Jim McCrery

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Texas that what we are seeing with the administration is exactly business as usual, and I know that the gentleman is very concerned about balancing budget of this country. He has been a leader in that effort, and he should be concerned that the administration will use tricks, just as the ones that have stated in their veto message, to postpone for yet another year many budget reforms that we need to put in place now, not after the next Presidential election, now. So that, sir, is why we insist on these measures.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the bill (H.R. 2586) to provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just in response to the gentleman's comments, it might be good to know that the day after the Committee on Ways and Means took the action to bring this bill to the floor, the stock market went up some 55 points and interest rates went down. So I think the fact that we have established a drop-dead date for negotiations to take place between the executive and legislative branches has, in fact, had a salutary effect on the markets and we hope to continue this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], one of the most distinguished Members of the Chamber, and chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the subject of this bill, of course, is a short-term extension of the Nation's debt limit. This short-term extension is intended to provide an orderly process, with sufficient time for the Congress and the President to consider the balanced budget bill that will shortly be sent to the President. It is now clear that some type of pressure must be applied to bring the differing views together and to resolve this problem. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2586 would temporarily increase the statutory limit on the public debt to $4.967 trillion. It would do so until December 12, 1995. Under the bill, the limit would then revert to $4.8 trillion. H.R. 2586 also ensures the financial integrity of Government trust funds invested in Government debt obligations subject to the debt limit. Mr. Speaker, this bill today is necessary because the Congress, the legislative branch, under our Constitution, is responsible for authorizing any debt to be incurred by the U.S. Government. That is an obligation which we must take very seriously, and consider very carefully. Some in this Chamber are reluctant to increase the Nation's debt limit at all. I understand that, Mr. Speaker. However, we all recognize that this Government has made commitments and entered into obligations that must eventually be paid, so in an effort to accommodate those obligations and in an effort to accommodate this body and the executive branch with time to deliberate matters of great importance to the country, including balancing this Nation's budget in 7 years, this bill comes to us today. We believe this bill is not only necessary, but entirely appropriate, and we will get into more of the details as the debate continues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2586, the bill about to be considered.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman wanting to obfuscate the issue, but the fact is that part B costs of Medicare are escalating at an unsustainable rate. The President's own trustees say that in their trustees report this year. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman is suggesting is that in the face of escalating costs that are unsustainable, we drop, we reduce the premium. That is the very type of thinking that has gotten this Nation in the trouble that it is in. And so, yes, we are trying to stay at 31.5 percent of program costs.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming back to the well. We are talking about the part B premium. Is the gentleman aware that part B Medicare costs are escalating at a very high rate; 10, 12 percent per year? [[Page H 11900]]

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, as this chart shows, spending on the Medicare system has skyrocketed since 1970. Here we are today and Members can see, if nothing is done, it goes off the chart. In 1970, Medicare spent about $8 billion; in 1994, Medicare spending was about $165 billion. That is an increase of almost 2,100 percent in just 14 years. In the part B side alone, growth rates have been so rapid that outlays of the program have increased 40 percent per enrollee just in the past 5 years. More alarming is that Medicare spending is projected to explode to over $350 billion in 2002. Clearly, this is an unsustainable trend and one that neither seniors nor younger Americans working to support themselves and their families can be asked to underwrite. The financial crisis in the Medicare program is not a short-term cash flow problem, as the Democrats would like the American people to believe. The trustees of the Medicare trust fund, three of whom are President Clinton's own Cabinet members, said in their report on the HI, or part A, trust fund, ``The trust fund fails to meet the trustee's test of long range close actuarial balance by an extremely wide margin.'' Further, the same trustees said in their report on the SMI trust fund, the part B trust fund, ``while in balance on an annual basis, shows a rate of growth of costs which is clearly unsustainable.'' The public trustees of the Medicare program were very clear when they said, ``The Medicare Program is clearly unsustainable in its present form.'' The Democrats in the past have ignored the long-range spending problem of the Medicare Program. Their solution has been to continually raise taxes on working Americans, and that is still their solution. In the years since the enactment of Medicare, the maximum taxable amount has been raised 23 times. Two years ago, the Congress, then controlled by Democrats, raised taxes, Medicare taxes again. All that did was just put another financial burden on the taxpayers and put off the financial crisis in the trust fund for just a few months. Clearly, raising taxes yet again on the American people is not the answer. The Medicare Preservation Act, on the other hand, addresses the out- of-control spending in the Medicare Program by opening up the private health care market to the senior population. By harnessing some of the innovative cost effective and high quality private sector health care delivery options, Medicare beneficiaries will not only have a choice in their health care coverage for the first time, but the Government will also be able to rein in out-of-control Medicare spending. It is a win/ win situation. The Republican plan provides security for not only today's seniors but also lays the groundwork for the retirement of my generation, and it does it without increasing the tax burden on working people.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman stated something that is just incorrect, and it has been stated in the media some. We are not denying payments for anti-nausea drugs for cancer patients. The fact is that we will continue to pay for the intravenous drug that people, the cancer patients, use to fight nausea.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I no longer have the privilege of serving on the Committee on National Security, but I did for several years, and watched carefully the construction of our defense bills as they came to the floor. In my opinion, this bill speaks more intelligently and forthrightly to the issue of anti-ballistic missile defense than any defense bill that has come to the floor since I have come to Congress. The amendments, however, that are to be offered today would put this bill right back in the same framework that it has come to the floor here for the last several years, which restricts our ability to defend ourselves against ballistic missile attacks. That would be a mistake. This bill does not go as far as I would like to go, frankly. I think we ought to abrogate the ABM Treaty. It was signed with a nation that no longer exists. It was designed to deter a threat that has been defused. We need to build missile defenses in this country. The first obligation of any central government is to defend its people.

Mr McCRERY

Mr McCRERY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, the quote that I am given by my constituents back home is that, ``The Federal Government is too big and spends too much.'' I do not hear, when I go back home, ``I pay too little in taxes.'' Every Republican and many Democrats who were here 2 years ago voted against the Clinton tax increase. If 2 years ago you were against the tax increase, why would you not be now for giving back to the people about two-thirds of that tax increase? Instead of trying to create class warfare in America, let us talk about what is or is not sound tax policy. For example, the House recently passed a historic welfare reform bill. Those who oppose welfare reform rightly asked the question: ``Where will the jobs come from for people who lose their welfare benefits?'' Well, this bill begins to address that question. There are a number provisions in this tax reduction bill which will encourage productive investment and creation of private sector jobs. Chief among them is the reduction in the capital gains tax rate. By reducing the tax on capital gains, we reduce the cost of capital; by reducing the cost of capital, we encourage investment, which increases productivity, which allows economic growth without inflation and which, most importantly for Americans who want to work, creates jobs. This tax cut bill gives us a chance to go back in time 2 years and do now what Americans wanted us to do then: Cut spending first. If you voted against the tax increase 2 years ago, then you ought to vote today to repeal most of it. Now is your chance to make right what you said was wrong 2 years ago.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, we limit the terms of the President, and we ought to limit the terms of Members of Congress. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of term limits for Members of Congress. When I first arrived in Congress some 7 years ago, I had mixed feelings about term limits. But since arriving, I have witnessed the House Bank scandal, the House Restaurant scandal, and the House Post Office scandal. I believe all these sad events in the history of our legislative branch are due to the arrogance which results from human beings being in power for too long. For those who contend that term limits run counter to our democratic principles and unduly restrict people's rights, I would point out that the people of this country, in their wisdom, chose to restrict their right to elect a President to only two terms. The people chose to so restrict their rights because they rightfully recognized the danger of allowing the executive branch to be controlled by any one person for too long. The same danger exists in the legislative branch. By not limiting terms of Members of Congress, we expose ourselves to the danger of a few men or women being in power, in positions of influence, in our legislative branch, for too long. We expose ourselves to the danger of the unbridled arrogance which can result from a set of human beings being in power for too long. I believe in the axiom, ``Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'' Mr. Chairman, it is time to impose on our legislative branch the same kind of protection against the accumulation of power and the corruption which results from it that we have imposed on our executive branch of Government.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, this Deal substitute, unfortunately, is just more of the same, micromanaging from a Federal level, trying to maintain the status quo. We cannot afford more of the same in this country with respect to our welfare programs. We must have fundamental change. That is what H.R. 4 represents. Let me talk about one section of this bill, particularly the SSI disability for children program. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment again the good work that some Members on the Democrat side have done. The gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka]; they have done good work. Unfortunately though, Mr. Chairman, I think, when they put together this Deal substitute, they got snookered by some people on their side who did not want to change much about the SSI disability program for children. Yes, the Deal substitute does away with the individualized functional assessment, the IFA, the rather vague qualifying standard that children are getting in on now. But in the next section of their bill they recreate the IFA. They say the commissioner of Social Security must set up a functional equivalent standard. So they are going to call it the FES instead of the IFA. Big deal. No pun intended. That is just going right back to the same vague standard. It invites abuse of the program. Cash. They continue cash for all children on SSI. That is the problem with the program now. At the level where the disability is not so bad that a child must be institutionalized or have the threat of institutionalization they are getting these parents coaching their kids to act crazy. Even in the literature that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] handed out it says we cure the crazy check problem. I say to my colleagues, ``No, you don't. You invite it all over again by leaving that lure of cash out there for the parents.'' The Deal substitute does not fix the problem, they do not fix the IFA. The GAO report right here issued this month says, ``You can't fix it, you can't fix it.''

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. who worked on this amendment--the gentlewoman from New Jersey, as well as the gentlewoman from Connecticut who offered it in committee. I thought it was a good amendment in committee. I voted present, but I have had a chance to look at it since then, and I am prepared to vote for it today and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for his efforts in committee and here on the floor to adopt this. As I told him during the committee, it was new to me. I just had to look at it, and a number of us have, and we are going to support it.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Kansas for that purpose.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Chairman Archer, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to strike the last word to clear up a few things that have been said about the bill in general. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] earlier implied that we are through this amendment micromanaging the States' program. That is nowhere close to the truth. In fact the language of the amendment is as follows: ``Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to vouchers which are provided in lieu of cash benefits and which may be used only to pay for particular goods and services specified by the State as suitable for the care of the child involved.'' As specified by the State; we are not micromanaging a thing, we are giving that power to the States. I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey for his amendment, not because it adds anything to the bill but because it clarifies that the underlying bill gives States the right to use their block grant money to provide services, not cash, but services to children, to women under 18, to women on welfare who have another baby. The bill already allows that, but I congratulate the gentleman for his amendment and making it clear that we do allow that. I want to clear up a couple of other things, one of them is the WIC Program.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his amendment. I think it does clarify that the base bill does in fact allow the States to spend their block grant money on services to women under the age of 18 who have babies out of wedlock, so I think that it is commendable to have that made clear for everyone. With respect to the bill of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] I think it is a huge mistake to say that we are not going to give cash to the teenaged mother, but we are going to give cash to the mother of the teenaged mother. That to me is an even more insidious offer than the current system, when we have a young teenaged mother who is probably living in a home that is already on public assistance, and we tell the head of that household ``We will give you more cash; in fact, not just $70 more for you having another baby, but $500 more for your daughter having a baby.'' That makes no sense at all. I think the Deal bill, however well-intentioned, is even further off base than the current law, so I am glad the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] cleared that up for us, too.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, is petulance a proper form of behavior for a Member of Congress?

Mr. McCRERY. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. With respect to the comments of the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] one more time about what a sweet deal the Deal substitute is, again, the Deal substitute would allow cash benefits to be paid to women and welfare to have an additional child. We think it is simply too important to send the correct message for a change in this country to women who are on welfare, to tell them we are not going to give you cash for additional children. We think that is so important that we must dictate to the States that they cannot use the block grant funds to give additional cash benefits to women who are already on welfare and choose to have another baby. That message has got to be sent; we choose to send it.

Mr. McCRERY. I am glad to yield.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McCRERY. Reclaiming my time, I understand that. We made it clear the States will have that option, but we say our system has failed for too long by encouraging people on welfare to continue in that status, by holding out the lure of cash benefits from the Government to have more children. That is wrong. We are going to correct it.

Mr. McCRERY. I appreciate the gentleman making it clear that the rescission package did not slash the WIC Program, and I would like to point out this bill does not slash the WIC Program. In fact, just the opposite. We provide more money for WIC, not less, even more money than the CBO baseline predicted would be required for WIC. So I appreciate the gentleman's comments.