Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I just wanted to follow up on that. Rutgers, again, was one of the universities that was chosen to do the pilot program with the direct student loans. And just following up on what you were saying, it is so true. I have talked to the people at Rutgers University. They have been down here taking to both Democrats and Republicans representing the State. They have been able to expand the number of students that receive the student loans because of their direct loan program. There is absolutely no justification at all to eliminate that. Basically what it does is to eliminate the banks as the middle person so that you get the loan directly from the university. And using the banks as the middle person, so to speak, drove up the cost, make it possible to give out less student loans. And there is absolution no reason to go back to that old system other than the Republican leadership on the other side has some association, I assume, with the special interests and the banks and wants to go back to the old way of doing things. Rutgers and all the university people have been down here and said that that is the wrong way to go. It will limit the amount of loans that are available for Rutgers students. The other thing that they did in terms of the student loan program, is they are charging the students interest for the first few months that they get out of school. So in other words, right now you do not pay interest for a period of time, 6 months, I guess, after you graduate as you are trying to find a job. And now they are going to charge you the interest during that period. And again, it is all these things are done to discourage people from being able to find a job, from working, whatever. It makes no sense.

Mr. PALLONE. I just wanted to go back to what Congresswoman Kaptur had said about the priorities. I came in at the tail end of the Republican speakers that were here before us, but I notice they kept talking about the budget and how important it was to balance the budget. I do not think there is anybody in the House of Representatives on either side of the aisle who does not want to balance the budget. I have no problem with the 7-year approach, for example, that Speaker Gingrich and a lot of our colleagues on the other side keep mentioning. But, I think the question is priorities and that is what Congresswoman Kaptur was pointing out. We could all figure out a way to balance the budget. And I have voted for balanced budget amendments and I have voted for balanced budgets, but the priorities that the Republican leadership have are totally wacky as far as I am concerned, and basically penalize the middle-class and the poor people in this country in order to give these tax breaks to the wealthy. As was mentioned, the Medicare cuts alone for this budget bill are $270 billion. The tax breaks are $245 billion. They almost equal each other. If we did not cut Medicare, and essentially destroy the Medicare Program, this is what I think this Republican budget would do. I think at one point we had a Democratic alternative that cut Medicare $90 billion, which is what was recommended by the trustees. If we put most of that money back in and avoided these tax breaks for wealthy Americans, we would not have to change the Medicare Program at all. We could still keep it a very high-quality Medicare Program that guarantees a good health care plan for America's seniors. The same thing is true for some of the other points in there. They are basically cutting education. They are cutting back on student loans. I know that in my district I have the main campus of Rutgers University. So many students, not only from Rutgers but from throughout the State, have called me and their parents have called me and said, ``Gee, how are we going to be able to get student loans if you cut back on the programs?'' They have done the same thing with some of the programs, the school lunches, the programs for children like WIC, and even provided an increase in taxes for the working poor through the earned income tax credit. One of the best things the President Clinton did, and I know my colleague from Florida has pointed to that before, is that he actually expanded this earned income tax credit to give an incentive to people who are low income, but who are working so that they get a tax credit or a tax break. This Republican budget bill basically cuts into that; practically wipes it out. Here we are basically giving these tax breaks for wealthy Americans, destroying the Medicare Program in the process, and then taking away the tax credits from the working poor. In the meantime, Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership keep talking about how they want to get people off of welfare and get them to work. How are we going to get them to work if we eliminate the major incentive they have to work, which is this tax credit? It is incredible to me. If my colleague look at this bill, the Americans who makes less than $30,000 a year in general are going to actually be paying more in taxes, and it is only the people who are in the high-income brackets that are actually going to get tax break.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I spoke earlier about the fact that I was [[Page H 12202]] very pleased that President Clinton last night vetoed the continuing resolution because it avoided a major increase in Medicare premiums for the Nation's elderly. However, this is not only an issue with regard to Medicare and health care concerns for the elderly. It is also important that the President stand fast because the budget that we will probably be considering within the next couple of days also makes major cuts in education, particularly with regard to student loans for young people. It is also important because of the appropriations bills and the less money that the Republican leadership intends to spend on the environment. In my district, the environment is the same as the economy. We need a quality environment in order to improve our lives and in order to make it possible for future generations to enjoy a quality environment. The fact of the matter is, by vetoing the legislation last night, the President is sending the message that he wants to protect seniors and their health care, he wants to protect education programs, and understands the importance of education, and also understands the importance of a quality environment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, this bill, which relates to hydroelectric projects in Ohio, was reported out of the subcommittee and the full committee without a dissenting vote. I urge support for the legislation.

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I was so proud to read over the weekend that the President has indicated that he will not sign a continuing budget resolution because of the increase in Medicare payments. I think it is really awful to think that the Republican leadership in this House has said that unless the President agrees to increase Medicare part B premiums, which would go from $46.10 per month to $53.50 per month, when they are scheduled under current law to be decreased to $42.50 per month. What the Republican leadership is saying is unless you sign this continuing resolution, we are going to make sure that the Medicare premiums go up. It is not fair to American senior citizens. Over the weekend I talked to a lot of senior citizens. They cannot afford the Medicare part B increase being proposed by the Republican leadership. It is not fair to hold the budget and the Government hostage to this Medicare increase. The President recognizes it. I commend him for the fact he refuses to sign this continuing resolution, primarily because of the Medicare increase.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also support H.R. 1335 and urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, these two projects have achieved bipartisan support. I urge adoption of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], for his hard work on this bill. As usual, he is out there working hard for his constituents. The sponsors of this project have worked very hard to address some initial environmental concerns that arose with the project and their hard work has paid off. Today, I know of no objection to this project, and I am, therefore, pleased to add my support for the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], my colleague, who is the sponsor of the legislation. (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats on the Committee on Commerce supported H.R. 1290 without objection. [[Page H 12149]] Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1014. There was no objective to this bill relating to the project in Washington State. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado has explained the substance of the bill. It was reported out of our Subcommittee on Power and Energy and the full Committee on Commerce without objection. It is based on construction not having commenced for lack of a power-purchase agreement. I support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is the first of eight bills that we will consider this afternoon that deal with hydroelectric projects, and as the gentleman from Colorado mentioned, there has not been any objection to any of these bills. The Federal Power Action allows the licensee 2 years to begin construction of a hydroelectric project once the license is issued and can extend that deadline but may do so only once and only for 2 years. However, there are many obstacles that make it difficult for projects to commence construction during either the initial license time frame or the extension time frame. Perhaps the most frequent reason for delay is the lack of a power purchase agreement, for without such an agreement it is unlikely a project could get financed. Because of the limitations set in the Federal Power Act, the House has had a long bipartisan tradition of moving noncontroversial license extensions, and I am pleased we are continuing that tradition today with the gentleman from Colorado and myself and our subcommittee by taking up these bills that were reported, as I said, without dissent by the Committee on Commerce, and so I would ask that the first bill, H.R. 657, be considered. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I was very proud today when President Clinton indicated that he would not support, and he would, in fact, veto the continuing resolution because of the increase in the Medicare part B premium. I think that the public needs to know, and it needs to be reflected more and more amongst ourselves in the House, that essentially this continuing resolution takes away the provision in the current law which, as of January 1, would decrease the amount or the percentage that senior citizens have to pay for their Medicare part B premium, and what the continuing resolution proposes is that the percentage be kept as it is now, which would essentially force an increase in part B premiums as much as, say, $10 over the next year per month for those senior citizens. That includes almost all senior citizens who take advantage and pay to have themselves covered under Medicare part B, which pays for physician care. It is amazing to me, Mr. Speaker, that at a time when we spent almost a month or 2 months or even more trying to deal with the whole budget and come up with the reconciliation and also deal with Medicare, that the Republican leadership continues to insist on increasing Medicare premiums before the time when they ever put together the budget or even have a conference with the budget reconciliation conferees. I would very much right now like to be at a meeting with the rest of the conferees, with the Democrats and the Republicans, dealing with this budget, dealing with Medicare, dealing with Medicaid. But, so far, all of the meetings have been in secret, just with the Republicans. I was appointed a conferee for the budget reconciliation a few weeks ago. But we still have not met, because all of the negotiations are taking place on the Republican side without any input or any opportunity for Democrats. In fact today, in the Washington Post there was an article that said, ``Balanced budget plan near complete, Congress may consider massive reconciliation measure on Wednesday.'' Well, today is Monday. We have not even had a meeting of the reconciliation conferees that was originally called for tonight, but then it was cancelled at the last minute. Now we are told it is tomorrow. But in the meantime, obviously the Republicans have met in secret and have already decided how they are going to increase the cost to seniors for Medicare, cut their Medicare benefits, and provide tax cuts primarily for wealthy Americans. There are two very important issues in this budget conference that affect Medicare that I think need to be addressed. In the Senate, unlike the House, nursing home standards were kept intact. In the Senate, unlike the House, the safety net for children, for disabled persons, for pregnant women was kept intact so that there is a guarantee, there continues to be an entitlement in the Senate version of this budget bill that pregnant women, the disabled, and children will get Medicaid and will have health care coverage. But not in the House version. This is a very important issue, whether or not we are going to continue to have nursing home standards, whether or not we are going to continue to have Medicaid benefits for these disadvantaged groups, and yet there is no meeting of the conferees. Everything is done in secret with the Republican leadership. Today, there was an article in the New York Times that pointed out that it is very likely, under the Republican leadership bill, that there will become a shortage of nursing home beds for the elderly in the next few years because with the significant amount of money being reduced for Medicaid, there simply will not be any incentive to even have Medicaid beds in nursing homes. Similarly, we are told the Medicaid safety net for children could be imperiled with the Republican leadership bill because basically the States will not have the money to provide Medicaid coverage for children. So I would really like to be a part of this conference where we discuss what is going to happen to the future of our children in terms of their health care coverage, to the future of our nursing homes, whether there will be quality nursing homes, whether there will be enough beds for our citizens in the future. We do not have that opportunity.

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

Mr. PALLONE. My understanding is they are so determined that this increase take effect on January 1, that they do not want to negotiate it, they do not want to discuss it, they just want to make sure it is included in the continuing resolution so it takes effect with those increases on January 1.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to spend 5 minutes today talking about what happened in the Commerce Subcommittee today with regard to the Superfund Program. I was very disturbed by the legislation that has been introduced by the Republican leadership yesterday in markup of the bill, and also today in marking up the bill. Myself and many of the other Democrats on the committee tried to make correcting amendments to the legislation because of the negative impact that we feel the legislation will have on the Superfund Program. I do not have to tell my colleagues that not only in New Jersey but throughout the Nation a major effort has been made over the last few years in trying to clean up hazardous waste sites because of the Federal program we know as Superfund. Now, it is, of course, true that the program has not worked perfectly, and that while many sites have been cleaned up and many others are in the process of being cleaned up that there are still a lot more that need to cleaned up. But this is not the time for us to backtrack on the Superfund Program. This is the time when we reauthorize this legislation to make it better, not to make it worse, not to undermine the basic underpinnings of the program. Mr. Speaker, I feel strongly that the legislation that came out of our subcommittee today would significantly undermine the Superfund Program. Let me just give my colleagues some examples. The legislation says that over the next few years only 125 new Superfund sites can be added to the national priority list. The fact that there would be a cap on the number of Superfund sites unrelated to any scientific analysis is in itself shameful, and during the debate over a proposed amendment to eliminate that cap it was abundantly clear, in my opinion, that the Republican leadership felt strongly that the Superfund Program really should be phased out; that they were trying to cap the program with the hope that over the next few years the program would be phased out and responsibility for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites would go back to the States. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what they failed to point out is that most States are not in a position to pay to clean up hazardous waste sites, particularly the most severely polluted. My home State of New Jersey is a case in point. We have over 6,000 hazardous waste sites that need to be cleaned up and only about 114 of them, I believe, are on the national priority list under Superfund. We do not have the money, and there is no way that we can raise the money to clean up all those sites. We need help. We need help from the Federal Government. I would point out that the money that is used on the Federal level to pay for the Superfund cleanup comes from those who generate the pollution, comes from a tax on various companies. Mr. Speaker, the other thing that is in this legislation that we tried to correct today was the idea of retroactive liability. There is, in the bill, in the Republican leadership bill, a provision that gives discounts, in other words rebates, back to those companies that have cleaned up sites, because they were liable in the past for having polluted the Superfund sites. We had an amendment, which I sponsored, which would have eliminated those rebates which says the polluter has to pay. The basic tenet of the Superfund Program is that the polluters pay for the cleanup, not the taxpayers. If we are to undermine that concept and say now we are going to pay the polluters in certain circumstances because of liability that occurred in the past, that undermines the whole concept of the Superfund Program that the polluter pays. Also, this new legislation would no longer provide a preference for permanent treatment of hazardous material at Superfund sites, so that instead of requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to go in and permanently treat the material so that the site is cleaned, instead we would see fences put up, material perhaps carted away. but no effort to necessarily do anything permanently to clean up the site. Mr. Speaker, I think that is the wrong way to go about the Superfund Program. The idea of the Superfund Program was that there was going to be cleanup that was real and that the sites could be reused again. There are an incredible number of exemptions for liability and efforts to take out various types of hazardous materials in this legislation that essentially will make for a much weaker Superfund bill. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that over the next few weeks, as this bill moves through not only the Committee on Commerce but other committees and eventually to the floor, that we could get more and more support for the idea that this reauthorization of Superfund should be done in a way that improves the program rather than gutting it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address the fact that today, once again, but this time in the context of the continuing resolution, the Republican leadership has imposed the increase in Medicare part B premium payments under Medicare. As we know, when the Medicare bill that was sponsored or that was advocated by Speaker Gingrich and also by the Republican leadership came to the House floor a couple weeks ago, it actually doubled part B premiums under Medicare. That is, the Medicare Program that covers physician care, over the next 7 years would essentially double for Medicare recipients and those who participate in the Medicare Program. We know that at this point the legislation, both the budget and the Medicare bill, are in conference. It was also included in the Budget Act, and the Senate and the House have yet to meet on the budget which includes those Medicare provisions. But while that is pending, today in the context of the continuing resolution, the Medicare premium increase [[Page H 11910]] was included. Essentially under current law, as of January 1, the part B premium drops from 31 percent, 31.5 percent of the cost, down to 25 percent of the cost, which is what was scheduled under current law. But the continuing resolution today would put the 31.5 percent back into law as of January 1, which is essentially an increase for millions of senior citizens who simply cannot afford to pay for that increase that would occur if this continuing resolution ultimately becomes law, which I hope it does not. I wanted to point out--that so far the conferees on the budget--which includes the Medicare part B increases as well as the tax cuts for the wealthy that will be offset for the cuts in Medicare--so far the budget conferees have not met, and what we believe is happening is that the Republican leadership is essentially making Medicare deals in secret, meeting behind the scenes to see how they are going to implement this tax cut for wealthy Americans in order to offset the cuts in Medicare that are going to devastate the Medicare Program. I was actually appointed by the Democratic leadership to be one of the conferees, but we have yet to have a public session. I think the reason for that is obvious, that they would rather meet behind the scenes. The Republican leadership would rather meet behind the scenes to see how they are essentially going to destroy and make these severe cutbacks in both Medicare care and Medicaid without the public and the media really knowing what is going on. One of the things I am most concerned about as a conferee, and I hoped was going to take place, is we find some way, when we bring the two budget bills together between the House and the Senate, to continue entitlement status for Medicaid, for disabled people, for children, and also for pregnant women. Right now, if an individual meets certain income requirements under Medicaid, they are entitled to Medicaid and they do have their health insurance coverage. Well, the House bill, the House budget bill basically eliminates that entitlement status and just gives money in block grants to the States and hopes that the States will provide Medicare health care coverage for various indigent people. But the Senate bill, fortunately, does continue to provide entitlement status, guaranteed health care coverage for children for the disabled and for pregnant women. Mr. Speaker, today in the Washington Post there was an article that basically summarized what was in the Journal of the American Medical Association that pointed out that Medicaid has been a significant factor in guaranteeing health care coverage for children. Over the last few years, the number of children that have been provided with health care coverage, because their parents worked, through additional private insurance, has actually decreased and Medicaid has taken up the slack. The Federal Government has provided for the expansion of Medicaid and given money to the States so that they can provide that coverage for children. Without the entitlement status, which is what we have in the House bill, without the guarantee that children would be covered, which is in the Senate bill, if for some reason the conference comes together and does not provide that guarantee for children, we are going to see that safety net for children, where they have the guaranteed health insurance, probably continue to be whittled away. Because States with the limited amount of block grant money they get from the Federal Government would not be able to continue to cover all the children that will continue to lose health insurance as the numbers continue to decrease of those who are covered by private insurance. Mr. Speaker, I want to say lastly that yesterday in New Jersey we had elections at the State as well as the county and local level. It was abundantly clear that the message that Democrats have been trying to make, that Republican Medicare cuts and Medicaid cuts are really going to hurt people, we got that message, because a number of Democrats were elected yesterday because they made the point on the Medicare message and the fact that the Republican leadership is cutting Medicare.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on October 25, 1995, the Armenian Assembly of America presented a tribute in honor of Levon Ter-Petrosian, President of the Republic of Armenia. Along with distinguished colleagues from both houses of Congress and both parties, representatives of the administration and the diplomatic corps, and hundreds of Armenian-Americans, I had the great honor of welcoming the Armenian President on his visit to our Nation's capital. As the founder and, along with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], Co-Chairman of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, I consider United States-Armenia relations to be one of our key foreign policy objectives. The Armenian people, having survived the genocide perpetrated against them by the Ottoman Turkish Empire, and seven decades of Soviet-oppression, have struggled valiantly to rebuild their country as a democracy while establishing good relations with the world community. It has not always been easy, given the blockades imposed upon Armenia by her neighbors Turkey and Azerbaijan. But with the strong support of the United States and the solidarity of the Armenian- American community, I believe that this very young country--yet very ancient nation--will prevail. Mr. Speaker, the following is the text of President Ter-Petrosian's speech from October 25. I urge my colleagues to read this statement to gain a greater insight into the challenges facing the people of Armenia and the prospects for the entire Caucasus region. Statement of Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrosian Dear compatriots, your eminencies, senators, members of the House of Representatives, representatives from the Clinton administration, ambassadors--I hope I have this in correct protocol order. In this hall there are so many members of Congress, I suppose we could hold a session of Congress and resolve all of our differences right here. In the speeches given here today, Armenia was presented in such a wonderful way that I have very little left to say myself. In any case the people who are here in this hall have been with us from day one; they have participated in the building of the country, and they are very well informed about the goings on in Armenia. For that reason, I am not going to speak about Armenia's problems and Armenia's economic situation. Instead, I am going to speak about our principles and about the ideology of our state. You consider the elections that took place this summer to be a new step toward democracy in our country. I agree. But, it must be noted that there has been a more important development. With the election of July 5, Armenia got rid of Communism once and for all. The Communists now have only seven seats in Parliament. This is not the case in any other former Soviet republic, or even in any other former socialist republic. Communism is buried once and for all in Armenia. This means that Armenia has selected its path in a very clear manner. That path is democracy and the free-market system. This is our state ideology today, and we are going to follow this path until the end. I cannot promise that, during the time of my administration, we will succeed in creating a complete democracy and a complete free-market economy--I cannot promise this, and I do not promise this. But I do promise that our administration will do everything in its power to make democracy and the free market irrevocable. This is the issue we face, and in this matter, we cannot take steps backward--we will not waver. We will continue until the end. The next important principle of our ideology is the matter of national security. Here, too,we are not trying to implement some sort of a very complicated philosophy. Rather, we see resolution of this as a very simple issue. We find that no security system and no superpower--be it the United States or Russia--can guarantee our security. We believe that the key to our national security is our friendship with our neighbors. Armenia does not want to have any enemies. Nor does Armenia consider any country to be its enemy--not even Azerbaijan. We do not consider Azerbaijan to be our enemy. Azerbaijan is a country with which we have serious political problems. And we must resolve the problems. We must resolve our political problems with Azerbaijan--not be deepening enmity--but through peaceful negotiations as a serious political process. And that resolution must guarantee the dignified and secure existence of Nagorno Karbagh. Even though Armenia is starting to stand up on its feet in an economic sense today--and that is thanks, not only to our efforts in the area of the economy, but also to the efforts and assistance of the international [[Page E 2122]] community, and especially the United States of America--but, nonetheless, we are still in a very difficult economic situation. We have complex issues in the area of energy. We are hopeful that this winter will be less severe than last winter. We are better prepared for the winter than we were last year and in years past. Soon our atomic energy plant will also be supplying electricity, certainly by winter. But, I believe that there is a more important precondition than energy for Armenia's economic future. That is the means of communication between Armenia and the outside world. This is more important, in economic terms, than all other issues. Until we are able to have open access to the outside world through all our neighbors--Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkey and Georgia--we cannot have a normal economy. Our economic destiny depends on two things: the pace of economic reforms in Armenia, and how fast Armenia can become integrated into the international economic system. This is the issue that we must resolve together with you. I want to express my deep gratitude to all of you for the great efforts which you have made on behalf of Armenia-- efforts which are already showing fruition. And through the people who are gathered here, I consider it my duty to express my gratitude to the people and the government of the United States of America. The aid that the United States has given to Armenia over the past four years has been vital to Armenia. I have several aspects in mind: first, the great humanitarian assistance that has been given to Armenia; second, the role of the United States in the huge assistance that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have given Armenia starting last year; and, third, the great role that the United States has played in maintaining peace and stability in our region, and in developing a political resolution to the issue of Nagorno Karabagh. This is such an important contribution toward putting our country on its feet, that we can consider the United States to be a participant in the establishment of Armenian statehood. A few moments ago, Senator McConnell pointed out that aid to Armenia not only emanates from the interests of Armenia, but also from the interests of the United States. This is true. It is true because Armenia has the opportunity--of course, with your help--to become a model--a model in terms of democracy, a model in terms of the free market, and this is the realization of the faith of the United States. In conclusion, I want to express my deep gratitude to each and everyone of you. First, from day one, you have stood by our government unconditionally, and I hope that we have not let you down. I am sure that, hereafter in the same manner, you will show the same faith and the same unconditional spirit in standing by us--both in our difficult days and in our bright future, which I am sure is going to come. I also want to emphasize the role of the Armenian Assembly--headed by my friend, Hirair Hovnanian--in these years of our independence. This is an opportunity to say that you are the organization which has proven that it is possible--without political ambitions--to help Armenia in a much greater way than otherwise. And I think this should be a model for the diaspora. In conclusion, I want to put aside this official mask for a moment--I am a human being, after all--and say a few words of appreciation to a man who, as a friend in our most difficult times--in our coldest and darkest days--was with us, and was also a key person in creating close relations between Armenia and America. That was Harry Gilmore. Ambassador Gilmore set such a serious foundation for relations between our countries that, on the base of this foundation, Amb. Tomsen, who is now in Yerevan, is continuing. I also want to express special thanks to the man who worked the hardest and suffered most this evening, Amb. Edward Djerejian. I feel an obligation to say that the honor you are giving me this evening is your way of expressing your debt of honor to our heroic people's patience and stamina. I would like to see us all, together, keep the honor of our people high. Thank you.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this week marks a very special occasion for all of the people of the Calvary Baptist Church in Red Bank, NJ. For the week beginning on November 6, and culminating next Sunday, November 12, the church will mark its 100th anniversary. On Saturday, November 11, an anniversary banquet at Lane Hall at Fort Monmouth will be held to commemorate this joyous occasion. Mr. Speaker, throughout its long and illustrious history, Calvary Baptist Church has been an important institution--not only for its members, but for the entire community. The church has played a central role in both the spiritual and secular lives of its members. While many changes have confronted the church, the Red Bank community, and indeed, our entire society over the past century, the church has stood as an anchor of stability, strength, hope, and sustenance for its members. Mr. Speaker, on this occasion, it gives me great pride to offer my congratulations to Rev. Dr. Dwight Crist Northington, pastor, John C. Dixon, Jr., and Donald Cameron, cochairpersons of the board of trustees, Ann Byron, church clerk and publicity cochairperson, and Peggy Allgood, publicity cochairperson, and all of the members of Calvary Baptist Church as they celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Calvary Baptist Church.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 10th anniversary of the Guayaquil Learning Center in Guayaquil, Ecuador. The learning center is under the auspices of Brookdale Community College in Lincroft, NJ, a wonderful educational facility which serves thousands of my constituents. I am extremely proud to extend my congratulations to Brookdale, the County College of Monmouth, on this important occasion. Mr. Speaker, the program in Ecuador was established in September 1985 with 29 students. Over the past 10 years, the center has served 1,481 students. Located in the Los Ceibos neighborhood of Guayaquil, the center provides college counseling for local residents, an intensive Spanish language program for Monmouth County residents, and a volunteer social service program for residents of our county. In addition, the center provides an international study site for more than 120 students a year from colleges all over the United States. The center serves two major consortia: The College Consortium for International Studies, which includes 170 colleges, and the Partnership for Service Learning, consisting of 155 colleges. Many U.S. colleges have selected the center as their study site in Latin America. The University of South Carolina and Florida Atlantic University have selected the center as a site to offer their programs in business administration. Guayaquil is one of the biggest international U.S. community college programs in the world. But, Mr. Speaker, the services provided by the Guayaquil Center do not only benefit New Jerseyans or others from around the United States. The center is also a study site for some 450 Ecuadorian students before they transfer to Brookdale and more than 600 other colleges in the United States. Thus, we can clearly see that the Guayaquil Center provides excellent educational opportunities for people from both cultures. While the success of Guayaquil Center is a tribute to the energy and talents of many people, I would like to pay tribute to some of the principals involved both in the opening and currently. Dr. Bob Barringer, Dr. Margaret Gwynne, Dr. Gregory DeCinque, Arnold Gelfman, James V. Palumbo, Elaine Baran, and Albert Eyde were involved in the founding of the program. Currently involved are Dr. Johanna Kobran, Paul Zigo, Harvey Schmelter-Davis, and Al Eyde. Brookdale's president, Dr. Peter Burnham, also deserves great credit for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, the Guayaquil Learning Center places Brookdale Community College as a leader in international education. For me, and all people of Monmouth County, it is yet another reason for great pride in our excellent county college, which provides educational opportunities for people of all ages and interests. I am honored to pay tribute to Brookdale on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Guayaquil Learning Center.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, these riders were wrong back in July when a majority of the House voted against them, and they are still very wrong today. I heard the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Delay] say earlier the riders do not change the current law; but in fact they do. They would severely cripple the enforcement and implementation of the laws that are the very backbone of our environmental protection. What good is having good environmental laws on the books if you cannot enforce them? That is basically what this bill does with the riders. It says you cannot enforce the existing law. By allowing the riders to remain in the bill, we are also once again creating an unlevel playing field in terms of the environmental standards states are being required to uphold. The message to the States is wait it out. If enough of us hold out, the standards will eventually come down or be removed altogether. We must remember that pollution recognizes no State boundaries. Unless all States are held up to the same standards , then States that are not in compliance are putting a larger burden on the States that making an effort to preserve our natural resources for future generations. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Congress not to make enforcement a moving target, and to support this motion to instruct.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the point of the matter is that the gentleman from Michigan admitted that he was using the debt ceiling and the possibility of default for political purposes. Even if that political purpose is that somehow he sees in the long run that he is going to balance the budget, the effect of the Government possibly going into default and what that would mean for the economy, what it would mean for the millions of people who would see their interest rates rise and their mortgages have to go up, to me it is just totally irresponsible. I think that he points out the truth. That is exactly what the Speaker is threatening to do, to let the Government default in order to bully the President into signing his budget bill. I think it is totally uncalled for. At least the gentleman from Michigan was willing to admit it, but it is shocking to me that that is in fact the case. I wanted to speak, if I could, about the budget bill. As a member of the conference, the bottom line is the House and the Senate, of course, passed different budget bills and now have to get together, and there is a conference for that purpose to try to get the two versions together. One of the things that I wanted to mention as a conferee, as a person who is going to be part of that conference, is that if is very possible and, I think to some extent, the Senate is already recognizing it is very possible, to essentially take this budget and minimize the tax cuts for the wealthy and the tax increases on the low- and middle- income working families in order to restore Medicare and Medicaid to programs that continue to provide quality health care. The problem I have right now is that this Republican budget bill essentially is destroying Medicare and Medicaid health care programs for the elderly and also for poor people in this country in order to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy. Medicare is cut $270 billion; Medicare, $270 billion. Medicaid, about $180 billion, and yet we have a tax cut that primarily goes to wealthy Americans that is $245 billion. So, if in conference or if at some time later, after the President vetoes the bill, we actually were to decrease that tax cut and take back the tax cut from many of the wealthy Americans, we can put more money into Medicare and into Medicaid so that they are continually viable programs, and that is what needs to be done, that is what hopefully this conference will manage to do or ultimately will be accomplished when the President vetoes the bill and it comes back. I wanted to mention two points, if I could, as part of this Medicare and Medicaid debate. There has already been an effort on the part of the Senate, and if you look at the Senate bill versus the House bill in two areas that I think are very beneficial if we can get these changes, one is that the Senate-passed provisions continue to apply Federal nursing home standards unlike the House bill, and secondly, the Senate- passed provisions require continued Medicaid coverage for low-income pregnant women and children and for disable persons. One of the worst aspects of this House bill is that in fact what it does is to take away standards for nursing homes. Essentially what it means is that the nursing homes are up to the will of the State if the State, of New Jersey for example, decides that it does not want to have any kind of standards for nursing home care. So I am hopeful that, when we get to conference, we can at least address those issues, trying to bring back the nursing home standards and trying to provide some guaranteed coverage for the disabled, for pregnant women, and also for children.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, there is going to be an effort this afternoon which I support to try to eliminate environmental riders that were put into the EPA appropriations bill by the Republican leadership. These Republican riders would severely hamper the EPA's ability to enforce regulations that are the veritable backbone of environmental protection in this country, leaving the EPA severely crippled and the environment utterly defenseless. These provisos, supported by the Republican leadership, would limit EPA's ability to spend funds on activities related to the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and Superfund. They even prevent the EPA from establishing drinking water standards for radon and arsenic, both known carcinogens. These provisions are criminal in terms of the effects they will have on the environment. Then again, letting the environmental criminals off the hook is exactly what these provisions are all about. I hope we are successful on a bipartisan basis this afternoon in eliminating these riders that severely hamper our ability to prevent the degradation of the Nation's environment.