Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, could we be informed of how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] is prepared to close, I would yield him some additional time. I yield the gentleman 2\3/4\ minutes.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, at this time should I acknowledge that I am in opposition to the amendment?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to say that this is a balanced budget, it is certainly legitimate in terms of its Members, but we oppose it for a variety of very important reasons. First, it provides no tax relief for American families. Again, let me say, it provides no tax relief for American families. In fact, in our reading of the legislation, it increases taxes, demanding $300 billion more from American taxpayers over the next 5 years than the bipartisan budget agreement, which cuts taxes. It extends the solvency of Medicare by only 4 years at best, and 1 year at worst. And many on our side of the aisle strongly oppose the fact that it will be cutting defense appropriations by $183 billion below the level of this bipartisan budget agreement over the next 5 years. The fact is that under this plan, the era of big government is not over, it increases. And importantly, and it just cannot be understated, this budget would clearly be an agreement-breaker. In other words, the bipartisan agreement between the White House and Congress would not be respected by passage of this caucus budget. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and then we will allow the gentleman from California to conclude. Mr. Chairman, we need to make it very clear that we oppose this budget, however well intended. It is an honest budget, but it is a budget that provides no tax relief for American families. In fact, it increases taxes, demanding another $300 billion more from the American taxpayers in 5 years. And, regretfully, it extends the solvency of Medicare by only 4 years at best and 1 year at worst. Many on our side of the aisle are concerned that it reduces defense spending a significant amount of $183 billion below the budget that is being presented before us tonight, the base budget. This budget is, in fact, an agreement breaker. It would kill the agreement. And it is clear that under this budget the era of big government is not over, it is extended. Mr. Chairman, we have three primary objectives in this Congress. One is to get our country's financial house in order and balance the Federal budget. The second is to save our trust funds, particularly Medicare, not just for future generations but for present generations as well. And the third is to transform our caretaking society into a caring society. Much of the well-intended social effort that has been involved in our government in the last 30 years, while well-intended, has just simply perpetuated the very things we are trying to end. We not only want to end social welfare and put mothers back in a situation where they have job training and an opportunity to work, and experience the same opportunities that most Americans have, we are looking to end the assistance to corporations that some would refer to as corporate welfare, but to reduce, to the extent possible, reliance of business on government. And we, obviously, have been successful in reducing some of the benefits that have gone to the farming community that, frankly, in some instances, may turn out to be like a welfare program. With the passage of the Freedom to Farm Bill, we have ended 50 percent of the subsidies to farmers. We have made tremendous strides there. This budget moves us in a direction of bringing back the power and the money and influence from Washington back home to our local communities. Regretfully, because we did not have an agreement with the White House 2 years ago, right now, as we speak, the trust fund, Medicare trust fund, is losing $35 million each and every day. Next year, if we do not come to an agreement, it will lose $55 million each day; and the year after that, $78 million each day. The fund, without correction, the Medicare trust fund by the 10th year will have a debt of $612 billion and go bankrupt by the year 2001. And by the year 2007, 10 years from now, there will be a debt in the fund of $612 billion. Under our plan, we extend the Medicare trust fund not for 4 years, not for 5, for 10. And in the 10th year, rather than having a debt of $612 billion, it will have $75 billion in the fund. We do not cut Medicare. Only in Washington when we spend 34 percent more would people call it a cut. We are going to go from $208 billion to $279 billion. That is an average increase each year of 6 percent. On a per-person basis, Medicare will grow from $5,480. In the 5th year of the budget agreement it will go to $6,911. Only in Washington, when we have an increase of 26 percent in the per-beneficiary benefit, would someone call it a cut. And the same thing with Medicaid. Medicaid under our plan will grow by 40 percent. It will grow from $98 billion to $137 billion. On a per- beneficiary basis it will grow form $22 billion to $29 billion. What we have done is we have allowed these programs to grow at a rate that we can afford, providing better programs in each instance. Mr. Chairman, I know the intentions of the Black Caucus are high and well-intended, but the bottom line is that rather than helping our country, in our judgment, if this budget were to pass, it would do the exact opposite and hurt our country. I urge the Members to vote against it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the caucus' final speaker. I do not encourage the gentleman to use all that time, but he can use as much of it as he wants.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] to the budget agreement for a variety of reasons. I do so with the knowledge that this represents the position of many on my side of the aisle if we did not have a Democrat President. But this last election we elected a Democrat President and a Republican Congress, and this amendment, if it were to pass, would in fact kill the budget agreement made between Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate with the President of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment in spite of the fact that they believe it is somewhat seductive and point out that in this budget agreement we have with the White House Republicans took a very strong position that we should control the growth in entitlements and get our country's financial house in order. This budget agreement controls the growth of entitlements. We also said that we wanted tax cuts. This budget agreement provides for $135 billion of tax cuts. That is what Republicans got out of this budget agreement. What the President wanted was more domestic spending, and that is, in fact, what he received in this budget negotiation. While many on our side of the aisle would like to reduce domestic spending and do not agree with the President of the United States, the fact is this is an agreement we have in order to have a tax cut of $135 billion in order to control the growth of entitlements. So, Mr. Chairman, I rise with some reluctance but with conviction that this amendment needs to be defeated. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, to end the debate, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Gil Gutknecht.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on the Budget, I oppose this amendment.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to know how much time has been consumed on both sides. That is the question. I did not ask how much is remaining. How much is consumed?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watkins]. (Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. That is not all that helpful, Mr. Chairman. Of the total amount of time on each side, how much has been allocated?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair just explain how much time has been consumed? I understand that when the majority leader was yielded 5 minutes, he spoke for 13; and that is our process, but he was allocated 5 minutes against the time. How much time has been consumed by both sides?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker].

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution just agreed to.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.