[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 186 (Monday, November 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13640-H13642]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO CERTAIN STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution 
(H. Res. 281) and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 281

       Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are 
     hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 
     House of Representatives:
       To the Committee on Resources: The following Members: 
     Edward Markey of Massachusetts to rank above Nick Joe Rahall 
     of West Virginia and Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island.
       To the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: The 
     following Member: Peter Geren of Texas.

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
the resolution be amended to put the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete 
Geren, after the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Tanner, on the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resolution, as 
modified, is agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, when I was having the dialog with the 
gentlewoman from Texas before, one of the things that I found out, 
again in response to the fact that some of my colleagues on the 
Republican side from New Jersey were sort of touting the changes that 
happened in the conference with regard to Medicare funding, what they 
were saying was that $55 million in additional money would be coming to 
New Jersey hospitals because of changes in Medicare.
  What I found out was particularly disturbing to me because of the 
inequities of the formula that had been put into the conference bill. 
Essentially, what the formula said was that if a hospital in New 
Jersey, and of course this is throughout the country, so it applies in 
every State, if a hospital had more than 60 percent, 60 percent or more 
Medicare patients, it was going to get a small increase in its 
reimbursement rate for Medicare.
  But then on further discovery, I found out that that was only true if 
the hospital was not a disproportionate share hospital or a teaching 
hospital. A disproportionate share hospital is a hospital that has a 
high number of Medicaid patients, in other words, low-income patients, 
or patients that receive Social Security disability benefits. Of 
course, the teaching hospital is a major institution that provides 
teaching to residents and to young doctors; and which also tends, in 
many cases, many of the teaching hospitals, happen to be in urban 
areas.
  So what essentially this new formula said was, in my interpretation, 
if you have a high number of seniors at your hospital, we are going to 
give you extra money, but not if those seniors happen to be low-income 
seniors or if they happen to be people who are receiving Social 
Security disability, or other types of low-income individuals. That is 
an incredible inequity.
  Here we have some of the major teaching hospitals, which serve the 
underprivileged, disproportionate share hospitals that serve large 
numbers of poor people, and have the greatest need for help from the 
Federal Government in terms of their reimbursement rate, and they are 
being cut at the same time as the hospitals who have a high number of 
Medicare patients, but do not have a lot of poor people, are being 
given an increase. That really says a lot about the way Speaker 
Gingrich and the Republican leadership have gone about dealing with 
this bill.
  It is not fair; there are a tremendous number of inequities in this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, with regard to Medicaid and, again, talking about my 
home State of New Jersey, my colleagues were touting the fact that 
there was an increase from Medicaid funding to New Jersey of something 
like $200 million, largely because now the effort or the services that 
you provide to illegal immigrants were going to be included, whereas 
they had not been in the original bill.
  But what they fail to point out is that New Jersey loses $6 billion 
in Medicaid funding over the next 7 years under this Republican budget. 
So here we have some slight increase, because you are serving illegal 
aliens, of $200 million, but a shortfall overall of $6 billion.
  This prompted one of my local newspapers, the Home News and Tribune, 
to write an editorial which I would like to quote from briefly. They 
said, and they complimented Governor Whitman because she had tried to 
get some extra money for Medicaid in part of this conference. But then 
they said that the latest GOP plan still doesn't do enough to help 
needy New Jersey residents.
  The new game plan would leave New Jersey with almost $6 billion less 
than the State would have received under existing law. The undeniable 
fact is that New Jersey still takes a big hit.
  So whether you talk about Medicare or you talk about Medicaid, the 
bottom line is that, around the country, both programs suffer 
considerably, and in many ways will not be the type of quality health 
care programs that they are now.
  Before I finish, I wanted to go into two other aspects of this 
Republican budget bill that I find very objectionable. The gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] mentioned both of them. I just want to get 
into a little more detail about how this conference bill, the one that 
we voted on today and that I oppose, specifically affects certain 
education programs and certain environmental programs.
  The most negative impact in terms of higher education is on what we 
call the direct student loan program. The Republican proposal basically 
caps direct student loans at 10 percent of total loan volume. What we 
know that this 

[[Page H 13641]]
is going to do is to force up to 1,000 colleges and universities out of 
the direct student loan program and cut the number of direct student 
loans that actually go to students by 1.9 million. So 1.9 million 
students probably will not have access to these loans and 1,000 
colleges and universities will be cut from the program because of this 
10-percent cap.

  Some people, though, have said to me, well, so what? We do not have a 
direct student loan program; we can go back to the old guaranteed 
student loan program that the banks used to operate and still operate 
under. Why do we need the direct student loan program? I would point 
out that the direct student loan program, of course, comes directly 
from the college or university, as opposed to the guaranteed loan 
program, which is financed; you go to a bank or a loan institution.
  Well, there is a key difference, there is a key difference, and this 
is why so many students will not be able to get a loan and why so many 
colleges are complaining about this change and this downgrading of the 
direct student loan program.
  One key advantage of direct loans over guaranteed loans is that the 
direct loans create more flexible repayment terms. Direct lending 
guarantees students the option of paying their loan back as a 
percentage of their income. When graduates are starting a family, 
working in their first job or starting a business, they can choose to 
make smaller payments. Guaranteed loan holders in the vast majority of 
cases do not provide this kind of flexibility.
  Also, and this is the experience that I can talk to directly because 
Rutgers University in my district was one of the schools that first 
started with the direct student loan program and has had tremendous 
success with it, students have found that their loan money comes 
through faster under direct loans. There is just a lot less red tape.
  Direct loans provide one-stop shopping for students. Borrowers make 
single loan payments to the Education Department for the life of the 
loans. The application process is simpler. Students do not have to 
submit a separate loan application to a bank and students do not wait 
in lines to endorse bank checks because schools receive the loans 
electronically from the Federal Government.
  There are a tremendous number of reasons, and I do not want to keep 
talking about them all night, about why this direct loan program has 
been such a success. But I would like to look at it from the other 
point of view, which is why is it that the Republicans want to go back 
to the other guaranteed loan program administered by the banks? For 
what possible reason?
  Well, I would maintain it is because of the special interest groups 
that are involved. They are the only winners, okay? Just to quote here 
from the New York Times, and then I would like to yield to the 
gentlewoman from Texas, the guaranteed student loan program as always 
been a favorite program for the Nation's banks. The New York Times 
pointed out in an editorial recently that, ``Banks have long treasured 
the guaranteed student loan program which offers profits with much less 
risk than they have on the direct loan program ever since it was 
created in 1993 as unwanted competition.
  Here we go. We are going back to this other program where we have to 
go through the banks, only that they can make a profit. There is no 
benefit. And from my own experience with Rutgers University and what 
the administrators there are telling me, the direct loan program is 
much better.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and he 
has plainly, I think, captured the essence of the problem, and he has 
captured it for his State. But in my State, the State of Texas, 41 
schools will now lose the opportunity of the direct student loan 
program, but in particular, 57,000 students will not have that 
opportunity.
  You have, I think, laid it out for both parents and faculty and 
administrators, and my husband happens to be an administrator at one of 
our institutions, the University of Houston in Texas. There is 
certainly a lot of merit.
  I do not know if any of us can recall the anxiety of being a student, 
and now more and more students are working. They are commuters 
sometimes; they are constantly looking for resources in terms of 
helping them get their education, and there is something about the 
direct loan program that eases that burden. It is a clean program. The 
dollars are placed in the institution, you know what they are for, and 
it really makes sense.
  If I might tie just another point to this whole question of education 
and students, I think it is important to note, because we look at this 
budget, or at least it has been raised as a budget that helps bring 
down the deficit and it helps bring us to the point of saving the 
country money.
  First, I think we should note that under the Democrats, this country 
has the smallest number of Federal employees since 1933, before the New 
Deal. We are down some 200,000. And of course, my hat is off to the 
Federal employees who work for us and who were furloughed, because I 
think they were maligned unnecessarily. But they have streamlined 
themselves.
  The other point is, this Budget Reconciliation Act is based upon 
numbers that now may not be accurate. That is why I am so glad of the 
continuing resolution that talked about OMB, it talked about consulting 
with other economists, it talked about other indicia that might be 
reflective of where we are. In fact, we are finding out that the CBO 
was too pessimistic, Congressional Budget Office.
  We have been told to use all of those letters for people, but one 
group of fact-finders were too pessimistic. In fact, our growth is 
better than we had expected, and in fact, all of these spending cuts 
that they are recommending may not be necessary. The reason I say that 
is because we have recommendations to cut out the Commerce Department, 
the most successful Commerce Department, we have seen in history, that 
signed, I think, some 3 billion dollars' worth of contracts with China.
  We have just heard that our export numbers with Japan, under the 
President's leadership and the Department of Commerce, have gone up 
some 44 percent, or maybe $40 billion is the number that comes to mind. 
But that has gone up.
  However, in addition to cutting the Commerce Department, which 
creates jobs, I tied it because we have youngsters going to college and 
the anxiety of getting a college education, the need of loans and then 
getting a job, but we are also in this budget cutting research and 
development 35 percent. I do not think the corporations will remind me, 
detailing that they have reduced their research and development 
departments, they are basically in a profit mode, and that most new 
research comes out of the partnership between the private and public 
sector.
  For example, in universities like Rutgers University, and here in 
Houston, Prairie View, Texas Southern University in my community, the 
University of Texas, and the University of Houston has a project. But 
that is the way we create work for the 21st century.
  So I think that we have a budget reconciliation package, we wish we 
had had it October 1, meeting the deadlines, but now with a new lease 
on life, new numbers, a continuing resolution that opens the 
Government, that clearly sets priorities. New information about what 
cutting research and development will do for us. I think we can do a 
better job.


vacating and amending proceedings on house resolution 281, election of 
          members to certain standing committees of the house

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman, I am 
asked to do a procedural matter, I ask unanimous consent to amend the 
earlier Democratic caucus resolution, House Resolution 281, and place 
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren, directly behind the gentleman 
from Illinois, Mr. Costello, on the Committee on Transportation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the adoption of House 
Resolution 281 is vacated, and without objection, the resolution is 
readopted in the form as requested by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. 
Jackson-Lee].
  There was no objection.


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey 

[[Page H 13642]]
  [Mr. Pallone] and the Congresswoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] for 
allowing me to take some time this evening for a personal explanation.
  Mr. Speaker, on rollcall votes 701 through 713, on Wednesday, October 
11 and Thursday, October 12, 1995, I was unavoidably absent.
  On rollcall vote 701, the Scott amendment to H.R. 2405, the Omnibus 
Civilian Science Authorization Act, I would have voted ``yes.''
  On rollcall vote 702, the Jackson-Lee amendment, I would have voted 
``yes.''
  On rollcall vote 703, the Richardson substitute to the Roemer 
amendment, I would have voted ``yes.''
  On rollcall vote 704, the Roemer amendment, I would have voted 
``no.''
  Rollcall vote 705 was a quorum call.
  On rollcall vote 706, the Doyle substitute to the Walker amendment, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  On rollcall vote 707, the motion to recommit to conference committee 
H.R. 1976, the fiscal year 1996 agriculture appropriations, I would 
have voted ``yes.''
  On rollcall vote 708, adoption of the agriculture appropriations 
conference report, I would have voted ``yes.''
  On rollcall vote 709, the Lofgren amendment to the science 
authorization, I would have voted ``yes.''
  On rollcall vote 710, the Kennedy amendment, I would have voted 
``yes.''
  On rollcall vote 711, the Brown amendment, I would have voted 
``yes.''
  On rollcall vote 712, the Brown substitute, I would have voted 
``yes.''
  On rollcall vote 713, final passage of the science authorization, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for yielding to me.

                              {time}  2000

  I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing these very vital 
points. It just caused me to think of an array of opportunity that we 
now have to really look at the budget that now can reflect on some new 
economic numbers, on the gross domestic product. It can reflect upon 
where we want to go in the 21st century.
  Do we really want to cut research and development? Do we want to 
eliminate housing for people who are now getting on their feet, first-
time owners, single parents with children who are getting to be 
homeowner? Do we want to take away a department, for example, I use 
that just as an example, even though we have brought down the number of 
Federal employees, that actually has created billions of dollars of new 
contracts with our world partners, that has created and would create 
jobs for our young people?
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman again for emphasizing 
those priorities that are now in that continuing resolution.
  The last one that I wanted to mention, and the one she has already 
mentioned, is in regard to the environment. Again, the President 
reiterated that one of the problems that he has with this Republican 
budget that was adopted today is that it cuts funding or assumes cuts 
in funding for environmental programs too much.
  Perhaps the best example of that, again, which was alluded to by the 
gentlewoman, was this appropriations bill. We call it the VA, HUD and 
other independent agencies appropriations bill, which was supposed to 
come up today but was pulled from the floor, apparently because the 
Republican leadership does not have the votes. I want to say thank you 
for the fact that they do not have the votes because this is a very bad 
bill, particularly with regard to the Environmental Protection Agency.
  What it does with regard to the EPA is essentially decrease EPA 
funding by about 20 percent. In that funding cut, amongst the money 
that has been cut, the hardest hit is enforcement, which is cut almost 
25 percent.
  I have said over and over again on the floor of this House, and will 
continue to say, what is the point of having good environmental laws if 
you do not have the money to hire people to go out and enforce those 
laws? It is like basically saying to the polluters, ``It's OK, you can 
do whatever you want, because we're not going to come after you, we're 
never going to indict you or punish you for violating the law.'' That 
is essentially what this bill says.

  It also makes particularly deep cuts in aid to the States for water 
pollution control. I find that particularly offensive because my 
district is largely along the Atlantic Ocean and also along the Raritan 
Bay and Raritan River, and we have benefited tremendously the last few 
years from Federal funding for upgrading our sewage treatment plants 
and for other provisions that make it easier for us to enforce our 
water quality standards.
  As a result, in Jersey and particularly in my district the ocean 
water quality has improved, the bay has improved and the river has 
improved. That has meant a lot to us economically because we depend on 
tourism for a good part of our income.
  Back in the late 1980's when I was first elected to the House of 
Representatives, we had our beaches closed for most of the summer 
because of the poor water quality. That has not happened again because 
the water quality has improved, and largely because of Federal dollars 
that went back to the States for water pollution control and also 
because of improvements in enforcement.
  The last thing that this appropriation bill does that I want to 
mention, it does a lot of horrible things to the environment, but 
another one that is particularly important to my district and something 
that I care a lot about is the Superfund Program. It is a number of 
years ago now that the Federal Government established a Superfund 
Program, which is essentially what it is, a Superfund, a large pot of 
money that is used to clean up the worst hazardous waste sites around 
the country in all 50 States.
  This appropriations bill that gladly was pulled from the floor today, 
but I am sure is going to come back, it makes a 19-percent cut in 
funding for the Superfund Program. What that essentially means is that 
the only sites that will be cleaned up are the ones that are already on 
the Superfund list. In fact, it actually says that the EPA cannot add a 
new hazardous waste site to the national priorities list for cleanup 
unless the State's Governor requests it.
  So basically what they are trying to do here, what the Republican 
leadership is trying to do, either through this appropriation bill or 
ultimately when they reauthorize the Superfund Program, is to basically 
say, ``This is a closed shop. We're not going to establish any more 
Superfund sites,'' in an effort to try and save money.

  That is not the way to go about handling a program which has been 
very important to many States, particularly in my home State of New 
Jersey, and it is also not a very rational or scientific way to proceed 
to simply say, ``Well, if you didn't get on the list now, we're not 
going to put you on the list anymore because we don't have any more 
money to pay for cleanup.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude by saying I know that this 
budget bill passed today. It is a bad bill. The President is going to 
veto it. As the gentlewoman from Texas said, we hope that in the 
continuing resolution we establish the priorities, which are to 
preserve Medicare, to provide adequate funding for Medicaid, to provide 
enough funding so that we can have a good Student Loan Program and that 
we can protect the environment.
  I am hopeful that after the President vetoes this bill, serious 
negotiation will take place to emphasize those priorities and not use 
this budget as a way to simply provide more money for wealthy Americans 
through tax breaks.

                          ____________________