Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Nothing, because it is not part of OPIC's charter.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with the gentleman, that OPIC does in fact do loan guarantees, not just insurance. It gives loan guarantees. It says if the enterprise located in a foreign country does not pay its loan back, the American taxpayer does. The other point in the gentleman's statement, I am sure in Missouri there are a number of communities that would like to build power plants, sewer plants, and factories, as well.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders amendment. Mr. Chairman, I myself introduced a virtually identical amendment. I would like to talk about who I think ought to be for this amendment. First of all, let me say that I commend my colleagues on the Republican side for making some very difficult and controversial stands in favor of reducing the Federal budget. I do not agree with all that they have done, but I agree with the idea that they are addressing, in a very honest and aggressive way, the fact that we are spending far more than we take in. I invite them to continue that philosophy and continue that tradition by voting for Mr. Sanders' amendment. The bill, as it presently is written, calls for 79 million dollars' worth of appropriations for new loans, and new guarantees and new goals for OPIC, and it calls for, I believe, 29 million dollars' worth of operating money from the American taxpayer. Here is an opportunity, my colleagues, to say to duPont, ``Be a rugged individualist,'' to say to CocaCola in an entrepreneurial society, ``Make it on your own,'' to say to AT&T and GTE, ``Take risks with your own shareholders' money, but not with the taxpayers' money of the United States,'' to American Express, ``Leave home without it, leave home without the taxpayers' money the next time you want to make a deal somewhere overseas.'' Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, If you will look, my friends, to cut unjustifiable welfare subsidies in the welfare budget, as I have when I voted with you on your welfare reform bill, then look to the Sanders amendment, and vote ``yes.'' If you think that it is a wrong- headed policy for the United States to subsidize a company that will create jobs overseas, but not create jobs in the United States, then vote for the Sanders amendment. I say to my colleagues, You think about this the next time you return to your district. If a company in your district wanted a Federal loan guarantee to make their factory bigger, or their store employ more people, or do research and development, by and large the answer would probably be ``No, they wouldn't get that Federal loan guarantee,'' but if they chose to set up shop in Guatemala, or Malaysia, or Argentina, or somewhere else outside of the United States, here comes OPIC driven and funded by the American taxpayer to the rescue. If you think it is a bad industrial policy to subsidize the export of American capital and American jobs, then vote for the Sanders amendment. Finally, Mr. Chairman, to my friends' concern about the foreign policy of our country, I say, If you think it is bad foreign policy for an unelected, unaccountable, private group of people to travel the world and make policy decisions on behalf of the United States, if you agree with the editors of the Wall Street Journal who said that OPIC is really nothing more than foreign policy conducted through another way, foreign aid conducted through another way then support the Sanders amendments. Mr. Chairman, the majority is to be commended for making very difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions to try to bring our budget into balance. It is entirely consistent with that tradition that they support the Sanders amendment. I am going to; I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do so, too.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. I think she makes a persuasive and compelling case. The ongoing violation of human rights in Indonesia is unsustainable in a moral way, and certainly not supportable in a budgetary way. It is my understanding that shortly the Chair will be asked to rule on a point of order with respect to legislating on an appropriations bill. Let me just make this comment: Presumably the Chair will consider whether the proper time to offer the Lowey amendment would have been during the authorization bill. During the authorization bill, we labored under a rule that ate up a considerable amount of time on some very important amendments, that ate up a long, long time of debate. There were dozens and dozens of amendments like this one that could have been offered that were not heard during that debate. Now, it seems to me that this kind of consideration of process puts the Members of this House in a Catch-22 situation. You cannot legislate on an appropriations bill by attaching conditions to spending like this. That is our rule. And then you are supposed to pursue it in an authorization bill. But when the authorization bills come up, we have unduly restricted rules that cut off debate in an arbitrary time and never permit this kind of thing to come up. The real shame, Mr. Chairman, the real shame that is being raised by Mrs. Lowey's amendment, is that such a meritorious and critical debate will never really happen and never really get a vote because of the way the rules of the House are being manipulated. I think that is a shame.

Mr. ANDREWS. It is further my understanding that the underlying bill that the chairman has brought to the floor increases that to $79 million for fiscal 1996; is that correct? In the program account?

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I will yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the subcommittee chairman, to answer my questions. My understanding is in the present fiscal year the level of appropriation for OPIC is $33 million in the program account; is that correct?

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a significant milestone of an outstanding community, the borough of Clementon. On February 13, 1925, the New Jersey State Legislature enacted legislation incorporating the borough of Clementon in the county of Camden. This year the borough recognizes its 70th anniversary. In this year of celebration, I commend the ``Village of People'' for its resilience and diversity. Timber Creek has been central to the history of Clementon. It is the creek that drew the Armewamex Indians to this area as a campground in the times prior to the settlement of Europeans. In the prerevolutionary war days of the early 18th century, Clementon was the site chosen by Andrew Newman to dam Timber Creek to harness power for Newman's Mills in 1735. This dam formed the body of water now known as Clementon Lake. The Industrial Revolution, at the beginning of the 19th century, brought Samuel Clement from Haddonfield to the settlement. Mr. Clement purchased the mill properties along with the surrounding properties, including a glass works, the third such facility in New Jersey. During the mid and late 19th century Clementon grew rapidly due to the influx of hundreds of new families which participated in the mills, glassworks, and farming of the area. During this time of growth Walt Whitman was a frequent visitor to the Grist Mill and Indian Spring. By the beginning of the 20th century Clementon Township was the home of a new railroad line, several taverns, and an amusement park, Clementon Lake Park, which was serviced by a trolly that brought visitors from Philadelphia and Camden. Clementon Park was one of the largest and most modern facilities in the country at the time. Many of our grandmothers and grandfathers met at this park. The borough of Clementon became independent in 1925 and experienced another growth boom at the end of World War II. Many veterans settled in the area choosing to locate their families in the smaller community of Clementon and utilize the excellent transportation system to travel to work in Philadelphia or Camden. I am honored to represent the proud working tradition that is Clementon. Today, the diversity and strength of the town is evident in the close-knit business community, strong religious community, excellent schools and active civic organizations of Clementon. On its 70th anniversary Clementon is a town which embraces the gifts of young and old. The town continues to benefit from an entertainment economy: The Clementon Water Amusement Park is now a primary summer activity for residents and visitors alike. Clementon Towers, a senior citizens residence, is a local landmark and center of history and civic involvement within the town. In this anniversary year, I commend the town and people of Clementon for their progress and accomplishments. With continued civic involvement by all residents, Clementon will continue to grow and thrive. I would also like to recognize John H. Fisher, Jr., a Clementon resident and historian whose extensive work on the history of Clementon I have relied upon heavily for these remarks. Happy anniversary.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta], and my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon]. This is an example of diligent research that has reached the wrong conclusion. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I am one who has, in fact, voted against and worked against projects that bring money to my own State and to my own district. I will take a back seat to no one in standing in opposition to the expenditure of funds that I think are unnecessary. I think I understand what happened in the offering of this amendment. There was a review of the military construction appropriation bills, and someone looked at this and quite plausibly drew the conclusion that here is a project that is not wanted by the Navy, that is going to be located in a base that is going to be closed under the 1991 BRACC decision. Both of those two assumptions are wrong. No. 1, this project is wanted by the Navy. Believe me, the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard is no friend of the Navy brass. We have been involved in litigation all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, in which I was a plaintiff and many of our colleagues here were plaintiffs, fighting tooth and nail the Navy's recommendation and decision to close the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. In 1991, when that recommendation was made, the Navy expressly and specifically excluded the propeller shop and all of the things that serve the propeller shop. They looked at the whole base. We think they made the wrong decision about the whole base, but we certainly agree they made the right decision about preserving this from the 1991 decision. The Navy has drawn the conclusion, as we have heard the authorizer say, the appropriators say, the Navy has reached the decision that this infrastructure is essential to the maintenance of the fleet. The Navy wants the project. No. 2 is the assumption that this is pouring Federal tax dollars into a base that is on the base closure list. It is true that the naval shipyard is on the base closure list. It is true that the naval base is on the base closure list. It is not true that the propeller shop is on the base closure list. Mr. Chairman, what was diligent work to look at this I think, respectfully, became the wrong conclusion. This is not a project that has been rejected by the Navy, it is not a project that is on a closed base, it is an ongoing project that has been reported by the Navy. I think it is worthy of the [[Page H 6126]] recommendation that the Committee on Appropriations has made. Mr. Chairman, I say this one more time. I know it is the practice of people to come to the floor and be against expenditure of funds in everyone's district except their own. That is a time-honored practice here. I have gone on record with my vote and my voice in my efforts to oppose some expenditure of dollars in and around my district. I would be happy to supplement the Record here with a list of times I have done that. I am not so foolish to actually say it on the floor, but I would be happy to supplement the Record with a list. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of my colleagues who are concerned, as we all are, about the size of the Federal Government not to make the wrong decision here and support this amendment. They should oppose the amendment being offered.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my continued and growing concern and frustration over the delay by the Saudi Arabian Government in paying the $43.4 million claim of my constituent Gibbs & Hill Inc. I have risen numerous times on the floor of this House to urge Saudi Ambassador Bandar to favorably resolve this last remaining claim, as has been committed to repeatedly by the Kingdom, and thereby complete his mandate for satisfactory resolution of these claims under the special claims process. On Friday, we passed the American Oversight Interest Act (HR 1561) which contained a provision sponsored by myself and Representative Smith to further this policy objective of our Nation. Section 3312, Notification of Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia, requires the President to notify to Congress of all arms sales to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia until such a time as the Secretary of State certifies that the Kingdom has satisfactorily resolved all claims identified in the June 30, 1993, report of the Secretary of Defense pursuant to the section 9401(c) of the fiscal year 1993 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. Now is the time for Ambassador Bandar to address this issue, meet with the company, and implement the payment of the claim. Ambassador Bandar's authority to implement payment of the claim is certain as was confirmed to Members of Congress and the company as recently as May 2, 1995, by U.S. Ambassador Raymond Mabus. Ambassador Mabus has steadfastly advocated the State Department's position that the claims be satisfactorily resolved by Ambassador Bandar under this mandate. In his May 22, 1995, conversation with the company and Members of Congress, Ambassador Mabus noted that he had been assured by a member of the Saudi royal court, on the authority of the King, that the claim would soon be paid. Despite this direct and unequivocal commitment, the Kingdom has yet to pay the claim. The unresolved claims between American companies and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia continue to place a strain on our relationship with the Kingdom. On April 7, 1995, I and several of my colleagues wrote to Chairman Gilman requesting that a hearing be scheduled as soon as practical to consider U.S. bilateral relations with the Kingdom. I renew my call to Chairman Gilman to schedule hearings on this subject so that we may fully explore our commercial relationship with the Kingdom.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend to my colleagues an article in The Record of Hackensack written by Dr. Robert A. Scott, President of Ramapo College in Mahwah, New Jersey. In his article Dr. Scott advocates the importance of maintaining student loan funding while also encouraging alternatives such as college work study programs. Dr. Scott has committed his professional life to the betterment of higher education. I am proud to relay that this commitment was first developed during his undergraduate experience at my alma mater, Bucknell University. I greatly respect the accomplishments and commitment of Dr. Scott and recommend his article to all interested in higher education. [From The Record, Hackensack, NJ, Apr. 10, 1995] Don't Undercut Our Commitment to Higher Education (By Robert A. Scott) The House of Representatives has voted to cut more than $200 million in funding for higher education. These cuts and some promises in the Contract With America contain elements that could seriously weaken our commitment to social mobility and civic stability through higher education. For more than 200 years, higher education has been an important strategy for population dispersal, scientific agriculture and food production, services to less populated regions, veteran's readjustment, advancement of the middle class, national defense, and upward mobility for low-income, urban, and rural citizens. One of the proposals introduced by the House is to eliminate the in-school interest exemption on federal loans, an important feature of student loan programs for four decades, and a multimillion-dollar form of federal assistance to New Jersey college students. Interest exemptions are essential while students are enrolled in college. Loans are a part of a package of aid consisting of campus work, grants, and both student and family contributions, all of which require sacrifice. The consequences of charging debt service while a student is in college, or charging for the in-school portion of debt service after a student has left college, are encouraging part-time study, thus delaying career entry; encouraging even greater loans, in order to pay the increased debt service; or delaying college entry entirely. I believe we rely on loans too much and that we should streamline our financial system. But the House Republicans propose to eliminate some of the best alternatives to loans, such as work study. We should put greater priority on College Work Study as an alternative to student loans. After all, pursuit of a college education is a good investment. Over the past 20 years, federally subsidized loan volume has increased more than 2,000 percent while College Work Study has remained constant. Yet work study results in positive student learning experiences, bonding with adults who value education, no loan defaults, payment for services rendered, discipline in meeting obligations, and assistance to colleges trying to provide service with reduced public support. Cuts in work study are a serious mistake because they affect society for decades. I understand and recognize the need to streamline the national budget, and especially to reduce the deficit, but I strongly disagree with proposals to reduce opportunities for college. From coast to coast, students are facing reduced prospects. In Virginia, state officials are trying to conceive ways to accommodate 68,000 more college-eligible students with less state support. In California, policy-makers are trying to plan for an additional 300,000 college-eligible students with fewer resources. To cope with recent cutbacks, spaces for nearly 200,000 students were eliminated, thus making a potential of 500,000 students seeking higher education in a shrinking system. Many of these students are from minority groups, which are underrepresented in today's colleges and universities. How sad it is that the federal government now seems bent on reducing access to upward mobility. This, after all, will be the result if student financial aid is reduced and college access is dependent more on the ability to pay than on the ability to learn. The House position is a mistake. We should keep college affordable. We should stop the growth in loans, and start the growth in jobs. Work study is beneficial to students, colleges, and the community. And it is much wiser than simply cutting the $20 million in-school interest exemption, which helped provide college access to 163,000 New Jersey residents this year.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support a provision in the American Overseas Interests Act, which modifies section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export and Control Act to require greater congressional oversight and scrutiny of arms sales to the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia until such time as the Secretary of State certifies and reports to Congress that the unpaid claims of American companies described in the June 30, 1993 report by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 9140(c) of the Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-396; 106 Stat 1939), including the additional claims noticed by the Department of Commerce as page 2 of the report, have been resolved satisfactorily. The $43.4 million claim of Gibbs & Hill, Inc. is one of the claims as yet unresolved. Gibbs & Hill was decimated by financial losses incurred in the design of the desalination and related facilities for the Yanbu Industrial City in Saudi Arabia in the late 1970's and early 1980's as a result of the Kingdom's failure to honor its contractual obligations and pay for additional work required of the company. My involvement in this matter dates back almost 2 years. The company, which is a large employer in my district, approached me for assistance in having its claim paid through the Special Claims Process established for the resolution of claims of American companies which had not received fair treatment in their commercial dealing with the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This Special Claims Process was established between our Government and the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, following congressional hearings on the unfair commercial practices of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia first held in the House Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East in May 1992. In response to my letter to Saudi Ambassador Bandar bin Sultan Abdulaziz of April 29, 1993, the Ambassador promised to spare ``no efforts in resolving this claim in an expeditious and fair manner.'' Since this date, the company, the Congress and the past and present administrations have received a series of promises and commitments from the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to resolve the claim favorably for Gibbs & Hill. The most recent commitment coming on October 6, 1994, one day prior to our country once again coming to the defense of the Kingdom when threatened by invasion from Iraq, in fulfillment of our commitment to our bilateral relationship. I should note that I am not alone in my support of the full and prompt resolution of the Gibbs & Hill claim. More than 3 dozen Senators and Members of Congress, the President, the National Security Council, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senate Armed Services Committee, the Department of Defense, State and Commerce have all expressed their desire to see this claim resolved so as to successfully conclude the Special Claims Process. On January 23, 1995, I expressed my growing frustration with the delaying tactics of the Saudi Embassy in fulfilling its commitment to the company, the Congress and our Government. I also noted that the failure of the Saudi Embassy to resolve this claim, under the mandate established by its own Government, was beginning to grow into a significant strain on the United States-Saudi relations. Again, this was a sentiment shared by numerous of my colleagues in the Congress, who wrote and communicated with the Department of State, and the Saudi Embassy in January of this year. In these communications, it was made clear that the delaying tactics of the Saudi Embassy would no longer be tolerated, and unless serious discussions were held between the company and the Kingdom leading to the full and prompt resolution of the claim, legislative alternatives would be considered to bring this matter to a close. Despite several attempts to resolve the claim successfully, the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has shown no signs of cooperation. Therefore, I introduced H.R. 1243, which would focus its attention on resolving all the unresolved claims with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Under the leadership of Congressman Chris Smith, this bill was made part of the American Overseas Interest Act. I hope in the long run we will focus on other remedies in our bilateral relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to ensure the prevention of unfair treatment of any other United States company doing business with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my congratulations to Armando Lopez, the first Hispanic-American to achieve the rank of Eagle Scout in the Boy Scout Camden County Council of New Jersey. Mr. Lopez is a shining example of the creativity and spirit that exists in our future leaders. He chose as his Eagle Scout project to build a patio around a shrine for Our Lady of Mount Carmel-Fatima Church in Camden. What was supposed to be a brick patio has turned into an enclosed garden and a gathering place for all who live in the area. It is now used by the community for prayer, weddings, school ceremonies, and sanctuary. Armando has spent many months on this project, through the winter and spring and has truly displayed the dedication to become a leader in the community. He will not be ending his scouting career soon, for he has been chosen to represent the United States at the 18th World Scout Jamboree in Holland this August. I commend Armando Lopez on his commitment to the community and I am sure he will succeed in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this tax reduction bill here tonight. I do so thinking about the American families and the families in my district who sit around the kitchen table on a Friday night, and they take out their checkbook, and after they write their check for their mortgage and their property taxes and their credit card bill and their health insurance and their utility bill and all the other bills they have to pay to meet their family budget, for many of them there is nothing left, and for some of them there is an insufficient amount to pay even those bills. In my opinion the question of this bill here tonight is this: Does this legislation help or not help that family? I think this legislation helps that family. It is my conclusion that $500 per child in their hand is better spent by them. It is my conviction that that $500 belongs to them. They earned it. It is a necessity for their way of life, and by voting for this bill tonight, I think we can let them keep more of what they earned. I rise in support of the legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the March 13, 1995, issue of U.S. News & World Report includes an excellent article entitled, ``The College Aid Face-Off.'' The article reports on the current debate in Congress on the future of the direct loan program as well as on major cuts in the student financial aid programs. With respect to direct loans the conclusions of the article are striking--direct loans work. Direct loans are simpler, faster and more efficient for student borrowers, student financial aid administrators and schools. In addition, direct loans save the taxpayers money. Opposition to direct loans comes from banks and other student loan middlemen who fear the loss of billions of dollars of profits and whose lobbying efforts are fueled by at least $11.3 million in campaign contributions. The full text of the article follows, and I commend it to my colleagues. [From the U.S. News & World Report, Mar. 13, 1995] The College Aid Face-Off (Clinton fights the GOP and bankers over what students get and who runs the loan business) (By James Popkin and Viva Hardigg with Susan Headden) Believe it or not, there is a group of Americans who truly delight in one of the things Bill Clinton has accomplished as president, who think that a government-run program that handles gobs of money is preferable to one run by the private sector and think that the paperwork created by public bureaucrats is easier to navigate than the forms devised by well-run corporations. They are the thousands of college students who got their loans last fall directly from the government instead of from banks. The verdict from Anthony Gallegos, a 22-year-old journalism major at Colorado State University: ``It's the best thing since microwavable brownies.'' But all is not entirely happy in loan land. Even though many students at 104 schools say they got their money with fewer hassles in a fraction of the time it usually takes and taxpayers might benefit because banks and middlemen didn't collect subsidies to make the loans, the direct-lending program is now the object of a bitter new battle in Washington. In fact, every major federal college aid program is considered a target in one form or another by the new Republican majority in Congress. The disputes have all the hallmarks of postmodern politics: None really centers on principle; almost everyone in Washington believes the government has a useful and morally defensible role to play in helping more kids get into college and pay for it. The fight so far centers on the spoils system--whether the public or private sector administers the program--and arcane federal budget accounting questions. Millions affected Those are not inconsequential issues, because billions of dollars of profits (for banks) or potential savings (for taxpayers) are at issue. But the bigger fight will come as Congress deals with the budget. It will feature the first serious talk of major cuts in college loans and grants since the early days of the Reagan administration. ``What is at stake is nothing less than access to higher education for millions of middle- and lower-income students at a time when public-college tuition is rising sharply,'' says Terry Hartle, a vice president of the American Council on Education. The biggest dispute could center on a plan circulating among Republicans to cut loan subsidies to needy students during their time in school--a move that might save $9 billion over five years and could hit 6 million students with higher debt and payments. This sets up a political showdown that Clinton is unusually pleased to face. He has called for increasing federal funds for college aid by 10 percent to $35.8 billion as part of his middle-class ``Bill of Rights,'' including expansion of many of the programs Republicans are eyening for cutbacks. Clinton won major reforms in federal college aid initiatives in 1993 as part of his national service program, which he heralds as a cornerstone of his ``New Covenant'' to provide government help to those who help themselves. Asked if Clinton is willing to renegotiate any feature of the national service or college aid programs, one senior White House aide responded: ``My guess is his answer is between `No' and `Hell, no.''' ``A probable Clinton veto of any cuts in college aid means that these programs will survive intact for now, but there is still a good chance that his plans to expand them could be held up. In coming weeks, the direct-lending program will grab the most attention. One of the reforms enacted in national service was the gradual phase-in of a system that would have the federal Government lend money to students directly rather than provide financial incentives and guarantees to coax banks into making the loans. Even though new workers will have to be hired by the Department of Education to run the program, it still saves considerable sums. That's why Clinton wants to accelerate its availability to all the nation's 7,000 eligible schools. But bankers and other firms that trade student loans for investors have aggressively battled the loss of this lucrative line of business and heatedly dispute Clinton's claim that the program saves money. Their lobbying fueled by at least $11.3 million in campaign contributions, has helped encourage Republican congressional leaders Rep. William Goodling of Pennsylvania and Sen. Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas to push legislation that would limit the expansion of the program to 10 percent of all student loans. Some moderate Democrats like Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee also support the move on the theory that the new lending program should be tested before it becomes the norm for all colleges. House Speaker Newt Gingrich wants to kill the program. He argues that Clinton's reforms vest too much power in the Government, especially because the lending program is run by the Department of Education, which has allowed fraud to flourish in aid programs for decades. However, the first reports about direct lending are very positive. Students and college-based loan officers say funds are available to students in weeks rather than months. The paperwork is simpler, and college officials have to deal with only one federal office rather than many banks. ``Being in direct loans has been almost a spiritual experience,'' says Kay Jacks, director of financial aid at Colorado State University. ``It period,'' Karen Fooks, the financial aid director at the University of Florida, says her whole office threatened to quit if it was ordered to return to the bank system from direct lending. Pay as you can But bankers argue that doling out money is the easy part. Collecting it is something the government hasn't done very well. Many new loans will be on a ``pay as you can'' basis letting borrowers pay back a portion of their earnings over many years, rather than a fixed monthly payment. Administrating that will tax even the most efficient agency. That is why one thoughtful critic, author Steven Waldman, has argued that this upcoming struggle misses the main point. Waldman, who wrote the recently released book, The Bill, about the legislative battle over national service, believes Clinton has achieved an enormously beneficial reform in the ``pay as you can'' scheme. It relieves some of the financial pressure on borrowers and potentially encourages them to choose socially useful--but less-high-paying--careers like teaching because their loans are pegged to their ability to pay. But Waldman argues that Clinton's achievement is jeopardized because neither banks nor the federal education bureaucracy can prevent the program from becoming another boondoggle. His solution: Call in the IRS, the only agency that ``could accurately and efficiently assess a person's income and be sure to collect.'' An idea like that puts tough-minded Republicans in a bind. If they want to fix a potentially flawed Clinton idea and do right by taxpayers, their best bet is to vest more power in a much-feared federal agency. Who knows, maybe the students who have newfound appreciation for the easier-to-fathom lending system run by the government might not balk too much at paying when the bills come due.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. I do want to rise in support of the efforts of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], but I wish we had been given a different choice here. I think he is absolutely right when he wants to restore $10 million to the highly successful DARE program. Some of us though would have liked to have paid for that by taking money, for example, out of the operation and maintenance account of the Southeastern Power Administration, $13 million. I offered an amendment that would have let us pay for this kind of program that way, but because of the rule we are under, we are not permitted to do that. Having to pay for this out of programs that help in the continuing education of teachers is a tragedy. Nevertheless, I will join my colleagues in supporting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], but again, remind the majority they have cut off debate where it really should happen here.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the unwritten clauses with the Contract With America is that there will be free, open, and honest debate, regardless of party affiliation. Tonight is the night the Contract With America was breached. We are all watching it tonight.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, is right in saying that our colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], has come up with a creative way to save a program she cares about. We were not given a similar opportunity to offer alternatives to spending cuts that we care about. I want to repeat something my friend, the gentleman from Indiana said, Mr. Chairman. This rescission bill in front of us will totally eliminate grants to senior citizens that help them pay their heating bills. Mr. Chairman, many of us would like to have put that money back in the budget and pay for it by taking money away from the S&L bailout for the Resolution Trust Corporation. We cannot do that. We would have liked to have considering something under another bill, the cancellation of a $50 million loan from the United States to the Kingdom of Jordan. We cannot do that under this bill. Some of us would have liked to have put that senior citizen money back into the budget and paid for it by cutting some of the money to the power administrations, the TVA and some of the other subsidies around the country. We are denied the opportunity to do that by the procedure under which we are operating here. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Maryland is to be congratulated for her creativity, but all the creativity in the world would not have given us a chance to vote on the changes I just made. Mr. Chairman, I believe we did not get the chance because the leadership on the other side knows that we would win if we got a chance to offer those amendments.

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

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, here is what this debate is about: This weekend Members of both parties are going to go home and have a town meeting, and someone is going to ask them if they are in favor of cutting spending or not. Most of us are going to say yes, we are in favor of cutting spending, and then someone in the audience is going to raise their hand and say, ``Congressman, why did you vote to cut the aid that I get to pay my utility bill, my heating bill, when you could have voted instead to cut money from the savings and loan bailout or from the bureaucracy in the Agriculture Department or from the Export-Import Bank?'' If you vote for this rule, Mr. Speaker, if Members vote for this rule, here is the honest answer to that question: ``I had a chance to vote for that kind of amendment, but I refused it. I had a chance to defeat this rule and let us bring to the floor amendments that would let us cut other areas that benefit corporate America and do not hurt seniors and kids and middle-income families, but I did not take that opportunity.'' If this rule passes, this will be the day that the Contract With America was breached for the first time.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, this is a place where we come to make choices. Many of us, both Republican and Democrat, are ready to make choices to reduce the Federal budget, but today in the Committee on Rules, the Republican leadership of the Committee on Rules is ready to deny us a choice, a series of choices, that the American people have a right to hear us make. This week on this floor, we will have presented to us a $17 billion budget cut proposal by the Republican majority. Some of us agree that the budget ought to be cut, but ought to be cut in different places. We want to offer an amendment that would say: ``Let us not take home heating assistance away from senior citizens across this country; instead, let us take the money from the S&L bailout. Let us not take money away from reading teachers for children across this country; let us take the money from energy subsidies to huge multinational corporations. We are not going to get the right to make that choice unless the rule proposed by the Republican leadership is defeated. Honor your Contract With America, open up the promise, and defeat this rule.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, due to circumstances beyond my control I was called away from the floor of the House on February 8 and 10, 1995 and missed several votes. Had I been here, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 109--yes. Rollcall No. 108--yes. Rollcall No. 107--no. Rollcall No. 106--yes. Rollcall No. 105--no. Rollcall No. 112--no.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, a controversy has arisen recently over a protest staged by ACORN, a membership and advocacy group for low- and moderate-income families. The Washington Times, in a March 7 editorial, asserted that AmeriCorps members--whose stipends are subsidized by the Federal Government--may have worked for ACORN and therefore participated in the protest. Unfortunately, the newspaper got its facts wrong. No AmeriCorps members work for ACORN, and none took part in the protest. Rather, 42 AmeriCorps members are serving with ACORN Housing Corporation, an entirely different organization that helps working families find homes. Eli Segal, the CEO of the National Service Corporation, clarified the facts in his March 7 letter to the Washington Times. I have submitted his letter to set the record straight. I would like to express my disappointment that members of the press and of this body would spread misinformation to discredit a program as innovative, productive, and important as AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps National Service, Washington, DC, March 7, 1995. Tod Lindberg, Editor of the Editorial Page, Washington Times. Dear Mr. Lindberg: In your editorial today (Federally funded Newt-bashing), you asked whether AmeriCorps Members participated in the disruption of Monday's NACO luncheon, which prevented Speaker Gingrich from addressing the gathering. There is a simple answer: Absolutely not. AmeriCorps doesn't support advocacy. Our statute and Regulations clearly prohibit it. Advocacy aims to make change through politics, and is therefore inherently a process of winners and losers. National service brings about positive change by helping local communities solve common problems through collective effort--where everyone ends up benefiting. This is much more than rhetoric. Advocacy organizations were furious when our Regulations came out, but we didn't budge. We have also made it clear to all of our grantees that this is a matter of principle, not technicality. We will cut off funding to programs that do not comply. I have reminded all of our programs of these matters, today, in writing. AmeriCorps aims to re-kit community. That can't happen when basic freedoms of speech are trampled. In the wake of yesterday's disruption, we immediately investigated. Here's what we learned: No AmeriCorps Members participated in the incident (written conformation attached). In fact, the protesting organization is an entirely separate organization from our grantee--legally, and in Board, budget, staff and mission. with ACORN Housing Corporation. The latter is not an advocacy organization, but an entirely separate non-profit helping working families find housing--especially buying their own homes. In the three months our AmeriCorps program has been operating, AmeriCorps Members have already assisted hundreds of families interested in home ownership--and 84 families now have secured mortgages for their first homes. This is the AmeriCorps mission: getting things done. And this is the American Dream: helping working families afford a home. We agree with the Washington Times that federal funds must not be abused, and that service must be distinct from advocacy. AmeriCorps is proud of its record--and unshakable in its adherence to these principles. Sincerely, Eli J. Segal, Chief Executive Officer.