Paul Kanjorski

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. de la Garza. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding briefly to me. The previous speaker, I guess, inadvertently mentioned that the President said that 29 years ago, and he meant 29 days. But the one that introduced a balanced budget amendment 31 years ago was this gentleman from Texas. So it is not new. Everyone is climbing on board now. I did it 31 years ago.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I enjoy the fact that we can sit here particularly with the Members of the freshman and sophomore class, and participate in this open discussion. It is worthwhile for those individuals across America who may be bored with Christmas shopping and watching C-SPAN, or perhaps going through some therapy that they are undergoing trying to understand what is going on down here in the asylum. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that probably for the first time in the history of the United States, we have extreme polarization of positions on the passage of the budget. A lot of people who are not necessarily informed with the process may think that we are indeed insane, or that what the House of Representatives of the Congress or the entire Federal Government is going through right now is a form of insanity, but in reality we all know that it is a very serious thing and it has to do with very honest and real differences of my friends on the Republican side and our side. Mr. Speaker, if I could just address for a few moments what those differences are and maybe encourage some of my friends on the other side to talk about it. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker talked about some contract. Having been a lawyer, particularly having dealt with Philadelphia lawyers, although not claiming to be a Philadelphia lawyer myself, there is a great deal of respect paid to contracts; that supposedly any time we have a contract, that says something that in reality will take place in accordance with the word of the contract, or that that has some superforce above and beyond anything else. Well, there are several ways to interpret contracts and I think we have to accept that as a given. Very clearly in the situation of the President and whatever contract is interpreted by the majority party of the House, there is a definitely wide distinction as to how they interpret the meaning of what was agreed to some 29 days ago. Second, just because we have the Contract for America, or on America, I am never sure, but just because we have that, that does not pass the value of the Constitution and how we interpret that, nor does it pass good sense for what we do this year, next year, for the next 7 years of this Republic, and for as long as this Republic endures under this Constitution. The one certainly that we have is that government in a democracy is very expensive; it takes a great deal of time; it is very inefficient, because there is the necessity that if 250 million people are to exist in this world with different thoughts and philosophies, different political positions, different social positions, and coming from different cultural backgrounds, it takes a requirement of that ugly word which some of my younger friends on the other side of the aisle seem to find a great deal of distaste for and that is the word called ``compromise.'' I have heard the Speaker talk much earlier, I think maybe as long as 6 months ago, that with the new revolution that occurred in the House of Representatives, that there would be cooperation but not compromise. If my colleagues have extreme views, I do not know how we get to a final solution without compromise. Mr. Speaker, let me talk about what those extreme views are. We can all write a budget that will balance in 7 years, which is a projection of time with no certainty, all dependent on variables that are so complicated and uncertain in their nature that at best it is a guesstimation. We could arrive at a balanced budget in 7 years under the numbers scored by the CBO, the Office of Management and Budget, Morgan and Stanley, the Harvard Business School, the Wharton School, we could find any number of people who would be willing to score it and we could agree that it should be CBO.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, our point is that we could all come up with this type of budget. We could have 435 different budgets taking into consideration various conditions. Right now we have what is called the coalition budget that has no tax cut in it and that does balance the budget, so clearly the Democratic side or the President could put that budget on the table or some various of that, which the Senate seems to have put together on their side. It requires, however, a decision as to whether or not we are going to have a tax cut, a smaller proportional tax cut, or no tax cut at all to arrive at that balance. That is what we call in common political parlance, and legal parlance, compromise.

Mr. KANJORSKI. It is the time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Ohio for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to rise in support of H.R. 1718, a bill to rename a Federal courthouse in Wilkes-Barre after the Honorable Max Rosenn, a man who has been a tremendous asset to the people of northeastern Pennsylvania and to the United States of America. I wish to thank Chairman Gilchrest and ranking member Traficant for their assistance in bringing the bill to the floor today. In a show of tremendous bipartisan support and a mark of the high regard Judge Rosenn commands, the entire Pennsylvania delegation has co-sponsored the bill. The Rosenn and Kanjorski families have been personal friends and professional colleagues for more than 60 years. I have the highest respect for Judge Rosenn as a judge, a lawyer, a community leader, and a friend. Judge Rosenn was born in Luzerne County, PA. A gifted student, Judge Rosenn graduated from Cornell at the age of 19 and received his law degree from the University of Pennsylvania 3 years later. The judge returned home to Luzerne County and entered private practice. Judge Rosenn's long and distinguished career in public service began in 1941 when he became assistant district attorney for Luzerne County. Max served in the South Pacific during World War II as a member of the Judge Advocate General Corps. After the war, he again returned home to Luzerne County where he continued his active civic life. Given the time constraints of my testimony today, I am unable to list all of the organizations for which Judge Rosenn played a leadership role. They include Wyoming Valley Hospital, Wyoming National Bank, Franklin Federal Savings and Loan Association, the Shriners and Masons. Judge Rosenn is a trustee emeritus of Wilkes University and a former trustee of B'nai Brith. Northeastern Pennsylvania owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to Judge Rosenn for his tremendous work as chairman of the Wyoming Flood Recovery Task Force which performed so well in assisting our community after the devastating Agnes flood. In addition to his local service, Judge Rosenn has an outstanding record of service to the State of Pennsylvania. He served as a member of the State Welfare Board from 1964 to 1966 and was appointed by Governor Scranton to become Secretary of Public Welfare. He performed so well as administrator of this agency of 33,000 employees charged with responsibilities for health, aging, youth, and public assistance that he was reappointed by Governor Shafer. During the Shafer administration he also served as a member of the Governor's commission to revise the public employee laws, chairman of the executive- legislative task force to restructure human delivery services, and the Committee on Children and Youth for the 1970 White House conference. On October 7, 1970 Judge Rosenn was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit where he has excelled. Judge Rosenn is renowned for his fairness and wisdom and is widely respected by his colleagues and the bar. Naming this courthouse for Judge Rosenn is a fitting tribute to a man who has given so much to his community.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 1574, the Bank Insurance Fund and Depositor Protection Act, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and I urge all my colleagues to support it. It is entirely appropriate that H.R. 1574 is on the Suspension Calendar today, because it is genuinely bipartisan legislation, introduced by Congresswoman Marge Roukema, the chair of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee, along with the ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee, Congressman Bruce Vento, myself, and Congressman Bill McCollum of Florida. I want to commend Chairwoman Roukema, as well as full committee Chairman Jim Leach and full committee and subcommittee ranking members Henry Gonzalez and Bruce Vento, for their bipartisan cooperation on this legislation. If all legislation considered by the 104th Congress was handled in such a cooperative, bipartisan fashion, we would not be facing gridlock on the budget and so many other issues. H.R. 1574 is a very short, and simple bill. It is designed to permanently close a loophole which crafty lawyers attempted to use to create an insurance product, commonly known as a retirement CD, with both Federal deposit insurance and special tax-deferred status. Fortunately, the effort to create this kind of unique retirement CD was largely thwarted by the eagle eyes of the Internal Revenue Service, which has correctly issued proposed rules stipulating that such instruments should not be allowed special tax-deferred status. While the IRS' action has put a halt to the proliferation of these retirement CD's, there are other important policy reasons why their inssuance should not be allowed. First, they expose federally insured financial institutions to potential liabilities of unknown size which raises safety and soundness concerns for the institutions and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's deposit insurance fund. If Federal deposit insurance for retirement CD's is allowed, the Federal Government would, in effect, become the guarantor of which is now a private pension system. The deposit insurance system should not take on this enormous contingent liability. Second, the unusual hybrid nature of these instruments, which combine features of traditional uninsured insurance annuities with certificates of deposit, raises serious disclosure issues for consumers who may not understand what they are purchasing and the extent to which it is insured by the FDIC. The FDIC has determined, for example, that deposit insurance coverage would not extend to the lifetime payment feature of such products, because that could constitute a liability substantially in excess of the amount on deposit. This is the kind of nuance most consumers would not understand. Third, the issuance of these certificates could create an unlevel playing field in which insurance companies are at a severe competitive disadvantage to banks because bank annuity products would be insured by the FDIC, while annuity products offered by insurance companies would not. The market for traditional annuities already exceeds $1.5 trillion, and was $125 billion in 1993 alone. This makes it clear that neither banks nor insurance companies need Federal deposit insurance to induce customers to purchase annuities. It is for these reasons that the bipartisan leadership of the House Banking Committee believes that this loophole needs to be permanently closed. H.R. 1574 accomplishes this goal by specifically defining this kind of product as ineligible for Federal deposit insurance. It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that H.R. 1574 does not preclude anyone from offering this kind of product for sale. It merely stipulates that annuity contracts issued by insured depository institutions on which the income is tax deferred are not simultaneously eligible for Federal deposit insurance. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we act now, to clear the air, before these kinds of products proliferate. Companion legislation, S. 799, has been introduced by a bipartisan group in the other body, Senator Al D'Amato, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Senator Chris Dodd. Consequently there is good reason to believe that if the House approves H.R. 1574 it will be favorably considered by the Senate. Mr. Speaker, we all learned as children that you can't have your cake and eat it too. That is exactly what the creators of the retirement CD wanted to do, they wanted to create a tax-deferred annuity which also had Federal deposit insurance. H.R. 1574 simply tells them they have to choose one Federal benefit or the other, but they cannot have both. H.R. 1574 is fair, it is equitable, and it should be supported by all Members.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable woman from my district in Pennsylvania, Ms. Anna Cervenak. On December 7, the Exploring Division of the Northeastern Pennsylvania Council of the Boy Scouts of America will bestow its highest honor upon Anna at its annual luncheon. I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring Anna's many accomplishments to the attention of my colleagues. Anna Cervenak is an exemplary role model for young women who aspire to leadership in both the business and service communities. A native of Forty Fort, PA, and a graduate of its high school, Anna joined Bell Telephone as an operator soon after graduation. Working her way up through the ranks at Bell, Anna was an employment representative, full time speaker, and an engineering tracer. Since 1984, Anna has been external affairs director for Bell Atlantic, Pennsylvania. She received her bachelor's degree from College Misericordia in 1986 and her master's degree in 1990 from Marywood College. Mr. Speaker, Anna Cervenak has provided valuable leadership to a wide variety of civic organizations. She is past president of the Quota Club of Wilkes-Barre and she currently serves on the boards of the Domestic Violence Center, Victims Resource Center, Junior Achievement, American Cancer Society, Wilkes-Barre Chamber of Commerce, and Hospice St. John. She serves on the Luzerne County Business Incubator Advisory Board and the United Way. Anna is the immediate past president of the board of the Economic Development Council of Northeastern Pennsylvania. She has just completed a 6-year term on the board of the Luzerne County Commission for Women. She also currently serves on the board of the President's Council at King's College and the Luzerne County Community College Foundation Board. She holds a seat on the Lourdesmout Board of Directors and the Lacawac Sanctuary Board of Trustees. She was recently appointed to the Advisory Board of the Wilkes-Barre Penn State Campus. Anna has also just begun a term on the Land Use Planning Board of the Earth Conservancy. This year, I witnessed first hand Anna's drive and determination as we worked together to save thousands of jobs at the Tobyhanna Army Depot. Anna cochaired the Blue Ribbon Task Force which was the organizational core of the successful effort to save the depot from closure. Mr. Speaker, Anna Cervenak has been honored in the past for her dedication to her community. In 1991, Anna received the ``Athena Award'' as Wilkes-Barre Chamber of Commerce's ``Woman of the Year.'' In 1994, she was awarded the ``Pathfinders Award'' at the Wyoming Valley Women's Conference. In January 1995 she was named ``Woman of the Year'' by the Wyoming Valley Women's Club. Although Anna's community service is well known and widely appreciated in Northeastern Pennsylvania, it is her warm, caring personality and affable demeanor that endears her to us. No matter how demanding her schedule, as she rushes from meeting to meeting, Anna takes time to form friendships with those around her. She is known for her generosity and concern for those in need. I am extremely proud to have this chance to join with the Exploring Division of the Boy Scouts in paying tribute to this extraordinary community leader.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the 50th anniversary of a musical institution in my District in Pennsylvania. This year a musician and longtime family friend from my hometown, Mr. John Stankovic will celebrate a half- century of bringing polka music to Northeastern Pennsylvania and to the world. John Stankovic, known as Stanky to all who love his music, began with accordion lessons as a young boy. Even then he performed at small gatherings in the Nanticoke area. Stanky's first band was known as the TIp-Toppers and traveled the area playing at weddings and private parties. Several years later the band officially became Stanky and the Coalminers to pay tribute to the area's coalminer heritage. As a young man, Stanky thought he would pursue a career in sports and even tried out for the Cleveland Indians. He tells the story that when considering his career, he followed the advice of his father, Joe Stankovic, who told him, ``Son, you are a pretty good basketball player and a pretty good baseball player, but if you learn eight good songs, you'll never starve.'' Although his mother also encouraged his music and taught him to sing, success did not come quickly or easily to Stanky. For 17 years he worked as a ``ragman''. He drove up and down the streets of town collecting anything he could resell to support himself. At night, he played polkas. Mr. Speaker, although John Stankovic had a humble beginning, he and the Coalminers have risen to international fame. They have played in Japan, England, France, Holland, Germany, Spain, Australia, and Canada. The Coalminers were the first polka band to entertain the Chinese. The Band has also traveled its share of sea miles. The Coalminers just completed their 71st cruise to Alaska and received awards from Holland America Cruise Lines for hundreds of thousands of miles logged as performers at sea. For 11 years, the group has had its own show on our public television station and regularly showcases other local polka bands. Even with their grueling schedule, every Sunday night that the band is in the area, they can be found at a local supper club for polka night. Mr. Speaker, John and his wonderful wife, Dottie are close personal friends of my family. I remember so well the night of my first election victory in the primary race that would eventually take me to Congress. In a room crowded with well wishers and supporters, Stanky played ``Happy Days Are Here Again'' as I arrived on the platform with my family to claim our victory. John's rendition of that old favorite will always be a part of the memory of that wonderful night. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be among his many friends, fans and admirers who wish Stanky well on this momentous occasion. We in Northeastern Pennsylvania hope to hear the music of Stanky and his Coalminers for many years to come. I send my very best wishes to my very good friends, Stanky, Dottie, and the Coalminers on 50 years of wonderful polka music.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend Peter Hoherchak, sheriff of Carbon County, PA. Pete will retire from his post this year and is being honored by friends, colleagues, and family on November 18. I am proud to have been asked to participate in the tribute to him. There are few public servants who will be missed as much as Pete, who is well-loved and respected by the people of Carbon County. He is the epitome of the ideal sheriff: wise, compassionate, and fair. His enforcement of [[Page E 2208]] the law has been exercised with a deep respect for the law, balanced with his respect for humanity. Pete was one of eight children, born in 1930 in what is now Jim Thorpe, PA. Educated in local schools, he served with the 14th Division of the U.S. Army in Germany for 3 years. For 18 years Pete served as a business consultant, but turned his interests to law enforcement in the mid-1960's. He attended a local community college and studying criminal law and medical-legal investigation. Pete was appointed Justice of the Peace under Gov. William Scranton from 1968 to 1970. In 1971, he became Chief Deputy Sheriff of Carbon County under Sheriff Louise D. Lisella. He was then elected sheriff in 1976 serving four consecutive terms in that capacity. Pete was the top vote-getter in each of his elections. During his tenure, Pete saw the need for a new correctional facility and worked hard to bring the idea to reality. In January 1995, the new facility was dedicated. Pete's expertise and leadership was acknowledged by the Pennsylvania Sheriff's Association in the many positions he held on that board and finally as its president in 1986. He still serves on the board of trustees for the association. Mr. Speaker, Sheriff Peter Hoherchak has been a dedicated public servant for almost 30 years. He not only serves his community in a professional capacity but also does valuable volunteer work for the community. He remains a leader in the Carbon County Democratic organization. He and his wife Claire are the proud parents of one son and four daughters and have six grandchildren. I am extremely proud of my long friendship with this outstanding public official. I join with the community in thanking Pete for a job well done and wish him many happy years of retirement.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a personal friend of mine who has become one of northeastern Pennsylvania's most important and influential political and community leaders, Rena Baumgartner. I am proud to have been asked to participate in a tribute to Rena and to be able to tell my colleagues of her contributions and accomplishments. As an active member of her community, Rena has participated in numerous clubs and organizations which work diligently to promote the betterment of and ensure safety to the general public. Rena has worked with the West End Ambulance and West End Fire Company Auxiliaries as well as the Polk Township Fire Company Auxiliary. She is a member of the Exchange Club of the Pocono Mountain. In addition to these organizations and others, Rena remains an active member in the United Effort Methodist Church. Rena may be best known for her leadership positions within the Democratic Party organization. Since 1968 Rena has been active in the political arena, beginning as a Democratic township committee person. From that position, Rena graduated to become the Assistant Secretary of the Monroe County Democratic Committee and eventually the Chairperson of the Monroe County Democratic Committee, a position which she still holds today. Rena's involvement in the Democratic Party was not limited to local politics. On the statewide level, Rena was appointed Deputy Chairperson of the Democratic State Party and in 1984 was made Vice-Chair of the party. On the national level, her involvement in the Democratic Party is deserving of even more recognition. Rena has been a member of the Democratic National Committee since 1979 and has taken a leading role in every national election since becoming a member. During the last three presidential elections she served as a delegate to the Democratic National Conventions. She has served on the executive committee of the Democratic National Womens Caucus and has been the Treasurer and Secretary of the Democratic National Committee's Eastern Regional Caucus. Presently, Rena is helping to select the delegation which will be sent to the 1996 Democratic National Convention. No one can question Rena's commitment to the Democratic Party. Certainly, an accomplishment that Rena can be extremely proud of is her family. With her husband William, Rena has raised two wonderful children, her daughter Robin and her son Bryan. In addition to having such a positive role on her own children, Rena is also able to play an active role in the upbringing of her two grandsons. Throughout all of her other undertakings Rena managed to keep her family at the center of her attention and in a position of importance above everything. Mr. Speaker, my close friend Rena Baumgartner has been a caring mother and wife. She also has been a strong leader in her community and throughout Monroe County. Finally, Rena Baumgartner has been a true leader in the Democratic Party. I salute and thank Rena for everything she has contributed to the betterment of northeastern Pennsylvania and the Democratic Party.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Holy Savior Church of Wilkes-Barre, PA. This milestone will be commemorated at a banquet on November 12, 1995, and I am proud to have been asked to participate in the celebration. As one approaches the city of Wilkes-Barre, it is difficult not to notice the twin spires of this beautiful Gothic church. Since 1895, the stone and brick structure has stood as a monument to those whose faith and hard work erected it as a place of worship. The parish began under the able leadership of Rev. John J. Curran. Its parishioners were mostly immigrant coal miners. After working all day in the mines, the miners would come to the construction site to help build the church. Father Curran was a staunch advocate of labor and stood with the miners during the famous strike of 1902. In fact, President Theodore Roosevelt turned to Father Curran for help in resolving labor disputes with miners during the early part of this century. After Father Curran entered into the labor dispute negotiations, the mineowners surrendered some of their demands and the miners won their first labor victory. A friendship developed between Father Curran and the President, and Roosevelt became a frequent visitor to the parish. In addition to having a long history of national significance, the Holy Savior Church was blessed to have benefited from the leadership of Msgr. Andrew J. McGowan. During his tenure at the Holy Savior Church, Monsignor McGowan provided spiritual guidance to the many people who came from all over northeastern Pennsylvania to hear his messages. Monsignor McGowan is well know throughout northeastern Pennsylvania as a community leader who brings the values of the church to everyday concerns of ordinary people. Mr. Speaker, Holy Savior Church is a landmark of great historical significance in northeastern Pennsylvania. It is a tribute to early parishioners who sacrificed so much to build a place to worship and to its modern day parishioners who carry on the tradition of faith in our community. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to bring the proud history of the Holy Savior Church to the attention of this Congress.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong opposition to the Republican reconciliation plan and do my part to help explain to the American people why the bill is bad for our country and our future, particularly in northeastern Pennsylvania. It is appropriate to discuss the future of our country in the context of this budget because the Republican majority has attempted to sell its plan as the fix for all that ails this great Nation. Nothing could be further from the truth, and in fact, this legislation will make our problems much worse. There are so many things bad about this budget, it is hard to know where to start. Let me begin by stating what I believe is good. The only redeeming feature of this bill is that it presents a comprehensive plan to help reduce our Federal budget deficit. It finally puts on the table a detailed Republican budget plan. For all of those years of talk by Republicans about the need to balance the budget without actually putting forward a detailed, balanced budget plan, including the 12 years they were in power during the Reagan and Bush administrations, I must say: It is about time. The hard truth, however, is that for average, hard-working Americans, children, and senior citizens, there is little to be happy about. Republicans say their plan will balance the budget, but it won't. This bill does not actually balance the budget because it continues to rely on the surplus of the Social Security trust fund. Without the trust fund, the Republican budget would not be balanced Republicans claim the budget will benefit senior citizens, but the truth is this budget is certain to hurt them. They claim the budget will provide more economic opportunity in our country, but it actually does nothing to generate jobs and higher wages. Empty claims are made that the budget will somehow provide a more promising future for our children, but it cuts education, housing, and low-income tax credits for working families which make it possible for people to work their way out of poverty. Who does the budget help? It helps wealthy individuals and large international corporations who beg the Congress for massive tax cuts and subsidies but who are increasingly investing more of their money, and sending jobs, out of the country. It helps corporations who want exemptions from important environmental laws. It helps companies who want to compensate taxpayers little or nothing for exploiting our limited natural resources. Truly, it is a special interest mishmash of gigantic proportion hidden behind a wall of rhetoric in support of a balanced-budget agenda. It is an understatement to say there are many problems with the Republican budget. I would like to comment on at least a few of the more onerous aspects. senior citizens First, let address the effect on seniors in northeastern Pennsylvania and around the country. For your information, Mr. Chairman, my district has the 11th highest proportion of senior citizens of all congressional districts. About 20 percent of my district's population, or 120,000 citizens, depend on Medicare. We held a separate vote on the Republican Medicare plan last week, but there is no hiding the fact that Medicare and Medicaid are being cut to pay for the giveaways in this budget bill. In fact, the single largest part of budget savings in this plan comes from the Medicare and Medicaid Programs--more than $450 billion over 7 years, the largest cuts in the history of these programs. Republicans say that the cuts in Medicare are needed to preserve the Medicare trust fund. These words ring hollow from those who opposed the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. The truth is that according to the Medicare Trustees, cuts of just $89 billion, not $270 billion, are needed to preserve the trust fund. Clearly, Republicans are picking the pockets of our senior citizens to the tune of $181 billion, to pay for their tax cuts and other special interest giveaways. Beneficiaries and hospitals in my district could lose up to $1 billion in Medicare losses. I cannot support such massive cuts in these programs. The best way to save money in Medicare and Medicaid is to reform our total health care system. Otherwise, the rising cost of providing care to seniors will be shifted to working families already struggling to pay for the cost of medical care, forcing many more to drop coverage. With more than 53,000 citizens in my district and 40 million Americans around the country currently without health insurance, that outcome is unacceptable. I also cannot accept placing huge new financial burdens on seniors by doubling the part B Medicare premium. Many seniors can barely afford paying for food and rent. We cannot ask low-income seniors to pay more for the cost of medical care, when most already can barely pay the current cost. We also should not chip away at the quality of health care seniors receive by pushing them into managed care, forcing small hospitals to close, and reducing regulation on doctors and health insurance plans. Equally as troubling are massive cuts in Federal spending for nursing home care under the Medicaid Program and the elimination of crucial Federal protections for nursing home residents. Medicaid pays for the care of more than 64 percent of Pennsylvania nursing home residents. Pennsylvania will be forced either to raise taxes to make up for lost Federal assistance, or lower standards and deny care to the elderly and disabled. Seniors and their families must have the security that they will not be bankrupt by the health care system as they face old age and debilitating illnesses. working families Working families will also suffer under this budget. In addition to the possibility that they may be forced to bear a greater burden of paying for the long-term care of their parents, many will have their taxes raised immediately. The earned income tax credit [EITC], which rewards work over welfare, and which was strongly supported by Republican and Democratic administrations, is being cut back. In Pennsylvania, reductions in the credit mean a tax increase to over 455,000 taxpayers at an average rate of $137 per taxpayer. In my district, the tax increase on almost 27,000 taxpayers receiving the EITC will total more $3.6 million next year, and $25 million over 7 years. Another hit comes from $10 billion in cuts to Federal student loans. Interest rates charged to parents to take loans out on behalf of their children are increased, and students will have to begin to pay back loans sooner, regardless of the fact that it is taking longer and longer for graduates to find jobs. children Pennsylvania is hit with one of the largest cuts in the Medicaid Program, 22 percent, a program which has children as its largest number of beneficiaries. More than 18 percent of Pennsylvania children rely on Medicaid for their basic health needs. Coverage may have to be eliminated for as many as 114,892 Pennsylvania children with these cuts. Combining these cuts with budget cuts in appropriation bills levy a heavy toll on Pennsylvania children. Other budget cuts will, for example, deny important new Head Start education funding and cut nutrition assistance for 551,000 children just in my State of Pennsylvania. Cuts will deny child care to more than 17,000 children and reduce foster care and adoption assistance to our State by $390 million over 7 years. Child protection funds for abused and neglected children are cut by a full 21 percent by the year 2002. tax cuts Perhaps the most outrageous part of this budget is a $245 billion tax cut which benefits mostly the wealthiest Americans. At a time when the Republican majority in Congress is proposing to raise taxes on working families, cut health care for the elderly, cut education, and cut nutrition assistance and child care for children, this is no time to be providing a tax windfall to those who do not need tax relief. The benefit of more than 52 percent of the tax cuts in the Republican plan will go to taxpayers earning more than $100,000 per year, only 1.7 percent of households in my district. Taxpayers earning more than $350,000 a year will get an average tax break of $18,925 per year. Astonishingly, taxpayers with incomes below $10,000 will get a tax increase of about 2 percent. Some Republicans think that making almost $200,000 per year qualifies a taxpayer as lower-middle class; one member from North Carolina actually said so last week. In fact, he went on to claim that taxpayers making between $300,000 and $750,000 per year are middle class. I have news for him, there are precious few families in northeastern Pennsylvania that make that much; most earn only a small fraction of these amounts. This shows how out of touch Republicans are with the real world. At the very least, any tax cuts should be targeted to help truly middle-class, working Americans. corporate welfare Large corporations, of course, are big winners under the Republican budget. Corporations would be allowed to more easily withdraw contributions made to employee pension funds. Some 22,000 pension plans, covering 11 million workers and 2 million retirees are at risk. This is nothing more than stealing from the pensions of working families. Companies will not even have to notify employees and retirees. In the long run, the loss of pensions for workers will mean a lower standard of living for senior citizens and an even higher level of Federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs if companies default on pension plans. Default could easily occur because present pension surpluses are based on inflated stock market prices. Government, and therefore taxpayers, will ultimately have to step in and make up for pension shortfalls resulting from corporate greed. Corporations would also get relief from the repeal of the Federal alternative minimum tax, which currently makes sure that companies cannot take excessive deductions and credit to eliminate tax liability. At least 130 companies between 1981 and 1985 had years where they paid no Federal taxes. These companies included General Electric, Boeing, and Lockheed, some of the largest in our country. In eliminating the minimum tax, multibillion dollar companies can again use loopholes and accounting gimmicks to pay less in taxes than most working families. Big oil companies would be allowed to drill for oil in environmentally-sensitive areas of Alaska, just 6 years after the worst oil spill disaster in our history in Valdez, AK. Grazing fees imposed in response to environmental degradation on public lands in the west will be reduced to the benefit of large, profitable cattle companies. Foreign mining companies will continue to be permitted to reap billions of dollars off Federal lands, while paying taxpayers pennies. One South African firm is seeking to mine Jerritt Canyon in Nevada, a project with recoverable resources worth $1.1 billion, and the company will pay just $5,080. A Canadian firm will soon mine McCoy Cove in Nevada for just $1,000, even though the mine's recoverable resources are worth $1.4 billion. economic development The Republican budget proposes to eliminate the Commerce Department, but in its place establish seven new bureaucracies. Somehow, Republicans think that this will save the Government money when independent studies of the proposal have concluded that it will actually cost more to take this action. Worse, the budget decimates funding for important programs of the Economic Development Administration [EDA] of the Commerce Department which allocates some of the already very small amounts of economic development assistance this country spends each year. The EDA has helped my district tremendously in the last few years through grants to secure new jobs and industries that are economic development anchors in Nanticoke, Wilkes-Barre, and Hazleton. In May, the EDA provided an important grant for the expansion of Humboldt Industrial Park in the greater Hazleton area. The EDA is clearly very important to northeastern Pennsylvania and other regions struggling to create jobs and economic opportunity for their citizens. what must be done Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that this bill does not provide solutions to our Nation's problems. Few Americans understand that this budget does not even truly balance the budget--the primary goal of the bill. The only reason the Republican budget reaches a balance under budget scoring rules is that it borrows $115 billion from the Social Security trust fund. Even worse, it pushes the cost of much of the tax cuts off into the long-term future, worsening the budget after the year 2002. This budget is a fraud and a disgrace. Americans should not have to rely on the President to stop these measures nor wait for Democrats to take control of the Congress to responsibly get our fiscal house in order. Yes, we must pass a budget. But we must pass a good budget, regardless of what party is in control. A good budget is balanced and fair, and this budget clearly fails in both of these respects. Working together, I am confident that Republicans and Democrats can accomplish many great things in this Congress, including producing a budget plan that balances the federal budget. Working together with the Bush administration in 1990 the Democratic Congress averted disaster and put together a bipartisan deficit reduction bill. Because of our deficit reduction efforts both in 1990 and 1993, the deficit has fallen from $290 billion in 1992, to $165 billion this year. The deficit is at its lowest level as a percentage of the economy since 1979. More must be done, and on this issue Republicans and Democrats agree. There is an alternative before us which shows that there is clearly room for compromise on many of the most difficult issues. I urge my colleagues therefore to reject the majority budget bill and work with the President and the Democratic minority to produce a good balanced budget.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, on October 6, 1995, a proud group of veterans will reunite in my district in Wilkes-Barre, PA. The reunion will commemorate the 50th anniversary of their service to their country in World War II. I am pleased to welcome the members of the 572d Antiaircraft Association and proud to bring the story of the battalion known as the Helltracks to the attention of my colleagues. The 572d Antiaircraft Artillery Automatic Weapons Battalion, Self- Propelled, was activated on June 10, 1943, at Camp Edwards, MA, on Cape Cod. After 3 months of training, fillers arrived from the New Cumberland Reception Center, making the outfit about 95 percent Pennsylvania men. On June 8, 1944, the 572d departed Camp Edwards for Camp McCain, MS, where they spent 4 weeks. Their next stop was Camp Livingston LA, which they left on August 24, 1944, for their last stop in the United States, Camp Shanks, NY. On September 29, 1944, the 572d set sail aboard the HMS Chitral, an old East India freighter, with its lower depths jammed with bunks stacked four high. After an 11-day voyage across the Atlantic Ocean, which included a submarine scare, the Chitral docked at Greenock, Scotland. From Greenock trains brought the men to Poole, Dorset, England. From there they marched to Parkestone, making the Sandscotes School for Girls its Headquarters, with the battalion billeted in homes in the neighborhood. The 572d made its channel crossing on November 26, 1944, landing in the harbor of LeHavre, where they made camp for 6 days. They received orders to march on December 1, 1944, and march they did, crossing northern France in a single day. After V-E Day, May 8, 1945, the battalion regrouped and convoyed its way to Mannheim, where the half- tracks became patrol wagons as the battalion turned into the Security Police for the metropolitan area. Because of their mental attitude and state of training the Helltracks fought with fury and determination, making all of us Pennsylvanians proud of their role in our victory in Europe. Mr. Speaker, the history of the Helltracks as excepted here from the Story of the Helltracks is an inspiring testament to the fighting men and women of World War II. Ninety-five percent of this heroic battalion was from Pennsylvania. Once again, I am pleased to welcome the Helltracks to Wilkes-Barre on the occasion of their 50th anniversary.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of my hometown parish, Holy Trinity Church in Nanticoke, PA. This Sunday, September 24, Bishop James C. Timlin will celebrate the Pontifical Celebration Mass of Thanksgiving in honor of the church's centennial. According to historical documents, the church was founded when a group of Polish immigrants separated from another local parish to form the Holy Trinity Church. The cornerstone of the original church was laid on May 4, 1885. Rev. Francis Hodur, Holy Trinity's first pastor, led the church for 2 years. Seven different pastors served the church in the 20 years following Father Hodur. In 1919 Father Roman Wieziolowski began 48 years of service at Holy Trinity Church. Under his leadership a brick school with eight classrooms was built in 1923 and 3 years later, construction of the present church was begun. Five years later the church was completed at a cost of $225,000. By then, the parish had 1,000 families and the school was always filled to capacity. In 1967 Father Walter Poplawski, who had served as an assistant under Father Wieziolowski, was appointed Pastor. Under his guidance repairs and modernization were undertaken to meet the liturgical renewal. Father Poplawski considered Catholic education a priority during his leadership at Holy Trinity and worked with other area pastors to merge the Nanticoke area Catholic schools into a central school system, which became the Pope John Paul II School. This newly formed school, which is housed at Holy Trinity and St. Stanislaus Churches, still serves the youth of the Nanticoke area. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring the history of Holy Trinity to the attention of my colleagues. An integral part of the religious community of northeastern Pennsylvania, Holy Trinity Church has a tradition of dedicated service to the faithful. I join with the community in congratulating the Holy Trinity Church on this milestone anniversary.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a close personal friend from my district, the Honorable James P. Kelley. This year, Jim will retire from his position as Northumberland County Commissioner, a post he has held with the highest distinction for almost a quarter of a century. Once in a very great while, an individual not only surpasses the requirements expected of him as an elected official, but actually transforms the nature of his office to embody a greater ideal. Jim Kelley is such an individual. He not only served as an excellent county commissioner, but by his service, he changed the very definition of being a county commissioner. His extraordinary compassion, his impeccable integrity, his tireless efforts to improve the economic condition of his county, and his masterful skill at governing made Jim Kelley the epitome of what a public servant can and should be. A banker for 22 years, a funeral director for 35 years, Jim was first elected to serve Northumberland County as a commissioner in 1971. Jim served as chairman of that board for five of his six consecutive terms of office. A respected community leader, Jim is responsible for the information of the Northumberland County Area Agency on Aging. During his leadership, the County Human Service Agency achieved a No. 1 national rating. He was the first chairman of the Central Region Training Service. Jim was appointed by Gov. Bob Casey to serve 8 years on the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Board. He has been honored by his party as both Northumberland County Democrat of the Year and Pennsylvania Democrat of the Year. Jim's leadership in Northumberland County is legendary throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He has earned the admiration and respect of us who have been fortunate enough to have worked with him. Mr. Speaker, as Commissioner James P. Kelley steps down, he leaves behind a tradition of excellence and service which will be difficult to replace. He has devoted a lifetime of service to the people of Northumberland County, and that service will be felt for many more years to come. I am pleased to bring to the attention of my colleagues the accomplishments of my good friend, Jim Kelley.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have heard all the arguments, and I join my colleague from Missouri [Mr. Emerson]. I have been to the gentleman's district, I have been to Illinois, I have been to Pennsylvania. What we are really talking about here, Mr. Chairman, is priorities. We are trying to save about one-fifth of a B-2 bomber, the $350 million we are talking about here. I cannot talk about the whole country, and I cannot say that there are not those examples of the Golden Fleece Award, as my friend, the gentleman from New York, mentioned, but I can tell you one little story. Nanticoke, PA, 3 years ago, was able to get an EDA grant that afforded the municipal authority the opportunity to build a $4 million building downtown. It was the first $4 million building built from the New York State line to Harrisburg, along the Susquehanna River, that had an elevator that went above two floors. In that building more than 300 people today are employed in data processing for a Fortune 500 insurance company that would never have come to northeastern Pennsylvania or that little town. Mr. Chairman, 300 people are employed making $15,000 to $25,000 a year that otherwise would have been on unemployment compensation, welfare, or unemployed. That is what economic development is all about. That is what our priorities should be all about.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, this summer Irwin Weinberg of Wilkes- Barre, PA, an internationally known stamp collector and dealer, is celebrating 50 years in philately. At one point in his splendid career he owned the most expensive stamp in the world, the British Guiana one- cent magenta of 1856. He toured the world to exhibit this stamp and later sold it for a record setting sum. Christies in New York regularly asks him to provide stamps for consignment to enhance certain of their auctions. This is a man who has reached the highest level of success in his field. But it is not his unparalleled success in philately that I as his Congressman and friend would like to celebrate today. It is the philosophy of this man that I commend you, the philosophy of this constituent who with his wife, Jean, lives in Kingston, PA, a town neighboring mine. In this day when to call oneself a liberal is to be under attack from many sides, when even the term itself is used as an epithet, Irwin Weinberg is proud to call himself a constitutional liberal. Since childhood he has been interested in liberal causes, especially civil rights. I had the honor of taking him as my guest to the White House to meet Nelson Mandela, the great liberator of South Africa, a man whom Irwin counts along with Martin Luther King and Ghandi, as his hero. As Irwin describes himself, being a constitutional liberal means coupling the defense of human rights as understood by President John Kennedy with the conservative strictures of the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and the American Constitution. And not just understanding and loving these precepts, but living by the truths and codes of conduct they demand of us. To deal in stamps is to traffic in history. Each stamp is a distillation of a single, significant moment, a freezing of time to mark it for mankind. Irwin Weinberg has collected stamps since he was 12 years old. When he was 18 he issued his first weekly price list which he still publishes the same way, on an old mimeograph machine. He is a sole practitioner, handling each transaction without the aid of a computer, a copier, a fax machine or even a secretary. In this business he is respected throughout the world. Not unlike the delicate stamps themselves, Irwin Weinberg has maintained the integrity of the moment. It is an honor for me to celebrate him.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the budget resolution before the Congress today. This is no time to be providing tax cuts to wealthy individuals and corporations while hurting the elderly, the children, and the working families of America. We have heard for so long now the rhetoric of the Republican majority promote the false notion that their mission to dismantle the Federal Government is based on a mandate of the American people. My constituents, however, do not want to dismantle the Federal Government--they want smaller government that works better and is more efficient. The American people want wasteful functions and programs eliminated, they want programs that work to be left alone, and they want fairness and equity in the allocation of limited Federal resources. The former Democratic majority had been working to meet this mandate for at least the 4 years prior to last November's elections. It passed historic deficit reduction legislation in 1990 and 1993 that set a course for a stable budget and massive deficit reduction. In 1990, the Democratic majority broke the partisan logjam that prevented unified deficit reduction action on the part of a Democratic Congress and Republican President. In 1993, despite not one Republican vote, the Democratic majority passed legislation that has brought our deficit down to its lowest level as a percent of the economy since 1979. These successes, however, were understandably not enough for a public weary of politicians and the status quo. The American people said in last year's elections they want change faster than Democrats provided. It is my belief, therefore, that the new Republican majority had a tremendous opportunity to help enact much important and needed change. Mr. Chairman, it now appears that such an opportunity is lost. It is lost because the Republican Majority not only targeted the wrong people and programs in their budget, but because the party is mired in an ideology that promotes getting rid of critical Federal programs and which demands tax cuts for the wealthy. This ideology is driving the Republican budget decisions to cut Medicare and Medicaid for the elderly, cut education for our children, cut job training for our workers, cut economic development for needy communities, and provide new tax loopholes to multinational corporations and individual millionaires and billionaires. In this budget resolution, Republicans have chosen to target middle- class America without at least also targeting the hundreds of billions of dollars lost to this country from corporate welfare and tax loopholes which benefit the wealthy. Both liberal and conservative interest groups have recently put forth detailed and comprehensive studies of corporate welfare that should be eliminated. But most proposals have been completely ignored by this budget resolution. Tax loopholes and corporate welfare are not the only things left untouched. The resolution also leaves in plae wasteful defense spending and international programs like the National Endowment for Democracy that have clearly outlived their usefulness in the post-cold war era. The Republican majority is saying in this budget it wants a balanced budget by the year 2002 and provide tax cuts to the wealthy, to fulfill a campaign promise no matter what the cost. Republicans claim that they are not cutting Medicare and Medicaid, but they are saving a total of $475 billion in the two programs over 7 years. That amount of money can be saved only through program cuts. It is just that kind of doublespeak that has fostered the high level of cynicism and distrust of our Government. The cost of this budget resolution is certainly tremendous. Cuts in Medicare and Medicaid could increase out-of-pocket costs to the elderly by as much as $1,000 per year. Business would be forced to cut health insurance to workers because of higher premiums from cost-shifting by medical care providers. More working families will be forced to drop health insurance altogether. For hospitals who have a disproportionate amount of Medicare and Medicaid patients, many will be forced to close. In my district, there are a number of hospitals where the percentage of patients served by Medicare and Medicaid exceeds 60 percent. A full 61 percent of Palmerton Hospital patients, 69 percent of patients at Mercy Hospital in Nanticoke, and a staggering 84 percent of Shamokin Area Community Hospital patients are served by these programs. I do not think it is realistic to believe we can impose a 25 percent cut on these hospitals and have them still remain viable. Many hospitals will be forced to shift costs to persons who have insurance because of [[Page H5172]] these cuts. As a result, more small businesses will be forced to cut, or eliminate insurance altogether for employees. More and more working families will be forced to chose between buying insurance and paying rent. I already have more than 53,000 persons in my district without health insurance coverage. How many more of my constituents will lose health care coverage because of short-sighted Federal policies and inaction on health care reform? Sadly, even with the largest budget cuts coming in the Medicare Program under the Republican plan we do not even know in what direction they want to take the program. Under normal budget processes, it would be the job of the Committee on Ways and Means to decide precisely how to make the necessary changes to the program to achieve savings. Yet the Republican leadership is trying to pass legislation that would require someone else to do their dirty work. They are trying to pass the buck to a group of unelected Medicare Trustees who never, until this Republican Congress, was thought to have the responsibility to make decisions on preserving the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. In another critically important budget area, Republicans are proposing to eliminate most of the meager amounts this country spends directly on economic development. The budget proposes to eliminate two agencies that play a critical role in economic development--the Economic Development Administration [EDA] and the Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC]. We spend less on these two agencies combined than we do on one B-2 bomber. What have these two agencies done recently for northeastern Pennsylvania? The EDA has provided money to help build new buildings in Nanticoke, Wilkes-Barre, and Hazleton, that serve as essential anchors for economic development and revival in these struggling towns. Substantial EDA assistance is in the pipeline for expansion of an industrial park in Luzerne County. The EDA and the ARC help northeastern Pennsylvania and other regions of the country that are struggling to attract scarce private economic development assistance. Without this type of public assistance, smaller areas will either have to raise money themselves, which many cannot, or seek assistance from States, where budgets are already stretched thin. If we eliminate the EDA and the ARC, along with cutting community development block grants and local housing assistance, small economic markets will be at an even greater disadvantage tomorrow than they are today. Instead of saving economic development funds from cuts, Republicans provide more tax cuts and loopholes to the wealthy. Billions of dollars in new tax writeoffs are being offered to rich corporations. People making more than $100,000 a year are being provided the opportunity to invest in tax-free retirement accounts and receive massive tax reductions on capital gains from the sale of stocks and bonds. In all, the wealthiest Americans will receive a tax break of $20,000 under the Republican tax proposals, while the average tax break for middle-income families will be only $555. Mr. Chairman, that meager $555 will be offset by higher health insurance premiums resulting from Medicare cuts, higher nursing home costs resulting from Medicaid cuts, and higher property taxes resulting from cuts in education and economic development. Middle-income families are going to be net losers under this Republican budget resolution. Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution is bad, plain and simple. I would urge the Republican majority to go back to the drawing board, forget campaign promises and tax cuts for the wealthy, and try and work with the President and Democratic minority to fashion a good deficit reduction budget resolution. I am confident that working together we can accomplish much more than we can working apart. We must forget partisan politics and get down to the business of doing what is best for our country.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Rotary Club of Danville, PA which is celebrating the 75th anniversary of its founding. I am pleased to have been invited to participate in the anniversary dinner on May 13 and to have this opportunity to bring the history of the club to the attention of my colleagues. Founded in 1905, by Paul Harris in Chicago, the Rotary has been an institution in America ever since. The first Rotary meeting consisted of Paul Harris and three other businessmen. Out of that meeting came the idea to form a men's club representing local business and the professions. Weekly meetings were held, in turn, at each member's place of business. This is how the organization came to be called Rotary. The purpose as defined by its founder was to undertake civic functions of value to the community. Mr. Harris was successful in his endeavor. Now known as Rotary International, the organization has grown to more than 25,000 clubs, in 172 countries, with membership well over a million and a quarter. In 1988, Rotary opened its membership to women. Fifteen years after Paul Harris founded Rotary, the Danville Rotary Club was organized and given its charter, No. 651. This club has served the community with dedication ever since. The club boasts three District Governors from its ranks from 1938 to 1993. The club joined with Bloomsburg and Berwick to found the Columbia-Montour Boy Scout Council in 1924. Boy Scout Camp Lavigne was named in honor of Jack Lavigne, a charter member of the Danville Rotary. Over the years, the club has sponsored a children's clinic, the student exchange program, Cub Pack 36, Crop Walk, Danville Community Center, Thomas Beaver Library, Edith Buckley Brown A.L.S. Foundation at Geisinger Medical Center, to name just a few of the club's beneficiaries. ``Service Above Self'', the motto of Rotary International, is the tradition of the Danville Club. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the strong and active influence of the Danville Rotary throughout my District. I am especially pleased to join with the Danville community in congratulating Danville Rotary on its 75th anniversary. We thank you for your dedication to your community, and for helping make Rotary synonymous with service.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Frank Schubert, a labor leader in northeastern Pennsylvania. Mr. Schubert will be honored by the Northeast Alliance of AFL-CIO Retirees on May 11, 1995 for his outstanding contributions to labor. Since 1974, Frank has been director of District Council 87 of Pennsylvania's largest AFL-CIO public employee and health care worker's labor union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees or AFSCME. AFSCME District Council 87 represents more than 5,000 public employees and health care workers in northeastern Pennsylvania. Mr. Schubert has served on the negotiations committee and the statewide safety committee since 1975. Frank also serves on the advisory committee of the Greater Wilkes-Barre Central Labor council. Frank is a member of the board of trustees of the Pennsylvania Public Employees Benefits Trust fund and a past labor representative on the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment committee. Mr. Schubert's leadership in the labor movement has been evident during the 8 years that he served as a vice-president of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, and as a member of the executive committee of the Scranton Lackawanna Labor Management Committee. Also, for 8 years, he served as an executive board member of the greater Scranton Central Labor Council. He served as trustee of the Pennsylvania Public Employees Health and Welfare fund, and a trustee of the AFSCME Health and Welfare fund. Prior to his present position, Schubert was an AFSCME international staff representative. Mr. Speaker, the accomplishments listed here are a testament to the dedication this man has shown to the members of the AFSCME and the causes of the labor movement. I join with his friends, family and the community in thanking Frank Schubert for his leadership and am proud to commend him on a job well done.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member of the committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], and I rise in support of the amendment, obviously, because what we have here in the text of this legislation is that when you join it with what would be allowed under the APA rule is that every rule promulgated by every agency of the U.S. Government will be subject to court review and court action. What we are structuring here is an absolute freeze on the actions of government for the next period of time, however that may eventually last, that the moratorium is in place. If that is not bad enough, what we are allowing here by virtue of allowing judicial review under the APA regulations is that in the future any contested promulgated rule or regulation frozen in place in this time can be attacked by virtue of the right of review under judicial review. So that 4 years down the road, if something is felt to not comport with the act itself in the moratorium, you will be able to have an attack and a request for judicial review to go over that and have that rule or regulation set aside or the effectiveness set aside. A simple example would be a rule or regulation by the wildlife area in Interior. If there were a question raised on the licensing or area qualifications for duck hunting--duck hunting--which nobody in this Chamber would oppose, activists rights organizations could attack the promulgated rules and regulations allowing that duck hunting to occur however and for whatever purpose the rule is promulgated. It would end up in the court and the decision under the judicial review would take such a period of time that whatever the purpose and finality of that ruling would be, would be inconsequential because of the passage of time. What we have created here in essence, when we look at the total bill itself and the judicial review that is allowed under existing law by implication of this entire statute, is we have allowed an opportunity for those people who fundamentally and philosophically do not believe that government should work in any respect. They will have accomplished their end. This is not just a moratorium. This is not just a surgical procedure to rule out of order improper or zealous rule makers or improper application of rules. This is a process and procedure that by not being surgical in our strike will allow those people with the worst intentions to prevail and to have consequences that we cannot even determine now, during the moratorium period, or for years thereafter, and the one thing we are certain of is that by use of allowing judicial review of this act we are going to allow the freezing of the remaining 2 years of the Clinton administration. Now, if that is the intention of the makers of this statute, and if the intention of the makers of this statute is not providing for no judicial review during the moratorium period or thereafter, they will accomplish their end. So I would recommend that everybody from the minority or the majority that desires to close government down in all respects of what we do, they should definitely vote against this amendment, but if they are sensitive to the fact that what we are doing is causing a wealth of litigation to occur by anyone and for any purposes, then we should seriously review what we are doing today. the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs and under the signature of the Assistant Attorney General of the United States that lays out the Justice Department's position on this amendment, and not reading the entire letter other than the fact that they support the amendment in its entirety, if I can quote a portion of this? It says, ``As you know, the administration strongly opposes H.R. 450. Its judicial review provision is one of the bases for this opposition. We believe section 7 will result in litigation each time a new rule is promulgated during the moratorium. We strongly oppose this language, and we think the bill should include an express bar to judicial review,'' and this amendment provides that ``express bar'' to judicial review. I cannot urge my colleagues more firmly, and this is not a partisan issue. This is a Government issue. This is a question of whether or not we believe this Government should function and whether or not we are not capable as a Congress of finding another way to correct overzealousness in rulemaking or improper applications of rules. The fact is there are tens of thousands of rules promulgated every year. The overwhelming majority are necessary and do not cause problems or conflict with the people, but in fact enable us to carry on government. In order for us to solve the problem of perhaps 1 or 2 percent where there is some disagreement we are throwing out literally the baby with the bath water, and I think the admonishment of the U.S. Department of Justice should be taken seriously and those people that are interested in Government functioning should understand that they have made a thorough review of this act, and particularly section 7, and on the basis of that I would recommend all my colleagues to act in a bipartisan way to see certain that we do not freeze the activities of Government. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's point is well taken. What happens if the hunter is successful and he ingests the duck and he suffers from cryptosporidium? Has it become more important that we protect the ducks and offer the protection to the ducks, or does it become more important to protect people.

Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I understand my colleague's interest in his district and ducks. Now my question is, if the duck lands on water in Wisconsin that is contaminated with cryptosporidium, does the extension of the exception to the duck allow a procedure to protect other ducks from this infection?