Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as I was hearing both of the gentlemen, both chairmen of this new Republican majority, I just kind of stood in awe thinking of the fact that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] was the fifth ranking Member of the Committee on Appropriations. This new Republican majority said that we wanted the best and the brightest to take these positions. They were given that assignment. I was thinking what a thankless task it has been for them. There is not a Member that has not been disappointed with certain parts of the hard decisions that they have had to make. I just wanted to come personally and thank my colleague for the extraordinary job he has done as the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the chairman who has actually had to make cuts in budgets. We slowed the growth of Medicare and Medicaid but we still allow them to grow significantly. But you actually said, we are going to spend less dollars next year than the year we are in. And you are doing exactly what we intended to do. We wanted to get our financial house in order and balance our Federal budget. We want to save our trust funds for future generations. And most importantly, we want to transform this social and corporate welfare state, this caretaking society into a caring opportunity society. And I just wanted to thank you for the work you are doing and to celebrate the fact that it has been a long and arduous journey, but you have done it.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding I will not be using the full time. I do appreciate his willingness to allow me to participate in your hour's time. Mr. Speaker, this Republican majority, this new Congress, has three objectives. Our first objective is to get our financial house in order and balance our Federal budget, and at the same time grow this economy. That is the first objective, and it is absolutely essential that we succeed in it. Our second objective is to save our trust funds for future generations, particularly Medicare, from ultimate bankruptcy. In fact, Medicare part B, the health services that Medicare recipients receive, started to go insolvent last year, not this year as expected. Our third objective, Mr. Speaker, is to transform our caretaking social and corporate, I would even say farming welfare state, into a caring opportunity society. Now, the words opportunity society are words used by conservatives primarily. They are great words, and are words that have existed in this country in particular for well over 200 years. And they are preceded by the word ``caring.'' This is not a conservative agenda that throws up our hands in the air and says, ``You live in the cities, you were raised by a crack mother, you did not have much of an education. Too bad. You are on your own.'' That is not the agenda. This agenda is an agenda that is trying to help people grow the seeds. Mr. Speaker, we have an incredible opportunity to do what we have failed to do for so many years. We are not looking to repeal the New Deal, but much of the Great Society simply did not work. Not all of it, but a good part of it. I was coming to Washington this week, I noticed on my calendar, I have quotes on my calendar. This one happened to have been from Ann Landers. I think it defines something that is absolutely essential. It says, ``In the final analysis, it is not what you do for your children, but what you have taught them to do for themselves that will make them successful human beings.'' I look at this and say this is absolutely the center of what we need to do as a Government. In the final analysis, it is not what you do for your citizens, but what you have taught them to do for themselves that will make them successful human beings. As a moderate Republican, someone who has voted for a number of programs that would be part of the Great Society, I have had to analyze and say, where have I been doing the right thing, where I have helped make a difference, and where have I actually caused problems? If I am honest with myself, there is a part of me that recognizes that I could go and vote for some of these programs and say, you know, I have dealt with your need. I can pat myself on the back. I can go to certain groups and they can say, oh, isn't it nice that you care? Well, I would contend that some of my caring has resulted in caretaking, not in caring, and that what I need to truly do is be a caring person. And a caring person is going to do more what Ann Landers says, and that is what have you taught them to do for themselves that will make them successful human beings? I have made a point in the last 4 years of my 9 years in Congress of asking anyone who has had a difficult life, that is perceived as difficult, and obviously nobody walks in someone else's moccasins, all of us face difficult things, but people who have been raised in poverty, been raised by one parent in poverty, people who may have had an experience on drugs, a whole host of different challenges that have faced them, and I have said what made a difference in your life? Why are you the successful person you are today? What was it in your life that made you so successful? Almost to a person, it was ``Someone in my life, my father, my mother, my brother, my sister, my aunt or my uncle, my grandparent, somebody, a mentor, someone took an interest in me and taught me how to grow my own seeds.'' I think of parents who are raising their children, and I think well, in the final analysis, it is what you did for your children or what you taught your children to do for themselves that made the difference? And to a person they would not tolerate doing something for their children without teaching them what they can do for themselves, making them independent. So I speak as someone who has been part of this political process, saying I feel I have done a lot of things that have made a positive difference in people's lives, but I have also looked and seen that there are things that I have not done, or things that I have done that have been in fact the exact opposite of what I intended. This may sound a little harsh, but I believe it to be true: Poor people do not create jobs. Poor people need jobs. And sometimes the people who are going to create those jobs happen to be people who are well-to-do. I went to a housing seminar and I was confronted by a group of people who think that we have given tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the poor, which simply is not true, but that is what they think. But at the same time, they said to me, ``Why aren't you a stronger advocate of the low income housing tax credit?'' This is a tax credit to provide housing for low income people. And I said to this group, think of what you are asking. It has a wonderful name. It is in fact a fairly effective program. But the low income housing tax credit is going to benefit the poor and the well-to-do. The people who get the tax credit are the well-to-do. So the very group that was accusing me of having a tax credit for the wealthy were asking me to vote for a tax credit for the wealthy that had an intention to help the poor. This is really what we have to wrestle with as a country. We have to be honest with ourselves about a lot of things. One, poor people do not create jobs, they need jobs. The people who can help create these jobs are people who have the financial resources to invest in new plant and equipment and invest in jobs in the process. There is another statement that I just have pondered a lot. I do not understand how people can be pro-jobs and antibusiness. How can you say you want to create more jobs and they you want to be against the very people who create jobs? The fact is, you cannot. Now, the Republican majority decided to do something that no other majority in Congress has ever attempted to do in the past. We have decided to get our financial house in order, and we are doing it in a very reasonable way. I am not saying everything we are attempting to do is perfect. I would not make that claim. But I have never been more proud to be part of a party and part of a majority than I am today. We are trying to slow the growth in spending so it ultimately intersects and is no greater than the revenue that we receive. Now, people say we have a revenue problem. That would be a hard one to understand, since revenues keep growing. We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Our spending keeps going up more than our revenue does. It never intersects, it means that we continually have revenue and then an expense, and that difference is the deficit. At the end of each year, these deficits just keep getting added to our national debt. That is what I want to focus in on. The national debt in 1945 was $260 billion. Today it is $4.9 trillion. But I could go back to just 1974. After the Vietnam War, it was only about $430 billion. $430 billion. It is now $5.2 trillion, or $5,200 billion. It has gone up well more than tenfold, 10 times. Not one time or doubled or tripled, quadrupled. It has gone up tenfold, 10 times, in 22 years. That is a disgrace. It is just simply a disgrace. When people say to me that the deficits do not matter, I say I do not understand it. I simply do not understand how it does not matter that our national debt has grown 10 times in 22 years. I think historians will look at the Congresses of the past and, frankly, the White House of the past, Republicans and Democrats. Some Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have been wanting to control spending. The White House never submitted balanced budgets from either party, and Congresses never gave back balanced budgets. So I basically make the argument that both parties have had their fingers in this mess called the national debt. But we have a party now in the majority that is willing to change that, willing to stop it, willing to slow the growth in spending so it, ultimately, in 7 years, equals the revenue that we receive. No more deficits; therefore, no increase to our national debt. I think historians will look at the last 20 years, will look at it much the way they looked at the Reconstruction era after the Civil War, not a particularly proud time in our history. I do not think it is a particularly proud time in some respects in terms of the national debt and what has happened to our society in a while host of different ways since 1974 to this year now, 1996, 22 years. I look at the national debt and I look at what historians will say. I used to just blame Republicans and Democrats, the White House and Congress. I have come to the conclusion that the American people have a lot more to do with this than I ever realized in the past, and I speak from personal experience on this issue. There was a Member of Congress who was a very liberal Republican named John Lindsey, and he ran for mayor of New York City. He won. This moderate to liberal, in fact very liberal Member of Congress, made a determination that he thought that the city could not afford the large increases in public salaries that were happening without a corresponding increase in productivity. He felt it was wrong that sanitation workers completed their work before 11 o'clock in the day, did not work a full 8 hours. He thought it was wrong that welfare workers were not working as hard as they should, that police and firemen simply were getting increases in salary without corresponding increases in productivity, and this very liberal Republican said, ``I am going to fight it,'' and he fought it. The result was that the police went on strike, the firemen went on strike, the sanitation workers went on strike, the welfare workers went on strike, the subway workers went on strike. They all went on strike. The city shut down. Did the people of New York City blame the workers for going on strike? No. They blamed the mayor. They thought he was incompetent, this incompetent mayor that could not keep the city running. And I draw parallels today. People are saying we cannot shut down the Government; our job is to keep it running. Our job is to keep it running in the right way but not keep it running in the wrong way. This mayor tried to confront that. What was the result? The result was that people thought he was incompetent. His polls went down, and he responded to the polls and the people of the city. He got the firemen back to work and the policemen back to work and the sanitation workers back to work. He got the welfare workers back to work. He got the subways running again, but he did it by selling the city down the river. He basically caved in. He gave up, and he got reelected. That was the message: Cave in, get reelected, sell the city down the tubes. This city went bankrupt because of what happened. The city of New York went bankrupt, and then again he was considered incompetent. He was considered incompetent when they went on strike. They liked him when he put everybody back to work, failing to realize that in order to get them back to work he basically had to agree to their side of the position. He basically sold out and paid them the increases in wages without the corresponding increases in productivity. I liken that to what I am experiencing today. I will not say it happens all the time, but when the Government shut down during Thanksgiving I did not want to open it up, and I would vote to this day to keep it shut until this generation is responsible to our children. I would not have increased the national debt because I think it is irresponsible to allow this national debt to keep growing when we have not controlled the growth of entitlements. But let me give everyone an example of a letter I received from a constituent, a good friend. I received a letter from a constituent outraged that the Government had shut down. This happened to be the shutdown during the Christmas holidays, not a great time to have Government shut down, not something I particularly liked, but I did know why it happened. It happened primarily, not entirely but primarily because the President had vetoed certain appropriations bills. When he vetoed these bills, we ended up with no budget. When we had no budget, we had to shut down the Government. I had constituents who said, well, we should give the President a budget that he wants. The problem is the budget he wants, in my judgment, bankrupts this country. I did not feel right about that. But this is the argument that I was receiving from some of my constituents. Some of my constituents, not all but too many, frankly, said--one of them said, in so many words, ``Dear Chris, I have always liked you, I have always respected you and voted for you, but never again. Your job was to keep this government running. You failed in a very basic responsibility, and I will not only not vote for you again in the future, but I am going to actively work against you.'' Now, I could have accepted all of that to that point, but then he gave me his big reason why. His big reason why was that his daughter wanted to study abroad, and she went to get her visa and the passport office was closed down. So basically he was saying for his daughter he was outraged. I began to think about it, and I thought, this is unbelievable. Mr. Rabin, the former Prime Minister of Israel, said politicians are elected by the adults to represent the children, and I am thinking about this. This is about his daughter, not about her getting a passport so she could study abroad. It is about the fact that if we continue our neglectful ways, our deficits will keep growing. Our debt will keep growing and ultimately his daughter, his precious dear daughter, will be paying anywhere from 60 to 80 percent of all the money she makes in taxes to Federal, State, and local governments. That is what this is about. It is about his daughter. And the fact is, he just did not get it. Now, I have to blame myself, because I am an elected official and my job is to help explain it and to teach and to learn and to pay the consequences if I am not doing the right thing. There are many things that we could probably be criticized for, but the one thing we cannot be criticized for is not wanting to do the right thing about getting our financial house in order. This Republican majority is determined to grow this economy by ending these obscene deficits that add to this national debt that has grown 10 times in 22 years. I had a number of constituents who said, ``Don't you listen to the polls? Don't you see what is happening?'' I am thinking, yes, I am listening to the polls. I see a lot of concerned and angry people. There is reason to be concerned. We have deficits that are growing and growing and growing. I am concerned. There is reason to be disappointed with the growth of our economy that is only about 1 percent a year in the last 20 years on average. I would contend there is a very simple reason for it. There are probably a lot, but one that is right out there in front, our deficits are taking away money that could be invested in new plant and equipment, and the money that is being set aside in savings, 42 percent of it is being gobbled up to fund the national debt. Why are we spending so much money of our savings to fund the national debt? Because our deficits keep growing and our national debt keeps growing. I want to stop these deficits. I want interest rates to come down. I want businesses to be able to look at the interest rates and know that it can pay for them to invest in new plant and equipment. So what about the polls? Well, the polls tells us that 47 percent basically say the President is right, Congress is cutting too much; 46 percent say Congress is right, we are cutting just right or not enough. But they think that when we dealt with the earned-income tax credit we were cutting. They thought $19 billion was going to be less in the 7th year, but the fact is the earned-income tax credit is a payment paid to people who work but do not make enough. They actually get a payment from the taxpayers, a government check. Instead of giving the government money, as low-income workers they actually get money from the Government, from the taxpayers. That is growing from $19 billion to $25 billion under our plan. The school lunch program is growing from $5.2 to $6.8 billion. That is not a cut; that is an increase. The student loan program is growing from $24 billion to $36 billion. Medicaid is growing from $89 billion to $127 billion. Medicare from $178 to $289 billion. Only in this place when we spend so much more do people call it a cut. But the press reports it as a cut, and the unbelievable thing is that they think we are cutting too much when we are spending more. Now, when the pollsters point out that the student loan program is growing from $24 billion to $36 billion, and they tell Americans the student loan program is going to grow 50 percent, the 46 percent that says we are cutting just right or not enough actually grows to 66 percent, and the group that thinks we are cutting too much, that 47 percent, drops down to about 33 percent. So one aspect of the polls is that when the American people learn the truth, they want us to do what we are doing. In fact, when we tell the American people the truth, they will tell us to do the right thing. I would contend that they are not really hearing or learning from what they hear from the press what is happening. Earned-income tax credits, school lunch, student loans, Medicare, and Medicaid are growing. Medicare is growing on a per-person basis from $4,800 to $7,100 in the 7th year. It is growing, in dollar amounts, 60 percent from this year to the 7th year. Then people say, yes, but we have more people participating. Well, even with more people it is growing at 49 percent per person. So in response to the polls, one, I say when the American people know the truth, the polls will tell us to do what we are doing. I really believe that. If I am wrong, I will be looking for a new job. But I also think something else about the polls. Sometimes at critical moments in our history we have to do what is right even if the polls tell us to do something slightly different or significantly different. I would make this comparison to what Abraham Lincoln found when he came forward and was sworn in as President. When he was sworn in as President, they had to sneak him into Washington. I want everyone to imagine what it must have been like in Lincoln's time when they literally had to sneak him into Washington. They had to sneak him into Washington because his life was threatened. When he was sworn in, seven States decided to leave the Union. They said, we are out of here. When the seven States left the Union, a lot of the people in the North said, what an incompetent President. Already, practically before he has done anything, we have lost our country. It is breaking apart. A lot of people in the North began to look with disdain at this, quote-unquote, incompetent, bumbling President. After the first few battles, and the first year and second year and even into the third year, as the battles continued and there was tremendous loss of life and some of the battles went against the North, a good number, there was even a greater conviction. All the powerful people in the North, the businessmen and women who were tied in with the military-industrial complex, for the most part were looking to find a replacement for this, quote-unquote, incompetent president. Abraham Lincoln could not have been listening to the polls when he went to Gettysburg, the greatest victory to that point, and he was there to celebrate the victory of the North. He went there and gave a speech, and part of the speech talked about the brave men, living and dead, who fought here. He did not say the brave northern men. Think of the temptation, given the polls, to rally the North against the South, to get them to hate the South, to get people to say, what a great President, he is finally getting everybody together. He could have unified the only people who could really vote for him, the North. He did not give in to that temptation because he was a great President. He did not give in to the polls. Had he given in to the polls, he would have said ``the brave northern men who fought here.'' He just said ``the brave men, living and dead, who fought here.'' He knew our country, knew there were families that had to bury their northern son and their southern son. In fact, one father during that time buried both sons in the same grave and the tombstone read, ``Only God knows which one was right.'' Mr. Speaker, I would just conclude, thank God Abraham Lincoln did not listen to the polls. Had he listened to the polls, we would not be one Nation, under God, indivisible. We would be two nations, very much divided. And I put the context of the debate that we are having today in the same context that I put back in Lincoln's time. We are doing what Mr. Rabin said we should do. We were truly elected by the adults, but we are trying to represent the children. We are trying to make sure that our children have a future and a country they can be proud of. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I just thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan]. You were very nice to give me this time, and I apologize to you for going over a little bit.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Franks], for letting me go a bit out of order. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay my solemn and deep respects for Mr. Brown, who was an outstanding chairman of a major political party, the Democrat Party, and an outstanding Secretary of Commerce. He was someone who was extraordinarily energetic. I never met with him when he was not upbeat and excited and very dynamic. I wish to express my condolences to his wife, Alma, and to his two magnificent children, Michael and Tracy. This resolution also honors the others who died in this tragic plane crash in the former Yugoslavia, and I want to pay particular respect to Robert Donovan, who was the president and chairman of ABB, and, a resident of Fairfield, CT. I also want to pay respect to his magnificent wife Peg, and his two children, Kara and Kevin. I learned a lot from meeting with them after the death of their husband and father about the resilience of a great American family and how proud he could be of his family. I want to pay respect for his service to West Point and to his country. He was a true great American patriot. At this time I also want to pay my respect to Claudio Elia, who was president and chairman of Air and Water Technology. He was a recent citizen of the United States, and I am told by his wife Susan and his children Mark and Christine that their father would have taken extraordinary joy, pleasure, and admiration--they would have been so proud to have heard the President of the United States call him and the others who went on this dangerous mission great American patriots. I was in awe of this family, the Elia family, in terms of my conversation and dialog with them, on how they dealt with the death of their husband and father. My respects to Mr. Brown and to these two great families.

Mr. SHAYS

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and with that I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] to respond to some of the points made.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, there are arguments on both sides. It is not so cut and dry that it is so obvious to all of us. But while some call this the Truth in Budgeting Act, and they are right to call it that, there would be some truth in budgeting, I would call it the Unbalanced Budget Act of 1996, or, frankly, the pork barrel bill of 1996, because what it means is we are going to provide $50 billion more and make it available to people who want to spend on roads and bridges. There is an opportunity cost. If you spend $50 billion more here, you have to do something to compensate. Are we going to cut defense? No. Are we going to raise taxes? Out of the question. So what it means is there will be, in my judgment, continued deficits to the tune of $50 billion. Mr. Speaker, the Concord Coalition says, ``Passage of this legislation would severely jeopardize the chances of balancing the Federal budget and would be detrimental to the budget process.'' The National Taxpayers Union says, ``Placing these trust funds off budget is nothing less than a ploy to increase spending.'' The Citizens Against Government Waste say, ``The Truth in Budgeting Act sounds great to the public, but it is simply a ruse to increase the $5 trillion national debt.'' The Americans for Tax Reform say, ``American taxpayers want real reform of the budget process and not business as usual. They are depending on you to lead the fight in protecting the American taxpayers from the special interests who are trying to escape the scrutiny of fiscal responsibility.'' The Committee for Responsible Federal Budget says, ``Proponents of H.R. 842 want to make some spending invisible, pretend that it pays for itself, and thus insulate favored programs from regular review and scrutiny.'' Citizens for a Sound Economy say, ``Shielding the transportation trusts from fiscal scrutiny and accountability perpetuates pork-barrel spending and works counter to all efforts to reduce the deficit control government standing.'' This is happening under our Republican watch? We are going to all this to happen, when we have purported to want to balance the budget by the year 2002. In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, this is a dead end, and I hope we reject it.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 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 am happy to support the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to consider the gentleman's request in the future, but until we consult, I do object.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I request to know why we would be doing it this way. There are only five sections.

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

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed from H.R. 1963, the Postmark Prompt Payment Act.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. It was a celebration of life, period, and of this great country.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I definitely want to be a part of this tribute and join with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who are here to express their love and admiration for a truly great American, a truly fine, outstanding Secretary of the Cabinet, the Secretary of Commerce. I would first want to express my love and admiration for his wife Alma and for his very distinguished son Michael and distinguished daughter Tracey. I was not able to be at the funeral for Mr. Brown because I had two constituents who also died on that plane. And if I could I would like to just express my love and admiration for Claudio Elia, who died on that plane, and for his two magnificent children, Kristin and Marc, who just were real soldiers during their dealing with their grief, and for his magnificent wife Susan, and also for Robert Donovan, who also died, and for his truly outstanding two children, Kara and Kevin, who just seem to deal with this agony and grief in a way that I could not help admire, and for his precious wife Peg, two people from the 4th Congressional District who died on that plane because they wanted to be with Ron Brown on this very important and, in fact, dangerous mission to bring trade and economic growth and some sense of hope to people in Yugoslavia, to give them a sense that maybe their day would be a little brighter. I have admiration for Ron Brown for leading this. I did not have direct contact with him in my capacity on the Committee on the Budget or the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, but he came to my office twice to talk about the importance of the Department or Commerce, and I was just struck by his incredible energy, highly intelligent man, and just an admiration for realizing that I was sitting in the same room with an individual who at the depth, I think, of a party challenge, taking on being the chairman of a great party, the Democrat Party, taking on the role of trying to select a Democrat President, a President, electing a very distinguished Governor and thinking that the immense task that must have been as he was talking with me and the incredible talent it must have taken to bring all the different people he had to bring together to accomplish that task. I am here to salute him as a very capable Secretary of the Department of Commerce, a very capable individual, someone who I respect as being a joyous warrior, someone who I felt instantly I could tell him very candidly what I thought and that he would respect me as another individual in the same environment he was, a political environment. I think the real tragedy is that not just one segment of our society, not just the Democrat Party, not just the black community, but all of America has the right to truly grieve that we have lost a young man who in the last 5 to 10 years was a dynamic force in this country, who maybe one day would have been in fact President of this United States, who would have been clearly a force in the next decade or two. So I thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my admiration for him and for being part of this very important tribute. Again, I would close by expressing my love and affection for the family and say that, while I was not in Washington to listen to the tribute the night before, since I was at a funeral service when his service was taking place, but for hours I watched the tribute and wished that I could have been there in person to actually enjoy it even the more. I thank you for this time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago the President came in with major reform of health care. It was wide reaching, it was well beyond what anyone in this House wanted to do, and now we have a bill that in my judgment is very sensible. It is very logical. The Roland-Bilirakis bill never passed 2 years ago because it never had a vote. It never had a vote because unfortunately the other party was jealously guarding the jurisdictions of each committee. This bill here has the input of the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Commerce, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, and in it there is a very significant portion of this bill dealing with fraud, title II, preventing health care fraud and abuse; it goes for about 70 pages. I have a hard time understanding what is meant by a clean bill. What is a clean bill that does not deal with waste, fraud, and abuse? We have been having hearings for decades about the waste, fraud, and abuse. That so-called clean substitute ignores it completely. This bill here deals with waste, fraud, and abuse, and for the first time makes health care fraud a Federal offense, an all-payer system, not just for Medicare and Medicaid and Champus, but for all health care fraud. We are determined that this House is going to do something responsible. I will just conclude by saying I am totally convinced that this House is going to pass a health care bill. It may not be exactly like this one when we deal with our conference with the Senate, but it will be a meaningful bill, and it will be far better than the substitute bill presented. I urge my colleagues to take part in what we are doing. We are going after waste, fraud, and abuse for the first time in a serious way. It is happening under our watch. Be proud of it.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to just say that strong crime control laws and assault weapon bans are not mutually exclusive. We need both. Mr. Speaker, with that I yield 1 minute and 40 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, Americans have the constitutional right to bear arms and the Government has the constitutional responsibility to regulate that right. Repeal of the assault weapons ban was not and is not part of the Contract With America. It never got past the first cut. Our Contract With America is about balancing our Federal budget, getting our financial house in order, saving our trust funds from bankruptcy for future generations, and transforming our caretaking, social and corporate welfare society into a caring opportunity society. Logical gun control legislation and strong crime control are not mutually exclusive. We need both. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, this bill.