H 4932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 15, 1995

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days in which to

revise and extend their remarks on

H.R. 1045, the bill just passed.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.

BROKEN PROMISES TO THE

AMERICAN PEOPLE

fThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

the Speaker’s announced policy of May

12, 1995, the gentleman from Michigan

[Mr. BONIOR] is recognized for 60 minutes as the minority whip.

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise this

afternoon to express my deep concern

over the proposed Republican budget

cuts in Social Security and in Medicare

and Medicaid. What is quite disturbing

to me about these cuts is that they are

broken promises to the American people, to our seniors who have labored so

hard in this country to provide for this

great Nation of ours, and what is

equally disturbing about these cuts,

which will cost the seniors, the Medicare cuts, will cost the seniors in the

year 2002, 7 years from now, $1,000 a

year.

What is additionally so disturbing is

that in the same budget proposal are

tax cuts for the wealthiest people in

our society. Over 50 percent of the tax

cuts; it is a $100 billion tax cut over 10

years, over 50 percent of those tax cuts

go to people making over $100,000 a

year.

There is something called the alternative minimum tax, and for those of

you who are not familiar with that,

back in the early 1980’s we found that

major corporations, in fact, 130 of the

top 250 corporations in America, were

paying no taxes at all between 1981 and

1985, during at least 1 year, no taxes.

And it was, the rest, the burden was

picked up by everyone else. So we decided to change that law. Even Ronald

Reagan agreed that it was embarrassing, and it was an outrage. We changed

the law that required major corporations to pay at least something, a

minimal tax.

Well, under the tax proposal we

passed last month under the Contract

With America, the Republicans got rid

of that minimum tax, and now we are

back to where we were, where we will

have major corporations not contributing their fair share to the tax burden

on the American people. So what you

have in this tax bill is getting rid of

the alternative minimum tax, you have

got 50 percent of the benefits going to

the top virtually 1 percent, so if you

are making $230,000 a year, you are

going to get $11,000 in tax breaks.

We think the tax cut is weighted

very too heavily to benefit the wealthiest people in our society. And to give

you an example of that, I should talk

to you about one provision we had on

the floor about a month and a half ago

that would allow billionaires in our society, and millionaires, very few billionaires, but there are some, to avoid

paying taxes if they renounce their

American citizenship. We tried to close

that loophole on the floor of the House.

Republicans defended it all. All but 5

Republicans voted to keep that loophole for the wealthiest people in our

society. You might say. ‘‘Well who does

that?’’ About 24 people. You know what

the cost to us as a country is over 10

years as lost revenue because of that?

$3.6 billion.

So they have got this tax bill that

benefits primarily the wealthiest people in our society, and they have got

this budget bill that will hit the most

vulnerable people in our society, our

young people and our older people, and

when it comes to Medicare, they take a

giant whack out of the disposable income of our senior citizens.

Let me just tell you exactly what

they do. The Republicans in Congress

are proposing a new budget that will

mean serious cuts. It will even cut

back COLA increases. Over the next 7

years, Medicare will be cut by 25 percent. Medicaid, which provides the only

long-term care many seniors now have

access to at all, will be cut by 30 percent. Social Security COLA’s will be

cut by 0.6 percent a year starting in

1999. For the average senior citizen,

this will mean higher out-of-pocket expenses, fewer benefits, less choice of

doctors. It will mean higher Medicare

premiums, higher deductibles, higher

copayments.

By the year 2002, Medicare costs will

increase over $1,000, as I said, for every

senior citizen. Social security COLA’s

will be $240 less for every senior. Cuts

in Medicaid will mean 2.9 million

Americans will lose long-term care.

When we talk about Medicaid, it is

not only the poor in this country, but

we are talking about a program that

provides, I believe, about 40 percent of

long-term care for our seniors in this

country. 2.9 million Americans will

lose long-term care, and these cuts will

not pay for fixing the Medicare system.

Instead they will go into a tax package

that provides tax breaks for the

wealthiest people in the country and

allows some of our wealthiest corporations, as I said, to pay no tax at all.

That is not fair. It is not right. It is a

broken promise to the American people.

These cuts in Medicare and Medicaid

and Social Security are not just going

to affect senior citizens. Now, how is

the average working family going to

pay for additional costs of caring for

their parents and grandparents? How

will they pay for the rising costs of

long-term care, prescription drugs,

home health care, and hospital bills?

How are the middle-aged children of

these elderly people in our society, how

are they going to maintain these increased costs for their parents and

their grandparents? And if they have

kids who may want to move up in our

society through the education system

and get a college education and if their

kids are on student loans, those kids,

in fact, will, in fact, be hit hard because under the same budget proposal

the costs of a student going to college

who is on student loans now, we call

them Stafford loans, but they are better known as student loans around the

country, in Michigan, that student will

pay an extra $4,000.

b 1315

So, they are getting squeezed on each

end. If you got kids, and you got elderly parents, you are going to get hit on

both ends.

Mr. Speaker, it was 50 years ago last

week that Americans defeated Nazi

Germany in World War II, and all over

America we celebrated that day by remembering the brave men and women

on both the battlefront and the home

front who led our country to victory,

and, looking at pictures of our parents

and our grandparents from back then,

they were so young, and they were so

full of life, it is hard to believe that

they would ever grow old. But they

have, Mr. Speaker.

The generation that beat Hitler,

built our economy, raised our families,

are now America’s senior citizens, and

today many of them are living on fixed

incomes. Their Social Security is the

only thing many older Americans have

each month to pay their rent, to pay

their heating bills, to pay for their

food, for medicine and doctor bills, and

for most of them it is not easy. They

have to struggle to make ends meet.

Those of us who go home each weekend

in our district meet them constantly.

We know of the struggle they have to

go through.

But today, instead of trying to make

life easier and more fulfilling for them,

Mr. Speaker, Republicans in Congress

are trying to make their lives harder.

In their budget proposal House Republicans have not only proposed cutting

Social Security by $240 a person, they

are also asking every senior to pay an

additional $3,500 for Medicare.

Now, as I have said, Medicare, of

course, is the system we have in this

country for health insurance for our

senior citizens. We did not have that

before 1965. You did not have Medicare,

and, as a result, many seniors, when

they got into their senior years, had no

health insurance and fell directly into

poverty. Social Security adopted by

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, in

1935; Medicare, adopted in the administration of a Democratic President,

Lyndon Johnson, and a Democratic

Congress; changed the lives of tens of

millions of American seniors and kept

them out of poverty in their senior

years.

After sending out press releases after

press releases bragging about how they

were going to leave Social Security

and Medicare alone, House Republicans

have broken that promise, and they

have targeted our seniors, and the

worst part, Mr. Speaker, they are not
May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 4933

being asked to sacrifice to balance the

budget, or to cut the deficit, or to

make the Medicare system even

stronger. The Republicans, as I said,

are cutting Medicare and Social Security for one reason and one reason

only, to pay for tax breaks, over 50 percent of which go to the wealthiest people in our society. And if you look at

the numbers, they nearly match up.

Their Medicare cuts equaled the tax

breaks, what the Wall Street Journal

called the biggest tax bonanza in years

for the upper-income Americans. It is

not me saying it, but the Wall Street

Journal. The voice of the wealthy in

this country said it was the biggest tax

savings bonanza in years for upper-income Americans, and, under the Republican plan, we are going to take

more money from seniors whose average income is $17,000 a year so we can

give a $20,000 tax break to families

earning over $250,000 a year.

Does that sound fair to you? Is that

what this country is all about? Is that

what this last election was all about?

Is that what our parents fought for and

sacrificed for in the greatest battle for

democracy in human decency that the

world has even seen? I do not think so.

Last week the New York Times revealed in an article by Robert Pear, in

a confidential memo, something that

every American should read. It was circulated. This memo was circulating

among House Republicans, a memo detailing where some of these Medicare

cuts will come from. Among other

things, it recommended doubling the

annual deductible, increasing the

monthly premium by 50 percent, charging patients for a portion of home

health care, and the list goes on, and

on, and on, and this just does not affect

seniors. You know, as I said earlier,

where is the average working family

going to come up with the money to

pay for this?

Well, Mr. Speaker, in the past week

we have seen Republican after Republican come to this floor and try to convince us that nobody is going to be

hurt by these cuts, and they bring out

charts, and they throw numbers

around, and they talk about limiting

growth on projected spending, and they

try to tell us how a cut really is not a

cut.

But, you know, none of this Washington bureaucratic talk means much to a

constituent of mine, Iris Doyle who I

have known for a long time. Iris Doyle

is a proud senior citizen who lives in

my district. For 16 years she taught a

class on U.S. citizenship. She literally

spent her life helping people gain access to the American dream, and to

this day she still has a framed copy of

the Declaration of Independence hanging on her wall. But the times have not

been easy for Iris. Eleven years ago her

husband died, 3 years after that her

only son died, and during the time of

their illnesses she was sick herself; she

had cancer. For 18 months she endured

chemotherapy treatment after chemotherapy, and she says, ‘‘Thank god.

Thanks to the wonders of modern medicine the cancer is in remission.’’

In order to pay off their hospital bills

which totaled over $12,000, she literally

had to sell her house. Then more bad

luck hit. She came down with Legionnaire disease which forced her to stop

working. Today she lives on a monthly

Social Security check totaling about

$550, and a small school pension kicks

in in another 134 months. Out of that

small amount of money she has to pay

for everything, rent, and food, and

medicine, and heat, and transportation, and clothing, as well as her

medical bills which thankfully, are not

as high as they could be. Now twice a

year she sees an oncologist for cancer,

but Medicare does not cover the cost of

the visit because she does not quite

meet the annual deductible. So her

oncologist let her set a payment plan.

Every 6 months she pays about a $75

bill. And you know what? She struggles

to make that payment.

Now you tell Iris these Medicare cuts

are not going hurt anybody. Tell Iris

that a 50-percent increase in Medicare

premiums is nothing. Tell her that she

can afford these cuts. Because, if you

do, she will probably tell you what she

told me. She said, ‘‘You know, DAVID,

it’s unfortunate that when you get in

the later years of your life, when

you’ve taught kids, and you have to

worry about things like this, but I

don’t think those people in Washington

know what they’re doing to people,’’

and then she said, ‘‘I don’t think they

care.’’

Mr. Speaker, I think she is right. I do

not think my friends, many of my

friends in this institution, realize what

these cuts are going to do to these people, particularly my friends on the

other side of the aisle. But I do know

one thing. This is not what the American people voted for last November.

We did not vote to cut Medicare in

order to pay for tax breaks for the privileged few. Our parents and our grandparents stood by America in times of

war and peace, and we must stand by

them today. That is the sacred promise

that we made on Medicare, and I believe it is time we lived up to that

promise.

We will be engaged in a very vociferous debate for the remainder of this

week, and I daresay for the remainder

of this Congress, on this very issue.

The cuts that have been put forward by

the Republicans in the House, in the

Senate, will devastate millions of people in this country, not only seniors,

but their children who must care for

them in their later years. This is an

unconscionable act in light of the outrageously inappropriate, unfair, unequal tax cut that the Republicans

have put forward for the wealthiest few

in our society.

I do not know how to get this message across to the American people except to talk to them at home and to

talk to them on the floor of the House

of Representatives. There was an interesting piece today in the Washington

Post on the front page about how a

large majority of people in this country today do not read the newspaper,

do not watch the national news, and

only pick up their news from talk radio

and, occasionally, from tabloid television, and so in many instances miss

the news, and those are the very people

that will be hurt by what the Republicans are trying to do to Social Security, to Medicare, and to Medicaid.

Now I can only say to my colleagues

that this is in my almost 20 years in

this institution, or 19 years in this institution and 4 years as an elected official in Michigan, the most inequitable

and the most egregions acts of unkindness in terms of a budget that I have

ever seen. I assume people will become

outraged. I know the AARP issued a report on Friday detailing the effects of

these cuts. I know the Hospital Association is concerned because what

there cuts really mean in addition is

that many of our hospitals are going to

close around the country.

I know our seniors are going to be

concerned because, if they have a doctor that they like to go to, basically

what this plan does is move them into

a managed care system where they will

not have the choice of the doctor they

want unless they pay an even higher

premium that I have quoted on the

floor this afternoon. So, you are losing

choice of doctor, you are paying more

out of your pocket, all in order to save

$300 billion over 7 years, $300 billion

that will be used to pay for this tax cut

that will go to the wealthiest people in

our society.

I do not think I have seen in my

years of public service anything as bold

and as inequitable as this tradeoff. It is

right there for everyone to see, and

people will have to make up their

minds whether this is what they had in

mind when they voted on November 8,

1994.

The American family is squeezed

today. Since 1979, 98 percent of all new

income growth in the country went to

the top 20 percent of households in

America. The other 80 percent stayed

even or went down, and most of them

went down. We are seeing a bifurcation

in our society today of wealth and people who cannot make it, and it is tearing this country apart, and it is having

more of an effect on this Nation than

just pure buying power or economics.

b 1330

It is making people lose faith in the

system. It is making people feel hopeless. It is what drives gangs to violence

in inner cities and militias to violence

in rural areas. We have to get back to

the time in our country and our society and in this institution where there

is some basis of equity and fairness and

justice. The rich cannot have it all, and

that is the direction we are going. This

latest assault on seniors is a rollback

not only of the New Deal of Franklin

Roosevelt or the Fair Deal of Harry

Truman or the programs of the Great
H 4934 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 15, 1995

Society of Lyndon Johnson, it is a rollback to the days when we were indeed

a society of extreme wealth and people

struggling to make ends meet.

We bridged a lot of that gap. We

made America a place of promise for

virtually 80 percent of our population

after the Second World War. And this

latest budget is a rollback.

So I would say to my senior friends

particularly who are watching, but also

to my friends and colleagues from the

country who approximate my age, 50,

that these cuts will take a terrible, terrible toll, a psychological toll, a financial toll, and a spiritual toll, on the

Nation.

I urge my colleagues in this body to

reject this budget when we vote on it

on Thursday of this week. Send it back

to the Committee on the Budget. Let

us have hearings on it. This was rolled

out at midnight, by the way. Nobody

saw it. Democrats did not see this until

1 o’clock in the morning, and they

rolled it out a few days later on votes.

The American people need to see

what is in this budget, and when they

get a load of what has happened, to

students, to our seniors, to Social Security. There was a promise made by

the Speaker, Mr. GINGRICH, sitting up

directly behind me, that they would

not touch Social Security, and they

have. They have cut COLA’s, and it

will affect every senior in this country

hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.

They said they would not monkey

with Medicare, but they have. They

have. It should not be surprising that

they have. The majority leader, Mr.

ARMEY, when he first ran for Congress,

ran against Social Security. He does

not really think we ought to have it,

he thinks we can devise a better system, we should get rid of it. Back in

1986, Speaker GINGRICH hedged Medicare and the payments on Medicare

against additional defense spending.

There are no friends of Social Security or Medicare, or few friends, I

should say, on this side of the aisle.

There are some. I do not mean to impugn the motives and actions of all of

the Members on the Republican side of

the aisle, because there are some who

do care for these. But, for the most

part, they will be voting in lockstep on

Thursday to implement these cuts.

So I would just like to conclude, Mr.

Speaker, by urging each and every one

of my colleagues to look at the Robert

Pear piece in the New York Times

which outlines the memo that talks

about the additional cuts in Social Security, the additional deductibles on

Medicare, the additional premium increases, and also to look at the AARP

report with respect to the same issue.

One final comment on choice, because I know it is so important, because so many of our seniors rely on a

certain doctor for their care. They

have confidence in that doctor. They

should know that with this new system

that we are about to embark on, if it

becomes law, that choice will be taken

away. Or you can keep it if you want,

but you are going to have to pay an

even higher premium, an even higher

premium than I have talked about here

on the floor this afternoon.

fRECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without

prejudice to the resumption of legislative business, pursuant to clause 12 of

rule I, the Chair declares the House in

recess until 5 p.m.

Accordingly (at 1 o’clock and 36 minutes p.m.), the House stood in recess

until 5 p.m.

fb 1700

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House

was called to order by the Speaker pro

tempore [Mr. W

fELLER] at 5 o’clock p.m.

REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER

AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 1114

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1114.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER

There was no objection.

AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 1120

fMr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to withdraw my

name as a cosponsor of H.R. 1120.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota?

There was no objection.

Mr. HANCOCK. Mr. Speaker, for the

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

ffirst time in over 6 years, I was out of

town on personal business last Thursday and Friday, and missed a portion

of the rollcall votes on H.R. 961. I ask

that the RECORD reflect that had I been

present, I would have voted in the following manner: ‘‘No’’ on rollcall votes

321, 322, 323, 324, 325, and 328; and ‘‘aye’’

on rollcall votes 326, 327, and 329.

fRECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess subject to

the call of the Chair.

Accordingly (at 5 o’clock and 2 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned subject

to the call of the Chair.

The recess having expired, the House

AFTER RECESS

fwas called to order by the Speaker pro

tempore [Mr. WELLER] at 6 o’clock and

3 minutes p.m.

PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS TO

SIT TOMORROW, TUESDAY, MAY

16, 1995, DURING 5-MINUTE RULE

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent that the Committee on International Relations and

its subcommittees be permitted to sit

tomorrow while the House is meeting

in the Committee of the Whole under

the 5-minute rule.

It is my understanding the minority

has been consulted and there is no objection to this request.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Alaska?

CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF

There was no objection.

f1995

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 140 and rule

XXIII the Chair declares the House in

the Committee of the Whole House on

the State of the Union for the further

consideration of the bill, H.R. 961.

b 1804

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union for the

further consideration of the bill (H.R.

961) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, with Mr. MCINNIS in

the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Friday, May

12, 1995, the amendment offered by the

gentleman from Texas [Mr. DE LA

GARZA] had been disposed of, and title

VIII was open at any point.

Are there any amendments to title

VIII?

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman I

offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BOEHLERT:

Strike title VIII of the bill (page 239, line

3, through page 322, line 22) and insert the

following:

TITLE VIII—WETLANDS CONSERVATION

AND MANAGEMENT

SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Wetlands

and Watershed Management Act of 1995’’.

SEC. 802. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds and declares

the following:

(1) Wetlands perform a number of valuable

functions needed to restore and maintain the

chemical, physical, and biological integrity

of the Nation’s waters, including—

(A) reducing pollutants (including nutrients, sediment, and toxics) from nonpoint

and point sources;

(B) storing, conveying, and purifying flood

and storm waters;

(C) reducing both bank erosion and wave

and storm damage to adjacent lands and

trapping sediment from upland sources;

(D) providing habitat and food sources for

a broad range of commercial and recreational fish, shellfish, and migratory wildlife species (including waterfowl and endangered species); and