[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 129 (Friday, August 4, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H8513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page H 8513]]


                                MEDICARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Congress has put forward a 
budget blueprint to cut Medicare by $270 billion, but have yet to 
illustrate how they are going to slash this program.
  Many constituents have written me expressing grave concern about the 
largest cuts in Medicare history and have asked how they will affect 
them. Unfortunately, I do not have definite answers to my constituents' 
concerns.
  My fear is that the Republicans are going to rush Medicare changes 
through the House of Representatives in September within a matter of 
days and attempt to force a vote on this issue before the American 
public has an opportunity to examine how these cuts will impact them.
  This is not the proper way to run Government or be honest with the 
American public.
  If the Republicans truly wanted to improve Medicare, then they 
wouldn't start by just cutting money from the program.
  They are making their cuts on the backs of senior citizens and 
threatening the Medicare Contract With America's Seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to express my concern over the House action 
earlier this week to reverse the Stokes-Boehlert amendment to the VA, 
HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill.
  The supporters of this amendment were trying to prevent a package of 
measures limiting the EPA's ability to improve, implement, and enforce 
environmental regulations.
  These curbs on the EPA's ability to enforce air and water quality 
standards are now unfortunately back in the bill which passed the House 
on Monday. They limit EPA's ability to spend funds on activities 
related to the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and 
Superfund--they even prevent the EPA from establishing drinking water 
standards for radon and arsenic--both known carcinogens.
  These provisions are terrible in terms of the effects they will have 
on the environment.
  One provision in particular prohibits EPA from using funds to assess 
any penalty where the state gives the polluter immunity from 
prosecution because the polluter voluntarily conducts an environmental 
audit.
  I think most people in America would agree that no corporation should 
be able to pollute without paying the price.
  Yet, the language that is included in this bill prevents EPA from 
assessing a penalty whether or not a state takes any action against a 
violator. In essence, the polluter is immune from an EPA assessed 
penalty whether they correct their violation or not.
  The self-audit privilege in this bill does nothing to help the good 
guys--those businesses and individuals that are trying to comply with 
the law--while it can easily serve as a shield to hide behind for 
conscious yet continuing violators.
  The result will be that those who are working to be in compliance 
with the law now will still work toward that end, while those who 
choose to violate the law will have an out from penalization.
  The bill already cuts EPA's enforcement budget in half. This and 
other provisions only serve to tie the agency's hands further by 
compromising its ability to enforce environmental regulations.
  It is the enforcement of these regulations that have increased the 
quality of the water we drink and fish and swim in and the quality of 
the air we breath. Without enforcement, the statutes we have on the 
books become hollow.
  If it wasn't offensive enough that these provisions were in the bill 
to begin with, it is even more offensive that after the environmental 
victory of voting them out, this body voted to put them back into the 
bill again.


                          ____________________