H 5054 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

or they could choose to unilaterally

weaken certain standards.

This might possibly be an acceptable

program for waters within a State’s

boundaries, but seven States and another country adjoin the Great Lakes.

Allowing eight different sets of standards for these waters is irrational. As

different States adopt differing water

quality standards, their efforts may be

defeated by a neighboring State’s program. Voluntary compliance may even

lead to a race to the bottom for water

quality as each State offers weakened

standards as an inducement to bring

polluting industries into their State or

to keep them there. Mexico’s policy of

competing for investment with lax environmental standards may find its

counterpart in interstate or international economic rivalries on our

northern border.

The Great Lakes comprise 95 percent

of the fresh surface water in the United

States. That is a resource too valuable

to risk. Yet today we have restrictions

on the consumption of fish from these

waters because of mercury and PCB

pollution. Lake St. Clair and the

southern shore of Lake Erie were

closed for the better part of the month

of August last year because of fecal

coliform contamination. The job is far

from done in the Great Lakes. This is

not the time to minimize our efforts.

Setting consistent water quality

standards in the Great Lakes watershed is the only reasonable way to protect these waters. The only way to ensure consistent standards is through

entities such as the Great Lakes initiative. It once was common to find fish

with festering lesions and tumors coming out of Lake Erie. Today it is rare,

but it still happens. There used to be a

viable commercial fishing industry on

the lakes. That industry rapidly diminished as warnings about eating Great

Lakes fish increased. We can restore

that industry if we continue to clean

up the lakes. That won’t happen if we

can’t assure consistent water quality

standards for the Great Lakes Watershed. Let’s not weaken the Great

Lakes initiative.

The bill we have before us also takes

other major steps backward. H.R. 961

allows for increases in toxin discharges

into our waters, and it weakens public

notification requirements when swimming or fishing is unsafe. It lets industry off the hook by weakening requirements for pretreatment of industrial

toxins before they are discharged into

municipal wastewater treatment systems.

H.R. 961 also dramatically undermines attention to wetland habitats—

which play such an important role providing storage areas for flood waters

and which naturally filter pollutants—

by removing half of them from regulatory oversight. And the bill completely ignores the serious issue of

nonpoint source pollution and how to

reduce toxic runoff from farms, yards,

streets, and parking lots.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able

to vote for a clean water bill that aims

at meeting the original goals of the

Clean Water Act, to make all our Nation’s waters fishable and swimmable.

But I am not going to have that opportunity. H.R. 961 will actually reverse

the progress we have made under current clean water law. This bill will expose our communities, our water-dependent industries, and our fishery resources to continued and increased degradation. I want to support legislation

that strikes an appropriate balance between a healthy economy and healthy

water.

UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING

ABOUT IT, MEDICARE WILL BE

fBROKE BY 2002

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. HORN] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, as everyone

in this Chamber knows, we have a crisis coming in America, and it is a crisis

that needs the best solutions that we

can find on a bipartisan basis, and that

is the crisis that the trustees responsible for analyzing the hospital portion

of the Medicare have recently noted.

They said in their report the present financing schedule for the Medicare program is sufficient to ensure the payment of benefits only over the next 7

years.

Now this is not a group of Republicans or Libertarians or Independents

trying to scare the people. These are

three of the top Cabinet officers of the

President of the United States, Robert

Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury; Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor; Donna

Shalala, Secretary of Health and

Human Services. They concluded the

Medicare fund is projected to be exhausted in 2001, just after the turn of

the century. This is their April 3, 1995

report.

Now Medicare, as we know, in the

projections from 1995 to 2002 has been

predicted to grow at 10 percent per

year, and Medicaid at 10.3. Note Social

Security with COLA’s is at 5.3, other

entitlements at 4.1.

The reality is the trust fund for Medicare, unless we do something constructive about it, will be empty in

2002.

b 1830

That is what the trustees, the agents

of the President, have noted on page 13

of their 1995 report, House Document

104–56.

Unfortunately, the trustees identify

the problem, but they have not given

us the benefit of their wisdom, if any,

on this subject, as to how we can avoid

the disaster that is headed our way in

2002.

Now, the House Republicans have

faced up to this matter. We have not

heard a peep from the President, a peep

from his three Cabinet officers, but the

House Republicans have noted in 1995

the Medicare spending per recipient in

the Republican budget will be $4,700. In

2002, it will be $6,300. It will go up just

as Social Security is going up, at approximately 5 percent a year.

Now, a lot of nonsense has been uttered, some of it on this floor, designed

to scare seniors. I happen to care very

deeply about this program. Not only

that I am in my sixties and understand

what it means when you are without

Medicare, but the fact that 30 years

ago, in 1965, as assistant to the Republican whip of the Senate, Senator

Kuchel of California, I was part of the

drafting team that worked with the

Johnson administration to get a bipartisan bill, Medicare, through the Senate.

We need to be sure in this Chamber

that that hospital fund is sound. We

need the administration to face up to

this and provide some leadership, or at

least give us some of their ideas. So

far, as I said, the President’s agents

have stepped up to the plate, winced,

and are back in the dugout. They

should be asked, as we tried to do earlier today, to give us their recommendations. Unfortunately, they

seem to lack the courage to recommend to the Congress appropriate

courses of action. We on the Republican side would welcome that.

This is the type of thing that should

not be partisan, and the President

needs to assume some leadership and

not just stay in the background, assuming that Republicans will trip over

themselves or that those on the Democratic side that want to help us on a bipartisan basis will trip over themselves. We will not.

The fact is the people expect us to

function in a sensible way to solve

problems, and not just sit there, posturing politically, and hoping for the

best in the next election. Those that do

not step up to the plate, face up to this,

they will not be around after the next

election.

So I urge my colleagues who have

had quite a bit of criticism in recent

days on this subject, let us get down to

work, roll up our shirt sleeves, and

solve the problem. The Republican

budget has an increase for Medicare

spending per recipient as you can see,

$4,700 in 1995, $6,300 in 2002. That is

positive effort. We need more of it by

more people in this Chamber.

EDUCATION ASSISTANCE VITAL

FOR AMERICA

fThe SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

CAMP). Under a previous order of the

House, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. WISE] is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, today while

we are all talking about the budget, I

would like to talk some about growth,

because the reality is that you do not

cut your way out of this kind of deficit

problem, $1.2 or $1.4 trillion worth of

cuts, cutting every program 30 percent

across the board. You certainly do not
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5055

tax your way out of it. You are going

to have to have a strong element of

economic growth. My concern about

this budget that will be on the floor

today and tomorrow, the Republican

budget out there for review, actually

Wednesday and Thursday, is that what

this budget does is it goes after growth.

Let me give you an example why. I

hold here thousands of petition signatures of West Virginia college students

and high school students, and I am

willing to bet some parents, all who

signed petitions circulated across our

State in just the last couple of weeks

urging Congress not to adopt the student loan cuts that are proposed in this

budget. Whether it is West Virginia

University, Shepherd College, Glenville, Fairmont State, University of

Charleston, D&E, Davis and Elkins,

you name it, 16 colleges and universities participate in this program,

sending petitions under our own name,

SAVE, Save America Via Education.

They organized this effort themselves.

They circulated the petitions, got up

on Internet. The message is clear to

Congress, thousands of people saying

‘‘Do not cut student loans.’’

Basically what is proposed to be cut

is the Stafford Student Loan Program,

the one that pays the interest while

the student is in college and for 6

months thereafter.

Does it make much of a difference? It

adds something like 20 to 50 percent to

the lifetime cost of that loan. Many of

these students somewhere along the

road, and I visited many of the locations, said to me if that had been in effect I would not be able to be in college

today; I would not be able to be in

school today.

I have heard some say lightly, well,

$21 a month, maybe that is all it is

going to be. One CD, one music CD.

Rubbish. For many people, $21 a month

is a lot of money over a number of

years. It is more in many cases, such as

the nontraditional students, the mother who has put herself through a 4-year

program, now getting an MBA, who

said her daughter is now getting ready

to enter undergraduate school, who

told me how it would have been impossible at $21 more a month to have accomplished that.

Why is this so important? It is so important because, getting back to

growth for a second, the opportunities

created by a college education mean

that our economy will grow at record

levels. Those of you older than 40 or 50

remember the impact of the GI bill,

when millions of veterans came home

from the war and were able to get that

education.

The Department of Labor estimates

that everyone who finishes college on

the average will have a 60-percent higher lifetime income than those that do

not. This college education clearly is a

ticket to success, not only for individuals, but also for our society.

There is also a problem with college

classrooms. If you have less people able

to attend college, and, incidentally,

since 1979 the median income has gone

up roughly 88 percent, I believe it is,

while the tuition costs have gone up

more than double that. So family income does not keep up with tuition income, which means these programs are

more important. But there is also the

very real fact that even those able to

pay the full amount of tuition will find

less students in school and therefore

less classes available.

This is not a partisan issue. This is

parents. It is teachers. It is students. It

is anyone concerned about higher education. These thousands of students

from across West Virginia have recognized clearly the impact this has.

Incidentally, it is not an interest

loan deferral for all their lives; it is

only for the time they are in school.

they pay these loans back. But what

the Federal Government does is to assist them in making sure they do not

pay interest while they are actually in

school.

So I would urge Members not to support this Republican proposal to cut

student loans. While I am here, let me

note I found of interest, it was just a

month ago as I traveled the State when

Republicans were asked about this.

They said we have no intentions to do

that. Today it is in the budget in a bigger way than I ever dreamed. I thought

it was going to be $16 billion. It is 33

billion dollars’ worth of cuts.

So to respond to those who signed

these petitions, this battle is going to

go on over the summer and fall, and we

urge many more people to make their

voices heard. If you want to talk about

growth, growth in our children, growth

in our society, growth in our economy,

then we cannot be cutting the student

loans. I would urge rejection of the

budget for that reason alone.

previous order of the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. M

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

f ILLER] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. MILLER of California addressed

the House. His remarks will appear

hereafter in the Extensions of Reprevious order of the House, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. W

marks.]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

f ARD] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. WARD addressed the House. His

remarks will appear hereafter in the

Extensions of Remarks.]

previous order of the House, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. D

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

f EFAZIO] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. DEFAZIO addressed the House.

His remarks will appear hereafter in

the Extensions of Remarks.]

HOUSE REPUBLICAN BUDGET

fPROPOSAL

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

the Speaker’s announced policy of May

12, 1995, the gentleman from Missouri

[Mr. CLAY] is recognized for 60 minutes

as the designee of the minority leader.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in

strong opposition to the House Republican budget proposal.

There is a saying which goes ‘‘If you

think education is hard, try ignorance.’’ In today’s budget-cutting frenzy, Republicans seem to be doing everything possible to establish ignorance as our national educational policy.

Recall that their assault on education started in the cafeteria, with

their misguided, vicious attack on the

School Lunch Program. With this latest volley, Republicans have now

moved the battlelines into our Nation’s

classrooms, libraries, vocational training centers and, finally, to our college

campuses.

The House Republican budget proposal would virtually obliterate the

Federal role in education. It is a repudiation of this Nation’s century-old bipartisan, national commitment to enhancing the educational opportunities

of all of her citizens.

The House budget proposal is extremist and completely out of step with the

views of the American people.

Moving into the classroom, Republicans would abolish or slash extremely

popular and successful educational programs. Programs like Head Start,

which they would reduce by $609 million in 1996, cutting off services to as

many as 100,000 children a year.

The widely popular school-to-work

initiatives that help the majority of

high school graduates learn the technical skills they need to get good-paying jobs.

Republicans would eliminate acrossthe-board efforts in 47 States to improve reading and writing, to put computers into the classroom, and to improve academic standards through

Goals 2000.

The budget proposal virtually eliminates the Safe-and-Drug-Free School

Program—even though drug use is on

the rise among schoolchildren.

Programs that target assistance to

700,000 at-risk, disadvantaged children

would be abolished. Republican hostility to programs designed to lift disadvantaged children out of poverty

through learning is completely at odds

with our highest ideals, as well as decades of bipartisan congressional policy.

Having laid waste to the cafeterias

and the classrooms, the Republicans

move on. They would eliminate Federal support for public libraries—the

main repositories of knowledge and

wisdom in our society.

Their next target is higher education. Their proposed cuts in student

aid are a dramatic departure from the

national policy established by nearly

every President and Congress since

President Truman, the Republicans are

endangering the American dream for

millions of working-class families.

House Republicans recommend cutting student aid as one way to finance