Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have expressed my concerns several times in the House over the Republican cuts in their budgets in Medicare, Medicaid, education programs, environmental programs over the last 2 years. But I am particularly concerned, and I wanted to express my concern tonight, that the Dole economic plan will have an even more negative impact on Medicare and Medicaid and some of these other programs than the Republican proposals that we have seen for the last 2 years. This includes the tools to fight crime effectively. I am very concerned about the fact that Mr. Dole's suggestions in terms of his economic plan will essentially cut money that is needed by our various States and municipalities to fight crime. If you look at Mr. Dole's record, he talks about how he is tough on crime, but he has failed in his numerous speeches to admit that he voted against putting 100,000 policemen on the street and has repeatedly tried to cut funding for this program that was established by President Clinton. His economic plan would mean ending this program when clearly the evidence indicates that crime has come down in our cities and our towns. In my New Jersey district alone, over $6 million has been spent on hiring policemen, about 110 additional policemen. The overall crime rate has dropped in the district since President Clinton took office. But Mr. Dole has threatened to kill the Violence Against Women Act which strengthened domestic violence laws, hired more prosecutors, and created a national domestic violence hotline. In addition, Dole voted against the Safe and Drug-free Schools Act which enables communities to implement violence and drug prevention programs. The Dole-Gingrich Congress initially tried to cut nearly $6 million from New Jersey alone for this vital program. Mr. Dole may talk tough on crime, but his actions speak louder than his words. His economic plan will mean even more drastic cuts in the crime-fighting tools that have already brought the crime rate down. Bob Dole has been in Congress now, until he resigned recently, for about 35 years. President Clinton has been the President for about 4 years. President Clinton and the Democrats passed a crime bill with teeth in it to put criminals behind bars, to increase the use of the death penalty, and create more jails. The Fraternal Order of Police has endorsed President Clinton, not Bob Dole. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that after the Republicans gained control of the House and the Senate for the first time in 40 years, I expected that there would be radical changes. But looking back over the last 2 years, I could never have imagined the extremism that poured from Speaker Gingrich and former Senator Dole. Most important, I could never imagine the cuts and radical changes in Medicare that they have proposed. I know that my colleagues on the other side have talked about that, and so has Ms. DeLauro tonight, but the majority of Republicans in Congress opposed Medicare's initial enactment. That included staunch opposition from then Congressman Dole, who later recalled 30 years later, and I quote, ``I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare, because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965.'' The fact is, last year Speaker Gingrich said he wanted to see Medicare ``wither on the vine.'' Initial Republican proposals included increased Medicare part B premiums, additional copayments, increased deductibles, severe hospital reimbursement cuts, less services, elimination of doctor choice, and vouchers. Basically the Grand Old Party, or the GOP, wanted to get old people to pay for primarily a tax cut that would have benefited mostly rich people. The Democrats in Congress fought these radical proposals which we think would have ended Medicare as we know it. President Clinton stood up to Republican demands to slash Medicare in last year's budget battles. Speaker Gingrich and former Senator Dole were so intent on cutting Medicare that they held the Government hostage to their demands. If you think about the Government shutdown that we witnessed in 1995, seniors and workers were unable to apply for Social Security or disability benefits, America's veterans were unable to file compensation pension and educational benefit claims or adjustments, and the 1-800 help line for Social Security actually went unanswered. The Democrats prevailed and Medicare was saved for now, but former Senator Dole, out of desperation in his Presidential ambitions, has proposed even larger tax cuts than he and Speaker Gingrich proposed last year. I support tax cuts, but not at the expense of Medicare. I am really concerned that when Dole says we can trust him not to dismantle Medicare, that his record during his long career in Congress essentially says otherwise.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to send my greetings and congratulations to the leaders of Taiwan on the anniversary of their national day. This October 10 marks the 85th anniversary of the founding of our close friend and fellow democracy, the Republic of China. In commemorating this anniversary, I applaud today's passage of House Concurrent Resolution 212, regarding Taiwan's efforts to join the community of nations. Throughout the past 85 years, the United States has had a strong reciprocal friendship with the Republic of China. When Taiwan needed some help with agricultural projects, U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID] stepped in and gave them access to the resources that the farmers needed. Now Taiwan is returning our favor to countries in Africa, helping them to develop better grains and more robust crops. When Taiwan needed help developing manufacturing facilities on the island, United States business provided the support. Now Taiwan companies are helping out here in the United States by working with our manufacturers to develop joint venture projects in America. The United States is very familiar with the economic advances the Republic of China has made, but many Americans may not be aware of the work the Republic of China has done to transform itself into a true democracy. During the past decade Taiwan has developed a robust multiparty system, open legislative elections, free speech, free press, and judicial oversight. These democratic reforms culminated in an open Presidential election. President Lee Teng-Hui was elected in a contest against three other candidates and more than 74 percent voter participation. Despite the Republic of China's political and economic maturity, the Republic of China is still not allowed to be a part of vital international organizations. Congress took the first step today in bringing about a change in this policy. Without question their economic status and legal system more than qualify them for membership in the World Trade Organization, but the People's Republic of China, which is not nearly as economically stable as the Republic of China, believes it must be admitted first. The 21 million people of Taiwan certainly deserve representation in the United Nations, but again, the People's Republic of China will not allow it. Given America's close relationship with the People's Republic of China, it would appear as though our friendship with Taiwan has been displaced by our concern about the People's Republic of China. Mr. Speaker, Congress has begun to take action and today addressed the issue of Taiwan's involvement in the international community with the passage of House Concurrent Resolution 212. This resolution ``urges the Council and Member States to support Taiwan's attempts to secure better representation than it currently enjoys in international organizations * * *'' and ``* * * ask the United Nations to investigate the possibility of setting up a United Nations working group to study the scope for Taiwan to participate in the activities of bodies answerable to the United Nations General Assembly * * *.'' At the same token, I understand the need to be aware of the actions and decisions of the People's Republic of China. Obviously the 1.5 billion people living under People's Republic of China rule are important. However, I think it is vital that the United States work to see our friends in the Republic of China are duly recognized for their achievements and to make sure that Republic of China's borders are secure. On October 10, when the Republic of China celebrates their 85th anniversary, we here in Congress should remember to congratulate our friends on Taiwan and assure them that our relationship will remain strong. House Concurrent Resolution 212 is one step in the right direction, but more needs to be done. The October 10 celebration marks the continuance of a longstanding friendship between our two countries, as well as the founding of a nation. Again, I congratulate Taiwan on the occasion of its national day.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to follow up on the comments of my colleague of California about the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The complaints that have been filed against the leader now are approximately 2 years old, having been originally filed in September 1994. point of order

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, my point is simply----

Mr. PALLONE. I understand it is coming up today.

Mr. PALLONE. I understand it will be coming up later today, and I would simply say I will be supporting that motion.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am simply trying to point out that myself and the members of the public, including many of the editorials around the country, the New York Times, feel very strongly that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct needs to proceed with the investigation in this matter. We have actually made a motion, which I hope will come up today, asking that the report of the outside counsel be released to the public. I feel very strongly that that report should be released. The time has come to do so. point of order

Mr. PALLONE. My only point, Mr. Speaker, is that a motion has been filed that this report should be released.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I agree. I know we do not have a lot of time left. I guess maybe we should wrap up at this point. I am just so glad that both of you came here and joined me to talk about this, because I know that Congressman Brown kept using the term educational opportunity. I think that is really what it is all about. We are not talking about handouts here to people who do not want to learn. We are talking about providing an opportunity so that everyone in this country can get an education at the highest level that they want and that they deserve and that they are willing to work for. That is what it is all about. That is the promise, if you will, of America. If that promise is not there anymore, it makes it much more difficult for us to talk to our constituents or our children about equal opportunity. The equal opportunity just will not be there anymore. That is why I think it is really important that we continue to work toward that equal opportunity goal, particularly when it comes to education, which is so important for the future. I want to thank both of you for joining me.

Mr. PALLONE. I know from my own experience that there was no way that I would have been able to go to college or law school or graduate school without a combination of the student loan program, scholarships from the college or graduate school that I went to as well as the work study program. In fact, when the session began 2 years ago, the Republican leadership was also talking about either abolishing or cutting back significantly on the work study program. Again, how absurd. Mr. Speaker, here we have students working their way through college. You would think that would be the epitome of a type of program we would want to keep, a work study program, but they were talking about cutting back on that. Plus a lot of people will say to me, particularly if they go to a private school, they will say, I got a scholarship from the private school or from an individual that donated money to the private school. But the fact of the matter is that a large portion of the money, whether they are private or public institutions, given out in scholarships, in other words, when a student gets a scholarship from the university, be it private or public, a lot of that money is also coming from the Federal Government. So it is not just the Pell grants, the Perkins loans, or the student loans. Even the money that is coming directly in scholarships from the college oftentimes a lot of that is coming from the Federal Government as well.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I agree. The amazing thing about it is that we continue to hear statements during this presidential campaign from Mr. Dole saying how he is going to be the education President, or that he is going to prioritize education. Yet we know from his own record that he has consistently voted against expanding education programs and that the President, President Clinton, in the last 4 years has probably done more to expand educational opportunities, particularly at the higher education level, college and for graduate programs, than anybody else. I just saw it myself, but twice he came to my district in the last 3 years or so and talked about, he was at Rutgers University on both occasions, and talked about the National Direct Student Loan Program, the AmeriCorps Program. I have actually witnessed students that are involved in these programs, and they are just very helpful. They are not only helpful in terms of helping the students, but they also help the community. For example, we have AmeriCorps students in some of the secondary schools that are basically supplementing the programs, the normal education program students get in school; you know, basically providing them with extra instruction after school or whatever. We have AmeriCorps students that have been working on clean water projects, basically testing the water in the Raritan River and looking for ways to try to do better, further cleanup. So that program, just as an example, is one where students get money for college or pay back their loan. They are working in the community, so they build up a community spirit. At the same time, they are actually accomplishing something that helps people.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio

Mr. PALLONE. The amazing thing, too, if I could add, is that the President has been expanding these educational opportunity programs, you know, starting AmeriCorps, the National Service Program, moving to a direct lending program, increasing the amount of money for Pell grants, at the same time that he is reducing the deficit. The deficit, the actual deficit, has actually been going down every year since he has been in office. The reason you can expand programs, I will use the direct student loan program as an example. I think we talked about it before, how you are actually eliminating the bank as the middle person, so the money, if you will, that will have gone to pay for the bank's administration of services now goes to the college or university directly to pay essentially for more students to get a loan. So you are actually saving the taxpayers money. You are eliminating the special-interest middle person, if you will, and the reason that the Republican leadership has been opposing that is because they get money from the special-interest bank or savings association, whatever it is, that actually is making that extra dollar; and, instead, you could abolish the middleman, save money for the taxpayers, probably millions or billions of dollars, and give more students direct loans. That is what is amazing to me, that you have seen this administration actually expand the programs and give more educational opportunities at less cost and bring the deficit down.

Mr. PALLONE. The amazing thing about it, too, is that it is not that the Democrats do not want to see tax cuts. Essentially, the difference is that we are talking about targeted tax cuts, or tax credits that would actually improve education, in other words; and I know the gentleman shares my feeling. We feel that if there are going to be tax cuts or there are going to be tax credits, they should be used in a very targeted way to help, to help education, to help with environmental concerns, and that what we do not want to see is just tax breaks that primarily go to wealthy individuals and do not help the average person. When I was talking about these two tax cuts, the Hope scholarship for the first 2 years of college that the President has proposed, $1,500 for your first 2 years, and the $10,000 tuition education tax deduction, when I talked to my constituents about those kinds of tax breaks, they think they are great, because they know that paying for higher education is very difficult. They see that as a way of the Federal Government actually using the Tax Code, if you will, to help improve education and educational opportunities. Democrats would like to see tax cuts or tax initiatives that actually give a break to individuals, but we want to use them in ways that are going to help our constituents, and not just throw money toward the large corporations or wealthy Americans.

Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman for joining me and pointing out not only what we have seen in the last 2 years under this Republican leadership in Congress and the negative impact on education programs, but also how important it is for the future to make sure that education remains a priority for the Federal Government in Federal funding. And one of the reasons that I took to the floor this evening, and I know you did too, is because of our concern that if you look at Mr. Dole's economic plan, that it would force even further reductions in education spending and again deprioritize, if you will, education in terms of the Federal role. Just to give an indication of that, there was an independent analysis of Mr. Dole's economic plan by Business Week, the Concord Coalition and others, that showed that his risky plan would require 40-percent cuts in a broad range of domestic programs, including education, and what they are saying is that a 40-percent cut in education and training would mean 300,000 children could be denied Head Start preschool opportunities, 5,800 local school districts could be denied safe and drug-free school services, 9.700 young people could be denied AmeriCorps national service opportunities and 1.5 million students could be denied Pell Grant scholarships. So what we would see, the very concerns that we have over what is happened the last 2 years with some of these important education programs, would only be magnified much more if Mr. Dole's economic plan was put into place, and I do not see how the Federal Government can essentially get out of the role of helping with education programs and leave that responsibility in terms of the funding to the States and the local governments, because, as you say, the end result would be that State and local taxes could simply increase, particularly local property taxes, because so many States, including my own State of New Jersey, rely primarily on local property taxes to pay for education programs, and if they do not get Federal help to supplement State help, they would just either have to cut back significantly or raise their local property taxes in order to pay for those same programs just to keep going, just to keep the existing programs going.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I know that I will be joined by some other colleagues to talk about education cuts and the effect of Mr. Dole's economic plan on education programs in the Nation. Before my colleagues join me, I would just like to take some of the time here during this 60 minutes to talk about another issue unrelated to the issue of education but an important issue to many constituents in my district. This Saturday I will be appearing at a dinner sponsored by members of the Belorussian community in my district in New Jersey. They will be raising money for the victims of Chernobyl, of the Chernobyl nuclear accident which took place about 10 years ago now. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to detail, if I could, for about 5 minutes some of the problems that resulted from the Chernobyl disaster in the country of Belarus and also talk about some of the problems that that nation now faces to its very independence. On April 26, 1986, reactor No. 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant caught fire and caused an explosion of epic proportions. This explosion measured 7 on the 7-level scale of nuclear accidents in comparison to the Three Mile Island accident, which measured 5. Although one decade has passed since this explosion, the aftermath and truth remain very clouded about what happened. Even though this explosion spewed highly radioactive elements into the atmosphere, the Soviet Union, or the government of the then-Soviet Union, remained largely silent. Twelve hours passed before the Kremlin leadership created a government commission to respond to the blast. It took an additional 24 hours before they began to evacuate the nuclear plant's company town. And 48 hours after the meltdown, the government publicly announced the Chernobyl explosion. This announcement told the victims very little. It was not until August of that same year that the Soviets announced that 50 million curies of radiation had been released by the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. Current research states that the actual amount of radiation spewed by the power plant ranged from 150 million to 200 million curies. In comparison the Three Mile Island accident released a mere 15 curies. Years have passed and the Soviet Union is no more, and Belarus and neighboring nations such as the Ukraine are still suffering from the sickness and misery from that accident. I am particularly concerned about the state of the millions of children who suffered and continue to suffer from the effects of radiation and who will probably suffer most of their lives from the long-term effects of radiation. The medical, environmental, and psychological effects still plague the affected regions which, as I said, include parts of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia. A study in the Nature Journal states that children born in Belarus in 1994 to parents who lived in the area during the meltdown suffered from twice the normal rate of a specific type of mutation. Germline mutations, found in sperm and egg DNA, are being passed on from generation to generation. The World Health Organization speculates that one in every 10 children living in the irradiated zones during the summer of 1986 have contracted thyroid cancer. In addition to the medical effects, the impact of the environmental damage is still felt today. The 1986 meltdown contaminated 100,000 square miles of once arable farmland. This encompasses approximately 20 percent of all of Belarus, 8 percent of Ukraine, and 1 percent of the Russian Federation. The irradiated soil poses seemingly endless problems for these countries' agrarian communities. I do not want to keep talking about this terrible disaster and its effects all day. I think that it is, it is really important and it is certainly commendable that my own constituents who are Belarusan Americans continue to make the point that we must address the problem of radiation in the aftermath of the Chernobyl explosion. They continue to raise money for the victims. They continue to be concerned about the victims and help them with medical supplies and other needs. That effort needs to continue. This country certainly, both on a government and on a nonprofit private basis, needs to continue to help the victims and their children. I also wanted to point out today, though, just as we must continue our international efforts to assist Belarus in the aftermath of Chernobyl, we must show our staunch support for that nation's independence. Belarus does not receive much attention in the media. Many of, most Americans probably, maybe not, maybe they do not even know where it is. But a recent New York Times editorial underscores the imminent dangers posed by the President of Belarus, Mr. Aleksandr Lukashenka. Shortly after Belarus freed itself from the oppressive clutches of the Soviet Union, this newly independent nation began its transition to a stable democracy. This 5-year political and economic progress may come to an abrupt halt if we do not press the current President to change his ways. President Lukashenka has actually proposed the reintegration of Belarus with Russia. In response to this new reintegration plan, 15,000 members of the Belarusan Popular Front marched in opposition to the threat of reintegration. These marchers fear that President Lukashenka will in fact relinquish Belarus' current democratic sovereignty. I just wanted to read, if I could, some sections of the New York Times editorial that was dated August 31 of this year that is entitled ``The Tyrant of Belarus.'' It talks about the undemocratic manner in which President Lukashenka is conducting his leadership in the country. Last year Interior Ministry troops broke up a parliamentary protest against the President's leadership and bludgeoned 18 lawmakers. Imagine for those of us who are Members of the House of Representatives and who really do not have to even fear, I do not think in most cases, the possibility of being attacked, in this case the executive of the country actually came into the parliament building and was attacking lawmakers. This President has thrown political opponents in jail, closed independent newspapers and reimposed Soviet era restrictions on travel abroad. Fearing imprisonment or worse in this new police state, two opposition political leaders recently asked for political asylum in the United States and Washington promptly granted the request to ensure the safety of the two men. I am not sure I am pronouncing it properly, but they are Zenon Paznyak and Sergei Nayumchik. Essentially, I am proud of the fact that the United States did grant them asylum. Mr. Lukashenka is also rolling back many of the economic reforms initiated in the first months of Belarusan independence. He has frozen the Government's privatization program and slapped banks with strict state controls threatening to nationalize many of them. These measures can only further destabilize an economy that shrank 10 percent last year and has left many Belarusans impoverished. The debt relief and economic bailout Mr. Lukashenko hopes to get from Russia are not likely to materialize, and alarmed by developments, the International Monetary Fund has sensibly delayed a $300 million loan. Just one more section from the New York Times article editorial. They say: It may be too much to expect Boris Yeltsin and his colleagues in the Kremlin to press Mr. Lukashenka to change his ways, but the United States and democratic nations of Europe should make their concern plain to him. The rising of a new dictatorship in the heart of eastern Europe must not be ignored. We certainly do not intend to ignore it, and it is one of the reasons that I am here today pointing it out. As a Congressman representing a large Belarusan-American community and a supporter of those members of the Popular Front, I strongly believe that we must act to prevent this new union of Russia and Belarus. We cannot allow a new autocratic regime to rise up in the midst of Eastern Europe's struggle toward democracy. I recently introduced House Concurrent Resolution 163, which supports the newly independent and democratic Belarus for which generations of Belarusan patriots fought and died. This resolution urges Members of Congress to unanimously call upon the entire population of Belarus and all Belarusans throughout the world to defend statehood and democracy of Belarus, help sustain the country's Constitution, prevent the loss of its hard won nationhood and encourage its chance to survive as an equal and full-fledged member State among the sovereign nations of the world. I promise to continue to support Belarus in its advancement toward stability and democracy, not the turn that its current president has taken us. education cuts Mr. Speaker, with that, I will end my discussion of Belarus and the concerns that I have expressed and turn to the other issue that I would like to discuss and I believe we have some of my colleagues that will be joining us later. That is the issue of education cuts and the impact of the Dole economic plan on education, on Federal education policy. If I could just take a minute, Mr. Speaker, and point out that earlier this week, we received another indication of not only Mr. Dole but also the Republican leadership's view of Federal education programs. On Tuesday the Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, denounced congressional Democrats for their push to restore $3.1 billion in education and job training funding, saying ``I cannot, as leader of the majority, allow the minority to throw out their political garbage one after the other and expect our people to just bat it down repeatedly with votes.'' Mimicking the process which characterized last year's budget debate when extremists shut down the Federal Government two times, Republican leaders are now backtracking from Senator Lott's statements and reportedly are considering a watered down version of the Democrats education agenda. My point, Mr. Speaker, is that education should be a priority for this Congress and for the Federal Government, if we are going to talk about our future as a country and the future of our citizens, education and the role of Federal education is very important, the role of the Federal Government and our ability to influence and help States and local governments at the secondary school level and also our ability to help those who would like to go on to college or to university for either undergraduate or graduate degrees. Senator Lott's statement indicates that when it comes to the Republican leadership on education, the old adage about teaching old dogs new tricks is true. It simply cannot be done. They essentially tell the American people that they understand how important education is and they rail against the Democrats for accusing them of not wanting all Americans to be educated, but then they push plans to gut education programs. I only have to reflect back on what has happened over the last 2 years to give an indication of how the Republican leadership has deprioritized education in this Congress. We can even really skip over the cuts of 1995 and just talk about the current year 1996. In the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution that would essentially take effect October of this year, 1996, funding for education and training programs is essentially frozen below the previous year's fiscal year levels for 6 years. So what we have is essentially that when adjusted for inflation, we have a 21-percent reduction in Federal funding for education over the next 6 years, by the year 2002, providing no assistance for helping schools meet projected enrollment increases of 12 percent over the next decade. So what the Republican leadership is saying to us is, even though they understand that there are going to be more students, there is going to be a larger enrollment, that they are going to freeze funding for education programs. In other words, the Republican plan is basically to provide less as the demand for education assistance increases around the country. In many school districts, such as New York City, where the school year opened with closets doubling as classrooms due to a lack of space, there is already immense suffering from skyrocketing enrollments. It is not the time to cut back on education funding or even freeze funding at previous fiscal year levels. The House-passed fiscal year 1997 education appropriations bill includes cuts spanning the entire spectrum of Federal education programs from preschool students trying to get a jump on life through Head Start to the high school student looking for some assistance to get to college. Under the bill, funding for title I supplemental education services would be frozen, denying assistance to 150,000 fewer children than in fiscal year 1996, simply because the same services will cost more in 1997. The Goals 2000 education reform program, which President Clinton has talked about and basically introduced, would be eliminated, denying reform grants to 8,500 schools serving 4.5 million children across the country. At the same time the Republicans attacked the President on the issue of drug abuse, and we have heard that repeatedly today, they continue to push an education bill that cuts the safe and drug free schools program by $25 million, weakening our ability to educate our children in safer, drug free environments. I am sick and tired of hearing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about funding for drug abuse and then come in here and cut the very programs that would prevent drug abuse, particularly on behalf of the young people. With respect to higher education, the Republican bill allows for a mere 1.2-percent increase in the maximum Pell grants award compared to the administration's proposed 9.3-percent increase. Federal contributions for Perkins loans would be eliminated, thereby denying low-interest loans to 96,000 students in the coming year. These are the very programs that allow students who cannot afford to go on to higher education, Pell grants, Perkins loans, and also the AmeriCorps Program. The AmeriCorps Program was a program that was proposed and enacted into law under President Clinton that basically allows students to do volunteer service in the community, and that service is used to pay back their loans. It is a new source of funding to pay for higher education. But the AmeriCorps Program would be terminated under the Republican appropriations bill. Through the back door the GOP would realize its long desired dream of effectively ending the Direct Loan Program by reducing the funds to administer it. The Direct Loan Program is another innovative program that instead of going through lenders, banks, to get a student loan, the university administers the loan program directly. It allows for more students at various colleges and universities to get loans, basically expanding the amount of loans that are available because you do not have to use the middle person. Again, they are trying to reduce that, reducing the funds to administer. That would mean that a lot of colleges and universities simply would not be able to have the direct loan programs. These programs that I mentioned, the ones that give our youngest children an early start on life, that teach our disadvantaged students how to read and write and solve mathematical problems, that keep drugs out of our schools, that expand access to higher education and that send our children to college, are the ones that Republicans would have you believe are, to use the words of the Senate majority leader, ``political garbage.'' I obviously could not disagree more with that statement. They are not political garbage. It is important that the funding be increased for those programs in this year's appropriations bill, and it is important that over the long term, that we expand educational opportunity through student loans and the rest of these devices. I just wanted to say a little bit about what the Republicans have been trying to do since they controlled Congress. On the other hand, we see the President and congressional Democrats coming up with new ideas to try to expand educational opportunity and provide good funding and new innovative programs to expand educational opportunities. Just to give you an example of that, and I have talked about it before on the floor, in July the administration announced a school construction initiative to improve the physical infrastructure, the actual buildings in which our children are taught over the next 5 years. Last month the President announced the America Reads challenge, which proposes to make every child in the country literate by the third grade. And then the congressional Democrats have the Families First agenda that basically provides American families a $10,000 tax deduction for college and job training, and we have also proposed to provide a $1,500 tax credit for the first 2 years of college for students who work hard, keep a B average and basically stay off drugs. What we are doing as Democrats essentially is trying to see how we can come up with innovative ways, whether it is through the Tax Code, whether it is through loan programs, whether it is through grant programs, to try to expand educational opportunity, and I think it is quite clear that there is a major contrast between the President and Mr. Dole on this issue. I see that one of my colleagues has joined us, Mr. Hinchey from New York, and I would be glad to yield to him at this time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, that parks bill, I think they called it the parks decommissioning bill, they were trying to make out that they were going to do a study and see which parks should be decommissioned, and obviously it was a nice way of saying closed. When the bill was originally proposed, the sponsor sent a Dear Colleague to other Members of Congress and he used a national park, the Sandy Hook unit of Gateway National Park, in my district as an example of a park or recreation area that should be closed. This summer we had somewhere between 2 million and 4 million people that visited Sandy Hook, mostly, pretty much from the New York metropolitan area; New York, New Jersey. Imagine that many people using this facility, and he is proposing to close it, and using it as an example of a national recreation area that should be closed. It is just incredible.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, particularly since he brought out what this Republican leadership has been trying to do for the last 2 years on the natural resource issues, because that is the truth. They have basically been selling the store and trying to basically give away all of our natural resources, and I think it has to be brought out. In addition, I know the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] talked about the record, if you will, by nonpartisan groups in basically analyzing this Republican Congress, and because of the poor record on the environment that was established by the Republican leadership, they put together this Republican Environmental Task Force early in this session in order to try to highlight how they were going to improve things, and the League of Conservation Voters actually gave the members of that task force, of that environmental task force on the Republican side, a 27-percent rating. In fact, we heard just this past Monday that a group of the most antienvironmental Republicans in Congress had urged the Speaker, Newt Gingrich, to remove moderate Congressman Sherwood Boehlert from his position as cochair of this Republican Environmental Task Force. They were so outraged by his behavior in trying to moderate this terrible Republican antienvironmental agenda that they actually wanted him removed as the cochair of the task force, and if they, of course, had dropped Congressman Boehlert from the task force, the rating by the League of Conservation Voters would have even been less than 27 percent. So this is not something that is going away. The Republican leadership continues to this day, with only a few weeks left in this Congress, to continue to try to turn back the clock on environmental protection. I would like to yield now to my friend, Mr. Markey, the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. PALLONE. The gentleman forgot when he came to the well and challenged the Speaker on the qualified Medicaid beneficiaries we are going to take away from the poorest widows in the country where Medicaid was paying for their Medicare part B premium. You brought that up. The Speaker said he was going to correct it and he never did. You might want to mention that.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman, because I think he is bringing back the fact that we are talking about real people here when we are talking about these policies, whether they are natural resources, clean air, clean water. We are talking about real lives and individuals that are impacted by it. We had a hearing today as part of our Democrats' Family First agenda on environmental issues. We had three just regular citizens, essentially, from the DC metropolitan area who talked about their own experiences with health problems or environmental problems that really have not been addressed. In other words, here we are talking about the Republican leadership trying to turn the clock back, when there are real needs that have not even been addressed, when there is a need for legislation in certain health, safety, and environmental areas that has not even been addressed, that the Republicans have not even yet thought about. We have one gentleman who actually lives in the District of Columbia who died from Salmonella poisoning, or I should not say died, nearly died from Salmonella poisoning. He went into the whole situation of how he was impacted. He was in the hospital for such a long period of time. Last night on Dateline there was a whole expose, basically, about Salmonella poisoning, and how eggs, so many of the eggs that are now produced in the country and that people buy in the store have the potential for Salmonella poisoning. There have been hundreds of deaths and thousands of people who may have been made sick because the Federal Government has not addressed the issue of how to deal with eggs, not only producing them, but making sure they are properly processed before they get to the market and before people buy them.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, for more than a quarter of a century successive Congresses sought to strengthen environmental law in order to protect our air, water, and land from pollution and other threats, and from the time that Democratic Senator Gaylord Nelson organized the first Earth Day over 25 years ago and Republican President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, there was a consensus that we needed laws to protect the health of our families and the quality of our natural resources. It is a consensus, a bipartisan consensus, that led to passage and strengthening of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Superfund, Safe Drinking Water Act, and many other pieces of pro- environmental legislation. However, that consensus, that bipartisan consensus that existed, both with the White House as well as with Congress, broke down during the Dole-Gingrich 104th Congress that we are now in, that is now about to end. Under the leadership of Dole and Gingrich, Congress for the first time in 25 years devoted more time to rolling back environmental protection than to improving the health, safety, and well-being of our families and our Nation. Now, many in Congress have tried to further environmental protection in ways that would be for the average American. But Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, and their Republican leadership colleagues have instituted a campaign to reward special interests at the expense of the health and environmental heritage of our citizens. From the very first day of this current Congress, we saw the special interests, the polluters, actually sitting down in committee writing legislation that would gut many of the environmental bills that I already mentioned. Clearly, it is the obligation of those who care about the purity of the water for their children, that their children drink and the air that they breathe, to actively oppose this extremist Republican agenda that we have seen in this 104th Congress. We have to make sure that the disastrous environmental record of this 104th Congress will not be repeated. Now, I just wanted to say that this effort, if you will, to turn back the clock on environmental protection manifests itself in a major way in terms of the budget cuts that we have seen and have been proposed by the Republican leadership for those agencies that deal with the environment, such as the EPA, such as the Department of the Interior. And I know that we have to make tough decisions if we are going to balance the budget. We have to figure out where our priorities should be. But I do not believe that environmental protection in this country has to suffer because of belt tightening, or budget tightening if you will. What we are seeing is that time and time again, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich, the Speaker, have basically deprioritized environmental protection. They have taken money in budget cuts from the EPA and those agencies that protect the environment in order to primarily finance tax breaks for wealthy Americans. The reason I am mentioning this today is because I am very concerned that with the economic plan that Bob Dole has put forward, that what we will see if he were elected and if that economic plan were put into place is a further deterioration of our environmental protection laws because less and less money would be available for investigation and for enforcement of violations of our environmental laws. Basically, what we would see, what we would expect if the Dole economic plan went into effect is about a 40-percent cut, if you will, in environmental programs, 40-percent cut in enforcement and investigation against violations of our environmental protection laws. And these cuts, if you will, these efforts to cut back on these agencies and what they can do for enforcement indirectly accomplish what the Republican leadership tried to do in this Congress by simply gutting the Clean Water Act or the Superfund Program outright. They were not able to make the changes in the substantive law, and so what they do instead is to go after the funding for those agencies that carry out the law because they know that if there is not adequate enforcement then the laws do not mean anything. I just wanted to give an idea of what kind of impact these cuts would have if they were enacted into law. A 40-percent cut in enforcement would mean that the EPA, for example, would not be able to reach its normal average of 9,000 inspections per year. It would have a significant impact on the 3,700 enforcement actions normally taken by the EPA annually as a result of their inspection programs. So if you do not have the people to do inspection, then you cannot bring the enforcement actions, where you basically slap a fine on those who are violating the law. Based upon estimates from last year's budget cuts, it is likely that scores of Superfund sites ready for significant new construction would not get funded and, furthermore, the cleanups at many of the hundreds of Superfund sites currently being remediated would be slowed down essentially to a snail's pace. A 40-percent budget cut would also have a marked impact on the leaking underground storage tank trust fund that was established by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. Leaking tanks have polluted drinking wells in many communities, and the trust fund has proven to be an effective effort to combat the problem. Current funding for this program represent about a 30-percent cut from fiscal year 1995 levels, and a further 40-percent cut would lead States to lay off hundreds of enforcement personnel and greatly reduce their cleanup activities. So, even with the current appropriation levels we are seeing cutbacks in the enforcement actions and the inspections that these environmental agencies can do. Whatever cuts would come about as a result of the Dole economic plan would simply reduce the ability to enforce the law that much more. I just wanted to point out some of these facts because I think it is important when we are debating the issue of what Bob Dole's economic plan would mean that we realize and that we take into consideration what the effect would be on the environment. Now, I just wanted to point out also that interestingly enough, President Clinton has been very proactive in terms of what he says he would do if reelected on November 5. At the Democratic Convention he basically pointed out a progressive, if you will, environmental agenda. He said, for example, that he would accelerate Superfund toxic waste cleanup, nearly doubling the pace of cleanup. By the year 2000, approximately two-thirds of the Superfund priority sites would be cleaned up. So here we have a situation where one person, the Republican in this case, is talking about cutting funds for some of these agencies that would mean less cleanups of Superfund sites, and President Clinton is actually talking about increasing the pace of cleanup at Superfund sites. Also, the need to expand the right to know. One of the major reasons why we are able to bring enforcement actions against polluters for various violations that occur is because we have a community right to know law on the books now that allows individual Americans, individual citizens, to know some of the toxic substances that exist in the community around them. And oftentimes they will bring actions on their own or citizen groups will bring actions on their own so that it is not always necessary for the Federal Government to get involved. This supplements the enforcement action of the Federal agency. Again, what the President has proposed is basically expanding Americans' rights to know about toxics in their community so that the EPA would do more investigation, release more information and individual companies that generate toxic waste, for example, would have to provide more information about what kind of toxic wastes are being generated in their communities. I wanted to just give some examples about how President Clinton has worked to protect the environment, and how former Senator Dole has worked very hard to do just the opposite. On August 6, 1996, President Clinton signed a bill reforming the Safe Drinking Water Act, which requires drinking water tests to eliminate dangerous contaminants. President Clinton also vetoed the extreme Republican leadership VA-HUD-EPA appropriations bill, which cut safe drinking water funding by 45 percent from the President's request. On the other hand, Senator Dole, Bob Dole when he was a Senator, in December 1995 voted for the extreme Republican VA-HUD-EPA appropriations bill which would have cut safe drinking water funding by 45 percent. The 1995 Dole regulatory reform bill, which was written by lobbyists for polluters, would have prevented the EPA from instituting effective safety regulations for drinking water. Let us talk about toxic wastes. Since taking office, the Clinton administration has cleaned up more toxic waste dumps than in the first 12 years of the Superfund Program, increasing the pace of Superfund cleanups by 20 percent and reducing costs, reducing costs by 25 percent. In December 1995, President Clinton vetoed the GOP appropriations bill which cut Superfund toxic dump cleanup funding by 25 percent from his request. So not only has the President increased, accelerated the pace of the Superfund cleanup in this country in the 4 years that he has been in office, but he also vetoed these bills, the Republican leadership bills, that would have made it more difficult to clean up Superfund sites. On the other hand, then Senator Dole in 1965 was one of only four Representatives, actually when he was a Congressman in this House, to vote against the Clean Air and Waste Disposal Act, which authorized $92.5 million during fiscal year 1966 through 1969 for research and development of methods to dispose of solid waste. The bill passed 294 to 4. Dole supported repealing the Superfund provision which forces polluters to pay for toxic waste cleanup, and he supported repeal of retroactive Superfund liability, which is also supported by his political contributors. What the Republican leader has proposed and what then Senator Dole has basically supported is this idea that instead of having the corporations that polluted the environment, that caused the toxic waste sites to be created, the Superfund sites, instead of having those corporations clean up the sites, we would have the Federal Government clean up the sites or pay the polluters for the work that they already did to clean up the sites. Essentially instead of polluter pays, it is government pays the polluters. I see that my colleague from Minnestoa is here. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].

Mr. PALLONE. I think the gentleman is correct.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman for coming on the floor, Mr. Speaker, and talking about this issue. I think there is no question that if you ask the average person, and certainly all the polling data that both Republicans and Democrats have done shows that people feel that there needs to be more environmental protection and more health and safety protection. When we had our Families First hearing today and we talked, and we had witnesses that talked about some of the problems they face, we had another gentleman who was infected with Cryptosporidium from tap water, and almost died. We had another woman who helped organize a community effort to reduce toxic waste in her neighborhood. She talked about how we need more right-to-know measures. So the types of things that the President has proposed, accelerating the cleanup of Superfund sites, providing more right to know for citizens and citizen groups, trying to basically provide better enforcement and more money for enforcement, this is what my constituents are telling me, and I believe when I talk to other members of Congress and other colleagues, what their constituents are telling them, that there should be more protection and more funding where necessary for investigation and enforcement. I just want to conclude the special order today just giving an idea of what, again, the Dole economic plan would mean in terms of environmental protection. The concern many of us have is that not only many of the environmental programs, whether it be the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, Superfund, that the Republican leadership in this Congress tried to gut that legislation, but even more so, that by deprioritizing funding for environmental protection, by slashing the amount of money that was available to the EPA, to the Department of the Interior, to protect our national resources and protect our health, and to protect our environment, that by allowing those levels of cuts to be proposed and in some cases actually implemented, what we are seeing is the inability, if you will, of the Federal Government and also State governments that depend on Federal dollars to actually do the investigation and the enforcement that is necessary to carry out our environmental laws and to make sure that there is adequate protection of individual's health and safety and environmental concerns. If the Dole economic plan were to be put into effect, we know that there would be essentially a 40-percent cut in environmental programs. So the types of cuts that were proposed in this last Congress for the last 2 years would even be deeper, and the effect would be that the environmental protection and the 25 years, if you will, of efforts on a bipartisan basis to protect the environment and improve the level of protection by the Federal Government would simply be reversed, because of the inability of Federal agencies to carry out the law. That is what we do not want to see. That is what we do not think that the average American wants to see.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership over the last 2 years has systematically tried to tear up 25 years of environmental protection, and I am afraid that the Dole tax plan which has been touted by the Presidential candidate over the last few weeks will just do that much more to accomplish the goal of tearing down environmental protection and not providing the funding for enforcement and investigation of serious environmental infractions. We have seen in the last 2 years an attempt by the Republican leadership to basically gut the Clean Water Act, allow for more dumping in the ocean, and allow for the destruction of wetlands. We have seen them try to change the Superfund law so that basically instead of the polluter paying, the Government would be paying the polluter, and we would not see cleanup at most of the Superfund sites around the Nation. We have also seen Republican efforts to pass legislation that would close national parks, decommission national recreation areas around the country. Most important, the Republican budgets and appropriation bills have significantly cut the amount of money that would be available for environmental enforcement, for investigating the polluters. That will only continue under the Dole tax plan and the cuts that he is proposing.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor a constituent of the Sixth Congressional District of New Jersey. Morris Abbe Bloom, a man who has donated many years of service to charitable efforts, has unselfishly served the New Jersey shore community. It is with great honor that I pay tribute on this day September 17, 1996, to Mr. Morris Bloom. Since the beginning of his career as the supervisor of education for the city of Long Branch in 1939 to his present position as chairman of the Board of the Drug Rehabilitation Institute, Mr. Bloom continues to touch the lives of all who know of and work with him. His many community activities range from assisting children from broken homes to establishing funds and scholarships for students to establishing the Elder Citizens' Security Councils which offers senior citizens freedom from fear in their daily activities. Mr. Bloom has also received numerous civic and professional awards throughout his illustrious career which include the gold lifetime badge award from the Police Athletic League, the medal of honor award for distinguished performances in community activities, and man of the year in two different years for helping bring poor emigrants to the United States. Mr. Bloom is also a member of the Princeton University Club, Phi Delta Kappa, Who's Who in American Education, Who's Who in Finance and Industry, and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Mr. Speaker, it is truly heartwarming to see the fine work that Morris Bloom is responsible for and to know that there are people who still believe in helping others and giving back more to society than was given to them. Mr. Morris Abee Bloom should be applauded for his efforts and serve as a model for us all to emulate.