Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Again, I do not want to prolong this, but we talked about higher education. If you talk about primary and second, as I pointed out before, the Federal contribution to local education is not very much in dollars. It is about 7 percent or 8 percent of the budget. But the Federal Government has traditionally, and again, President Clinton has talked about trying to create incentive programs that will basically try to improve the quality of education, with the few Federal dollars that go to the local districts. One of the areas that he has been a champion of is Goals 2000. Basically, this is where you set standards, if you will, for the quality of education, for curricula, whatever, within the school, and then you give the schools, on a competitive basis, a certain amount of Federal dollars to try to implement some changes, some innovations, that would improve the standards of the curriculum or the education. That, again, is something that is significantly cut back, almost eliminated in the Republican leadership budget. The other thing is that traditionally the Federal Government, I guess for at least 10 years or more now, has been involved in providing new equipment or high-technology type things, whether it is computers or ways of trying to improve the sciences; things that, as you know, many schools simply cannot afford to buy that kind of high-technology equipment or whatever, because they do not have the budget for it. Again, that is another area where there are significant cuts that are being proposed, and the President is talking about trying to come up with some innovations.

Mr. PALLONE. You talked about programs that work. Just the last one that I wanted to mention, of course, even earlier is the Head Start Program, preschool Head Start Program, because from 1992 to 1995, which is, of course, the span of the current administration, we have had an increase of 130,000 children that were able to participate in the Head Start Program over the last 3 years, because we were expanding a very successful program, which is enjoying--it really had support under President Bush, President Reagan, as well as President Clinton and President Carter. It has always been very bipartisan. Now all of a sudden this Republican leadership budget would deny Head Start benefits to 180,000 children over the next few years. So again, we are talking about misplaced priorities here. When I go out of my district, when I am in the State of New Jersey and I talk to people, they all tell me that education is paramount. Everyone understands that. I really for the life of me do not understand why the Republican leadership in this House does not get it. Education is crucial. If we are going to start talking about cutting education 20 percent here over the next fiscal year, it just makes no sense. It is totally out of sync with what the American people want.

Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely.

Mr. PALLONE. Exactly, and they started it on an experimental basis at certain colleges and universities, Rutgers being one of the first, and at Rutgers it expanded the number of student loans that they can give out. Now all of a sudden we are hearing as a part of this budget that they want to cap the direct loan program, I think it is at 10 percent, and not allow it to be expanded to other colleges and universities. In my district, my college, for example, which was a 4-year institution, would not be able to establish a direct loan program under this Republican budget or proposal, and again it makes no sense. I mean it is essentially nothing but a special interest effort to say let us go back to the old way where the middleman, the banker, or financial institution, makes the money and no one is proposing that this makes any sense. It is certainly going to make it harder to get a loan for individual college students and obviously eliminate a lot of opportunities that students would have to be able to go to college. It makes no sense.

Mr. PALLONE. They are not----

Mr. PALLONE. Exactly.

Mr. PALLONE. And again what we are really talking about here is the recognition of the fact that today, unlike maybe 10 or 20 years ago, it takes a lot more money to go to college, and so if you do not have a national service program, if you do not have direct loans, if you do not have innovative ways of trying to pay for college tuition, you are not going to be able to make it. Now, the President in his State of the Union Address talked about families, parents, being able to pay up to $10,000 in tuition for their students and that that would be tax deductible. As you know, in the process of this budget debate the Republicans and the Democrats have talked about some sort of tax cuts or tax breaks. But again I would suggest that if you look at the tax breaks suggested by the Republican leadership, they are mostly for large corporations and for the well-to- do, whereas the President now is saying here again education is a major issue. If we allow that kind of tax deductibility, it expands the ability of parents to help pay their kids' education, and if we are going to do any kind of tax cut or tax break, that should be the kind of tax cut or break that we should institute because it is an investment in the future of the country.

Mr. PALLONE. Exactly.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the Republican leadership is brining up the Small Business Relief and Regulatory Accountability Act. This is nothing more than the Contract With America repackaged. It is an effort to bog down Federal agencies, particularly those involved with the environment such as the EPA, so that they cannot get the job done. From the beginning of this session last year, the Republicans made a point that they were going to push through regulatory reform. But this regulatory reform is nothing more than but an effort to burden departments and agencies that protect our public health and safety with duplicative and unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy. It is a shame that the Republican leadership is going to try again to raise this issue and do what is necessary, what they think they can do to break down environmental protection and make it impossible for the EPA and other agencies that protect our environment and protect our public health from doing their job. But we will have to fight it again today and make the point that this is not the way that Congress should be run.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on what my colleague from Texas said. It is, in fact, true that the commitment was made that as of today the debt ceiling would be extended so that this country would not go into default. And I know we have heard previously, well, that deadline can be extended a couple of weeks because of legislation that has passed this House. But the bottom line is what we are seeing here again is the same thing we saw with the Government shutdown. The Republican leadership wants to hold this Congress hostage to their ideological agenda where they want to cut Medicare, Medicaid, cut environmental programs, cut education, and they are saying unless you do some of that or unless you provide tax cuts for wealthy Americans and corporations, we are not going to extend the debt ceiling and we are going to threaten the possibility of this country going into default, again, a commitment that was made and a commitment that was broken. They should bring up a clean debt ceiling. They should not extend it for another week or another 2 weeks but continue it through the rest of the fiscal year so the possibility of default is not out there. I do not need to say what could possibly happen if this country went into default. Even the threat of it is a problem.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, our constituents are worried about jobs. They see downsizing in their communities. They are concerned about wages because the economy continues to be a problem for many Americans. But the answer is not the GOP extremist agenda that basically protects the rich and the powerful but threatens the health, safety, and security of America's working families. The Republican leadership over the last year has been putting forth this extremist agenda at the expense of the middle class, at the expense of the average working American. They have tried to put into place tax breaks for large corporations and for wealthy Americans. They have tried to cut taxes, or they have tried to eliminate tax credits, the earned income tax credits for working Americans at the lower end of the income spectrum. At the same time, you see the President suggesting that we do things to help the average working American. The President has talked about tax cuts for families. He has talked about doing things for education, such as your ability to deduct tuition that you pay for your student, your children that are in college. It really is terrible that we continue to see this GOP extremist agenda that hurts the average working American, and I hope that now that we are back in session and we are away from this 3-week break that we are starting to see some action in this Congress to help the average working American.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on the afternoon of Sunday, March 3, 1995, the 23d Annual St. Patrick's Day Parade will move through the streets of Belmar, NJ. Mr. Speaker, from its modest beginnings little more than two decades ago, the Belmar event has become the biggest and best-attended St. Patrick's Day Parade in the State of New Jersey, and one of the finest in the Nation. While not quite as big as the New York City parade, the Belmar event has steadily been attracting crowds of more than 100,000 people, drawn from the Jersey Shore area and throughout our State, surrounding States and other nations, including Ireland itself. Thousands of marchers are expected this year, including members of community organizations, elected officials, marching bands, floats, bagpipers, and leaders of Irish-American organizations. Both the participants and the many spectators always have a wonderful time. The grand marshal this year is Mr. John F. Kelly of Sea Girt, NJ, a retired Elizabeth, NJ, police officer and a member of numerous community organizations. The deputy grand marshal is Rosemarie Plunkett Reilly of Belmar, the director of the Reilly Funeral Home. A previous grand marshal, Monmouth County Freeholder Thomas J. Powers, will again serve as parade commentator. The Belmar St. Patrick's Day Parade was established in 1973 by members of the Jerry Lynch Social & Athletic Club. Mr. Lynch is credited with being the parade founder. The first parade, held in 1974, had club members marching in top hats and tails, followed by four marching bands, and numerous fire engines. That year, the crowd of spectators was not much bigger than the contingent of marchers. The first grand marshal was my predecessor, and a name well-known to many of the Members of this body: the late Congressman James J. Howard, a life-long resident of the Jersey Shore who took great pride in his Irish heritage. For their tireless efforts to ensure that the 1996 parade will be another memorable experience, I wish to pay tribute to all of the members of the Belmar St. Patrick's Day Committee, particularly the chairman, Dave Stanley. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to pay tribute to the Belmar St. Patrick's Day Parade, a great and proud tradition of the Jersey Shore for Irish-Americans and people of all backgrounds.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota for the statement and the comments that he made. One of the things that the gentleman pointed to was the fact that in many cases the ideology, if you will, that the Republican leadership is articulating really is not true in terms of what the actual effect is. I mean one of the things that they keep stressing is how they have to cut the budget for environmental protection in order to save money, that somehow that is going to, you know, lead to serious deficit reduction. and in fact when we look at some of the cuts and some of the changes that they are proposing, it has just the opposite effect. I thought some of the strongest testimony at our hearing yesterday was by the assistant attorney general and also by Carol Browner, the EPA Administrator, where they were pointing out that because of the Government shutdowns, because of the cutbacks in funding for personnel, that they have not been able to basically prosecute polluters and collect penalties that come back as a result of successful prosecution, and they have not been able to find those who violate their permits, and so are actually losing a tremendous amount of money that comes back from the penalties and the loss of income that results from not getting the penalties and the fees from that during this process. So I think again one of the purposes of our task force is to sort of be a truth squad and say, here, look, you are articulating this ideology that you are going to save money, but you are really not because actually we are getting fewer dollars in here, we are not prosecuting, we are not enforcing the law.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] for those remarks, and you know it is interesting, because when we had the hearing yesterday Carol Browner, who is the Administrator of the EPA, pointed out what difficult choices we are going to face over the next few months or the next year if the level of spending or the budget levels that we are operating under now, if this continuing resolution were to continue through the end of the fiscal year, and she specifically said we are talking about the public health. Again, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] talked about endangered species, and there are obviously a lot of natural resource issues that we are concerned about, but we are specifically talking about public health and how it is going to be impacted, and if I can just briefly mention, because it really did not get a full hearing yesterday, but Browner specifically pointed out that under the budget proposed by the Republican leaders the American people will be faced with terrible choices with regard to public health issues. She mentioned will the EPA set effective standards to control Cryptosporidium and disinfection by-products in our drinking water, or will we set standards that will remove 1 billion tons of toxics and other pollutants each year from rivers and lakes, standards to control water pollution from the pulp and paper industry? Will we strengthen our standards for protecting the public from smog and smoke particles of air pollution or will we issue new standards for industrial toxic air pollutants? These are standards that they were about to embark on in this fiscal year. In other words, if they had this level of funding that was requested by the administration the EPA would be able to move ahead and regulate these industries in that fashion and meet those standards for public health reasons, and she pointed out, for example, that with the drinking water standards for the Cryptosporidium and disinfection by- products you have associated health risk like severe gastrointestinal illnesses and increased incidences of cancer with the industrial water pollution standards for metal products, industrial laundries, landfills and incinerators, pollution reduction goals where so many millions of pounds per year would not be taken out of the environment if we do not have the level of funding that was requested. She talked about with air pollution the need to strengthen small particle standards. She talked about burning diesel fuel, burning garbage, standards that were going to be in place for those this year, and you have associated health risks of eyes, nose and throat irritation, respiratory illnesses, increases in mortality. Obviously, I could go on and on with this and I would not, but my point is, and I think you made the point very well, is that we are talking about health risks, and that is what this is all about. You know the last 25 years, when on a bipartisan basis the Congress and President sought to improve and strengthen our environmental protection laws and to increase enforcement, were based primarily on the need to protect public health and is certainly one of the reasons why life expectancy is longer, and now there was an article that was in today's paper that said even though people are living longer they are also leading healthier lives, even when they are senior citizens, that they, you know, lead much healthier lives and are able to function in much better ways. I am very concerned about the fact that what the Republican leadership is proposing here in turning back the clock on environmental protection is really going to have ultimately, if we let it happen, a terrible impact on the Nation's health, but hopefully you and I and the rest of us will make the point over the next few months so that we can prevent this turning back of the clock and maybe even get to some progressive environmental legislation that will improve the public health. I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] now for the additional time that she may consume. I know she has something about former Governor Brown that she would like to say.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I will use the entire time, but I did want to seek recognition today to talk about environmental concerns, and particularly to point out some of the results of a hearing that our Democratic Environmental Task Force held yesterday on February 26. We had a full, I guess, 2 or 3 hours of hearings. We heard from not only the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Babbitt; the EPA Administrator, Ms. Browner; and also Assistant Attorney General Schiffer, but also from a distinguished panel of citizens from around the country who are concerned about environmental protection. The reason for the task force existence and the reason for the hearing yesterday was because of our concern, Democrats' concern, that the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has essentially used 1995, our previous year, in order to try to turn back the clock on 25 years of environmental protection in the United States. For more than a quarter of a century, there has been a consensus, a bipartisan consensus in Congress, as well as with the President, largely with Democratic Congresses and mostly with Republican Presidents, or sometimes Democratic Presidents, but in any case on a bipartisan basis for 25 years this Congress has tried to protect the environment, improve the laws, improve enforcement, improve inspections, so that polluters, whether they be polluters of the air, the water, or our natural resources, would have to stop their efforts to continue the degradation of the environment, and if they did not, they would be penalized severely, hopefully, for their activities that were detrimental to the environment. In fact, in many ways we can hark back to the days in the 1970's, in the early 1970's, when the Environmental Protection Agency was created under then President Richard Nixon. It was a Democratic Congress, but a Republican President in 1970 who created the Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, when the first Earth Day was organized back in 1970, President Nixon and the Republicans in Congress were very supportive of the efforts to move forward on environmental protection. But this 25-year consensus, this 25 years, if you will, prior to 1995, when every year stronger environmental protection laws were passed and money was made available for enforcement and inspections for our environmental laws, all of a sudden in 1995 this consensus was broken and we saw the effort on the part of Speaker Gingrich and the House Republican leadership to roll back environmental protection. And whether it was through authorizing bills or cutbacks in the budgets for these various environmental agencies, all of a sudden there was an effort by the Republican leadership to change this 25-year consensus. The reason for that I believe very strongly is because of special interests. In other words, corporate interests, the polluters, if you will, were very much behind the Republican leadership in saying look, the time has come to turn back the clock and we expect you to come down to Washington and help us to make it easier, if you will, or less stringent, with regard to pollution, and less stringent regulations and less stringent statutes and less money available for these agencies to do their work was essentially the order of the day. I feel that it is an obligation, not only of the Democrats but also of moderate Republicans who support the environmental protection agenda, to point out what is happening and how extremist this Republican leadership agenda is that seeks to essentially turn back the clock on environmental protection, because we know that the American people consistently support strong environmental laws and strong enforcement of those environmental laws. In fact, a survey was recently done, which I would like to point to, by American Viewpoint. It pointed out that by greater than a 2.1 margin, voters have more confidence in the Democrats than Republicans as the party they trust most to protect the environment. In fact, it even pointed out that 55 percent of all Republicans surveyed do not trust their party when it comes to protecting the environment, while 72 percent of the Democrats do trust their party to protect the environment. So the bottom line is that environmental protection is very much still in the forefront of the minds of the American people. They did not elect a Congress in 1994, whether it be under the Republican majority or Democrats in the minority, they did not elect a Congress with the idea that the leadership of the Congress was going to come down here and try to turn back the clock on environmental protection. What I think has been happening though is that in 1995, while this effort was going on on the part of Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership, more and more they began to become aware of the fact that, particularly toward the end of the year, that this was not a popular agenda, that destroying environmental laws and turning back the clock was not something the public was responding to in a favorable way. What we see now is an effort in some ways by the Republican leadership to suggest to their Members that perhaps they should go slow on this agenda, or maybe they should vote for the antienvironmental agenda, but not give the impression back at home that is what they are doing. A memo was put out in fact to the Republican membership by one of my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas. Tom DeLay, who is in the Republican leadership, on September 29, 1995, and what he says essentially is that Members, when they go back to their districts, and we just finished a district work period, about 3 weeks when we were not in session and we were back in our districts and States and congressional districts, what this memo says that Republicans when they go home should try to at least give the impression to the public and the media that they are trying to protect the environment, even while they come back here and vote very differently. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], suggests certain action items like tree planting. He suggests that Republicans should sponsor tree planting programs in their districts or participate in ongoing tree planting programs that would provide Members with earned media opportunities. He also suggests that perhaps they get involved in local schools and meet with students to talk about recycling, or that perhaps they give out conservation awards. He talks about the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Award, because as you know, President Teddy Roosevelt was known very much as an environmentalist and was a Republican. It says in the memo, using his name, consider establishing a yearly Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Award for someone in your district whose achievements exemplify President Roosevelt's conservation commitment. You can even recognize several award winners by establishing a youth award, a senior award, or a local business conservation award. He goes on to suggest that perhaps the Republican Members could go door-to-door and hand out tree saplings or get involved in park cleanups or become active in their local zoo. I am not saying any of these things are bad. I think it is great. I think it is great to participate in Arbor Day and clean up the local park and certainly good to recognize students or seniors in the community that are involved in conservation efforts and give out the Teddy Roosevelt Award. I greatly admire President Roosevelt. Again it points out that historically conservationism, environmentalism, has been bipartisan. But I would venture to suggest that the suggestions of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], here are really primarily cosmetic in an effort to try to give the impression that Republican Members when they are in their districts are environmentalists or conservationists, but then they come back here and vote very much the other way. They vote for measures that break down environmental protection, that turn the clock back on the environmental protection that we have had for 25 years on a bipartisan basis. All of us want more efficient Government. I would venture to say that every Member of this House of Representatives would like to see the deficit reduced and like to see a balanced budget, or almost every Member, certainly both Democrats and Republicans. Certainly I share that point of view. But I do not believe that in an effort to tighten the budget belt, if you will, or an effort to reduce the deficit and eliminate the deficit and balance the budget, that you have to sacrifice environmental protection. I would venture to say that environmental protection more than any other issue, and EPA and the agencies and programs involved in environmental protection, more than any other agencies have suffered severely by the Republican budget cuts or Republican budget suggestions. And if you look at the continuing resolution, the stopgap spending bill that we are now operating under, at least until March 15, you will notice that environmental protection, those agencies, those programs involved in environmental protection, are cut much more severely than almost any other agency or any other Federal program, again part of the effort to turn back the clock on environmental protection, if not through outright repeal of our laws, then certainly by cutting back on the amount of personnel or the money that is available to the agencies to do investigations, to do enforcement, to bring the polluters to justice, so-to-speak, and penalize them. As you all know, if you have laws on the books that are very stringent in terms of protecting the environment, it does not do much good if you do not have personnel to go out and check on the polluters, bring them to justice, if you do not have the enforcement and investigation. There is almost no point in having the laws on the books at all. What I wanted to do in some of the time that I have allotted to me, I wanted to at least initially give some idea in my home State of New Jersey of the impact of the Republican budget cuts. Then, if I could, I will go through some of the data that was provided by some of the speakers at our task force hearing on Monday that indicates exactly how these Republican budget cuts are impacting various environmental agencies. As far as my home State of New Jersey is concerned, one of the major concerns is the Superfund program. The Superfund program is the national hazardous waste cleanup program. My home State of New Jersey has 107 active Superfund sites, which is more than any other State. Twelve sites have been slated for significant new construction, in other words, remedial and major removal actions will be shut down by the budget cuts that have been proposed. I am not going to get into all the list of the sites. I would like to submit them for the Record. But the bottom line is that we have at least 12 sites that would see no remedial action, no restoration at all, even though they are on the national priority list. There are 30 other sites in New Jersey with ongoing work that will experience shutdowns or slowdowns as a result of the budget cuts, with various impacts. So for these other 30, all the work will not stop completely but it will be significantly slowed down. For example, at the Montclair, Glen Ridge, West Orange radium site, the EPA will have to stop cleaning up radium contaminated soil in a residential neighborhood. In disposal sites, buried waste containers would continue to leach contaminants into groundwater. In addition, 34 sites where responsible parties are performing cleanups could be stopped if the region is not provided with funds to oversee those cleanups. What I am talking about here is the fact that under the Superfund program, it is only if you cannot find a responsible party, in other words, a polluter that we know caused the pollution to take place, that the Superfund or the Federal dollars have to be used. In most cases, the sites are being cleaned up by the polluter, the responsible parties. And in 34 cases in New Jersey alone, where responsible parties are performing the cleanups, there will not be any kind of Federal oversight of the cleanups, which means that essentially they could be stopped. If the Federal Government cannot go in and see what they are doing, they may not, the polluters may not actually be able to perform the cleanup. Separate from the Superfund program, there is an impact of these cuts on leaking underground storage tanks. This is another Federal program with Federal dollars involved. There is a reduction from fiscal year 1995 of about $500,000, a half a million dollars, in that program which means 278 cleanups will not be initiated and 303 cleanups will not be completed. So here again an important program, underground storage tanks, leakage from that, again toxic waste, hazardous waste sites that are not going to be cleaned up. Very important to the State of New Jersey also is the safe drinking water program, not just to New Jersey, this is important nationally. The EPA estimates that more than 6 million residents of New Jersey are served by drinking water systems that violated public health standards last year. Budget cuts, again the Republican budget cuts, will reduce the funding available to these communities to improve their drinking water systems by about $5 million. Now, an area that I am personally very committed to, and it is very important to my district, is clean water. New Jersey historically has taken a major interest in efforts to improve our water quality. Historically many of its waterways were severely polluted. According to the EPA, about 85 percent of New Jersey's rivers and streams are too polluted for basic uses like swimming. The goal of the Clean Water Act is fishable, swimmable waters. If you cannot achieve those goals, then you are not doing your job here in Congress. So we have to try to at least move forward in achieving those goals. But under the fiscal year 1996 conference report, again, the Republican proposal, New Jersey stands to lose $52.05 million in clean water funding that would help stop pollution from getting into the State's waters, lakes, and streams as well as in the Atlantic Ocean. This represents a 53 percent cut from the fiscal year 1995 enacted funding level. Also, huge cuts in New York's waste water treatment loans and other clean water funding threatens New jersey beaches through washups of untreated sewage and wastewater. Again, I was elected to Congress for the first time in 1988, after a summer when most of our beaches in New Jersey were closed because of pollution problems, basically debris, medical waste, water quality problems that generated primarily from north Jersey as well as New York City. If grants and loans are not available to both New Jersey and New York, particularly in the northern part of the State or the New York metropolitan area, then those same pollution problems will continue to exist or get worse. The consequence of that is that maybe not this summer certainly but in a few years if the funding is not available to upgrade wastewater treatment to prevent problems related to combined sewage overflow, where it rains and your storm water and debris from your streets get in to basically bypass the sewage treatment plant and end up into the Hudson and then eventually come down to the coast of New Jersey, if those problems now begin to be aggravated again because there is not enough Federal dollars going back to the States for wastewater treatment, then we could easily see in a few years down the road a repeat of some of the beach closings and similar type problems that we had in the late 1980's in the State of New Jersey. These clean water efforts are not just water quality issues. They are obviously economic issues because so many jobs in the State of New Jersey are dependent upon clean water for tourism during the summer season. In New Jersey now, tourism is one of the most significant industries in the State. So it has a major economic impact, meaning dollars will be lost. The tax dollars will not be coming from the Federal Government if we do not continue our effort to constantly upgrade our sewage treatment systems and effectuate clean water. The last thing I wanted to talk about is enforcement. In New Jersey, essentially with these Republican budget cuts, the environmental cop will be off the beat as inspections and enforcement efforts will be severely curtailed on the Republican budget proposal which represents a cut of 25 percent below the President's budget request. So with regard to enforcement alone, we are talking about a 25 percent cut. Decreased inspections due to cuts create public health threats that would have to be addressed by a staff much smaller by the budget cuts. And in region 2--region 2 for the EPA includes New Jersey as well as New York--there are reports that as a result of the ongoing budget problems there is a growing backlog of permits which they have been unable to process. In other words, again, we will not even get to the issue of proper enforcement or inspection because they would not even be able to review the whole question of permits, discharge permits for clean water or permits for any other kind of environmental activity. I see that one of my colleagues from Minnesota is here, Mr. Vento. I am glad that he is joining us here today. I would yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, over the last 3 weeks, we had what is know as our district work period when we were back in our home States and our home congressional districts and had the opportunity to have forums and town meetings and meet with our constituents in a way that we really have not had the opportunity since August. One of the things that the Democratic Members of the New Jersey congressional delegation did was to have an education express, where we went on a bus throughout the State of New Jersey from south Jersey to north and basically got opinions from both high school students and college students about the cuts in Federal education programs that have been proposed by Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership. I was amazed to see how many of these students were concerned and how many were going to be directly impacted by the cuts that not only are proposed in the Gingrich budget but also have started to take place because of the cutbacks in the appropriation levels that have passed this House. As my colleagues know, since October for education programs, we have not had a regular spending or appropriation bill. Instead we are operating under continuing resolutions, one of which expires on March 15 and has to be renewed if these programs are going to continue this year. We estimate that the funding levels under the current continuing resolution, if continued at the same rate through the rest of this fiscal year, would result in an unprecedented $3.1 billion cut in education funds, about a 20-percent cut. I am hopeful that through the grassroots efforts of things like the education express and many of my colleagues coming back from this 3- week district work period, that we will be able to convince the Republican leadership that this level of cuts in education programs cannot and should not continue for the rest of this fiscal year because of the impact on students, on our young people and their education throughout this country. Just to highlight a few differences between what the Republican Congress has proposed and what President Clinton and the Democrats have proposed on education, as many know, the national service program, or AmeriCorps, was started by President Clinton and has been in effect now for a couple of years. About 25,000 AmeriCorps volunteers are earning college money by serving their local communities. The Republican budget proposals, however, would eliminate funding for President Clinton's national service program. On Pell grants, the President has called for increasing the number and maximum award which would help 375,000 more students benefit from Pell grants by the year 2000. The Republican budget that the President vetoed denies 380,000 deserving students a Pell grant college scholarship. Head Start is another educational program that on a bipartisan basis President Reagan, President Bush and others on the Republican side have advocated Head Start and encouraged it. Yet the GOP budget would deny Head Start benefits to 180,000 children over the next 7 years. These are just some of the examples of the education programs that would be cut and should not be cut if we are going to the invest in our students and our young people in this country.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, we are back now from a 3-week district work period, and I think it is really important that we get down to business. My constituents that I visited at town meetings and forums over the last 3 weeks all indicated to me they were tired of the Government shutdowns, they were tired of the possibility of the Government going into default. They felt it was really incumbent upon the Republican leadership and Speaker Gingrich to get down to business, forget about the extremist agenda, and the effort to try to inculcate this extremist ideology, and instead we should be working in the House of Representatives to try to deal with the economic problems the average American has. There is still a lot of job instability out there. There is downsizing taking place in the corporate world in New Jersey and throughout this country. These are issues that we must be dealing with. We cannot continue to hold the Government hostage with possible Government shutdowns or with the possibility of getting into default. We simply have to get down to business. That is the message that must get across to the Republican leadership here in the House of Representatives. The time is now to get the job done.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, February 10, a retirement ceremony for a remarkable woman will be held. On that date, at the Fort Monmouth Officers Club, the friends and colleagues of Sylvia E. Thomas will pay tribute to Ms. Thomas' 35-year career as an educator, school administrator and a perfectionist who has always strived to give the most for her students. A resident of Neptune Township, NJ, Ms. Thomas retired on January 1 as the principal of Neptune Middle School. The career that Sylvia Thomas is now concluding is not only a great testimony to her own talent, courage and determination, but it is a true indication of what public education in this country is all about: dedicated professionals, often working under adverse conditions, without lavish salaries, to shape future generations. Sylvia Thomas, like so many unsung heroes working in public education, has earned the respect and gratitude of her former students, their parents and our entire community. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Thomas was born in Georgia and raised in Alabama, the daughter of educators Royal and Lilian Hope Dunham. She earned her bachelor of science degree in secondary education from Tuskegee University in Alabama in 1958, and received her masters degree from Columbia University in New York in 1959. She earned her principal's and supervisor's certificates from Monmouth College--now Univesity--in West Long Branch, NJ, between 1974 and 1976. Ms. Thomas began her career as a ninth grade teacher in Augusta, GA., in 1959. She taught math and science throughout the country wherever her husband, Govan, a former Army serviceman, was stationed at the time. She has also taught GI's. In 1973, the Thomases settled in Neptune, on the Jersey Shore. She taught math to eighth graders at Asbury Park Middle School, in the neighboring community. From 1978 to 1981, she served as coordinator of the math program and the compensatory education program. For the next three years, she chaired the math/science department for kindergarten through eighth grade in Asbury Park. In 1984, Ms. Thomas moved into the administrative side, becoming principal of Green Grove Elementary School in Neptune. She was transferred to the Middle School as vice principal, and subsequently became principal six years ago. During her tenure at Neptune Middle School, the school increased its emphasis on math and science, acquired additional computer equipment and made many capital improvements. In a recent profile of Ms. Thomas by staff writer Travis R. Moore in The Asbury Park Press, one of the major newspapers in our area, Mr. Michael T. Lake, superintendent of Neptune public schools, who has worked with Ms. Thomas for the past 11 years, described her as ``a consummate professional.'' Ms. Peola Smith-Smith, chairperson of the counseling/guidance department at Neptune High School, said Ms. Thomas has been an ``inspiration'' and an ``exemplary administrator.'' In the article, Ms. Thomas herself described the key to success for the men and women who run our public schools. While she stressed her reluctance to compromise on her high expectations, she nonetheless recognized the need for flexibility: ``You do whatever has to be done to get the job done.'' In addition to her distinguished career as a teacher and administrator, Ms. Thomas has been a leader in numerous community organizations, including the Central Jersey Club of the National Association of Negro Business and Professional Women's Club, the National Coalition of Black Meeting Planners, St. Augustine's Episcopal Church in Asbury Park, and Lambda Omega Omega Chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority. She has also maintained a long-time association with Drifters, Inc., a nonprofit civic organization of black women with 30 chapters nationwide dedicated to serving the community and enhancing the universal image of womanhood. Ms. Thomas served as national president of Drifters from 1989 to 1993, is a charter member of the Ocean Chapter of Drifters, and has also coordinated public relations and edited the organization's newsletter. She was the recipient of the 1993 Now Black Woman Award given by the national Drifters, Inc. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor and privilege for me to join the friends and colleagues of Sylvia Thomas in saluting a great educator and community leader.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of talk on the Republican side of the aisle tonight about scare tactics, but I have to tell my colleagues I am really scared tonight. Until this evening, I did not really believe that the Republicans would actually default on the debt. Now I believe that they will. Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the gentleman from Ohio said, that in order to avoid default there would have to be a downpayment on the balanced budget. I listened to the gentleman from New York who said that, in order to prevent default, there would have to be certain commitments made by our side of the aisle by March 1. Now I see a resolution coming before us that says that we will extend the debt ceiling with regard to Social Security. What is happening here is the same kind of hostage atmosphere that we saw with the Government shutdown. The Republicans are saying that we are going to go home. We are going to come back at the end of the month when there are a few days before March 1. And if we on the other side do not do certain things and make certain commitments, if we do not vote for certain things that they want, then they are going to default. So I do not believe it when they say that they are not going to default. The bottom line is if they are willing to say tonight that they will only extend the debt ceiling for Social Security, I have no guarantee that they will extend the debt ceiling on anything else. I think that is the height of irresponsibility. We are talking about defaulting on a debt that is going to downgrade the credit rating of these United States in a way that has never happened before. The bottom line is that if that happens, there is no precedent for it. There is no way of ever recovering from it, whether it is mortgage interest rates, whether it is interest rates on car payments, whether it is the securities in our general credit rating. Other countries that hold our Government bonds may decide they want to sell them. We have no idea what kind of uncharted waters we will be walking into if we ever default on the debt. This resolution tonight ways that Congress intends to pass an increase in the public debt limit before March 1, 1996. But if my colleagues listen to the other side, there is no reason to believe that.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in memory and honor of the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Ocean Township Hadassah in Monmouth County, NJ, has pledged a donation to the Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center at Ein Karem, Israel, so that it may continue its life- saving work of healing, teaching, and research. I rise today, both to pay tribute to the slain Israeli soldier, statesman, and peacemaker, and to my friends from the Jersey shore area who are striving to pay a lasting tribute to this great world leader. Mr. Speaker, I shall never forget September 13, 1995. On that brilliantly sunny day I was fortunate to be among those on the White House lawn to witness the signing of the Israel-PLO treaty by Prime Minister Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat. We witnessed in person, as did millions of others the world over who watched on television, an event we had hoped for but never really thought we would see. In his moving speech, the Prime Minister summed up the feelings of the people of Israel and their many strong supporters here in America: ``Enough of blood and tears. Enough.'' Yitzhak Rabin's life in many ways mirrored the history and destiny of his country. He fought valiantly in Israel's War of Independence in 1948. In the Six Day War of 1967, he brilliantly led the Israel Defense Forces in a stunning victory that greatly enhanced Israel's security. Yet it would still be many years before Israel's recalcitrant Arab neighbors were ready to negotiate with the Jewish State. First, Egypt's President Anwar Sadat came forward in the cause of peace--and, like Yitzhak Rabin, paid with his life at the hands of fellow countrymen who were not yet ready to say ``Enough'' to war. Finally, PLO Leader Arafat and, more recently, Jordan's King Hussein, also chose the road of peace with Israel. During the years that the Arab state of war and economic boycott against Israel remained in effect, Yitzhak Rabin stood ready to fight, if necessary, to defend Israel's security. Yet, late in his career, the Prime Minister had the courage to recognize a changing world and to accept, indeed embrace, change. The huge turnout of world leaders at Mr. Rabin's funeral demonstrates--including many of his former Arab enemies--just how rare and impressive his courage was. While most of us will remember Mr. Rabin's gruff demeanor and military bearing, minutes before his death, Yitzhak Rabin was smiling and singing a song of peace with thousands of Israelis in Tel Aviv. On the day of the historic signing of the peace accord, my guest was Sharon Portman of Ocean Township, a long-time supporter and leader in Ocean Township Hadassah and many other community organizations. Sadly, Sharon passed away last summer. Sharon had dedicated so much of her time and energy to working for a strong and secure Israel, and believed passionately that one day Israel would achieve peace with her Arab neighbors. Whenever I think back to that signing ceremony on the White House Lawn, there is a tinge of sadness as I think about Sharon. Mr. Speaker, Ocean Township Hadassah is a volunteer organization of close to 450 women ranging in age from their midtwenties to their midfifties. After the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin, members of the organization, as well other members of the community, sought a way to make a lasting tribute consistent with Mr. Rabin's life-long dedication to the betterment of the Jewish State. Prime Minister Rabin spoke to the women of Hadassah at their convention in Israel last summer, praising their fundraising efforts to build and maintain hospitals in Israel. The Prime Minister expressed the fervent hope that Hadassah Hospital would treat Israeli children for many years--but ``never again to be treated due to the ravages of war.'' Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay particular tribute to Elynn Shapiro, president of Ocean Township Hadassah, for her leadership in this tribute to Yitzhak Rabin, and to the many other citizens of our community who have contributed to this most worthy effort.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the previous speaker, the gentleman from Ohio, said, and I do have the utmost respect for him. But I just do not understand how he can say some of the things he is saying based on what has been happening in this House in the last year. The only reason that we can wait until March 1 before we go into default is because the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Rubin, has been doing things basically since November 15 when the debt ceiling expired to try to prevent the Nation from going into default, and he has been criticized by the same Republican leadership for doing that. I think it should be understood by the American people that the default was a possibility on November 15, because the Republican leadership refused to bring up a clean bill to extend the debt limit, and in fact, some of the Republican leaders have actually called for the Secretary of the Treasury's impeachment because he has been doing what he has to do in order to avoid default. Now we see the leadership get up and say, oh, there is no problem until March 1; trust us, we will extend the debt ceiling when it comes to March 1. If you are going to do it, why not do it now? Why send us home for 3 weeks after tomorrow and basically risk the possibility that sometime before March 1 that it is not going to happen, or why suggest that you are going to load up this debt ceiling bill with all kinds of budget items that reflect your own ideology, come back here February 26 or 27, just a couple days before this March 1 deadline? There is no question that what the Republican leadership is trying to do here is to hold this Congress hostage just like they did with the Government shutdown. They said, ``We are going to shut the Government down. If you do not go along with our budget, which is cut Medicaid, cut Medicare, cut environmental programs, cut educational programs, if you do not go along with this, we are going to shut the Government down.'' They did that several times. Now they are doing the same thing again. They are saying, ``We are going to send you home so you cannot sit here and debate this or try to come to a reasonable conclusion on this. We are going to bring you back 2 or 3 days before this March 1 deadline, default deadline, that we have engineered essentially because we have not passed a clean debt ceiling, and we are going to then force you to our own ideology, to these same budget cuts. It is only going to be a down payment.'' Now it is not going to be the full-blown cut in Medicare, Medicaid, environmental programs, education, student loans. It is just going to be a down payment on that. I maintain it is the same thing. It is the same hostage environment. It is the same idea if you do not go along with our plan, then we are going to hold the Government hostage, either shut it down, or now, send it into default. How can sending this Government into default or decreasing or destroying the United States' credit rating possibly be the responsible thing to do? If I listened to the previous speaker's statements, he basically was saying in a somewhat, it seemed to him logical sense, we do not have to worry about this, because it is more important how the down payment and how these budget cuts that he has proposed, than it is to preserve the Nation's credit rating. That does not make any sense. The responsible thing is to preserve the credit rating. If the Nation goes into default, our budget situation, our financial situation is in critical condition. We are going to have higher interest rates. We could have a possibility where other countries, central banks in other countries or pension funds, decide they want to start selling our Government bonds. We do not know what our securities are going to be worth. We do not know what the impact is going to be of the higher interest rates not only on the Government but also on individuals who may have their mortgage rates go up or other interest rates that they have to face or their car payments or whatever. The potential, the real potential, exists for an economic downturn not only in this country but around the world. We are going to risk that? How could that possibly be the responsible thing to do? I would maintain over and over again that this Republican leadership has gone haywire. Some of us on the Democratic side have described them as a bunch of crackpots. No one, no one who is involved in the Nation's finances would ever suggest that it makes sense for us to threaten default, to even use it as a tool of Government policy. It makes no sense at all if you are concerned about the Government, if you are concerned about the economy, if you are concerned about where this country is going in terms of creating jobs and making it possible for us to have an economic upturn rather than an economic downturn. Let me tell you, this is not pie in the sky. We have already heard statements from some of the leading credit rating firms. Moody's, I think a week or two ago, came out and said the possibility of a default or the effect on the credit rating could be devastating to the Nation's economy. We have had statements this morning in our Democratic Caucus. We had statements from various Department heads who pointed out what the impact would be. Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services and Welfare, she said that if we do not pay our bills March 1, $26 billion in Social Security payments are threatened, $1 billion in veterans' payments are threatened, civil service payments and survivor annuities. These are people that are going to be negatively impacted, the little people, by this Republican default.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, again I wanted to comment on the possibility of the default on March 1. I find it incredible that the Republican leadership first attempted to shut down the Government on several occasions in the past few months in order to try to enforce their radical agenda and essentially hold the Government hostage because the Democrats would not agree to major cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, environmental protection, and education. Now, realizing that the American people could not support the Government shutdown and that they were losing the support of the American people, they decided they would leave the Government open again, and now they are moving towards this default. They are jeopardizing the credit rating of the United States which, as of March 1, there is a real possibility that this Government would default. What they are saying is, that is OK. We will go home for 3 weeks. We will adjourn after tomorrow. We will come back at the very end of February, just a few days before March 1. And if you do not go along with our radical agenda and cut Medicare and cut Medicaid and do the other things that we want to you to do, based on our ideology, then we are going to default. I think it is a terrible way to operate. We should put a stop to it.

Mr PALLONE

Mr PALLONE. If the gentlewoman would yield, I just wanted to follow up on what the gentlewoman said about this whole concept of hostage. As the other gentlewoman from Connecticut said before, we are already in a hostage situation. I think the only reason why we have not paid as much attention, if you will, to this whole problem of the credit rating, is because we faced the Government shutdown as the hostage. In other words, for the last few months the Republican leadership and Speaker Gingrich were holding us hostage because they threatened to shut down the Government. The only reason that we were able to continue to pay our debts was because of the effort that was being made by the Secretary of the Treasury to continue to find ways to continue the whole Government process without going into default. But now that the Republicans are saying, OK, we are not going to shut the Government down anymore, at least we hope not, we are still waiting to have an answer today, now they are saying OK, but we want to wait a little longer as this credit rating problem continues to persist. The bottom line is, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] said, on November 15 we were supposed to extend the debt ceiling, which would have allowed for our credit rating to remain intact and not have the threat of default. It is almost, what, 2 or 3 months later now, and we know by March 1, if we do not do something, if we do not act, if not sooner, we are very likely to go into default. I do not think we should wait another day. One of the things I would like to mention is we have not even heard any vote being scheduled on the issue of the debt ceiling. We may very well end up passing some kind of continuing resolution tonight and be in recess or be adjourned until the end of February, and there has not been any effort to even suggest that we schedule a vote to deal with this problem of the credit rating. In addition to that, we are now being told by Gingrich and the Republican leadership that we will only consider dealing with the credit rating and extending the debt ceiling if you do other things, if you make certain spending cuts or do certain tax breaks or whatever. Without commenting on the worthiness of the spending cuts or the tax breaks, or whatever, the bottom line is it is totally inappropriate to hold this Government hostage or to make this linkage between those issues and our credit rating. We are supposed to be responsible here. I am amazed, years past this session of Congress, I have never seen such irresponsible activity to suggest it is OK to threaten the credit rating. We already know that certain reports have come out, I know my colleague from Texas is going to comment on it today, that indicate that the bond markets and the various groups that look at these things are now concerned about our ability to pay our debts. So it is not something that is pie in the sky. This is real. This is a real thing that is happening right now. I can just go back to American history, because I listened to what the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mr. Kennelly] said before. I remember, I do not remember all the specifics, but I remember from back in grade school when we took American history, and we remember, that after the Revolutionary War, one of the main things that the Government wanted to do, and I think it was Alexander Hamilton who was the main proponent, was that the Government, the new American Government, back in the 1700's then, had to be put on a sound financial system. He wanted to make sure that our credit was good. He wanted to make sure we were paying our debts, and that is why from day one, this country has been successful economically. It is one of the foundations of the whole Nation that we pay our debts, that we do not go into default, and we send a message by doing that to the rest of the world that that is what every one should do. What kind of a message is this Republican leadership sending to the rest of the world when the greatest economic power and the one that drives world economy in this global market that we face is now sending a message that we are seriously thinking about going into default? It is just incredible to me. Maybe I am being naive, but I cannot believe that we are actually hearing this discussion from the Republican leadership.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, January 26, is a date of enormous significance for all the people of India, and for the many sons and daughters of India living in the United States and around the world. January 26 marks the celebration of Republic Day, a national holiday that holds the same significance for Indians as the Fourth of July does for Americans. On January 26, 1950, India became a Republic. The country adopted a Constitution which enshrined the principles of democracy and secularism. At that time, Dr. Rajendra Prasad was elected as the nation's first President. Since then, despite the challenges of sustaining economic development while reconciling her many ethnic, religious and linguistic communities, India has stuck to the path of free and fair elections, a multi-party political system and the orderly transfer of power from one government to its successor. Since many Americans may be unfamiliar with the anniversary that the people of India celebrate tomorrow, I would like to draw particular attention to the similarities and shared values of the United States and India. The framers of the Indian Constitution drew inspiration from our own Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Both of our countries are former British colonies that gained their freedom after a long and difficult struggle. English continues to be an important language of commerce in India, while the principles of common law continues to shape the nation's judicial system. Many Americans almost instinctively saw in Mahatma Gandhi a reflection of values that our country holds dear. During this month when we celebrate the birthday of one of America's greatest heros, Martin Luther King, Jr., we should remember that Dr. King derived many of his ideas of non-violent resistance to injustice from the teachings, actions and self-sacrifice of Gandhi. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that United States-India relations are continuing their trend toward greater cooperation and partnership on many key issues. Last year was marked by an unprecedented flurry of visits--in both directions--from leading government and private sector officials from both countries. Three United States Cabinet Secretaries travelled to India during 1995, and major contracts valued in the billions of dollars were concluded. In my capacity as cochairman of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, I am proud that our bipartisan Congressional Member Organization has been able to host forums for Members of Congress to hear from these distinguished Indian leaders, including Cabinet Ministers, Members of Parliament, opposition leaders and the heads of major firms and trade organizations. In 1996, I hope we in Congress will continue to make it a high priority to continue this momentum and move it forward. The steady improvement in United States-India relations will benefit the people of both of our countries. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that Republic Day will be celebrated by the one million Asian Indians here in America, a community of hard-working, family-oriented people who have contributed greatly to their new country while maintaining pride and devotion to their motherland. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Republic Day 1996 marks one of the final events to be presided over by Ambassador Siddhartha Shankar Ray. After more than 3 years of representing his country in Washington, Ambassador Ray is returning home and returning to the political fray in this year's parliamentary elections. I would like to take this opportunity to wish a fond farewell to the Ambassador and his wife Maya Ray, herself a barrister, former Member of Parliament and an effective representative for her country before the international community. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me, an elected Representative of the oldest continuous democratic republic on Earth, to pay tribute to the world's most populous democracy on the occasion of their great national day.