S6438 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 10, 1995

OPPOSING THE ELIMINATION OF

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we

now have two budget proposals, one

from the House of Representatives and

one from the Senate. Both claim to

balance the budget to ensure a better

future for our children, to provide

them with more and better opportunities than we now have. Nothing could

be further from the truth, if Congress

accepts the House Republican proposal

to abolish the Department of Education.

You do not turn your back on education in the name of ensuring a better

future for our children. You do not

turn your back on education to pay for

tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

You do not turn your back on schoolchildren to pay for tax cuts for the

wealthiest Americans. You do not turn

your back on college students to pay

for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And you do not turn your back on

working families to pay for tax cuts for

the wealthiest Americans.

Education is critical to the Nation’s

future. It deserves a seat at the Cabinet table and at the President’s right

hand when critical decisions are being

made. Children do not vote, children

cannot hire lobbyists, but a Cabinet officer can fight for them. It is especially

objectionable that the Department of

Education would be abolished in order

to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest

individuals and corporations in our

country.

What does the proposal to abolish the

Department of Education say about

Republican priorities? What kind of

Nation are we? What kind of Congress

are we? Last Congress, Republicans and

Democrats stood together as the Education Congress. Are we now the antieducation Congress?

Last Congress, Democrats and Republicans worked together to reform

the Head Start Program. Republicans

and Democrats worked to bring about

changes in the chapter 1 program. We

worked together to adopt the Goals

2000 program, the School-to-Work Program, and the direct loan program.

These programs were all passed with

Republicans and Democrats working

together. It truly was an education

Congress.

Now we have the proposal to eliminate the Department of Education

which is nothing more than a political

stunt. It would save less than 2 percent

of the Federal investment in education.

These budget proposals will not eliminate bureaucracy in education. What

these cuts will do is jeopardize billions

of dollars in aid to education which go

directly to schools and colleges and

students to give them a greater opportunity to learn and to succeed.

Mr. President, I have a list of the

various education programs targeted

by the House Republican budget for

elimination. Outlined in these programs are the safe and drug free school

State grants and the Safe and Drug

Free School National Program. These

are the programs that have been developed to try and help local school districts deal with the problems of substance abuse and violence in their

schools.

These programs are all targeted for

elimination.

Also on the list for elimination is assistance for the magnet schools which

have been developed to try to help the

public schools to develop magnet concepts to attract the best of the young

people in public schools, to give them

some advantages and different specialties so they can advance in their educational competence. That program is

effectively dropped out.

The dropout prevention programs,

demonstration programs which are targeted at some 400,000 young people who

drop out of school every year. They are

the principal cause of violence in our

society and the principal individuals

that have the challenges with teenage

pregnancy. We have a small program

that is having some positive effects,

and it is targeted to be eliminated.

The charter school programs. Last

year, when we were considering the

education reforms, how many of our

Republican colleagues said what we

need is break-the-mold public schools,

we need to permit the States to move

ahead with new charter schools? We included charter schools funding in our

Goals 2000 proposals. A number of different States are experimenting with

those programs. There are funds in

there to help and assist local school

communities that are trying to develop

charter schools. Those programs effectively have been emasculated.

All of the education technology programs. I was listening to my friend and

colleague, the Senator from Ohio, talking about the importance of new technologies to fight crime. We heard important testimony today in our Immigration Committee about how we are

trying to utilize the best in technology

to try to bring sanity into the whole

area of employment and the exploitation of illegal immigrants and deal

with the problems of the discrimination that exist against Americans in

employment, using the best of technology. How is it that we are trying to

do the best in technology when we are

trying to deal with immigration and

we are trying to use the best of technology in talking about the problems

of crime? Here we have a modest program to try to bring the latest technology into the public schools of this

country, and it is targeted for elimination under the budget recommendations of the House.

In vocational education the tech-prep

educational program is the best workbased learning program that has been

developed in this country by the private sector and the public sector working together. It is effectively emasculated. It is an effective program.

Many of our colleagues know about

model tech-prep programs that have

taken place in their States. They are

small programs, but they really have

the pattern for the development of future training programs and partnerships between the public and private

sectors. They are effectively emasculated.

The efforts we made last year on the

School-to-Work Program which had bipartisan support, and which Republican Governor Thompson testified on

before our Human Resource Committee

as being an extremely effective program in helping to move many of the

young people that are not going on to

4-year colleges or 2-year colleges or

post-high-school education and help

them gain employment. Sixty-five percent of all the high school students

that graduate do not go on to advanced

education. They are the ones who are

having the difficulty in getting decent

jobs. They are the ones who have seen

their real income decline over the period of the last 15 to 18 years. They are

the ones who are losing confidence in

the whole education system and the

democratic process and the free enterprise system.

One of the most innovative and creative programs has been the School-toWork Program, which helps move these

young people, in a thoughtful way, in a

way that has the strong support and

initiation of the private sector, from

school right into employment and future job opportunities with good and

decent job programs. It has broad bipartisan support and is supported by

Republican Governor Thompson, who

was down testifying before us, as being

one of the creative programs to try to

help reach those young people that are

not going on to college. Nonetheless, it

is a modest program that was started

last year. And that program is effectively eliminated.

Mr. President, I could go on. The

Star Schools Program brings distance

learning into many of the school districts of this country. Many of the

school districts have had tightening

budgets, and they are not able to get

that science teacher, that language

teacher, that chemistry teacher, that

biology teacher, because of the demographics of their particular community

have decreased, school budgets have

gone down. But what we have been able

to do with the Star Schools Program is

to beam into those schools the best educator, the best physics teacher, the

best history teacher, the best language

teacher, for the very bright students in

those schools who otherwise would be

unchallenged in terms of their ability

to compete in science and other kinds

of technology, which this Nation needs

in such desperate amounts. A modest

program. It is $30 million, and it is affecting thousands of students, not just

in urban areas but in rural areas of the

country. The program MCET, in my

part of the country, effectively provides distance learning throughout

New England. Its greatest supporters

are in the rural parts of Maine, New

Hampshire, and Vermont—in the rural

communities.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6439

You have an exciting program in

South Carolina. I have attended programs in Mississippi that have reached

out into rural areas all through the

South that are teaching children foreign languages, physics, advanced

mathematics, and a number of other

programs where they do not have those

kinds of teachers. It is a modest program that depends upon local support,

local matching funds, and it has been

an effective program in every kind of

evaluation, and it is effectively eliminated and cut.

So, Mr. President, these are matters

which we are going to have to have a

debate and discussion about when we

have the opportunity to debate this

matter here on the floor of the U.S.

Senate later and also when that conference report comes out.

I urge those who are committed to

the cause of education to take a little

time and review in detail the assault

on many of the programs that have

been outlined in the House budget proposal, and a number of those which

have been included in the Senate proposal. We have seen the basic assault

on the programs which provide for an

interest subsidy students while they

are in school. That is a program that

has been in effect, and that program is

effectively being eliminated. In my

State of Massachusetts, 70 percent of

the students that go to higher education get some form of help, of scholarship help or assistance; 75 to 78 percent of all the scholarship help and assistance is provided by the Federal

Government.

The cuts in school-to-work programs

proposed in the Republican budget

would deny more funds for working

families’ children in my State of Massachusetts than is being provided by

the State today. This is not an issue

where the State is going to pick up the

slack. I hope that during this debate

we will hear from our colleagues in

other States and that they will tell us

what State has been devoting more and

more to higher education for their children. It is not true in Massachusetts.

Tuition and fees in public education

have increased dramatically. And that

has been true in almost State in the

country. And the people that qualify

for the student assistance programs

are, by definition, the sons and daughters of working families. This is a program that has been tried and tested

and true.

I applauded the President of the

United States when he talked about

trying to provide at least some tuition

deduction for working families, up to

$10,000, because of the increases in tuition which have taken place in this

country. I myself believe we ought to

consider permitting the repayment of

interest on student loans to be deductible under the Tax Code. Why do we

permit the interest that wealthy individuals pay on their second homes to

be deductible when we will not permit

students to deduct interest payments

on their student loans?

That says something about national

priorities. Instead of moving in a direction to try and help and assist the sons

and daughters of working families, we

are moving completely in the opposite

direction.

Mr. President, there are many features of those programs which are

troublesome. I have mentioned just a

few. We are committed to try and consolidate various programs. We made

some progress last year in the areas of

education. We are doing so now in the

training programs. We are working toward those objectives in the Labor and

Human Resources Committee.

We welcome the opportunity to do

that with our colleagues, to eliminate

unnecessary bureaucracy and the overlapping of various programs. I think

that makes sense. We welcome the

chance to do that.

But kind of wholesale assault on education programs that has been outlined

today in the budget by the House of

Representatives and the significant undermining of student assistance programs in the Senate, I find to be troublesome and I hope that when the time

comes that we will reject those particular areas.

The Republicans claim that these

budgets are to give children a better

future. Will children have a better future if we revoke our commitment to

raise education standards? Will children have a better future if we slash

funds to help them learn to read, write,

and do math and science? Will children

have a better future if we abolish funds

to modernize all aspects of education,

so that we no longer have to prepare

students for the 21st century in 19thcentury classrooms. Will children have

a better future if the Federal Government slashes $20 billion from student

aid, so that vast numbers of able young

men and women can no longer afford to

go to college? The answer to all these

questions is no—no, no, no, no.

The American people agree. Two out

of three Americans oppose a balanced

budget if it means cutting Social Security, Medicare, or education. Eightynine percent of Americans believe a

Federal Department of Education is

necessary. Sixty-four percent of Americans would increase spending on public

schools if they had the opportunity to

write the budget.

The American people see what our

Republican colleagues refuse to see in

their shortsighted budget proposals.

Students, families, and the country itself will suffer if we abandon our commitment to education.

Our Republican colleagues say that

they want to balance the budget so as

not to bury the next generation in

debt. Why then are they so willing to

bury this generation of students in

debt?

The question answers itself. Congress

and the Nation should say a resounding

no to these irresponsible anti-education proposals.

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the senior

Senator from Massachusetts would

yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, here is

the problem I find: We have a terrible

deficit of $200 billion which every objective group says will rise to over $300

billion and close to $400 billion by the

end of the century.

The Republicans have come up with a

program that reaches a balanced budget not next year, not the year after,

but 7 years away, which seems to me

that would be a reasonable timetable

to arrive at a situation where we are

no longer sending the bills to our children.

Now, the proposal that has emerged

from the Republican Budget Committee has many harsh provisions to it.

When we are reducing expenditures

there are going to be difficulties, as we

all recognize and as the Senator has

ably pointed out.

It affects this, affects that, affects

things I am interested in, that the Senator is interested in, that the Presiding

Officer is interested in. There is not

one that will not find things we do not

like.

The question is, what is the alternative? I do not believe the answer is

to say stop giving those tax cuts to

rich people, because in the Domenici

budget there are no tax cuts. Never

mind the rich people. There are no tax

cuts at all.

So he has presented a budget which I

know we will all find terribly challenging and difficult and dissatisfying.

What is the alternative? Maybe the answer is to increase taxes. I do not believe that we can continue on the path

we are, which consists of sending the

bills to our children. We live high on

the hog, and send the bill to our children and grandchildren. I think that is

immoral.

If we do not like the proposal, what

is a better one? I am not trying to put

the Senator on the spot.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine.

Mr. CHAFEE. This is a tremendous

challenge we all face.

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the Senator’s question.

Let me just outline my response very

quickly.

First of all, I fail to understand how

we are saving the future generations

from indebtedness when we are increasing so significantly—about 25 or 30 percent—the debt of students going on to

higher education, which is the part I

have been talking about.

Let me answer it in this way. First of

all, if the Senator is prepared to reject

what the majority leader has stated,

and that is, that his desire to see the

set-asides, the savings of $170 billion

which have been included in the Republican budget in the House and the Senate of the United States, that can be

used for future tax cuts, if we are going

to count those in or count those out, do

we say that the majority leader is for
S6440 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 10, 1995

the tax cut and Senator GRAMM is for

the tax cut?

I listened to the Senator from Rhode

Island indicate that he is not. That, I

think, is certainly a more responsible

position. These cuts are coming at a

time when one is fair enough to juxtapose what has been included in the

House budget cuts as well as in the

Senate cuts and the saving programs.

To make the judgment that we are

cutting back on a number of the programs, particularly as I have mentioned here in education, and setting

aside that $170 billion which can be

used for tax cuts.

Second, there is no review of the fastest growing contributor to the size of

the deficit, which is our tax expenditures. I indicated during the time of

the line-item veto, which I supported,

that I wanted to see the line-item veto

go on this for tax expenditures. We are

not reviewing tax expenditures. There

is no similar kind of review by the

Budget Committee to review the various kinds of subsidies that are out

there that are going, in many instances, to some of the most successful

companies and corporations. There is

no review by the Budget Committee to

review those and to find out which ones

make sense, which ones do not make

sense, and to do the same kinds of cuts

that we have seen illustrated by the

kinds of cuts that have taken place in

this budget, identifying program after

program after program after program

after program that deals with education.

I think that the Senator’s position in

terms of fairness and judgment and in

terms of the budget would be enhanced

if he said, ‘‘Let’s take a look at $460

billion in tax expenditures and review

those and find out which ones are fair

and which ones are not.’’

I think that is a position. Finally, let

me say that I do think, and I think the

Senator would agree with me, we are

never going to get at the principal contributor to expanding deficits, which is

the health care issue, and the escalations of health care costs both now in

terms of medical care which is different from where it was from the mid1980’s to 1990, but nonetheless has doubled virtually the cost of living in

terms of where we are for other goods

and services.

We are never going to really deal

with that increase by just cutting. We

are going to have to deal with the escalation of health care costs by looking

at the total health care system.

Social Security and Medicaid represent one-quarter of our health care

expenditures. If we are going to have

some kind of a discipline on that onequarter, and we will have cutbacks as

being included, then we will have a reduction of services without giving

some kind of additional sense of reform

of health care.

The Senator knows very well that

treating people with long-term care

and in-home care and permitting them

to get help and assistance with prescription drugs which are outside of a

hospital setting, and providing for better health care services, that there are

many things that can be invested. It

can have an impact in reducing the

pressures in terms of the growth of the

Medicare population.

But the idea that we are going to

solve the expansion of health care costs

just by cutting back again on Medicare

is something that I find troublesome. I

wanted to indicate to the Senator that

I respect his sincere desire to move and

support programs that will bring

America into a closer position on the

issues of our deficit, but it does seem

to me that we should not simply have

the harshest cuts in the areas that I

think are counterproductive, because I

would say to my friend and colleague,

that every dollar we cut back in education we will be paying $2 more in

terms of social services.

I think, and particularly with regard

to education, that is wrong.

Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator

from Nevada would let me finish.

Mr. REID. Of course.

Mr. CHAFEE. I appreciate the suggestions that the Senator from Massachusetts made. Tax expenditures—I

suppose he is talking about, first of all,

a whole series of things. Whether we

should be providing pensions, deductible pensions, or whether we are talking about in the tax expenditures,

whether he is talking about depreciation. I do not find those objectionable.

But never mind.

It seems to me it would behoove everyone to come up with plans. That is,

if the Senator and the administration

do not like the Republican proposal for

doing something about this balanced

budget by the year 2002, which is a very

reasonable goal to reach. We have no

wars, times are relatively good, inflation is low, unemployment is low, relatively low, and this is the time to gun

for this balanced budget amendment,

balanced budget situation. But the administration has not done that. It has

chosen not to do that.

All right, how about the Democratic

Senators doing it themselves? I would

be interested to see what they come up

with, because this is very, very difficult. And every step that we take, we

being the Republicans who have come

up with this balanced budget, we are

going to be attacked. And there are

going to be wonderful things to attack

us on. But at least we are trying to get

there.

I think as a part of a sense of responsibility, if you want to call it that,

that it would be wise, it would be helpful if others came up with their approach. Maybe you can do it better

than we can do it. If so, three cheers,

and let us hear your ideas.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

I appreciate his moment of challenge.

I am mindful, though, that this does

come from voices that were not there

when we saw the $70 billion deficit reduction program on the 1993 budget

resolution. We did not have it. That is

a historic fact. It is a political fact of

life, as well. But there was not a single

vote that came from that side, not one

single vote, when we were moving toward at least a very modest increase in

tax which was presented for the top 1

to 2 percent of the taxpayers, to provide a very modest increase. We did not

have any support there. Nor did we

have support when we were trying to

provide the extension of the earned-income tax credit—that is 84,000 families

in my State who were able to get some

benefit, plus reduce the overall deficit

by $600 million. We had that.

I have said on other occasions I respect the seriousness with which the

Senator from Rhode Island approached

the efforts to try to deal with the

health care issue and crisis in a comprehensive way. I am not sure the Senator desires, nor do I, to get into a long

debate on what happened to that particular measure.

But, nonetheless, dealing in a comprehensive way with the total health

care issues that included Medicare plus

other kinds of expenditures was, I

think—I thought then and I still do,

and I think eventually the country will

recognize, whether we do it the way

that was suggested the last time or in

some other way—we are never going to

be serious about getting a handle on

health care costs, which is the principal contributor in entitlement spending, until we deal with that issue. We

were not able to break through and develop bipartisan support.

I am not here tonight to get into

where the blame lies for that. But I do

think those of us who supported those

positions, and also supported at least a

line-item veto that included the tax expenditures, do not come to this debate

empty-handed. We do come to this with

a recognition that we have attempted

to be responsible on this. I, frankly,

think that is something that ought to

be a part of it, as well.

Should the Senator from Rhode Island say, ‘‘OK, we did not do the health

care last year. We understand we are

going to have to deal with Medicare

this year, and we are prepared to try to

work across the line, with this President, with the other side of the aisle,

to try to get a handle on health care

costs that are part of health care reform,’’ I would welcome the opportunity to be the first who comes to the

table on that issue. I think I speak for

many on this side.

I must say, hope springs eternal in

my soul. I think many of us understand

there is nobody who could put that

challenge with greater credibility than

the Senator from Rhode Island. Perhaps we will wait for a little while to

hear that challenge go out there where

we can sit down and really try to come

to grips with this issue.

Mr. REID. Before the Senator yields

the floor, I have a question I would like

to ask the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield

for a question.
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6441

Mr. REID. I say to the senior Senator

from Massachusetts, I recall many of

us being on this floor just a few months

ago, talking about the crisis in health

care.

Does the Senator recall that?

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I do.

Mr. REID. In fact, it was not minutes

or hours or days; we spent weeks on the

floor talking about the health care crisis a few months ago.

I am curious; is the crisis suddenly

upon us regarding Medicare? The fact

of the matter is, that same crisis was

here last year, when we worked weeks

and weeks trying to solve the problem;

is that not true?

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. What stands out even in

greater relief is the fact that in that

debate there were going to be adjustments made in the Medicare system

but, nonetheless, it was going to be

part of an overall reform. So the seniors were going to be able, hopefully, to

not only have a more comprehensive

range of services available to them, but

it would give them the kind of protection in the future that the continued

escalation of costs for them would not

provide.

As the Senator knows full well now,

for the average Medicare recipient,

they are paying about $1 out of $4, $1

out of $5, of every dollar for health

care. Twenty years ago, it was $1 out of

every $12.

Now, for those in the lower part of

the Medicare system, in many instances, it is $1 out of $3.

So there is a need to both have the

reform and to use resources for health

care reform rather than tax cuts.

Mr. REID. I ask the Senator from

Massachusetts, the fact of the matter

is, if there is suddenly a recognition on

the other side that there is a crisis in

Medicare, should we recognize that the

crisis is not in Medicare, it is in health

care? Is that not a fair statement?

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has

stated it very well.

Mr. REID. If the health care costs, as

they relate to Medicare, are escalating

10.7 percent a year, is it not a fact that

some private systems are going up even

more than that?

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct again.

Mr. REID. That means higher insurance premiums. Does it not mean that

people who have no insurance go to an

emergency room; and is there any

higher cost of medical care any place

in the country than in an emergency

room?

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct on that. The great tragedy in the cost is not only in the dollars and cents, but it is in the cost of

parents who wonder if that child is $75

or $100 sick before they will even go to

the emergency room to take care of

those needs.

As the Senator knows, about 45 percent of all needs that are treated in the

emergency room could have been treated—or are preventable—and could have

been treated in a much lower-cost setting at a savings of not only resources,

but also the anxiety primarily of parents and loved ones because of the illness or sickness of a member of the

family.

Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak as

in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the

Senator from Massachusetts leaves the

floor, I want to say I have been here

and I have used as an illustration some

of the things that are being done on

the other side of the aisle, as being—

well, they remind me some of the

things that go on in Las Vegas. We

have in Las Vegas the greatest magicians, illusionists in the world. I talked

earlier this week about Siegfried and

Roy. They can make things happen.

Mr. KENNEDY. And David

Copperfield.

Mr. REID. I did not talk about him

the other day, but we have David

Copperfield, who spends a lot of time in

Las Vegas, who does many wonderful

things. We have Melinda, who is the

Woman of Magic. We also have two new

magicians who now live in Las Vegas

by the names of Penn and Teller. The

reason the other illusionists are so mad

at them is because they tell people how

they do their tricks.

I think we need some help from the

other side of the aisle to tell us how

they are doing their tricks because the

fact of the matter is, a health care crisis has been upon us for a long time.

Suddenly, because they are presenting

a budget to us, they find a health care

crisis when there has been one here all

the time. I think they have been taking lessons from some of my friends in

Nevada. I think that because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle

are really illusionists or magicians in

the true sense of the word.

I appreciate the statement the Senator has given regarding education. We

really have to concentrate on education and what it is doing to future

generations.

Mr. KENNEDY. May I just ask the

Senator, in the House Budget Committee, they actually cut $90 billion, I understand, from Medicare, and put it

that much more at risk, in order to recapture funds in the House budget that

can be used for tax reduction. Is the

Senator familiar with that?

(Mr. BROWN assumed the chair).

Mr. REID. I am very familiar with

that. I say to my friend that the Democrats are not against tax cuts. But I

think we have to have our priorities in

order. Do we take $90 billion away from

senior citizens? As indicated, $1 out of

every $3 they have they have to spend

on health care. Is that a proper priority that we give tax cuts, $20,000 tax

cuts, to people making over $350,000 a

year? Is that fair, I say to my friend?

Mr. KENNEDY. I think the answer is

obvious. I think that it is important as

we move through this debate and the

budget that is taking place in the

House and the Senate that the facts

come out about exactly what has been

cut and who is going to pay for it. I

think the Senator is providing a real

service to the membership here in discussing these matters and bringing

them to the attention of the membership and to the American people. I

thank him for his comments.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the budget

that we have just received today does

some interesting things. One thing

that it does without any dispute—there

is no reason to debate this—is that senior citizens on an average will spend

$900 per year more for health care

costs. Every year they can expect to

lose about $900—in fact, if they can,

and most of them cannot—they will

have to pay that much more money for

health care costs. As I have said to my

friend from Massachusetts, there is no

crisis today that there was not last December. Suddenly, there is a crisis now.

Suddenly, they want to start talking

about Medicare and not talk about the

rest of health care costs.

Mr. President, this year health care

costs in America will go up over $100

billion. We will not have any better

health care as a result of that. We have

to be concerned about health care generally and not Medicare particularly.

Mr. President, this rhetoric that we

have heard and encompassed in this

budget about Medicare reform is nothing but a smokescreen for tax cuts.

There is a proposal in this Republican

budget that we have for tax cuts. It is

camouflaged, and says any savings we

get we will apply to the tax cut. I

think any savings we get we should

help these senior citizens that are having their Medicare bills increased. I

think we should talk about young people who cannot go to school, or go to

college. That is where the money

should go, not for tax cuts for the

wealthy.

We are talking about a $900 a year increase in out-of-pocket health care for

every senior citizen on Medicare, and

we will pay for the $20,000 annual tax

cut for Americans making $350,000 a

year or more. When the facts are filtered from this rhetoric, it is not the

Medicare trust fund they are concerned

about at all. It is tax cuts they are concerned about.

As I indicated, Mr. President, we are

all for tax cuts. But there has to be a

prioritization of what is important. Is

it more important we give tax cuts to

people who make a lot of money or

that we take money away from senior

citizens or kids trying to get an education?

Eighty-three percent of Medicare

spending is for senior citizens with annual incomes of less than $25,000 a
S6442 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 10, 1995

year. Two-thirds is for those with incomes of less than $15,000 a year. Medicare does not cover prescription drugs.

It does not cover long-term care. It

does not cover dental care or eye care.

I think it is time for us to be concerned

about improving Medicare rather than

trashing Medicare.

We can come up with some savings.

Should not those savings be applied to

maybe taking a look at long-term care,

dental care, or eye care? I would think

so.

Drastic cuts in Medicare not only

threaten the pocketbooks of seniors

but also those of families. Some seniors

may be forced to move in with their extended families once the burden of increased premiums, copayments, and

deductibles become too great, if in fact

they are fortunate enough to have

those extended families. A move would

result in loss of independence for seniors as well. That is one of the reasons

that Medicare was such an important

thing—that we will make sure that we

did things to increase the independence

of seniors, not take away their independence.

What it all boils down to, Mr. President, is priorities. How do we feel

about priorities? I believe the most important thing we can be engaged in is

reducing the deficit. I think it is for a

lot of different reasons and we need to

increase savings. We need to increase

our balance of trade. We need to make

sure that we do not spend more than 17

percent a year for interest on the debt.

The American public has to understand

that about 48 percent of what we spend

is for entitlements. What is the largest

part of that? Health care costs—Medicare and Medicaid. We have to do

something about that, not just hack

away at Medicare but do something

about overall health care costs. That

should not be swept under the rug.

Last year we debated health care.

Perhaps we tried to do too much. There

were lots of losers in that health care

debate; hundreds of losers, and only

one real winner in the health care debate and that was the health insurance

industry. They were head and shoulders the winner. They got over the finish line way before anybody else got

out of the starting block. They,

through their Harry and Louise ads, set

out to frighten and confuse the American public, and they hit a home run.

They frightened and confused the

American public beyond, I think, what

even they hoped.

When the health care debate started

everyone recognized the truth, that

health care was in trouble. Almost 90

percent of the American public favored

health care reform. When the debate

ended, Mr. President, nobody favored

health care reform. The health insurance lobby won the day. That does not

mean that the day is won forever because the problems still exist. Health

care costs are increasing, and they are

driving deficits on local governments,

State governments, and the Federal

Government.

All of this debate about let us give

everything back to the States is scaring the people in Nevada. Why? Especially the large counties, Clark and

Washoe Counties get all of leftovers,

people that have fallen through the

safety net. Social services in Washoe

County, Clark County, Reno, and Las

Vegas have to take care of those people

that fall through the safety net. They

cannot do it. They do not have a tax

base to do it. They are frightened

about what is probably going to happen

back here.

Mr. President, there is a statement

they want to return the $170 billion

dividend to the American people in the

form of a tax cut. I do not think that

is where the dividend should go. The

budget that has been proposed slashes

the prime trust funds—aid to education, student loans, all kinds of medical research, and raises taxes on working families who make under $26,000 a

year. We have focused on a tax cut.

That is a priority of the House and

their Contract With America. That is

the foundation of their contract—tax

cuts amounting to almost $1 trillion

over the next 10 years. But have we

talked about what has happened to

people who are going to get a tax increase in this budget; that is, working

families who make under $26,000 a

year?

The earned income tax credit is being

slashed with a proposal that was introduced, or will be introduced, by the

Senate Budget Committee, about 7.8

million people, will have their earned

income tax credit whacked. On an average, these people have their taxes increased by $270.

Earned income tax credit recipients

with incomes lower than $26,000 will

lose their eligibility, generally speaking.

Now, Mr. President, what is an

earned income tax credit? It is a way of

keeping people off welfare, and it is a

way of having people who are on welfare to get off welfare. Why? Because

under current law people who make

less than $26,000 a year can apply—it is

on a sliding scale—to have part of the

taxes they pay rebated to them. It

works very well. Under current law,

with earnings of $16,500 and no other

source of income, a married couple

with two children would have income

slightly above the poverty level in 1996.

While they would not owe individual

income taxes, they would pay about

$2,500 in Social Security taxes on their

earnings. Under current law, they

would receive an earned income tax

credit for the amount they pay, completely offsetting their tax liability.

That is why people want to get off

welfare. That is why people do not

want to go on welfare. They have a

chance to get ahead and be part of

working America. Because larger families have greater needs than smaller

families, taxpayers with two or more

children are entitled to a larger earned

income tax credit than taxpayers with

one or no children. But under the Senate Budget Committee’s mark, a very

low-wage worker with two or more

children will receive only a token adjustment to compensate him or her for

the additional cost of raising this family.

So, Mr. President, we have to be concerned about the tax increases in this

mark that we are getting from the Senate. We have heard a lot about the tax

decreases for the wealthy, but what

about the tax increases for people who

make less than $26,000 a year?

The budget grants short-term tax

cuts, especially that from the House,

instead of focusing on long-term investments on education, health research, and crime control.

May I ask the Chair how much time

I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is

1 minute 52 seconds remaining of the

Senator’s time.

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent

that I be extended an additional 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection? Without objection, it is so

ordered.

Mr. REID. I held a crime summit in

Las Vegas which, coincidentally, had

been scheduled for several months. It

was the day after the Oklahoma City

explosion. I met there with the chiefs

of police of southern Nevada: Boulder

City, Las Vegas, Henderson; Federal officials, DEA, FBI, judges, and a number

of other people in an off-the-record discussion about problems relating to

crime. There are serious problems that

we are not addressing. Law enforcement needs help, lots of help. Yet, the

budget proposal cuts the violent crime

trust fund.

I will be speaking to a number of

graduating classes in Nevada in the

next few weeks. These young people,

these high school students do not face

a very bright future. We are cutting

back on student loans and grants, instead of being aware of the fact that

money we spend for education comes

back to us.

Low-income families—we have talked

about them—making less than $26,000 a

year are going to be paying more taxes.

The budget resolution we have, Mr.

President, calls for more taxes.

Research. I would recommend to

every one of my colleagues that they

go to the National Institutes of Health

and talk to the people who have dedicated their lives to curing disease. It is

wonderful, the stories you hear out

there. Paralysis. We have a significant

number of people who have spinal cord

injuries. As a result of the perseverance of a number of physicians out

there, they have been able to make significant strides in trauma associated

with spinal cord injury. And as a result

of the work they have done, especially

work done with massive doses of

steroids immediately following an accident, people today who would have

been paralyzed are not as a result of

the work done at the National Institutes of Health. The problems that we
May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6443

deal with there deal with people who

are sick and injured and need help.

We are going to cut back on that research. That is wrong.

The time has come, Mr. President, to

live up to promises made during the

balanced budget debate. For example,

to protect Social Security. The Republicans claim that under their budget

they will protect Social Security. Social Security, however, will face it’s

greatest threat under this budget in

2002 when this budget supposedly will

balance. Because Social Security surpluses are being scored against the deficit, this budget will collateralize the

Social Security trust fund. Black’s

Law Dictionary defines collateral as

‘‘property which is pledged as security

for the satisfaction of a debt.’’ In this

budget proposal, the definition of collateral is Social Security.

I think we have to live up to the responsibilities that we have. I repeat,

we have to do a better job of balancing

the budget. This will be the third year

in a row that the budget will be lower

than the year before, the first time in

50 years. Certainly, we have to do much

better than we have done. We have reduced, in the last 2 years, Federal employment by 150,000 people. I think

that is significant. We have had the

highest economic growth in some 40

years. That is important. We certainly

have not done enough. The economy

needs a lot of help. The one thing we

could do that would help more than

any other thing would be to reduce the

deficit, but we cannot do it with tax

cuts. We cannot do it with cutting educational benefits.

We have to look at the big items.

What are the big items? They are interest on the debt, medical expenses, and,

of course, we have to look at defense.

We cannot leave that because 20 percent of every dollar we spend goes for

defense.

I thank the Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of my committee,

for his allowing me to go out of order

in morning business.

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF

I yield the floor.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT

fThe Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

pending question before the Senate is

the substitute amendment reported by

the Committee on Environment and

Public Works to S. 534.

Is there further debate on the bill?

The Senator from Rhode Island is

recognized.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is

the Graham amendment?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is

before the Senate is the committee-reported substitute at this point.

Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.

AMENDMENT NO. 752

(Purpose: To revise the provision relating to

State-mandated disposal services)

AMENDMENT NO. 753

(Purpose: To provide that a law providing for

State-mandated disposal services shall be

considered to be a reasonable regulation of

commerce)

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send

to the desk two amendments and ask

for their immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the

Senator wish these amendments to be

considered en bloc?

Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator requests

that they be considered en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered. The clerk

will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. GRAHAM]

proposes en bloc amendments numbered 752

and 753.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that reading of the

amendments be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

The amendments are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 752

On page 63, strike line 4 and all that follows through page 64, line 2, and insert the

following:

‘‘(e) STATE-MANDATED DISPOSAL SERVICES.—A political subdivision of a State may

exercise flow control authority for municipal

solid waste and for recyclable material voluntarily relinquished by the owner or generator of the material that is generated within

its jurisdiction if, prior to May 15, 1994, the

political subdivision—

‘‘(1) was responsible under State law for

providing for the operation of solid waste facilities to serve the disposal needs of all incorporated and unincorporated areas of the

county;

‘‘(2) is required to initiate a recyclable materials recycling program in order to meet a

municipal solid waste reduction goal of at

least 30 percent;

‘‘(3) has been authorized by State statute

to exercise flow control authority and had

implemented the authority through the

adoption or execution of a law, ordinance,

regulation, contract, or other legally binding

provision; and

‘‘(4) had incurred, or caused a public service authority to incur, significant financial

expenditures to comply with State law and

to repay outstanding bonds that were issued

specifically for the construction of solid

waste management facilities to which the

political subdivision’s waste is to be delivered.

(5) the authority under this subsection

shall be exercised in accordance with Section

401z(b)(4).

AMENDMENT NO. 753

On page 65, line 10, strike ‘‘or (d)’’ and insert ‘‘(d), or (e)’’.

On page 65, line 3, strike ‘‘or (d)’’ and insert ‘‘(d), or (e)’’.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, these

two amendments represent technical

refinements to a provision of the bill

which appears on pages 63 through 65,

which I understand have been agreed to

by both sides of the aisle, and I ask for

their immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, indeed,

they have been agreed to by this side of

the aisle, and we are prepared to accept

them.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

further debate on the amendments Nos.

752 and 753? Is there objection to the

amendments? If not, the amendments

are agreed to.

So the amendments (Nos. 752 and 753)

were agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish

to express my appreciation to Senator

CHAFEE, who, in his usual gracious

manner, has been so helpful in working

through these two technical amendments as well as having assisted the

committee in bringing to the floor this

important piece of legislation.

I would also like to commend the

chair of the subcommittee with specific responsibility, Senator SMITH of

New Hampshire, and the ranking minority member, Senator BAUCUS, and

Senator LAUTENBERG for their courtesies in the development of these

amendments and other provisions in

the legislation. I would like to take

this opportunity to make a few remarks on the general subject of title II

of this legislation which is the provision relating to flow control.

Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator, before he gets into that, would

like to move to reconsider the vote by

which the amendments were agreed to.

Mr. GRAHAM. In further thoughtfulness on the part of the Senator, I move

to reconsider the votes by which the

two amendments were agreed to en

bloc.

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to table that

motion.

The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank you, Mr.

President, and I thank Senator

CHAFEE.

This legislation in title II, which is

the title to which my remarks will be

directed, raises again the fundamental

question that this Federal Government

has dealt with throughout its history,

and that is the appropriate role of the

State government and the National

Government. In this case, it raises, in

stark relief, the question of who should

decide an issue as basic to our public

welfare as the disposition of garbage.

I start from a general presumption

that that level of government which is

closest to the people who will be affected by the action should be able to

control the action and therefore I have

a general predisposition toward local

and State government having responsibility and control. In this case, that

predisposition also happens to be in the

historical responsibility of local government for the control of their solid

waste and its disposition.

Let me turn to a little background of

how we got to the legislation that is

before us today. I will use for purposes

of my examples primarily illustrations

from my State of Florida but I believe

that similar examples could be drawn

from any of the other some 35 States