Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not correct.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, we are. I would like to ask the Chairman how much time I have left.

Mr. SHAYS. I would like to reclaim my time and say, the gentleman needs to read the bill. The gentleman needs to read the bill. Read the bill. The bill is very clear. We ban soft money, and we call the sham issue ads what they truly are, campaign ads. As soon as we call it a campaign ad, we cannot use union dues money. We cannot use corporation money.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentlemen he is an honest and good man and when he knows the facts, he should be voting for this bill because it has been against the law since 1947 for union dues money to be used in campaigns; 1907, for corporations to be used in campaigns, and both happened because of soft money and sham issue ads. As soon as a sham issue ad is called a campaign ad, one cannot have either corporate money or union dues money. Given that, why will the gentleman not support the bill?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf). (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman, since it has been against the law since 1947 for union dues money to be used in campaigns and they are able to get around it through two features, one, soft money and sham issue ads, why would the gentleman not want to end those two loopholes?

Mr. SHAYS. It is against the law.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to offer an amendment and will not take the whole 5 minutes, but I just want to express a tremendous reservation I have about the lack of funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service and particularly the AmeriCorps program. The bottom line is this program has done extraordinary things to help our country in so many different community services. It provides a stipend to countless numbers of young people and older people who choose to serve our country in a program which allows the States to design two-thirds of the programs; in fact, even more than that. Approximately one-third is a nationally-funded program, and two-thirds are State-designed. Young people and older people provide services in health care, in housing, in education, in public safety. They receive a basic minimum wage, plus an education stipend of $4,750 for each year served. Mr. Chairman, this is a program that Republicans should love and not try to eliminate, because it simply encourages people to serve in our communities and receive an educational grant for some of that service. Mr. Chairman, in many cases it is helping those individuals that have the greatest need for this type of financial support. I weep mentally that my party has not recognized the value of a program of national service in our country. It was something we used to advocate before there was a President Clinton and before it became his program. It was a program we used to think made sense because it was not a hand-out. Young people worked for a minimum wage. They provided service to so many different individuals and organizations and then receive a stipend to educate themselves and improve their lives. Mr. Chairman, I hope and pray if this bill ultimately gets my support before it is then sent to the Senate that in conference the funding for the Corporation for National Service will be restored. I am certain I will vote against any legislation in final passage that does not provide for this very sensible program.

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and am happy to be a part of it. This very modest $10 million increase is vital. It will allow thousands of people living with HIV/AIDS to live longer and healthier lives. It is crucial that the Federal Government continue to address the AIDS epidemic by investing in this program, and I sincerely believe cutting the funds to HOPWA would be a mistake. Between one-third and half of all people living with HIV/AIDS are currently homeless or in imminent danger of becoming so. Sixty percent of all people living with AIDS will face a housing crisis at some point in their lives. While there is reason for hope with new AIDS treatment and research, the battle against HIV/AIDS is far from over. The World Health Organization announced in May that AIDS is now the world's most deadly infectious disease. The good news is people living with AIDS are living longer and more productive lives, but this means care-giving services are needed now more than ever. Given the 57,000 new cases of AIDS in the period between March of 1997 and March of 1998, the already long waiting lists in the new jurisdictions competing for these much needed funds, it's essential that we add this $10 million. Daily costs for persons with AIDS in acute care facilities are $1,085, while the daily cost to HOPWA community housing ranges from only $40 to $100. Providing services in acute care facilities equals more than 10 times the cost of providing housing and services in residential settings. It is a mistake to do that. We should provide this $10 million for HOPWA. It's cost-effective and it's compassionate. Again, I thank my colleagues for offering this amendment.

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I did not want to use the yielded time to compliment my colleague from New York since it was a bit shorter, but I sincerely have tremendous respect for what he is trying to do, and I know that he has respect for what we are trying to do. This is a modest amendment. We are talking about $10 million. We are not talking about $100 million, we are not talking about a billion. HOPWA is housing opportunities for persons with AIDS, and when we provide that opportunity, we are spending $40 to $100 a day. But let us take the high end. It's not usually up to $100 a day; it's less than that. But if people living with HIV/AIDS are not in the kind of housing environment provided by HOPWA, they are receiving acute care at over $1,000 a day. So even taking the high end of the HOPWA cost--at $100 a day--we are talking of spending a total of $36,000 per year as opposed to $365,000 per year in acute care facilities. We really believe this is an amendment that has tremendous benefit because it will save a great deal of money as well as provide the kind of compassion that all of us want to provide. I have particular interest in standing up because my predecessor Stewart McKinney died of AIDS, and his wife, Lucie McKinney, did not walk away. She decided she would devote the rest of her life to helping people living with HIV/AIDS have housing opportunities, and she has given me endless opportunity to see this challenge through her eyes. When her husband died, she went around the country to see how people with HIV/AIDS were living, and it was not a pretty sight, and it continues to not be a pretty sight. So Lucie McKinney, a real hero of mine, who was not a public person has become a public person, and she has made a tremendous difference in the lives of so many. So I think when we stand up in support of HOPWA, we are standing up with the sense that at the least, at the least we should not go back from where we were in funding levels. In this budget year, Mr. Chairman, we are spending $225 million, and this budget will be $215 million, so we are asking that this Chamber restore this crucial $10 million. Mr. Chairman, with that I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Callahan and Ranking Member Pelosi for their work in crafting this important appropriations bill. Given the limited resources available to them, I think they should be commended for their work in bringing this bill forward. I will support this bill but grudgingly, because I believe the reductions it makes in foreign aid are too deep. And I believe we should be asking other parts of the federal budget to share the burden we are placing on this bill. But instead, we are increasing spending in other areas, and asking foreign aid to pick up the slack. We are asking this budget to bend further and further, and I'm here to say: this budget can't bend any further. Mr. Chairman, as a fiscal conservative and a senior member of the Budget Committee, my number one priority in Congress has been to get our financial house in order. In past years, I have supported reductions in our foreign aid budget because it was consistent with our overall efforts to reduce federal spending and eliminate 30 years of deficit spending. We were trying to rein in spending in every other portion of the budget, and the foreign operations bill took a hit like everything else. But I rise today to say that we have picked on the foreign aid budget too much and for too long. I believe every area must play a part in our effort to control the growth of federal spending. But even as we increase spending on agriculture, defense, and other appropriations bills, we are once again decreasing funding for foreign aid. And, I, for one, do not understand why that is. This year's agriculture appropriations bill increased discretionary spending from $13.69 billion to $13.94 billion. This year's defense appropriations bill increased spending from $250.5 billion to $266.1 billion. And this year's transportation appropriations bill increased spending from $47.2 to $50.7 billion. Yet, we are decreasing foreign aid spending from $13.4 billion to $12.6 billion. As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I can attest to the difference foreign assistance makes in the lives of people around the world, and the important role it plays in enhancing international trade and helping maintain national security. I know it is easy and most often popular to vote to cut foreign aid. But the simple fact is, this bill's $12.6 billion in foreign assistance represents just 0.7 percent of the federal budget. That is what we are debating here today. Foreign aid is used to promote health, nutrition, agriculture, education, and other noble goals. Foreign aid is truly one of our nation's greatest international investments. It's not a handout; our aid is intended to help the poorest nations rise up and become self- sufficient, so they will no longer require our assistance. I support this bill, but hope we end this destructive trend of reducing foreign aid budgets.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. I have listened to some of my colleagues today who want to revoke normal trade relations status for China. I, too, am deeply concerned that top nuclear secrets were stolen from U.S. nuclear labs, but I blame the United States more than I blame China. In my judgment the Clinton administration failed to understand the fundamental difference between promoting a strong business relationship with China and maintaining a strong strategic military advantage with that Nation. The distinguished Cox Report counsels changes in our counterintelligence and military security, but it does not call into question our business relationship with China. I continue to support maintaining normal trade relations with China, not favored, but normal relations. We should not give up on trade relations between our two countries. A nation cannot have a prosperous free market economy without educating its citizens. The more educated a country's citizens become, the more they will demand an open society and freedom. Only through economic and social engagement will this transformation truly take place making, China, the United States, and the world a better place.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means for yielding me this time. I have spent 12 years of my life in this place working with others to try to get our country's financial house in order and balance the Federal budget. And as hard as we worked, we really did not see much improvement until Republicans gained the majority in this House. When we gained the majority, we saw deficits projected of $100 billion, $200 billion dollars, going out for years and years and years. Because of our efforts, we have reversed that. And now we have a budget surplus, projected over the next 10 years, of $3 trillion. Two trillion of those dollars we are setting aside for Social Security and Medicare, and we are going to pay down debt. One trillion is the true surplus outside the trust funds. And that is what we are debating. I am absolutely convinced my colleagues on the other side want to spend it. And I believe if we leave it on the table, it will be spent. Absolutely convinced of it. And then 10 years from now we will have a higher level of government spending and we will need to deal with incredible expenditures that will come in the future, and our baseline will be very, very high. Instead, we want to cut taxes. Not all of the $1 trillion. It may be, by the time we are done, $500 to $800 billion. They are tax cuts that help generate economic activity, and they are tax cuts that help families, and they are tax cuts that help education and allow us to deduct for health care. If we leave it on the table, it will be spent; and our spending base will be that much higher. If we return it in tax cuts and phase them in over time, I am absolutely convinced our economy will grow. But if, in the future, we find it does not, we do not have to implement the entire phase-in. This is very responsible, and I say this particularly to Republicans: this is the most important thing we can do to finish what we started.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 15, I inadvertently voted ``nay'' when I meant to vote ``aye'' on rollcall vote 303, the Lowey amendment to H.R. 2490, the Fiscal Year 2000 (FY 00) Treasury-Postal Appropriations Act. I support the provision in H.R. 2490 to require Federal Employee Health Benefit Plans (FEHBP) which provide prescription plans to include coverage of all FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices. I oppose the amendment offered by Congressman Chris Smith to allow health plans to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage by claiming a ``moral conviction.'' I was happy to see the passage of the Lowey substitute amendment to strike this exemption for health plans. It is my hope the Lowey amendment will help reduce unwanted pregnancies while providing women with contraceptive coverage. While the FY 00 Treasury-Postal Appropriations Act covers only women in the FEHBP, I believe it is a positive step forward in ensuring contraceptive coverage is available to women in a majority of health plans. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2120, the Equity in Prescription and Contraceptive Coverage Act, introduced by Representatives Jim Greenwood and Nita Lowey, I will continue to work to provide access to family planning services.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and allowing me to participate in this debate. And I continue to wonder, if my colleagues do not support abortions, why would they oppose family planning? And when they oppose family planning, what it says to me is they want more abortions, because that is the direct outcome. And I also wonder why so many men stand up and do not want women to have knowledge about family planning, particularly in poor countries where they need it the most. I wonder what is humane about that? What is loving, what is kind about that? I am embarrassed by the opposition of so many to allow women to have family planning information. I support the measly $25 million that we would provide to the United Nations Population Fund, and I regretfully support the Campbell-Maloney-Gilman-Crowley amendment of which I am cosponsor, which says that any money for family planning that goes to China would be deducted, so the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) cannot continue to make these false charges. There is no U.S. money going to China because we deduct it, and that is the bottom line. I support family planning because I am concerned about the projected growth of 800 million new people from 1990 to 2000, and projections of another 800 million new people from 2000 to 2010, and I wonder what this world is going to be like with so much poverty and death.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Maloney-Shays- Morella amendment to ensure a woman's right to breastfeed her child in federal buildings and on federal property. As an original cosponsor of the Right to Breastfeed Act, I strongly support this common-sense reform. Breastfeeding is a natural and healthy choice. Breast milk helps protect against a number of childhood diseases, including ear infections, juvenile diabetes, lymphoma, some chronic liver diseases, and allergies. In addition to containing all the nutrients a child needs for ideal growth and development, breastfeeding promotes closeness between a mother and child, and is easy to digest. While not all mothers choose to breastfeed, those who do should be able to feed their child on federal government property without fear of harassment. It is unfortunate that this amendment is necessary. Women across the country--indeed in the U.S. Capitol where we stand today--have been asked or told to leave a federal building park or office because they were breastfeeding. Examples include the story of a woman who was visiting the U.S. capitol to observe a session of Congress with her three daughters, and began to nurse her youngest daughter discreetly. A guard approached her and asked her to ``do that somewhere else.'' The same thing happened outside in the hallway. A New York woman was asked to leave a Post Office while she was breastfeeding her child and another woman was waiting for several hours in a court house to present her case was told to leave the holding room when she began to nurse her son. While visiting the Nation Museum of Natural History, a guard instructed a Maryland woman who was breastfteeding her child to leave because there is ``no food or drink'' allowed in the museum. These examples sound crazy, I know, but they reflect the very real problem women are having when breastfeeding their children on federal property. While there are no laws specifically against breastfeeding, a woman asked to leave federal property often has no recourse. When public breastfeeding is restricted, so is a breastfeeding woman's access to public facilities and functions. I am pleased the Fiscal Year 2000 Interior Appropriations Act included a similar amendment to allow breastfeeding at federal parks, the Smithsonian and other federal museums. Let's close the loop and preserve a woman's right to breastfeed on all federal property. I urge you to support this common-sense amendment.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise first to acknowledge the fact that for the last 4 years Congress has funded the NEA at $98 million and the NEH at $110.7 million. There has not been a change in this funding in 4 years. I feel extraordinarily compelled to come and speak in support of a modest amendment, really, offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) to change this funding level by adding $10 million to the NEA for a total of $108 million and $10 million to the NEH for a total of $120.7 million. We are talking about an increase of only $10 million in each. I rise in support of the Horn-Slaughter amendment because it's a very modest amendment which will have a large impact by bringing the arts to more communities previously underserved, like our inner-cities and rural areas, and by encouraging more support for preserving and promoting our cultural heritage. Mr. Chairman, national support of the arts is a measure of the success of a thoughtful Nation. Funding for the NEA and the NEH helps thousands of performers who may not be celebrities but who enrich their lives by performing and who enrich the lives of everyone who enjoys their performance. They contribute, I think, to the soul of the community. Arts and humanities improve the lives of so many people, including children, the elderly and those on limited budgets who might not otherwise have the opportunity to see very beautiful art and enjoy enriching performances. Mr. Chairman, as I said before, the NEA and the NEH have not received an increase in funding in 4 years, and I urge us to wake up and begin to fund sufficiently these two important government programs.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is a big deal. This is an important issue. And this land is your land, and it is my land. It is Government land that has been extraordinarily abused by a law we all know needs to be reformed. We all know it needs to be reformed. But instead of reforming the law, we are ignoring the law. The Lode Act of 1860 which dealt with veins and it contained the 20- acre and the 5-acre millsite limits. The Placer Act of 1866 dealt with mineralized earth. It had 20 acre mining site and 5 acre millsite limits. And it was codified in 1872. We are not objecting to the law. If a mining claim has 100 acres, then a mining claimant has 25 acres they may use as a millsite. That is not our objection. In the case of Crown Jewel Mine, Battle Mountain Gold Company, has four patents approved and 11 unpatented claims. They have a total of 15 mining claims, for a total of 300 acres. But they want 117 millsites. They want 585 acres when they are entitled under law to only 75 acres. We are seeing mining interests trying to ignore the law, and then we blame the Solicitor General, whose job it is to make sure the law is enforced. That is the law. The Soliciter General is going to make sure it is enforced. It was ignored. The other side may argue we have to amend the law and deal with some legitimate concerns. But we do not ignore the law. And that is what I believe is the attempt of these riders in the Senate Interior Appropriations bill. I have a gigantic problem with the fact that this is our land. Mining companies do not pay a dime for it unless they are extracting oil or gas and then they pay a minimal royalty. But hard rock miners do not pay anything for the minerals they extract. They can destroy the land and leave it behind, and we are left to deal with an environmental disaster. Some can say, well, why should we care in New England? Because it is our land, it is our country, and we care about it and we want something to happen to deal with this outrage. So I wish the committee of jurisdiction would deal with this law, and I wish we would abide by the law that exists today. And that is 20 acres and 5; and if a claimant wants 40, then the claimant gets 10. And if the claimant wants 100, the claimant gets 25. That is the law. We can criticize the Solicitor General all we want, but he is saying the law needs to be abided by. I'd like to add that if mining interests do not like the law as it is being interpreted by the Solicitor General, then they can go to court. I just hope we can pass this amendment, and then I hope the committee of jurisdiction can deal with this issue as it needs to be dealt with. It is a law that goes back to 1872. It is a law that needs changing. I hope we change it but not ignore it.