Gene Green

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am not.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we heard earlier last week and over the weekend that this year's campaign is about trust. I am concerned about what may happen to some of our programs, that if we go forward with what Senator Dole wants, proposed tax cuts of $548 billion, that could lead to higher deficits and also increased interest rates. Mr. Speaker, I think we only need to look at recent history to show the concern that last year, in which there was only $245 billion in tax cuts, Medicare was on the chopping block. Senator Dole has promised the American people he will not cut Medicare, Social Security, or veterans benefits to pay for the cuts, but we just do not know where the money is coming from. Where is it? Are we going to cut Border Patrol or education funding even more? Senator Dole's cut, according to the article in this week's Time Magazine, the Border Patrol, FBI, and drug enforcement programs may be faced with cuts as deep as 40 percent. Yesterday, Senator Dole said he will get tough on drug enforcement and crime. I do not know if this is any trust. We need to know where these tax cuts are coming from to be paid for. Are they really going to come out of drug enforcement?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Speaker brought that ice bucket in here. My concern is that they are going to ice Medicare with that $548 billion tax cut. Yesterday, in front of the Republican Caucus Senator Dole said that this year's campaign is about trust. Senator Dole wants the American people to believe and trust that his proposed tax cuts will improve their economic conditions. He wants them to believe that a $548 billion tax cut will not lead to higher budget deficits and increased interest rates, but major Republican economists say that Senator Dole's tax cuts will not work. If history is any lesson, when Speaker Gingrich and then Senator Dole tried to pass a $245 billion tax cut last year, they went after Medicare, $270 billion. Do not let them ice Medicare. Senator D'Amato admitted that under the Dole plan funding for such programs as Medicare would definitely be affected. He went even as far as to say, I know I am not running this year, so he can tell the truth. Even former economic advisers to Reagan are now saying that tax cuts do not produce the kind of economic stimulation Senator Dole promised. Mr. Speaker, let us not repeat the 1990's budget-busting plans.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Going back, let me say something else about budget cuts, obviously Medicare and student loans, but they have to go to discretionary spending if they do not do entitlements. Some of that discretionary money is Border Patrol, the FBI, crime control, airline safety. There are a lot of programs that would be on the chopping block. But again they doubled the tax cuts they wanted in 1995 and 1996, they could not get them, and in Texas we call that a pig in a poke. Our folks are not going to buy it, and that is what this is. This proposed $500 billion tax cut is a pig in a poke.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the opportunity to visit with the gentleman tonight and talk about this $548 billion tax cut that has become a political issue around the country. In fact I know the gentleman mentioned that Senator Dole was here today talking to the Republican leadership, and during that time I heard that he had mentioned that this whole campaign is about trust. I thought it was appropriate in that trust is important, whether you are running for the White House or Members of Congress or whatever elected office you have. But I noticed he wants us to believe that the $548 billion tax cut will not lead to higher budget deficits and increased interest rates. The gentleman mentioned earlier that the tax cuts will not work without getting into social programs like Medicare and maybe Social Security. But let us look at history. The gentleman mentioned the $245 billion tax cut last year where Medicare was on the table to be cut. This year, at least this fall, nobody is talking about it on the Republican side because they want to wait until after the election before they come back and put that on the chopping block. But since Senator Dole talked about it, this campaign is about trust. It is really kind of hard, with what you have said, to talk about trust when you see what happened last year with the $245 billion tax cuts and the $270 billion, even using their terminology, the $270 billion cut in growth in Medicare spending. But again let us talk about that growth in Medicare spending. If you have 10 million, for example, people receiving Medicare today, and 5 years from now you have 25 million that may be expected, these are numbers we pick out of the air, and we are not planning for that growth, then it is a cut. I know it is sometimes hard to explain that to folks. But let me mention today I saw in the New York Times the architect of the Reagan tax cut plan in the early 1980's, Murray Weidenbaum, said of Senator Dole's proposed tax cuts: Cutting income taxes alone is not going to energize the economy sufficiently to prevent a rise in the budget deficit. This last Sunday on ``Meet the Press,'' another architect or budget adviser, Richard Darman, who worked under both Presidents Reagan and Bush, reminded us that Reagan had to raise taxes five times after enacting the very popular 1981 tax cuts to make up for that lost revenue, and we still had our debt and deficit mushroom in the 1980's, even after five tax increases, after 1981. If my colleagues are building a campaign on trust, then let us look back at the past decade or two decades and see where that trust would be. I think the gentleman mentioned it, Senator D'Amato mentioned that under the Dole plan, funding for such programs like Medicare would definitely be affected. In fact his quote is, he went so far as to say: ``I'm not running this year so I can say it and tell the truth.'' I do not think that is what people in America want when they talk about trust, when they talk about all of us want a tax cut but we also want to balance the budget. Let me even quote another former U.S. Senator. Senator Warren Rudman from New Hampshire agrees when he says, ``Unless you are willing to do some major reforms in entitlements, there is no way you can do this.'' What is an entitlement? That is a word in Washington we use but in our districts, entitlements are Social Security, they are Medicare, they are programs that people depend on to make sure they can have the quality of life that they should have. My concern is why is Senator Dole not telling the American people that that is what he wants to do for $540 billion in tax cuts, when they got burned last year by trying to do $245 billion, so they doubled it almost? And they are still going to attack Medicare, education, student loans. If you are building a campaign on trust, let us talk about that. Let us talk about it before November 5, instead of waiting until after a new Congress comes in, and then making those cuts.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no fear of taking a drug test, and I suggest we do it here on the floor of the House. Let me talk about the cuts that we have in safe and drug-free schools, the same people we have heard this morning talk about the increase in drug use, and yet this majority Republican Congress cut $99 million out of safe and drug-free schools that the President requested, again the DARE programs. But that is not what I want to talk about today. Mr. Speaker, I really wanted to talk about the proposed spending of all the political career of Senator Dole as a budget balancer and now calling for a 15 percent tax cut. This sounds great and all of us would like to have one, but how are we going to pay for it? In recent history, if there is any indication, it will be paid for by cuts in education, by cuts in the Medicare needs for seniors, and of course, remember last year when Senator Dole bragged about voting against the creation of Medicare in 1965. Now he says he wants to preserve and protect it. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that after November 5, if that happens, we will then hear about where those cuts are going to come, and they are going to come from education, from Medicare for seniors and from programs that we need to plan for the 21st century.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the bill. Mr. Speaker, today is a good day for our Nation's working people, both men and women. What a difference a year makes. This Republican majority Congress passes a minimum wage increase. The world has definitely turned upside down. With the passage of this conference committee report, working Americans will finally see an increase in their wages. To again quote the late Senator from Texas, U.S. Senator Ralph Yarborough, we are putting the jam on the lower shelf for the little people to reach it. This is a day to celebrate. But we should not forget the Republican attempts to stonewall, derail, and defeat the increase. The American people brought the Republican majority to this point, in some cases kicking and screaming, with a few exceptions. My colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Jack Quinn], is to be commended for his leadership on this effort. The credit should go to the American people, who made it absolutely clear to the Republican leadership that they expected an increase in the minimum wage. Eighty percent expected that. American workers understand that the purchasing power of the minimum wage will soon be the lowest in 40 years, and now they will make an additional $1,800 a year in their pocket to spend. Let us stop talking about it. Let us give the American people what they want and deserve, an increase in the minimum wage. The best welfare reform is a job that pays a decent wage.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for allowing me to speak. I rise in opposition to the bill, but I support English as our common language. But our colleagues are trying to divide Americans on language basis, and I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania that no one asked to have that translation of that charter. In the State of Texas even with our Hispanic heritage our charters from our Secretary of State come only in English. Some time ago, USA Today reported that the English-only effort is a phony solution in search of a problem. There is no more adequate statement that I have heard on any other thing in this issue. According to the findings in this bill, English is a common thread that binds individuals from different backgrounds. In short, English is what makes us Americans. We have more in common than our language, and, Lord knows, we all speak English in a different way. Americans share a common set of values, those of democracy, freedom, and opportunity, and that can be said in English as well as lots of other languages. Our fellow Americans who are not fluent in English are no less patriotic than my colleagues or me. In fact in some cases, particularly Hispanic heritage, we can go and talk about individuals who have literally laid down their lives for our country. Contrary to what the sponsors of the bill claim, English is not being threatened. If one files a document in court, the public records are in English. If they get a charter from Pennsylvania, like my colleague said, it is in English. English is the language that is used today in Congress and all our official activities of our Government. Then why are we debating this bill? Only to divide us as Americans. We are not divided because of our language, Mr. Chairman. We are divided today because of those of us who may not speak English as our first language. My ancestor did not speak English as a first language, they spoke German. But they also learned English, but we also lament that in our ancestry we lost the ability to speak German. I hesitate to say anyone coming to America, they are going to learn English, but I do not want them to say, ``Don't learn your heritage''; and that is what this bill is saying. This bill is trying to divide us, Mr. Chairman, based on language, and we do not need to be divided any more in this country.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill and the rule. I consider the bill a dangerous bill, and unlike my colleague from Georgia, English is our common language. I admit, in Texas we speak a little different English from maybe in Georgia and New England, but we still speak English, and some Members in the House on both sides say that we do not. The reason for the opposition to this bill is that my colleagues talk about the bill, saying it is a common language. That is not what the bill says. If my colleagues brought a bill to the floor today that said English is a common language, they would not have any opposition to it because we would all agree with that. What this bill does, though, is separate it, prohibit the use of other languages, and even this rule that we have today is limiting our freedom to debate on this bill. A lot of amendments Members submitted to try and make this bill better and not so onerous were not allowed in the Committee on Rules because of the modified closed rules we are having, and once again we have a rule that we do not get to debate the full bill itself. English is our official language. My opposition said 99 percent of the documents that are printed are printed in English. This is a solution in search of a problem, Mr. Speaker. Our language classes for English in my district and everywhere in the country are overflowing. There is a waiting list now. They cannot advertise English language classes in Houston because they cannot fill them, and yet these are the same folks that cut education funding for adult education. So do not come up and shed crocodile tears about how people ought to learn English when they cut adult education to people who want to learn English. This bill should be amended to recognize that English is our common language because that is what their debate is about, but it is not. This rule divides us and this bill divides us as Americans, because we share more than our language. We share our love of freedom and our willingness to fight for that freedom, no matter what our language is. And I thought that was aptly mentioned earlier by my colleague from Puerto Rico. This bill divides our country, because we are united in more ways than language. Again, I will share with my colleague from California, he says ``Nothing typifies this more than the Olympic spirit,'' the unity we see, not just from around the world, but from the United States team in Georgia. We are going into the 20th century, and here this is a bill that I can imagine would have been debated last century. We are going into the 20th century, to try to make sure we can compete in the world and compete everywhere, and yet we are going to punish someone in my office who writes a letter back to someone in German? I know there is an amendment to correct the bill, but it came out of committee, to punish Members of Congress for contacting, in response to people who write our office, whether it be in Spanish, Czech, German, or Vietnamese. They are going to clean it up, but this bill should have been worked on even more, because it is a bad bill and it is a bad rule.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. In quick response, Mr. Speaker, to my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, he knows who controls the rules on the floor. If we could have submitted amendments we probably would, but the Committee on Rules typically has closed rules, and the gentleman's colleague from Georgia prohibited them with his amendment, most of them. What I am really here to talk about this week, we are celebrating the 31st anniversary of Medicare. We are looking back on a time that has seen drastic reductions in the number of seniors in poverty. As a result of Medicare, the poverty rate among America's senior citizens has dropped from 30 percent in 1966 to 12 percent in 1993. Before 1966 only 51 percent of American seniors had health insurance. Today, thanks to Medicare, 99 percent of America's seniors have health car. This is a program that America needs, not only in 1965, but today and tomorrow. Contrary to sentiments expressed by my Republican colleagues, Medicare should not be allowed to wither on the vine or be limited to pay for tax cuts, or, as one of our former colleagues said, ``I was there fighting the fight voting against Medicare, 1 out of 12, because we knew it would not work in 1965.'' Celebrating Medicare's 31st birthday this week, we as Democrats are taking actions to ensure its success in the future.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from St. Louis, MO for allowing me to speak today, and for yielding the time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the bill. I like the idea of employees being able to decide whether they are going to have overtime pay or comp time. In fact, when the President made his announcement in June, I thought we would see an effort to come out with real flex time and a compromise. In fact, as has been quoted from the majority side, nationwide polls show an overwhelming number of Americans support the concept. But also, from a different poll, it shows that an overwhelming number of workers expect to be forced by their employer to accept comp time instead of overtime pay. That is what is wrong with the bill. The bill should be addressing both concerns of the workers: First, the need for the flexibility, but also, the fear that they have that they may not be hired if they do not agree beforehand to take comp time instead of the pay. Before coming to Congress, I helped manage a business. We used comp time. It was successful, both for the business and for the workers. But every time it was the choice of that employee, more so than this bill ever does, because it worked. It was successful. I would hope that if this bill goes down, and if not this Congress, the next Congress we will really be able to come together and come up with one that not only allows the flexibility, but also provides the teeth to the bill that it needs. It would be so important to have a way to be clear whether it is employee choice or employer mandate. This bill was drafted to expect employers to do what is right and give that choice. Ninety-five percent of our employers will do that. The bill lacks the teeth because the 5 percent of the employers, whether they be in the garment industry or any other industry, are the ones who will take advantage of this and take advantage of those workers. That is why about 60 percent of those workers are afraid they are going to be abused with that. Mr. Chairman, the Republican comp time proposal is that the employer and not the employee decides who earns the comp time and who will earn the overtime pay. This bill does not contain clear provisions to prevent the employer from forcing workers to take time off in lieu of overtime pay. I know both the bill and the manager's amendment has some effort to try to prevent coercion, but we need more than just the statement in here. We need some real teeth in the law. In my district people depend on their overtime pay oftentimes to make ends meet. They should not have to live in fear of losing it, particularly some workers who are seasonal workers, who have to earn overtime for the period of time they can work because the rest of the year they cannot practice their trade, whether because of weather or because of whatever conditions. In H.R. 2391 employers maintain the ultimate control when to grant that worker the comp time. Regardless of the amount of notice the worker provides, employers can deny the use of comp time if the firm claims they would be unduly disrupted. Again, I think this is something we can work out, but we have not been able to. What good is it to earn comp time if the employer does not allow you to use it, or forces you to use it instead of your vacation time that you may have earned? Additionally, this proposal does not include the protections necessary to make sure workers receive their comp time when a business files bankruptcy. I know we have talked about that, but this bill does not deal with the Bankruptcy Code. Comp time should stay in the same place wages do in the Bankruptcy Code. This bill does not set that up on that level. H.R. 2391 does not give the employees the full remedies available under the law to an employer who violates the overtime law. Civil fines should be imposed on employers who operate comp time programs in violation of the overtime laws. Instead of this Republican proposal, I would hope we can work on a real bipartisan proposal giving employees real comp time. Comp time means employees have the choice of taking their time to go to the soccer games. I use it, Mr. Chairman, and I know how important it is, but I also want to make sure it is the employee's choice when to do it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities where this bill originated. I have expressed it during the committee that I like the idea of workers choosing between earning overtime and comp time as long as it is the total choice of the employee with teeth to prevent the coercion. This bill does not protect that employee choice. National polls show that an overwhelming number of workers expect to be forced by their employer to accept comp time instead of overtime. But the central issue here is clear, it is either employee choice or employer mandate. That is the concern about the bill. That is why the bill is flawed. H.R. 2391 does not contain a strong provision to prevent the employer from forcing workers to accept time off in lieu of overtime pay. In my district many people have to have overtime pay just to make ends meet. In H.R. 2391, employers maintain the control when to grant that comp time regardless of the amount of notice that the employee gives. What good is it to earn comp time if your employer makes you use that instead of your vacation you may earn? This needs to be addressed. Comp time should be treated just like any other wages in bankruptcy. This bill does not touch that. It should be at the same level in bankruptcy filings, so comp time is the same as lost wages in bankruptcy. This proposal does not ensure that the full remedies available to employees for violation of the overtime law are available where the employer violates the law. Strong civil fines should be established where employers who operate comp time programs violate the law and coerce employees. Instead of this flawed Republican proposal, we should work on a bipartisan proposal giving employees real flex time. I urge defeat of the rule, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am here from the Government and I am going to help you. I am a Republican and I am here to help the working people of America. Both these statements are kind of hard to believe. We have a bill today on the calendar that will change 60 years of 40-hour week laws. The Republican majority this year alone opposed the minimum wage increase, cut occupational health and safety funding for safe workplaces, cut funding for fair labor standards enforcement, and now today they want to lower the wages by eliminating overtime wages. This Congress is not the friend of the working people; they want to eliminate the working people.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority last night and today; we have all heard it, is trying to rewrite history. In fact we heard it again this morning where they are trying, the Republican colleague, my Republican colleague is trying to rewrite it. Their method of operation is to threaten possible libel suits against television stations that run commercials that accurately reflect what the Speaker's views on Medicare are. The logic is: ``If you can't beat them, then prevent them from broadcasting.'' The question is whether the Speaker of the House said Republicans planned for Medicare to ``wither on the vine.'' After he made that famous speech last year, it was not quite clear, and yet reporters asked the Speaker's press secretary for clarification. He confirmed to a reporter that the Speaker meant the fee-for-service medicine. Fee-for-service medicine, that is Medicare. That is not some change in interpretation a year later. Later, in a town hall meeting in his district the Speaker said he was referring to the ``fee-for-service portion of Medicare.'' That sounds to me like Medicare that most of the country is familiar with. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority says the Democrats and the media are lying to the American people. But the record shows that the Speaker's words are what is getting Republicans in trouble.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Is the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] required to be seated during this time?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Hayworth]. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for an extra 30 seconds. Those of us from Texas, we talk a little slower. I am just shocked that the Republican majority would be opposing this amendment that does not increase the deficit and yet it puts money where 80 percent of the American people want it, in education funding. Education is hard, it's difficult and it is not cheap, and we know it is not free. We cannot cut spending, as my colleague from California thinks, in education and expect it to improve. Education is tough when we spend the money. It is impossible when we do not spend the money. That is why the Obey amendment is so important. It increases title I funding, increases summer youth training programs, dislocated workers, Head Start it increases $70 million, title I funding for disadvantaged children, $450 million. At a time when we see an increase in the student enrollment, as the chart in the front talks about, 7 percent increase, this bill cuts it. That is why the Obey amendment is so important. If we do not restore the funding with the Obey amendment, then a number of us are going to have to vote against this bill because it is not preparing for the future of our country. It is cutting the future of our country. Using the gentleman from California's argument that education is failing and it is because we are not seeing the improvement, the Pentagon might be zeroed out this year if we know what the GAO study said on the gulf war. We have to do better, not only with the Pentagon but also with education funding. That is why the Obey amendment is so important for us to adopt and to pass.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from North Carolina when he asks to stop the slinging of the mud on the one hand, and not the other. But, Mr. Speaker, let me talk about education this morning. Did we learn anything last year in Congress? Maybe we need to do more homework on our own. The American people overwhelmingly rejected education cuts last year, and they still do. But the Republicans want to deny education services to hundreds of thousands of children with the bill we have today. The Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill cuts education funding $2.6 billion below the level needed to keep up with inflation. Overall education will be cut below fiscal year 1995 levels at the same time school enrollment is going up 7 percent. Education reform funding and Eisenhower teacher training grants are being eliminated. The Republican bill provides $475 million less in title I funding for disadvantaged children than the administration requested. It is time for the Republicans to listen to the American people and provide the funds for education. It is America's future we are talking about.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today millions of working Americans can come one step closer to earning a livable wage. The Senate will finally vote on increasing the minimum wage. After months of blocking Democratic attempts to vote on raising the minimum wage, the Senate Republican leaders will finally allow a vote. But this vote for working Americans does not come easy. As payment, the Senate Republicans will attempt to attach an amendment that will destroy this minimum wage increase. The Republican amendment would delay the implementation in the increase, freeze the minimum wage for those people who work in restaurants and also exempt millions of people from having any increase. Republicans have no real interest in helping the millions of working Americans because these exemptions will prevent millions of hard- working Americans from earning a livable wage. American families are working harder than ever. It is tough to get by when working full time for minimum wage does not put enough money in your pocket to put bread on your table. I ask my colleagues in the other Chamber not to prevent these hard- working American families from earning a livable wage. Support work, not welfare.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bentsen amendment, and I commend my colleague from Houston for his leadership on this important issue. On March 15, the EPA issued a final rule to amend the Federal PCB regulations and allow the import of PCB waste for disposal in permitted facilities in the United States. This rule allows the importation of foreign PCB waste for disposal in the United States. The EPA has estimated that the United States disposal industry would receive $50 to $100 million annually if PCB's are imported into the United States from Canada and Mexico. And where would PCB's be disposed? In Kansas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Port Arthur, TX, and Deer Park, TX. Mr. Bentsen's amendment would prohibit the EPA from using any funds to implement its final rule. PCB's when incinerated release dioxin--one of the most toxic chemicals known. Dioxin, as we all know, causes a wide range of adverse health effects and it accumulates in the environment. The incineration of PCB's is recognized as a health hazard. That's why the Congress designed a phaseout of domestic PCB manufacture in the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976. It is irresponsible to reverse ourselves now and I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hostettler amendment. Mr. Chairman, my colleague's amendment is misguided and shortsighted. We should be engaged in expanding AmeriCorps, not in its elimination. Almost 3 years ago, when Congress created the AmeriCorps Program, we expected great things from national service. The Congress expected AmeriCorps to help communities meet their public service needs with real results. We expected AmeriCorps to unite individuals from different backgrounds in the common effort to improve our communities. We expected AmeriCorps to encourage its members to explore and exercise their responsibilities to their communities, their families, and themselves. Today, almost 2 years after the first 20,000 AmeriCorps members hit the field in over 1,000 communities across the country, the Corporation for National Service and its AmeriCorps Program has met every one of these expectations. And in many cases, it's exceeded them. The essence of the Republican opposition lies in the fact that they don't want to support something so closely identified with President Clinton, especially something that's been proven as successful as AmeriCorps. Mr. Hostettler, and the rest of my Republican colleagues know that the President will veto this bill if this amendment passes. I believe that the attacks on AmeriCorps are not based on merit. In 1995, the General Accounting Office reported on the status the National Service programs. In the GAO's year-long review of AmeriCorps the GAO confirmed the corporation's statements about its funding for each AmeriCorps member. The GAO said that the corporation's resources total about $17,600 per member. In testimony before the Congress earlier this year, the corporation projected its costs at approximately $18,800 per member. This is precisely in line with what the Congress directed the program to spend. The GAO also saw accomplishments that are consistent with the purpose of the national service legislation, concluding that AmeriCorps is fulfilling the mission we gave it in all of its detail and complexity. Finally, the GAO's figures show that the AmeriCorps programs have far exceeded anyone's expectations regarding their ability to raise nontaxpayers' dollars to support their programs. Congress told AmeriCorps that it had to meet our commitment to national service with $31 million in locally based matching funds this year. From the private sector alone, the AmeriCorps programs raised $41 million. Every cent of this money came from private donations--not taxpayer dollars--from individuals and over 600 companies and foundations. The decision on whether or not to continue national service will tell us a lot about ourselves. We should put partisan politics aside. Let's work together to continue to provide young people an opportunity to help themselves, as they help our communities and learn service as a way of life. AmeriCorps has kept its promise to the American people. The Congress should, too.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I do agree with my colleague from Texas, majority leader Dick Armey, in that the ethics committee members have a tough job, one that a lot of us do not want. But they also need to know when they need to refer it to a higher authority and in particularly a special counsel. Let me quote today's Los Angeles Times when it says: In cases involving the Lincoln and West Georgia foundations, money that was intended to support troubled innercity teenagers and at-risk third graders was used instead to benefit GOPAC and to compensate a Gingrich confidant. Six tax-exempt foundations were used to funnel money for political purposes. I know we have talked about tax cuts in this Congress, but that is the ultimate tax cut before we have even voted on it. We get a tax cut to contribute to political campaigns. Not even average folks can do that. That was taken away a good while back on tax reform. But I think that is why we need to vote today for these special resolutions, the privileged resolutions by our colleague, the gentleman from Florida, Harry Johnston, to make sure that we have an independent counsel to investigate this use of the IRS tax deduction.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to follow my colleague from Arizona because I can tell that they are more interested in election year politics than they are in balancing the budget. Mr. Speaker, for years the Republicans have complained about Democrats being tax-and-spend liberals for causing the run-up in the budget deficit. I submit their annual budget. The budget that was passed last week actually raised the deficit. After 40 years in the political wilderness the Republican Party in consecutive years have shut down the Government and now passed a budget that will increase the deficit. Again I say, increase the deficit. At the heart of their budget are cuts in Medicare and tax breaks for the wealthy. They want to cut taxes $122 billion while at the same time increasing the deficit. Maybe they need to worry about the FBI investigation. Maybe they need to worry about something other than what the folks elected us here to do, to balance the budget, provide health care for seniors, provide education for our children and to make sure our country is defended.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the House Republican plan on Medicare calls for $168 billion in cuts in the growth, as they say. They say they need to cut this much in order to save Medicare, but the President's budget saves Medicare for $44 billion less in the cuts in growth. Perhaps this is the Republican majority way of paying for financially irresponsible tax cuts. These are the same tax cuts that increase the deficit for the next 2 years. We will not hear that from that microphone over there. But there is more. In the Speaker Gingrich House Republican Medicare plan there is a provision that would allow health care providers to bill seniors more now than they are for current services paid for by Medicare. So, in other words, not only are we going to cut Medicare but seniors are going to have to pay more for services that have been provided by Medicare. The Gingrich plan would weaken the provision, thereby opening the door for higher out-of-pocket expenses for our seniors. The Republican majority's first priority is tax cuts, even though they increase the deficit. Then they want to cut Medicare, education, and all the rest in order to pay for it. These are not the priorities of the American people.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, now that the leadership in the Senate has changed, we are beginning to see some real movement on the Kennedy-Kassebaum health care reform bill. Unlike Bob Dole, the current majority leader in the Senate understands the urgency to bring this bill to a vote and is working toward an agreement. For months and even years, Americans have been asking for portability in health insurance and coverage for preexisting conditions. But House Republicans have demanded the inclusion of full-fledged medical savings accounts, the so-called MSA's, malpractice reform and the taking away of State regulation over multiple employer welfare plans, or the MEWA's. That inclusion of issues will kill the bill. Americans want the ability to take their insurance coverage with them when they change jobs and they want to be covered for preexisting conditions. The Kassebaum-Kennedy bill makes this possible. It is time to stop playing games with the American people and pass reasonable health care reform now.