Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, the gentleman makes an excellent point that the Cold War certainly is over. The Soviet Union is not a threat to us right now, although they may become a threat again. We do not know where it may be 10 years from now; it is in some uproar over there right now. As Members of the Committee on National Security, we have been debating a very hot issue in our committee, and that is Bosnia. I bet if you took a vote among the three of us, I think all three of us would be voting the same way of having very grave doubts about whether or not we ought to ever send troops to Bosnia. Unfortunately, the President appears to be headed in that direction. We have airplanes flying over there right now. We had one airplane shot down over there. That pilot I think took some resolve in the fact that he knew that his rescue team was going to be Americans flying in there in American-made equipment and American-maintained equipment. Those are the type of things that our military personnel right now rely on. They know that their equipment is maintained by the very best that America has to offer, and it always will be, as long as we maintain the depot structure in all of our military branches. But if we ever get outside of it, if we lose control of it, we will never get that control back again. Let me just say that I thank both of you for participating in this tonight, and I think we are about to wind down, and as the gentleman from Utah said a little earlier, the three of us, and I would venture to say that most everybody in this body, intends to take this issue head-on with the Department of Defense and with the White House and we are going to win it. We are going to ensure that our depots are maintained and that our men and women that wear the uniforms in this country always have equipment that is maintained by military personnel in the best manner possible. Thank you very much.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. The gentleman makes a good point on the issue of privatization. We happen to all three be Republicans. We believe in privatization. We think we need to get the Federal Government more out of our daily lives and out of our business lives than we have right now. I think all three of us are totally committed to trying to downsize the Federal Government. We think the Federal Government is doing too many things now that we ought not to be doing. But there is one key difference in privatizing military depots and privatizing other agencies where the Federal Government is involved. That issue is exactly what the gentleman just spoke to. In times such as Desert Storm, times of Korea and times of Vietnam, and going all the way back in every war that we have fought, we have had military personnel going to the scene of the battles, going to the location where wars were fought and making sure that our tanks ran, that they started when we turned the switch, that our airplanes flew, that our ships rode high in the seas to provide the security that this country demands. If we do not have that security, then we will never remain the world's greatest military power. Thus, we will never remain the world's greatest country that we are right now. I think it is absolutely ludicrous to think that we can go to the private sector and say, okay, you hire folks, train them, and tell them that if war breaks out, they have to go dodge bullets, they have to go stand on the front lines and make repairs to the vehicles and the airplanes and the ships or whatever it may be that the military is going to require, and you have to get those people on line and have them ready to go and dodge those bullets; we know that is not going to happen. We have good, qualified, trained military personnel to carry out those functions now. That is the difference in the privatization that we are talking about right now and the privatization of other agencies that we have in this country. Mr. Speaker, a good example of privatization is Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae is something that was privatized years ago. It works well. It got the government out of that particular business of financing. The government was losing money in it. We turned it over to the private sector. It works. Let us not do something that is going to make us look back 10 years from now and say gee whiz, why in the world did we ever think that we could turn the maintaining of military equipment over to the private sector and cost the lives of our young men and women who are going to the forefront of the battle.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. As the gentleman mentioned, this is a bipartisan issue, too. This has happened to Democratic Presidents, it has happened to Republican Presidents. When they were called and asked, ``Why are you violating the law?'' when they do not have a response to it, that they have to be dealt with accordingly.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. No.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Also what if Tinker Air Force Base and/or Robbins Air Force Base and/or Hill Air Force Base had been closed? Did you gentlemen receive any indication that the President would have stepped forward and, said ``Mr. Watts, we want to privatize in place out at Oklahoma City and keep your employees out there and continue to pay these folks?'' Was that ever mentioned to you?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. If it was not crystal clear, why was not the privatization-in-place issue brought up by the White House prior to the time the BRACC decision was made?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Those are the only two options he had.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. The President had the right to either accept the recommendations of BRACC or reject the recommendation of BRACC. There was not option one way or the other.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Well, what the BRAC commission decided was that it was time to look very closely at the five Air Force depots and make a decision as to whether or not any of them ought to be closed as opposed to the downsizing in place of all five, as was recommended by the Air Force. The Air Force wanted to keep them all five open just in case there was a major outbreak of war. And they had a plan designed where they thought they could keep operating, but the BRAC commission thought that was not the right thing to do. The BRAC commission took the numbers that the gentleman has on the chart right there and went down the list of each of the eight criteria that the BRAC commission set forth. And they made a decision based on the consideration of all of those eight criteria that it was in the best interest of this country from a taxpayer standpoint and from a national security standpoint that two of those bases be closed, that we could handle all of the depot maintenance capacity at Hill Air Force Base, at Tinker Air Force Base and at Robins Air Force Base. Based upon their decision to do that, they made the recommendation that those two bases be closed. And it was right interesting what evolved from that decision, which was made back July 1, I believe, is the date that that was done and the President had about 15 days to come back and either accept that recommendation along with the BRAC recommendation with respect to all other bases all across the country, or he could reject it. And then Congress had the same option of either accepting it or rejecting it. And it was interesting that the president started playing politics immediately. There are 53 electoral votes in California. There is 40 something in Texas. Those two States are very important to any President who wants to get reelected. He knew that this would have a negative, closing of those two bases would have a negative effect on his reelection campaign in 1996. So what did he do? He began immediately playing the role of what can I do to preserve my position with respect to those two huge military facilities and hopefully be able to save the votes that are going to be necessary for me to secure the electoral votes in California and Texas. And I have in front of me the letter that the President wrote back to the Congress when he reported back on his decision following the BRAC commission's recommendation. I would like to read just a couple of sentences out of there because we want to get both of you gentlemen to talk about what privatization in place is and why we are here tonight talking about it. The President said as follows: In a July 8, 1995 letter to Deputy Secretary of Defense White, Chairman Dixon confirmed that the commission's recommendations permit the Department of Defense to privatize the work loads of the McClellan and Kelly facilities in place or elsewhere in their respective communities. The ability of the Defense Department to do this mitigates the economic impact on those communities while helping the Air Force avoid the disruption in readiness that would result from relocation [[Page H 11824]] as well as preserve the important defense work forces there. First of all, let me just say, did the gentleman from Oklahoma have any conversation with members of the BRAC commission concerning this issue of privatizing in place that the President has referred to here?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, let us put this in the perspective of a business decision, which really it is. This body runs the world's largest business. Unfortunately, if every other business in this country was run the way Congress has been run for the last 25 years, there would not be many left, because we have been spending more than we make. What we have been talking about is the fact that we have capacity at all of the five Air Force depots all across the country to do a certain amount of work. We have capacity of 100 percent of the work that each base can produce. But what the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] is saying is that at his base he is producing 42 percent of what he could produce. That is an excess of 58 percent up there, and it is about the same all the way across at all of our bases. It only made sense for the BRAC commission to say, hey, something is not right here. We are costing the American taxpayer money by having all of these bases open and all of this excess capacity out there that is costing so much just to open the gates every morning. What we have to do is, from a business standpoint, we have got to close some of those bases to narrow that capacity down and try to provide for work to be done during surge periods, such as Desert Storm or any other catastrophe that might arise or war that may break out somewhere, we have to leave capacity there for that, but we can do that and, at the same time, save the American taxpayer billions and billions of dollars. And this is [[Page H 11823]] the way we do it. We consolidate the work at less depots than what we have now. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Utah said, the Navy has done it, the Army has done it, and it was time for the Air Force to do it, and that is what we have done.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I have not yet, but I will take a moment to do that. As my colleagues are both deservedly proud of the work done at Tinker and the work done at Hill, I cannot tell them how proud I am to represent the Eighth District of Georgia, which is the home of Robins Air Force Base in Warner Robins, GA. Robins Air Force Base has a $2.1 billion economic impact on the State of Georgia, and all of central Georgia sort of evolves around Robins. It is the largest industrial employer in the State of Georgia. I get filled with a sense of real pride every time I go on that military base and I see those men and women dressed in blue, knowing that not only the military but the civilian personnel at Robins Air Force Base are absolutely totally and firmly committed to ensure that they do the very best work on every job assigned to them. At Robins Air Force Base we have worldwide management and engineering responsibility for several of the workhorses in Desert Storm, the F-15 Eagle, the C-130 Hercules, the C-141 Starlifter, home of the electronic warfare and avionic centers. We do all the maintenance work on the helicopters operated by the United States Air Force, and we do all special operations aircraft. It was quite ironic that Robins Air Force Base competed with every other Air Force Base in the World over the last couple of years and received the award as the best Air Force Base in the whole world. It was really ironic that that announcement was made back in the spring, and the next week Robins Air Force Base was placed on the BRAC Commission list to be considered for closing. Mr. Speaker, thank goodness we had a great experience in going through the BRAC process. As I worked with each of these gentlemen and some other gentlemen that were involved frankly in representing Kelly and McClellan, it was competition that we all participated in. Our bases participated and our bases were fortunate to come out on top. We want to talk a little bit about what happened in that process and why we are here considering the privatization in place. But let us be clear about the fact that the personnel at McClellan Air Force Base and the Kelly Air Force Base are very capable and competent, but there are just valid reasons why bases need to be closed occasionally. We went through the BRAC process. That is part of the reason why we are here tonight to talk about the privatization in place, and I yield back to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I appreciate the gentleman putting this group together. Mr. Speaker, as I look around here, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] has joined us to add a little western flavor, but the six of us here tonight come from different parts of the country. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] and I are pretty close, but we are at opposite ends of the State. We come from varied backgrounds. We come from probably different socioeconomic backgrounds. Certainly the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham] comes from a much higher background than the rest of us. But if those watching tonight would look at us, we mirror the freshman [[Page H 11672]] class. One thing that we have in common is that is we were all sent here with a message that came forth on November 8, 1994, and that is to make changes, to change the way Washington does business. Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting when we look back at the presidential campaign of 1992, there was another guy that campaigned on change and making reforms, and that person was Bill Clinton. He campaigned on making a tax cut for the middle-class and campaigned on downsizing the Federal Government. The classic difference and the major difference between Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992 and our campaign in 1994 is that we have produced. He did not produce. He could not provide the leadership, even with a totally Democratic House, or a majority Democratic House, and a majority Democratic Senate. He could not produce. Well, we have come here and in 10 months now, it is hard to believe that we have been here 10 months now, but we have done exactly what we told the American people we were going to do. Mr. Speaker, balancing the budget of this country was a cornerstone of my campaign and I dare say that the five of my colleagues here built their campaigns around that also, because it is just so crucial that we do that. I am sure that they all would agree with me that they thought this country was in terrible financial shape while they were campaigning, but when they got to Washington and became Members of this body, they found out it is much, much worse than what they ever imagined it to be, and it truly is. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday was a very historic night. I sat on the floor with the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] on January 26, on the night we passed the amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget, and Charlie and I saw grown men stand up and cheer and holler and clap, because everybody came forth and worked together to pass that balanced budget amendment, which was certainly a key. However, last Thursday night was a much more important night even than that night. Last Thursday we delivered on that promise to balance the budget of this country. It has not been easy. It has been very, very difficult. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham] and I had some independent concerns that required us to do some soul searching and trying to figure out ways that things could be adjusted so that we could support the balanced budget amendment and the reconciliation package, and I am sure the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] may have had that concern also; that they had to answer some questions there. Mr. Speaker, we all came together. We worked hard and were able to come up with a reconciliation package that, gee whiz, it has welfare reform in it, totally overhauling the welfare system in this country, and overhauling the Medicare system. It makes it stronger and preserves it not only for the seniors in this country that are now the beneficiaries of Medicare, but for those baby boomers, those of us who are going to be eligible for Medicare one of these days. We now know it is going to be there when those folks get there. We have got tax reform in there. We have reform of agricultural programs. This is a huge, huge reform package that we have undertaken and put together over the last 10 months. It is something that our friends and colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle simply would not do, or could not do, over the last 25 years. That is what is so really truly amazing about it. Mr. Speaker, I can tell what it means to the folks in my district. We had a little Medicare special order, Mr. Norwood and myself, a couple of weeks ago, and it was a very exciting night to me. An hour before I came to the floor, I found out that I am going to be having my first grandchild. I said that night when that grandchild is born next spring, he or she is going to owe $187,000 in interest as his or her part of the interest on the national debt. Well, by what we did last Thursday night, we are going to cut that back by $12,000 over the next 7 years. That is a start to moving us in the right direction of cutting back that huge interest payment that all of us are going to leave for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. You know again I alluded earlier that we all come from different backgrounds. Another thing that we do have in common though is the fact that all of us came out of small business backgrounds, whether it was farming, or real estate, or dentistry, and I know the gentleman from Arizona was in county government, but we all had to worry about finances, we had to worry about making sure that at the end of the month when we went to the bank we were in the black, and we had to tell that banker why we were not in the black if we were not in the black. And one way that we have gone about approaching the fact of getting the Federal Government's bottom line in the black at the end of our term in Congress is that we have looked at every single way that we can cut expenses, and we talked about cutting out departments, we have talked about the fact that the Federal bureaucracy is bloated, and it truly is. Again it is something you cannot really appreciate until you are here in the position that we are in. But again, President Clinton talked about this during his campaign in 1992, and what did he do about it? Nothing. We talked a lot about downsizing the Federal Government as one of the basic philosophies of the Republican Party. What did we do about it? In our budget reconciliation package we are going to completely cut out the Department of Commerce. We do not need it over there. We are going to cut it out. That is another way we are going to go about downsizing the Federal Government to make sure that at the end of our term in Congress that we are moving toward balancing the budget of this country so that in the year 2002 we will not have to worry about how much money we were spending in Congress, we know that is going to be taken care of because we are going to eliminate it, and it is just simply another way that we are moving toward balancing the budget of this country and being responsible and being reactive to why the people send us up here.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I was tending to business in my district yesterday, which caused me to miss rollcall votes 714, 715, and 716. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on approving the Journal, ``yes'' on H.R. 2070, and ``yes'' on H.R. 2353.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. If they like it or try it and do not like it, they can go back. You alluded to HMO's, health maintenance organizations as being in effect right now in your area. Is that another option that we are going to broaden under our plan?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Is that going to cost senior citizens any more money than what they are paying today?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Very briefly, you make an excellent point. The point being that the folks on the other side that are opposing this plan have stooped to an all time low level. I happened to be in the chair a little bit earlier in the evening when Jim Greenwood came down, after sitting in the office and, as you said, boiling for a while, you came down to the floor. You could have sat up there and just turned your TV off, but you did not do that. You wanted the American people to know the truth. You came to the floor of the House to engage the folks on the other side of the aisle who were not telling the truth about what happened and how it happened. I would like for you to comment on what reaction you got from the folks when you offered to come down here and engage in debate tonight.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for a second. The gentleman is talking about these number of hearings, 10 in the Committee on Commerce, 36 in the Ways and Means. Is the gentleman talking about 30 minute hearings, or hour-long hearings?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, why are we here doing this today? Why are we talking about Medicare? Why are we talking about reforming Medicare? The reason we are talking about reforming Medicare is because we as a Republican Conference are absolutely, totally and firmly committed to balancing the budget of this country by the year 2002. It no longer is a question of should we do that; it is simply a question of how we are going to do it, because it is absolutely necessary. It is necessary for our children and our grandchildren, and I say that with particular pride tonight. I talked during my campaign about my daughter and son-in-law, who are trying to live the American dream. They are part of what I came to Washington for, to balance the budget. Tonight I just found out, or late this afternoon, I am going to be a grandfather for the first time. That is exciting to me, to know that I have a more vested interest than ever before in seeing the budget of this country balanced. One way we have got to do that is to have Medicare reform. As the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] showed you on this chart up here, and I want to stick this back up for just a second, this is exactly what is going to happen to Medicare. That is not a Republican diagram. That is a diagram that was put forth by the Medicare trustees, the trustees that are in part appointed by President Clinton. We have a document signed by three Cabinet members of President Clinton's Cabinet that tells us if we do not reform Medicare, that next year, in 1996, the Federal Government will spend more money in Medicare expenses than we take into the Medicare Trust Fund, that in the year 2002, the Medicare Trust Fund will be broke and the only way we are going to be able to pay for current Medicare benefits is out of the general funds of the Treasury. You can see what it does by the year 2004. If you want your taxes raised by $150 billion in the year 2004, then you ought to be opposed to this plan to reform Medicare. But if you want to protect and preserve Medicare and save it for the senior citizens of this country, then you need to be very aware of the changes that are being proposed and the fact we are going to protect and preserve it. Now, we have got two choices when it comes to Medicare. Number one, we can put our head in the sand. We can let things go on like they are. We can let this happen to the citizens of this country, or we can reform Medicare. We can make the necessary changes that will protect that system, not only for the folks who currently receive Medicare benefits, but for the senior citizens and junior citizens who will be receiving those benefits down the road. Now, I was very interested in the comments that our colleagues on the other side have been making for the last hour. They have alluded time after time to the fact that Republicans are not listening. Well, let me tell you, I am not listening in Washington, D.C. I will be honest with you. I am straightforward about that. I am not listening in Washington, DC. I am not holding hearings on the lawn of the Capitol in Washington, DC. I go home every single weekend. I was home all week last week. I was in places like Moultrie, Georgia, like Dolan, Georgia, like Sylvester, like Irwinville, like Willacoochee, like Douglas, talking to senior citizens about their concerns on Medicare and about what we are proposing to do to reform Medicare, to ensure that it is maintained. I have been sending out questionnaires, not to folks in Maryland and Virginia, but folks in my district, in middle and south Georgia. This is just a sample of the returns that I have gotten from folks in my district that I am talking to on a daily basis, not in Washington, DC, but in places like Macon, Georgia and Tifton, Georgia. And I want to just tell you some of the comments I have heard from those folks. I picked out just a sampling of the questionnaires. This first one is from Mr. and Mrs. R. J. Otten in Tifton, Georgia. We asked a question about do you understand the Republican plan to reform Medicare and what it does. This is what the Ottens had to say. ``This plan would lower the rate of increase for the Medicare budget from 10 percent to 6 percent a year. When the liberal media says Republicans want to cut the Medicare budget, they are lying, plain and simple.'' This next response is from Phil and Jo Martin in Lake Park, Georgia, down in Lowndes County. ``We will have more options to choose from to provide medical care and save money doing it. It needs to be done and soon,'' with an explanation point. This next one is from Dave and Judy Dresner in Macon, Georgia. ``It is an honest, credible effort to save a program that is helping folks. This next one is from Mr. A. K. Garman in Warner Robbins, Georgia. ``I believe this problem has been put off for years, and each year of delay only adds to the problem. Get it under control now, or it will never come,'' exclamation point. That is the people that I have been listening to. I have been listening to the people in my district who receive Medicare, who are paying funds into the Medicare Trust Fund and who expect to receive those benefits down the road. We have got to do what we are doing, and we are moving in a positive direction. Now, as these responses indicate, the Republican plan offers several options. Let us make one thing perfectly clear. Anybody, any senior citizen who now is covered by Medicare, will have the right to receive exactly the same benefits they are receiving now under our plan. Pure and simple, if you like what you have got, you can keep it. If you would rather have something different for those folks who will be moving into the Medicare age over the next several years, you will have an option to choose from several different [[Page H 10041]] plans. Those options are going to be there, and without alluding to them, I am going to let my fellow Georgian, Mr. Charlie Norwood, from the Tenth District of Georgia talk about specifics of the plan, and also I hope he will allude to these arrests that were referred to earlier by our friends on the other side.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. You have been one of the leaders in devising this plan. I sort of know the highlights of it. I would appreciate it if you and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] who serve on the committee, would pitch in. As I understand it, what we are going to do, No. 1, we are going to offer every senior citizen the same Medicare program they have got right now. We have mentioned that a couple of times. That is an absolute. Secondly, we are going to provide what is called a provider service network, where hospitals and physicians will be able to get together and form a group, and they will be able to offer certain services to individuals. They will be able to sell those services to any group out there.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. The tax you are referring to, the Medicare tax that currently is in existence, goes into a trust fund. It is a fund that is set aside to solely pay for Medicare benefits and nothing else. That is why there is no relationship between tax reform and Medicare, there is simply no relationship. That is trust money.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. You do not mean the Federal Government is going to have to respond to the patient?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, on September 14, I introduced a bill to correct a problem which has caused great difficulty for industry in general, and the wood preserving industry in particular. Wood preserving is an important industry in my home State of Georgia, as well as in the home States of many of the bill's co-sponsors. Under current Federal regulations, many industries, including the wood preserving industry are required to report as generated hazardous wastes, large quantities of reused materials. These materials are never disposed, yet are considered wastes. This bill provides a balanced, reasonable, and fair solution by amending the statutory definition of solid waste--under the Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act [RCRA]--to clearly exempt material that is maintained and reused within the manufacturing process. RCRA was designed to encourage recycling and conservation. My bill would do this by reorganizing industry's extensive efforts to reuse materials. Any regulation promulgated under this act that discourages recycling should be eliminated. Only materials that are discarded should be regulated as wastes. My bill exempts recycled material from the definition of solid waste. These materials would only be subject to the solid waste regulations, and thus the hazardous waste regulations, only if they are discarded. In the wood treating industry, materials not completely reused on site are either treated and discharged under stringent Clean Water Act standards, or are removed from the process and appropriately managed under RCRA. However, materials that are not intended for disposal, and do not become part of the waste disposal problem, should not be considered a hazardous waste. The hazardous waste designation creates a two-fold problem. First, it presents an incorrect picture of the waste generation trend of manufacturers, such as wood preservers. In public documents, it appears as if small plants generate millions of gallons of hazardous waste when, in fact, the majority of the material is recycled and reused in the production process. Second, some States repeatedly tax the recycled preservative solution as hazardous waste each time it is reused, resulting in large tax liabilities that do not reflect the true generation of hazardous waste. [[Page E 1853]] My bill would ease the administrative burden on wood preserving facilities in my district and around the country, on the EPA, and on the States. It would also recognize the extensive environmental recycling efforts of not only the wood preserving industry, but of all affected industries. I hope to have sufficient support to bring this legislation to the House floor under the Regulatory Corrections Day process.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support.