[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 108 (Thursday, June 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6649-H6650]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         EFFECT OF BUDGET CUTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words tonight about the 
budget passed today and also the rescission package and to suggest that 
it is terribly important that the American people have an understanding 
of what is going on, because to a very significant degree, the budget 
proposal passed by the Republican leadership today is going to balance 
the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable people in our country 
and give tax breaks and subsidies to precisely those people who need it 
the least.
  Mr. Speaker, in my State of Vermont, we have thousands and thousands 
of senior citizens who tonight are finding it difficult to pay for 
their prescription drugs. Today they cannot afford the high cost of 
health care. It is grossly unfair to make those senior citizens and 
senior citizens all over this country pay more for Medicare because of 
the devastating cuts that are contained within the Republican budget 
passed today.
  Second of all, in Vermont and all over this country, middle-class 
parents are wondering how they are going to afford to send their kids 
to college, given the escalating cost of higher education. Everybody 
knows that in the competitive world economy, our young people need the 
best education that they can get. Within that context, it is absolutely 
insane to be cutting back on student loans and student grants. We need 
more help for middle-class and working-class families to help them send 
their kids to college, not less help.
  Mr. Speaker, as we have heard so often on the floor of this House, 
this is the 50th anniversary of World War II. And over and over again 
we hear people talking about the heroism, the bravery, the courage of 
the men and women in this country who defeated Hitler and saved human 
civilization in their terrible struggle against Nazism and Fascism 50 
years ago. And we thank those veterans.
  In my State of Vermont, many of them, many of them have been wounded 
in various wars in body and in spirit. This country owes a great deal 
to those men and women.
  I wonder how many of them know that after all of the praise that is 
heaped upon them that in reality and real life, after all of the talk 
and all of the rhetoric, that the Republican budget makes tens of 
billions of dollars in cuts in veterans' programs. So thank you very 
much, those veterans who tonight are in the VA hospitals. Thank you for 
the work and the courage that you gave this country 50 years ago and 
our thank you is that we cut the benefits and the programs that were 
promised to you.
  A couple of weeks ago I received a letter from a veteran from 
Rutland, VT, and he said, let us talk about the Contract With America. 
And he talked about how his arm was wounded fighting against the 
Japanese during World War II. And he said, I know what the Contract 
With America is about, because he and millions of other Americans made 
a real Contract With America when they spilt their blood defending this 
country. And today it is no way to say thank you to those men and women 
by cutting programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I think almost everybody in this House, the Republicans, 
the Democrats and me, the only Independent in this Congress, understand 
that the deficit and the $4.7 trillion national debt is a very serious 
problem that must be dealt with. Almost everybody wants to move us 
toward ending our deficit, balancing the budget.
  The question is, how do you do it? do you cut back on Head Start? Do 
you cut back on WIC? do you cut back on environmental programs on 
library programs? Or do you finally have the courage to say, let us 
move forward in a fair way.
  Mr. Speaker, a recent economic study came out printed on the front 
page of the New York Times. The richest 1 percent of the population 
owns 40 percent of the wealth of America; richest 1 percent owns more 
than the bottom 90 percent. Yet this proposal, budget proposal of the 
Republicans does what? Half of the tax breaks, individual tax breaks go 
to people earning $100,000 a year. Rich get richer; poor get poorer. We 
give tax breaks to the rich.
  Mr. Speaker, we must move forward toward a balanced budget. But let 
us not do it on the backs of the weakest and the most vulnerable 
people. Let us ask those people who have the money, among many other 
things, to pay their fair share of taxes. Let us deal with the scandal 
of corporate welfare.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise to cosponsor a resolution 
introduced by Congressman Eni Faleomavaega of American Samoa, opposing 
the resumption of French nuclear tests in the South Pacific.
  On June 13, 1995, French President Jacques Chirac announced that he 
would end his nation's moratorium on nuclear tests and conduct eight 
underground nuclear tests on Moruroa Atoll in French Polynesia between 
September 1995 and May 1996. According to President Chirac, the tests 
are to ensure the reliability and security of France's nuclear arsenal 
and perfect laboratory simulation so that 

[[Page H 6650]]
further tests will be unnecessary. I respectfully suggest to President 
Chirac that the eight underground nuclear tests to be conducted between 
September and May are themselves unnecessary.
  The threat of nuclear war that once cast a large shadow over national 
and international affairs has been considerably diminished since the 
end of the cold war. One hundred and seventy nations agreed recently to 
extend the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the expectation that the 
nuclear powers, including France, would ratify a comprehensive nuclear 
test ban by 1996 and refrain from conducting any nuclear test. France's 
planned nuclear tests conflict with the designation of the South 
Pacific as a nuclear-free zone. In spite of these developments and 
designations, President Chirac has decided that France will become one 
of only two nations--the other being China--still conducting nuclear 
tests.
  In announcing the resumption of French nuclear tests, President 
Chirac waved away the criticism of ecologists by stating that the eight 
planned underground tests on Moruroa Atoll would have ``no ecological 
consequences.'' President Chirac also indicated his decision was ``in 
the higher interest of [the French] nation'' and also ``irrevocable.'' 
While President Chirac's decision appears intended to reinforce 
France's stature as the world's third nuclear power, it also revives 
the dismissive attitude of past French Governments toward the concerns 
of scientists and South Pacific Islanders.
  As our colleague Congressman Faleomavaega has noted, South Pacific 
Islanders are acutely aware of the lingering effects of nuclear 
testing. Certainly, the Marshall Islanders who were exposed to 
radiation when the United States Government conducted nuclear weapons 
tests over Bikini Atoll in the 1940's and 1950's could tell President 
Chirac a thing or two about the consequences, ecological and otherwise, 
of nuclear tests.
  Nuclear tests release two types of radioactive isotopes. The first 
type, radioactive iodine, is relatively short-lived and decays rapidly 
within several months. The second type, including cesium-137, 
strontium-90, and plutonium-239, is very long-lived, and if present in 
the food chain, even in low-levels, could be responsible for producing 
increased risks of cancers of all types. The fact that an excessive 
number of thyroid nodules and birth defects have been observed among 
residents of the northern Marshall Islands suggests strongly that long-
lived radioactive isotopes are present in the environment of the 
northern Marshall Islands.
  Of course, President Chirac could--and probably would--dismiss these 
observations about the lingering effects of nuclear tests on Marshall 
Islanders on the grounds that the 66 nuclear tests conducted by America 
during the 1940's to 1950's took place in the atmosphere whereas the 
eight nuclear tests that France plans to conduct will take place deep 
under Moruroa Atoll.
  President Chirac has made it abundantly clear that he is both 
determined to resume French nuclear tests and confident that the 
planned series of underground nuclear tests pose absolutely no risk to 
the ocean, the marine life, and surrounding environment.
  I must respectfully point out to President Chirac that his decision 
to resume nuclear tests under Moruroa Atoll is appalling to 
environmentalists, scientists, nuclear disarmament supporters, and the 
people who live in or around the South Pacific. I strongly and 
earnestly appeal to President Chirac to rescind his decision to resume 
these French nuclear tests. They constitute a needless assault on our 
ocean habitat as well as an open violation of the test ban treaty.
  The world should not have to tolerate any more tests. The Just-One-
More-Test-Before-We-Sign-the-Treaty stance taken by President Chirac is 
sheer hypocrisy.


                          ____________________