Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention, because I know different statements were made, that there is no administration position on this legislation. To characterize it and say that the President has said whether he will support this bill or not is simply not accurate. There is no position at this time. In addition, I would like to point out again that we are talking about a bill that passed the Senate and that came over here today. There was no conference on this bill. In fact, the House versions of the bill, even though they passed the two committees, the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, never were reconciled and never came to the floor of the House. So there was no hearing on the Senate bill, and the Senate bill is very different in many respects from the House versions in both of the two committees. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned, because 2 years ago when the explosion occurred in my district, in Edison, NJ, there were officials who came in from the Office of Pipeline Safety. There was an investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board. They made a series of recommendations as to what should be done in the future with pipeline safety. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, a lot of those recommendations have not been met. Essentially what came out of the Edison explosion, I feel, was a feeling nationally that was expressed by many organizations that more needed to be done to protect residents, to protect the average American from the dangers of pipelines that were not properly inspected or that were subject to risks for various reasons. We have had many incidents since that time, and in fact, I was given a press article that was actually in the Associated Press just a couple of weeks ago, September 26, 1996: ``U.S. orders Colonial to test entire pipeline, from Dallas. The Nation's biggest petroleum pipeline is hazardous, and its owners have been ordered to test the entire 1,500 mile line, from Texas through to the Carolinas to New Jersey,'' a Federal official said. I mentioned the Iroquois pipeline before. The bottom line is that there is every reason to believe that there needs to be more protection because of problems with pipelines. Yes, what do we get instead? We have a Congress now that, instead of reacting to that in a progressive way, instead puts in place a regressive, if you will, method of essentially downgrading and turning the clock back, if you will, on the way we go about pipeline inspections right now. The germ of all this is that risk assessment procedure. What we have essentially, and I listened to some of the comments made by my colleague on the other side of this issue, what we have essentially here is an effort to put into this bill the risk assessment ideology, if you will, that existed in the Contract With America, that says that industry knows best; that industry, through demonstration programs, should be allowed to get out of existing rules or existing requirements and basically do what they want: set up their own safety standards, do their own testing, do their own investigation. That is not the way it should be. There is too much of a conflict of interest here. Mr. Speaker, this is going to be a prime example of how the Gingrich Congress, the 104th Congress, basically lets industry write the laws. Those industry laws, those laws are written in a way that hurt the average American, do not provide protection, safety protections for the average American. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that this Congress had learned a lesson, that that was not the way to go. But this legislation if it passes today is going to be a prime example of exactly the type of legislation that we passed under that risk assessment procedure, under that procedure that says that we need to downgrade regulations, we do not need to protect the average American, we need to let industry do its own investigation, its own enforcement, as it sees fit. I see a basic conflict of interest there. I think if you look at the explosions and you look at what has been happening with pipeline safety over the last few years, you can tell that that is not the way to go, and yet that is what we have in this instance.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 1505, legislation that would roll back in my opinion the gains made by the pipeline safety improvement act of 1992, which was largely written by the former chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, Phil Sharp. That law, which was passed a mere 4 years ago, made positive, significant public safety and environmental changes to our pipeline laws. That law and the protections already on the books are important to me. About 2 years ago the residents of Edison, NJ, which is in my district, and communities across the country got a very loud wake-up call when a natural gas pipeline exploded, sending a fireball hundreds of feet into the air and destroying the homes of more than 1,000 people in my district. This bill, which was drafted primarily with far more input from the industry than from the House Democrats, allows pipeline operators to decide for themselves what safety precautions to take and which to ignore while, making it even more difficult for Federal regulators to pass new safety requirements. However, as evidenced with the Iroquois pipeline in New York, there is an inherent conflict of interest that prevents companies from regulating themselves in a manner that provides maximum protection to the public. Unfortunately, despite some lone cries from both parties, this Congress is set to let the industry govern itself and at the same time weaken protections in existing law. Right now the law requires that all individuals responsible for operating and maintaining pipelines be tested for qualifications and certified to operate and maintain those pipelines. But the bill before us removes the testing and certification requirement. The 1992 act, which I mentioned, required the Department of Transportation to issue several new safety and environmental protection regulations. This bill, however, creates risk management demonstration programs, I will repeat that, risk management demonstration programs that allow pipeline companies to write their own rules. Furthermore, the general language is written to give industry maximum wiggle room. The bill allows DOT to exempt pipelines from current regulations and forces DOT to release them from future regulations, including those based upon the public law of 1992 and essentially the rules that are still pending right now. The bill is so poorly drafted that it allows pipeline operators who fail to comply with the plans that they themselves wrote to continue to regulate themselves. Instead of mandating that companies that are in substantial noncompliance be automatically kicked out of the program, it opens the door to allowing those bad actors to remain exempt from the rules that every one else has to play by. This bill also deletes a requirement in current law requiring that pipelines be inch inspected at least once every 2 years. If you think about the Edison accident, after that accident the DOT and everyone who was involved thought the inspection should be more frequent. This bill says they do not even have to do it every 2 years. The bill would undermine a DOT regulation that allows DOT to require companies to replace old pipes with new pipelines that are able to be inspected by an internal inspection device, also known as a smart pig. During the Edison accident aftermath there was much suggestion that smart pigs be used wherever possible. This does not require that anymore. By changing the underlying basis for the DOT rule, pipeline companies would now be able to successfully overturn current regulation in court. The bill also removes a requirement in current law that DOT, when issuing a standard, has to consider the extent to which the standard contributes to safety and environmental protection. The bill replaces this with risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. This is the Contract With America risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis that I thought that this Congress had rejected. Furthermore, the bill would add more industry representation to the two committees that would serve to peer review the risk assessment/ cost-benefits processes, while leaving in place weak conflict-of- interest provisions. Finally, perhaps most egregiously, this bill completely changes environmental language in current law to benefit the oil industry. It undermines wetlands protection and removes the requirement to identify pipelines in earthquake zones. And, to add insult to injury, it removes a mandate for regular inspection of pipelines in environmentally sensitive areas. I just have to say, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the New Jersey delegation has worked hard to improve this bill. On the Senate side, amendments were added by Senators Lautenberg and Bradley that would require DOT to study effectiveness of remote shutoff valves, and if the study finds them technically or economically feasible, would require DOT to publish standards for their use where they would reduce risk. It also contains language requiring criminal penalties for dumping in pipeline rights-of-way. That is something that Mr. Schaefer put in at my request, and I appreciate that. And it retains a House Democratic amendment authorizing DOT to engage in public education to promote One- Call and pipeline damage prevention, again something that Mr. Schaefer put in the bill at my request, and I appreciate that. These are poison-coated carrots, I think, meant to entice us into supporting a bill that will ultimately undermine the very protections we support. Even with these additions by the New Jersey delegation, this is a bad bill. None of this bill's provisions have ever been the subject of legislative hearings in either the House or the Senate. Last year, as part of their Contract With America, the House Republicans rammed a dangerous industry-drafted bill through two committees without significant Democratic input. That bill has been sitting in limbo for well over a year. But because the original bill contained risk assessment language that condemned it to a near certain Presidential veto, Republicans finally sat down with us and other Democrats to negotiate a new bipartisan bill. But Republicans broke off negotiations, for example, after only one session because they realized that they could get a better deal by forcing the Senate bill on the Democrats. That is what we are getting here today. That is wrong. We went to the table in good faith. We were prepared to make a deal and help move it through the House and Senate on a truly bipartisan and inclusive basis, which is what should happen. Instead we have this: broken-off negotiations and a bill that we are being denied our right to amend. The process stinks. It is unnecessary process. If it was brought under normal circumstances, this would be subject to a point of order because it has a $6 million pay-as-you-go violation. No amendments. It undermines safety and environmental protection. It is opposed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the American Oceans Campaign, and the Center for Marine Conservation. I urge my colleagues, before you vote, think about this. Do you really know what you are getting into in this Senate bill? I am here to tell you that this is not what you think. This is not something that is going to move forward on protections for pipelines. It is harmful. It deserves to be defeated. It is really backtracking on the issue of pipeline safety in this country. It deserves to be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, unless there is some other Member in opposition, I would ask for the 20 minutes.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, my understanding, I could be wrong, is that those of us in opposition, which I am, are entitled to 20 minutes under the rules.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. Twelve years ago striped bass stocks along the Atlantic coast had declined to very low levels as a result of overfishing and pollution. Fishermen and managers alike were concerned that this fishery would soon become an endangered species. In an unprecedented move, Congress passed the Striped Bass Conservation Act designed to support State efforts to reverse this frightening trend. Today, the implementation of the Federal-State partnership embodied in the Striped Bass Act has restored the striper to its former glory as one of the most important sport and commercial fisheries on the east coast. It is clear evidence that conservation can work. The conservation management programs that have brought this fishery back from the crash of the 1980's must continue, and H.R. 4139 will ensure this is the case, and I enthusiastically urge Members to support it today. I wanted to say I also am pleased that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], has included in the legislation public participation in preparation of plans and amendments to plans for Atlantic striped bass. This is something that the recreational fishermen along the Jersey coast have particularly been very concerned about, that there is sufficient public participation, and that provision is now in the bill. In addition, if I could mention, I know today that since we need to move this bill, and it is important we move it, we can certainly not bring up the issue of the game status of striped bass or the ban or moratorium on the sale of striped bass caught in the EEZ. But I want to mention that I know Mr. Saxton and I would like to see a continued ban or moratorium on the sale in the EEZ. Both of us have legislation that will either accomplish that or make striped bass a game fish. I am hopeful in the next Congress we can work toward these goals. But today I am pleased to see this legislation, this reauthorization, is coming to the floor. It is very important, and I would again urge support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Lastly, I wanted to say something about the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. He would probably appreciate it if I sat down, anyway. So with that I will say thank you for everything, Gerry, and I will sit down.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to join the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and also the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] in expressing concern over the take it or leave it process that has been offered essentially by the Senate in bringing this bill to the floor. I believe, because there was no conference, there was no opportunity to negotiate, if you will, a compromise or conference bill, that is why there are many problems with this legislation, including the one that my colleague the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] mentioned with the definition of recreational fishermen. I just wanted to say on that topic that in my State, many of the recreational fishermen are very concerned about the definition. The term in the bill, recreational fishing, is defined as, ``fishing for sport or pleasure,'' and does not account for the importance of personal consumption nor the significance upon which sectors of the recreational fishing community sell, barter, or trade fish. For decades, fishermen of all social classes have engaged in these practices, which have not been shown to be deleterious to fisheries resources. I am very pleased to see the colloquy that the chairman and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] entered into basically making it clear that it was not the intent of Congress to exclude these fundamental historical characteristics of the recreational fishing industry. I hope that NMFS, or the National Marine Fisheries Service, gets it. What the fishermen are afraid of is that when we do allocations, they will not get their quota, that the recreational guys will be told, ``You can just catch and release, you can't keep your fish.'' But I think that that colloquy between the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] hopefully will put that to rest. If anybody from NMFS comes to me at some point in the future in their rulemaking and says that we are going to somehow negatively impact recreational fishermen because of that definition, I will go back to that colloquy that was entered into today. I also want to point out that I will be cosponsoring, I mentioned to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the legislation that he plans to introduce in the next session that will ensure that national policy clearly acknowledges all the elements of recreational fishing with a more appropriate definition.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. It is really incredible when you think about it. I thank the gentleman for bringing it up. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Michigan. I know he has pointed out over and over again how important the President's effort has been with the crime bill and with the 100,000 extra policemen that have been implemented basically in many municipalities around the country. That program is one of the main Federal programs that my constituents talk about now because it has really had a major impact in reducing the crime rate in a lot of my municipalities. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate what the gentleman said, and particularly with regard to the pensions, because I think that many people have forgotten that. It came up at the time, and the Democrats did their best to point out that it was being proposed and we managed to kill it, primarily because of the President's veto, but I think a lot of people have forgotten it, and that is why it is so important for us, not only today but I think in the next few weeks to continue to point out that these are the things that the Republicans were proposing and what they would have meant to the average American. That is certainly one of the most important. I appreciate the gentleman bringing it up.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate what the gentlewoman said. Really, the gentlewoman says very well and explains very well the dire consequences of the government shutdown. I think the fact of the matter was that there were a lot of people who really suffered tremendously during that period. I want to yield to other colleagues here, but I just wanted to say one thing when you were talking about the student loan program. That is one of the many aspects, but the one that I hear the most these days from my constituents, and I think the reason is because, and I do not have the statistics here tonight, but the reason is because of the disparity, if you will, between how income has not grown, if you will, in the last few years, or in the last decade, but the cost of college tuition and going to college has grown so much. I know when I was in college I had help from my parents, but I also had a student loan and I had a scholarship from the school. I had the work study program. It was possible for your parents to help you to some extent. But if you think about it, over the last 20 or 30 years, income has not kept up, if you will. The cost of college has gone up so much that more and more families and more and more students need larger amounts, if you will, of student loans in order to pay for college education or graduate education. That is why we have seen the President, with the help of Democrats, when we were in the majority, try to expand some of these programs; why we had the AmeriCorps program, why they tried to expand the direct loan program, to give more students and make more money available, because it is a lot harder to pay for that college education today than it was 5 or 10 or 20 years ago. For some reason, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle never understood that, and I do not know why they did not. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro]. Ms. DeLauro. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to me, as well as the gentlewoman from Texas who, in my opinion, more than anyone else has delivered the message about the Democrats and how we wanted to prioritize education, Medicare, and the environment, and how we have really succeeded in the last 2 years in halting the changes and the drastic cuts that the Republican leadership proposed in these programs. I am pleased and proud to join with my colleagues tonight. It has been an unprecedented 2 years. When we take a look at, quite honestly, the natural instincts of the Gingrich leadership in this House, what their natural instincts were, I think it is sobering, it is frightening, and in fact it really threatened what working families in this country have tried to achieve for themselves and their families for so many years. That really is the story of this Congress. To my colleagues who have taken the floor almost every day and almost every evening, I feel good about the role that we have played, about the role we play with the American people, because it truly was the American people who said, ``No, we do not want you to do these kinds of things.'' In the final hours of this Congress, it is the opportune time to take a look at some of these things that happened and what the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] and his Republican team have pursued. It has been characterized, and fairly characterized, as an extremist agenda, a hurting of hardworking middle class families. When Newt Gingrich and the other Republicans took power in this House in 1994, they came here promising revolutionary changes. I think we would all admit, as Democrats, that the public was looking for change. They looked for change in 1992 and they looked for change in 1994. We have to acknowledge that. But what they did was they endorsed and initiated an extreme agenda that really was in no way the kind of change the American public was looking for. Their manifesto, as we all recall, was the Contract With America, and if we just take a look today, what is happening is the Republicans are running away from the contract, running from their leadership, and running, quite honestly, for their political lives. So they are engaged in trying to rehabilitate themselves on some of these issues. Mr. Speaker, I read in the papers in the last few days that Newt Gingrich is trying to strong-arm Republican Members to come to a pep rally celebrating the Contract With America, and there is one newspaper, and I quote the newspaper, it said, ``One month before election day the contract is so aborted that some of the very freshman who campaigned on it have been less than enthusiastic about the rally.'' They cannot run away from it fast enough, given what it tried to do. Quite frankly, if you do take a look at the contract, it wound up hurting American families and particularly working families in this country. Their jewel, and self-proclaimed jewel, was the tax cut. As we saw, they were willing to jettison Medicare, education, environmental efforts, Medicaid, in order to provide a tax cut for the wealthiest in this country. Quite frankly, it was the American people who said to the President of the United States, 60 percent, veto this madness, veto it, which he fortunately did. We see Republicans running from their record to try to bury the truth, but I will tell you, who can blame them, who can blame them from trying to run from the truth? The litany is there. My colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas, talked about education. We have talked about what they tried to do with Medicare and Medicaid, education, and the environment. I will just say this about American families. What they essentially want is a shot at the American dream. That is what they work for. It is like your folks and my folks who worked hard all their lives to provide their families with an opportunity for the future. What has been the great equalizer in this country? It is education. That is the way that, despite what your income is, despite what your social status is, public education has been the great equalizer in this country, so what your God-given talents have given you, you can develop your potential and you can succeed. What they tried to do was to pull that rug out from under public education for working families. As I said, my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas, catalogued some of the information in Head Start programs, in safe-and-drug-free schools, in reading and mathematics programs. I will tell you that finally what they tried to do is dealing with the colleague loan program. I would think that if we polled 435 Members of this Congress, we would find that they achieved what they did in education through college loans or through some sort of financial assistance, most of them. I could not have gone to college without the benefit of financial assistance. My family just could not have afforded that. I might add that the gentleman from Texas, Dick Armey, and the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, went to school with college loans. What they tried to do then is pull the ladder up after them. That is wrong. Let me just make a couple of comments here. They voted to slash student loan funding by over $10 billion and eliminate entirely the direct student loan program. That is the program that, as my colleagues know, takes the banks out of the equation and says to the family, you do business with the college, and decreases the costs of that loan to that family. They tried to entirely eliminate the direct student loan program. The $10 billion cut included a $3.5 billion cut of the Stafford student loan program. They have also voted to cut Pell programs and loans, denying loans to 750,000 students. This is the way we succeed in this country. The college loan program works. Why do they want to deny people the opportunity, working families the opportunity to be able to send their kids to school, to have that opportunity to succeed and compete? That is wrong. That is why the American public moved away from it. Let me just say, if we think that this was a one-shot deal, and that they do not have these kinds of thoughts in mind for the future if they happen to come back here in the majority, if we take a look at the Dole economic plan, a $568 billion tax cut, where are they going to go, again, for that money? They are going to go to Medicare, education, Medicaid, the environment, the same kinds of programs. Mr. Speaker, I think this is important. I want to talk about a comment that I read today in something called the Texas Monthly, September of 1996. I think this is extraordinary. I think the public knows that the Republicans were so desperate to advance their extreme agenda that they were willing to shut the government down not once but twice. Now, you would think there would be some sense of the hardship of shutting the government down, what that means in terms of people's lives for people who work at Veterans Administrations and so forth, what happens to them when they are not sure they have a job, when they are not sure they are going to get a paycheck, what happens to their kids, what happens to mortgages, what happens to college loan payments, what happens to putting food on the table. You might think that the Republican leadership was chastened in some way by shutting the government down. This is a September, 1996 quote by the person who is third in charge in the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay]. If the gentleman will bear with me a second. Quite frankly, we have entitled this, Let Them Eat Steak. You will understand this when I read it. This is a quote: ``Our biggest mistake was backing off from the government shutdown. We should have stuck it out. The worst moment was November 19. I was cooking steaks for five or six Members at my condo. The TV was on, and all of a sudden there's Newt and Dole and the President, and everybody is shaking hands and saying they've reached an agreement to reopen the government. I'll never forget it as long as I live.'' This is a quote from the gentleman who is third in charge of the House of Representatives; let them eat steak. Let me tell the Members, I went to the Westhaven Veterans Administration during the Government shutdown. You want to be chastened, when you saw people who did not know whether or not they were going to have a job. The stayed on the job, because they felt they had an obligation to those sick veterans in that hospital. They did not know if they could pay the bills. They did not know if they could put food on their tables. This gentleman says we should have continued to shut the Government down. And these are the folks who want to come back and who want to lead this House of Representatives. The American public needs to know what they are about.

Mr. PALLONE. You mentioned Head Start, and I just wanted to say I have two young children; one is 3, and the other is a year and a half; and I do not spend a lot of time, but I spent a little time reading about childhood development and all that, and everyone tells you that those formative years; you know, whether it is 2, 3, 4, before they go to school, which is what Head Start is primarily about, those are the years that make the dffernce. That is why I think it is so important that you mentioned the Head Start program and it is such a tragedy that they have wanted to cut that. I remember President Bush talking about how successful a program it was. And, you know, here we are again with a tremendous prevention program, that does not really cost a lot of money, that they have tried to cut severely. I did not mean to interrupt.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to start tonight, I am going to be joined by some of my Democratic colleagues, but I wanted to start tonight by talking about how the Democrats, even though we are in the minority and have been for the last 2 years, have really done an excellent job, in my opinion, in stopping some of the more extreme measures that were proposed and in most cases did not succeed in getting passed in the last 2 years in this Congress. I mean particularly the Democrats success in halting what I call the Republican assault on Medicare, education, and the environment. Tomorrow is actually the 2-year anniversary, from what I understand, of the Republican signing ceremony on the steps of the Capitol where they all stepped up about 2 years ago and signed the Contract With America. I call it the contract on America, because of the fact that it proposed such devastating changes in Medicare, such terrible cuts in education programs, and also sought very hard to turn the clock back on the last 25 years of environmental protection by the Federal Government. We are going to see tomorrow that, if you think about it, we do not hear too much about this Contract With America anymore. As election time comes near, this November 5, the Republican leadership, particularly the House Republicans, seem to have a very bad case of amnesia when it comes to the Contract With America. It has all but disappeared from the campaign trail and even from Congress itself. We really have to remind, I think as Democrats, we have to remind our colleagues, and I suppose the public as well, about what this Republican Congress set out to do. Fortunately, they were not successful. Beginning in the summer of 1995, they proposed $270 billion in Medicare cuts to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. We managed to kill that proposal, but even this year they continued to propose large Medicare cuts primarily to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. In the winter of 1995-96, we saw two Government shutdowns. Basically the Republicans were not able to get their way in the budget negotiations, even after the President committed to balancing the budget, so they decided to shut down the Government. And twice that occurred. Those 27 days when the Government was shut down cost taxpayers about $1.4 billion and caused hardship for thousands of Americans who were not able to get their veterans benefits, who were not able to take advantage of other programs. We then go from the winter, if you will, of 1995-96, when we had the two Government shutdowns, to the spring of 1996, when we sort of had this stop-and-go Government to force education cuts and environmental rollbacks. Basically they spent the first part of this year in 1996 going from one short-term funding bill to another, determined to try to make the President accept their agenda to make the biggest education cuts in history and to roll back bipartisan environmental protections. But the Democrats were successful. Mr. Speaker, I think that the Democrats, even though we are and have been in the minority for the last 2 years, have a lot to sort of be thankful for because we were able to succeed in halting these radical Republican cuts in Medicare and education and also in environmental programs. I just wanted to spend a few more minutes and then I would like to yield to one of my colleagues to talk about some of the changes, the radical changes, if you will, that they tried to make in Medicare and also on some of the environmental programs. These are two areas that are very important to me and to many of my colleagues on the Democratic side. If you think about it, if the Republican Medicare proposal that they first came up with in the summer of 1995 had become law today, seniors would be now paying basically another $120 this year for Medicare premiums. That amount would continue to go up for the next 6 years. Seniors would no longer be able to see their own doctor because many of them, if not most of them, would have been forced into managed care or HMO's. Many hospitals would be closing their doors right now essentially because they were so dependent on Medicare and Medicaid, they would not have been able to absorb the major cuts that were proposed by the Republicans. I guess the one issue that to me shows really how out of touch the Gingrich Congress was and the Gingrich Republicans were with the American family is the environmental issue. Although the environment was not really mentioned at all in the Contract With America, they proceeded to make such an assault on environmental protection in various ways over the last 2 years that, if they had been successful and the Democrats not stopped them from doing it, we basically would have seen the last 25 years since Earth Day of 1970, where the Federal Government on a bipartisan basis was trying to protect the environment and improve environmental protection laws, we would have seen a tremendous rollback in all those efforts. A very good example, and one that I have cited before on the floor of the House, is the Clean Water Act. Essentially in the spring of 1995, we saw rolled out on the floor what I called the dirty water act or the dirty water bill that basically tried to gut the Clean Water Act and make it possible to eliminate wetlands protection, to dump sewage again into the ocean, to do a number of things that really would have made the Clean Water Act essentially ineffective. Then we also started to see the major effort to cut back on funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, for the Interior Department, for the various agencies that do investigation and enforcement of our environmental laws. If they had succeeded in accomplishing those goals and really cut back significantly on environmental protection through those agencies, once again our environmental laws would not have meant anything because they would not be enforced. So I just really wanted to take to the floor today, and I know my colleagues feel the same way, because we feel that as this Congress is coming to a close and we may be done within the next day or so, we do not know at this point, that we need to remind our colleagues on the other side of the aisle of how important it was for the Democrats to speak out and to basically explain to the American public what this Gingrich Republican agenda would have meant. Fortunately, we were able to stop it in most cases, particularly when it came to issues like Medicare and the environment. At this time I would like to yield to my colleague from Texas. I know that she has been here frequently over the last 2 years as one of the key people that has been trying to point out how terrible this Republican agenda was. It was one of the main reasons, I believe, she has been, and a few others that are joining us tonight, we have been some of the major reasons, I think, collectively, why we have been able to stop this assault on the environment, on Medicare, and on environmental protection. I would yield to her at this time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. If I could mention two things that he highlighted that I think are so important in concluding this special order this evening, one is the whole stealth aspect. It was amazing how many times on so many of the issues we discussed tonight, we were not told and the public was not told about what the true intentions of the Republican leadership was, until, as you said, it was almost too late, until they were about to bring the bill out, either in committee or on the floor, to actually be marked up and passed. I remember in the case of the Medicare cuts and the changes in Medicare, that it was nine months, we started in January of 1995, and I do not believe that those incidents that you were talking about took place until some in the summer of 1995. For that whole period, we kept hearing there was this budget out there that was going to provide this $245 million in tax cuts, mainly for the wealthy. But every time we asked what was it going to mean for Medicare, or Medicaid, for that matter, there was never an answer, until the very last day effectively when the Committee on Commerce was asked to mark up the bill. It is incredible to think that such an important change, not only in terms of the cuts, but the changes, the substantive changes being proposed in Medicare that would have effectively gutted Medicare, and we could not find out about it and the public could not find out about that. We saw that time and time again with so much legislation, so many of the major changes being proposed, that we succeeded eventually in stopping once we found out what they were and once we could tell the American public what this was all. That stealth strategy continues today. As you point out, the Dole economic plan is the same way. We hear about the tax breaks, if you will. But the details of how they are going to go about implementing those cuts, what they are going to do to various programs, whether they are discretionary programs or entitlement programs, I think at one point in the plan that was put forth, when Mr. Dole put forth his plan, he actually admitted it was based at least initially on this year's budget, on the Republican budget that was passed this year. That budget itself would continued the major cuts in education, environment, Medicare, and Medicaid. But this would have to go way beyond that. We would see a lot more in terms of negative impacts on those programs, and particularly Medicare, because there is so much more that has to be found to reach that level of tax breaks, primarily for wealthy Americans.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman. I just want to say one thing: As the gentleman mentioned, being in the minority for the first time, because I was here before when we were in the majority for several years, as were you, but one thing that I learned and one thing that renews my faith, if you will, in our democracy, is that once we were able to get the word out, either on the floor here or back in our districts at town meetings or with the media or whatever, once we were able to get the word out to the American people, and even to some of our colleagues on the other side, about what the impact of these Republican leadership proposals were and how they were going to cut Medicare and how they were going to change the program, how they were going to cut back on environmental protection, what they were going to do to student loans and education programs, we were able to change the dynamics of what goes on here. That is why, even though we are coming to the close of this Congress, when I am asked, and I am often asked by reporters or constituents, ``What did the Democrats accomplish in this Congress?'' And I say we halted, we stopped, these extreme measures from becoming law, collectively with the President. That is an accomplishment, and that is something we can be proud of. I think it is also an indication that this democracy works, that once you are able to speak out and get the truth out, it really does make a difference.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman fro joining me in this special order tonight.

Mr. PALLONE. I think the gentlewoman is bringing up a very good point, and it is simple. What Democrats have been saying and what you are saying is that you have to, you know, put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, I think is the best way to explain it. The reason why we, as Democrats, want to prioritize education funding, why we have been supportive of, for example, putting 100,000 policemen on the streets, the reason why we support environmental protection, if you will, is because we realize that if you prioritize these programs, that they can make a difference for the average American. And I think what we see on the other side of the aisle is, they talk about the drug problem, for example, but then they do not want to fund a program of safe and drug-free schools which will make a difference. They talk about how they want to solve the drug problem, but then when we put up legislation that would add 100,000 police in many communities around the country, they vote against it. So, you know, if you look at the drug problem, I guess you can look at it from the point of view of prevention, which is what Safe and Drug-Free Schools is; you can look at it from the point of view of enforcement, which is what the Cops on the Beat Program is about; but, you know, if you do not spend money and prioritize your budget in those areas, then the drug problems are going to get worse. I think what the President has been saying and what the Democrats have been saying is, you have to put money and you have to prioritize these programs if you want to get a handle and you want to stop the drug problem. And they do not do it. They talk about it, but then they will go and, you know, pass legislation that will give all these tax breaks to wealthy people rather than worrying about selectively spending money in ways that will solve the drug problem, or will protect the environment, or will deal with the need to pay for higher education. And that is what we have been saying for the last 2 years. We want to balance the budget. I think you mentioned already that in the last 4 years, the deficit has gone down every year. The President is making more of an effort to balance the budget and reduce the deficit than any President in the last 20 to 30 years. But he wants to prioritize, as Democrats in Congress do; we want to prioritize spending where it is going to make a difference.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today in support of the Water Resource Development Act of 1996 conference report. I would like to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and our ranking Democrats, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], for their dedication to getting this bill passed in the 104th Congress. I would also like to thank my colleagues the gentlemen from New Jersey, Bob Franks and Bob Menendez, for their efforts on behalf of the Jersey shore and the Port of New York and New Jersey. This long-awaited bill contains several provisions that are vital to stopping ocean dumping of contaminated dredged materials in New Jersey while protecting jobs in the Port of New York and New Jersey. With this bill, we finally have Federal-local cost sharing of confined disposal facilities, so ports can be dredged and the sediments disposed of in a safe environmental manner. In addition, this bill reauthorizes a cutting edge sediment decontamination project for the New York-New Jersey Harbor area. Finally, and very important, thanks to the efforts of the House Coastal Caucus as well as the Senate Coastal Coalition, and the support of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, this bill also maintains the role of the Army Corps of Engineers in much needed shore protection. These are projects that are important to the millions of Americans who live on the coast and whose livelihoods are dependent on the coastal tourism industry.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago at approximately this time the Republicans held their signing ceremony for their Contract with America and its centerpiece, the crown jewel, the tax break, that would have primarily benefited wealthy Americans. Shortly thereafter, the Gingrich-Dole revolution began, and attempts were made to make the largest Medicare cuts in history and the healthy care guarantees for children, families, and seniors, and the disabled under the Medicaid Program, turn back the clock on environmental protection, cut student loans, and eliminate the 100,000 Cops on the Beat Program and other effective tools for fighting crime. The net results of these extreme Gingrich-Dole proposals was the Government shutdown of 1995, and it was the Democrats that ultimately stopped these extremist Republican measures. One would think that the Gingrich-Dole team learned their lesson, but now we hear a repeat, if my colleagues will, on an even grander scale, with Dole's new economic plan that would usher in more extremism and draconian cuts to vital programs. Again the Democrats will be there stopping this Republican extremism.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the fifth anniversary of the independence of the Armenian Republic, which was celebrated this past Saturday, September 21. Madam Speaker, the story of the Armenian people, one of the world's most ancient and enduring cultures, is an inspiring saga of courage, devotion to family and nation, and, most dramatically, the triumph over adversity and tragedy. Earlier in this century, in one of history's most horrible crimes against humanity, 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children were slaughtered by the Ottoman Turkish Empire. Every April, Members of this House join in commemoration of the Armenian genocide. We can never relent, and we will not relent, in out efforts to remind the world that this tragedy is a historic fact--despite the efforts of so-called revisionists to deny the truth--and to make sure that our Nation, the world community, and especially the Turkish nation, come to terms with and appropriately commemorate this historic fact. But today, Madam Speaker, I want to talk about a much more joyous occasion in the great history of the Armenian people. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 allowed the Armenian people to finally achieve a true sense of nationhood, to create a society where their language, culture, religion, and other institutions would be able to prosper. The progress made in 5 short years by the Republic of Armenia has been an inspiration--not only for the sons and daughters of the Diaspora, but for all Americans who support the cause of freedom. Having survived the genocide, and living for decades under the yoke of the Soviet Union, the brave people of Armenia have endeavored to build a free and proud nation, based on the principles of democracy and a market economy. Madam Speaker, as they have for so much of their history, the Armenian people have accomplished all this against daunting odds. The tiny, land-locked Republic of Armenia is surrounded by hostile neighbors who have imposed blockades that have halted the delivery of basic necessities. Yet, independent Armenia continues to persevere and even prosper. While democracy has proven to be elusive in much of the former Soviet bloc, democratic Armenia held parliamentary elections last year and will hold nationwide presidential elections later this year. As the founder and cochairman, with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], of the Congressional Caucus on Armenia Issues, I consider United States-Armenia relations to be one of our key foreign policy objectives. Support for Armenia is in our practical interests, helping to support a stable nation in a strategically important and often unstable part of the world. Standing by Armenia is also consistent with America's calling to support democracy and human rights, and to defend free peoples throughout the world. In the ongoing debate over the foreign operations bill for fiscal year 1997, congressional friends of Armenia are working, on a bipartisan basis, to provide humanitarian and development aid for Armenia while trying to limit assistance to Turkey and block any funds from going to Azerbaijan until those countries lift their blockades of Armenia. Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize that the people of Armenia want good relations with their neighbors and the entire would community, and I believe the moral, political and economic power of the United States can go a long way toward helping Armenia achieve that goal. Madam Speaker, the Republic of Armenia--and friends of Armenia here in the United States--have had much to celebrate recently. Earlier this year, a beautiful new embassy building was opened. It was a great honor and privilege for me to be there for the dedication ceremony, joined by colleagues from this House and the Senate, Armenian political and religious leaders, and members of the community to help inaugurate a real, functioning Embassy, located in the very heart of the Embassy Row area, side by side with many of the world's other great nations. The existence of this Embassy is a tribute to the efforts and dedication of the Armenian-American community--just as the very existence to the Republic of Armenia as an independent nation and state is a triumph of the indomitable will of the people of Armenia to overcome every imaginable obstacle and disadvantage to create a new democracy from one of the world's most ancient nations. Madam Speaker, I hope that by the time we mark the 10th anniversary of the Republic of Armenia, we can look back with pride on building peace in prosperity in the entire Transcaucasus region, so that the people of Armenia and their neighbors can enjoy a stable, hopeful future. I hope that the Republics of Turkey and Azerbaijan will have responded positively to Armenia's offer to normalize relations, exchanging diplomats, and allowing the free flow of goods and people across their borders. I hope that, with the active participation of the United States, we will have resolved the question of Nagorno-Karabagh, the Armenian enclave located within Azeri borders, to guarantee the security and self-determination of the people of Karabagh. I hope that the effort to tap the vast Caspian Sea oil reserves will finally culminate in the construction of a pipeline carrying the oil west to Mediterranean ports through Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Turkey--thereby further linking those neighbors in mutually beneficial security and economic ties. While I prefer to stress the positive, in the real world of 1996 I will work with my fellow supporters of Armenia to make sure that turkey and Azerbaijan are not rewarded for their intransigence towards their neighbor Armenia. We must continue to enforce section 907, banning direct United States Government aid to Azerbaijan, until that country lifts its blockade of Armenia. We must continue to enforce the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which would cut off aid to Turkey for its blockade of Armenia. We must guard against any tilt by this administration, or any future administration, toward the Turkish and Azeri sides. Madam Speaker, this anniversary is being marked by a series of events. Last weekend, the Armenian National Committee of America's New Jersey and New York chapters held a series of events the greater New York area, including a concert and a picnic. On Saturday, September 21, the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America held a formal banquet and a cultural program in New York. Tonight, Tuesday, September 24, the Armenian Assembly of America, in conjunction with the Congressional Causus on Armenian Issues, will hold a reception over in the Senate. And on Friday, the Ambassador of Armenia to the United States, His Excellency Mr. Rouben Shaugarian, will host a reception at the Embassy. Madam Speaker, I hope to see some of my colleagues at these upcoming events, whether they have been a long-standing friend of Armenia or are merely interested in learning about his new--and yet most ancient-- country. It is an honor for me to pay tribute to the fifth anniversary of Armenia's Independence, and I look forward to commemorating many more anniversaries in the future.