Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we also support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we also support this bill on our side of the aisle, and urge its adoption.

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, this is a noncontroversial bill, and I would urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to H.R. 956, the so- called Common Sense Product Liability Legal Reform Act. H.R. 956 would pre-empt State law to require a $250,000 cap on punitive damage awards. Punitive damages are not compensation to a victim--through they serve that purpose--they are intended as punishment to businesses that are negligent. Punitive damage awards serve as a deterrent to bad actors in the market place who put explosive water heaters or automobiles on the market. It forces companies to be very careful and it forces them not to cut corners in an attempt to make a few dollars more. It does not take a degree in math to realize that a $250,000 punitive damage award is hardly a deterrent to negligent Fortune 500 companies that rake in hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars each year. In fact, what this fixed figure does is allow companies to carefully calculate the costs and benefits of being negligent. Right now, because punitive damage awards are uncertain, the maker of a gas heater that has a faulty valve has no idea how much the company will lose as a result of successful suits against its faulty product. But under this bill, all that manufacturer would have to do is figure out how many of those heaters will explode, multiply by $250,000 and then compare that with expected profits. If profits outweigh damage awards, then you can bet that that deadly product will be out on the market. This bill also does not contain language that I and 257 of my colleagues supported to hold foreign manufacturers to at least the same silly standards in this bill. So if you lose your sight, or your arms, or your children because of some negligent U.S. manufacturer, you can take some solace in the fact that you will get limited compensation, and the manufacturer will have to pay a little bit of money for being bad. But, if you lose a family member or your legs as a result of some faulty product from a foreign manufacturer, you get nothing. That company gets away scot-free, because H.R. 956 gives foreign manufacturers a free ride on the health, safety, and welfare of American consumers. I also find it ironic that Republicans--who have harped on the issue of States rights for many years--have put together a bill that tramples on States rights. Currently, States enjoy the right to impose either ceilings or floors on punitive damages; however, this legislation would impose a ceiling while still allowing States to enact even lower damage caps. A similar situation exists with regard to the statute of repose which is capped at 15 years. In addition, a provision was recently added to the bill that would pre-empt the law in numerous States governing the liability of certain utilities, including gas pipelines. The truth is time after time in this Congress, Republicans have put special corporate interests ahead of the needs of the average American. That is why I wrote to the President recently urging him to veto H.R. 956, and I ask that the text of my letter be made part of the Record. This is just the latest in a series of efforts to undermine consumer protection at the expense of the health and safety of the average American. This undermining of American health and safety law represents a sea change from the consensus that reigned here for many years. But things have changed, and they have changed for the worse. For example, early in the year, we passed a risk assessment bill that, if enacted, would have effectively repealed current statutory and regulatory standards designed to protect health, safety, and the environment. That bill contained language that in a mindless, sweeping way, would have wiped away decades of work done by Congress, and by State and Federal courts. And just today, as we were considering H.R. 965, Republicans were telling us that the Consumer Product Safety Commission--which each year helps prevent millions of injuries due to negligent manufacturers or faulty products--had outlived its usefulness because the people were well protected by our Nation's product liability laws. Mr. Speaker, we need to ensure public safety. We need to protect small children. But what we do not need is the H.R. 956 the corporate dollars and sense Product Liability Reform Act. I am sure the President will veto, and I hope my colleagues will sustain his veto and stop Republicans from gutting consumer protections for the benefit of corporate special interests. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, March 25, 1996. Hon. William J. Clinton, President of the United States, Washington, DC. Dear President Clinton: I am writing in support of your announced intention to veto H.R. 956, the Common Sense Product Liability Legal Reform Act. H.R. 956 would pre-empt state law to require a $250,000 cap on punitive damage awards. Currently, states enjoy the right to impose either ceilings or floors on punitive damages; however, this legislation would impose a ceiling while still allowing states to enact even lower damage caps. A similar situation exists with regard to the statute of repose which is capped at 15 years. In addition, a provision was recently added to the bill that would pre-empt the law in numerous states governing the liability of certain utilities, including gas pipelines. Also, it is clear that the threat of a $250,000 penalty is not a sufficient deterrent to irresponsible behavior in many instances. Nor is it adequate punishment for conduct that results in death or serious injury such as the loss of a limb. Coupled with the legislation's elimination of joint- and-several liability for noneconomic damages, this bill, if enacted, would definitively tip the balance against consumers and in favor of those who manufacture and market defective products. Finally, it is important to note that this legislation is not being considered in a vacuum. The Republican majority in Congress continues to attack public health, safety and consumer protection laws both through the authorization process and by underfunding the agencies that enforce those laws. Enactment of extreme legislation, like H.R. 956, taken together with these other efforts will surely threaten the health, safety and well being of all Americans. For these reasons, I urge you to veto H.R. 956. Sincerely, Frank Pallone, Jr., Member of Congress.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak, if I could for a few minutes, on the issue of independence for the Belarus Republic. Mr. Speaker, on March 22, 1996, Belarusan President, Aleksandr Lukashenka met with Russian President Boris Yeltsin to discuss a new union state. The following day, Lukashenka met with Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin to discuss the plan, which would politically, economically, and culturally tie Belarus with Russia. The collapse of the Soviet Union humiliated and disgraced this former global superpower. The Russian Duma has recently voted to declare void the 1991 agreement dissolving the Soviet Union--a declaration which America must clearly not recognize as having any validity. Now, in an attempt to save face and regain some of the lost Soviet power, President Yeltsin and President Lukashenka are acting to reintegrate the independent Republic of Belarus with Russia. This new confederacy, open to all of the former Soviet Republics, would place Russia at its core. The two leaders discussed the possibility of one currency and a single constitution. Belarus' geographical location puts it in a particularly vulnerable position for the reintegration plan. In addition, Belarusans were the last to leave the Soviet Union, while its government has been the most willing to rejoin forces with Russia. According to Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, the new union with Belarus and Russia would ``be built from two individual countries that would remain separate.'' In response to this new plan, last Sunday 15,000 members of the Belarusan Popular Front marched in the Belarusan capital of Minsk in opposition to the threat of reintegration. These marchers fear that President Lukashenka will in fact relinquish Belarus' current democratic sovereignty. As a supporter of the American-Belarusan community, and of those members of the Popular Front, I strongly believe that we must act to prevent this new union of Russia and Belarus. Accordingly, I am drafting a concurrent resolution that expresses the sense of Congress that we recognize March 24 as the anniversary of the proclamation of Belarusan independence, express our concern over the Belarusan Governments' infringement on freedom of the press in direct violation of the Helsinki accords and the constitution of the Republic of Belarus, and state our misgivings about the proposed association between Russia and Belarus. Mr. Speaker, it is particularly important at this moment in history that we proclaim our strong support for the Republic of Belarus and the other Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union. Events in both Moscow and in Minsk itself raise serious concerns about the long- term viability of an independent Belarus state and nation. Last Sunday, I had the opportunity to attend a commemoration of the establishment of the anniversary of the Belarusan Republic, sponsored by the Belarusan American Association of New Jersey and held in New Brunswick, NJ. How ironic that the very day on which Belarusan- Americans were celebrating their heritage, Belarusans in Minsk were protesting the new union between Russia and Belarus. On June 23, 1994, Belarus held its first multiparty Presidential elections since its independence, with a run-off election on July 10, 1994. The winner, Aleksandr Lukashanka, was a former Communist Party official and former head of the parliament's Anti-Corruption Committee. The Helsinki Commission, which observed the elections, proclaimed that the elections were conducted in conformance with international practices and that the results reflected the freely expressed will of the electorate. Unfortunately, those results have left the country with a President and government that has not shown the degree of commitment to democratic values, nor the independence from Moscow, that Belarusan- Americans and their friends had hoped for. Last fall, Belarus suddenly made it to page 1 news when an American hot-air balloon was shot down in what seemed like an event out of the cold war. For an American public clearly not overly familiar with Belarus, this incident clearly put the county in a very bad light. Belarusan-Americans condemned this action, just as they have condemned the anti-democratic excesses of the new government in Minsk. Clearly, Belarus is at an important crossroads. The unique language and culture of Belarus, which courageous Belarusans preserved during the years of Soviet domination, is now under attack--from no less a source than the Government of Belarus itself. While it is inevitable that the people of Belarus should feel some cultural affinity with their Russian neighbors, and seek to promote good relations in trade and other areas, the overly pro-Moscow tendencies of President Lukashanka should be questioned. Meanwhile, the ongoing Russian military action in Chechnya raises serious questions about the possibility of imperialistic designs by Russia on former nations under its empire--whether Czarist or Soviet. President Yeltsin, whose control over the situation seems to be less than secure, has bowed to nationalist and militarist forces in Moscow on the Chechnya question. Furthermore, President Yeltsin, whose health and popularity are both failing, may well be replaced by the Communist/ Russian nationalist forces who have made no secret of their desire to reunite the old Soviet Empire. While the official status of Chechnya as a part of the Russian Federation is different from the other independent former Soviet Republics, such as Belarus, Russian actions there are creating a very troubling precedent indicative of a desire by Moscow to reassert control over what the Russians call the near-abroad. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has sought to provide economic assistance to the Newly Independent States. Amid the pressures that many of these states are now under because of structural economic problems, ethnic tensions and the threat of Russian imperialism, we must maintain a strong commitment to helping these emerging nations achieve a democratic political system and a market economy. For nearly half a century, we devoted considerable sums to containing the Soviet threat. Now that the Soviet Union has collapsed, we have the opportunity, with much more modest levels of spending, to invest in the long-term stability of these formerly captive nations. Unfortunately, events are working against us. On the one hand, neo- isolationist forces in Congress are trying to diminish the American commitment to supporting freedom and economic reconstruction in the former Soviet Empire. The Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that finally became law earlier this year, after a long delay over an unrelated issue, shows an obvious lessening of the enthusiasm for American involvement in the former Soviet Union that seemed so intense just a few years ago. On the other hand, the trends in Russia, Belarus and elsewhere against reform and towards the election of former Communists is giving our isolationist forces here strong ammunition. March 25 is the actual date that Belarusans throughout the world salute the sacrifices and bravery of the members of the Council of the Belarusan Democratic Republic, who in 1918 liberated their country from the harsh and oppressive Czarist and Soviet rule. Representatives of the United Councils of the First Belarusan Convention, meeting in the capital city of Miensk (Minsk), issued a proclamation of independence of the Belarusan National Republic, adopted a national flag with three horizontal stripes--white, red and white--and received widespread international recognition. For the first time since 1795, the Belarusan nation re-emerged as an independent state. Despite the hardships from the First World War and the revolutionary turmoil in neighboring Russia, the Belarusan language, culture and national identity flourished. Unfortunately, the freedom and independence of the Belarusan nation did not last long. In 1921, Russia's Bolshevik regime invaded and conquered the newly independent state and renamed it the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. For the next 70 years, the Belarusan people endured a totalitarian Communists regime, denied the most basic civil and political rights. Millions of Belarusan nationals were exterminated. Although the Byelorussian SSR was officially considered a member of the United Nations since 1945, the country was in fact politically and militarily dominated by Moscow, with the Belarusans' aspirations for self-government and independence completed subverted. The Belarusan Parliament initially declared its independence back in July of 1990. Following the attempted coup against Soviet President Gorbachev in August of 1991, the Speaker of the Belarusan Supreme council, Stanislav Shuskevich invited Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk to Belarus in December 1991 to finally bury the moribund Soviet Union. In its place was established the Commonwealth of Independent States [CIS] with Miensk as its administrative seat. Although the Belarusan Parliament, as with many other emerging East European democracies, was dominated by former Communists, protections for Belarusan culture, as well as basic human rights, were enacted. Since my wife Sarah is part Belarusan, I have had the opportunity to become particularly familiar with this proud people. The Sixth Congressional District of New Jersey, which covers most of Middlesex County, is home to a significant Belarusan-American community. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Americans in general have had the opportunity to learn more about this distinct land and its culture. In 1994 President Clinton visited the Belarusan capital, and a variety of United States public and private sector initiatives have been launched in Belarus. Let us resolve to continue to improve the economic, security and cultural ties between the great peoples of the United States and the Republic of Belarus. Mr. SPEAKER, I include for the Record the concurrent resolution. The concurrent resolution referred to is as follows: Whereas, the seedlings of an independent and democratic Belarus, for which generations of Belarusan patriots had fought and died, are now in danger of being swept away as a result of the policies of Belarusan President Alaksandr Lukashenka and the efforts of Russian nationalist leaders to reunite the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union; Whereas, March 25 is the date that Belarusans throughout the world salute the sacrifices and bravery of the members of the Council of the Belarusan Democratic Republic, who in 1918 liberated their country from the harsh and oppressive Czarist and Soviet rule. Representatives of the United Councils of the First Belarusan Convention, meeting in Miensk (Minsk), on March 25, 1918, issued a proclamation of independence of the Belarusan National Republic, adopted a national flag with three horizontal stripes of white, red and white, and subsequently received widespread international recognition Whereas, the Russian Duma in March 1996 has voted to declare void the 1991 agreement dissolving the Soviet Union; Whereas, the Government of President Lukashenka has monopolized the mass media, undermined the constitutional foundation for the separation of powers, suppressed the freedom of the press, defamed the national culture, narrowed the educational basis for patriotic upbringing of youth, maligned the Belarusan language, and undercut the ground for all-Belarusan unity. Now, therefore be it Resolved by the House of Representatives, That it is the Sense of the House of Representatives that, March 25 be recognized as the anniversary of the declaration of an Independent Belarusan State; Be it further resolved, That the United States press the Government of President Lukashenka to abide by the provisions of the Helsinki Accords and the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus and guarantee freedom of the press, allow for the flowering of Belarusan culture and enforce the separation of powers; Be it further resolved, That the Congress of the United States join with the people of Belarus and Belarusans throughout the world in the defending the statehood and democracy of Belarus, sustaining the country's Constitution and preventing the loss by Belarus of its hard-won nationhood and its opportunity to survive as an equal and full-fledged member-state among the sovereign nations of the world.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have offered this motion to recommit with instructions with my colleague from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy] because I am concerned that we are about to go down a perilous path of ending any chances of health insurance reform. Our motion to recommit incorporates the Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema provisions without any additons. It would make it easier for workers who lose or change jobs to buy health coverage. It would limit the length of time that insurers could refuse to cover an applicant's preexisting medical problems. Mr. Speaker, there are two distinct choices that we can make with this next vote. This House can make the decision to support this motion and do the right thing for the American people, or the House can vote against this motion and tell the American people that it is more important to keep promises with various special interests. The Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema bill is crafted to keep premiums affordable, because it would not impact the insurance risk pool by encouraging healthy individuals to drop their coverage. It has bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The President has indicated that he will support the Roukema bill. The motion to recommit will ensure that this legislation is enacted into law. Mr. Speaker, why does the Republican leadership insist on messing up this legislation with controversial poison pill amendments? One of the provisions that the Republican leadership insists on including is the medical savings accounts, which will favor the wealthy and healthy. MSA's will be just another tax shelter for the rich. Americans who do not choose to join the MSA's because of the high risks involved will see their health insurance premiums increase. The MSA's, among other extraneous provisions, will guarantee the failure of any health insurance reform in this Congress. We all know this, Mr. Speaker. The gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], who courageously took this floor tonight, has said as much. So has her counterpart in the other body, Senator Kassebaum. These women should not be vilified tonight. Instead, they should be thanked for doing the right thing for the American people. Mr. Speaker, let us all do the right thing tonight. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit if Members want health insurance reform this year. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that my colleague, the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] spoke just before me, because basically she pointed out that what we really need tonight is a clean bill, not loaded down with medical savings accounts and all the other things that are being suggested by the Republican leadership. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman was trying to address portability and preexisting conditions, essentially expand coverage for many people now who cannot get coverage, and also keep health insurance affordable, and she achieves that essentially by saying that if you lose your job or change jobs, the insurance companies still have to provide you with individual coverage. She also limits the situations where the insurance companies can refuse to cover you because of preexisting medical conditions. This is a very modest bill. We, on the Democratic side, managed to get 172 Members here to cosponsor her bill. In the Senate, there are 54 current cosponsors of the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, so we know we can move this legislation, and the legislation is good because it is very modest. It basically keeps the insurance pool intact. It does not encourage healthy people to opt out. It does not bring in a lot of new people who are unemployed or who cannot afford insurance or who are critically ill that would increase the costs of health insurance. But lo and behold, what do we get from the Republican leadership? They throw in the medical savings accounts, and what does that do? It breaks the risk pool. It breaks the insurance risk pool. Essentially what it does is to encourage healthy people and wealthy people to opt out and buy catastrophic coverage and get a tax break to put their money aside and leave everyone else in this risk pool so that they have to pay higher premiums, because it is going to cost more to insure them. It does the very thing, the very opposite, if you will, of what the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. Roukema, and Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy strove to do. Mr. Speaker, what will be the ultimate result of increasing the costs of health insurance who remain and do not opt for the medical savings accounts? there will be fewer people insured, fewer people insured.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. PALLONE. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, when I talk to my constituents about health insurance reform, basically they say, look, the quality of health care is good in this country, but the problem is a lot of people do not have health care coverage and the cost of health insurance keeps going on. So when we talk about the Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema bill, it accomplishes the goal of expanding coverage because a lot more people that have the problem with preexisting conditions or problems with portability should be able to get health insurance now who were not able to get it before. But on the issue of affordability, essentially by adding these medical savings accounts to this bill, which I think is a big mistake and will essentially kill the bill, what we are doing is making health insurance less affordable, going against the goal and what most people want. The reason is very simple, and that is why I do not understand some of the comments on the other side. Essentially the people who are going to take advantage of MSAs are people who have a lot of money, or people who are healthy who figure that they can put this money aside and have it collect, and they only need catastrophic health care coverage. People who are sicker and need to go to the doctor or the hospital more often are not going to be able to afford a medical savings account, because they will have to constantly shell out money to pay for the health care coverage that they are receiving. So what is essentially going to happen is that this risk pool is going to be split. The healthy and the wealthy are going to get out of the risk pool and have the MSAs. The people who are sicker or do not have as much money, probably who will be the majority, they will see their premiums go up; and in essence health insurance will be less affordable. Vote against the rule and vote against this Republican leadership bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, by adding these medical savings accounts to the health care reform bill today, the Republican leadership is essentially killing health care reform. What they are doing is making it possible for the wealthy and the healthiest among us to get into these medical savings accounts and take away their contribution from the risk pool, so that what is left is that the average person's premiums are going to go up, because if someone is not wealthy and they are not healthy and they have to stay in the traditional health insurance pool, they are actually going to have to pay more, and the bill is going to be less affordable. Do not load down this bill. Just listen to this quote from Senator Robert Bennett, a Republican who says, ``The Republicans on the House side are going to turn this bill into the vehicle to attach MSA's and other things, and if they do that, it'll die.'' That is what the Republican leadership is doing today, killing this bill with all this extraneous material that only helps wealthy people and exposes the rest of the country to higher premiums for their health insurance.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am here today, because I wanted to discuss the health care reform legislation that we expect to come to the House floor tomorrow. I was at the Committee on Rules earlier today, and at some point today this afternoon or this evening I would expect that they would report out a rule on the health care reform. My concern is that the bill that will come to the floor tomorrow, rather than being the very simple legislation that was called for and endorsed by President Clinton during his State of the Union Address, instead it would be a much more controversial bill loaded up with many provisions that cannot be agreed upon on a bipartisan basis in this House and in the Senate and that the rare opportunity that we have in this session in the next few weeks to pass meaningful health care reform essentially would be scuttled because of the language and because of the nature of the bill that Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership would bring to the floor tomorrow. Let me start out by saying that many of the Democrats that I work with were very pleased with it when the President, in his State of the Union Address, indicated that he would like to see brought to his desk and signed into law legislation that was initially sponsored in the Senate by Senator Kassebaum and also by Senator Kennedy on a bipartisan basis. The hallmark of this Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, if you will, is to address the issue of portability and the issue of preexisting conditions. Portability means your ability to take your health insurance with you, in other words, if you lose your job or you change jobs, that you would not lose your health insurance, that you would be able to carry it with you. In addition, when we talk about preexisting conditions, we are talking the fact that in many cases in many States, if an individual has a preexisting condition, health condition, where they are disabled or they were hospitalized for a period of time, that they find it difficult to buy health insurance because the insurers simply do not want to cover them because they think it is too much of a risk. It is estimated that something like 30 million Americans are impacted in some way because of problems associated with portability or preexisting conditions and that if this legislation, as originally introduced in the Senate by Senators Kennedy and Kassebaum, or here in the House, legislation that was introduced by the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. Roukema, who is my colleague, a Republican from the State of New Jersey, that if their bill were to become law, addressing these issues of portability and preexisting conditions, that about 30 million Americans would benefit in some way because they would be able to carry their insurance with them from one job to another or would be able to get health insurance even though they might have a preexisting condition. So when the President said that he was willing to sign this bill and urged the Congress in his State of the Union Address to move forward in passing this legislation, many of the Democrats were heartened, because we figured that even though this was a very small part of the health insurance reform, that it was something that was positive and we would like to see it moved. We had about, I think it is, up to 172 Democratic Members in this House who signed on as cosponsors to Congresswoman Roukema's bill and urged that the bill come to the floor exactly the way she had drafted the legislation. I should point out that I am actually the cochair, along with the gentlewoman from Missouri, Ms. McCarthy and the gentleman from California, Mr. Dooley, of the Democratic health care task force. We have two goals with our task force. One is to increase coverage, because we know a lot of Americans do not have health insurance coverage and the number that do not have coverage continues to grow. And a second goal is affordability. We know that health insurance is increasingly becoming more expensive and out of the reach of a lot of Americans. And so we would like to do what we can legislatively to make health insurance more affordable. Well, the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, the Roukema bill here in the House, achieves the purposes of increasing coverage, because more people would be able to obtain coverage through the portability and preexisting conditions provisions, and it certainly does not do anything to make health insurance less affordable. It might even help with the issue of affordability. So we were very happy with the legislation. Our task force endorsed the legislation. We had 172 Members of the House on the Democratic side that supported the legislation; very optimistic until we found out what the Republican leadership had in mind. We started to hear, a few weeks ago, that they were going to put this bill in various committees, that the various committees were going to come up with all sorts of approaches, some maybe which make sense, a lot which did not make any sense, that would be ideas or legislative provisions that would be added to the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, in an effort to try to load it up, if you will, with all kinds of controversial provisions that would make it more difficult to pass. Well, I believe that is what is happening. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that based on what the Committee on Rules is likely to do today, even though myself and other urged them not to, that the bill that comes to the floor tomorrow is going to be a lot more controversial and a lot more complex and a lot more loaded down with provisions that are not necessarily good for the American people and that the bill tomorrow is likely to have provisions providing for MSA's, which are medical savings accounts, it is likely to deal with malpractice issues, it is likely to deal with antitrust issues, it is likely to deal with a myriad of issues that have nothing to do with the original Kennedy- Kassebaum. What that means is the Republican leadership is bringing this bill to the floor loaded down with all of these controversial provisions and essentially will kill the bill, because it will not pass. Even if it does pass here, it will not pass with Democratic support, it will not pass the Senate, and the President will not sign it. The worst part about this is the provisions that they intend to put in with regard to medical savings accounts, because there, unlike the original Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, which expands coverage and which at best leaves the question of affordability the same, this will make health insurance more costly and less affordable to the average American. The principle of MSA's, or medical savings accounts, basically says that if you are a fairly healthy individual or if you are a fairly wealthy individual or if you happen to be both, then you basically put your money aside in a savings account that is not taxable, essentially, somewhat like an IRA. You only have coverage for catastrophic illness. So therefore, since you do not really need to pay for a lot of health-related activities, because you are healthy or whatever, or because you can afford to pay when you do go to a doctor out of the medical savings account that you have been accumulating, that you enter into this sort of IRA, and at the end of the road, 10, 20 years down the road, you can simply take the money out of this MSA, like an IRA, and use it for other purposes unrelated to health. The problem is that it damages the risk pool. Health insurance is based on the notion of a risk pool. The idea is that both the healthy people and the people who are not as healthy are all part of the same pool. If you take out the ones that are the healthiest and leave the ones that are less healthy in the pool, the end result is that more money has to be paid out to cover their health care-related expenses, and therefore the premiums will go up for the people that remain in the pool and who have not opted for the medical savings account. So what we believe will happen is that if MSA legislation goes into effect, the cost for people who still buy the traditional health insurance and do not enter into a medical savings account will actually rise. Their premiums will go up, and therefore insurance for the average person becomes less affordable instead of more affordable. So we cannot, those of us who believe that we should be expanding coverage and making insurance more affordable, health insurance, simply cannot support the medical savings account. I am sure there are going to be people that do not support the malpractice changes and the antitrust changes, and all this good effort over the next few weeks to try to pass a clean bill that will simply address the issues of affordability, portability and preexisting conditions, as Kennedy- Kassebaum would do, simply goes down the drain because this bill is loaded up with all the other things that are controversial and make it difficult for the bill to pass and ultimately be signed into law. I just wanted to make the point, if I could, in some commentaries that have come up over the last few weeks, to sort of back up some of the points that I just made on why we should have a clean health care reform bill, rather than have it loaded up with all these other extraneous provisions. If I could just briefly read part of the editorial that was in the Washington Post on March 18 that says ``Bad Move on Health Care.'' It says exactly the way I and many of my colleagues on the Democratic side have felt, that: Not too many weeks ago it seemed as if Congress was about to pass, and the president to sign, a modest bill to help people keep their health insurance while between jobs. Not even the principal sponsors, Sens. Nancy Kassebaum and Edward Kennedy, describe the bill as more than a first step. It would not help people to afford the insurance, just require insurance companies to offer it to them. Still, it would be an advance. Now, however, House Republicans are threatening to add to the bill some amendments from their health care wish list that could derail it. If some of these amendments are added, the bill ought to be derailed. The worst is a proposal to begin to subsidize through the Tax Code what are known as medical savings accounts. The underlying bill seeks to strengthen the health insurance system, if not by making it seamless, at least by moving it in that direction. The savings accounts would tend to fragment and weaken the system instead. The Republicans in 1994 accused the President of overreaching on health care reform, in part to satisfy assorted interest groups. He ended up with nothing to put before the voters on Election Day. They risk the same result. Under current law, if an employer helps buy health insurance for his employees, he can deduct the costs. I do not need to get into all of this. The Washington Post is recognizing what we all know once again, which is that we have a good bill here as Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy have put forward, along with my colleague the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] and it should not be loaded down with MSA's and all these other provisions. In fact, when this legislation went before the House Committee on Ways and Means, there were a number of Democrats who essentially expressed the same concern that I have, and they put out a dissenting view on the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. They referred to the bill that it should be the ``sink the good ship Kassebaum-Kennedy bill,'' because it was designed in every way to torpedo the passage of the modest helpful provisions of Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema. The bill as reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, according to the Democrats in dissent, is not health insurance reform. It includes only a weakened version of the group nondiscrimination provisions of Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema. Of course, they again go into the whole problem with the MSA's and the problems that I have outlined before with the medical savings accounts and what they would mean in terms of the average person's health insurance costs or premiums going up. In fact, we estimate that the proposal to include the medical savings accounts could end up costing taxpayers $2 to $3 billion overall, because essentially what the MSA's do is to encourage skimming or cherry-picking. The healthiest and wealthiest will leave traditional health insurance, thereby raising costs on everyone else. The large out-of-pocket costs and high deductible insurance costing thousands of dollars that result from the MSA's are especially unaffordable for middle-class families or for the recently unemployed, the very people who most need insurance reform. One of the things that many of the Democrats have also been pointing out about this legislation and the inclusion of the medical savings accounts is that it basically has been included by the Speaker and the Republican leadership in order to placate, if you will, one insurance company, the Golden Rule Insurance Co., and the person who is the leader of that by the name of J. Patrick Rooney. He and the Golden Rule Insurance Co. have actually given $1.2 million to Republican candidates and campaign committees, $157,000 to GOPAC, the Speaker's political action committee, and $45,000 to Speaker Gingrich's own reelection campaign. So essentially what we are seeing here again is special interests ruling the day, because the Golden Rule Insurance Co. felt that they would like to see the medical savings accounts proposal included in health insurance reform, because they have a lot to gain, because it is included, it is now in the bill, even though all the Democrats and probably most of the Republicans do not really want to see it there, because they know it will kill any real proposal for reform. The other thing I wanted to say is that many of the consumer groups have come out very much opposed to this larger grab-bag legislation, and most of the groups, whether it is the American Medical Association, the Independent Insurance Agents, or a number of other health care organizations, have indicated strong support for the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill and have indicated that they would like it brought to the floor as a clean bill, because it will work. I just wanted, Mr. Speaker, if I could for a minute, to talk about some of the things that the Consumers Union says about this legislation tomorrow and the fact that it has been loaded up with all these other provisions. They mention with regard to the medical savings accounts that the medical savings accounts disrupt the health insurance market by creating financial incentives that encourage division of health care risks. Actuarial studies conclude that MSA's would appeal to relatively healthy and wealthy individuals. The American Academy of Actuaries estimates the selection process could result in higher premiums, as much as 61 percent, for those remaining in traditional health insurance plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation also estimates that a deduction for MSA's would drain $1.8 billion from Federal revenues, compounding the national debt. So not only are the medical savings accounts a problem because they are going to take the healthiest and the wealthiest out of the insurance risk pool, not only are they bad because they are going to increase premiums for the average American, but they also have the real possibility of draining Federal revenues and actually compounding the problems that we have with the national debt. The Consumers Union also opposes the relaxed antitrust provisions for provider networks, it opposes the limitations on medical malpractice, it opposes the private health insurance duplication, and, again, on the issue of malpractice reform and antitrust, a lot of people disagree. I am not saying that the Consumers Union is right when they say that these provisions are necessarily bad, but why include them in this bill? Why go this route? When right now we know that we have an unbelievable consensus on a bipartisan basis for Democrats and Republicans to move forward with the Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema bill, why are we loading it up with all these other provisions that are controversial and in many cases are going to actually increase the cost of health care for the average American? It is nothing more than another example of how the Republican leadership in this House has put special interests first, has taken the interests of the wealthy and juxtaposed them against the interest of the average American. Hopefully some sense will prevail tomorrow. There will be a Democrat substitute offered that is essentially the Kennedy- Kassebaum-Roukema bill in its clean form. I am hopeful that not only Democrats but Republicans will also support that substitute, and that we can get a clean bill passed here that deals with the issue of portability and also deals with the issue of preexisting conditions and has a good chance of passing in the Senate and ultimately going to the President. But we need to continue to speak out, Mr. Speaker. We have to continue to point out that that is the proper vehicle for this House to consider tomorrow, and not this larger piece of legislation that addresses all these controversial issues and makes it much more difficult for us to get rational health insurance reform in this session of Congress.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield first to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, health insurance reform is long overdue. As we know, fewer Americans are able to obtain health insurance now, and the cost of that health insurance keeps going up. So my colleague, the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. Roukema, had a very good idea, which is shared in the Senate by Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy on a bipartisan basis, to put forth a bill in this House that would make it easier for people to take health insurance from one job to another. We call that portability. We also try to make it easier for people who have preexisting conditions or perhaps were disabled with some sort of health disorder, that they would be able to buy health insurance. We are all supportive of this. The Democrats, over 170, have said that they support it, but the Republican leadership here is trying to load down this bill with all kinds of extraneous material in terms of the best example is medical savings accounts that will actually drive up the cost of health insurance for the average person and make health insurance less affordable. It is time now that we got together on a bipartisan basis and passed the Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema bill to make health insurance more affordable and make it possible for more people to obtain health insurance.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today is National Diabetes Day. Diabetes is a life-threatening, chronic disease, and a major public health issue that affects 16 million Americans directly and the rest of the population indirectly through its impact on medical care and costs. Since the 1960's the prevalence of diabetes has tripled and it is reaching epidemic proportions. The National Institutes of Health estimates that about 1,800 new cases are diagnosed each day. Diabetes is by far the most widespread disease in our country today. In 1992 alone, cost of care for diabetes totaled $92 billion. The skyrocketing rise in diabetes is linked to four very important factors. First, an aging population. The aging of the baby boomer population will ultimately increase that number even higher. Second, is the increasing degree of obesity. Third, is the fact that the population is living in a more sedentary lifestyle, and fourth is the fact that improved diagnosis techniques have isolated cases at earlier stages. Those at risk for diabetes generally exhibit four different characteristics: they are over 45 years old, more than 120 percent above their ideal body weight, physically inactive, or have an immediate family member diagnosed with diabetes. The toll of diabetes in death and human suffering is very great. Physicians are very critical to pubic education efforts. Physicians need to be more aware and sensitive to the fact that diabetes is a very serious disease. Many people are unaware they have the disease until they seek treatment for one of its crippling conditions. Some of these conditions include: stroke, blindness, heart disease, or even kidney disease. Diabetes is the leading cause of blindness among those 20 to 74 years old. Also, as many as 20 percent of diabetics develop kidney disease. And diabetics are two to four times more likely to develop heart disease and strokes. Diabetes is currently the fourth leading cause of death by disease. Moreover, about 169,000 Americans die each year from the disease--more than the number of people who die from AIDS or breast cancer. We must realize that diabetes requires a lifetime of medical care and self-treatment. A person with diabetes must have access to supplies, equipment, and education. With these resources made available, a person with diabetes can greatly reduce any complications that cause any suffering associated with the disease. Health care must be made a priority for people with diabetes. People with diabetes have great difficulty acquiring affordable health insurance that is needed to obtain medical care. Medicare and Medicaid, the Federal Government's two largest health care programs, do not provide coverage of supplies and medication necessary to avoid complications related to diabetes. According to the American Diabetes Association, diabetes research is proven to save money. Studies taken show that for every dollar spent on medical research, $13 is saved in health care costs. The majority of diabetes research is supported by the National Institutes of Health. Ironically, of the more than $12 billion spent by the U.S. Government on medical research, only 3 percent is used to fund diabetes research. There must be a greater amount of support for medical research programs and also increased funding for diabetes research. In regard to health care issues, we must have widespread support for legislation and efforts in the private sector that will ensure greater access to health care for people with diabetes. I have recently become a cosponsor of two bills sponsored by Representative Furse (H.R. 1073 and H.R. 1074) that seek to expand Medicare coverage of outpatient self-management training and access to blood testing strips. I have also signed on to a letter supporting the National Institutes of Health as a priority when considering a balanced budget. We, Representatives in Congress, have the opportunity to improve the lives of millions of Americans with diabetes who rely on Medicare for their health insurance. I look forward to working with the other Members of Congress, now and in the future, to improve the lives of people with diabetes.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, here they go again. Again the Republican leadership is going to bring up today another one of these stopgap funding measures, the continuing resolution. I think many people have forgotten that the Government was closed down on two occasions, at least two occasions, by the Republicans in this last year, and they are still moving forward with these temporary spending measures, last week and now again this week, for 1 more week. What it means is a great deal of uncertainty back in our districts, particularly when it comes to education. Many teachers are now getting pink slips and being told they are going to be laid off. The school boards do not know whether they are going to have funding for education because of the continual assault against education. They are proposing the largest cut in the history of this country in education, over $3 billion. It is not fair, because the American people have told us over and over again that education is a priority, that they want to prioritize in terms of funding here. Why should we be cutting back on education funding at the Federal Government and making the local school boards have to pay more in their taxes, in their local property taxes? It is not fair. We should put a stop to it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to substitute for the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to the impending shipment of United States arms to Pakistan. The administration proposes shipping 368 million dollar's worth of conventional arms to Pakistan, despite the recent revelations that Pakistan received nuclear technology from China last year. While I have often come to well of the House to defend this administration's foreign policy, in this case I must express my complete opposition to the direction that we are going by in providing sophisticated and de- stabilizing weapons to Pakistan, a country that has repeatedly broken their assurances to us about their nuclear weapons development and acquisition intentions. A provision in the Foreign Operations appropriations legislation that finally became law earlier this year would authorize the transfer of $368 million in sophisticated conventional weaponry, including three Navy P-3C antisubmarine aircraft, 28 Harpoon missiles, 360 AIM-9L missiles, and other Army and Air Force equipment. This provision, known as the Brown amendment, after its Senate sponsor, passed the Senate last year. Although the provision was never debated in the House, it carried in conference. I drafted a letter to the conferees, which was signed by 40 other Members from both sides of the aisle urging that this provision not be included in the bill. But, owing in large part to the support of the administration and the influence of the pro-Pakistan lobby, the provision was included in the bill and became law. As far back as last summer, many of us in Congress--Democrats and Republicans, Members of both bodies--argued that providing these weapons to Pakistan was a bad idea, giving Pakistan's ongoing determinations to develop nuclear weapons, it involvement in arming, training, and financing terrorist movements and its often open hostility to Western interests. Last summer, it was reported that Pakistan received Chinese M-11 missiles, in direct violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime. These missiles are capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and can strike cities within a 275-mile radius. It was reported last year that Pakistan developed its nuclear weapons from a blueprint provided by the People's Republic of China, and Pakistan then gave this blueprint to Iran. Pakistan remains an unstable nation, where the military does not seem to be under strong civilian control, a country which supports the embargo of Israel and does not recognize the State of Israel. Then came the revelations early this year, based on intelligence information, that Pakistan purchased 5,000 ring magnets from the People's Republic of China in late 1994 and early 1995. These ring magnets are used to enrich uranium, a key component for making nuclear weapons. This transfer, which Pakistan has repeatedly denied to the administration and the Congress, is a direct violation of the Glenn- Symington Amendment and the 1994 amendment to the Non-Proliferation Act. When the Senate and the Foreign Ops Conferees considered the Brown amendment, this information was not known. I believe that this information would most certainly have swung a few votes--had it been available. By way of a little history: during the last decade, Pakistan was the third largest recipient of United States foreign military assistance. Pakistan asked for the help of the United States in becoming conventionally strong militarily and in exchange promised--promised-- not to develop or obtain nuclear weapons. By 1985, United States intelligence had strong evidence that Pakistan was receiving United States arms while going back on its word about developing nuclear capability. As a form of leverage, the Congress in 1985 enacted the Pressler amendment, named for its Senate sponsor, requiring an annual Presidential certification that Pakistan does not have a nuclear device. In 1990, with overwhelming evidence of Pakistan's nuclear program, President Bush invoked the Pressler amendment. The United States essentially said: Yes, Pakistan has the bomb. Thus, all U.S. military assistance was ended--including weapons already contracted for and paid for but not delivered. Pakistani officials could not have been surprised, knowing these ramifications when they officially agreed to the enactment of the Pressler amendment in 1985. The only surprises may have been that they got caught and that the full penalty of the law was imposed. It is important to recognize that Pakistan has not agreed to do anything in exchange for the release of the seized equipment. In 1993, President Clinton did offer to return all or some of the weapons in the pipeline if Pakistan would agree to cap its nuclear program. Pakistan rejected this offer. In fact, by receiving the ring magnets from China, Pakistan was continuing to act--in defiance of the United States--to further its nuclear ambitions. Finally, the administration came up with a compromise: While 28 F- 16 fighter jets would not be delivered to Pakistan--they already have 40 F-16's--the 368 million dollars' worth of equipment would be delivered with no strings attached. What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is ending the ban on providing weapons to Pakistan, and receiving nothing in return. The delivery of these weapons comes just about a month before the general elections in India, Pakistan's neighbor. Tensions between these two South Asian nations remain high. Pakistan has fought three wars with India during the past 48 years. Clearly, India will see the delivery of these weapons as a slap in the face. The opposition BJP party in India, which has already gained in strength, is running on a platform promising a much harder line in terms of relations with Pakistan, relations with the United States, and India's own nuclear weapons development program. While this story may be buried on the back pages of American newspapers, I can guarantee you that the delivery of the United States weapons to Pakistan will be page 1 news in India--to the benefit of those forces in Indian society that oppose the recent move toward closer commercial and strategic cooperation between India and the United States. The United States has in the past few years become India's largest trading partner. Why are we jeopardizing this important new economic relationship? Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against improved relations with Pakistan, but I believe this goal should be achieved through economic means. The Government of Pakistan devotes much too large of a share of its scarce resources to the military, to the detriment of the people. If the administration wants to engage Pakistan, let's engage them with more trade and support for democracy building institutions. Nuclear nonproliferation is and should be a top U.S. foreign policy goal in this post-cold-war world. The Pressler amendment has been a pillar of America's nonproliferation efforts. We should not weaken this law with waivers or loopholes. Pakistan keeps giving us every reason to keep the Pressler amendment in force. Mr. Speaker, I will be working with some of my colleagues to enact a resolution of disapproval for this weapons transfer, and I hope we can achieve broad, bipartisan support. Providing these weapons to Pakistan would be a grave error that would threaten the stability of South Asia, international nuclear nonproliferation and the interests and prestige of the United States.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to talk about the environment and my concern over cuts that the Republican leadership has made in environmental programs and in the various agencies of the Federal Government that are involved in environmental protection. I should point out that just a couple weeks ago, our environmental task force, within the Democratic Caucus, issued a report on the impact of Republican budget cuts on the environment. What this report points out very vividly is that the House Republican leadership so far in this Congress, with particular attention to 1995, basically from a budget point of view and in terms of authorization bills and various amendments that came to the floor, was involved in a systematic effort to turn back the clock on the last 25 years of environmental protection. This is affecting every State and the various Government shutdowns and the level of funding cuts for continuing resolutions that fund the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior Department, and other departments and agencies that are involved in environmental protection have had a cumulative effect on the environment so that in effect right now, even though we have many laws on the books that seemingly protect the environment, we do not have the investigators, the enforcers and the people that will go out and, if you will, nab the polluters so that our environmental laws are effectively enforced. Our report points out that this process continues. As many of you know, just a week or two ago this House passed a continuing resolution that would take us in terms of our spending until the end of this fiscal year. And once again the funding levels that were in that continuing resolution for the environment are essentially 22 percent for the EPA below the President's fiscal 1996 request. The bill, the continuing resolution, also includes a number of antienvironment riders that affect both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior. Mr. Speaker, we know that if this process continues, either through this long-term continuing resolution or through the stopgap measures that we are seeing now pass every week--last week we had a continuing resolution for 1 week. My understanding is that by the end of this week, this Friday when funding runs out again, we may pass or the Republican leadership may bring to the floor another continuing resolution for another week. The level of funds in those continuing resolutions, those stopgap measures, continue to provide the EPA, the Interior Department and other agencies that protect the environment with such woefully low amounts of funding that they simply cannot do their job. I wanted to go through some of the points more specifically that our report on the environment, that our task force on the environment makes. We had a hearing a few weeks ago, and testimony at that hearing provided incontrovertible evidence of the impact of policies promoted by the Republican leadership and supported by an overwhelming majority of Republican legislators. We found first that Republicans have targeted environmental programs for particularly deep budget cuts. Just as an example, the Republican-passed interior appropriations bill vetoed earlier this year by President Clinton funded overall operations of the Department of the Interior 12 percent below the President's fiscal 1996 request. Funding for the Endangered Species Act was set at 38 percent below the President's request. Land acquisition for parks and other public uses was funded at 42 percent below the President's request. In the VA-HUD appropriations bill passed with a slim Republican majority and also vetoed by President Clinton, EPA's overall funding was cut by 21 percent but pollution enforcement functions received a 25 percent cut. Again, it is very nice to have environmental laws on the books, but if you do not have the people, the environmental cops on the beat, so to speak, to go out there and find the polluters, then you might as well not have the environmental protection laws. In addition, what our report concludes is that antienvironment legislative riders have caused appropriations gridlock. Republicans have delayed the timely completion of the appropriations process by almost 6 months by including on funding bills a host of highly controversial legislative riders having little to do with cutting spending. The policy changes rendered by these riders are normally handled by the authorizing committees, not the appropriation committees. But the riders were included in the appropriations bill and typically are barred from amendment on the House floor in an effort to exhort the President to accept antienvironmental policies that could not survive in legislative debate on their merit. For example, on the Department of the Interior appropriations, the Republican riders would accelerate logging of the old-growth rain forest by 40 percent in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, remove funding for the National Park Service operation of the Mojave desert national preserve, terminate the Columbia basin ecosystem's management project and continue an irresponsible moratorium on the listing of endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Numerous legislative riders affecting EPA include provisions to bar oversight of wetlands policy and limit EPA's authority to list new hazardous waste sites for cleanup under the superfund law. Now, one of the points that we have been trying to make in our report on the environment, our task force report, is that these Republican cuts in environmental enforcement do not save money, and I repeat, do not save money. The EPA Administrator, Carol Browner, stated at our hearing that the environmental cop is absolutely not on the beat. Because of funding cuts in the continuing resolutions and the two Government shutdowns in late 1995, EPA was unable to perform 40 percent of planned health and safety inspections of industrial facilities in the first quarter of fiscal year 1996. In addition, the Department of Justice's environmental division had its budget cut down to $83 million, 12 percent less than requested by the President and nearly 10 percent less than the fiscal 1995 budget. Now, again, cutting funds for enforcement makes no fiscal sense. Assistant Attorney General Lois Schiffer stated or testified that since civil enforcement litigation in fiscal 1995 resulted in fines and costs recoveries totalling over $300 million. But in a sense what we are seeing here in that the amount of money coming back to the Treasury for fines because polluters are violating the law decreased because we can not go out and find the polluters. I would like to continue to talk about our report, but I know that I have some other Members here tonight who wanted to join with me in talking about these environmental cuts and what they mean. If we would like to at this time, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate that, and I particularly wanted to mention how you highlighted clean water, and I think that is a very good example of what the Republican leadership has done in this Congress. My district in New Jersey, a large part of it is on the water, either on the Raritan River, the Raritan Bay or the Atlantic Ocean, and we were the part of the State that was most severely impacted in the late 1980's when the medical waste and other debris washed up on our shores and basically put an end to our tourism season in the summer. The beaches were closed. The people did not come down. It took about, I would say, 4 or 5 years before the Jersey shore recovered and people were back in full force and the water was clean. And basically that was because of the efforts in this Congress and on a bipartisan basis then, Democrats and Republicans, to try to pass some very strong laws that forbade ocean dumping that put medical waste tracking systems in place and essentially made it more difficult for polluters to drop; you know, to discharge items into the rivers, harbors and bays that would eventually come down to the Jersey shore. I would hate to see, and I know that my constituents would hate to see, a situation where, because of the relaxation of these laws or the improper enforcement of these laws, that we went back to the beach closings that we had in some cases now 7, 8 years ago. In addition, I would point out that you could take really any State in the country and see the impact of these budget cuts. I have some information just about my own State of New Jersey, for example, and what the Republican budget cuts have meant in New Jersey. Just as an example, to cite some of the areas that are impacted under the Superfund program, the Federal program to clean up hazardous waste sites, which is particularly important to New Jersey because we have more sites than any other State, 12 sites slated for significant new construction would be shut down by these budget cuts and 30 other sites in New Jersey with ongoing work will also experience shutdowns or slowdowns as a result of the Republican budget cuts with various impacts. Projected impacts are severe also on leaking underground storage tanks. There is a program to basically fix those which is impacted. The safe drinking water program, which is very important to New Jersey; the EPA estimates that more than 6 million residents of New Jersey are served by drinking water systems that have violated public health standards last year. But Republican budget cuts would reduce the funding available to these communities to improve their drinking water systems by about $5 million. With regard to the Clean Water Act, which Mr. Barrett mentioned, according to the EPA, about 85 percent of New Jersey's rivers and streams are too polluted for basic uses like swimming. And under the fiscal year 1996 conference report, again the Republican Conference report, New Jersey stands to lose $52 million in clean water funding that would help stop pollution from getting into the State's rivers, lakes and streams as well as the Atlantic Ocean. This is basically a 53 percent cut from the fiscal year 1995 enacted funding level. Also huge cuts in New York's wastewater treatment loans and other clean water funding would threaten New Jersey's beaches through washups of untreated sewage and wastewater, again repeating the unfortunate situation that we had along the Jersey shore in the late 1980's. As far as enforcement is concerned, in New Jersey the environmental cop will be off the beat as inspections and enforcement efforts will be severely curtailed under the Republican budget proposal, which represents a cut of 25 percent, as we mentioned, below the President's budget request. Decreased inspections due to cuts create public health threats that would have to be addressed by a staff made smaller by the budget cuts. Essentially in Region II, which is the EPA region that New Jersey is part of, because of these ongoing Republican budget problems there is a growing backlog of permits which they have been unable to process. So, as I said, I can cite New Jersey, which is my home State, but we could get into almost really every State in the Nation to highlight what these Republican budget cuts mean for environmental protection. I was very happy that in order to highlight some of these concerns in my home State of New Jersey President Clinton came to the State, was in Bergen County just about a week or so ago, and he, of course, was there to highlight the problems with the Superfund program and the cuts in the Superfund program and what those would mean to the State of New Jersey if these Republican budget cuts in the Superfund program were allowed to continue. Now again, I wanted to go back, if I could, to the report that our Democratic task force put together that shows the impact of Republican budget cuts on the environment and stress again that these cuts in enforcement do not save money. In a sense, what these cuts do for both the EPA and the Department of the Interior is they undercut the Department of Justice's ability to recover funds, prosecute criminal violations, and prevent the degradation of the environment. It is, I guess, obvious, I would think, from anyone who thinks about it from a preventive point of view, that it is much less costly to the taxpayers to prevent problems from occurring than it is to fix environmental disasters after they occur. Slashing the budget and essentially preventing or making it impossible to do the preventive measures that the EPA and Department of Interior have been doing all along in the long run is only going to make it most costly when the Federal Government or the taxpayers have to pay the bill for the pollution that occurs. The other thing that the Republican leaders have been trying to get across, and I think is again a false premise, is that somehow the States can do all this on their own; in other words, that statements were made on the floor that in the past 10 years or the past 20 years, ``Yeah, we have passed some good environmental laws, but now each State has its own department of environmental protection, or something like that, and they do a good enough job, and so we don't need the Federal EPA to intervene and do a lot of the things that the Federal EPA has been doing.'' In reality, the reality is just the opposite, and we had testimony at our hearing from Assistant Attorney General Schiffer who explained again that, without the minimum environmental standards set by Federal law and the Federal enforcement actions, the health of our communities, the environment and economy, would be compromised; in other words, that the States rely on the Federal Government both in terms of dollars and in terms of minimum enforcement standards that are set to essentially do a good job with environmental protection at the State level and at the local level. And she gave an example that before the creation of the EPA in Federal statutes, the 6 States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed allowed the waters to become very severely polluted. Without a strong environmental presence, citizens in States like Virginia, which has cut its environmental budget by 26 percent, would have little recourse against pollution originating from other States. Pollution knows no boundaries. Although States, in many cases, do a good job, it makes sense to the Federal Government to have strong anti- pollution laws and strong enforcement because air, water, and many other things that we talk about when we talk about the environment basically cross State boundaries. So it makes sense to have Federal laws and good Federal enforcement. The other myth, if you will, that is out there that our report, I think, successfully rebuffs is the notion that enough progress has been made on the environment; in other words, that somehow we have been at this now for 20, 25 years, we have made a lot of progress in terms of environmental protection, and we really do not need to do much more. And again, nothing could be further from the truth. Although there has been significant progress, there still obviously is a lot more to be done. I could just use the example of the Superfund sites in my home State where progress has been made in cleaning up quite a few of them, but there is still a tremendous amount more that needs to be done, and certainly when we talk about clean water and the ultimate goal of the Clean Water Act of safe and swimmable waters, we still have a long way to go before all the waters, or a significant portion of the waters in the country, are safe and swimmable. The other thing that we bring out in our report, and I think is very important, is, and again contradicting the notion that somehow protecting the environment or strong regulations against polluters hurts the economy, our report makes the case that a healthy environment contributes to a growing economy and that basically pollution control and proper management in natural resources ultimately results in the creation of more jobs, creates more income. Obviously, the best example of that, again, if I could use it, is my own district, the Jersey shore. The tourism is now in New Jersey the No. 1 or No. 2 industry in the State in terms of job creations and income coming to the State of New Jersey. During the summer, the summers of 1988 and after that, when the beaches were actually closed in most of the shore area of New Jersey, billions of dollars were lost in tourism, people were laid off, businesses almost had to close. 2145 I think that shows dramatically how there is a direct impact that a healthy environment contributes to a good economy. Again, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to make the case as we proceed in this Congress how important it is, how important it is for the Democrats to continue to prioritize the environment in terms of the budget, because even though it is true that we have good laws on the books in terms of environmental protection, if we do not have the money to adequately do investigations and enforcement to protect the environment, enforce those laws, the laws might as well not be on the books. Tomorrow again, I believe, or at the end of this week, we are going to face another one of these stop-gap continuing resolutions that the Republicans are going to bring forward. Again, if that continuing resolution is similar to the one we passed last week, that it means severe cuts, and constant effort on the part of the Republican leadership to cut back on the amount of money for environmental enforcement, we as Democrats will continue to oppose that and make the case that the Republican leadership is continuing this assault and this effort to turn back the clock on 20 or 25 years of progress on environmental enforcement in this Congress.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking Mr. Bilirakis for taking the lead in organizing what has now become an annual event: the celebration of Greek Independence Day here on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. I am honored to participate in this year's tribute, which will mark the 175th anniversary of Greek independence and the 10th consecutive year the Congress sends a resolution to the President's desk asking that March 25 be designated as a National day of celebration of Greek and American democracy. Looking around, I am pleased to see that many of the same faces who were here last year have returned to once again commemorate this historic event. You do not have to be a student of history to know that the United States and Greece will forever be connected to each other. We are all well aware of the fact that throughout history, our countries have turned to each other for advice on how best to shape our respective democracies. The roots of America's very existence, as Thomas Jefferson once observed, are grounded in the foundation of ancient Greece. ``To the ancient Greeks'' said Jefferson, ``we are all indebted for the light which lead ourselves [American colonists] out of Gothic darkness.'' Conversely, the Greeks have long drawn inspiration from the American commitment to freedom. ``Having formed the resolution to live or die for freedom,'' noted a former Greek Commander in Chief--Petros Mavromichalis--in an 1821 appeal to the citizens of the United States, ``we are drawn toward you by a just sympathy since it is in your land that liberty has fixed her abode, and by you that she is prized as by our fathers.'' There is no doubt that the substance behind these words has held in full since they were spoken 175 years ago. Time and again Greece has sent its sons and daughters to fight alongside our children in defense of democracy. Over 600,000 Greeks--or a staggering 9 percent of the entire Greek population--died fighting with the allies in World War II. Greece, moreover, is one of only three nations not part of the former British Empire that has been allied with the United States in every major international conflict this century. Today, through their high levels of education and steadfast commitment to hard work, Americans of Greek descent enrich our culture, better our lives, and strengthen the bond that connects our two countries. From George Stephanopolous in the White House, to my colleagues of Greek descent here in the Congress, to the world's No. 1 ranked tennis player Pete Sampras, to the millions of Americans of Greek descent who get up and go to work everyday, it is clear that the ties that connect our countries remain vibrant and unique. And as we are here to pay tribute to Greek Independence Day, it would only be fitting for us in the Congress to reassure Greek-Americans, and Greek nationals, that we are committed to standing with them on those international disputes involving the sovereignty of Greek citizens and territories. We will continue to insist on Turkish compliance with all U.N. resolutions pertaining to the Cyprus conflict. We will, moreover, stand with Greece against all Turkish attempts to ignore international law and infringe upon Greek sovereignty, such as the incident earlier this year when Turkey laid claim to the Greek islet of Imia--a territory that was ceded to Greece by Italy under the terms of the Paris Peace Accords of 1947. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that the Congress has established an annual event to celebrate Greek Independence Day. Greek-Americans and citizens of Greece alike have made invaluable contributions to American life and I congratulate them on 175 years of independence.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to focus on education this afternoon, because I am very concerned about the consequences of the House Republican leadership and their spending proposals with regard to education, the cuts that they have implemented or they are trying to implement in education. Essentially what we are seeing now is that these cuts are hitting home. I am going back to my district, and I know others have heard from their districts and their hometowns, are hearing back from the school boards and from local residents about the fact that teachers now have to be laid off or taxes have to be raised in order to provide for education programs that the Federal Government will no longer fund under these Republican proposals. I have said before that education is one of the priorities that the President and the Democrats in Congress have stressed should not be severely impacted during these constant budget battles on the floor. Yet once again we face the situation where the House passed a spending bill a few weeks ago for the remainder of this fiscal year that would severely cut, provide the largest cut in educational programs in the history of the Federal Government. This is basically amounting to a 13-percent reduction from the last fiscal year, a $3.3 billion cut in education programs. The Senate, fortunately, as I have mentioned before, when this bill went over to the Senate, tried to restore most of this, about $2.5 billion in education funds. However, the Senate bill will not prevail if Speaker Gingrich and the Republican extremists, the Republican leadership, do not go along with the Senate version. So we have to constantly push to say that the House version that makes all these cuts in education funding is not the way to go, and that we as Democrats support the Senate version and the President supports the Senate version to put back a lot of this education money. Now what does this all mean? A lot of times on the floor of the House we talk about money or about amounts of money or percentages, and some people wonder what does it mean to me locally back at home? Well, it means a lot. I think we have got a very good glimpse of that today, or I should say yesterday, in the New York Times. The New York Times had an article in yesterday's paper, ``Federal Budget Impasse Hits Home With the Threat of Layoffs in School Districts.'' It takes us to a relatively small town in upstate New York, Schenectady. There they are starting to send out notices to the teachers to tell them they are going to be laid off because of the cutbacks in Federal funding. I just wanted to read some sections of this article, if I could, because I think it is so indicative of what the impact is of these House Republican cuts in education funding. It talks about Teresa McAnaney and her colleagues at the Pleasant Valley Elementary School in Schenectady who: . . . have tended to view the budget stalemate in Washington as a distant drama that has mainly led to the periodic closing of the nation's parks and museums and a handful of Government agencies. But earlier this month, this faraway crisis hit home: the superintendent's office notified Ms. McAnaney that she would be among 16 teachers and aides in the city school district at risk for layoffs in the fall because the district had no idea how much money it would receive from the Federal or state governments. She says that ``The uncertainty is the most frustrating part of this whole thing.'' This is what we are talking about. This week, this Federal Government is operating with a stopgap funding measure that extends for 1 week. This Friday again the Government or certain agencies of the Government, including the Education Department, will close down if we do not pass another bill extending funding for another week or another month. The process has to stop, because with these stopgap measures and taking the education funding from week-to-week, which is what the Republican leadership has been doing, there is so much uncertainty back in our hometowns and throughout this country about education funding that they do not know what to do. What they have to do is essentially plan for the worst, lay off teachers, particularly those funded through title I for various programs, and tell them and assume they are not going to have the money for the next fiscal year. The only way that they can avoid that is if they go and take their local property taxes in order to keep some of these teachers and some of these programs going. I went on further in the article, I thought it was particularly interesting, because further on in this New York Times article they have another individual who is also from Schenectady, who talks about how Congress and the Federal legislators are not paying attention to what is happening in the small towns. This gentleman is quoted as saying that ``I don't think those people realize how their fighting is hurting ordinary people like myself * * * Maybe they should come into a school to see the problems they are creating every day.'' He says, ``It has reached the point that people cannot even plan.'' Once again, I think that is the problem here. We keep talking about this Federal budget and the Republican leadership keeps saying that if we cut this money out of education programs, it will not matter. Let me tell you, it does matter. We are going to see more and more that it matters in coming weeks if the Republican leadership does not turn around and restore this education funding.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, what the President and Democrats in Congress have been saying is that priorities, whether it be education, the environment, or protecting health care, particularly for seniors with Medicare and Medicaid, that these priorities should not be cut in these constant budget battles in this House of Representatives. That is why it is so important that we restore education funding. The House has passed a bill that cuts education funding by $3.3 billion, a 13-percent cut over the previous year. That is going to mean layoffs in local school districts or it is going to mean property taxes to those school districts that want to keep educational programs that would otherwise be lost, and what we are saying is that in this budget battle education must be a priority. The Republicans in the Senate have already voted to restore this education funding because they do not want to see the teachers laid off. They want to make sure that students in the various school districts around the country get a proper education, that class sizes do not get too large, that they are able to get textbooks, and they are able to get the things that are necessary and provided under title I funding. The Republicans should not sacrifice education, and that is what they are doing here in this House.