H 4550 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 9, 1995

means a stepped-up embargo and working for a commitment from our allies

to cut off Castro’s economic lifeblood.

The ultimate solution to the refugee

problem and the key to a free and

democratic life for Cubans is not to

bring them all to America. The solution is to bring Cuba out of the cold

war by ending the regime of Fidel Castro. And that, Mr. Speaker, is the bottom line. Fidel Castro is still what is

wrong. We cannot escape that fact, but

we can help change it.

CONGRESS MUST SAVE STUDENT

fLOANS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

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

Connecticut [Ms. DELAURO] is recognized during morning business for 5

minutes.

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, today,

House Republicans will release their

long-awaited and overdue budget proposal. While much of the public attention has focused on the Republican

plan to cut Medicare, there is another

aspect of the plan that is equally troublesome. The GOP budget plan cuts

$12.4 billion over the next 5 years from

the Stafford Student Loan Program.

These cuts translate into the largest

increase in college tuition costs in history.

In Connecticut, the Republican cuts

in student aid would mean that 39,000

students would pay $127 million more

for college over 5 years. By eliminating

interest-deferred Stafford loans, Republicans will add $4,547 to the cost of

an education for the average college

student in Connecticut. Now, $4,500

may not be much money to NEWT GINGRICH or DICK ARMEY, but I assure you

that $4,500 is plenty to working families in my district. It is plenty of

money to Gail Baxter of West Haven,

CT.

Just recently, I met Gail at a student

loan forum I sponsored. Gail told me

that she was worried about what cuts

in student loan programs would mean

for her family. And, it is no wonder she

is worried. You see, Gail is a single

mother who, in the fall of 1995, will

have four children in college. That

means four college tuitions. And, under

the Republican plan, it means four increases of $4,500. All totaled the Republican plan to cut student loans, could

cost this working family nearly $20,000.

But, any single mother who can get

four children to college, is not someone

who throws up her hands when faced

with an obstacle. And, Gail Baxter

wasn’t about to take these student

loan cuts sitting down. So, she got to

work and started a petition drive. I

told her if she collected the signatures

that I would deliver them to the chairman of the House Budget Committee.

In just a few weeks time, Gail collected

the signatures of 630 parents, like herself.

The petition simply reads: We the undersigned oppose any attempts to cut

Federal student assistance that assist

hard-working American families.

Like the parents who signed Gail

Baxter’s petition, students in my district are also concerned about cuts in

student aid. They do not think it is

right that government cut student

loans in order to pay for another tax

cut for the wealthy. And, they are

right.

Students from Quinnipiac College in

Hamden, CT, organized a letter writing

campaign to bring their message to

Congress. The wrote hundreds of letters to various leaders in Congress.

Here is one sample from Laurel Drumm

of Quinnipiac College. She writes:

Recent reports suggest you are considering

the biggest cuts in the history of student aid.

While we applaud congressional efforts for

responsible deficit reduction, cuts in student

aid just don’t make sense. Student aid actually saves taxpayers money by stimulating

economic growth, expanding the tax base

and increasing productivity. That’s why

every major opinion poll shows strong support for student aid programs.

The cuts under consideration would increase the student loan indebtedness by up

to 50 percent and reduce grants and workstudy funding. The bottom line is these cuts

will make a college education unobtainable

for many of us.

The opportunity to go to college is a privilege that should be everyone’s right. Please

don’t cut our future short. Don’t cut student

aid.

Mr. Speaker, student loans are the

ladder to the American dream. Many of

us in this body relied on student loans

to pay for our educations. Let us not

pull up the ladder of opportunity behind us. The Gail Baxters and the Laurel Drumms of the world are counting

on us to do what is right and save student loans.

JOB SKILLS DEVELOPMENT ACT

fOF 1995

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. KNOLLENBERG] is recognized

during morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker,

today I am introducing the Job Skills

Development Act of 1995. This bill

amends the Fair Labor Standards Act

of 1938 to ease the restrictions on volunteers.

The FLSA requires covered employers to compensate individuals defined

as ‘‘employees’’ according to mandatory minimum wage and overtime requirements. While there are exceptions

to the employer-employee relationship

for volunteers, the restrictions on

permissable volunteer activities are excessively rigid.

As a result, individuals seeking to

gain valuable work experience and exposure in a competitive profession by

volunteering their services to an employer are often prohibited from doing

so, even if the individual has no expectation of receiving compensation and

adamantly denies that they are an employee.

When determining whether or not an

individual is a volunteer and exempt

from the minimum wage and overtime

requirements of the FLSA, the Department of Labor and the Federal courts

take into consideration the type of

services provided by an individual, who

benefits from the rendering of the services, and how long it takes to provide

the services.

Because business-related services are

not considered to be typical volunteer

activities, individuals are often prohibited from volunteering their services to

businesses in exchange for work experience.

The Department of Labor has carved

out exceptions for student learners and

trainees. However, if an employer gains

an immediate advantage from the services provided by a volunteer, the Department of Labor will consider the

volunteer to be an employee and require that the individual be paid the

minimum wage.

The restrictions on volunteer activities are intended to safeguard against

employer coercion. Protecting workers

from unscrupulous employers is an important goal and must be preserved in

our labor laws. However, the current

immediate advantage test is too restrictive and should be altered.

The Job Skills Development Act

eases the restrictions on volunteer activities without jeapordizing the important safeguards against employer

coercion and worker displacement.

These changes will help recent college

graduates and individuals who have

been out of the work force develop professional skills and gain experience.

Today, individuals face many obstacles in landing good jobs. Unfortunately, the FLSA imposes unnecessary

burdens on ambitious individuals. Allowing businesses to provide opportunities for volunteers will benefit both

employers and individuals attempting

to break into a crowded job field.

Capitol Hill provides an excellent example of the benefits of allowing individuals to volunteer their services to

employers. Young individuals participating in unpaid congressional internships gain a better understanding of

the legislative process, develop office

skills and make contacts that are invaluable in securing employment.

In my Washington office, six of my

eight employees were unpaid interns

before landing jobs on Capitol Hill.

Two of my staffers volunteered in my

office for several months before they

were hired on as full-time paid employees. Both of these individuals have

been promoted twice during the last

year.

Because these two staffers were recent college graduates and produced

work that benefited my office during

their internships, they would have been

prohibited from volunteering their

services if I would have been forced to

comply with the Fair Labor Standards

Act.

On the opening day of the 104th Congress, we passed legislation that brings
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.