Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, what this is all about is priorities. What the Democrats are saying is that if we look at this continuing resolution, education, the amount of money that goes to our schools is cut by 13 percent. If we look at the amount of money that goes to environmental protection, it is cut by 22 percent. The gentleman from Illinois said that this is all about priorities and that is what this is about, priorities. The Democrats are saying that there is insufficient funding, there are too many cuts here in educational programs, back to our schools, environmental programs. The President was in New Jersey last week. He talked about the Superfund program and how many sites will not be cleaned up, hazardous waste sites, because of these cuts constantly in these continuing resolutions, and it is irresponsible to act this way. We are now talking about a 1-week CR. How can we continue to operate a government on a 1-week basis? What does that mean to the Federal Government? It means that a tremendous amount of time has to be wasted in just gearing up or gearing down because agencies do not know how much money is going to be available. When the Republican majority was elected, they were elected to govern, and they have not been governing. They come here with these 1- week resolutions, and it is about time that we said enough is enough. Vote ``no.''

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, education is one of the priorities that the President and Democrats in Congress have stressed should not be severely impacted during these constant budget battles that take place on the floor of this House of Representatives. Yet, once again, we face a situation where the House-passed spending bill for the remainder of this fiscal year would provide the largest cut in education in the history of the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, this is really the work primarily of Speaker Gingrich and the House Republican leadership, whose radical plan would essentially cut $3.3 billion from the education programs, a 13-percent reduction in funds that schools around the country depend on to educate students of all ages. The Senate, as was mentioned by one of my colleagues earlier, fortunately has voted to restore most, or about $2.5 billion, of this lost education funding. However, Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill will not prevail if Speaker Gingrich and his extremist views hold sway. Today, the House Republicans passed another stopgap funding bill. It is the 11th, I believe, since the beginning of this session. This measure would only keep the Government running for another week. Its purpose is to give House Republicans an opportunity to attack the reasonable education funding levels in the Senate bill. It is nothing more, in my opinion, than another attempt by House Republicans to hold the Federal Government hostage to their agenda. President Clinton has already said that he will not sign any bill that funds education programs at the House-passed level. He also said that rather than sign any extremist Republican spending plan, he may refuse to sign all stopgap spending bills sent to him after Easter. Thus, if the House Republicans continue to insist on steamrolling through these radical cuts in Federal education programs, we could face yet another Government shutdown. I believe preserving a strong educational framework was something that traditionally Members on both sides of the aisle, in both Houses in Congress, used to be able to agree on before the current House Republican majority took over. What is happening here is that the Speaker and the House Republican leadership are basically going against this consensus, or shattering the consensus that we have had for years that says that education should be a priority. If we compare the differences between the House and Senate education proposals, we can see the differences between the radical Republicans here in the House and the more sane, if you will, Republicans in the Senate. The House-passed bill cuts title I programs by $1.2 billion. The Senate restored $815 million of that. The House-passed bill would eliminate the Goals 2000 Education Reform Program. The Senate restores $60 billion for Goals 2000. The House-passed bill cuts $266 billion from the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. The Senate restores $182 million. The House-passed bill cuts $27.5 million from the School-to- Work Program. The Senate puts back $182 million. Mr. Speaker, I could go on with this list, but the point is that it is here in the House that the education cuts are being implemented. The fact that Senate Republicans will not go along with that only goes to prove, essentially, that it is the House Republicans that are forcing or taking this stand. Mr. Speaker, what does it mean back in our States and back in our districts? It means if this House Republican plan goes through, the teachers and teachers' assistants could be laid off, and schools in search of alternative sources of funding could force their local governments to raise taxes in order to maintain the same number of teachers. If alternative sources of funding cannot be found, fewer teachers would need dramatically decreased sizes of classes, and students in need of assistance in areas such as basic reading and writing would be denied the help of their local schools, because education money will have dried up. Mr. Speaker, there is no mistake about it. If we look at my own State of New Jersey, my own district, the taxpayers simply cannot afford these increases. The local property taxes, the local budgets, are usually turned down, because people do not want to have to pay higher property taxes. It is much more difficult for them if they do not have the Federal funding sources. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it is time for the House Republican leadership to wake up. There should be no more of these stopgap funding bills for 1 week, 2 weeks, or 3 weeks. They should simply return to the mainstream and joint the congressional Democrats, the President, and now even the Senate Republicans in saying that education is a priority, that there should be adequate funding for it, and that education programs should not be part of this constant battle back and forth which leads us to these stopgap funding plans. Mr. Speaker, I think that more and more over the next few weeks, as we continue to battle over the budget and over spending priorities, hopefully we will see the House Republican leadership come over to the point of view that says education should remain a priority and should not be something that we cut severely, because it really is the future of America and the future of our young people.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act which the House passed today in a vote that went largely, though not entirely, along party lines, was an uneven piece of legislation at best. I opposed the bill because I think it represents a retreat from America's historic mission to promote democracy--particularly in those lands that were until recently ruled by tyranny and dictatorship, such as those nations formerly part of the Soviet Union. But I rise to express praise for one provision of the bill included by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], known as the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. I was an original co-sponsor of this legislation, which has broad bipartisan support. As the cochairman of the Armenian Issue Caucus, along with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], I have worked for enactment of this provision. Mr. Speaker, the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act would withhold U.S. aid to nations which are blocking congressionally approved humanitarian assistance to other countries. It requires all U.S. aid recipients to allow unencumbered delivery of humanitarian assistance. The Republic of Turkey has imposed a blockade on the neighboring Republic of Armenia, preventing the delivery of food, medicine, and other humanitarian relief supplies to Armenia. Much of this aid originates in the United States. While we may not be able to deter every country in the world from resorting to the disruption of humanitarian aid as a weapon against their neighbors, we can make sure that such countries do not get a dime of American aid as long as they undermine our foreign policy objectives. Luckily, Mr. Speaker, this provision was also included in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that the President signed into law last month. Mr. Porter and I currently have a Dear Colleague letter circulating urging the administration to strictly enforce this provision of law. While it is my hope that we can ultimately enact the Corridor Act as a permanent law in a constructive, bipartisan manner, I am prepared to work through the appropriations process, as we successfully did last year, to keep the Corridor Act in force.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, if I can just ask the gentleman from California, the way I understand this data bank, it was set up to gather information about whether or not someone who was employed privately and had private health insurance, how that would relate to Medicare coverage.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, is not that type of information possibly valuable in terms of this ongoing debate on the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill as to whether or not insurers are covering people whether or not they have preexisting conditions or whether or not they could carry their health insurance with them to another job?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, that is the only point that I was trying to make, which is, and I think the gentleman from California said it well, that we may very well need data banks like this in order to ensure that more people are not taken off the rolls or be able to move from one job to another or denied health insurance because of preexisting conditions. So that whatever happens here today under the corrections day calendar will not somehow get out into the general public as something that we will not need for other purposes, because we are determined as Democrats that we want to bring this Kennedy-Kassebaum bill to the floor and eliminate preexisting conditions as a reason for health coverage and also allow people to be able to carry their health insurance with them when they lose their job or go from one job to another.

Mr. PALLONE. Could I ask on that point if the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] could yield to me?

Mr. PALLONE. Following up on that parliamentary inquiry----

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make the point, I understand that the gentleman favors this bill in the sense that he thinks that the data bank at this point in this particular case perhaps does not make sense, but my concern is over the whole issue of data banks. In other words, we know that the Republican leadership proposes to cut back on Medicare, to cut back on Medicaid. Some of the changes they are now advocating under the guise of health care insurance reform essentially are going to make some major changes for our health care system. For example, when you talk about Medicaid, the Medicaid proposal that the Republican leadership has put forward I believe, because it block grants money to the States, will have a lot of people simply not eligible for Medicaid and not having any kind of health care anymore. So I am a little concerned that when we talk about eliminating data banks, we may need some of these data banks if some of these Republican proposals go forward, because I would like to know how many people are not going to be eligible for Medicaid anymore, how many medigap recipients will not be able to take advantage of it. point of order

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that that in fact is not the case. The fact of the matter is when you talk about the data bank, which I understand for this specific purpose is linked to how many employees receive private health insurance as opposed to Medicare and what the impact of that is going to be, we have the same thing now with the proposal by Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy and the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. Roukema, where we are trying to get passed on the House floor health care insurance reform that will eliminate preexisting conditions and that will allow for portability. The Republican leadership, from what I can see, will not allow it to come to the floor.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight because of my concern over some of the statements that were made by my colleagues on the Republican side during this last 1 hour where they talked about the Republican cuts, budget cuts on the environment and the changes that the Republican leadership have proposed with regard to environmental protection. Particularly, reference was made to the fact that President Clinton was in my State, New Jersey, yesterday and was highlighting the fact that this Congress, this Republican Congress, under Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership, has done everything possible to turn back the clock or try to turn back the clock on environmental protection. The President was in New Jersey because of this concern over the Superfund Program, which is used by the Federal Government to try to force polluters, those who caused hazardous waste sites, to clean up their pollution, to spend the money to do it, and where the polluter cannot be found or the polluter is bankrupted or the corporation has ceased to exist anymore, the Federal Government steps in to do the cleanup itself. The President was highlighting the fact that under the Republican leadership's proposals and the vast cutbacks that they have made in appropriations or spending for the Environmental Protection Agency, a number of Superfund sites in the State of New Jersey will not be cleaned up this year. In fact, the many shutdowns of the Federal Government which affected the EPA at many Superfund sites, the cleanup has either not occurred or was slowed down completely, in many cases at a considerable cost to the Federal Government. And what he was saying is that this cannot be allowed to continue, that we cannot allow this Republican leadership to turn back the clock on the Superfund Program to make it so that our environmental laws are not even enforced for lack of money to hire people to do the enforcement, which is essentially what is happening. Now today, our environmental task force on the Democratic side, we have a task force that is trying to address environmental concerns and point out how the Republican leadership is cutting back and turning the clock back on the environment. Well, our Democratic task force issued a report based on a hearing we had a few weeks ago. The report, which I have here, shows dramatically the impact of the budget cuts that the Republicans have put forward on the environment. What it shows, essentially, is that the Republicans are trying to hide a very dismal record. Anti-environmental legislative riders have been attached to appropriation bills, disproportionate budget cuts have targeted environmental programs, and curbs on enforcement activities have been widespread, which let polluters off the hook and sends the cleanup bill to the taxpayers. We talk about, in the report, how the Republicans have specifically targeted environmental programs for particularly deep budget cuts. In other words, we know that we have to spend less and we have to downsize the Federal Government, but the Environmental Protection Agency has received a disproportionate share of these overall cuts. Overall funding for the EPA was cut by 21 percent. Pollution enforcement, the cops on the beat, the environmental cops on the beat, have been cut by 25 percent. What that means is that you have these environmental laws on the books but you do not have any way of enforcing them. The polluters know if no one is out there watching them and they continue to pollute, discharging materials, violating their water discharge permits, discharging into waters and harbors, they do what they think they can get away with. I would venture one other thing we found in our report and found in the forum, the cuts in environmental enforcement do not save money. In other words, the Republican leadership argues if we cut back on this environmental enforcement, somehow we are going to save money. Nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, essentially what happens is that the environmental cop on the beat, if you will, those who go out there to find the polluters, they do not find them, they do not issue them summonses and, as a result, no fine is incurred and the Treasury actually loses money because they are not penalizing the polluters. In addition, a lot of times, when pollution takes effect, it costs even more money in the long run to clean it up, whether it is the water, whether hazardous waste, whatever it happens to be, so the bottom line is it costs the Federal Government more money in the long run. Some of the previous speakers on the Republican side also made the argument we do not need the Federal Government involved in all of this enforcement activity because the States can do it. I think the gentleman from Florida mentioned that almost every State or every State now has an environmental protection agency or something like it. But the reality is that the Federal Government sets preliminary standards, whether it is clean water, clean air, hazardous waste cleanup, whatever it happens to be. Without those Federal standards in place, many States simply have not historically established standards similar to the Federal ones. So I just wanted to point out we could talk all night. Of course, my time is up now. I just wanted to point out this fact. This Republican leadership is turning the clock back on the environment. I am glad the President came to New Jersey to point that out today.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last week over 150 Democrats signed a letter of support for positive health care reform legislation sponsored by the Republican congresswoman, the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Marge Roukema. Her bill is similar to the Kennedy-Kassebaum legislation that has been introduced in the Senate, and has gained wide bipartisan support. In fact, Senator Kassebaum already has a commitment to bring up her bill in mid-April, and a number of health care organizations, providers, including the American Medical Association, have signed on and said that this is a good bill. Essentially that we have now is bipartisan support, both Democrats and Republicans, both House and Senate Members, and the President of the United States, President Clinton, who said that if this bill comes to his desk he will sign it. The Roukema bill essentially would ensure that Americans will no longer have their health coverage denied or limited because of so- called preexisting conditions The bill also helps people keep their health coverage if they get sick, lose their jobs, or change jobs. This is a bill that could pass the House of Representatives if the Republican leadership in this House would only let it come to the floor. In fact, it is now my understanding that the House Republican leadership, under Speaker Gingrich, is taking a different tack and plans on introducing health care legislation that includes controversial provisions to pander to various special interest groups. In other words, instead of letting the Roukema or Kennedy-Kassebaum bill come to the floor with everybody's support and have it signed by the President, they are now going to bring in another bill loaded with all kinds of special interests, special interest provisions; for example, increasing tax-free medical savings accounts, limiting malpractice awards, a number of things that are very controversial and that would prevent any kind of health insurance reform from passing this House and being signed into law. I just wanted to mention one of the provisions that Gingrich and the Republicans have talked about, and this is the Medical Savings Accounts, or MSA's. The Speaker tried to include MSA's when they are trying to cut Medicare last year, and now they are trying to insert this untested idea into the health care reform bill, which would provide a financial windfall for the Golden Rule Insurance Company, whose top executive has given Republican political committees excessive contributions in the past few years. During the Medicare debate it was found that the MSA would cost Medicaid an additional $3 billion. How can the Republican leadership believe they can try to pass this in health care reform? It is not a reform; it is actually catering to special interests. In the end it means health care costs will increase for the average working family. Serious health care reform was attempted 3 years ago and failed because Congress tried to overhaul the whole system with one piece of legislation. I would maintain that the lesson from that experience is Congress needs to take a step-by-step approach to decrease the number of uninsured Americans. I think that is what we would accomplish in a small, modest way with the Roukema bill. Again, however, the Republican leadership does not really want health care reform. If they did, then they would not be loading up a bill that benefits the special interests over the uninsured. If they wanted health care reform, why did they bring up this illustrious Contract With America last year? Essentially what we are seeing here is the same old Republican leadership games. There is bipartisan support for the Kennedy-Kassebaum Senate bill. One hundred and thirty respected business groups, insurance groups, and health care providers have endorsed it. The House version, sponsored by the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], a Republican, has bipartisan support and will reduce the number of uninsured by millions. It is a positive step that will help working families by increasing portability and eliminate preexisting conditions. If the Republican leadership truly wanted health care reform, they should consider using the Roukema legislation as the vehicle for it. It is irresponsible to try to please all the special interests when Congress can be working together to reduce the number of uninsured Americans. What I am simply saying, Mr. Speaker, is this: We know that the Roukema bill can pass and address the issue of preexisting conditions and portability. Let us bring it to the Committee on Commerce, let us bring it to the floor. Let us not load it up with all these other things that will make it impossible for it to pass. I think it is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to allow this bill to come out and be considered in a simple form, rather than this new grab-bag package that they are now proposing to introduce and bring before various congressional committees.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out again that the cuts in education that are happening right now because of the reduced funding levels in these continuing resolutions that the Republican leadership continues to put forward in this House are having a severe impact on education in secondary schools, primary schools, as well as higher education around the country. We are talking, in this continuing resolution that passed last week, if it were to continue for the rest of this year, about a $3 billion cut in education programs. What that means is higher property taxes in those school districts which decide to continue those programs, or simply the elimination of valuable educational programs that students take advantage of. Already I am hearing from my school boards and from educators in my district in New Jersey who are saying that if the level of cuts continue the rest of this year as they have since the beginning of October, the beginning of this fiscal year, the consequences are dire for education programs on every level. it is sad because, once again, I feel that education should be a priority of this Congress and should not be cut back.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. The Republican leadership again is keeping up its attack on the environment. Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 3019, is the same old antienvironmental legislation that the President has vetoed twice before. It contains the same environmental riders, anemic funding levels and special interest give-aways, just like the previous conference report. Last night I asked the Rules Committee for permission to offer an amendment that would restore a sensible level of funding for the EPA, and of course I was denied. Therefore, there will be no opportunity today to provide adequate funding for the environment. My amendment would have increased the level of funding to the EPA for the remainder of this fiscal year to a level that is commensurate with the last fiscal year, funding levels identical to those recently recommended by the President. Mr. Speaker, my amendment also would have provided the funding levels that EPA needs to be able to set environmental and public health standards for air pollution, pesticides, and clean and safe water, and to make the Superfund Program faster and more efficient. It would also restore the funds needed to keep the environmental cop on the beat, to ensure that once these safety standards are set, that they are properly adhered to. My amendment would also strip out all the antienvironmental riders which once again are in this bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill, like the previous interior conference report, includes riders that stop the Secretary from listing endangered species and increase logging in national forests. It contains a 40 percent cut in the endangered species funding. The bill, like the previous VA conference report, includes riders that prohibit the EPA from protecting wetlands, limit enforcement of the Clean Air Act, prohibit new drinking water standards for radon, and stop the agency from moving ahead to clean up toxic waste. It contains funding levels that are 22 percent below the President's fiscal 1996 request. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, this bill is a bad bill for the environment. The rhetoric that we received from the Republican leadership that they were no longer going to try to hurt the environment, that they were not going to try to turn back the clock any more, that 1996 was going to be different from 1995 with regard to environmental measures, it is simply not true. They are back at the same old game. We have to vote down this rule.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to follow up on these education cuts. As was stated previously, today the Republican leadership is putting forth a continuing resolution that would fund education programs for the rest of this year. But the bill is the largest cut in education in the history of this Nation, 13 percent below last year's level, $3.3 billion less in education funding. Do my colleagues know what that means? It means higher taxes in the municipalities that we represent around the country. In my home town, the school budget, they are talking about an increase of 9 cents per 100-dollar assessment. If this level of Federal education cuts continues, the only ones that are going to suffer are the local property taxes or the children in the schools, because the local school boards will have the choice of either cutting the programs, increasing the class size, decreasing the quality of education, or increasing local taxes to pay for it. This notion that somehow if the Federal Government cuts back that that is something that is not going to have an impact locally, it does have an impact locally. It has an impact in every one of the municipalities that we represent around this country, either taxes are going to go up or the quality of education will decrease.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am just amazed that we are talking again today about a short-term 2-week extension of the debt ceiling. Again, I think it is totally irresponsible on the part of the Republican leadership. Essentially, what I understand is they do not know what to do. In other words, rather than just pass a clean debt ceiling for the rest of the year, which makes sense from the point of view of any kind of economic theory, they are waiting around to see what they might want to attach to this debt ceiling in an effort again to hold the Government hostage just as they did with the Government shutdown and just as they have done with the debt ceiling all along, to see what they can attach to it to move forward with their extreme agenda. I think it is really the height of irresponsibility to legislate in this fashion. We know that there is always the possibility out there that the threat of default will send the economy of the country, the markets, into turmoil. I think once again it shows to me that the Republican leadership is not really concerned about what happens to the economy, what the impact is on the American people. All they want to do is sit around here for a few more weeks and see what they can load onto this debt ceiling in order to try to move their agenda. Again, it is irresponsible. It is not fair. I hope, I hope that at the end of this 2-week period there will be some common sense that once again comes to the floor of this House of Representatives and that we see the Speaker and Republican leadership moving ahead with a clean debt ceiling for the remainder of this year. That is the only way to go. It is the only way to go if you want to act responsibly for this country.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. I just wanted to continue, if I could, to talk about some of the efforts, if you will, that are taking place even today to try to avoid Mrs. Roukema's bill from coming to the floor in the clean form that we just talked about. First of all, in the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities today a bill was reported out by Mr. Fawell of Illinois instead of the Roukema bill that we just discussed. In fact, there was an effort by the Democrats on the committee to simply pose an amendment that would move the Roukema bill or take up the Roukema bill, and that was defeated along partisan lines, the Democrats voting for it, the Republicans against it. The Fawell bill, if you will, that was actually reported out of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities does not include the Roukema bill's protections for individuals who have been laid off or retired and are trying to purchase health insurance for themselves. It also contains weaker provisions with respect to protecting individuals against being denied health care due to preexisting conditions. Another shortcoming, if you will, of the Fawell bill includes provisions that would threaten State reform initiatives designed to increase access and affordability in the health insurance market. Basically this deals with the whole issue of ERISA, where the Federal Government essentially preempts any State efforts to improve access or to do more, if you will, in terms of health insurance reform than the Federal Government might do. So already, getting back to the point that myself and the gentlewoman from California made before, already there are efforts on the part of the Republican leadership in the House to sort of muck up this bill and not bring the clean bill to the floor that would simply address the issues of portability and limitations on preexisting conditions. We also understand that in another House committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, there may be an effort to bring up a bill, H.R. 1610, by Mr. Thomas. That again is a much weaker reform measure than the Roukema bill. What we are seeing here essentially is the leadership in the House moving to try to enact provisions that are much less reform-minded, if you will, than the legislation that we have talked about today. I wanted to go back briefly to just explain in a little more detail what this legislation that was sponsored by Mrs. Roukema would do and how important it is to the average American. Essentially what it is is a minimum guarantee for all citizens with employment-based health coverage, in other words, these are people that are buying insurance on the job or essentially getting insurance through their employer, that as long as they pay their premiums, their health insurance can never be taken away from them, whether they change jobs, lose their jobs, or get sick. That is essentially what we are trying to do. Exclusions for preexisting conditions would be limited. They cannot be reimposed on those with current coverage who change jobs or whose employers change insurance companies. No employers who want to buy a policy for their employees can be turned down because of the health of their employees. No employees can be excluded from an employer's policy because they have higher than average health care costs, and cancellation of policies will be prohibited for those who continue to pay their premiums. Any employee losing group coverage because they leave their job or for any other reason would be guaranteed the right to buy an individual policy. Now, again, the Roukema bill, H.R. 2893, to get a little more specific, would prohibit insurers and employers from limiting or denying coverage under group plans for more than 12 months for a medical condition that was diagnosed or treated during the previous 6 months. So, in other words, if you have coverage now, I will use the example of a cancer patient. If you are working, for example, for General Motors and when you are there working you discover that you have cancer and you have to have treatment, be treated for cancer, and 6 months later you were to change jobs and while you are still undergoing treatment and move to, for example, to Ford Motor Co. and start working there, well, essentially the new company would only be allowed to exclude you from coverage at most over a lifetime of 12 months. So that maybe for the first 6 months, there would not be the guarantee of health coverage once you change jobs, but there would be after those 6 months. Now, again, those of us who believe that there should be universal coverage and that you should not be able to exclude anybody at any time would say that even that is not enough. But at least to guarantee that, that a person for the most can be excluded for only 12 months, is a significant change in the law from what you are guaranteed right now. Also, denial of individual coverage to workers losing group coverage that have had it for at least 18 months would also be prohibited. I do not want to get into all the specific details, but essentially it is a significant improvement from the way the law now reads. The other thing that I wanted to point out today is that our Democratic caucus health care task force, which is supportive of the Roukema bill and which has sort of spearheaded the effort to try to get the many Democratic cosponsors that we now have for the bill, about 171, we developed about 6 months ago a set of principles on health care reform which is essentially guiding what we do in this Congress. The two goals that we set forth in our Democratic principles of health care reform that are really most important are, first, that Democrats remain committed to universal coverage for all Americans and, second, that Democrats remain committed to assure that high quality health care is affordable for all. So essentially what our task force principles say is that we will support any proposals which move the Nation closer to these goals of universal coverage and high quality health care that is affordable for all, and we will oppose proposals which move the Nation further away from those goals. For that reason we have been very much opposed to the cuts and changes in Medicare and Medicaid that the Republican leadership has proposed as part of its budget recommendations in 1995 and that continue into 1996. At the same time, though, the principles that are incorporated in the Roukema bill which we talked about on the floor today, the principles that basically limit exclusion for preexisting conditions and the principles that allow you to carry your health insurance with you from one job to the other, so to speak, these are principles that move us in the direction, if you will, of universal coverage and more high quality coverage that is affordable. That is not to say that these are the answers and that these are going to necessarily achieve universal coverage or affordable health care, but at least they move us in that direction, and that is why our health care task force is very much supportive of the Roukema bill. What we are saying essentially, and I cannot reiterate it enough, is that in this Congress so far nothing really has been accomplished to move us toward health care reform, and even with the battle over Medicare and Medicaid and the budget battles that continue, it is not likely that there is going to be much resolution of those issues and those programs. But at least, if we can achieve modest health insurance reform on the issues of portability and on the issue of preexisting conditions, then we will have accomplished something, and there is a need for bipartisan cooperation to at least achieve those modest goals as we continue to work toward the ultimate goal of universal coverage and affordable quality health care for all. So with that, I would just like to conclude this special order today, but point out that we are going to continue to press that the Roukema bill be brought to the floor as a clean bill and oppose any efforts to try to prevent its adoption in this Congress and its ultimately being signed into law by President Clinton who has repeatedly stated that he will sign the bill and that he supports this very modest health care insurance reform.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the reason I am here today is because Democrats as a party in the House of Representatives, basically over 170 democratic Members of the House of Representatives, are uniting behind a proposal that would make modest but important improvements in America's health insurance. Basically it would provide access to more Americans so that they can have health insurance, and guaranteeing also that if they lose their job or change jobs, that they can carry their insurance with them. The bill that we are all uniting behind and cosponsoring is sponsored in the House of Representatives by the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. Marge Roukema, a Republican and a colleague of mine, and her bill is basically the same as the one that is sponsored in the Senate by Senators Kassebaum and Ted Kennedy. So this is a bipartisan effort. Basically, it is a bipartisan effort to try to bring very modest health insurance reform to the American people. I should also point out that in his State of the Union Address, President Clinton said that he would sign this bill if it was passed by the Senate and the House and brought to his desk. The problem that we face right now is that there are strong indications that the House Republican leadership, Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Republican leadership in the House, are not willing to bring the bill to the floor in its existing form, and, in fact, are talking about loading up the legislation with many other provisions which we think we make it more difficult for this bill to pass. I want to introduce to talk a little bit about the bill, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo]. Before I do that though, I just wanted to say very briefly, that, as I said, there are 170 Democrat Members of the House that have signed on as cosponsors to this bill, and there are numerous organizations, most notably the American Medical Association and a list of probably about 100 different health care specialty groups, as well as some insurers, who are not saying that they also support the bill. in addition to that, there has been a commitment by the Republican leadership in the Senate to bring the bill to the floor the second or third week in April. So, again, the only thing that is holding up action on this legislation at this point is the House Republican leadership, which so far has been unwilling to bring it to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce my colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo], who has been a strong leader on this issue.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from California, Ms. Eshoo, for explaining the bill and basically why those two principles of portability and limitations on preexisting conditions as the basis for getting health insurance are so important. As you indicated, it seems like this is apple pie. In other words, why would anybody oppose it? But as we know, that is not the case. In fact, without getting into all the bureaucracy of it, what we are trying to press and challenge the Republican leadership to do is to simply bring up this bill in what we call a clean form, exactly the way you described it and the way it was introduced, and not load onto it all kinds of other things that may create controversy and make it difficult to pass. One of the things that we have heard is that in the Senate, Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy seem to have a commitment from the Republican and the Democratic leadership to do exactly that. When the bill comes up, as I said, in mid-April or possibly late April, they already have a commitment that there will not be any amendments. Somebody might offer an amendment, but there is not going to be any effort to allow those amendments to succeed, not because you and I or others do not think that we should go further and do more for health insurance reform, because we do, but because we just know that these things are basic and we do not want them cluttered up. Now, on the other hand, if I could just come back to the House for a minute, what we are hearing in the House from the Republican leadership is very different. Just to give you some information, this was from yesterday's New York Times, and just to read a little bit, it says that the House Republican leaders said today they would soon take up this bill, but they intend to add provisions that are likely to generate bitter, prolonged disputes in Congress. For example, they are talking about adding provisions dealing with medical malpractice, antitrust law, special savings accounts for medical expenses, and tax deductions for the health insurance costs of people who are self-employed. Again, we may or may not agree with those points, but they are, as you know being in the Commerce Committee, tremendously controversial. It says, in fact, in the article that the decision to add these provisions essentially is made to placate conservative House Republicans or to satisfy committee chairmen keenly interested in one provision or another. I honestly believe, though, that the real motivation is to sabotage the bill because they know, the House Republican leadership knows, as you and I know, that these provisions are very controversial. Many of them were hotly contested during the Medicaid, Medicare budget battle that we had for a year that was never resolved, and I think it is important for us to keep pointing out we want a clean bill. We do not want, for the sake of those who are more conservative or those who are more liberal, to sort of muck up this bill, because it is so important that it move forward.

Mr. PALLONE. Sure.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Democrats are uniting behind a proposal that would make modest but important improvements in America's health insurance. This is a bill that was sponsored by the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] that would basically guarantee that insurance companies could not deny health insurance coverage for preexisting conditions and also would improve what we call portability, the ability to take your insurance with you or to guarantee that your insurance is renewed even if you lose group coverage. Today we have over 150 House Democrats who are cosponsoring the Roukema measure, including myself. We are challenging the House Republican leadership to let this bill come to the floor without loading it up with all kinds of other proposals that would make it less possible for the bill to pass. This is something that President Clinton endorsed in his State of the Union Address. The time has come now for bipartisan support for this health security and health insurance reform for all Americans. I call upon the House leadership to bring this bill to the floor so that we can see better guarantees that preexisting conditions would not prevent someone from getting health insurance and that someone who loses their health insurance on the job can still get it in the individual market.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pay special tribute today to an important series of events that will take place on International Women's Day. International Women's Day will be celebrated with great enthusiasm and energy throughout New Jersey on March 8, 1996, and I am delighted to be able to help organizers in their goal of recognizing the achievements and contributions of working women. International Women's Day is one of New Jersey's most exciting community initiatives. Its New Jersey inception dates back to 1909 in Metuchen which is in my Sixth Congressional District. Created as an opportunity to facilitate discussions on women and work, International Women's Day has over the past 85 years inspired many young women to better understand their working futures in a global context. On Thursday evening, Mr. Speaker, a public event will be held at Rutger's Cook Campus Center to offer awards to those selected from over 400 student essays collected from throughout New Jersey. This is a special evening and will help start International Women's Day--New Jersey, as each awardee and presenter will help to inspire the goals of International Women's Day. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a special congratulations to International Women's Day--New Jersey on their achievement of becoming the first State to plan a statewide celebration in schools and universities this Friday, March 8, 1996. It is truly commendable that New Jersey has so many leaders committed to making an important event, such as International Women's Day--New Jersey, a vivd reality. To know that this event will be celebrated in every school district in each of New Jersey's 21 counties is remarkable and I hope each individual can take the important lessons from these events. Mr. Speaker, we do not always have the opportunity to honor an organization with such a rich history of progressive thought and I am so proud to be able to recognize their achievements today. International Women's Day will be an unqualified success and I am proud to have had the distinct pleasure of supporting this initiative throughout our State and nationally.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro, for raising this issue again this evening on the floor of the House of Representatives, and I guess you know I approach the education issue from two perspectives in the House. First of all, I think most people realize that maybe it needs to be stated again that the amount of money that the Federal Government contributes for education is really very minuscule. I think if you look at your local school budget, for example, in the municipalities that any of us represents, you will find maybe 7 or 8 percent of their budget is Federal dollars. So we are not really talking about a tremendous amount of money that the Federal Government actually does contribute, particularly on the local level, and if that is cut significantly, as is being proposed by the Republicans, then the Federal role, the Federal commitment to education, will even be more minuscule. The other thing, I think, is a lot of people believe that because of this budget battle that we have had between Democrats and Republicans over the last year and because it is not resolved at this point, perhaps that the status quo continues and that the money continues to flow to local districts for various educational functions, and that is simply not true. As you pointed out, the level of funding under this continuing resolution, if that level of funding were to continue through the rest of this year, would be about a 20-percent cut overall in Federal education funding on every level. That is a significant cut from 1 year to the next, and the impact on local school districts, on colleges and universities will be severe. Already I know that in my own area State and local officials have told me that they are unable to plan for the coming year in terms of their education budget. They do not know whether or not they can keep as many teachers as they have. They do not know whether or not they can offer certain courses, you know, whether their curriculum is going to change. So this uncertainty, if you will, that exists out there because we are operating under these continuing resolutions, where we have to keep extending the funding every 2 weeks or every month or so, really is having a terribly negative impact on the ability for local and State officials to plan for educational purposes over the next year. The other thing that I guess disappoints me a great deal is that if you think about the effort that President Clinton has made in trying to highlight education, when he was first elected and in the first few years of his administration he established a number of initiatives on the Federal level that really have already started to make a difference in terms of improving education at every level, and those initiatives are right now very much in limbo because of the Republican leadership budget. I just wanted to mention a couple of them because, for example, the National Service Program, which allows students to work in the community when they are in college and then use the money that they earn to pay for their college tuition or their college education. He actually came to Rutgers University, which is in my district, and announced that program a couple of years ago, and Rutgers and students in my district have taken advantage of that to the hilt. I mean basically it was a supplemental program where right now you can get some grants for scholarships, you can get some student loans from the Federal Government. But this now allows a whole other area where I think you can earn up to about $4,000 a year, which is a significant amount of money, you know, given the cost of tuition and the cost of higher education today, and the community benefits because the students are back in the community working either in hospitals or on environmental projects or in schools, whatever it happens to be. And this is the program, this National Service or AmeriCorps, which the Republican leadership wants to eliminate outright. Their budget actually just kills the program completely. The other thing is if goal 2000----

Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely, and I think you are pointing it out, and again this is not pie in the sky. I have talked to students, as I know you have, college students who were involved in these various national service programs, and they are working, and they are in the schools, out in the community, they are in hospials. They are doing all kinds of things. The other thing that the President established was the direct loan program. Now again maybe it sounds a little bureaucratic, but it is important because again Rutgers University in my district has taken advantage of it where traditionally student loans, when I was in college and until recently, you had to go to the bank, and the Government would guarantee the loan. Well, some of the universities, including Rutgers, went to the administration and to the Congress and said, look, if we administer this program directly, if the money comes directly to us and the students apply directly for the student loans from us, then we eliminate the middle person, if you will, and we can expand opportunities and give out a lot more direct loans.