Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 981 was introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English). It designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 141 Erie Street in Linesville, Pennsylvania, as the James R. Merry Post Office. The entire House delegation from the State of Pennsylvania has signed on as cosponsors to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, former State representative Jim Merry was a devoted public servant who worked in the State legislature for the people of Pennsylvania for 16 years. He was known to be well liked by Representatives on both sides of the aisle, and he capitalized on his good relations with colleagues to pass many meaningful pieces of legislation for his district. Beyond his political career, Jim Merry was remarkably involved in his hometown of Linesville, where he owned for 25 years a successful automotive shop, the Linesville Western Auto Store. In addition, he served as a borough councilman and was active in the local chapters of the American Legion, Rotary Club, and other service organizations. Sadly, Representative Merry passed away on February 1, 2001. Since James R. Merry was a lifelong resident of the town of Linesville, it would be extremely appropriate if this House would act to rename this post office building in his hometown after one of Linesville's most venerated citizens. I urge Members to support adoption of H.R. 981. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) for introducing this important measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 981) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 141 Erie Street in Linesville, Pennsylvania, as the ``James R. Merry Post Office.''

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Resolution 153, introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), recognizes the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and their Armed Forces abroad due to the armed conflict in Iraq and the threat of terrorism here at home. Mr. Speaker, our great Nation is at battle overseas with the vicious regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The mission Operation Iraqi Freedom aims to dislodge Hussein and his top advisers from power, eliminate weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi military's arsenal, and free the Iraqi people from Hussein's awful dictatorship. This conflict can lead to a wonderful improvement in the lives of all Iraqi people. The risks of this conflict, however, are terribly significant to all American citizens. In Iraq, the threats to our remarkable servicemen and women are many. The Iraqi soldiers' resistance may include the deployment of chemical and biological weapons, not to mention the lethality of Iraq's military's conventional weapons. Here at home, the Federal Government has launched Operation Liberty Shield to increase domestic security due to the danger of terrorist attacks within our borders. This combination of threats to Americans across the globe make passage of this resolution essential and meaningful. Since the birth of our Nation, Americans of all backgrounds, faiths and creeds have especially recognized the value earned from prayer, reflection, sacrifice and humility during times of national crisis. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge all Members to support the adoption of House Resolution 153. I thank my colleague from Missouri for introducing this extremely relevant and valuable measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his very thoughtful words and comments, and just to remind Members again that the most operative words in this resolution are what we resolve, that we designate a day for humility, prayer, and fasting for all people of the United States and call on all people of the United States to observe the day as a time of prayer and fasting, to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities, and to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our Nation. I believe that resolve is so in line with the spirit of what our Founding Fathers did in years before. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), who was the presenter of this resolution. I thank him for that.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have no other speakers, and I want to thank, before returning the balance of my time, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) again for introducing this important resolution and also the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his thoughtful comments and support. I urge all Members to support the adoption of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, I understand there is an objection to the tax cuts. I understand that debate is going to be one in which we will disagree. We happen to believe that tax cuts generate economic activity. We have an honest disagreement on that issue. I am just saying in this debate tonight when our men and women are fighting to even suggest for a moment that our troops are not going to get all of the resources they need is simply going over the edge. I would just suggest that we both know that we need to provide our men and women with everything they need, and our job is to make sure it is never a fair fight, that we always have the advantage, and we have done that. I think the gentleman would acknowledge that this side of the aisle has continually put more money into the defense budget. That is what we continue to do today. I just would make this point. Our men and women are going to get whatever they need, and we are going to have a supplemental that impacts this budget, not next year's budget. They will get whatever they need to do their job and win this war. We have disagreements. Our disagreements are we are putting more money in defense and homeland security. We believe a meaningful tax cut, one that is noticeable and large, will strengthen the economy and create jobs; and we believe that a 1 percent cut on nondefense, nonhomeland security discretionary spending, 1 percent for 1 year will make sense. What my colleague from South Carolina did not point out is during the late 1990s, we slowed the growth in spending for 2, almost 3, years, and then allowed it to go up again. We believe that is why our budget balanced. We are going to have disagreements on that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I know it is getting late. It is 10 p.m., but words like ``immoral'' and not providing money to our troops is just over the edge. Our troops are going to get all the money they need to do whatever they have to do to protect themselves and achieve their objective. There is no one here doubts that issue. Not one Member. To suggest otherwise, I think particularly tonight, is inappropriate. I do not think that we need to go there.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who, I would just point out, without embarrassing my colleague, is an American hero, and someone who can speak very clearly about what our men and women are going through.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, this substitute. We have come forward with a budget that provides significant increases in defense, homeland security, Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits. We ask for a 1 percent cut in discretionary spending for 1 year, one cent on the dollar. When our States and local communities are having to make 5 and 10 percent cuts to their budget, we are asking 1 percent; and then we allow our budget to go up each and every year after that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say that we appreciate the work that went into the Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus substitute. We understand that they, more than most Members in this House of Representatives, know that there are people suffering tonight. So we do not dispute that fact. But we believe that the best way to help people who are suffering is first to protect America at home and abroad with a strong national defense and a strong Department of Homeland Security, to strengthen the economy, and create jobs, and to be fiscally responsible. We really believe that is the best way to help people who are suffering. Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague and I would both agree that we would like to have a budget that is balanced today. We might come to a different conclusion as to why we have gotten to this point. The economy has slowed; I believe that September 11, a day that I will remember in infamy, had something to do with it; and we believe that the best way to get us out of this kind of lull in our economy is to provide an economic engine, which we believe are tax cuts. So we are providing an increase in defense spending, homeland security, Social Security, Medicare and veterans. We are asking for a 1 percent reduction, a penny on the dollar, this year, in discretionary and mandatory programs. We think this 1 cent on the dollar for 1 year is something that we can do as mature and responsible Members of the Congress. Lord knows our political colleagues in the statehouses and in local communities are having to make much more difficult decisions. I would conclude by saying that when I hear references of who is getting the taxes, we acknowledge this: That the people who pay taxes get the tax cuts. That is true. Five percent of the American people pay 50 percent of the taxes, and 50 percent of the American people pay 96.5 percent of the taxes, and they get the tax cut. But we also know when they get this tax cut, they use it to invest in America and create jobs for all Americans. I know we have another budget to consider, so I will conclude my remarks. I appreciate the dialogue that has taken place on the floor tonight. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to not support this budget substitute. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, while we obviously have some disagreements with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the budgets and what our budget does, I understand my colleague has a number of speakers. We obviously do not have a number. I would be happy to transfer 10 minutes of our time to be controlled by the gentleman so he has an additional 10 minutes to control.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the CBC/ CPC substitute.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this substitute because our reading is it raises taxes and increases spending, does not provide enough for defense, and fails to reach balance sooner. Having said that, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) wanted me to say that he knows the amount of time and effort that was put into this budget and also knows that there are important issues that will be brought out in this debate that this Chamber needs to hear. So with that, I will just compliment my colleagues on working on this budget, say it is not a budget that we can support, but we look forward to listening to the debate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I think if we were honest with each other, we would say we do not like any of our budgets, because we would like them to be balanced today, but that, regretfully, is not possible. But in comparing the budgets, I prefer the budget that we are presenting. I prefer it because in our budget we are protecting America, we are increasing our defense budget, we are increasing our homeland security budget. In our budget, most importantly, and you do not see it to the extent you need to in our colleagues' budgets, we are strengthening the economy and creating new jobs. In our budget, we are providing fiscal responsibility. One of the things I found most curious in the debate in the committee last week was that when we added up all the dollars that were spent in amendments offered by our Democratic colleagues, they amounted to over $1 trillion. Now, they would say to you what they did is they eliminated our tax cuts, and, in some cases, increased taxes to pay for their $1 trillion of new spending over the next 10 years. When we came to Washington, a number of us said we wanted to get our country's financial house in order and balance the Federal budget and not grow this government. But what we see in the other budget is a growing of the government. Mr. Chairman, what is disappointing to me is that when we have seen their amendments, both last week and this week, we have not seen any effort to reduce spending but increase it. And when we see what we do, what we are having to defend, I am embarrassed that it seems so difficult to defend. We have to defend a 1 percent cut in discretionary spending over this year's budget for just 1 year. Then we allow the budget to go up in the second year, we allow it to go up in the third year, we allow it to go up in the fourth year. The logic, though, is if you can make cuts in 1 year, they have benefit in terms of reducing spending for 10 years. I am proud of that. But when our colleagues talk about the savings we are making, they add up all 10 years and then imply that it happens all in 1 year, or they say we are going to cut 1 percent every year, and we are not allowing the budgets to grow. We want to slow the growth in the budgets next year, and then we are going to allow them to grow in the second year, allow them to grow in the third year, allow them to grow in the fourth year, allow them to grow in the fifth year, allow them to grow in the sixth year, allow them to grow in the seventh year, allow them to grow in the eighth year, allow them to grow in the ninth year, and allow them to grow in the tenth year. But we are having to defend a 1-cent-per-dollar cut next year in some programs, but we are not cutting defense, homeland security, Medicare or Social Security, and we have also agreed that veterans' spending is going to go up. So, for me, I am having a difficult time, because I would have liked our budget to have reduced spending more. But this is what we can agree to. Now, when we talk about the 1 percent reduction, what we are looking at is waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement. You mean to tell me there is not 1 cent on a dollar of waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement in our government? You could not look at anyone with a straight face and tell them that. I happen to have served on the Committee on Government Reform, for 16 years. I love that committee. We look at waste, fraud and abuse, and we attempt and are successful in many ways in getting reform. But it is taking too long. We need the authorizers to do a better job of looking at waste, fraud and abuse now, and we need the appropriators to do so as well. Mr. Chairman, on my desk are hundreds of GAO reports. These are just for a few months. Financial Management Service:, Significant Weaknesses In Computer Control Continue. You could save millions of dollars there. Weak Controls Result In Improper and Wasteful Purchases at FAA. You can save money there. Medicaid Financial Management: Better Oversight Of State Claims For Federal Reimbursement Needed. I love this one. Medicare Home Health Care. Payments To Home Health Agencies Are Considerably Higher Than Costs. U.S. Postal Service: Deteriorating Financial Outlook Increases Need For Transformation. We have got to do those things. Now, DOD has to be looked at as well, and that is one way we can help pay for all the needs that we have in DOD. Overpayments Continue, And Management And Accounting Issues Remain. Defense Inventory: Control Weaknesses Leave Restricted And Hazardous Excess Property Vulnerable To Improper Use, Loss And Theft. These are just a few of the hundreds on my desk. This is just GAO. What about the Inspector General's reports? We could fill up this whole table. This is literally the tip of the iceberg. So, I am proud of our budget, because it is better than the budget we are seeing, but, Lord knows, it could be even better. I encourage my colleagues to vote out our budget resolution. Let us get our country's financial house in order, and let us have the needed tax cuts that will generate the economic activity that will grow this economy. We want to protect America, strengthen the economy, and have fiscal responsibility. Our budget does that.