May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4551

us under the Nation’s labor laws. The

Congressional Accountability Act exempts interns from the employer-employee relationship covered by the Fair

Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Speaker, Congress should give individuals attempting to gain competitive private sector jobs the same opportunities that individuals wishing to

work on Capitol Hill have enjoyed for

years. I urge my colleagues to support

the Job Skills Development Act of 1995.

PRESERVE MEDICARE AND PROVIDE COVERAGE TO UNINSURED

fAMERICANS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 4, 1995, the gentleman from California [Mr. STARK] is recognized during

morning business for 4 minutes.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, Republicans talking about saving Medicare

remind me of the man who murdered

his parents and begged for mercy as an

orphan.

They are making a blatant attempt

to distract the public from a tax bill

that takes $87 billion out of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund over the next

10 years and gives it to the rich. And

Republicans are crying crocodile tears

about the trust fund being in danger?

‘‘Hello, Earth to Republicans: Your

hypocrisy is showing.’’

I urge Republicans to reread their

views on last year’s health reform bill.

In that bill, Democrats saved the Medicare Trust Fund by getting all health

spending under control. The billions we

saved in Medicare helped the uninsured, expanded Medicare benefits and

provided a prescription drug benefit for

everyone. Democrats used Medicare

savings to improve the entire health

care system.

Where were the Republicans? They

voted against any and all Medicare savings. In their dissent 10 months ago,

they said ‘‘reimbursement levels * * *

have reached potentially disastrous

levels’’ and ‘‘additional massive cuts in

reimbursement to providers * * * will

reduce the quality of care for the Nation’s elderly.’’

Now the militant radical right wants

to cut three or four times more than

we did. How can they now say it will

not hurt quality?

NEWT can’t reform the system with

more managed care and vouchers. I

rather resent Republicans suggesting

that my mother and the Nation’s seniors are either senile or so stupid that

they will not see through his doubletalk.

My mother knows that managed care

costs more and means less choice of

doctors and hospitals. My mother

knows that Republican vouchers to buy

private insurance will never be worth

enough to pay for her health care.

NEWT’s plan to push America’s seniors

into plans with less choice—all the

while saying he gives them more

choice—is a dog that just will not

hunt.

Republicans intend to disrupt people’s health plans, force them into

managed care, and they know it will

save little or nothing. Last week, CBO

said that Medicare spends more for

HOMO enrollees than had they remained in the fee-for-service sector—

about 5.7 percent more. Until you Republicans know more about how to pay

for seniors in managed care, you are

just whistling in the dark, and playing

fast and loose with a sacred trust.

We Democrats have always worked

with responsible Republicans on ways

to improve Medicare and reform the

entire health care system. But $300 billion in Medicare cuts for the sake of

tax cuts for the rich will destroy not

only Medicare, but the entire U.S.

health care system.

We must not only preserve Medicare,

but we must provide coverage to 47

million Americans who are today without coverage. You Republicans proved

your political dominance over the

House in the past 4 months. Now, why

not show us you stand for something

besides insurance company profits and

tax cuts for the very rich. You are in

complete control of this Congress and

must be judged by your ability to legislate in the best interests of all Americans—not just white, rich, suburban

radicals.

So let us get together and fix the

‘‘break’’ the way it ought to be fixed,

with universal coverage and reform for

all Americans.

THE PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF

f1995

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 4, 1995, the gentleman from New

Jersey [Mr. SAXTON] is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill today which is known

as the Pension Protection Act of 1995. I

must say that usually I am pleased to

introduce a bill. Today I say that I regret that it is necessary to introduce

this bill. But it is, because when American workers get their check at the end

of the pay period and they look at the

check stub, they look to see, how much

has been deducted for their contribution to their pension plan. And those

pension plans have become very, very

important, because those are essentially savings that the American worker is putting aside for his or her retirement.

The Clinton administration has been

up to some mischief, I believe, that is

destructive to that process. So the

Pension Plan Act of 1995, which is cosponsored by our leadership on the Republican side, and I certainly invite

our Democrat friends to join with us as

well, is an attempt to protect the

American worker from the mischief of

the Clinton administration.

It is interesting to note that something over $3.5 trillion are in private

pension funds today. This is the magnitude of the risk that has been

brought about by the Clinton administration. Why? Because the administration has targeted private pension funds

as a new way to finance their liberal

social agenda.

Faced with an angry revolt of voters

last November against too much Federal spending, President Clinton and

his Department of Labor are trying to

use private pensions to do what they

used to do through old fashioned taxing-and-spending. These social investments include: Public housing, infrastructure, and pork-barrel projects.

The administration has dubbed these

social projects ‘‘Economically Targeted Investments’’ or ETI’s, but I prefer to call them PTI’s or ‘‘Politically

Targeted Investments.’’

Let me emphasize that targeting private pension fund investments is a radical and dangerous idea. ETI’s violate

the clear mandate of the Federal law

that Congress passed to protect private

pensions—the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act or ERISA—which

requires that a pension fund manger

must give complete and undivided loyalty to the pension beneficiaries.

Let me quote directly from ERISA: A

pension fund manager must ‘‘discharge

his duties with respect to a plan solely

in the interest of the participants and

beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of (I) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and (II)

defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan.’’

Besides ETI’s obvious conflict with

ERISA, the best economic research indicates that pension funds that target

social investments produce below market returns.

The Clinton administration’s ultimate objective is to establish an ETI

quota for every private pension fund.

What Secretary Reich would make

permissible today, will become compulsory tomorrow.

Today, I am introducing a bill that

will protect the 36 million private pension participants from President Clinton’s pension fund grab. My bill, the

Pension Protection Act of 1995, will not

alter the fiduciary duties laid out in

ERISA. Instead, my bill will simply reiterate that the act means what it

says, no more, no less.

ERISA could not be clearer. Trustees

may not invest in ETI’s because by definition ETI’s seek to benefit someone

other that solely the participants and

beneficiaries of the pension plan; and

ETI’s pursue an objective other than

exclusively the interest of the plan’s

participants and beneficiaries.

The security of our pension funds is

no small issue. Every American who

plans on retiring someday should be

very concerned about that the Clinton

administration is up to. I believe that

if we act quickly, we can ensure that

everyone working today can rest easier

if my bill to protect their pensions is

passed.