Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is we are going to protect 100 percent of Social Security. We did that last year, the first time since 1960. We are doing it in this year's budget, and we are going to do it in next year's budget, the plan that we are bringing forward. We are strengthening Medicare and prescription drugs. We are setting aside $40 billion to implement our ultimate plan. It is no different than the motion to instruct the conferees. It is basically a blank paper. It sets aside money like we do. We retire the public debt by the year 2013, and we promote tax fairness for families, farmers, and seniors, and restore America's defense and strengthens support for education and science. Our GOP plan ends the marriage penalty. It is interesting, the Democrats voted for it, but I guess they do not want to cut taxes, but they voted for it. It repeals Social Security earnings test. They voted for it but say they do not want to set aside money for a tax cut. We reduced the death tax. They voted for that, many of them. We expand educational savings accounts. We increase health care deductibility. We provide tax breaks for poor communities. We strengthen private pension plans. What interests me, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) called this an irresponsible tax cut. It is interesting because, in the next 5 years, we have $10 trillion of revenue. We want a tax cut of $200 billion. That is 2 percent of all revenue. What is irresponsible about reducing taxes 2 percent? Maybe it is irresponsible that we are not doing more. Then I heard this was wild spending. Only the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) could call tax cuts spending. I will tell my colleagues what I think is irresponsible. The President increases taxes by $10 billion in the first year of his plan. We cut it by $10 billion. We ultimately set aside $200 billion for a tax cut. We lock in $150 billion. We set aside a reserve of $50 billion. If there is a potential surplus, we will have another $50 billion, just slightly over 2 percent of all revenues that will come in the next 10 years. No, a tax cut is not irresponsible unless it is not enough. It is certainly not spending, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) would call it. It is a tax cut. We give it back to the American people. The bottom line, we set aside $40 billion for the Committee on Ways and Means to bring forward a Medicare plan, a Medicare plan that will have prescription drugs payments for our seniors. That is what we do, and that is why we are so strongly in support of our plan.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) that the first two tax cuts that went through were ending the marriage penalty so that young couples would not have to pay $1,400 more, and ending Social Security penalty, which I think the gentleman voted for, hardly cuts tax for the wealthy. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds to just remind my colleagues that I was here for 13 years, and I never saw in a Democrat budget any prescription drugs. In the Republican budget we have prescription drugs. It is interesting to note that my colleagues on the other side want to make it universal, so they want to give millionaires prescription drugs. Somehow that does not bother them. So I guess they like some millionaires and not others. I guess taxes, whatever. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. SHAYS. I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 8, made in order under the rule.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), our distinguished Vietnam veteran.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would love to respond by first saying the gentleman from New York (Chairman Lazio) is very gracious in his words about me. This is an amendment truly offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella); and they have been working on these issues for a number of years. I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), in particular, as well as the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), are aware of the gentleman's concern that the appropriators may not provide the funds necessary to meet the authorization. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if my colleague thought that if we were to reduce this amendment somewhat that the gentleman could be supportive, the gentleman's support and obviously the support of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) ultimately, while he cannot commit to that now, would obviously be essential. I am prepared without objection from my colleagues in this amendment to offer a unanimous consent request. Modification to Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Shays

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that our amendment be modified in the form that I have placed at the desk.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would feel out of place if I did not mention my predecessor, Stuart B. McKinney, died of AIDS-related pneumonia, and his wife, Lucy, has carried on his work as chairman of the Stuart B. McKinney Foundation dedicated to helping people living with AIDS. In his memory, I feel very motivated to offer this amendment and appreciate my colleague for accepting the modified version of the amendment and, particularly, appreciate my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), for their participation.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time we have remaining?

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and since this amendment is sponsored by myself, as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), I will be yielding to those three colleagues as well. What this amendment does is it increases the fiscal year 2001 funding authorization for the Housing Opportunity for Persons With AIDS, HOPWA, program from $260 million to $292 million, the minimum level determined necessary by the HIV/AIDS community to meet the needs of people living with HIV/AIDS. HOPWA is now funded at about $232 million. There is a housing crisis for individuals living with AIDS. Many will face a housing crisis at some point during their illness as a result of the increased medical expenses and lost wages. HOPWA was created to address this growing problem. It is one of the most cost-effective ways to ensure that people living with HIV/AIDS have adequate and affordable housing. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate the extraordinary career and inspirational life of President Ronald Wilson Reagan of California. When Reagan stood on the steps of this Capitol on January 20, 1981 and took his oath of office, he assumed leadership of a nation that was suffering the worst recession in a half-century. He recognized his greatest challenge, and he stood before America that day and articulated his redemptive mission--to return the reins of government to the people. He knew that the best way to revive the American economy would be to get government out of the way of American creativity. ``It is time to reawaken this industrial giant, to get government back within its means, and to lighten our punitive tax burden,'' he said on that January morning at the Capitol. ``And these will be our first priorities, and on these principles, there will be no compromise.'' President Reagan was able to lead America through the murky waters of recession. He was a forceful champion for breaking down barriers to trade, because he knew that once we removed the shackles from American business, it could compete successfully anywhere in the world. And when he was done, the American economy had embarked upon the largest peacetime expansion in history. He pushed America to compete on the international stage as well. Ronald Reagan took the Presidency of a nation that was uncertain in foreign policy because it was unmoored in principle. The Soviet Army, then a greater power than our own, was occupying Afghanistan and training in Cuba. We were unwilling to provide the leadership necessary to galvanize our Western allies in response to the menace. President Reagan identified the imminent threat communism posed to our democracy and those across the world, and used his leadership to initiate the policies that led to its demise. He understood that the United States should deal with the Soviet Union from a position of strength. He had the extraordinary vision to conceive of a national missile defense. He provided the leadership to know that we needed to risk war in order to achieve a more lasting peace. And within a few short years of his last year in office, the Berlin Wall crumbled and communism had begun its inevitable march into the dustbin of history. Though it will be hard to bestow upon our former President any honor greater than the honor he restored to our nation, we today honor President Reagan, and his wife Nancy, for the enduring inspiration provided by their shining example.

Mr. SHAYS

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, by the end of next year, we will have spent $20 billion in the Balkans. What we are asking is that our allies live up to their commitments. We are saying, on the reconstruction account for Kosovo, they make a 33 percent down payment; that they pay 75 percent of the humanitarian assistance in Kosovo that they pledged; that they pay 75 percent for the Kosovo Consolidated Budget that they pledged; and that they provide 75 percent of the international police force for Kosovo that they pledged. Why does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) assume that we will have to take our troops out? Does he assume they are not going to live up to their commitment? Well, maybe it is an assumption he is right in making. They only give us $66 million for 100,000 troops. We get $3.6 billion for our 40,000 troops in Japan. I rise in strong support of this amendment, which I have offered on a bipartisan basis with Congressmen John Kasich, Gary Condit, Barney Frank, and Spencer Bachus. They are among the hardest working Members of Congress and it is a pleasure to be offering this amendment with them. I also want to thank the author of this amendment, Senator John Warner, who intends to offer this amendment along with Senators Daniel Inouye, Pat Roberts, and Olympia Snowe when the Senate takes up its version of this legislation. When the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee says our allies need to live up to their obligations, I think we all need to take this amendment seriously. Our bipartisan amendment puts in place a framework for ensuring our European NATO allies live up to their financial commitments with respect to the war and subsequent peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. Last year, the United States puts its money, personnel and military equipment on the line to bring peace and stability to the Balkan region. Our military's men and women served with great distinction and did our Nation proud. But to this day, our NATO allies have not lived up to their financial commitments and obligations. The most egregious example of our allies' noncompliance is their failure to deploy military personnel for the United Nations international police force for Kosovo. NATO and the EU nations committed to contribute 1,264 personnel for this force. But to date, they have deployed 747 members-- or 59 percent. The United States, in contrast, has deployed 489 (or 89 percent) of the 550 we have committed. And I am told that the remaining 61 are on their way and should be in Kosovo in the next week or two. Our amendment says our allies need to do better. They need to get that number up from 747 to 948. Surely they can accomplish this by June 1. Another reason we are offering this amendment is because there is simply a lack of good information as to what precisely our allies have committed to providing. In fact, our own Department of State and National Security Council can't seem to provide identical data. So I think it is very important to require the administration to submit a report to Congress specifying the commitments and pledges made by the European Commission, and the member states of the European Union and NATO. Part B of our amendment does exactly this. It requires a report to be submitted by June 1 detailing these commitments. I want to stress that we are not applying a straitjacket to the administration. The President will have a certain level of flexibility in determining what it is our allies have said they owe. Our amendment would withhold 50 percent of the supplemental appropriation bill's funding for military operations in Kosovo until the President certifies that the European Commission, member nations of the European Union, and European member nations of NATO have provided at least: 33 percent of the assistance committed by them for 1999 and 2000 for reconstruction in Kosovo; 75 percent of the assistance committed by them for 1999 and 2000 for humanitarian assistance in Kosovo; 75 percent of the assistance committed by them for 1999 and 2000 for the Kosovo Consolidated Budget; and 75 percent of the number of police committed by them for the United Nations international police force for Kosovo. I want to stress these thresholds are anything but arbitrary. They represent reasonable downpayments on the pledges and commitments made by our European allies. Recognizing that autonomous nations have different fiscal years and budget processes, we do not seek full compliance in this amendment, but merely a downpayment. And, recognizing that funding for reconstruction programs is often disbursed over a series of years, we merely require a portion of this funding to be made available right away. If the President does not certify that these benchmarks have been met by June 1, 2000, the withheld funding appropriated for military operations in Kosovo would be made available only for the purpose of conducting a safe, orderly and phased withdrawal of United States military personnel from Kosovo. I want to speak for a moment about what our amendment does not do. Our amendment does not change United States policy toward Kosovo and the Balkans. Our amendment does not alter the parameters of our mission in Kosovo. Our amendment does not reduce the number of troops the United States has committed to the international peackeeping force or the U.N. police force. Our amendment does not decrease the funding for Kosovo in this bill, which is equal the administration's request. And our amendment does not require our allies to pay for more than they promised. In fact, it asks for less. It merely requires a downpayment. What our amendment does do is uphold current United States policy in Kosovo by requiring our allies to live up to their agreements. This is not an unjustifiable request. The United States has consistently met its obligations--even exceeded them--with respect to the conflict in Kosovo. This Congress has passed in a timely fashion appropriations bills fully funding our participation in this conflict, and the President has signed these appropriations bills. Our allies, unfortunately, have failed to meet their obligations. Our amendment will help encourage our European allies to provide the necessary resources and personnel to implement the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. An equitable burdensharing arrangement strikes us as being inherently fair and appropriate. After all, during the 78 days of combat over Serbia, the United States bore the major share of the air war, flying approximately 70 percent of the sorties. The men and women of our Armed Forces took the greatest personal risks. And the United States taxpayer paid the lion's share of the costs: more than $4 billion at last count. I know our allies contributed to the military intervention in Kosovo. But as they know all too well, it was the United States that provided the high-performance aircraft, the guided missiles, the transport aircraft, and the B-2 bombers that made this joint effort a success. I am afraid if Congress does not step in and say, unequivocally, that our allies need to live up to their commitments, this administration will simply allow them to slide, as they've done too many times in the past. The result, undoubtedly, will be that more of our Nation's tax surplus will be expended to pay for the rapidly increased rate of military deployments and our Armed Forces will continue to face retention and readiness deficiencies. I am struck by the fact that, over the past 50 years, the United States military has been involved in 46 deployments. But a staggering 36 of those deployments have come in the past 10 years. Do these missions cost money? You bet they do. From 1993 through 2001, our operations in Kosovo and Bosnia are projected to have cost the United States taxpayer $20.2 billion. Here is the bottom line of our amendment: We cannot, we must not, indefinitely commit our Armed Forces to keeping the peace in the Balkans without ensuring our allies live up to their commitments. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can put some pressure on our allies to live up to their commitments.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, by the end of next year, we will have spent $20 billion, $20 billion in the Balkans. The amendment that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and I are introducing is really the amendment of the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Mr. Warner. And basically it says that our allies need to pay 33 percent of the construction costs they committed and 75 percent of the humanitarian assistance, the Kosovo Consolidated Budget and the international police budget. And if they do not, then we will withdraw our troops. We are saying they should live up to their commitments. Now, why would we care if they pay their commitment? One reason is we ask the Japanese to pay 75 percent of the nonsalary costs of our troops in the Japan theater, and they give us $3.6 billion. We ask the Europeans to pay for the 100,000 troops stationed on that continent, and they give us $66 million. This is a joke, and it has got to end. So at the very least, when our allies make a commitment, they should live up to it. They should pay their bills. And if they are not willing to, let them stop taking us for a ride.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, unless we pass this amendment.

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

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome members and guests of the National College of Probate Judges to the Capitol today. The National College of Probate Judges is comprised of judicial office holders across the country who adjudicate estates of decedents, who appoint guardians for individuals with incapacities and who hear mental health cases and cases involving persons with developmental disabilities. Recently, the College promulgated standards and model legislation addressing interstate transfers of guardianships and conservatorships. The College is sponsoring an International Conference on Courts and the Aging to be held in London in July in conjunction with the American Bar Association. I am particularly happy to welcome Judge Richard E. Burke, president of the College, who resides in New Canaan, Connecticut and is a constituent of mine. I am equally pleased to acknowledge the contributions of the following office holders and members: Judge Mary Sheffield--Rolla, Missouri; Judge Nikkie DeShazzo--Dallas, Texas; Judge John Maher--Kingston, New Hampshire; Judge Haywood Barry--Lebanon, Tennessee; Judge Patsy Stone--Florence, South Carolina; Judge Larry Belskis--Columbus, Ohio; Judge Larry Kay--San Francisco, California; Judge Ray Eubanks--Spartanburg, South Carolina; Judge Frank Riddick-- Huntsville, Alabama; and Judge John N. Kirkendell--Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief statement and then enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). In 1999, we saw the nearly complete disappearance of lobsters in Western Long Island Sound and the destruction of our commercial lobster fishery. Many of the men and women who depend on this industry are faced with having to sell their boats, traps, and other equipment; and many of them will soon lose their homes, as well. Commerce Secretary Daley has already declared the Sound a commercial beneficiary failure under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, paving the way for emergency supplemental funding. According to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, the State as a whole saw an 81 percent decline in pounds of lobster caught in the fall of 1999. The towns of Greenwich and the City of Stanford, the western-most part of Connecticut, showed declines greater than 99 percent. This is not merely a bad year; it is a disappearance of a species. It is a disaster no one anticipated and, therefore, no one prepared for. Researchers from Connecticut and New York, working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, have indicated a parasite is responsible for the die-off but have not been able to identify why the parasite is suddenly flourishing. I am grateful the legislation being considered today includes $8.6 million for additional research and a revolving fund to help the lobstermen refinance their business obligations. The committee's recognition of this tragedy is important. My colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and I rise today to address the critical need for aid to the individuals in communities directly affected by this unexplained disaster, like the citrus growers for whom the Committee on Appropriations has designated $40 million to compensate for lost production due to the unexpected breakout of citrus canker. The Long Island Sound lobstermen deserve our help. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).