Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say that I believe this is a very important provision on a bipartisan basis for the State of New Jersey. I used to represent Toms River, which was actually part of Dover township before the redistricting. Of course, now it is represented by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. I know the concerns of the people in the area with regard to this cancer cluster or the possibilities that exist in terms of the source of it. So I do believe that the funding to be made available for this health analysis is really crucial not only to Toms River, but something that we need as a delegation in our State to see effected. So I would like to join with my colleagues, the gentlemen from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Zimmer, and others, in support of the amendment and ask that I be considered a cosponsor of the amendment or however they are proceeding.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, since the chairman, the ranking member and others have all accepted this, I just want to thank them for that. I do believe this is a very important amendment. I just want to give an example from my State to show that this is not only important to the community at large but also for businesses, because in New Jersey the information from the toxic release inventory has actually been used in order for companies to streamline their permitting process. In cases where we have had, say, 30 permits that had to be granted to a company, sometimes now there is only one because of the information that has been provided. So it is not only good government, if you will, from the point of view of the right to know and the community's right to know, but also for business's right to know because oftentimes they can use that information also to their advantage in terms of streamlining the permitting process. I just wanted to again thank the gentleman from Illinois for introducing this. I think that every effort that we make to increase right to know is important to this Congress and to the public in general.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, could I be recognized on the point of order?

Mr. PALLONE. Again on the point of order, what I do not understand, listening to my friend from New York again, is that if in fact we need to have an authorization for the Superfund program and we need to have a----

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in favor of the amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last Thursday a group of senior Republicans on the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure proclaimed that House Republicans are willing to put ``our money where our mouths are'' on the issue of Superfund reform. These same Republicans also said that they were putting more money into the program than the Democrats ever did. Well, I do not think that is the case, Mr. Chairman. While Republicans say they are appropriating $2.2 billion for Superfund in this bill, I think my colleagues should take a good, hard look at a provision on page 68 of this bill that sets aside $861 million of that appropriation to pay for the Superfund reform. You see, the $861 million is available only if Congress enacts future legislation to appropriate it. So in essence this is future spending that may or may not ever occur. The amendment that myself and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] have simply strikes that contingency and would truly fund the Superfund Program at $2.2 billion this year. Our amendment gives the Republicans the chance to make good on their promise. If extra Superfund money really does exist, it should be available immediately and for the purpose it was intended. Mr. Chairman, if the money is really in the bill, then why should it be subject to a point of order. All we are saying is that if it is there, it should be used now for cleanups and not later. My fear also is that this money will only be available if Congress enacts a Superfund reform bill that allows the money to be given back as rebates to polluters, which is one of the provisions in the Republican Superfund bill that has come before the Committee on Commerce. Mr. Markey is going to address this issue later so I will not discuss it now, but the bottom line is if this money is not available this year, then basically we are appropriating about $55 million less than the President requested for the Superfund Program. I would like to see the money spent this year. The EPA has already told me that they would use the additional money to begin 70 to 90 additional cleanups in communities across the country. They would expand the brownfields program, promote more voluntary cleanups and further fund Superfund administrative reforms. There are 107 sites still left on the national priority list, including 7 in my district. I should say, 9 in my district. And I know that Superfund is serious business, not only in New Jersey but also across the country. I just want to believe my friends on the other side of the aisle when they say they are committed to funding this program at $2.2 billion. If that is the case, here is your chance to prove it. Vote for our amendment. If you bring this point of order and you have it sustained, then you are admitting that the $2.2 billion figure is not real, that it is a sham. And if this point of order is sustained and the money is not real, then I think you can figure out what that means for Republican Superfund reform proposals. We will not get the money. We will not have additional cleanups or the money is going to be available later as rebates to polluters which certainly is not something that is going to help either the taxpayers or the cause of Superfund reform. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment to a portion of the bill not yet read.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat amazed by what I am hearing on the other side, because earlier today when we discussed my amendment that simply would have required that this $861 million in contingency money for the Superfund Program be simply put to use this year to fund the Superfund Program and to make it possible to work on new sites and continue work on existing sites where work has already started, what I was hearing from my friends on the other side of the aisle in opposition to it, basically I got the impression they were denying that this money would ultimately be used for a rebate program that gives money back to the polluters. But having listened to some of the debate tonight, it seems like just the opposite. I do not know if anyone has specifically admitted on the other side that that is what this money would be used for, but they certainly do not seem to indicate that is a problem, using it for that purpose. Mr. Chairman, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot come in here earlier in the day, or last week in a press conference, and say, ``Oh, we are great because we are going to provide so much more money for the Superfund Program, we are going to do even more than the Democrats want, and then later on say, oh, well that money might be used for a rebate program, or we have to do all these changes to the Superfund Program first before we are going to make the money available, and we are not exactly sure that the money is going to be used for. That is the impression I am getting from the other side of the aisle. It scares me and makes it more crucial to have this amendment passed to make sure that the money will not be used, if it ever does become available, for this rebate program to polluters. Essentially, the debate this evening is on the Superfund Program. All of a sudden now, the Republicans, or most of them on the other side, are suggesting that what they are really all about here is that they want to dramatically change the Superfund Program. I would contend that what they really want to do is abolish the Superfund Program, or at least make it ineffective. The bottom line is that Superfund is working, contrary to the statements that my colleagues are making on the Republican side of the aisle. Sites are getting cleaned up. In my district, 7 of 9 sites are in some phase of cleanup. Nationally there are 1,284 sites on the national priority list, and in more than one quarter of them, or 346, construction has been completed, that means clean up. Construction has commenced at more than 470 other sites and final cleanup decisions have been made at about 150 other sites. So there are nearly 1,000 sites where construction has either been completed or begun, or a cleanup decision is made. I would point out that this administration has also cleaned up more toxic waste sites than in the previous 10 years. All it takes is an administration that cares about a Superfund Program, rather than one that does not believe in the Superfund Program. In the Committee on Commerce when we were marking up the Republican Superfund bill, there were many members who basically suggested we should not even have a Superfund at all and we should just let the States do their own thing with toxic waste clean up. I do not agree with that. I do agree with one statement that the gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of our subcommittee, made tonight when he said that this is a key vote. This is a key vote because basically this is the only amendment on the floor this year that will clearly define where people stand: Either you are for polluter pays, which is the basis for the Superfund Program, or you are for pay the polluter, which is what the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey have said. That is what this is all about. This appropriations bill will allow the Government to pay the polluter. I do not think that is right. I do not think that is the way the program should be set up. I also want to make mention of another theme that I keep hearing from the other side of the aisle. That is that somehow the Democrats on this side do not want to see the reforms in the Superfund Program that would help small businesses or help municipalities. In fact, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and the rest of us have repeatedly said we would exempt small businesses, the little guys who do not have the financial means to contribute to the cause of cleanup. We would exempt municipalities, residential homeowners, small nonprofits. We would exempt any person who contributed less than 110 gallons of liquid hazardous substance, 200 pounds. We would cap the liability. There is nothing in this amendment, there is nothing in this amendment that would preclude any of those changes in the Superfund Program from taking place. The reason we are offering this amendment is because we do not want to see change the cornerstone of the Superfund Program, and that is that the polluter should pay to clean up the mess, if you will, that he left behind. Once you get rid of that, you will not have an effective Superfund Program anymore. That is why this amendment is so crucial, and I would urge its adoption.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a simple up or down vote. The issue is whether or not Members want the polluter to pay or to pay the polluter. What the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], is saying is that in this case, particularly where there has been a consent order already entered into and the party who is the polluter has agreed that they are liable, there is no reason why they should be given a rebate from the Government and paid to pollute. It is a simple up or down vote and I would certainly urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will not use more than a minute or so. I wanted to point out, I am amazed. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] is basically getting this half right, I guess is the way to phrase it. But essentially what he is doing here is eliminating the liability or allowing rebates, if you will, for those who have entered into consent orders and admitted liability. So if a polluter said, ``Look, I did this,'' and enters into the consent decree, then they can still get a rebate check. For the life of me, I do not understand why we should allow that if someone has admitted guilt, so to speak, and said that they contributed to the mess. I think it is commendable that the gentleman is going halfway and agreeing with the rest of the Markey amendment, but I totally oppose the idea that just because there is a consent order outstanding that someone has entered into, that somehow that person should continue to be able to get a rebate. It goes against the grain in terms again of what the Superfund program is all about, and the idea is that those who polluted should pay.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say, first of all, it is very easy to come on the floor and start disparaging the lawyers. There are a lot of lawyers involved in a lot of things in this place including on the floor of this House. What did Voltaire say: the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers. Maybe that is what the gentleman wants to do, but I do not think that is the issue here tonight. The issue here tonight is whether or not the corporations and the individuals who polluted these sites and created the mess are going to be responsible for cleaning them up. If we eliminate that as a basic tenet of the Superfund Program, it will no longer be a viable program. The taxpayers will be basically paying for things that will not happen because there will not be enough money to do the cleanup. The gentleman mentioned my district specifically. Of the nine sites in my district, seven of them I mentioned are in various phases of cleanup but most of them are in very advanced stages where they are actually doing just monitoring now of the overall program. One site has actually been deleted from the list. Again the gentleman talks about our side of the aisle. This administration, as I said before, has done more cleanups in the last few years than have done in the whole 10 years prior to that of the Superfund Program. It has also deleted more sites from the NPL list than any previous administration. So we are talking here about a Democratic administration that cares about the program, that believes in the program, that wants to make certain changes in the program that are beneficial but still keep the program intact. What you want to do tonight, and I am amazed when I listen to the debate on the floor, is destroy and get rid of the program. I just wanted to make one additional comment again based on my friend from New York and what he said about this codisposal option, because that upsets me a great deal. One of the sites that I have is in advanced stages of cleanup in Edison, NJ. It is called the Kin-Buc site, one of the most hazardous sites, the most toxic sites in this country. If any of you went there today to see what has been done at that site, it is amazing how much cleanup, what has actually been done. It not only looks beautiful, it is working. The Superfund Program works. But if what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] described for codisposal were to come in play and become the law, that site would never be cleanup up today. Because under his proposal, if there is any municipal waste or a substantial amount of municipal waste that goes to a landfill, which is what the Kin-Buc site is, then there is no longer any liability on the part of the polluters to clean up the site. If they have already spent money to spent money to clean up, which they have done at Kin-Buc, then they get reimbursed, which is what this is all about, rebates to the polluters. If on the other hand they have not cleanup it up yet, then the responsibility is turned over to the taxpayers to pay the cost of the cleanup. That means that cleanup does not occur. The bottom line here, and I think everyone has to understand this, you eliminate the polluter pays principle. You make these changes that they have to do the cleanup and you will not see progress on Superfund sites. You can talk here all you want about all the lawyers and about the various stages of cleanup and how you think the program is not working. The bottom line is the program is working. What you are proposing will make the cleanups stop. That is what the other side is all about. I have heard it said over and over again, we do not need a Superfund Program. Let the States do the job. The job cannot be done by the States. If we do not pass this amendment tonight, and we do not get away from this notion that we are going to pay rebates to the polluters, we are not going to see the Superfund Program as a viable program anymore. That is the bottom line.

Mr. PALLONE. If the gentleman will yield further, I understand what the gentleman is about, but the gentleman's proposal is not necessary and is counterproductive. We can have exemptions for small businesses, we can have exemptions for municipalities. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] has indicated and I have indicated and all of us have indicated that we do not have a problem with that and this amendment does not preclude that. But if you go along with this codisposal site that basically says because municipal, household waste, whatever, goes into a landfill or a site and that means that there is no longer liability for the people, the generators of most of the hazardous waste, then in effect what you are doing is eliminating liability for the corporations in the case of Kin- Buc, in my own district, that had to do the cleanup, and there is not going to be the taxpayer money to do that cleanup. It will not happen. amendment offered by mr. boehlert as a substitute for the amendment offered by mr. markey

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, we have heard the arguments over and over: by engaging with China, we can influence the behavior of the Chinese Government with regards to fair trade, human and labor rights, and proliferation. Members on both sides of the aisle have repeatedly expressed skepticism about this approach, and events continue to prove us right. Recently, a disturbing new rationale for denying MFN has come to light: China has become the major contributor to weapons proliferation and instability in Asia, with Pakistan being one of the major recipients of Chinese nuclear technology and delivery systems. As has been reported in the media recently, there is undeniable evidence from our own intelligence agencies that Pakistan has deployed nuclear-capable Chinese M-11 missiles, obtained through a secretive transfers that both countries have tried to cover up. Yet, incredibly, despite the overwhelming evidence, the administration seems unwilling to impose the tough economic that both nations clearly deserve. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the dangerous, destabilizing transfers of advanced weapons and nuclear technology from China to Pakistan have gone unpunished. Earlier this year, we failed to punish China or Pakistan for the transfer of 5,000 ring magnets, devices used for the production of weapons-grade enriched uranium. We officially bought into the unbelievable Chinese Government explanation that they were unaware of the transfer. We also went ahead with the transfer of $368 million in United States conventional weapons to Pakistan. Mr. Speaker, it's time to get tough with China, Pakistan and other nations contributing to the spread of nuclear weapons. Denying MFN to China is a good place to start, an effective way to show that we're serious about nonproliferation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I have never addressed the issue of the Speaker's ethics problems, but I am very concerned about what I read in the Los Angeles Times today. I do believe there is a need for a wider probe of the Speaker's use of nonprofit foundations for political purposes and appointment of an independent counsel. This information about the Earnings by Learning project which basically was trying to help third grade students read, and now we find out that the majority of the money was actually paid to individuals who were associated with the Gingrich campaign and with the Republican campaign. It is inappropriate to use tax-exempt foundations that are for nonprofit purposes to help children and then turn around and have the majority of that money used for political purposes. Now we are finding out that this is not just true in one case; this is true for a number of these tax-exempt foundations that were set up by Speaker Gingrich and that were associated with him. The time has come for an independent counsel to look into every one of these foundations. Anything less than that is really a betrayal of the American people.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have taken to the floor many times in the last few months to talk about the need to pass health insurance reform, the bill that was originally sponsored by Senators Kennedy and Kassebaum on a bipartisan basis that would try to achieve significant reform in the areas of portability and preexisting conditions. I have also been very critical of the Republican leadership in the House which continues to press an amendment or an addition, if you will, to the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill that would include medical savings accounts. I have referred to the medical savings accounts as the poison pill that basically will bring down health insurance reform this year and could very well make it impossible to pass any health insurance reform that would address the issues of portability and preexisting conditions. I mention this today on the floor, Mr. Speaker, because there was an excellent editorial in the Star Ledger, which is New Jersey's largest circulation daily, which essentially addressed the issue of health insurance reform as well as medical savings accounts and pointed out how significant this legislation is in terms of providing additional health insurance for many Americans who lose their health insurance when they lose a job or because of a prior medical condition. The editorial also details to some extent, I would say, why we should not include medical savings accounts if we ever want to see health insurance reform and to see more Americans covered by health insurance. So Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to read, if I could, some relevant sections of this editorial that was in the New Jersey Star Ledger today, because I think it really says it all in terms of where we are going or should be going with this health reform issue. It starts out and it says: The latest census bureau study says that 66.6 million people, one of every five Americans, will lose their medical coverage for a month or more during any 28-month period. That means a huge part of the population is always vulnerable to a major health care problem. It also makes it clear why Congress must stop playing games and pass a bill that would help protect people who get caught between jobs and lose their health coverage. In the same time it takes for you to lose your coverage and get it back, your new insurance company can, and most likely will, stamp ``prior and existing illness'' on any condition you have, on anything that turns up within the first few months of the new coverage, whether it's pregnancy, cancer, heart disease, or your child's asthma--and the company will refuse to pay. So, to the list of the chronically uninsured, you can add those who have insurance that does a fat lot of good for the health problems they face. This addresses the problem of preexisting conditions. The most vulnerable are people who are laid off or switch jobs, including those who switch to better jobs where the health benefits may be improved but come with a waiting period before the coverage kicks in. It's the kind of thing that can make a bigger paycheck smaller faster tan you can say, ``Why doesn't someone do something about this?'' Mr. Speaker, the Star Ledger says that, ``Somebody is trying.'' They point out that, ``the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, sponsored by one Democrat and one Republican, would restrict the insurance companies' ability to impose waiting periods or deny coverage for existing health problems. The bill would give people who are caught between jobs a better change of holding on to health coverage that means something. It is a conservative and useful beginning to health care reform.'' However, ``the bill is bogged down because some of the same people who have been telling us we do not need to tinker with the health care system could not resist tinkering with this bill and they've added all sorts of amendments, including one that would allow medical savings accounts. ``Medical savings accounts are offered as a way for everyone to self- insure by putting money in tax-sheltered accounts as an alternative to buying coverage. ``Of course, since most people cannot afford health insurance premiums, it's not likely most can sock away as much cash as it would take to cover the family's medical needs. That is why medical savings accounts are nothing but a tax break that would cost the Government and benefit only the wealthy as well as a heavy Republican contributor pushing this approach.'' What the Star Ledger is saying in this editorial, Mr. Speaker, is that it is time for us in the House of Representatives, as well as in the Senate, to push forward with health insurance reform that will help those who change jobs, the issue of portability, or help those who lose their job, or help those who have preexisting conditions. Too many Americans, anywhere from 40 to 60 million Americans, could benefit from this legislation, and it is simply being held up because the Republican leadership insists on including these medical savings accounts simply because of special interests. They received something like $1.2 million in the last few years from the Golden Rule Insurance Co., which is pushing these accounts. It is time for real health insurance reform.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because the rule contains language that would amend the appropriation legislation to make $861 million of Superfund money contingent upon a future appropriation. Mr. Speaker, basically what happened is about a week ago, many of the Republicans involved in this legislation and some of the projects announced that they were going to provide significant funds for the Superfund program in this appropriations bill. But what we found out is that a significant part of that money, as I said, $861 million, is essentially not real. It was put in with a contingency that the Superfund bill would be reauthorized. Apparently the parliamentarian correctly ruled that that would have to be scored as an allocation under the appropriation which would raise the appropriation to a level that was unacceptable based on the allocations that had been provided by the Republican leadership. And so now in the rule the language is changed to say that this money is contingent upon a future appropriation. Well, when an appropriation is contingent upon a future appropriation, essentially there is no appropriation at all. What that means is that in a sense we are being told that money for the Superfund program will be made available that is not going to be made available. The level of funding for the Superfund program is actually about $50 million less than what the administration proposed. In addition to that, there is every reason to believe that the idea behind this $860 million is to ultimately give it back to polluters in the forms of rebates, because the Superfund reauthorization bill that has been proposed by the Republican leadership would require the Federal Government to rebate to the polluters for moneys that they have already spent in cleaning up Superfund programs. That is not the way to go. The principle of the Superfund program is that the polluter pays, not the taxpayer. It would be wrong to sneak into this bill this kind of contingency that would suggest that that money would be going back to the polluters. Mr. Speaker, I am going to have some amendments later with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] to address these problems, and I would hope that I could get support from my colleagues.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just listened to what my colleague from North Carolina said, and I agree with everything he said, but the problem is that the bill, as it came out of the Committee on Commerce on a bipartisan basis, was appropriate this morning for action on the suspension list. Normally, as we all know, we put bills on the suspension list if they had been agreed to on both sides, if they are good government and we want to get them moving in an expedited fashion. The problem is that somehow when this bill left the Committee on Commerce, all these pork projects were added to it, and that now jeopardizes the legislation, which is really sad. This was a bill that was to be a model for a bill that we could get together on a bipartisan basis that would help from an environmental point of view, that would help with the public health. We had the President's support. the legislation that came out of the Committee on Commerce was very similar to what passed the Senate. So we were expediting it because we felt we could get it to the President's desk and be signed into the law. All of that is out the window now because of the action that was taken by the Republican leadership. And I think it is a real shame because, because of the addition of these particular projects which are earmarked in the bill and not on an objective basis, that means now that we jeopardize the possibility of it passing the House on an expedited basis, we jeopardize the possibility of coming to an agreement quickly with the Senate and also getting the President to sign the bill. And I just wanted to say for those who are saying that it is not true that there are specific earmarks or pork in this bill, I am just reading from the report language that says that the administrator is directed to provide priority consideration to the following projects, and then 13 or 14 projects are specifically listed as having to be prioritized. That goes against the objective criteria that were put in the bill in the Committee on Commerce. Basically, the money in this fund was supposed to be divided between the States on an objective formula, and they would decide to focus the money on projects that address the most serious health risks. This is no longer the case, and that is why we have to oppose this bill on the suspension list.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Stella Podbelski Kukulski of Sayreville, NJ, a valued and cherished member of our community who recently passed away. Stella Kukulski lived her entire life in Sayreville. She served with distinction as a valued employee for Sunshine Biscuit in Sayreville for 17 years before her retirement in 1981 and as a supervisor for the Marion Dress Company in South River, NJ, where she worked for 40 years. For her involvement in community service, Stella Kukulski was well respected and admired. She served as a member of the Sayreville Saint Stans Seniors Club, the Sayreville Senior Citizens Thursday Club, and as a charter member of the Union of Polish Women Group 81. Her deep faith and generosity was consistently demonstrated as a communicant of Our Lady of Victories Roman Catholic Church in Sayreville, and as member of its Rosary Society. As a testimony to the high esteem in which Stella Kukulski was held, the New Jersey General Assembly enacted a resolution, introduced by Assemblyman John Wisniewski who represents Sayreville in the State legislature, paying tribute to the memory of Stella Kukulski and extending profound sympathy and sincere condolences to her family. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to join in paying tribute to Stella Kukulski, an exceptional person who will be deeply missed by all those who knew her.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to criticize the Gingrich-Dole Medicare cuts because basically they are being used to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. They open the door for doctors to overcharge seniors beyond current copayment ceilings, and basically force seniors into managed care and eliminate their choice of doctors. But now these tax breaks are coming at the very time when, in today's New York Times, it is reported that the income disparity between the poorest and the richest continues to rise. The Census Bureau said today that the gap between the most affluent Americans and everyone else is wider than it has been since the end of World War II, and the Bureau has determined that from 1968, when the gap began to widen, to 1994, the last year for which complete data were available, each indicator has shown a pronounced increase between the gap in the income of the well-to-do and those of the poor and working class. So why do we continue to make these Medicare cuts in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy? The income disparity in this country has never been as great, and it just indicates once again why the Gingrich Republicans and the Republican leadership continue to play to the special interests, and that is the wealthy Americans, with these tax cuts.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Farr amendment as well. I agree with the comments that my colleague on the other side from Florida made. Just looking at the land acquisition funds that have been available through the Land And Water Conservation Fund, particularly for the two programs that New Jersey has most benefited from in the last few years, I am looking at for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for fiscal year 1994 $83 million; and then in 1995 $67 million; in 1996 $37 million; and now proposed, my understanding, for fiscal year 1997 is $30 million. Every year at least since 1994 that amount has been going down. The same with the National Park Service. Fiscal 1994 $95 million; fiscal 1995 $85 million; fiscal 1996 $49 million; and my understanding for fiscal 1997 proposed $30 million. The bottom line is that the Federal Government has been less and less able to provide for open space acquisition which is so important, particularly for a State like mine. New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the country. There are many projects out there through the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as the Park Service or the Forest Service where we would like to see additional acquisition for open space to alleviate, if you will, some of the problems of high density so that people have a place where they can enjoy themselves, have recreational opportunities, whatever. I think the point here and the point of the Farr amendment is that these opportunities are decreasing because the Federal Government has not been able to provide the funds. Similarly although the States try oftentimes to provide funding, they have, because of budget cuts and because of their own constraints, not been able to make up for the difference. So I think what the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] is essentially saying here is that here is our opportunity to take some money from another fund, in this case the fossil energy R&D where to some extent the oil companies which I know have been making windfall profits this year, we have all heard about that, we all know what is going on with the oil companies and they should be able to pay a little more so that we can release more money that can actually be used for open space acquisition. I think it is a very simple amendment, it makes the point clearly, that if we want to reverse the situation and see the Federal Government involved in more land acquisition, more open space acquisition, this is certainly the way to go.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Vento amendment which I understand would basically increase the National Park Service operations enough to bring the funding up to the President's request for fiscal year 1997, basically to stress that the Park Service operation funds, more funding essentially is needed for both operating national parks as well as to construct and maintain Park Service facilities that are used by many Americans. In my own district the demand for outdoor opportunities and recreation services continues to grow, and yet funding for the Park Service is shrinking, which does not make any sense to me. I have in my own district the Sandy Hook unit of Gateway National Recreation Area, which is basically used by millions of people in the highly urbanized New York-New Jersey metropolitan area. If I could just use that as an example, there are many needs right now at Sandy Hook that are not being met, not only in terms of facilities but even in terms of basic access to Sandy Hook. Just continued access to the park and sufficient water availability for fire fighting needs, for example, are a problem. I did want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], because there is report language in the bill acknowledging the problem at Sandy Hook and recognizing that there is an access problem, and I do appreciate Chairman Regula including that. But I have to say that I do think we need more money for the Park Service. The Vento amendment would increase funding for the overall benefit of the American public and it takes it, I know, by reducing funding for construction of timber roads. But I do think that we need to recognize--and that is what the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] does--the fact that there is a need for more operational funds as well as for construction of facilities and other opportunities throughout the country. I also wanted to say, I know we passed it by, but I did want to also support the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] with regard to the National Wildlife Refuge system. Again if I could use New Jersey as an example, we are faced with very serious environmental problems, many of which are the result of human accelerated environmental changes, especially due to the high population density in my State. Whether it is coastal waters, migratory birds, fish or other wildlife resources under Federal trusteeship, it is only because of the national wildlife system that we have about five areas now in New Jersey that are protected. I was able to get a few years ago an extension of the service for another 2,000 acres of sensitive wetlands, but again there are a lot of unmet needs in my district as well as throughout the State. Until we are able to get some additional funding to the Fish and Wildlife service for acquisition, these needs are not going to be met. I realize that we are dealing with budget priorities and we are trying to reduce the deficit, but I do think that this is one area where most Americans and certainly those in my home State feel that the priorities should be to provide additional funding rather than the level of cutbacks that we have seen in the last few years.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, both Democrats and Republicans support a health care reform bill that would essentially make it easier for people to get health insurance if they lose their jobs or change jobs, or also if they have a preexisting medical condition. The problem, though, is that the Republican leadership continues its effort to add on what I call the poison pill to this health care reform bill, and that is the medical savings accounts. Essentially what they want to do is encourage healthy and wealthier people to opt out of the traditional insurance pool that we have for most health insurance and leave in the insurance pool the people who are sicker, who have less money and, therefore, drive up insurance costs, premium costs. Last night I heard some of my colleagues on the Republican side talk about how they wanted an MSA demonstration project, but that it is not enough to just have it for employers of 15 employees or less, they want it for 100 employees or less. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, if you include these MSA's in this health insurance reform, you will destroy health insurance reform. The President will not sign it. The Democrats will not support it. The end result is to increase premiums for the average American.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I went to the Second Baptist Church in Long Branch, my hometown, last Sunday to talk to a very concerned crowd about why this legislation is so important. It is time to relentlessly investigate and swiftly prosecute perpetrators of these crimes. We must have a public outcry condemning these mindless church burnings, and it must be bipartisan and multiracial. Those people who gain politically and financially from fueling hatred in our society today should recognize the effects of their words. I say to those who perpetrate these heinous crimes that the days of the night riders are over. The days when African-Americans had to take cover by nightfall in hopes of seeing another day are over. This country will not go back to a time when hatred and intimidation through terrorism was the law of the land.