S6586 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 12, 1995

In the end, I have no question that

Government is not even the right entity to ‘‘deal with the spiritual’’ or attempt to. But Government needs to understand the connection with those entities that should be doing it, or can be

doing it, and their capacity to do it, in

the world that we are creating.

Government needs to be an

empowerer of the local community to

reach these children. For example, in

Brockton, MA, there is a Boys and

Girls Club, but only 10 percent of the

kids in that community get access to

that club. Simple question: What happens to the other 90 percent of those

kids? They are out on the streets, nobody is there, there is no connection.

That is our responsibility, it seems

to me, to try to empower the communities to be able to help create the

civic reaction that will begin to deal

with these children. And the ultimate

response will come from churches and

synagogues, spiritual organizations,

nonprofit agencies, schools, and parents, but you have to have a place to

begin. You have to start somewhere. It

seems to me, that if you have a kid sitting in front of you who is 12 or 13

years old and they are already dabbling

in drugs, and they are already in trouble at home, and they are already disconnected to the school, we have a fundamental choice: Are we going to turn

our back on that kid and cut that kid

off, or are we going to try to channel

that child toward some group or organization that will bring the child in,

embrace the child with a notion that

the child has a stake in the community

and the community cares? I think this

budget is draconian with respect to

those efforts. I am not sure how in the

next days, given the choices we have,

we are going to fix it.

Mr. President, none of what I am saying should be interpreted to mask over

the deficit that we do face on the fiscal

side. I am prepared to make tough

choices about cuts that we ought to

make and even reordering priorities to

try to balance the budget, which I

think we ought to do. But nobody has

ever convinced me of why we absolutely have to do that in 6 years versus

8 or versus 10 years. Nobody has convinced me that there is some economic

virtue in picking a target date that is

so arbitrary that may wind up cutting

capacity to meet other needs that we

have.

One other point, Mr. President. Increasingly in America, we are seeing

the cash economy of this country grow.

It is now, I am told, about a $600 billion

economy. That means that we are losing annually about $100 billion of revenue because people just choose not to

pay taxes. In fact, as a nation, we have

gone from voluntary compliance in our

income tax of 96 percent down to 81

percent. Each loss of a point of voluntary compliance is the loss of $5 billion of revenue. So your good taxpaying, hard-working family that is

earning $25,000, $30,000 a year and paying their taxes is slugging it out to

make ends meet, to pay for fire, police,

schools, roads, everything we do, while

an increasing number of American citizens are getting away with not paying

their taxes.

We have a choice. I read in the newspaper the other day that we are going

to have a new thing called a lifestyle

audit, and people in America are now

going to be able to anticipate the IRS

jumping into their driveways and asking them why there is a certain kind of

car in their driveway, how they manage to go ski somewhere, what their

vacation style is, why they eat at certain restaurants, and that is the way

we are going to supposedly enforce the

Tax Code. I do not think Americans are

going to tolerate an IRS gestapo-like

entity of people intrusively moving

into their lives.

So, Mr. President, if we are really

going to make this system work and

recapture that cash economy, we have

to talk about changing the tax structure of this country and moving away

from a dependency on income and into

consumption where it is the only place

that you can begin to shift to a reflection of what the cash transaction is

while simultaneously, I think, increasing people’s savings and moving in a

new direction.

Mr. President, I see that the manager

of the bill is on his feet. If he has an

amendment, I am prepared to conclude.

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, Mr. President, we

have a couple of amendments we would

like to have accepted, then the Senator

is free to continue.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what I

would like to do—the Senator from

Wisconsin has been waiting patiently. I

talked longer than I told him I intended to—I will just conclude my

comments. I will have more to say on

this in the course of the next weeks.

But I believe we are at a crossroads,

and I think that the choices that I

have outlined are only a few of the

choices. But we cannot look at the

needs of this country exclusively in

terms of an arbitrary approach to the

deficit reduction. We have to look at

the other two deficits that the Nation

faces.

There is such a thing as investment,

and there is such a thing as a return on

investment, and there is such a thing

as multiples of return on investment. I

think that most people in the Senate

understand that. The question is

whether or not we are going to make

those wise judgments.

I thank my colleague from Wisconsin

for his patience, and I thank the distinguished managers for their courtesy. I

yield the floor.

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT

fThe Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

AMENDMENT NO. 1072

(Purpose: To require the Administrator of

the Environmental Protection Agency to

conduct a study to determine the quantity

of hazardous waste that is being transported across State lines and the ultimate

disposition of the transported waste)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send

an amendment to the desk on behalf of

Senator BREAUX and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.

CHAFEE], for Mr. BREAUX, proposes an

amendment numbered 1072.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the reading of

the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . STUDY OF INTERSTATE HAZARDOUS

WASTE TRANSPORT.

(a) DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE.—In

this section, the term ‘‘hazardous waste’’ has

the meaning provided in section 1004 of the

Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6903).

(b) STUDY.—Not later than 3 years after the

date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency shall conduct a study, and report to

Congress on the results of the study, to determine—

(1) the quantity of hazardous waste that is

being transported across State lines; and

(2) the ultimate disposition of the transported waste.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have

examined the amendment and find it

acceptable.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there

is no further debate, the question is on

agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1072) was agreed

to.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move

to reconsider the vote by which the

amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 1073

(Purpose: To require the Administrator of

the Environmental Protection Agency to

conduct a study to determine the quantity

of sludge (including sewage sludge) that is

being transported across State lines and

the ultimate disposition of the transported

sludge)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send

an amendment to the desk on behalf of

Senator BREAUX and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.

CHAFEE], for Mr. BREAUX, proposes an

amendment numbered 1073.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that reading of the

amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:
May 12, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6587

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . STUDY OF INTERSTATE SLUDGE TRANSPORT.

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) SEWAGE SLUDGE.—The term ‘‘sewage

sludge’’—

(A) means solid, semisolid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works; and

(B) includes—

(i) domestic septage;

(ii) scum or a solid removed in a primary,

secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment process; and

(iii) material derived from sewage sludge

(as otherwise defined in this paragraph); but

(C) does not include—

(i) ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge (as otherwise defined in this paragraph) in a sewage sludge incinerator; or

(ii) grit or screenings generated during preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a

treatment works.

(2) SLUDGE.—The term ‘‘sludge’’ has the

meaning provided in section 1004 of the Solid

Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6903).

(b) STUDY.—Not later than 3 years after the

date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency shall conduct a study, and report to

Congress on the results of the study, to determine—

(1) the quantity of sludge (including sewage sludge) that is being transported across

State lines; and

(2) the ultimate disposition of the transported sludge.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this

amendment also is acceptable.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there

is no further debate, the question is on

agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1073) was agreed

to.

Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous

consent to speak as in morning business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

THE BUDGET RESOLUTION AND

fMEDICARE

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the junior

Senator from Massachusetts with regard to the question of including the

Presidential checkoff for campaigns in

the budget resolution. It is an important program for our elections being

free and fair in this country, and it

does not belong in the budget resolution. I intend to comment on that more

as we get into the budget resolution itself. I am grateful to the junior Senator from Massachusetts for those remarks and for his constant dedication

to try to do something about this really awful system of financing campaigns

that we have in this country.

Mr. President, I rise at this time to

offer a few comments on the debate

that really does belong as part of the

budget resolution, and that is the debate that has been taking place about

Medicare. I would like to share my own

perspective on the direction we ought

to pursue.

As we consider the budget resolution,

presumably starting next week, this

will be one of the two or three most

central issues that we debate. As the

Senator from Nebraska [Mr. KERREY]

noted on the floor last week, the Medicare debate has been obviously politicized in quick order. That should not

surprise us given the nature of the program and especially how it is viewed by

millions of Americans. It is a valued

program. The presence of the White

House Conference on Aging last week

certainly had an impact on what was

said, and said by Members of both parties.

Mr. President, the White House conference also gave me an opportunity—

a great opportunity—to talk to many

of the leading aging activists from Wisconsin on the issue. I found their

thoughts interesting. I think Wisconsin

has one of the best groups of advocates

for sound and compassionate policies

for the elderly in the country. They always give the straight view. They tell

me not only what is good for the elderly but what is good for society as a

whole, including their children and

grandchildren.

In a meeting I had with most of the

Wisconsin delegates to the White

House Conference on Aging, there was

a clear consensus that some changes do

need to be made to Medicare. But there

was also agreement, Mr. President,

that those changes to Medicare have to

be done in a certain way. We need to

‘‘cut smart,’’ not ‘‘cut mean,’’ as we

look to keep the Medicare hospital insurance fund solvent and reduce the

pressure on the Federal deficit.

It bears emphasizing that there are

these two features with respect to the

Medicare problem—both the solvency

of Medicare and the impact of Medicare

on the Federal budget deficit.

As every Medicare beneficiary knows,

there are two parts to Medicare called

part A and part B. Part A is what is

formally known as hospital insurance.

It pays some of the costs of hospitalization, certain related inpatient care, as

well as skilled nursing facility care and

home health care. I should add—and I

have always been somewhat distressed

by this—it does not cover chronic or

long-term care in that part of the program. Other than copayments and

deductibles, part A services are paid

from the hospital insurance trust fund,

which itself is funded from payroll

taxes.

Mr. President, it is this hospital insurance trust fund that is in jeopardy,

and it is expected to be insolvent by

the year 2002. The other part of the program, part B, is the supplementary

medical insurance program that covers

doctors’ fees, most outpatient and

some other related services. Part B is

partially funded by the monthly premiums that beneficiaries pay, but most

of the part B program is funded from

the Federal budget.

Mr. President, some are characterizing the cuts they expect to propose to

Medicare as being needed to keep Medicare solvent. That portrayal is entirely

misleading, as, of course, it is meant to

be; for though some changes are needed

to keep the hospital insurance fund solvent, that trust fund is not the whole

story. Medicare is also slated for cuts

as part of the broader effort to reduce

the deficit, possibly leading to a balanced budget.

So let us be clear within this body

and to all Americans, the goal here of

those who want to cut Medicare drastically is not just to make the fund solvent, they want to use a lot of those

billions of dollars to deal with our national deficit problem.

Mr. President, I make this point because I fear that the political spin doctors who have chosen to depict Medicare cuts as being apart and separate

from the rest of the budget are really

doing a great disservice to the cause of

deficit reduction itself. And there is no

other issue I care more about or work

harder on than reducing the Federal

deficit.

In an effort to minimize the political

fallout that surely will come from cuts

to Medicare, I fear they may undermine any chance for a real budget

package that will achieve the consensus it must have if we are going to

make the politically tough decisions

needed to actually balance the Federal

budget.

Mr. President, my message is that we

have to be honest with the American

people on what is really going on with

Medicare. Medicare clearly does have

an impact on the budget. Part of the

reason cuts are being proposed in that

area does stem from our Federal budget deficit, and rightly so. Medicare

does have to be on the table as we look

at the budget. I will say, Mr. President,

Medicare is not Social Security. It has

to be considered along with other areas

of Federal spending. In fact, I have

sponsored legislation that has included

some specific, targeted Medicare cuts.

Medicare cuts were part of the 82-

point plan to reduce the Federal deficit

that I used and created during my campaign for the U.S. Senate in 1992.

More importantly, I have voted for

legislation that contained significant,

but specific, targeted cuts to Medicare

twice during the 103d Congress. The

reconciliation legislation we passed as

part of the President’s deficit reduction package included nearly $60 billion in Medicare cuts. This is not some

new idea. It is not as if Medicare has

not already, in effect, given at the office. It has already been hit to the tune

of $60 billion just 2 years ago.

Mr. President, I also voted for, and

was pleased to be a cosponsor of, the

bipartisan Kerrey-Brown deficit reduction package. It also included significant, specific Medicare cuts on top of

the $60 billion that was included in the

President’s deficit reduction package.

Yes, Mr. President, I am willing

again to vote for certain Medicare cuts

if they are appropriate and do not cut

at the heart of the health care of the

people who need Medicare.