May 22, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1093

long-term chronically ill from the Federal Government to the States.

Ohio’s Medicaid budget is $5.1 billion in

1995. Nursing home benefits account for $1.9

billion of that budget or 37 percent. The State

estimates that Medicaid spending will increase

at 8–9 percent a year. If the State has to absorb that increase, it will jeopardize OhioCare.

OhioCare is a health care reform plan which

would put all current low-income recipients on

Medicaid into managed care plans and use

the savings to expand Medicaid coverage to

working poor families, thereby reducing overall

health care costs. In Ohio we are trying to get

health care costs under control. The Republican budget does nothing about them, and it

may very well sabotage Ohio’s efforts.

Who benefits from the $353 billion in tax

breaks assumed in this budget? Fifty-one percent of these breaks go to people who earn

over $100,000 annually. The most wealthy 1

percent of Americans will get a tax cut of more

than $20,000. The poorest 20 percent of

Americans will get an average tax cut of $36.

Let’s look at some of these.

Eliminating the alternative minimum tax by

1999 will cost $16.9 billion—for the first 5

years. The alternative minimum tax requires

profitable corporations including many foreign

corporations operating in the United States to

pay a minimum amount of corporate income

tax even if under normal tax rules they can

write off all their profits.

Before the 1986 tax reform, highly profitable

corporations were able to eliminate their tax liability through various tax loopholes. A 1986

survey found that 130 of America’s largest and

most profitable corporations managed to pay

absolutely nothing in Federal income taxes at

least 1 year between 1981 and 1985. Fortytwo of these companies paid no taxes at all

for all those years. Congress, in 1986, decided

that made no sense and established the alternative minimum tax so that profitable corporations doing business in the United States had

to pay something, if only a minimal amount, in

taxes to our country.

The Republican plan includes a $500 tax

credit for children for families with incomes as

high as $250,000. A responsible proposal to

limit this credit to families making under

$95,000 was rejected earlier this year.

Mr. Speaker, over $300 billion in tax breaks

in the face of huge budget deficits Americans

must pay are irresponsible. Tax breaks that

overwhelmingly favor the richest corporations

and individuals are wrong. I cannot support

them.

We must get on track to a balanced budget

first before we consider tax cuts.

The Republican budget changes the cost of

living calculation for Social Security benefits,

in effect lowering the cost of living by 0.6 percent. This will reduce the average Social Security benefit by an estimated $240 a month

by 2002. Their budget commits us to tax cuts

for the wealthy while cutting essential income

for seniors. I can’t countenance that.

The Republican budget would make student

loan recipients pay interest on their loan while

attending school. This will increase the average student’s indebtedness by $3,400. Over

the life of the loan the student would pay an

extra $41 a month, $5,000 in all. The cut

would amount to $18.7 billion over 7 years.

How can anyone justify making it more difficult

to get a higher education in our country as we

enter a new century which will be characterized by increased international economic competition? I ask you, are the Japanese or the

Germans making it harder for their children to

get the education they need?

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this Republican budget proposal. It’s anti-family at its

core. It is ironic that some Members of Congress, who earn over $130,000 a year, may

think that a budget which gives a $20,000 tax

break to the richest 1 percent of Americans

and pays for it by reducing health benefits for

our grandmother is good for the country. I

don’t and I won’t vote for it.

TRIBUTE TO MR. JOHN L.

fCRAWFORD

HON. JOSE ́ E. SERRANO OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Monday, May 22, 1995

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, on Friday,

May 19, 1995, a group of dedicated public

school educators gathered in my congressional district to pay tribute to one of their distinguished colleagues, John L. Crawford.

Mr. Crawford has been the principal of Intermediate School 183 since it opened its doors

in the South Bronx in 1974 and has earned

the distinction of being the longest serving intermediate school principal in Community

School District Seven. He has been a dedicated and innovative school leader, bringing

many new programs to his school and the district at large. Mr. Crawford developed the first

magnet school program in the district, the Paul

Robeson Magnet School for Medical Careers

and Health Professions, and implemented an

comprehensive after-school program which

then served as a model for New York City

youth board school based programs throughout the city. Because of his leadership and in

recognition of his contributions, Mr. Crawford

was asked by the chancellor to serve on two

special advisory committees: the City-Wide

Mainstreaming Committee on Special Education and the Committee on Articulation.

Mr. Crawford’s contributions to the community beyond his school are equally impressive.

He currently serves as the Council of Supervisors and Administrators Community School

District Seven chairman and in 1991, he

served as the assistant to the superintendent

supervising district activities and programs. He

is the deserving recipient of numerous awards

and recognitions.

I am proud to count Mr. Crawford among

my friends. On behalf of the residents of my

district—in particular the many students and

school professionals whose lives he has so

significantly touched—I thank Mr. Crawford for

his years of service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me

in conveying our best wishes and deep gratitude to the principal of I.S. 183, Mr. John L.

Crawford.