[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 53 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3882-S3885]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    PRESIDENT CLINTON'S PERFORMANCE

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, since March 19, I have been delivering a 
series of statements on the Senate floor. The common thread of my 
statements is my observation of the President's performance in office. 
I have concluded that he is not setting a good example for the people 
whom he serves. Basically, I mean that he does not perform in office 
commensurate with the rhetoric.
  This also soon becomes an issue of the failure to show moral 
leadership, which basically means that you do what you say you are 
going to do. It is the single most important attribute of any 
President. I have quoted Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the floor of this 
Senate on this issue many, many times. One of his President leadership 
flaws is the fact that he says one thing and yet does another.
  Last night, I had an opportunity to talk about a clue that I 
discovered as to why the President of the United States might say one 
thing and do another. I quoted from last week's Time magazine article, 
which quoted the President's senior adviser, George Stephanopoulos. His 
quote was just three words: ``Words are actions.'' So if the President 
says something, that means that is what people know he is going to do. 
In other words, you say something, the President either thinks it is 
happening or he wants us to think it is happening. I have not quite 
discovered which one it is, Mr. President.
  Yesterday provided a further case in point to illustrate what I am 
saying.

[[Page S3883]]

 Yesterday, we celebrated Earth Day across the country. There is 
nothing wrong with celebrating Earth Day. There has been great progress 
made in this country on the environment, and maybe it would not have 
been made without annually remembering the things that come about 
through Earth Day and the movements connected with them.
  Also, it has become kind of a political event, as well. The TV news 
shows were full of slick photo ops of President Clinton and Vice 
President Gore cleaning up the C&O Canal outside of Washington and 
visiting a national park. They also took the opportunity to campaign 
against Republicans on the issue of the environment.
  Never have I seen an Earth Day used for such pure politics as it was 
yesterday by the President. The President would have us believe that 
the only thing standing between the public and dirty air and dirty 
water is President Clinton himself. If you would listen long enough to 
the President, you would think that his environmental record is 
unblemished. Unfortunately for the President, the facts belie the image 
that he is trying to present.
  I want to briefly show this by discussing two items that were brought 
to my attention yesterday that clearly illustrate that President 
Clinton's deeds are different from his rhetoric. First, the director of 
the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Mr. Larry Wilson, sent a 
letter to my office regarding President Clinton's fiscal year budget 
proposals for the Army Corps of Engineers. The letter states: ``The 
President's proposal will have substantial adverse impacts on several 
environmental programs important to my State. One of these programs 
focuses on habitat restoration, which is vital to supporting endangered 
species. This program will be shut down due to the President's 
administration budget proposals.'' This is an environmental issue, and 
the President is cutting the budget. That belies the fact that 
yesterday he was out saying the great things he was doing about the 
environment.
  As President Clinton demagogs against Republican programs to reform 
the Endangered Species Act, he is shutting down an existing program 
that has actually been successful in saving endangered species. Again, 
his rhetoric does not match his words.
  Other programs that will be shut down affect the wetlands in my 
State. There are several wetland restoration and enhancement projects 
that will be terminated if the President's budget is adopted. According 
to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, these projects not only 
provide critical habitat for wildlife, but they also provide hunting, 
fishing, and other outdoor recreational opportunities for all Iowans. 
As the President talks about his initiative to protect national parks, 
he is jeopardizing these same resources in Iowa with his budget 
proposals.
  The second item that I will discuss concerns an article in this 
morning's Washington Post. It says that the President, out on the C&O 
Canal, talking abut the good he does for the environment, is saying one 
thing, but there is an Agency of his Government, in his administration, 
that is causing environmental damage in another place.
  This is where the Sierra Club alleges that the U.S. Government is 
responsible for illegal dumping of PCB's, lead, mercury, and arsenic in 
the Anacostia River right here in Washington, DC. The Sierra Club is a 
group that often supports the President on his environmental 
initiatives and is often critical of Republican proposals. So, it is 
very unusual that this organization would question this administration 
on an environmental issue.
  Yet, the Sierra Club is alleging that the Washington Navy Yard and 
Southeast Federal Center are violating the Clean Water Act and 
polluting this local river.
  Mr. President, I can tell you that if a family farmer was thought to 
have violated the Clean Water Act, that farm would be shut down 
immediately. I know of cases in Iowa where the EPA showed up armed and 
without warning to close down small businesses because of potential 
violations of environmental laws. Yet, the Federal Government remains 
the biggest polluter in the country and is not subject to the same 
rules that apply to small businesses and family farms. This is 
hypocrisy. This is a double standard.
  President Clinton should stop playing politics with the environment. 
The public health is too important to be used as a campaign issue. The 
more politics he plays, the less he is able to bring fairness and 
uniformity to our Nation's environmental laws. I urge the American 
people to look behind the political demagoguery that was characterized 
on Earth Day and take a good look at the deeds of this administration. 
You my find that, once again, President Clinton's action falls short of 
his rhetoric.
  This country is suffering from a severe bout of cynicism. That is 
exactly why we have this legislation on the floor regarding term 
limits, because term limits are the people's expression of 
dissatisfaction with Washington, DC, with the Congress, and with other 
institutions of Government. The cause of this is that politicians say 
one thing and do another. This has reflected an absence of moral 
leadership over time of our elected officials. Usually the public does 
not discover this until they have come and gone. I want to lay the 
record out right now because we need accountability right now. We need 
leadership right now.
  What we do not need now is the same old ``say one thing and do 
another'' routine. To stop the growth of cynicism and the fact that we 
must restore trust of the American people in our institutions of 
Government, we in Washington need to show the American people that they 
can trust our words, that our words not only can be trusted, but our 
words are followed up by actions.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two documents I referred 
to be printed in the Record, the newspaper article and the letter from 
the director of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 23, 1996]

      New Medicare Trust Fund Data Show Unusually Large Shortfall

       Washington, April 22,--Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust 
     Fund lost $4.2 billion in the first half of the current 
     fiscal year, according to new Government data, which suggest 
     that the financial condition of the program is worse than 
     projected by Administration officials last year.
       The trust fund, which pays hospital bills for the elderly 
     and disabled, lost money last year for the first time since 
     1972. But the loss for all of last year was only $35.7 
     million.
       The new data show that the losses are growing. In the first 
     half of the current fiscal year, from October 1995 through 
     March of this year, the trust fund spent $60.5 billion and 
     took in $56.3 billion, a shortfall of $4.2 billion, the 
     Treasury said.
       There is little chance that the trust fund will actually 
     run out of money. It still contains more than $120 billion, 
     and Congress would almost surely act to rescue the program 
     before it ran out of money. But the new data provide fresh 
     evidence that, after months of acrimonious debate between the 
     White House and Congress, Medicare remains a budget problem 
     of immense and growing proportions.
       Chris Jennings, a special assistant to President Clinton 
     for health policy, said today that the new numbers were not 
     surprising. ``They indicate the need to move forward, balance 
     the budget and enact some changes in Medicare that will 
     strengthen the trust fund,'' he said. ``Republicans and 
     Democrats should work together to address the problem.''
       In a letter to Congress last week, Treasury Secretary 
     Robert E. Rubin suggested that Congress and the 
     Administration resume discussions to reach an agreement on 
     Medicare and the budget.
       Republicans proposed many changes in Medicare last year to 
     help control costs, but President Clinton said the changes 
     would hurt beneficiaries. Republicans may hesitate to put 
     forward new proposals after they were bloodied in that 
     battle. Representative Bill Archer, the Texas Republican who 
     is chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said, ``The 
     President preferred to scare seniors and play politics 
     instead of saving Medicare.''
       It is not entirely clear why the hospital trust fund is 
     running out of money faster than expected. One factor, 
     Administration officials said, is an unanticipated 
     increase in the number of admissions of Medicare patients 
     to hospitals, but that does not explain all of the 
     discrepancy.
       The new losses accelerate a trend that started several 
     years ago, when spending by the hospital trust fund began to 
     increase faster than the money coming into the fund. The 
     Administration had predicted that the amount of money in the 
     trust fund would increase by $4.7 billion in the 1995 fiscal 
     year, which ended Sept. 30, but instead the trust fund spent 
     $35.7 million more than it took in.
       Likewise, the Administration predicted last April that the 
     trust fund would take in

[[Page S3884]]

     $45 million more than it would spend in the current fiscal 
     year. But that now appears highly unlikely. Treasury 
     Department data show that the trust fund has lost money in 
     five of the last six months.
       In the first half of the last fiscal year, from October 
     1994 to March 1995, the trust fund lost $135 million.
       Any trust fund money not immediately needed to pay hospital 
     bills is invested in Government securities. The amount of 
     such holdings has declined, to $126.1 billion on March 31 
     from $129.9 billion on Oct. 1, 1995.
       If nothing is done to change the financing and design of 
     Medicare, losses from the trust fund are expected to grow 
     from year to year. Payroll taxes account for most of the 
     trust fund's income, and no tax increases are scheduled under 
     current law. Unless President Clinton and Congress arrive at 
     a long-term budget deal, Federal officials said, there is no 
     reason to expect a significant reduction in the rate of 
     growth of Medicare spending.
       But no such deal is in sight. In this election year, 
     lawmakers and Administration officials are wary of any action 
     that might offend elderly voters by restricting Medicare 
     spending.
       Last year, Republicans proposed vast changes in Medicare to 
     slow the program's growth. But the proposals were included in 
     a bill to balance the Federal budget, and Mr. Clinton vetoed 
     that bill in December, saying it contained ``the biggest 
     Medicare and Medicaid cuts in history.''
       Republicans said their proposals were needed to prevent 
     Medicare from going bankrupt, but Democrats said the changes 
     would devastate the program and push beneficiaries into 
     health maintenance organizations.
       The new Treasury data do not indicate when Medicare's 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will run out of money. In April 
     1995, the Administration predicted that the trust fund would 
     be depleted at some point from October to December 2002, but 
     it now appears that the money could run out earlier because 
     the trust fund is spending more than expected and is taking 
     in less than expected.
       Senator Pete V. Domenici, the New Mexico Republican who is 
     chairman of the Budget Committee, said he believed that the 
     trust fund would run out of money by May 2001.
       Roland E. King, former chief actuary of the Health Care 
     Financing Administration, which runs Medicare, said today 
     that he believed the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund ``will run 
     out in late 2000 or early 2001.'' Richard S. Foster, who 
     succeeded Mr. King as chief actuary, said he could not 
     discuss the financial condition of Medicare without 
     permission from top officials at the Department of Health and 
     Human Services, and such permission was not given today.
       Under Federal law, the trustees of the Medicare trust fund, 
     including four Administration officials, were supposed to 
     submit a report to Congress on the financial condition of the 
     program by April 1. But Administration officials say that 
     report has been delayed because of Government shutdowns and 
     snowstorms last winter and will probably not be issued until 
     late May or early June.
       Some Democrats have played down the significance of the 
     losses from Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. 
     Representative Pete Stark, Democrat of California, said, 
     ``The past is littered with inaccurate forecasts of 
     Medicare's demise.'' Moreover, he said, ``The Democrats will 
     not let Medicare go insolvent.''
       Hospital executives and Medicare officials said they were 
     puzzled by the recent increase in admissions. James D. 
     Bentley, senior vice president of the American Hospital 
     Association, said tonight, ``Hospital admissions of Medicare 
     patients are rising more than could be explained by growth in 
     the number of beneficiaries--but not enough to account for 
     all of the unexpected increase in Medicare spending.''
                                 ______


   [From the U.S. Senate--Republican Policy Committee, Apr. 23, 1996]

  Today's New York Times Demonstrates Urgent Need to Solve Medicare's 
                         Impending Crisis, Now

       Today's New York Times front-page article (on the reverse 
     side) once again reveals the Medicare Part A trust fund's 
     uncontrolled hemorrhaging. It remains uncontrolled because 
     the Clinton Administration decided to play ``Medi-Scare'' 
     with Medicare last year. Clinton vetoed the plan from 
     Congress that would have allowed it to grow at twice the rate 
     of inflation and would have kept it solvent for the next 
     generation. In contrast, President Clinton's latest 
     unbalanced budget--his ninth, scored last week by CBO--would 
     barely keep the current trust fund solvent through fiscal 
     year 2002.
       Medicare's Hospital Insurance trust fund, commonly known as 
     ``Part A,'' has lost $4.2 billion in the first half of FY 96 
     [says the New York Times, citing government data].
       This compares with a loss in the first half of FY 95 of 
     $135 million, and the Clinton Administration's prediction 
     that Part A would run a $45 million surplus for FY 96.
       These losses indicate that Medicare's bankruptcy is even 
     closer than the 2002 date the Administration reported April 
     3, 1995.
       Because the Administration has still not produced a report 
     this year, we must rely on outside estimates. Budget 
     Committee Chairman Domenici has stated Part A could be 
     bankrupt by May of 2001; former chief HCFA actuary Roland 
     King predicts bankruptcy as soon as late 2000.
       Clinton's latest budget would only push bankruptcy back a 
     year beyond its last year's estimate. According to CBO under 
     his budget--without utilizing for gimmick of cost-shifting 
     $60 billion to the taxpayer--Part A would be barely solvent 
     in FY 2002 ($1.5 billion) and would be bankrupt by FY 2003.
       In contrast, Congress' Balanced Budget Act would have 
     preserved Part A beyond 2010--when Baby Boomers begin 
     retiring--while allowing spending to grow at twice the 
     inflation rate.
       While the Republican party in Congress wants to protect 
     Medicare for the next generation, Clinton wants to abandon it 
     to the next Administration.
                                                                    ____

                                                     Department of


                                            Natural Resources,

                                  Des Moines, IA,, April 10, 1996.
     Re Mississippi River Environmental Management Program (EMP) 
         and Missouri River Fish and Wildlife (F&W) Mitigation--
         Affects in Iowa of the President's FY 1997 Budget 
         Request.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: I want to alert you to the impacts 
     that the Administration's FY 1997 budget proposal will have 
     in Iowa with regard to two programs administered by the U.S. 
     Army Corps of Engineers: (1) Missouri River Fish and Wildlife 
     Mitigation and (2) Mississippi River EMP. The President's 
     proposal will have substantial adverse impacts on both of 
     these programs which in recent years have been operating at 
     close to full authorized funding and providing long-awaited 
     benefits to Iowans. I urge you to do whatever you can to 
     restore the appropriations in FY 1997 to levels that equal or 
     at least come closer to the amounts available in prior years.
       The Corps has explained their priorities for funding which 
     are navigation, flood control, and environment projects. 
     While we understand how the Corps developed these priorities, 
     their application results in a disproportionate impact on 
     projects that are important to Iowa. For example, funding of 
     only $100,000 for mitigation projects on the Missouri in the 
     Omaha District, means projects on hold for years while 
     habitat restoration is viewed as a key way to resolve 
     historic conflicts between uses while enhancing support for 
     endangered species. The Mississippi River EMP is slated for 
     cuts of nearly $4 million in FY 97, and projections are for 
     cuts of about $7 million for FY 98 and nearly $11 million in 
     future years. These levels will delay projects for years 
     while threatening the viability of an essential long-term 
     monitoring effort.
       It has been difficult for us to obtain information as to 
     whether the Administration's budget cuts are greater for the 
     North Central and Omaha Divisions than for other regions. If 
     these divisions suffered proportionally greater reductions 
     than other divisions, it could help to explain the difficulty 
     that they have had trying to meet all of their obligations 
     and ensure the timely completion of Iowa projects.


              missouri river fish and wildlife mitigation

       Mitigation was authorized in the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 to satisfy the federal requirement to 
     mitigate for the loss of fish and wildlife habitat with the 
     construction of the navigation and flood control works on the 
     river in Iowa and the other lower basin states. 
     Appropriations commenced in 1989. While the program includes 
     land acquisition, that has been less important in Iowa 
     than habitat development. The state already owns numerous 
     sites along the river that can be improved by the 
     mitigation program. The Corps of Engineers has purchased 
     some land adjacent to existing public land as required to 
     make the habitat development projects work. Mitigation is 
     critical on the Missouri River if the Corps is going to 
     make progress in supporting endangered species. There is a 
     terrible shortage of fisheries habitat in the lower river. 
     These conditions have economic consequences as well, since 
     the lack of habitat reduces the quality of the fishery. 
     The net result is less recreational opportunity on the 
     river, which impacts businesses that provide goods and 
     services along the river.
       Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation has received as 
     much as $8 million a year, which was fairly evenly split 
     between the Kansas City and Omaha Corps Districts. The 
     administration's budget for FY 1997 includes $1.6 million for 
     mitigation, of which $1.5 million is programmed for the 
     Kansas City District and only $100,000 for the Omaha 
     District. Iowa projects are in the Omaha District, so 
     Missouri River fish and wildlife mitigation will essentially 
     come to a halt in Iowa. The discrepancy among the two 
     districts is based upon individual district priorities. Fish 
     and wildlife mitigation requires more than a token $100,000 
     in the Omaha District.
       The following are the specific projects programmed for work 
     in FY 97 that will not happen if current funding levels 
     remain:
       Blackbird/Tieville/Decatur Bend near Onawa is an $8.8 
     million project that includes 3,500 acres and 11.8 miles of 
     wetlands and river side channels. The definite project report 
     (DPR) is complete, design and engineering is near completion, 
     and construction was programmed in begin in Fall 1996 and be 
     completed during FY 97.
       California Bend near Missouri Valley just north of Council 
     Bluffs is a $785,000 project to restore a running side chute 
     connected to the Missouri River. The plans and specifications 
     are close to completion and construction was scheduled for FY 
     96 and 97.

[[Page S3885]]

       Winnebago Bend near Sloan is a $1.3 million project to add 
     water into a rapidly disappearing wetland. It too was 
     programmed for FY 96 & 97 construction.
       In addition to the improvement or creation of critical 
     habitat, all of these projects would provide hunting, angling 
     and outdoor recreation opportunities to Iowans along the 
     Missouri River.
       The Corps' report proposing these projects was completed in 
     1981. With nearly two decades of delays, the lack of habitat 
     continues to frustrate efforts to maintain several fish 
     species. It would be most unfortunate to lose the momentum 
     that has developed as these projects have moved this close to 
     construction.


        mississippi river environmental management program (emp)

       EMP was also authorized in the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986 and has become a model program for the 
     restoration of fish and wildlife on big rivers. 
     Its authorized funding is $19.4 million per year and it 
     has been receiving that amount in recent years. It too is 
     a program that has taken a long time to attain solid 
     momentum, but is now providing increasing benefits. EMP 
     contains two primary components; (1) habitat 
     rehabilitation and enhancement projects (HREP) and (2) 
     long-term resource monitoring (LTRM). The Administration's 
     budget contains $15.6 million for EMP in FY 97, which is 
     not devastating in itself. Our concern lies with the 
     Corps' projections in FY 98, 99, and 00, which are $12.4 
     million, $8.7 million, and $9.8 million, respectively. 
     Reductions of that magnitude will have serious adverse 
     implications in Iowa.


                Examples of completed HREPs in Iowa are:

       Bussey Lake dredging near Guttenberg--Dredging will improve 
     the fishery by providing deeper water, diversity of habitat 
     and wintering-over areas.
       Brown's Lake restoration near Green Island--This area has 
     been protected from sedimentation by dike improvements and a 
     water control structure. A deeper channel through the project 
     and dredging in the lake have improved the fishery, while the 
     dredge spoil was collected on site to create terrestrial 
     habitat. This project along with the improvements at Green 
     Island will be beneficial for both hunting and fishing.
       Big Timber backwater rehabilitation and pothole creation 
     near Muscatine--Dredging at this site restored an area that 
     was nearly completely filled in with sediment.
       Lansing Big Lake side channel closures--This project is 
     designed to decrease sedimentation and flow rates in the lake 
     to maintain its currently very popular panfishery. We are 
     currently proposing some follow-up work in Lansing Big Lake 
     to further assure project objectives are obtained.
       Iowa's Princeton HREP project near Princeton is hit the 
     hardest by the proposed change in funding. This project is 
     designed to create new wetlands and improve the dike system 
     for waterfowl management. The construction contract was close 
     to being let to a minority contractor. Our local DNR 
     biologist was ready to issue a news release explaining to 
     local hunters that Princeton would be closed this fall due to 
     construction. The Corps is considering delaying construction 
     until late 1997. Making this decision at the last minute is 
     inefficient and will cost time and money if the Corps decides 
     to shelve the project. Because of great interest in this 
     project by local hunters and others who live along the river, 
     the delay will cause many to become extremely upset.
       Iowa's Lake Odessa EMP project near Wapello is currently 
     undergoing planning, engineering, and design. The Corps has 
     informed us that it will complete this work, but will not 
     construct the project under current EMP authorization. The 
     Lake Odessa HREP project would therefore only become reality 
     if authorization for EMP is extended beyond 2002.
       HREP projects for Huron Island near Burlington, Molo Slough 
     near Dubuque, and Peosta Channel also near Dubuque were also 
     programmed to be completed under the current EMP 
     authorization. The Corps is now considering deletion of 
     these projects completely from EMP.
       The Long-Term Resource Monitoring (LTRM) element of EMP is 
     collecting data on Mississippi River water quality, aquatic 
     and floodplain habitat, microinvertebrates, and fisheries. 
     LTRM also evaluates the physical, chemical, and biological 
     responses of habitat projects. This program was designed to 
     identify trends and support decisions about river management 
     including such projects as the current navigation study.
       Iowa DNR operates one of six monitoring stations that are 
     located throughout the river. Iowa's station is in Bellevue 
     and is staffed by six permanent employees and typically hires 
     up to five seasonal workers during summer months. These are 
     all state employees, but funding for their salaries and 
     operations comes totally from federal EMP dollars. Reductions 
     in the LTRM budget will likely occur because of overall EMP 
     cutbacks, which means that Iowa's station in Bellevue and its 
     employees will be affected. It is important that data 
     gathering not be curtailed to the extent that the integrity 
     of the data base created over the past several years is 
     jeopardized. In addition, the loss of jobs at the station 
     will impact the economy in Bellevue due to the loss of 
     employment. Bellevue along with other cities along the 
     Mississippi will see reduced recreational activity as the 
     maintenance of the natural resources of the river are 
     neglected.
       Budget reductions are difficult, and we understand that 
     there will be some impacts on programs that we believe to be 
     important to the long term viability of the natural river 
     systems. It appears that the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife 
     Mitigation and Mississippi River Environmental Management 
     Programs are expected by the Administration to bear 
     proportionally greater budget reductions than other programs. 
     We also fear that the North Central and Missouri River 
     Divisions are taking a greater share of cuts than those in 
     other parts of the country. This further harms Iowa projects. 
     If budget reductions that are currently being proposed 
     happen, Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation in Iowa 
     will come to a complete halt, Mississippi River EMP habitat 
     projects in Iowa will be delayed and some will be eliminated. 
     The Bellevue monitoring station will face cuts that could 
     mean its demise with the added cuts proposed in future years. 
     As noted above, reductions in these efforts will have 
     economic as well as natural resource consequences that should 
     not be underestimated given the Corps' own study showing an 
     annual value of recreation in the Upper Mississippi River 
     basin of over $1 billion. We ask for your help to do whatever 
     you can to assure these programs and their respective 
     projects in Iowa are not forced to take on more than their 
     fair share of setbacks.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Larry J. Wilson,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional 
minutes. How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes 56 seconds.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________