Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation which is urgently needed to avoid financial chaos. This is a compromise bill. In exchange for extending the debt limit, it provides a much needed procedure for reducing unnecessary pork barrel spending. That procedure is the line-item veto. As cochairman of the congressional pork busters coalition, I strongly support the line-item veto as an essential tool to eliminate pork from appropriations bills. We have been battling pork for 6 years on the floor of this House, but not always successfully. This legislation provides much needed back up power to the Executive, allowing him to surgically slice out those items which do not deserve funding. Governors in 43 States, including California, already have this power and it has worked well. In our State of California, it has allowed our Governors to balance the budget. The House voted for a line-item veto over a year ago, and it has been bottled up in the Senate ever since. This is a golden opportunity to finally achieve our goal.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and this legislation because this legislation gives individuals greater control over their own health care through the introduction of medical savings accounts. These medical savings accounts put individuals in charge of their own health care. It gives them greater freedom and more choices, and it will drive down costs. At the same time, they help resolve the portability issue. One problem with the current health insurance system in this country is that coverage for working people is usually tied to the job rather than the individual. Medical savings accounts, which would be owned by the individual for life, move with the individual. It is the ultimate in portability. Medical savings accounts are becoming increasingly common in the public sector. This popularity in the private sector is even more significant considering the fact that they are handicapped by tax laws which give deductions to employers who pay their workers' insurance premiums but not to the employers who are paying into the medical savings accounts. This inequitable tax treatment penalizes individuals who want to select their own health providers and plans as well as individuals without health plans at work. The legislation before us today removes this handicap and allows individuals and employers to make tax-deductible contributions to the accounts when employees are covered by a high deductible health insurance policy. Further, in allowing for a tax-free buildup of these accounts, this bill makes the choice of medical savings accounts available to many more Americans, and everyone owning an MSA would have an incentive to spend their money wisely. That is a marked contrast to the use-it-or- lose-it approach fostered by third-payer plans. The savings would be theirs, and so would the choice. The competition would also put pressure on providers to reduce costs so everyone would benefit, and while MSA options may not solve every problem, it would certainly help consumers giving them more choices, more control, lifetime security, and lower costs.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a minute, as we commence the second session of the 104th Congress, to focus on the necessity of reaching the goal of a balanced Federal budget. Four years from now we will enter upon the third millennium and the 225th year of our Nation and, ironically, although the American revolution was mostly about taxes, an American child born today will inherit a tax bill of $186,000 just to cover his or her share of the interest on the national debt. That is the direct per capita cost of financing $5 trillion. That is not the cost of paying it off. That is that child's cost in taxes during his or her lifetime. That is not the only cost of this enormous debt. That same child born today will have to pay higher monthly mortgage payments, higher car payments, higher college loan payments, all because of a $5 trillion debt. That is because the Federal Government will be sopping up over half of the available credit in the markets as it continually refinances the debt, causing interest rates to remain arbitrarily high.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. That is correct.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, that is correct, as I recall, the vote on this floor was 277 to 151.

Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic debate that we are having about balancing the budget, however I am disappointed by the words from the White House today that there will be no commitment to balance the budget in 7 years and that our attempt to continue funding for the Government will be vetoed even though it received bi-partisan support. That we have come this far in putting forward a plan to balance the budget is a great achievement, but we must not let up. The future of our children and grandchildren is literally at stake in the actions that this Congress and the President take in the interest of bringing fiscal responsibility to Washington. The citizens of my district and I'm sure many others recognize this and they have been calling in record numbers to tell us not to back down. These folks recognize that the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 is the single most important piece of legislation that we will work on this session. They know this because the benefits of getting the Government out of the red are painfully obvious--lower interest rates, greater savings-- we have a negative savings rate--and by lessening the burden that we pass along to our future generations. But the President says he won't budge--he says he won't work to balance this budget in 7 years--and he won't accept what the Congressional Budget Office says is a real and viable plan to balance the budget. So what do we do? We listen to the people back home and we stay here to work to deliver a balanced budget. We don't listen to some phony, half-baked platitudes about the advantages of deficit spending. Not when the calls are coming in from the districts, 9-1 in favor of saving America's future. American's are asking us to do what is right for the country and their children. They know that the interest in the 5 trillion dollar debt will cost every baby born today over one hundred and eighty thousand dollars and if we continue along this path the country we leave behind won't even be recognizable as the America that we inherited from our parents. So we've got to start taking some initial, honest steps to bring fiscal sanity to Washington. The Balanced Budget Act of 1995 does just that. With this budget plan we eliminate the budget deficit in 7 years--we do not leave our country with chronic $200 billion deficits per year, with no end in sight, as the President's out of balance budget does. We save Medicare from bankruptcy and increase, yes Mr. President increase, what each Medicare beneficiary receives from $4,800 to $6,700 while allowing for more choice in the types of health care people receive. But saving Medicare isn't the only benefit we get from balancing the budget. In fact, all Americans will benefit in the form of lower interest rates--this will save individuals and families hundreds of dollars per month in home mortgage payments and car loans. With lower interest rates this will result in more money being put into our economy to drive production and create over six million new American jobs. That's right--a balanced budget will create over six-million new jobs here in America. Mr. Speaker, the future of the country is at a crossroads. We can take the path that Americans historically have when there is a crisis-- they look the problem in the eye and tackle it head on. Or we can succumb to the demagoguery, half written budgets and phoney numbers that the White House is peddling and continue to plunge the country deeper into debt. The American people have spoken to us--they want a balanced budget and [[Page H 13279]] they want it now. For their sake and our children's sake--we should override a Presidential veto of a 7-year balanced budget.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. Our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono], has authorized a bill I think we should all support. There is probably nothing more basic to the principles of fairness and democracy than the ballot. When a majority of the people have spoken through a ballot initiative or through a referendum, they are entitled to timely implementation of their mandate. Opponents who contend that a law is unconstitutional are of course entitled to their day in court, but the courts should not be used capriciously to delay or thwart the will of the people. This bill preserves the rights of both sides by adding injunction requests based on constitutional grounds against State referendum to the list of cases to be heard by a three-judge Federal panel. It ensures a quick resolution of the issue by allowing appeals against such injunctions to go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. It would affect only one case a year. This bill really protects the one-man, one-vote system. Should one judge have the power, without even ruling on a case, to invalidate 5 million ballots? I think not. Requiring at least two judges on a panel to agree to an injunction will help deter judge shopping by opponents of the law while still preserving their rights. The requirement for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court is in the interest of all parties and is the same procedure, as we have discussed, we now use for congressional reapportionment and for the Voting Rights Act cases. Voters deserve to have their votes count and are entitled to have a decision rendered in a timely fashion. There is no more direct mandate than a ballot initiative. Let us keep faith with our democratic contract with the people. Vote for this bill. I urge all my colleagues to vote for voters rights.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the Members of this body that if this bill had been law last year, we would have saved $659 million that would have gone to deficit reduction. That is the sum that we actually passed in cuts, and yet later we found that those cuts, those savings, were reallocated for additional spending programs in this House. When I think about the fact, and I have spoken about the $200 billion chronic deficits that we are running in this Government, when I think about the fact that last year we had $100 million in the ASRM program that we thought we had cut on this floor, and yet we found out subsequently that that money was reallocated for additional spending, when I think about the fact that it is really the will of the majority of this House, when the majority votes on this floor, to cut spending, and then to see that will of the majority overturned, overturned by having that money reallocated, I say let us let the will of the majority be done. Let us let the cuts be carried out. I am excited about the reform movement in this Congress. I think people have told us, ``No more politics as usual.'' I think that people have made the point to us that this change, these changes that we are implementing in public policy really represent for us a keeping faith with the expectations of the American people, that we are going to keep out commitments. We are going to basically keep our credibility with that public and that we are going to say to that public, when we say we are cutting spending, we mean we are cutting spending; we mean that we are actually going to implement that and make certain those cuts go right to the bottom line. Last, I will share with you my final thought on this subject, and that is that the most important thing we to do here is deficit reduction, and this reform, this governmental reform that we are implementing today, will allow us to better implement our policy to reduce that Federal budget deficit, and that is the final reason we should vote for this reform.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, at a time when our government is running chronic $200 billion deficits at a time when we are $5 trillion in debt, with a devastating effect on our national savings rate, this reform for Government is critical. This is essentially the same bill that was approved by the House on August 2, as an amendment to the Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations bill. It is similar to the House resolution I offered earlier this year. The lockbox provision in that Labor HHS bill was adopted by a vote of 373 to 52, better than 85 percent of this House. Basically, the bill establishes a series of lockboxes in every appropriations measure considered by this House to ensure that savings made from amendments on this floor will go toward reducing the Federal deficit. As many of us have come to realize, unfortunately, this is not now the case, since savings realized from amendments to appropriations bills may be used for other funds or projects in that bill or other appropriations bills. A good example of that was last year in this Congress when $100 million was eliminated by an amendment on this floor from the ASRM program, but we later found out that those funds wound up in other programs rather than going to deficit reduction. I would just like to share that, as a cochairman of the porkbusters coalition in this Congress, I would hate to see something like that happen again. I would hate to see what happened last year happen again. This bill will ensure that it does not. This bill will ensure that the average savings between the cuts that we make on the House floor and the cuts made over on the Senate floor will go in conference to a lockbox, to the Treasury for the purpose of deficit reduction. I will also share with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that this is an open rule worthy of everyone's support. I know that my constituents support this measure, as do the Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Concord Coalition, and other taxpayer groups. It is an important and workable first step towards making this body more responsive and accountable to the people who elect them. I urge an ``aye'' vote of every Member.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan effort to make our cuts, the cuts that we make on this House floor, count. What this bill would do would be to ensure that spending cuts to appropriations bills will be designated directly to deficit reduction. They will not disappear in conference to be respent later. This reform, I should share with Members, is supported by such bipartisan groups as the Concord Coalition. It is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and the National Taxpayers Union. The amendment makes a statutory change to the Budget Act of 1974, and would require that all net savings below the budgeted 602(b) allocation, whether from amendments on the floor or in committee, will go toward debt reduction and not for other spending projects. In the case of this bill, the committee is already $320 million under its 602(b) budget authority allocation, and the net amount of savings and any more savings adopted on the floor of this House will be credited to the deficit reduction lockbox. The lockbox provision applies to this bill and to any other general or special appropriations bill or measure which follows, including supplemental appropriations, deficiency appropriations, and continuing resolutions upon their engrossment by either house. I want to share with Members that had this passed last year, we would have saved $659 million that we cut on this floor, but was later respent rather than go to deficit reduction. Mr. Chairman, this provision is supported by the American people. They desperately want and need deficit reduction. Interest on the national debt is now the third highest item in the federal budget, and a child born today will have to pay, on average, taxes of $187,000 over his or her lifetime just to cover their share of interest on the national debt. That does not include the off-budget impact of the national debt itself, which causes higher interest rates on everything from homes to cars. Please support the amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on the Labor- HHS bill. In particular, I support the provision in the rule which permits the offering of an amendment by my colleague, Mr. Crapo and myself, requiring that any savings realized in the bill from amendments either in committee or on the floor below the 602(b) budget allocation, be specifically earmarked for deficit reduction. This is the so-called deficit reduction lockbox provision, which Mr. Crapo, Mr. Solomon, and others, myself included, have supported and worked for in the past. The Speaker, our majority leader, Mr. Armey, and many of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle, especially Mr. Brewster, all support this provision, which will insure that any savings we make below the budget allocation for this bill will go directly to debt reduction, rather than for other programs. I think this amendment is also supported by the American people, who deserve to know that we are working to reduce the national debt while still providing essential services. A child born today faces a tax bill of $187,000 over his or her lifetime just to pay their share of interest on the national debt. I urge adoption of this rule, which will allow us to make sure our votes go to deficit reduction.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to reduce spending for administrative functions in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and let me share with you that it is only logical that a smaller department with fewer programs needs less money to keep going. We are shortly to vote on a bill which will reduce HUD's overall budget. We are terminating 36 individual HUD programs. Yet as written, this bill cuts the HUD's administrative and management budget by only a paltry 1 percent, and that makes no sense. If HUD has less to do, as it will, it can do it with less of the American taxpayers' hard-earned resources. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] calls for a streamlined HUD bureaucracy to manage its remaining programs. It reduces spending for administrative functions by 25 percent. This amendment does nothing to cripple FHA or GNMA or other continuing HUD programs. But fewer, trimmed-down programs can be run by fewer bureaucrats and should be run by fewer bureaucrats, and I think that is simple arithmetic. Mr. Chairman we cannot implement this year's budget resolution which put us on a glide path toward a balanced budget in 2002 if we do not cut spending. We cannot cut spending significantly unless we recognize that a government that does less needs fewer people to do it. Bloated bureaucracy is not the only reason for bloated government, but it is certainly part of the problem. We are cutting HUD program spending, so let us cut administrative and management budget to match those cuts.

Mr. ROYCE. I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in the interest of time, I'll put my statement in the Record at this time. Section 209 is important in preventing HUD from pursuing duplicative regulations regarding property insurance. Property insurance regulations and authorities are already handled quite extensively in every State by State insurance regulators. These State regulators recognize that redlining is an intolerable practice and they work to insure that all consumers regardless of ethnicity have equal access to property insurance. So there is no need to have HUD add this unnecessary layer of Federal bureaucracy. Section 209 will also send a message that Federal agencies should not be promulgating rules or programs beyond the purview they have been granted by Congress. Mr. Chairman, section 209 goes to the heart of what so many of us have come to Congress to do: Cut duplicative Federal programs, maintain the authority of our States and most importantly section 209 will keep a Federal agency from encroaching on the operations of our small businesses. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support section 209 and I would urge my colleagues to vote against the Kennedy-Waters amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise, Mr. Chairman, in support as well of the Nadler amendment. I wanted to praise my colleague for spearheading this effort to eliminate pork from his own district. The Miller Highway in Manhattan has just been renovated at a cost to taxpayers of $92 million. It was completed, this renovation, in December, just 8 months ago. So now we are looking at a highway that has a life of 35 to 40 years. The intent of this amendment is to disallow this newly refurbished, taxpayer funded, multimillion dollar highway from being demolished and moved at an additional cost of $350 million. Why would that be done? It is not because the highway is unsafe or because advances have made the highway unnecessary, but because this brand-new highway does not guarantee a spectacular river view of a projected housing development nearby. I have heard the view lots are expensive, but $350 million, frankly, colleagues, is too much. Not only does our colleague from Manhattan oppose this boondoggle; it is also opposed by many local officials, including, I am told, the mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, so I defer to their wisdom as to what is not good for their district. I strongly support the Nadler amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which would reduce spending for Public Law 480 to the level requested by the administration, and to the level provided for in the budget resolution which we adopted in May. The level proposed in the bill for this program is approximately 80 percent more than the administration requested. It exceeds the adopted 1996 budget resolution assumptions by more than $100 million. Proponents argue that the amount in the bill is the same as the current year level. However, those levels have been proposed for rescission, and a GAO study completed just three weeks ago at the request of the House and Senate authorizing committees concludes that, and I am going to quote from that GAO report, concludes that the program as currently instructed does not significantly advance either the economic development or the market objectives of the 1990 act. That GAO report goes on to say that the program should either be seriously restructured or should be scrapped entirely. I believe we should take the time to study the GAO report findings before we dump $100 million more into this program than was requested. I urge my colleagues here to vote ``aye.''

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment targets two construction projects which were not requested by the Pentagon but were added on by the committee. The first item spends $6 million to repair a foundry at a shipyard which Congress voted to close in the 1991 base closing round. Why are we upgrading this foundry and this propeller shop when the Navy has not made a request? If the hope is that the Pentagon will keep this one foundry at the yard open for the long haul, does it not make sense to, at least, wait to see if the DOD makes a request before approving a $6 million upgrade? This sets a bad precedent for all base closures past and future and opens up a Pandora's box for Congress. So let us take it out of the bill. Let me repeat one point: DOD has confirmed that this is not in the future years' defense plan from 1996 to 2001. The second item also not requested spends $10.4 million for a new gymnasium at a base which already has a gym. The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard has racquetball. It has a gym with Nautilus equipment and free weights. It has basketball courts, volleyball, tennis courts, three softball fields. We are going to spend here $10.4 million for a facility which will add badminton, squash, aerobics, and paddleball when there are already 10 private gyms within 5 miles of the base? I can only tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that with a base at Bangor Submarine Base 15 miles away with a gym, a gym free to all Active duty personnel, maybe we should buy a bus if there is overflow. But there is no evidence that there is overflow at the existing gym. There is a YMCA less than a mile away. Maybe we should look at contracting out for the overflow. But again, we have no evidence of it. This is $10.5 million that could be spent for more urgent projects. Mr. Chairman, there are many supporters of a strong national defense in this House, defense hawks, and I am one. But many of you are also deficit hawks here. And these projects are not needed. They will not add to our national security. They were not requested. In fact, the overall $500 million added by the committee comes on [[Page H 6124]] top of $500 million added last year but not requested last year, and the total bill is now $2.4 billion more than the 1995 appropriation. This is an ominous trend, colleagues. The Department of Defense already has a $1 billion backlog in deferred maintenance. We should not be spending money on unrequested projects. So join with the Pork Busters, the National Taxpayers Union, the Business Executives for National Security, Citizens Against Government Waste and Citizens for a Sound Economy in supporting this amendment. This is the first test of an appropriations bill on the floor this year. Let us not fail that test. Let us vote to try to reduce this spending and move towards a balanced budget.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1114.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to highlight the results of a survey conducted by one of the leading senior citizens advocacy groups in the Nation, 60 PLUS, which is dedicated to tax fairness for seniors. This organization, which has over 250,000 members and is headed by former Congressman Roger Zion, polled 100,000 of its members, and by a 3-to-1 margin, they support the Republican tax fairness bill. Representative Zion and 60 PLUS Chairman Jim Martin delivered thousands of mailgram petitions to the Capitol steps earlier this week in support of this measure, noting that it lifts the outside earnings limit on Social Security beneficiaries, repeals the 1993 Clinton tax increase on seniors, increases the exemption from Federal estate taxes, reduces the capital gains tax, reforms SSI, and provides a tax credit for elderly care in the home. Mr. Speaker, as Representatives of the people, we need to listen to their voices, and act accordingly.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of the joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 2.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a Constitutional amendment to outlaw retroactive taxation. It is the same wording that I introduced last session under House Joint Resolution 248. Last session it was cosponsored by 146 Members. I introduced it in response to President Clinton's retroactive tax increase which reached back even before he was sworn into office. Even the new Russian Constitution protects those citizens from the Government retroactively raising taxes on their people. I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that the American public, the American taxpayers have the same protections. Even someone accused of a crime is given the right that there will not be laws passed which come into play retroactively. Taxpayers should have that same right.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, in addition to authoring our Nation's Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote what are supposed to be the rules of this House. His Manual of Parliamentary Practice was written in 1797, and for nearly 200 years, has by law provided the basis for our House rules. That is why I rise today in support of the Proxy Voting Ban in the House Republican Rules Package. If Jefferson knew that absent or tardy members of the House were routinely allowing other members to cast their votes for them in committee by proxy and that this ghost voting has been used to block legislation while ducking individual responsibility, he would object. He would wonder by what justification we could so stand the rules of this House which he wrote on their head. Although House rules strictly prohibit one member of Congress from casting votes for another on the House floor, proxy voting was in fact the norm in many committees in the last Congress. In 1993, for example, proxy votes were cast on virtually every bill marked up in the House Committees on Energy and Commerce; the Judiciary; and Public Works and Transportation. Ghost voting not only promotes absenteeism and sloppy bill-drafting, it allows party leaders and committee barons to control the fate of legislation by simply pulling votes out of thin air. It is like having 6 jurors sit through a trial, hear all the evidence and reach a verdict--only to have the jury foreman pull out 6 more votes from his pocket and cast them to overrule the others. Last year, I introduced legislation to require the House to follow Jefferson's rules. One of Jefferson's overriding concerns was that each member of Congress would be held responsible for his or her own vote. This rules change will end the abuse of our most important and valuable commodity, our vote. Simply put, under this change, if a member does not show up for work, he does not get to vote. I urge an ``aye'' vote for this important Republication reform.