[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.
____________________