistance to employee benefit plans or any other part relating to an employee benefit plan to undertake or evaluate economically targeted investments. That seems pretty clear to me is a prohibition against promotion. I would be curious if the gentleman can explain to me why it is not.

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman would yield, that is certainly not our intent, not my understanding. I do not know of any broader proscription we could include.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I hear that my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], is making two objections. I would like to try to meet them. With respect to the effect of Interpretive Bulletin 94-1, in the appropriate procedural manner, Mr. Chairman, I would offer to change that section to say the following: Interpretive Bulletin 94-1 referred to in section 1 shall be null and void, period, because that is the intent of this section. Second, with respect to the gentleman's concern about the----