Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in a few days, we will be horning Marlene Howard on the occasion of her retirement from Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Monmouth County. Many of my colleagues in the House of Representatives met Marlene during her days in Washington as the right hand to her husband, Jim Howard, former chairman of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee. She is affectionately and respectfully remembered by many in Washington, DC, as a driving force behind many initiatives that resulted in saving thousands of lives and improving the condition of millions of other lives. Day after day, week after week, Marlene provided the gentle but persistent encouragement that helped Jim Howard gain enactment of anti- drunk-driving legislation, reduction in the speed limit, and other important highway safety measures. As a leader in the Congressional Wives Club, Marlene made sure the other congressional wives lobbied their husbands to vote for these life-saving bills. She fought for other important causes, including increased funding for mental health programs, human rights and quality television programming for children. Without Marlene's initial and ongoing support, we would not have a flourishing congressional award for young people in New Jersey and elsewhere around the country. Marlene's involvement in helping at-risk teenagers and children extends back to her days in Washington when she was on the advisory board of the Washington Metropolitan Area Big Sisters. She received the Special Recognition Award in 1982 for her outstanding service as a caseworker and as the most active volunteer on the advisory board. In November a year earlier, she was honored as [[Page E1140]] Woman of the Year by the Monmouth County, NJ, Big Sisters/Big Brothers where she has worked for 15 years. Marlene has often quoted the phrase, ``One person can make a difference,'' and she certainly has proven that in her own career of public and volunteer service. There is probably no more of a difficult undertaking than trying to help young people who come from troubled backgrounds. It takes great patience, determination, and love to set many such children on their Journey to productive, happy lives. Marlene certainly devoted herself to those especially heart-wrenching and complex cases and she has made a great difference in the lives of many, many young people. It would be easy to expound further, but I think Marlene's career can be summed up by paraphrasing a slogan that was also used in a certain congressional campaign 15 years ago: ``She cares about people, it's that simple.'' It's from that caring that so much good has sprung.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to point out in this debate today is that the Republicans who put together this proposal on the Committee on the Budget sent a letter to the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], and in it they outlined various proposals that could be implemented in order to achieve the cuts in Medicare that many of the speakers have talked about today. The options that exist in this document, I think there are 35 proposals, in my opinion limit choice rather than expand choice, and some of the speakers on the other side of the aisle today talked about how Medicare Select is going to provide more choices. The bottom line is if this budget resolution that the Republicans have passed is implemented, the choices, and by their own admission, the choices that are proposed in order to achieve these Medicare cuts are going to be less. Let me give you an idea. One of the things that is discussed is increasing premiums for new beneficiaries who choose Medicare fee-for- service. One of the problems that my senior citizens are concerned about is that they do not want to be forced into managed-care systems when they prefer fee-for-service where they can choose their own doctor or their own hospital. Although I think Medicare Select is good as an option, we do not want the situation to arise where the cost differential, if you will, between having a fee-for-service system where you can choose your own doctor or having to go into a managed- care system, where the cost differential is so great that in effect you are forced into a managed-care system. In effect, by increasing the premiums for new beneficiaries and saying it is going to cost more for a fee-for-service system, you are forcing a lot of people who have no choice into managed care, into HMO's, into not being able to choose their own doctor or their own hospital. Another one of the proposals that is put forward by the House Republican budget is essentially to simply give people a voucher, $5,100 a year, they give you a voucher and you can go out as a senior citizen and find whatever policy you can to pay for your health insurance. Think about how many senior citizens because of their disability, because of the problems that they have, how difficult is it for them to go out and shop around and get a health care policy. The choices are being limited by these Republican proposals, and Medicare Select is not going to solve the problem.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the American Overseas Interests Act legislation that we will be debating today is a mixed bag at best. In some respects the bill represents a retreat from America's role of promoting democracy in those lands that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. The bill authorizes $145 million less than the administration's fiscal year 1996 request and $76 million less than the 1995 level. We need to draw a distinction between Russia and the other Soviet Republics. After spending billions guarding against Moscow's aggressive expansionism during the cold war, I believe it is still an important American interest to continue promoting the transition to democracy in the former captive nations of the Soviet Union. Also I do want to express praise for one provision of the bill included by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], known as the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. That act would withhold U.S. aid to nations which are blocking congressionally approved humanitarian assistance to other countries. It requires all of U.S. aid recipients to allow unencumbered delivery of humanitarian assistance. The Republic of Turkey has imposed a blockade on the neighboring Republic of Armenia, preventing delivery of food, medicine and other humanitarian relief supplies from reaching Armenia. Much of this aid originates in the United States. This Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act would prevent countries like Turkey from receiving aid if they prevent this aid from getting through.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, much of the debate today and yesterday about the budget and also the rescissions bill focused on programs for seniors, particularly Medicare and also Medicaid to the extent that it also impacts senior citizens, and I had previously spoken on the floor and stated emphatically how part of my opposition to the budget was based on the fact that it does have significant cuts in Medicare and how that will negatively impact our senior citizens. What I wanted to speak about today very briefly though are the parts of the budget, as well as the rescissions bill that we voted on today, that affect programs for students at our universities and or colleges. Mr. Speaker, I happened to have a forum during the April break at Rutgers University, which is in my district, and at the forum a number of students expressed concern with the cost of higher education, how tuition continues to rise, how difficult it is not only at private schools, but also at public schools such as Rutgers University, to continue to meet educational expenses and how many students increasingly have to simply drop out of school because they cannot afford to pay the cost of higher education. I say to my colleagues, ``If you look at the two resolutions or bills that we passed today, in one case the budget and in the other case the rescissions bill, both of them in my opinion rely too heavily on cuts in programs for higher education, particularly as it affects students who are looking for scholarships, grants or student loans. The budget itself actually assumes a change in the current law to require college students to pay interest on student loans while they are still in school. Many students rely on Stafford loans or guaranteed student loans to pay for their colleges education or to pay for a significant portion of it.'' Mr. Speaker, part of the problem is that under this budget measure the assumption is that while the students are at school they will have to pay back the interest on the loans. It is variously estimated, depending on how long you stay in school, for example, for undergraduate education, if you were to take the maximum student loan over the course of the four years, that you would end up paying as much as 20 percent more for your student loan after you graduate. If you defer your higher education and go to graduate school or professional school, the cost of that interest could even be higher as a percentage of what you have to pay back. The rescission bill today also makes some significant rescissions or cuts, if you will, in Pell grants, which are grants that students receive to go to college who tend to be lower income, and also rescinds other additional money that is available for Federal direct student loans. Now some people have said to me, ``Well, what does it matter, Congressman Pallone, that you know students have to pay more for their student loans or they don't get as much money for grants or scholarships? After all, they can always go out and work for a think that is ignoring two realities. One is that increasingly the cost of higher education is such that it is not that easy to take time off, and make up the money, and then go back to school; and, secondly, that we are in a world where we are competing with other countries, and, if we have to set up the higher education system where many of our students have to defer going to college for a number of years before they can go because they have to work on the private sphere in order to pay for it, well, we are losing people, a lot of people, who would otherwise receive a higher education and be a productive member of the work force in the career that they have chosen and perhaps that they will be best at. I also think it ignores the fact that in the last 29 or 30 years many of us were able to take advantage, including myself, of these student loan programs and grants programs, and now we are seeing those of future generations will not be able to take advantage of them. I think it is a mistake on our part to cut back on funding for higher education. You have to think about educating our students and educating our fellow Americans. If we do not provide that commitment that has been traditionally provided for the last generation or two to pay and provide Federal help for higher education the way we have, then it really says a lot about the value of education in our society. It says we do not value it very much. So, even though both measures, both the budget and the rescission bill passed today; I did vote against both of them in part because of the impact on Medicare and Medicaid on senior citizens, but also in a major part because of the effect on higher education, and the student loans, and the student grants that so many of our students increasingly depend upon.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of the Frelinghuysen amendment. In 1993, New Jersey became the second State to assume regulatory authority of its wetlands program, and I believe the State assumption streamlines the permit process while ensuring environmental protection of wetlands. Under current law, States like New Jersey adopt their own wetlands programs to be implemented in place of the Federal program if that program is at least as stringent as the Federal program. Under H.R. 961, New Jersey would be forced to apply to the Army Corps of Engineers in order to continue to implement its own wetlands program. This application would take place in about a year and a half, when New Jersey's program next comes up for review. To receive additional approval, most likely New Jersey would have to severely weaken its existing program in order to comply with the demands for the new title VIII wetlands program, such as the classification and delineation that we have already discussed in this House today and the previous day. The new wetlands program, under H.R. 961, I believe, will destroy New Jersey's existing program and all the important gains that have been made since the program was implemented in 1988. Unlike current law, which allows a State to administer its own program with limited oversight by the Federal Government, H.R. 961 says the States administering their own programs have to submit notices to the corps for permit applications. Again, this erases the greatest benefit of assumption, elimination of the duplicative Federal review process, and this severely weakens the incentive for New Jersey to reapply for assumption of its wetlands program. Eventually, I think New Jersey and Michigan would probably just simply go along with the new Federal program if we do not have the Frelinghuysen amendment. The Frelinghuysen amendment allows our States to maintain the existing programs, and exempts them permanently from having to apply for corps approval of their programs. This would protect the gains that these two States have already made in wetlands protection. It would give New Jersey the latitude to have State law as stringent or more stringent than Federal law, and it would negate the message, most important, Mr. Chairman, that H.R. 961 currently sends, and that is that those States that actively work to make progress in environmental protection and compliance with the Clean Water Act made a mistake in doing so because their efforts would be wasted because of the changes, and the drastic changes, that are being proposed under H.R. 961. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Frelinghuysen amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, my amendments strike the bill's provisions which reassign certain regulatory authority over ocean dumping and navigational dredging permits from the EPA to the Army Corps of Engineers. Under existing law, ocean dumping of dredged material currently falls for the most part under the jurisdiction of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act. Under that act, the EPA sets up criteria for reviewing and evaluating permit applications, the EPA designates recommended sites and times for dumping. The Secretary of the Army Corps makes permit decisions on the dumping of dredged materials using the EPA criteria and siting recommendations. The EPA has veto power over the Army Corps' permitting decisions and the EPA grants permit waivers to the Army Corps. Under H.R. 961, the committee mark, the corps would be responsible for all ocean dumping permit decisions. The corps would set up criteria for reviewing and evaluating permit applications. The Army Corps would designate recommended sites and times for dumping, and the Army Corps would grant its own permit waivers. The corps only has to consult with the EPA before issuing a permit, and the EPA no longer has veto power. And most importantly, H.R. 961 requires that ``the least costly environmentally acceptable disposal alternative will be selected.'' The problem with removing the EPA from the dredging process is essentially that the corps has engineering and dredging expertise but not expertise in environmental management, science, protection and conservation. The Army Corps in my opinion should not be the lead agency to develop plans that are supposed to ensure protection of the marine environment and human health. Keeping the Army Corps environmental authority will jeopardize our oceans, allowing them to be exposed to dioxins like PCB's and other cancer causing pollutants. Removing the EPA also creates a conflict of interest in my opinion for the Army Corps because under H.R. 961 the corps would grant its own permits, select its own sites and even grant its own waivers. If I could just read a selection from a paper that my own State of New Jersey department of environmental protection put forward, they say: The amendments contained in H.R. 961 will affect dredging in New Jersey in several ways. The elimination of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from their oversight role in dredging operations will put the Army Corps of Engineers, the agency charged with keeping navigation channels open, in the role of both permitting and enforcing their own operations. This creates a perceived if not an actual conflict of interest in the management of dredging operations. While there would be definite value to consolidating the process in one agency, the environmental protection value of the permits is best managed by the EPA. Perhaps this conflict would better then be resolved by eliminating the corps from the process instead of the

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered en bloc.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, printed in the Record as amendments No. 42 and No. 43.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, again, the way I understand the amendment now, in its latest version, basically it is saying that this coastal nonpoint source pollution program on the part of the State would be enforceable, but is still voluntary. That is really the crux of the matter, is that the program would be voluntary, whereas the Boehlert amendment, again, when the Boehlert amendment was passed, it essentially kept the existing mandatory nature of the program. I was listening to the gentleman from Louisiana and what he said about flexibility. States have always had flexibility with regard to implementing the program, because they can devise ways in which the program is effective or not. Different States may devise different ways of dealing with land use or agricultural runoff or some of the other things that might impact on coastal nonpoint source pollution. The bottom line is that the current law requires that there be a nationwide program, and that States have to put a program in place. If the Petri-Tauzin amendment passes, those States could voluntarily decide not to have a coastal nonpoint source program. That is the problem. Nonpoint source pollution of the Nation's unique and precious coastal waters is real and serious. It is causing significant economic harm. Mr. Chairman, commercial recreational fisheries are being shut down due to runoff pollution, beaches are being closed, habitat is being degraded. Coastal States report that about a third of their estuarine waters are impaired and a third are threatened. Nonpoint source problems are responsible for half of all instances of coastal water- quality degradation. The bottom line is that coastal nonpoint source pollution must be abated now. By passing the Boehlert amendment last week, the House fully indicated it does not want to weaken coastal programs controlling nonpoint source pollution, but the Petri-Tauzin amendment would do just that. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important, even though I know we are not amending, we are not just totally repealing the Boehlert amendment, but what we are doing is making the program voluntary, and even if States, if States want to do it and they want to enforce it, that is fine, but I am afraid that many States will simply not have a program, and that is why we should oppose this amendment. (Mr. LAUGHLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of the Franks amendment. I have to say that, as I guess was clear from my previous amendment, I do believe that it is a mistake as the bill goes to reassign certain regulatory authority over ocean dumping of dredge materials from the EPA to the Army Corps of Engineers. I also believe that the problem that the gentleman from New Jersey, my colleague, is trying to address, is best addressed by the interagency working group that has been worked out between the corps and the EPA, which I think ultimately would streamline the dredging process, the permitting process, without the need for changing the underlying law of the Clean Water Act or the Ocean Dumping Act. However, I have to commend the gentleman from New Jersey, my colleague, Mr. Franks, because this amendment does put the EPA back in charge of certain things and goes far toward, I believe, reasserting the EPA's authority over environmental concerns that relate to ocean dumping, as well as dredging. As Mr. Franks mentioned, the amendment puts the EPA back in charge of ocean dumping permits for material other than dredge material. It puts the EPA back in charge of establishing criteria for reviewing and evaluating permit applications, and gives waiver authority back to the EPA for dredger permits. So clearly there is significant progress here in terms of trying to put back the EPA and having them cooperate with the corps in the whole process of dredging, as well as other forms of ocean dumping. I would point out unfortunately though, that the amendment would still give disposal siting and monitoring authority to the corps and still requires that the least costly disposal alternative be selected. Overall, this is certainly an improving amendment that does address many of the concerns that I discussed before. I would urge support for the amendment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my 1 minute to quote some sections of a Star Ledger editorial [[Page H4919]] which was in the Star Ledger, New Jersey's largest circulation daily, on Thursday, May 11. It says: The Republicans have offered a budget resolution that does it all, reduces the deficit, balances the budget, and saves Medicare from bankruptcy--a piece of work crafted of smoke and mirrors. The only thing they do not tell you is how to cut $256 billion from Medicare and $175 from Medicaid, or who is going to get hurt if and when the cuts are made. You cannot make up that kind of money by switching everybody in Medicare and Medicaid to managed care insurance. You cannot make it up by cutting fees to doctors and hospitals, unless you want to see the old and the poor turned away. Medicare is getting all the attention because it is the program for the elderly, a stronger political lobby than people on Medicaid, the program for the poor. No one bothers to mention that Medicaid clients are mainly women and their children, or that the biggest bite from that budget provides the only hope most of us will have of keeping our mothers and fathers in nursing homes without our families going bankrupt. Many of the same Republicans who ranted last year that a national health care program would result in health care rationing are among the crowd now calling for the kind of budget cuts which could very well mean rationing for the elderly and the poor. Shows what a difference a year and an election can make. Mr. Speaker, I include this whole editorial for the Record: [From the Star-Ledger, May 11, 1995] Medicare's Cutting Edge Why did Willie Sutton rob banks? Because that's where the money is, he said. Why are Medicare and Medicaid scheduled to take the biggest blow in the budget cutting proposed by congressional Republicans? Same reason. Same crime. The Republicans have offered a budget resolution that does it all, reduces the deficit, balances the budget and saves Medicare from bankruptcy--a piece of work crafted of smoke and mirrors. All you have to do is trim a bit from this, a bit from that and a whole bunch from Medicare and Medicaid over the next few years and voila! The only thing they don't tell you is how to cut $256 billion from Medicare and $175 billion from Medicaid or who is going to get hurt if and when the cuts are made. You cannot make up that kind of money by switching everybody in Medicare and Medicaid to managed care insurance. The best managed care plans are not holding health care increases down to the point that would have to be matched in order to reap the savings the Republican budget resolution promises. You cannot make it up by cutting fees to doctors and hospitals, unless you want to see the old and the poor turned away. Medicare is getting all the attention because it is the program for the elderly, a stronger political lobby than people on Medicaid, the program for the poor. No one bothers to mention that Medicaid clients are mainly women and their children or that the biggest bite from that budget provides the only hope most of us will have of keeping our mothers and fathers in nursing homes without our families going bankrupt. Many of the same Republicans who ranted last year that a national health care program would result in health care rationing are among the crowd now calling for the kind of budget cuts which could very well mean rationing for the elderly and the poor. Shows what a difference a year and an election can make.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words in support of the Boehlert amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in support of the Boehlert amendment, and would like to point out that one of the major reasons why I do support it and why I think it should pass is because of the support by the National Governors Association. Their support is there primarily because of concerns that States have about the impact of the committee mark, of the bill itself, on the various State wetlands programs. One of the main points that I would like to get across today is the fact that the Boehlert amendment helps the States. The Boehlert amendment is the one that the States generally prefer because of their concern they have about their existing programs. As the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] mentioned, my own State of New Jersey is particularly concerned because we do have an excellent program approved by the Federal Government. Many States have developed wetlands protection programs that mimic the framework of the Federal program developed under the Clean Water Act. Each of the States committed large amounts of time and resources working with Federal officials and the public to develop and win approval for their programs. All that could be wasted if the Federal wetlands program is scrapped by H.R. 961. Every State law and regulation will have to be revisited and revised for a lower standard of protection. I know some will say what is to stop the States from doing something on their own under the committee mark? The pressure will build, I believe, for States to change their programs. With regard to the definition of the wetlands, the new definition contained in this bill contributes to elimination of protection for up to 80 percent of wetlands currently protected. In my home State of New Jersey, the definition contained in this bill would eliminate virtually all of New Jersey's wetlands from regulatory protection. The across the Nation when proposed by the EPA in 1991 because it has no scientific basis and would be administratively burdensome to implement. Now, with regard to preclassification, preparing wetland maps suitable for the proposed classification system, not including functional assessment, would cost an estimated $500 million in the lower 48 States. In New Jersey, our current mapping effort would be rendered worthless under H.R. 961, a waste of $3.4 million that has already been spent. If you look at the takings issue, and again the Boehlert amendment basically changes that considerably, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of buying all high value wetlands in the lower 48 States would cost between $10 and $45 billion. Although I do not have specifies for the State of New Jersey, price estimates on six properties for which the New Jersey DEP has information range from $590,000 for a 9.4-acre parcel in Morris County to $2.6 million for a 67-acre property in Ocean County. Beyond that, the takings provisions in the bill imply that any public benefit that may result from wetlands regulation is secondary to the onerous restraints it places on the private property owner. As was mentioned before, in my home State, 94 percent of permit applications are approved. So if you think about it, if there are so many approved, why is it such a negative impact on property owners? Mitigation. I am very concerned that the committee mark relies too greatly on mitigation to replace wetlands protection. A number of State studies have shown that there are limits to the effectiveness of mitigation because of the limited knowledge of the inherent values of wetlands. It is an ecological mistake to rely on mitigation to replace wetlands protections, in my opinion. I would really like to stress more than anything else the effect of this bill on State programs. This bill, I believe, would ultimately destroy New Jersey's wetland program and all the important gains that have been made since the program was implemented in 1988. The bill eliminates incentives for States to take their own initiatives to implement a wetlands program. As I mentioned, pressure will exist on States to change their laws to reflect the weak provisions of the bill. Ultimately, I think that is going to cause conflict, uncertainty and a lot of delay at the State level. By contrast with the bill, the Boehlert amendment would essentially, which has been developed by the National Governors Association, would provide incentives for States to assume authority over wetlands regulation through increased delegation from the EPA. This is exactly what happened in New Jersey. This is what we want to see if we want the States to take a larger role. It also sets up this coordinating committee of Federal, State and local officials to help develop and field test national wetlands policies and strategies. Again, recognizing that there need to be some changes in the program. But the amendment does not include any provisions like those in the bill establishing the new requirements to compensate landowners for losses in property value resulting from the Federal regulation. Again, the substitute or, I should say, the amendment in this case would actually eliminate those provisions and the costs that would be incurred because of it. So I would urge my colleagues to support the Boehlert amendment. I would also like to enter into the record an editorial that was in the Sunday New York Times, this Sunday, May 14, that basically talks about the bill and why the bill, the wetlands provisions of the bill essentially do not make sense. They cite, of course, the report from the National Academy of Sciences. And essentially, Mr. Chairman, the reason why the New York Times takes the position that it does is because they feel that the existing bill, existing statute, I should say, the current law strikes a sensible balance between conservation and the need for economic growth. I do not think we should change that. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the article to which I just referred.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend my time today talking about Medicare. In light of what some of the previous speakers said today, I would point out that I am not really interested in the issue of whether or not we call the changes that the Republicans have talked about in their budget as cuts or modifications or whatever. I am satisfied to call them changes. The bottom line is, the Republicans in their budget proposals, both in the Senate as well as in this House, have suggested some major changes that are going to have major impacts on the Medicare program. Some of the previous speakers suggested today that perhaps seniors are not worried about it or that perhaps Democrats are making them worried unnecessarily. Let me tell you the reality is seniors are worried, and they are not worried because of anything that the Democrats have said to them. They are worried because they hear that some of these changes that are coming in the proposed Republican budget are going to have a major impact on Medicare, on Medicaid, which is also of importance to seniors, as well as on Social Security, which as you know was previously said to be off the table. I guess I was a little concerned when I heard the previous speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], mention his mom. I guess it is that we are getting close to Mother's Day now. Different speakers talked about their moms. The gentleman from Georgia specifically said that in his case his mother or his family, I guess, was not really that worried about the Federal Government and Federal programs, that he felt that it was increasingly important for us to sort of not depend on Federal programs or forget about these Federal programs. The bottom line is, when you talk about these three Federal programs that I mentioned, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, these are Federal programs that a lot of people in this country do depend on. They are watching very carefully, in my opinion, what we do here in the next few weeks or the next few months that might impact on those programs. If I could just use my own mom for an example, and I do not usually do that but, since it has already been stated by some of the others, she called me up just a couple of days ago and she was very worried. She just turned 65 a few weeks ago, is now eligible for Medicare for the first time, relied on the fact that when she became of age that she was going to have the benefits of Medicare. And now all of a sudden, when she first feels that she can take advantage of the program that she and my dad have been paying into all these years, realizes that there may be some major changes and she will not be able to benefit from what she expected in the program. This is of major concern to seniors. This is not something that is abstract. This is something that the average person is concerned about. In my district, when we held a number of forums for senior citizens during the April 3 weeks that were in the district, when we were not voting in Washington, I heard over and over again from senior citizens in my district, which is not a very poor district. I consider my congressional district very much the average. I have some wealthy seniors. I have poor seniors and most of my seniors are simply middle class. But they are very scared. When they hear about the changes in Medicare that might make them have to pay more out of their pocket for a copayment or a higher deductible before they get benefits or changes that might limit their options in terms of whether or not they go to a particular doctor or hospital, these are things they are concerned about. When they hear about Medicaid changes that might impact their ability to get long-term care, they are very concerned. And they are particularly concerned about what they consider a broken promise on the part of the Republicans when the budget, when the House Republican budget proposals talk about a change in the Consumer Price Index that will actually lower the COLA. Seniors worry about that COLA, that cost- of-living adjustment. Mr. Speaker, many of them budget, and their budget depends on every dollar that they receive on a monthly basis from Social Security. And when you talk about changing the Consumer Price Index so that the amount of the COLA is reduced, that extra few dollars a month or annually that they receive makes a big difference to them. What I wanted to do today was to basically go through some of the suggested changes that are being discussed by the Republicans in the budget that affect Medicare. I think many have heard the last few days that the Senate Republican plan would pare about $250 billion from projected spending on Medicare and that the House plan ups that ante, if you will, to $270 billion. What does all this mean? What do these cuts or changes or modifications mean? How do the Republicans propose to go about implementing that? What does it mean for the average person? Well, we heard today, or at least I heard for the first time today that there was some detailed recommendations, about three dozen recommendations that were made on the House side by Republicans on the House Committee on the Budget to slow the growth of Federal Medicare cost; in other words, proposals, I understand, have been put forward by a task force from some of the Republican Members, which was made available today, that was actually sent to the chairman of my Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce. I would like to go through some of those proposals by reference to an article that was in the New York Times today that sort of summarized some of them. If I could read from the New York Times article, it says that Republicans on the House Committee on the Budget recommended three dozen ways to slow the growth of federal Medicare costs. They include higher premium deductibles and copayment for beneficiaries and strong new incentives for them to join health maintenance organizations--we call them HMO's--which provide comprehensive care in return for a fixed monthly fee. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, said the Republican proposals would expand health care choices for the elderly. But a Mr. Corey, who is the director of Federal affairs for the AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons, said the Republicans were creating a coercive environment in which Medicare beneficiaries will be herded into managed care and out of traditional fee-for-service arrangements. Under one of the leading options, Medicare beneficiaries would receive Federal vouchers worth a fixed amount, around $5,100 a year, to enroll in an HMO or other private health plan. They would have to use their own money to make up the difference if the cost exceeded the amount of vouchers, but they could keep most of the savings if they chose less expensive plans. Now, this voucher proposal is just one of the proposals that has been put forth by Republicans on the House Committee on the Budget to try to cut back, if you will, on Medicare. I would like to go through some of this and some of the others that are mentioned. When you talk about a voucher worth $5,100 to enroll in an HMO or other private health care plan, again, you have to make up your own money for the difference. One of the things that a lot of seniors are worried about is that right now Medicare is largely a fee-for-service program, which means that you can go out to the doctor of your choice or to the hospital of your choice, if you happen to live in an area where there are a number of hospitals, and that doctor or hospital performs a service and then they send a bill and Medicare pays for it on what we call a fee-for-service basis. The idea is choice. You have your own choice of doctors. Seniors traditionally had their choice of doctors both when they were working and now as part of the Medicare Program. In many parts of the country, including my own, the seniors do not feel that the HMO's or managed care systems are as good or do not include some of the physicians or hospitals that they may want to go to. But now all of a sudden under this proposal, if it is implemented, they would not have a choice. They basically get a voucher for $5,100 and they can find an HMO that will take them, or they can find another private health plan that operates on the traditional fee-for-service basis. But think about it a minute. Most of these managed care systems or other private health care plans that operate on a fee-for-service basis are not going to be particularly interested in someone who is older, who might have disabilities, who might have some previous condition that is going to make them a high risk individual. How likely is it that they are going to be able to find a plan that satisfies them for that $5,100? Ultimately, many of them are going to have to basically take that additional money out of their pocket if they have it to pay for a plan. And I have to tell you, and I think most people understand that a lot of seniors simply do not have the money. So this idea of the voucher is a serious change, that is being talked about, that would have a major implication and for many seniors might result in them not having health care at all. The next proposal that comes from the Republicans on the Committee on the Budget, and again reading now from the New York Times summary, the Republicans also recommend a stiff financial penalty for new Medicare beneficiaries who refuse to join HMO's. Beginning in 1999, all new enrollees choosing Medicare fee for service would pay a premium $20 higher than that of current Medicare beneficiaries one of the Republican recommendations says. The premium is now $46 a month. So basically what they are saying is that if you enter, for example-- this is not until 1999, but I will use my mom as an example again; she just entered the system within the last month. But let us say she was entering in 1999. If she basically decides that she does not want to go to an HMO or managed care system that limits the doctors or the hospitals, then she has to pay more to continue in a fee-for-service system out of her own pocket. The amount that they are talking about here, $20 higher than that of the current beneficiaries, which is now $46 a month, is significant. But I would maintain that as time goes on, that differential between what the senior is going to be charged if they enter the managed care system versus the fee-for-service system will grow. And the greatest fear that many of the seniors have in my district, the greatest fear that they have is that ultimately, if they are given a choice, which is not really a choice, between a managed care HMO and a fee-for-service system, that if the cost of the fee for service becomes so prohibitive that they cannot pay for it, they are essentially forced into an HMO or managed care system. That is what we are talking about here with this second Republican recommendation. Ultimately the cost of the fee-for-service system would be so expensive that seniors would be forced into an HMO where they would not, given the choice, have their choice of doctors or even hospitals in many cases. The third proposal that comes from the House Republican budget group task force is they would reduce payments to doctors and hospitals, especially teaching hospitals and those that serve large numbers of low-income patients. Well, this is what I would call a reduction in the reimbursement rate. Many of you know that in terms of Medicare, a rate is established to pay for doctors or hospitals by Medicare, and that is what they get reimbursed for the different services that are provided. Some people and some of you, my own seniors, have said to me: So what, the doctors get a lot of money. The hospitals make too much money. So you reduce their reimbursement rate. What do I care, maybe it is good. The bottom line is maybe it is not good, because many hospitals, particularly those who have a high number of seniors, as is the case with my district in New Jersey, are basically dependent on Medicare reimbursement and are just basically managing with the budget they have, because they have so many senior citizens or they have so many poor people. If you reduce the reimbursement rate to hospitals, some hospitals will simply close. Others will not be able to provide the level of service or the quality of service that they are providing now. What happens if you reduce the reimbursement rate to doctors? Some may say ``So what, the doctors make too much money''. The reality is that doctors do not have to take Medicare patients. If the reimbursement rate becomes significantly lower or does not increase as much as it should to keep up with inflation, then a lot of doctors will just say ``I'm not going to take Medicare patients.'' Seniors have already complained to me about how, in many cases, they cannot find a doctor who will take Medicare. If more doctors do not take Medicare, fewer doctors are going to be available to senior citizens. ``The fourth thing that was recommended by the Republicans on the House Committee on the Budget,'' and again I am reading from the New York Times article, ``was to double the amount that beneficiaries must pay for doctors' services before Medicare coverage begins. This is the deductible.'' The annual deductible, now $100, would be raised to $200 and then increased automatically to keep pace with the growth of the program. The deductible has been raised only three times in the 30-year history of Medicare. option increased the deductible. Of course, everyone knows what that means. The deductible goes up, the senior has to pay more out of pocket before they are actually able to take advantage of Medicare. It may sound nice, but most or many seniors simply cannot afford it. What they will do is they will simply forego care, because they know that that care will be less than the deductible that they have to pay out, the last thing in the world that we could possibly want. The fifth thing that was mentioned by this Republican Committee on the Budget, or by Members recommending how to deal with Medicare, is to ``increase the monthly $46 premium by $5 in each of the next 4 years, and then by $6 in 2000 and in each of the following 2 years.'' I assume that what we are talking about here probably is the part B premium that seniors pay for doctors, so again, we are talking about an increased amount of money out of seniors' pockets if they can afford it. There are two more options that I wanted to talk about today that have been suggested by the Republicans on the Committee on the Budget to deal with these changes they have suggested in Medicare. This next one says that ``They would charge higher premiums for beneficiaries with incomes exceeding $70,000 a year. The premium would more than triple, to $164 a month for individuals with more than $95,000 a year, and couples with more than $115,000.'' Here we are talking about means testing. I think many of you know that historically, and certainly when the Medicare program was started under President Lyndon Johnson, that Medicare was not going to be income-based. You paid into it. When you reached the age of 65, you took advantage of it. It did not matter what your income was, it was not meant to be a welfare program. It was for all senior citizens. Now we are talking, under this proposal, of turning Medicare basically into an income-based program, I will call it a welfare program, and basically reneging on the contract that was made with those Americans, that was made 30 years ago by the President then and this Congress, that this was not going to be an income-based program. Some may say ``So what? Changing times, we have to change the reality of things.'' Let me assure you that in those States, and I will use my State as an example, which have a very high cost of living, some of these income categories that are being used, for example, $70,000 a year, I would maintain that as time goes on we will see that level be reduced. If it is now 70, it will go to 60, then to 50, then to 30. Think about people who live in States where the cost of living is very high. These arbitrary numbers that are going to be used, in my opinion, are going to make a lot of people who can really ill afford it, based on this means testing plan, have to pay out of their pocket more money for their health care, when they happen to be senior citizens. It goes against the contract that was made with seniors by this original enacting legislation, and ultimately, I think it will have more and more impact on middle-class seniors. The last thing, and there are many others, I am only citing 6 but I think there are something like 35 recommendations that were put forward by these 4 members of the Committee on the Budget in the letter they sent to the chairman of my Subcommittee on Health and Commerce, but the seventh and last one that I want to mention says ``They will charge patients for a portion of the cost of home health care provided to elderly people residing in their homes. Republicans said such a change would discourage overuse of home health services.'' Again, one of the most serious problems we face now is the need for long-term care for seniors. I think everyone knows that if you can provide seniors with home-based health care, where someone comes into the home to help them get out of bed, to help them clean up, or to help them with the various disabilities that they have, that is a very cheap, preventive way of dealing with health care problems that face the elderly, much better than having to go to the hospital and the costs entailed with a hospital, or a nursing home, or other kinds of institutions. Why in the world would we want to discourage home health care or build in an extra charge for home health care? All that is going to do is discourage seniors from using home health care, or not use it at all if they cannot afford it, and the ultimate cost of that is that people become institutionalized and it costs even more money to the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make here today is very simple. Whether we call it a cut, whether we call it a modification, whatever we call it, of the changes that are being discussed by the House Republicans on the Committee on the Budget, and they are going to be coming before this Congress, this House, next week, they are major changes in the Medicare Program. They have a direct impact on seniors. The bottom line is that they are probably going to result in a lot more money that seniors are going to have to pay out of their pocket, and if they cannot afford it, which many cannot, they are simply not going to have the quality and level of services, or in some cases, may not have any health care at all. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the costs of balancing the budget should be so heavily forced on the elderly within this country. We all know that we have to balance the budget, and I certainly advocate that, but this budget, this budget resolution that is being proposed depends too much on hurting and making it more difficult for seniors, particularly with regard to their health care needs. That is not the way to go about balancing the budget. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk a little bit about some of the Medicaid cuts and respond a little bit to some of the statements that were made about President Clinton's health care proposal. Mr. Speaker, I talked initially about the Medicare program. I want to also talk a little bit about the Medicaid cuts or changes that are being discussed. Before I do that, though, I want just to take 5 minutes or less to just give some statements that have been made by some of the associations that deal with senior citizens about what these Medicare and Medicaid cuts or changes are going to mean for the elderly. I just want to highlight a few of these things, because sometimes I feel if I make a statement, maybe some people will believe it, but it comes from some of the associations that represent senior citizens, perhaps it will be more believable. The American Association of Retired Persons, which, of course, has been, I guess, the leading opponent of some of these changes, they have said that Medicare was hardly discussed in the last election, and there was certainly no mandate from the electorate to change the system. I think that is obvious. This is not something that was part of any political discussion that I know of in terms of anyone running for office last year. ``Medicare cuts would mean that over the next 5 years, older Americans would pay at least $2,000 more out of pocket than they would pay under current law, and over the next 7 years they would pay $3,489 more out of pocket. The total number of Medicaid beneficiaries who would use long-term care services could reach $1.7 million in the year 2000.'' That is from the AARP. The National Council of Senior Citizens says ``The levels of the cuts in Medicare contemplated by the Senate and House Budget Committees will not just devastate the finances of millions of older citizens, but more importantly, they will devastate the hopes for a secure and healthy old age for all Americans.'' The Older Women's League says: We receive hundreds of letters from women who are already forced to choose between paying for food and rent and buying much needed medicine that is not covered by their Medicare. Substantial cuts in Medicare will literally take food out of the mouths of these older women. I could not agree with that more. When I have my forums in my district, the overwhelming majority of the seniors who show up are women. Most of the people that are particularly scared are women. Many of them are just making ends meet. If you talk about additional deductibles or copayments or out-of-pocket expenses, they are care. Last, Mr. Speaker, and I mention it because I happen to be a Roman Catholic, the Catholic Health Association says that ``Budget cuts of such magnitude in Medicare and Medicaid would attack the very fiber of these programs, and in fact, decimate them.'' As I think many know, Catholic Charities is one of many nonprofits that provides medical care to people who do not otherwise have it, and anyone who has visited a Catholic Charities knows that a lot of the people, really significant numbers of the people that are serviced by them are senior citizens, as well as children. I would like to now go into Medicaid, which I guess has not gotten as much attention as the proposed changes in Medicare, but the Medicaid program, which is the program for poor people in this country, mostly people who are receiving some sort of welfare of assistance, is also severely cut, some would say more severely challenged, in terms of the amount of money that is going to be available over their next few years than Medicare under this Republican budget proposal. A lot of people think that Medicaid is just, you know, a program for people under 65, and that somehow seniors do not take advantage of Medicaid because they are covered by Medicare. The reality is that for many seniors who do not have the assets to pay for long-term health care, if they are poor enough, or if they become poor because they have to spend money on health care, Medicaid ends up financing much of their long-term care, particularly nursing home care, as well as home health care, because that is not provided or covered by Medicare. The cuts in Medicaid will also severely impact seniors who need long- term care. I don't think anybody needs to be reminded of the nursing home crisis we have in this country. Again, if you significantly cut back on the amount of money that is available, I would argue that the quality of care is certainly going to decrease. Medicaid is basically a combined Federal-State health insurance program, primarily for poor women and children, the blind, and the disabled. It is the largest provider of long-term care coverage for the elderly and the disabled. Two-thirds of the costs of the Medicaid Program go to provide both acute and long-term care to the blind, the disabled, and the elderly. Most Medicaid beneficiaries are children, and children have the lowest rate of health insurance in the country. so therefore, being without Medicaid insurance among children would be catastrophic. The cuts proposed in the Medicaid Program are massive. They are substantially larger than the total annual Federal costs of the Medicaid Program. The elderly and disabled will bear the brunt of these cuts, because that is where most of the money is spent. Many senior citizens who have spent their life savings on long-term care are enrolled in the Medicaid Program, which assures that their long-term care can continue. With the proposed Medicaid cuts, these seniors will either be forced out of absolutely vital long-term care, or their families will have to pick up the costs of maintaining care. These cuts amount to a huge hidden tax increase on the families of those who need or may need long-term care. Where are we shifting these costs? We are shifting these costs to the families that have to care, in many cases, for the elderly. We are going to shift these costs to the States, because some States will decide that they cannot let people just go without health care, particularly seniors, so they will have to kick in their tax dollars, ultimately resulting in higher costs and taxes on the State level, or ultimately, also, the burden goes to the local communities and the local property taxpayers. Because Medicaid costs are shared with the States, cuts of the magnitude that are being talked about here will force States to bear even larger Medicaid costs, leading to substantial increases in State taxes. If States are unable to meet that, people will lose coverage. The uninsurance rate, particularly among children, will explode, forcing up costs for everyone else. Cost shifting will get much worse. I think we have to understand that the Medicaid Program has basically brought primary and preventive care to people who would not otherwise get health care, and without the Medicaid Program, or with some of the changes that are being proposed, we are going to see a lot of people who are poor simply not getting coverage.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate what the gentleman from West Virginia said and it is very true. The average cost of a nursing home now, the last I looked, was something like $30,000 to $40,000 a year, at least in my area. It might be less elsewhere. How many middle-income people can afford that? Essentially what they do as you described is that they will pay private maybe for a year or two, depending on how much money they have, and then will go on Medicaid because they won't have any money left. They will end up being in a nursing home paid for by Medicaid a lot longer than that year or two that they happen to be paying out of their pocket. I don't particularly like that spend-down system that exists right now, but the bottom line is it depends heavily on Medicaid. From the information that I actually had here before me, the bottom line is that most of the Medicaid dollars actually are going to pay for programs like that for the elderly. We are talking about middle-income people, if you will, that become impoverished because of the cost of nursing home care. I appreciate those comments. The last thing that I wanted to talk about today, and again this is partially in response to some of my Republican colleagues who spoke earlier today, and were somewhat critical, I thought, of President Clinton and his response to the issue of changes in Medicare that have been proposed by the Republicans on the budget committees. The reason that I have to take issue with some of the statements that were made is because the President's position has been very clear for several years now. It is essentially that changes in Medicare and any savings that could be achieved in Medicare costs basically should only be made in the context of an overall health care reform. I totally agree with that premise that the President has put forth. The idea is, and he basically expounded on it the last year or two when he put forth his health care reform proposals, is that in the overall context of health care reform, we could probably save some money on Medicare costs, but at the same time we would expand Medicare to provide more services. The President actually talked about expanding Medicare to cover prescription drugs, to cover certain long-term care in certain circumstances. His idea was not to cut or modify Medicare and take that money and use it for other things. His idea was that the Medicare dollars that are saved would be used to expand Medicare, particularly for preventative services like and to try to basically save some money as part of the overall reform that he was making for all Americans. I think it is very, very unfair for some of the Republicans to suggest that somehow the President is not being responsive on the Medicare issue. He has been, he was, and when he was, he did not receive cooperation from the Republicans. I just wanted to highlight that if I could by a letter that was sent to Speaker Gingrich I believe last week from Leon Panetta, the Chief of Staff for President Clinton, and just to read a couple of paragraphs if I could: Last year, the President spoke directly to the nation about the need to reform our health care system and made clear that further federal health savings needed to take place in the context of serious health care reform. In December 1994, the President wrote the Congressional leadership and made clear that he would work with Republicans to control Health care spending in the context of serious health care reform. The President repeated this offer in his 1995 State of the Union speech. The President has long stated that making significant cuts in Medicare and Medicaid outside the context of health care reform will not work. Such dramatic cuts could lead to less coverage and lower quality, much higher costs to poor and middle income Medicare recipients who cannot afford them, a coercive Medicare program, and cost-shifting that could lead to a hidden tax on the health premiums of average Americans. That is why it is essential to deal with the Medicare Trust Fund in the context of health care reform that protects the integrity of the program, expands not reduces coverage, and protects choice as well as quality and affordability. I could not agree more with what the President suggests, that whenever changes we make and whatever costs are saved in Medicare have to be looked at in the context of overall health care reform. Incidentally and importantly for me because I happen to live in the State of New Jersey and represent part of New Jersey, there was an editorial in the Star Ledger, New Jersey's largest daily, on May 3 that basically criticized the Republican budget proposals and was critical of the fact that the Republicans did not want to deal with Medicare in the context of overall health care reform. Mr. Speaker, if I could just read parts of this because I think it is so telling in terms of the debate we are about to engage in: The editorial is entitled, ``Messin' With Medicare.'' About halfway down it says: The Republicans say President Clinton wants to hold Medicare reform ``hostage'' to a broader plan for national health care reform. Which would be the wise thing to do. You can't mess with Medicare without affecting other parts of health care and spending, certainly not in New Jersey where Medicare spends $5.2 billion a year on 1.1 million beneficiaries, ninth highest in both categories. Consider the proposal to raise the age of eligibility for Medicare to 70 so the program can save about five years on each persons' medical bills. I did not even mention that. That is another option, I suppose, that you just raise the age before you get Medicare benefits. That means shifting some of the $5.2 billion to employer- paid health plans to cover all the years Medicare doesn't. If not, retirees will either have to pay their own way or go without coverage and care as they enter the stage of life when they are likely to need both most. Think of how many would come of age for Medicare just in time for the program to pay the consequences of years of government neglect of problems they've had since they were young but which went untreated for lack of health care insurance. Hospitals and doctors can treat them during those years and try to recover their own cost by dropping it into everybody else's bill. If I could just interject. What the Star Ledger editorial is saying, that if you make these changes, cost shiftings are going to occur essentially for everyone else in the private sector. Private insurance is switching to managed care. Health maintenance organizations and other insurance plans send their members to the doctors and hospitals which give big discounts, discounts that leave no margin to cover what Medicare does not. Shifting senior citizens into managed care is another reform proposal. The HMOs say they can do more for less because they hunt for discounts and manage how many tests and procedures and hospitalizations are ordered. If the U.S. government doesn't have enough muscle to force prices down through Medicare, it's hard to imagine a private plan that would at least not without cutting benefits drastically. We face the prospect that Washington may give seniors the ``choice'' of switching to ill-defined managed care or staying with traditional Medicare at an increased out-of- pocket cost too onerous to make it a real choice. That is really what my seniors are most afraid of which is, are they going to be given the option of some kind of managed care system which basically is ill-defined and which does not provide the coverage that they need, or, which is more likely, they are going to be staying in Medicare and paying more and more out of their own pocket in order to continue as part of the program. Of course that really begs the ultimate question, which is, if you are not in a position because you are too poor or lower middle class that you simply can't pay those additional out-of-pocket costs that are the consequence of these Republicans proposals, you are going to go without medical care or preventative care, get sicker and not be cared for. That, I think, is the ultimate result of these Republican proposals. I hope that as we go into the debate over the next week or so that this comes out and that the American public is able to realize what these changes, if you will, in the Medicare program that the Republicans are talking about really mean. I think the changes are major and I think we have to do whatever we can in this House to prevent them from becoming law.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I would point out to the gentleman that, you know, again, from a procedural point of view, that unfunded mandate legislation, of course, does not go into effect until next year. But I would maintain there is adequate funding in this bill, at least the authorization for it, to provide adequate funding to the States to do this type of monitoring.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just also want to indicate support for the amendment of the gentleman. As those of you who listened to the debate on my amendment previously know, I had advocated establishing a trust fund with fines and penalties that are received from violations for enforcement purposes. But I think that the purpose of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Visclosky], in setting up this trust fund is certainly just as valid. There is no question that we need more funding for cleanup, and I would like to see nothing better than to have the money that comes from violations of the Clean Water Act placed into a fund that would be used for more cleanup rather than go to the general Treasury. I think that is the way to go in order to provide additional funding for cleanup.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that what we are basically talking about here are bad actors, repeat offenders, and in the case of the bad actors or the repeat offenders of their discharge permits, we are imposing mandatory minimum penalties, and then they, for the more serious violations, those penalties increase on a daily basis to a maximum penalty which is much higher than what is currently in the law. The idea is basically very similar to what is done in a lot of statutes where we want to make sure that bad actors have to pay a fine that is commensurate with the economic benefit that they have received. Otherwise, what is the point of having the Clean Water Act? In regard to the State administrative actions, I know the gentleman on the other side mentioned that he did not like the idea of State administrative actions, that they should be able to preclude citizens' suits, but I would point out that in many cases courts have construed the preclusion provision so broadly that almost any State administrative action, no matter how inadequate, has had a preclusive effect on citizens' suits. So we want citizens to be able to bring actions where necessary to enforce the act, and again, in the past those citizen action suits have really done a lot to enforce the Clean Water Act and should be encouraged.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to improve enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Based on EPA data, almost 20 percent of U.S. major industrial, municipal and Federal facilities were in significant noncompliance with their Clean Water Act permits. The EPA inspector general has found that penalty assessments are not sufficient to recover the economic benefits gained by noncompliance with the Clean Water Act. Small fines and lengthy time limits to achieve compliance promote an it-pays-to-pollute mentality, and failure to recover economic benefits places those who comply with the law at an economic disadvantage relative to those who are in violation of the law. The Clean Water enforcement program should be strengthened to promote greater incentives to comply with the law. Mr. Chairman, in New Jersey we have on the books as a State law Clean Water enforcement amendments, which became law in May of 1990, that increase enforcement. In March of 1995, the New Jersey department of environmental protection released their 4th annual report of the Clean Water Enforcement Act in New Jersey. Their findings reflect a significant decrease in penalty assessments as a result of increased compliance. The number of significant noncompliers declined from 70 to 44 in a given year. Basically, the enforcement provisions in this amendment require State programs to establish mandatory minimum penalties for serious violations of and significant noncompliance with the Clean Water Act. They require penalties recover at least economic benefits, and they improve and increase the frequency of discharge reporting. In addition to the enforcement provisions, this amendment would remove obstacles to citizen suits. The 1972 Clean Water Act included authority for citizens to sue polluters, thereby recognizing the U.S. EPA and the States might be unable or unwilling to aggressively pursue all violators, and citizen suits are a proven enforcement tool. According to a U.S. Department of Justice statistical report, private citizen actions over 5 fiscal years have recovered approximately $11 million in penalties and interest. Basically, what we do in this amendment is allow citizens to sue for past violations, overturning a 1987 Supreme Court case which made those kinds of actions more difficult. The amendment also increases citizens' rights to know, through posting notice requirements and fish consumption advisories. There are currently no Federal requirements the public be notified when water quality standards are violated. There are no uniform requirements for determining the nature and extent of fish and shellfish bans. Essentially, we have posting of notice requirements for areas where you should not swim or fish, and also fish consumption advisories. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would point out the amendment establishes a national Clean Water trust fund to carry out inspections and enforcement pursuant to the act. The idea is the penalties we would get for increased enforcement would go into this fund, and they would be used to carry out the purposes of the act. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this amendment be considered. I think that one of the most important things we can do is increase enforcement of the Clean Water Act, and that is the primary purpose of this amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, Amendment No. 41.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be brief. My only point is essentially I believe that this amendment, more than anything else, is what I call a right-to-know amendment. In other words, when people are swimming or bathing, they should know whether the water quality is clean enough. I do not think it matters whether you are in New Jersey or any other State. The problem is, without some sort of national standard and program for testing, with flexibility for the individual States about how they go about it, there is no way for a bather or swimmer to know when they are swimming whether the water quality is adequate.

Mr. PALLONE. I would say, first of all, again, I would point out that this amendment is exactly the same as legislation that passed in the last two funding provided in the bill for the grant programs is basically in there to provide adequate funding for the States on a matching grant basis to do this kind of monitoring. Now, again, I am not saying a lot of States do not already do this. Some do, some do not. What we are trying to do is provide uniform criteria and provide the States with some funding so that they can administer the program.