Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], to talk positively about our budget.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, our objective in our budget is to get our financial house in order and balance our Federal budget to save our trust funds for future generations, and to transform our caretaking social and corporate welfare state into what I would call a caring opportunity society. That really gets at the thrust of why I am here today. As a moderate Republican, I have seen what we have done for the last 30 years. We have been caretakers instead of being caring. We are able to go back to our districts and say I did this for you and I did that for you, but the bottom line is we have been a caretaker instead of caring. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to just point out to my colleague that on Medicare we increase it from 196 today, in billions, to $284 billion. That is Medicare. That is a 45-percent increase in the spending on Medicare. And on Medicaid we increase it from $95 billion to $140 billion. At the same time, we give seniors choice without increasing their copayment, their deductible or their premium. Mr. Chairman, we also have a tax cut in our budget only for those who make less than $100,000; a $500 tax credit for children. That is the only tax cut we have in our budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger].

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to correct the gentleman on a number of points. First off, the earned income tax credit under the Republicans last year went from $19 to $25 billion. The school lunch went from $5 to $6.8 billion. The Student Loan Program went from $24 to $36 billion. Medicaid went from $89 to $127 billion. Medicare went from $178 to $289 billion. Only in this city when you spend so much more do people call it a cut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Nussle].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, to once again correct the gentleman for his inaccurate comments. Medicare under our bill goes from $196 billion to $283 billion. That is a 45-percent increase in spending from this year to the sixth year. Under our Medicaid Program, it grows from $95 billion to $140 billion. Only in this city, when you spend so much more do people call it a cut. We are spending more because we need to improve this program. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, would you inform both sides how much time is available, subtracting 30 minutes from each on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. How much time does this debate have?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe]. (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond once again to the inaccuracies of my colleague. From 1991 to 1996, we spent $463 billion on Medicaid. Under our proposal it increases. We will spend $731 billion, 463, 731. The President would spend only slightly more, 749. What is interesting is, our colleagues in the coalition budget would spend 732, $1 billion more. They call ours a cut and they call theirs an increase.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

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

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, it is not lost on me and my colleagues on this side of the aisle that when our colleagues on the other side of the aisle had an opportunity to increase the minimum wage when they controlled both the House and the Senate they choose not to bring it up. It is simply not lost on us us that much of this debate is about politics. The fact is this side of the aisle will have a vote on the minimum wage. But when we have a vote on the minimum wage, it will not just include the minimum wage. It will also include a tax credit for employers who hire the most disadvantaged workers, those who have been on welfare, those who have never had a job before. We will have a tax credit tied to increasing the minimum wage to help the most disadvantaged. We will also have provisions to help small businesses most impacted by a minimum wage income. We are going to have a job creation program along with increasing the minimum wage. I would encourage my colleagues, particularly on this side of the aisle, to vote for the previous question, and not be lured into this procedural vote that will ultimately be declared out of order. Passage of the minimum wage should be done in a way that creates not only an increase in the wage base for those who are most disadvantaged, but also has a job creation element to help all Americans.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield half my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. I want to thank first my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], who has been working on this issue for so many years, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are trying to provide a workable solution to a very real problem. The last I heard, our country had a financial crisis. The last I heard, Members on this side of the aisle believe we need to get our financial house in order and balance our Federal budget. We are cutting domestic spending, we are cutting foreign aid, we are freezing defense spending, and we are slowing the growth of entitlements. We are asking every part of our Government to recognize that we have to get our financial house in order. We need to ask our allies in Europe to do what our allies in Korea and Japan are doing. Our allies in Japan are paying $3.8 billion in direct payments to help us defray the cost of our troops in Japan, $3.8 billion. Our allies in Europe are paying $46 million. We are asking our colleagues to do their part in this effort. This amendment in the past was opposed by the State Department and the Defense Department. Because of the work of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and others, it has received their support, and certainly not their opposition. I encourage my colleagues to recognize this amendment passed last year and it was a stronger amendment then, 273 to 156; the year before 268 to 144. This amendment has had the support of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the past. It is an amendment that will help us get our financial house in order, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 \1/2\ minutes to my colleague the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton]

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to briefly describe this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This is an amendment designed to encourage the administration to ask our allies in Europe to pay more of the nonsalaried costs of our troops in Europe. Presently we have 116,000 troops in Europe. The nonpersonnel cost is $8.3 billion. Our allies contribute about $2 billion in in-kind and cash, but their cash contribution is $46 million. In contrast, we have 45,000 troops in Japan. The total nonpersonnel cost is $5.8 billion. The contribution of the Japanese is $4.6 billion. In Europe our allies contribute $2 billion to an $8 billion cost. In Japan our allies contribute $4.6 billion out of a $5.8 billion cost. In cash contributions to the United States from Japan, we receive $3.8 billion. Our European allies contribute $46 million in cash contribution. An amendment similar to this passed the House last year, 273-156. The year before it passed 268-144. It has clear support in the House but has not passed the Senate and has not been in a conference report. This is an attempt to take the considerations of our colleagues in the Senate and have an amendment we think that they also can support. It would not reduce the number of troops in Europe but would enable the President to allow for four different types of assistance on the part of the Europeans, that they contribute more, and more to the indirect costs of our troops in Europe, that if they cannot do that, increase their own defense spending or their own foreign aid assistance or their own military contributions to other countries but bear a bigger burden of sharing the cost of defending the free world, and it gives the President four basic options. One is to reduce the level of troops but not require a reduction in the number of troops. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini].

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we have to take the context of this bill compared to what exists, not the fantasy of what we think exists. We go into public housing areas all around the country. They are in devastating shape. One of the things I find most troubling, the most troubling thing is that we have basically warehoused the poorest of the poor in one particular area. And all in the name of doing God's work, all in the name of good. I happen to believe that one of the most serious problems that we have in public housing is we do not have firemen and policemen living in public housing. We do not have the kind of role models that you used to have. And I just hope and pray that others realize there is another side to the Brooke amendment, at least the ones that I am most interested in. I want a family that truly wants to stay in public housing to stay in a little longer and not end up paying more than the market rent. Thirty percent of income can sometimes be more than what someone would logically pay for the kind of facility that they are living in. I want kids to be able to say that their next door neighbor may be a fireman or a polceman, may have a job, may be somebody that they really look up to and aspire to be like. And I just hope and pray that in terms of this debate that we do not talk about the fantasy world of what we think exists but what truly exists. I have spent 9 years now in this Chamber investigating the Department of HUD, both at the Federal level and on the local level. The area that concerns me the most is that we simply have got to have a mixture of income, again in public housing.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. The bottom line to this is, this is a vote on the housing bill, on the minimum wage. I urge my colleagues to vote for the previous question so we can reform public housing, which I have overseen for 9 years. I can tell my colleagues it is in need of tremendous reform. To those who say it is a vote on minimum wage, I will say to them, my colleagues, I am absolutely convinced we will have a vote on this issue. I happen to be one of the eight that the gentleman has made reference to. To me, it is not lost that Democrats had 2 years when they controlled the White House and Congress. It is kind of embarrassing that they make it an issue today, when they could have done it when they controlled both the White House and Congress. I see this vote on the minimum wage today as a political vote, not a substantive vote. I urge my colleagues to vote for the previous question. Get on with our job, and we are going to do it. And we are going to do it the right way.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I just really want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] and the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], for working so well together, and the full chairman of the committee as well as the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], in particular, a new member who has helped bring together and help forge some very important elements to this bill. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that we are seeing a 17 percent increase in the Ryan White funding over last year. I am particularly grateful that we are seeing for the first time the prohibiting of health insurance discrimination against someone who suspects or in fact is HIV positive. We have a million people in our country who are HIV positive, we have 300,000 who have died of AIDS. This country needs to come together to heal the wounds and to help them, and I am just extraordinarily grateful for the leaders on both sides of the aisle who have depoliticized this and made a significant step forward in helping the people in our country who need the help the most.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, there are a large number of Republicans who believe that the minimum wage is destructive and that an increase would be harmful to our country. There are a number of Republicans who take a different view. My purpose for standing there today is to encourage my colleagues to vote to pass the motion for the previous question, but to say that time is running out. I understand my colleagues on the other side have been forcing this issue each and every week. It does force others to deal with it more quickly than we may have wanted to. But our leadership on this side of the aisle needs the opportunity to see if there is a way to come forward with a package that meets the concerns of us to support a minimum wage and also meets the legitimate concerns of some of my colleagues. I would like to tell my colleagues why I support an increase in the minimum wage, why I agree with my colleague. It is at a 40-year low. If we do not increase the minimum wage, it will be at a 40-year low. The minimum wage in 1968 was at the high point in terms of its purchasing power. If we had indexed for inflation from 1968, that minimum wage would be $7.08 today, not $4.25. I believe the modest increase that we voted on in 1989 was fair and right. I do not believe it caused unemployment, I do not believe it created higher prices. I believe it lifted up the bottom level. I make the argument with people on my side of the aisle, and anyone else who will listen, that I really believe that if we are looking to get people off of welfare and on to work, we need to lift the minimum wage. But these are all issues that will be debated and have to be debated, and I believe they will be debated, quite frankly. The issue is, should it happen today? And I would encourage all my Republican colleagues to give our leadership the time to deal with this issue, to give them time to come and present to us their proposal and then we can decide if it meets the test. For me, it has to be passage of minimum wage. I believe minimum wage will pass, I believe it should pass, and I look forward to voting for it. But on this procedural question on a bill that, quite frankly, is not a substantive bill, I would encourage my colleagues to not be enticed to vote for the minimum wage at this time.