Jim Greenwood

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I will say that I am not suggesting that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] is hypocritical, if that is his point.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, if it seems we just had this debate, it is because we just had this debate. On February 13, this House by a vote of 220 to 209 decided to release these international family planning funds. We did so, 44 Republicans, 175 Democrats, and one Independent to 20 in all, so we knew at the end of the day if we are going to achieve the goals that we share, that we all share, including the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] that international family planning funds be available to help empower families to control the number of children that they have, that the only way to get that done is to do it without the entanglements of the Smith language, to pass language that is straightforward, that prevents these funds from being used for abortion, can be adopted by the Senate and signed by the President. When all is said and done, if we adopt the Smith amendment, we know that one of two things will happen: Either we will come back on another day and undo it, as we have in the past, or we will kill the program. Neither of those, certainly killing the program makes no sense. It makes no sense to do this simply for rhetorical reasons today, and come back and compromise as we have done each and every year. Let us do what is reasonable. Let us do what is sensible. Let us adopt the compromise which is embodied in the Campbell-Greenwood-Lowey amendment now, get it over with, and move on to the next issue. I want to particularly address those colleagues who equivocate on this issue to be consistent and vote today as they did in February.

Mr. GREENWOOD. I am suggesting that public policy can make us all hypocrites. The point is that without these funds, the consequences are real. The consequences are 1,600 women dying every day because their pregnancies are too closely spaced together, because their bodies are too young, their bodies are too old to sustain that pregnancy, they die of postpartum hemorrhage. Five hundred eighty thousand women die a year because they do not have access to good reproductive health services, and it is hypocritical for any of us to suggest that we want to, in the name of reducing the number of abortions, allow that to occur. It is wrong to allow 7 million infants a year around the world to die because they are born to women who cannot nourish them, they are born into families that cannot sustain them. That is an awful consequence to pay for a moral principle. It is wrong and most ironic that the consequence of the Smith amendment is millions and millions of more abortions around the world, because we will not stop abortions by simply prohibiting agencies from participating in family planning funds. That defies common sense on its face. In fact, what we do have is an explosive growth of abortions in those places around the world where women do not have access to family planning. My colleagues, please support the Campbell-Greenwood amendment. It accomplishes what we all want to accomplish. It reduces human suffering. It empowers poor families to develop their families, to grow their families as they are able, to prevent this awful toll of human suffering, and it ensures that not a penny, not a dime of taxpayer moneys goes to pay for abortion. Let us talk about the realities of this process. We know that if the Smith amendment prevails unamended by Campbell-Greenwood, that this will not be accepted by the Senate and it will be vetoed by the President, so this will not stand. This is the time for compromise. We have found ourselves compromising on this issue year after year, session after session. Let us be realistic. Let us understand the political realities as well as the realities in human suffering and support the Campbell-Greenwood amendment.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, what is this all about? The base bill does the right thing. The base bill holds true to America's commitment to population control. This is the history of population growth on planet Earth. We can say that in the second half of this century we headed off on an explosive growth of population worldwide, and most of that growth is in underdeveloped nations, in places like India and China and Africa. The purpose of these funds is to simply enable families, particularly poor families, to have the number of children that they want to, as many children as they want to or as few as they want to. My colleague and friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], has an amendment. His amendment would say that none of the funds to help control population development may go to an organization if that organization, with its own money, not with American taxpayers' dollars but with the money of the woman who seeks an abortion, provides that service as well. My colleague stands on a moral point. I respect him for that. But there is a time in public policy where morality becomes hypocrisy and morality becomes hypocrisy, when what we are trying to achieve does far more harm and in fact goes counterproductive to what we are trying to accomplish.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding organization in Bucks County, the Students in Free Enterprise, located at the Bucks County Community College. Students in Free Enterprise [SIFE] is a nonprofit, international organization including over 400 chapters on the campuses of U.S. colleges and universities. SIFE has continually encouraged the free- enterprise system through educational programs since its inception more than 20 years ago by Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart. Students in the organization dedicate their time and resources to helping others develop leadership, teamwork, and communication skills through learning, practicing, and teaching the principles of free enterprise. SIFE is not only involved with the encouragement of the free-enterprise system, but has worked closely with many national and international charitable organizations such as the American Red Cross, the American Lung Association, and the Civil Air Patrol on various projects. The student organization at the Bucks County Community College has also instituted programs such as Reading Empowers and Directs Youth [READY] and Children Are Really Extra Special [CARES] to teach children important computer skills. The Students in Free Enterprise is a valuable asset to the people of Pennsylvania. In honor of their many charitable and civil contributions, I join my colleagues in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in recognizing May 20, 1997, as Students in Free Enterprise Day. I congratulate them on this day as they continue their mission of helping people achieve their dreams through free-enterprise education.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding organization in Bucks County, the Students in Free Enterprise, located at the Bucks County Community College. Studnets in Free Enterprise [SIFE] is a nonprofit, international organization including over 400 chapters on the campuses of U.S. colleges and universities. SIFE has continually encouraged the free enterprise system through educational programs since its inception more than 20 years ago by Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart. Students in the organization dedicate their time and resources to helping others develop leadership, teamwork and communication skills through learning, practicing, and teaching the principles of free enterprise. SIFE is not only involved with the encouragement of the free enterprise system, but has worked closely with many national and international charitable organizations such as the American Red Cross, the American Lung Association, and the Civil Air Patrol on various projects. The student organization at the Bucks County Community College has also instituted programs such as Reading Empowers and Directs Youth [READY] and Children Are Really Extra Special [CARES] to teach children important computer skills. The Students in Free Enterprise is a valuable asset to the people of Pennsylvania. In honor of their many charitable and civic contributions, I join my colleagues in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in recognizing May 20, 1997 as Students in Free Enterprise Day. I congratulate them on this day as they continue their mission of helping people achieve their dreams through free enterprise education.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. When I was thinking about running for Congress a few years ago, I came to Washington and I met with the leaders of my party. The leaders of my party said there are many things wrong with the Democrats, but the thing that is perhaps the wrongest with them is that they have changed the House of Representatives, designed by our Founding Fathers to be the greatest deliberative body on Earth. They have changed it into a place where debate cannot occur. They closed the rules. I said that I am going to run for Congress, and I am going to come to Washington, and I am going to change that process so we can have real debate in the House of Representatives again. And I did. I got here 4 years ago. Yesterday I went to my Committee on Rules and I asked permission to bring to this floor an idea. The idea is simple. It says there is another way to look at this issue. The other way to look at this issue is that it is not important, the issue is not how an abortion is performed. The issue is when it is performed. I think there should not be any late-term abortions, any late-term abortions. We do not want abortions in the 7th month or the 8th month or the 9th month. That is wrong. It is too late then. You had your choice. Unless your life is at stake or the woman is seriously at risk of losing her health in a serious way, critical way, and then that is her decision. That is the decision for her and her mate and her priest to make. But I was denied that, and that is wrong and that is why I am against this rule.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Owens amendment, as I did when this amendment was raised in our committee, and I do it in all due respect to the gentleman who offers it. But I consider this proposal to be insulting, patronizing, and discriminating to young people particularly, like my son. My son works, and he does not make 2\1/2\ times the minimum wage. He is working his way up the ladder, and he is working a heck of a lot of overtime. He is working that overtime because he is buying a car and insuring it, and he is taking all of his overtime in cash, and that is fine. Under this bill he would still have the right to take all of his overtime in cash. But one of these days he might say, I want to go to my friend's wedding, and I need to take Friday and Monday off to do that, and my son is as entitled to make that decision on his account based on his needs as someone who makes twice as much money as he does. For that reason I think that the gentleman's amendment is discriminatory and should be rejected, and I yield back.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Land Recycling Act of 1997, legislation designed to spur economic growth in virtually every community across the country, particularly in America's urban core. the brownfields epidemic My bill is an aggressive attack on brownfields, abandoned or underutilized former industrial properties where actual or potential environmental contamination hinders redevelopment or prevents it altogether. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] estimates that there may be as many as 500,000 such sites nationwide. In my own congressional district, the southern portion of Bucks County is estimated to have 3 square miles of abandoned or underutilized industrial property. This epidemic poses continuing risks to human health and the environment, erodes State and local tax bases, hinders job growth, and allows existing infrastructure to go to waste. Moreover, the reluctance to redevelop brownfields has led developers to undeveloped greenfields, which do not pose the risk of liability. Development in these areas contributes to suburban sprawl, and eliminates future recreational and agricultural uses. The Land Recycling Act will help stop urban erosion, and provide incentives to the redevelopment of our cities and towns across the country. the sources of the problem The brownfields problem has many sources. Foremost among them is Federal law itself. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act [CERCLA], more commonly known as Superfund, parties who currently own or operate a facility can be held 100 percent liable for any cleanup costs regardless of whether they contributed to the environmental contamination and regardless of whether they were in any way at fault. The imposition of this liability has led to tragic consequences, including the potential that a completely innocent purchaser of property can be held liable for catastrophic environmental damage. Because of the potential for this kind of liability, it is no wonder that potential developers recoil from any site with a history of industrial activity. It is simply not worth dealing with the environmental exposure when they have the alternative of developing in rural areas with no potential for liability. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] poses nearly identical concerns. Under section 7003 of that law, for instance, EPA has broad authority to order a current owner-operator to address environmental contamination, again, regardless of fault. RCRA also hinders redevelopment of properties that may be subject to its corrective action program, many of which are in Pennsylvania and throughout the Great Lakes region. Enacted in 1984, RCRA's corrective action provisions comprise two relatively innocuous looking paragraphs requiring environmental cleanup of hazardous waste releases for certain regulated facilities. Unfortunately, Congress failed in these provisions to set out with any real specificity how EPA was to implement these requirements. As a result, well over a decade after enactment of the statute, EPA still has not finalized regulations governing the corrective action program. The glacial pact of EPA's rulemaking, in turn, has left many owners of facilities subject to corrective action in a regulatory void, either unwilling to begin environmental cleanups because of the uncertainty as to what will be required of them, or simply unable to because of the lack of regulatory guidance. Like other brownfields, these sites lie idle. In many instances, it simply makes no business sense to begin performing cleanups in the absence of some certainty as to what standards will be used in addressing them. This is frustrating for the business that own these properties and for the communities in which they are located. In the past several years Congress has considered a variety of proposals to combat these problems. Unfortunately, we have not yet enacted, been able to enact, amendments to CERCLA or RCRA. In stark contrast, 32 States have launched so-called voluntary cleanup programs. Under these initiatives property owners comply with State cleanup plans and are then released from further environmental liability at the site. The subcommittee has received testimony in the past from a variety of States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] demonstrating that these State voluntary cleanup programs have been responsible for the redevelopment of hundreds of brownfields. In the first year the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted its brownfields program, it succeeded in cleaning 35 sites. Although many of these State laws have proven successful, States, businesses, and other experts have tested that they could be far more effective if participation in a State voluntary cleanup program also included a release from Federal environmental liability. At field hearings in my district last September and in Columbus, OH, on February 14, 1997, the House Commerce Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, chaired by Mr. Oxley heard testimony that the possibility of continuing Federal liability despite an agreement to limit State liability--the so-called dual master problem--seriously diminishes the effectiveness of State voluntary cleanup programs. Because redevelopers face the potential for cleanup obligations above and beyond what a State has decided is appropriate to protect health and the environment, they may hesitate to enter into agreements with sellers to purchase idle properties. The testimony establishes, in my mind, that if brownfields redevelopers could be confident that the cleanup agreements entered into with States would not be second-guessed by EPA, then they would be far more likely to agree to conduct a cleanup. The Land Recycling Act Solutions Based on the input of all of the stakeholders in the brownfields debate--the Federal Government, States, local governments, sellers, buyers, developers, lenders, environmentalists, community interests, and others--and in particular based on my own experiences in my district, I have drafted the Land Recycling Act to remove Federal barriers to the cleanup of brownfields across the country. The solutions I propose, I am proud to say, do not cost the American taxpayers one nickel. Instead, they will unleash the enormous capital of the private sector to get brownfields cleaned up and put back to productive use. First, the act removes what I believe is the most significant obstacle to redevelopment: the fear of EPA intervention at a site being cleaned up pursuant to a State voluntary cleanup program. The Land Recycling Act prohibits any person--other than a State--from using any enforcement provision of CERCLA or RCRA with respect to a release of hazardous substances at any facility that is being addressed pursuant to a State voluntary cleanup program. In order to take advantage of this liability shield, a State must certify to EPA that it has enacted a voluntary cleanup program and that it has the resources necessary to carry out the program, and notify EPA of the facilities being addressed pursuant to the program. I am very sensitive to the concern that this provision could lead to a ``race to the bottom'' among the States, which, some argue, may lower their cleanup standards in order to attract new jobs at the expense of health and the environment. Accordingly, my bill makes numerous exceptions to the EPA enforcement ban. Sites listed on the Superfund National Priorities List [NPL] are not eligible, for instance, nor would any site that EPA proposed for listing on the NPL; nothing in the legislation limits EPA's current authority to investigate sites pursuant to CERCLA section 104 to determine whether they are eligible for listing on the NPL. Thus, Federal enforcement authorities will not be limited at any site that is truly of national significance. Further, the limitations on enforcement will not apply to any site that is already being addressed pursuant to consent decrees or other agreements with the United States. If someone has agreed with EPA to clean up a site, they should clean it up--the Act is not an escape hatch for parties responsible for cleaning up environmental contamination. This limitation on enforcement will allow parties tremendous certainty in their decisionmaking. Knowing that they only have to deal with a State, redevelopers can be certain that once they have reached agreement with a State on the scope and extent of any necessary cleanup, that agreement will not be second-guessed by the Federal Government. The act has two provisions aimed directly at ensuring Superfund's sweeping liability scheme does not apply to innocent parties. The first protects prospective purchasers of property from Superfund liability if they conduct a baseline assessment of a facility's contamination, do not contribute to any contamination at a property, and otherwise comply with law. It is EPA's current policy to grant this relief, but it may only be accomplished through the cumbersome, time-consuming process of negotiating and entering into an agreement with the United States. The bona fide prospective purchaser provision is self-executing, and therefore obviates the need to conduct a time-consuming negotiation for a prospective purchaser agreement with EPA. Another provision deals with innocent landowners. Building on language that has had a bipartisan consensus over the last several years, the Land Recycling Act shields innocent landowners from CERCLA liability if they have made all appropriate inquiry into the condition of a property prior to acquiring it. The bill requires an environmental assessment of the property to have been performed within 180 days of acquisition in order to satisfy the all appropriate inquiry standard. I believe these three straightforward solutions will provide an aggressive antidote to the epidemic of brownfields in America. Let me say, though, that I am not, nor do I think my original cosponsor Congressman Klink, are wedded to any particular provision contained in the bill. I know that my friends in the environmental community will have concerns with some of the approaches we have taken. Some in industry, on the other hand, have told me that legislation like this does not go nearly far enough, either in the kinds of sites it addresses nor in the certainty that it provides under Federal environmental law. I look forward to a vigorous debate because I am confident that we can resolve these issues. the need for comprehensive reform While I am confident that the Land Recycling Act will go a very long way toward getting the half million brownfields sites across the country cleaned up, we in Congress have a much larger task at hand. I strongly support a comprehensive overhaul of the Superfund Program to ensure that we do not perpetuate the brownfields problem across the country. The Congress needs to address liability issues, remedy selection concerns, and other matters that have prevented Superfund from accomplishing more in its 17-year existence. I am both dissatisfied with the current pace of NPL site cleanups convinced that the roots of many of the brownfields problems lie throughout the Superfund statute. I look to the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Bliley, and the chairman of the Finance and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, Mr. Oxley, for leadership on comprehensive Superfund reform. These two chairmen ably fought for Superfund reform in the last Congress, but the process unfortunately broke down in the mire of election year politics. I hope that 1997 offers more promise, and that they will consider including the Land Recycling Act as part of their Superfund reform package.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle]. (Mr. CASTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Kelly]. (Mrs. KELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell]. (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari].

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Health, Human Services and Labor.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. Frelinghuysen].

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Rockefeller Foundation recently published this report. It is called High Stakes: The United States Global Population and Our Common Future. It is important that we consider what the stakes are in this debate because the stakes are indeed high. Mr. Chairman, the stakes are about women dying. They are about mothers dying. Every day 1,600 women die of pregnancy-related causes because they do not have access to reproductive health services, including family planning. Around the world, 250 women will die for lack of family planning services during the course of this debate; 585,000 women die for these reasons every year around the world. What they die of is called most frequently postpartum hemorrhage. It happens most frequently when poor women have undergone many closely spaced births, and when these women die, they die because when they have their pregnancies they are too young, they are too old, their children come too closely together or they have too many children, and when they die they leave behind vulnerable orphans. It is indeed a tragedy. The stakes are about children dying. Every year 7 million infants die on this planet because their mothers were not healthy enough for their pregnancies, or they lacked obstetric care, when the children most likely to die are those children who are born too closely spaced together, into families that are too poor and to women who lack access to family planning services. We have heard a lot of talk this morning in this debate about abortion, and speaker after speaker on the other side of this debate have walked to the podium and talked about this program as if it enhances the number of abortions in the world. Nothing, nothing, could be further from the truth. Each year in this world 50 million women have abortions performed; 20 million of those abortions are in unsafe conditions. Mr. Chairman, when I decided to speak out on this issue, I felt I needed to understand how this program works and to see it operating on the ground. A few weeks ago I traveled to La Paz, Bolivia, a country in which abortion has never been legal and a country until just recently, because of this program, family planning services were not available at all. I went into the Andean Mountains and I met with the Aymara Indians and I met with them in little clinics and little hospitals around the country, and I spoke to them about their efforts to go out and talk to their neighbors, door to door, using these funds, meager funds, to promote family planning services. What I found out is that just 8 years ago, the health ministry of Bolivia did a survey for health planning purposes. They did not have in mind a study about abortion or family planning services. They just wanted to know how their hospitals were being utilized. What they discovered, to everyone's amazement, is that 50 percent, half, of the beds in the country, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere next to Haiti, in Bolivia, 50 percent of the beds were occupied by women who were suffering the results of botched and illegal abortions. Abortion is not legal there. What has changed that, what has reduced the number of abortions in poor countries like Bolivia and in poor countries all over the world has been this program. This family planning program is what reduces abortions. And not one penny, let us say this over and over again, not one penny, not one dime of these funds are used to perform abortions, to counsel that abortion is an option, to promote abortion, not one penny of this money is used for that. In those few instances where these funds are provided to an organization, a hospital, a government organization, a nongovernment organization that does exist and operate in a country where abortion is legal, these funds are strictly segregated. These organizations sign contracts that they will use none of this money for abortion-related services, and, in fact, they do not. We are here to prevent abortions. We can define our interest in this issue in terms of the humanitarian issues I have just talked about, women dying and children dying and preventing abortion, or we can think of our more narrow national interest, the interest of the United States. It took 10,000 generations for the world's population to reach 2 billion, and that happened just about when I was born, in 1950. Yet in the second half of this century, the population has increased from 2 billion to 5.5 billion. Look where it is headed. It is headed above 10 billion world population by midway through the next century. The population in the industrialized countries has stabilized. But in countries that are underdeveloped, and the poorest nations, India, Bangladesh, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Mexico, the population is exploding and it is exploding out of control. Unsustainable population growth leads to increased demands for energy, and in the Third World that energy is produced by burning coal, dirty coal. Our scientists are clear about the fact that world population explosion means much more greenhouse gases being distributed to the atmosphere, it means global warming. Unchecked population growth in the Third World means depletion of water resources. It means famine, it means suffering. It pushes populations to clear rain forests. It pushes populations to go out and graze on land that cannot sustain cattle, and that leads to expansion of the deserts worldwide. We all have a stake in the global environment. When population explosion results in crushing poverty, people will work for next to nothing. What this chart illustrates is the growth in job seekers, the labor force in the industrialized countries, which is relatively stable, versus developing countries. What you see is an exponential growth rate in countries that are undeveloped and nonindustrialized. And so what happens? What happens is what we have seen happen in the last decade or two. American workers are competing to produce products that are made overseas by people who will work for 25 cents a day or a dollar a day, and we cannot compete for those jobs. So in our very, very self- interest, for the workers of this country, for the future workers of this country, it is our job to prevent this great economic leveler, population explosion, from making us economically uncompetitive. When the local economies cannot provide jobs, poor people migrate. They migrate to the industrial nations. Legal and illegal migration to this country is coming from Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Whether we define our interests as humanitarians committed to saving women and children from dying, or whether we define them more narrowly as protecting our Nation from global environmental degradation and job loss from a wave of migration, legal and illegal, this resolution is the right thing to do. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. If the other Members of the body are like myself, they are receiving calls from their constituents who are regrettably very confused about this issue. They are calling and saying, do not vote for the President's resolution because it promotes abortion and vote for this Smith bill because it stops abortion. And of course nothing could be further from the truth. What this is about is very simple. This is about somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa where the population rates are just crushingly explosive, there is a little clinic somewhere and that little clinic is attached to a hospital. And the clinic provides birth control so that women do not become pregnant and do not have to have abortions. But maybe 100 miles away from that hospital, abortion is legal. A woman comes in with her own money, not American taxpayers' money, and might avail herself for whatever her reasons may be of a legal abortion. My friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] wants to say, then let us not give that hospital any money even to run its family planning clinic. The result of that is very, very straightforward. That little clinic out in the hinterland somewhere will not have any IUD, will not have any birth control pills. More women by the thousands will become pregnant. And where will they end up? They will end up back at that hospital, and they will be doing more abortions there than ever before. It is time we got logical about this issue. If you are against abortion, if you want to see the number of abortions on this planet decrease, then you have to be for family planning and you have to trust the women of the world to make the right decisions.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to pay tribute to two Members of this body who have distinguished themselves as honorable leaders through their lives of service in this House. For nearly 20 years, Chairmen Robert Walker and Bill Clinger have served this body as faithful representatives from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. They entered this House at a time of upheaval as our Nation struggled to regain the confidence in its institutions and elected officials that had been shaken by the schism over Vietnam and the disgrace of Watergate. Through their devotion and selfless service, Chairmen Robert Walker and Bill Clinger played leading roles in restoring faith to the American people, particularly to the people of the 5th and 16th Districts of Pennsylvania. In my time as a member of this body, I have had the pleasure to serve in the same delegation as these two gentlemen, and it is unfortunate for this House that upon conclusion of the 104th Congress, we will lose them to retirement. For his early years in Millersville, PA, Chairman Walker dedicated himself to a life of service to our Nation. Whether he was shaping the minds of our Nation's young as a social studies teacher at Penn Manor High School, protecting his State as member of its National Guard, or chairing the House Committee on Science, Chairman Walker has contributed to our Nation in ways both large and small. As an enthusiastic supporter of science, he has preached the necessity for Federal involvement in research and development projects. As a visionary, he recognized the vast potential of outer space and led the fight for further funding of both the manned space program and the space station project. As a Government steward of our planet, he strongly advocated research and development into hydrogen as an alternative fuel source with the hopes of saving our environment form further pollution. As a protector of our civil liberties, he secured a student's right to voluntary prayer by being the original sponsor of the only existing law protecting that sacred right. And as a reformer, he struggled to make our Nation's workplaces drug free through his efforts on the Drug- Free Workplace Act. Chairman Bill Clinger has also lived a life of dedication and service. From his beginnings at the Blair Co. in his hometown of Warren, PA, to his career overseas as a lieutenant in Navy intelligence, as a lawyer in his own law firm, and eventually a member and leader of this House, Chairman Clinger has likewise given of himself to his community, his State and his country while asking for nothing in return. He entered this House at about the same time as Chairman Walker and set upon the same task, but on the battlegrounds of different committees. As a member, and eventual chairman, of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Chairman Clinger set upon the difficult task of restoring the promise of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. During the dark days of the post-Vietnam and Watergate era, Chairman Clinger came to Washington with one goal in mind, to restore the faith of the American people through tireless and often thankless service to the reformation of their government and their institutions. He has done this by fighting to make this government more accountable to the people by reforming the managerial practices of Government organizations from the General Accounting Office to the White House. Through his support of measures such as the line item veto and the curbing of unfunded Federal mandates, Chairman Clinger has fought to cut wasteful Government spending and pork-barrel projects that have plagued the American public for so long and have continued to demand more of the people's hard earned money. Through his support of these measures and adhering to the higher standards of civility and intellectural integrity, Chairman Clinger has shown himself to be a true representative of the needs and wants of the people of the United States, who are indeed the true governing force of this great nation. Mr. Speaker, through almost 20 years of service, Chairmen Walker and Clinger have done much to restore the faith of the people and to bring honor to this great House in which we are members. Mr. Speaker, I ask you, as well as the rest of my colleagues in this House, to join with me and the people of Pennsylvania in thanking Chairmen Robert Walker and Bill Clinger for their years of service as distinguished Members and leaders of this House.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of the full committee for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3863, the Student Debt Reduction Act of 1996, will allow students to receive lower-cost unsubsidized student loans by permitting lenders in the Federal Family Education Loan Program to waive or reduce origination fees. The savings to our students may be the full origination fee, which is 3 percent of the total loan amount. Since budgetary concerns are paramount today, as they should be, it is important to note that H.R. 3863 is budget neutral. It will not increase or decrease the amount of student fee revenues collected and transmitted to the Federal Government, but it will increase the amount of funds transmitted to our hard-working middle-class college students and their families. Republicans in Congress are working to make college more affordable for middle-class families struggling to afford their children the opportunity provided by a college degree, and this bill is an excellent example of our work. Madam Speaker, current law states that a lender may charge a student borrower an origination fee on a subsidized student loan but shall charge a student borrower of an unsubsidized loan. This bill will close a loophole in the law by allowing lenders to treat unsubsidized loans the same as subsidized loans and in the process permit struggling middle-class families and students the same return as lower-income borrowers. Under this bill we will allow the full amount of the student loan to flow to middle-class students, we can encourage competition among student loan lenders, and we can guarantee that the type of relief permitted under a subsidized loan will now be permitted under an unsubsidized loan. This is a commonsense plan to put money in the pockets of students to pay educational expenses. Madam Speaker, the bottom line of this bill is fairly straightforward. It is good business for banks to make these loans. They are guaranteed by the Federal Government, and they profit from the interest paid by the students. Because it is good business and attractive business for the banks, we think this provision will allow them to compete for the business by offering to waive all or part of the 3 percent loan And for a student borrowing the maximum amount for 4 years, that thousand dollar difference can mean a great difference in the ability of that student to have the books and the other resources needed for their education. For that reason, I rise to support H.R. 3863.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Farr substitute and in support of H.R. 3820 As many Members of this body are aware, I have had serious reservations about some provisions of the Republican campaign reform bill. When we opened debate on this key reform proposal, I envisioned a new day in American politics: A crisp November morning when the stars and stripes that fly above our city and town halls, our local schools and in our parks would honor an electoral process free from the corruption of special interests; an election day morning when Americans could go to the polls and cast their votes realizing that their political involvement was again valued in our campaign system. Over the last 16 years I have been a candidate in 15 elections. During my career in the State legislature, in the State senate, I accepted PAC contributions; but since my election to the Congress 4 years ago, I have not accepted PAC checks, and I love the difference. In 1992 I defeated a 14-year incumbent who received the vast majority of his contributions from outside our Philadelphia suburban district. These experiences, as well as my long-time commitment to reforming our Nation's electoral process, led me to take an active role in this debate. Indeed, during the Committee on Rules consideration of this bill, I offered amendments. My provisions would have banned connected PAC's, which are corporate or labor union PAC's that use union or corporate treasuries to subsidize their administrative and solicitation costs. In addition, my amendments would have eliminated the retroactive indexing originally in this bill and brought both individual and PAC contribution levels down to $1,000. Unfortunately, I was not offered the opportunity to offer my amendments before this body. The Republican campaign finance reform bill, even with the manager's amendment, has a number of weaknesses, in my view. It does fail to adequately address real PAC reform and to remove the special interests from our electoral system. This legislation also maintains a disparity between the individual and PAC contribution limits, and injects more money into the electoral system through increases in the aggregate contribution limit. I do not believe this is a comprehensive campaign finance reform package, yet acknowledging these weaknesses, this legislation is a step forward and a step forward for which the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] should be commended, and I will vote for the bill as amended. By cutting the PAC contribution limit in half and requiring that 50 percent of the candidate's campaign funds come from inside one's district, this bill does work to return elections to individual Americans. Furthermore, this reform package includes provisions to reduce the influence of wealthy candidates, to eliminate leadership PAC's and bundling, and to encourage grass roots volunteers and increased FEC disclosure. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I see the passage of this legislation not as the conclusion of our campaign finance debate but rather as a beginning, the beginning of a true commitment by the Republicans in this Congress to craft real campaign finance reform. I am confident and hopeful that we can and will use this legislation as a starting point from which to launch our debate on this difficult and crucial issue in the next Congress.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].