Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield. This was a commitment we made to the American people in our Contract With America and we are fulfilling it. We did not say before the election we will cut taxes and afterward forget that pledge. That is an important part of this whole effort. We talked about the significance of balancing the budget, and as the gentleman from Michigan, Nick Smith, has pointed out, in that wonderful document I keep referring to, he points out that 42 percent of all of our savings goes to pay for our national debt. Just think if some of that could go somewhere else, like investing in new plants and equipment. We know that when interest rates go down businesses say, I can be competitive, I can afford to buy this new plant and equipment because the cost of money is less. If we could, I want to get into this one area, we have about 9 minutes left, and it is the whole issue of what are we doing; are we cutting earned income tax credit, are we cutting the school lunch program, are we cutting the student loan program, are we cutting Medicaid and Medicare? I would love to go through this list because it has been such a difficult thing for me to hear some Members say, well, of course, everyone wants to balance the budget, then they tell us what they do not want to cut or they accuse us of cutting things we are not cutting. On the table, when we talk to the President, we want him to know the earned income tax credit is going to go from $19 billion to $25 billion. Only in Washington when we go up 28 percent do people call it a cut. The school lunch program, just within a 5-year period, will go from $6.3 to $7.8 billion in 5 years. That is an increase, but in Washington they call it a cut. The student loan program, and this really gets me, it goes from $24 billion to $36 billion. We are going to spend in the 7th year $36 billion. That is a 50-percent increase, but in this place some people call it a cut. Medicaid will go from $89 to $127 billion. Clearly an increase in spending, not a cut. Medicare from $178 billion to $289 billion. That is a 7.2 increase each and every year. So the bottom line is we are cutting some programs and we are actually eliminating some. We are consolidating the Commerce Department and we are making some tough decisions. But on some of these programs, that are basically entitlement programs, they are going to grow quite significantly. In fact, some people are embarrassed to admit how much they are growing, but at least we have to say to people these are increases. Mr. Speaker, I hope the President realizes that, and I hope he focuses in on where his priorities are. He has a tax cut he would like. It is a tax credit for families who are paying to have their children go to college and are giving them some benefit. Maybe that is something to be on the table and we talk about taking one of our taxes off. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. SHAYS. And, I might add, saved about $7 billion in the process.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I know we have about 2 minutes left, and the bottom line is that what is not negotiable is getting our financial house in order within at least 7 years and to use real numbers scored by the Congressional Budget Office. We are not saying the President has to accept our budget. We are eager to see his budget and then work out where our differences are. Obviously, we will have our differences. People have said to me this must be kind of tough being down in Washington, the polls are somewhat negative about what is going on both to the President and the Congress, even more so to the Congress. And I have responded in a like response to say we are doing some heavy lifting. I am proud of what we are doing. If we just looked at the polls, I am reminded of thinking if Abraham Lincoln had looked at polls we would not be one Nation under God, indivisible, we would be two nations. When President Lincoln was bringing about change and fighting the great conflict, his poll ratings were, according to historians, practically nonexistent. He was considered a bumbler. He had to be snuck into the city. Ultimately, it was not until the fourth year people began to realize the significance of what was taking place. The bottom line for us is we are going to get our financial house in order. We will do it ultimately, I think, on a bipartisan basis. We will do it with an extended hand, as the gentleman has pointed out, but we are determined. We have left the old world for the new world, and we are not going back to the old world. We burned our ships. We are either going to succeed or fail, but we are not going to return to business as usual. With that I thank my colleagues who have joined us and thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your attention and your willingness to preside over this.

Mr. SHAYS. I would like to take a first crack at that. Basically, there are two parts of this budget we are focused in on. One is the appropriations the gentleman is very much involved in. That is only one-third of our budget. Congress, for so many years, attempted to control the growth of spending by focusing on one-third of the budget. By entitlements, you fit a title, you are given a certain sum of money, a certain benefit, whether it is Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, and so on. You get that benefit. Those entitlements have been growing. Gramm-Rudman never focused in on entitlements. This is the first Congress, and the gentleman from Kansas was talking about those who said, you know, good, you are following through, and the positive response. We are getting some negative response. We have to be very up front about it. We are taking on a lot of special interests. It mostly focuses in on the entitlement side. I do not think people realize we are cutting some programs. We are eliminating some programs. The vast bulk of programs, most of them entitlements, will grow at significant rates. Medicare is going to grow at 7.2 percent, Medicaid at over 5 percent. In some cases, we are seeing a lot of expansion. We are still trying to ultimately have spending slow the growth of spending so it ultimately intersects with revenue by the seventh year, and no balanced budget. I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, who has joined us.

Mr. SHAYS. I did not answer the second part. Obviously, we have to be vigilant each and every year. We have to make sure we do the heavy lifting this year and next year and not ask the next Congress and the Congress after that one. But one thing that is quite significant, if we can make changes in entitlements, still allow them to grow but slow their growth, that becomes written in law and becomes an automatic process. So if we can make some significant changes in entitlements today, they will be in law, not sunsetted. So that is our effort.

Mr. SHAYS. Maybe the gentleman would just explain the significance of what the Congressional Budget Office is, a nonpartisan office, not partisan office, that sets the economy, that determines where the economy is going to go. What is so significant about how CBO scores the budget?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] to complete his presentation. increasing medicare benefits

Mr. SHAYS. We have been joined as well by the gentleman from Arizona. I [[Page H 13714]] would like to get us to begin to focus on what we are trying to do. What we are trying to do is get our financial house in order and balance the Federal budget at least within 7 years. There is nothing that says we could not do it in 6 or 5. We can talk about whether this is a difficult task or not. In one sense, the gentleman from Kansas was pointing out people have said, you know, you vote for the balanced budget amendment, and there were over 305 Members who did that; and we are voting to balance it in 7 years, which is the balanced budget amendment said do it within 7 years. We are doing it for a logical reason. We just want to care about our children.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, this truly is an historic moment. I just want to thank my colleagues on this side of the aisle who have weighed in over the last 9 months to come forward with a truly revolutionary budget and to thank my colleagues on this side of the aisle for their criticism, constructive at times, and in some cases maybe not. But ultimately what is exciting is that we all have agreed that we need to balance our budget in the next 7 years and so we have brought forward our budget. I am looking at the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] as someone who I have tremendous respect for who has made valid points about concerns that he has as it relates to his urban area. I welcome the opportunity for him to come in with his 7-year budget and the changes he would make. I bet ultimately we will find a document that may even be improved from what is here. Why do I like what we have done? We have balanced the budget in 7 years. We have created an environment in which we can transform this social and corporate welfare state into an opportunity society and, in the process, also saved our trust funds, particularly Medicare, from bankruptcy. And I look at the budget, I know there have been incredible criticisms of what we are not spending more of. I have not heard of comments from the other side of the aisle where we need to cut more from. That ultimately will happen now that we have a 7-year budget to have a debate about. We are spending more on the earned income tax credit. It is going up 28 percent, from $19 billion basically to $25 billion. We are spending more on the school lunch program in the next 5 years. We are going to go up from $6.3 to $7.8 billion. We are spending 50 percent more in the student loan program. It is going to go from $24.4 to $36 billion, a 50-percent increase in the next 7 years. In the next 5 years students are going to increase from $6.7 to $8.4 million. Medicaid is going to go from $89.2 to $127 billion. Medicare is going to go from $178 to $289 billion. We are going to have, on a per-person, per-elderly basis, we are going to have the seniors, the amount we spend per senior go from $4,800 to $6,700. If we are spending so much more, why do people call it a cut? Well, partly because they think in some cases that they want you to think that we are cutting when we are spending more and, in part, because we are slowing the growth in spending. Bottom line, to balance the budget in the next 7 years, we have to eliminate some programs and we do. We eliminate the Department of Commerce. We eliminate certain units within departments. We cut back and eliminate discretionary spending. In some cases, what we are doing is slowing the growth in spending like in entitlements. Entitlements are 50 percent of our budget and they are doubling every few years. Medicare and Medicaid are 17 percent of the budget, and they are doubling every 5 to 7 years depending on which years. The bottom line is, we are going to get our financial house in order and balance the budget compassionately. We are going to save our trust funds, particularly Medicaid, from bankruptcy. And we are going to transform this caretaking, social and corporate welfare state into a care and opportunity society. I believe that we have a wonderful document to present the President. I am told he is going to veto it. Then in the next few weeks we have the opportunity, working with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to get their priorities. To weigh it with ours and ultimately to present the President a budget he can balance and sign.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget rightfully pointed out that the deficit in the second year of our budget goes up slightly. I would just point out to the gentleman that if we make no change, it goes from 210 to 230 with present CBO scoring. With the President's 10-year budget it goes from 189 to 217. With new CBO scoring the gentleman is right, it is 157 and it will go to 175. And this, to me, is an example of how all of us need to work together in the second year budget to make sure that instead of going up, it goes down. And I look forward to working with my colleague to see that that does in fact go down.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to a constituent of mine, Ken Heitzke, who has served the State of Connecticut and the town of Monroe for almost two decades as an elected official. He is retiring this year from first selectman of Monroe after three terms. Ken was awarded a bachelor of science degree from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1953, a master of science degree from the University of Illinois in 1958, and a master of military arts and science degree from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in 1965. He served our country for 24 years in the U.S. Army and retired with the rank of colonel. A decorated military and combat leader, Ken served in Korea, Vietnam, and with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He has received the Distinguished Flying Cross, Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, Bronze Star with oak leaf cluster and five air medals. For the town of Monroe, Ken served as chief elected official and chairman of the Monroe Town Council for 8 years. In 1989, Ken was elected first selectman under Monroes' new form of government. He was reelected in 1991 and 1993. He also served as president of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities. Ken's tireless dedication and support of Monroe have made this town such a wonderful place to live and work. He has unselfishly given his time and energy to the community and to our country. Ken Heitzke is a special man to Monroe and its citizens and he will always be a valued member of the community. I am proud to know him, have him as a constituent, and call him a friend. I would like to salute Ken on his good work and I wish him the best for future success.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am listening to this debate, and I cannot stand it. I cannot stand when I hear someone say we all want to balance the budget. If we all wanted to balance the budget, the budget would be balanced. When Members say we all want to balance the budget and then talk about all the cuts they do not want and do not talk where they are willing to make reductions to slow the growth in spending or to cut programs we do not need, I cannot stand it. We are, in fact, allowing this budget to grow. When I heard Members on that side say we are cutting EITC, the earned income tax credit, it is going from $19 to $25.5 billion. Only in this place when you spend more money do people call it a cut. When they say we are cutting the school lunch program and it is going from $6.3 to $7.8 billion, that is an increase, not a cut. When I hear people particularly say we are cutting the student loan program, it is going from $24.4 to $36 billion. It is growing 50 percent. The number of students in the next 5 years is growing from 6.7 million students to 8.4 million students. Only in this place, in this town, when you spend 50 percent more, do they call it a cut. Medicaid, it is $89 billion today. It is growing to $127 billion. In this town, that is a cut? Only here. Then, in Medicare, it is going from $178 to $289 billion. That is not a cut. It does not even come close to being a cut. That is a significant increase. Get a life.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, we are going to get our financial house in order. We are going to save our trust funds in the process. We are going to transform this welfare state into an opportunity society. And in the process, we are going to save America. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the editorial to which I referred. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 16, 1995] The Real Default The budget deficit is the central problem of the federal government and one from which many of the country's other, most difficult problems flow. The deficit is largely driven in turn by the cost of the great entitlements that go not to small special classes of rich or poor but across the board to almost all Americans in time. The most important of these are the principal social insurance programs for the elderly, Social Security and Medicare. In fiscal terms, Medicare is currently the greatest threat and chief offender. Bill Clinton and the congressional Democrats were handed an unusual chance this year to deal constructively with the effect of Medicare on the deficit, and they blew it. The chance came in the form of the congressional Republican plan to balance the budget over seven years. Some other aspects of that plan deserved to be resisted, but the Republican proposal to get at the deficit partly by confronting the cost of Medicare deserved support. The Democrats, led by the president, chose instead to present themselves as Medicare's great protectors. They have shamelessly used the issue, demagogued on it, because they think that's where the votes are and the way to derail the Republican proposals generally. The president was still doing it this week; a Republican proposal to increase Medicare premiums was one of the reasons he alleged for the veto that has shut down the government-- and never mind that he himself, in his own budget, would countenance a similar increase. [[Page H 13297]] We've said some of this before; it gets more serious. If the Democrats play the Medicare card and win, they will have set back for years, for the worst of political reasons, the very cause of rational government in behalf of which they profess to be behaving. Politically, they will have helped to lock in place the enormous financial pressure that they themselves are first to deplore on so many other federal programs, not least the programs for the poor. That's the real default that could occur this year. In the end, the Treasury will meet its financial obligations. You can be pretty sure of that. The question is whether the president and the Democrats will meet or flee their obligations of a different kind. On the strength of the record so far, you'd have to bet on flight. You'll hear the argument from some that this is a phony issue; they contend that the deficit isn't that great a problem. The people who make this argument are whistling past a graveyard that they themselves most likely helped to dig. The national debt in 1980 was less than $1 trillion. That was the sum of all the deficits the government had previously incurred--the whole two centuries' worth. The debt now, a fun-filled 15 years later, is five times that and rising at a rate approaching $1 trillion a presidential term. Interest costs are a seventh of the budget, by themselves now a quarter of a trillion dollars a year and rising; we are paying not just for the government we have but for the government we had and didn't pay for earlier. The blamesters, or some of them, will tell you Ronald Reagan did it, and his low-tax credit-card philosophy of government surely played its part. The Democratic Congresses that ratified his budgets and often went him one better on tax cuts and spending increases played their part as well. Various sections of the budget are also favorite punching bags, depending who is doing the punching. You will hear it said that someone's taxes ought to be higher (generally someone else's), or that defense should be cut, or welfare, or farm price supports or the cost of the bureaucracy. But even Draconian cuts in any or all of these areas would be insufficient to the problem and, because dwelling on them is a way of pretending the real deficit-generating costs don't exist, beside the point as well. What you don't hear said in all this talk of which programs should take the hit, since the subject is so much harder politically to confront, is that the principal business of the federal government has become elder-care. Aid to the elderly, principally through Social Security and Medicare, is now a third of all spending and half of all for other than interest on the debt and defense. That aid is one of the major social accomplishments of the past 30 years; the poverty rate for elderly is now, famously, well below the rate for the society as a whole. It is also an enormous and perhaps unsustainable cost that can only become more so as the baby-boomers shortly begin to retire. how does the society deal with it? The Republicans stepped up to this as part of their proposal to balance the budget. About a fourth of their spending cuts would come from Medicare. It took guts to propose that. You may remember the time, not that many months ago, when the village wisdom was that, whatever else they proposed, they'd never take on Medicare this way. There were too many votes at stake. We don't mean to suggest by this that their proposal with regard to Medicare is perfect--it most emphatically is not, as we ourselves have said as much at some length in this space. So they ought to be argued with, and ways should be found to take the good of their ideas while rejecting the bad. But that's not what the President and congressional Democrats have done. They've trashed the whole proposal as destructive, taken to the air waves with a slick scare program about it, championing themselves as noble defenders of those about to be victimized. They--the Republicans--want to take away your Medicare; that's the insistent PR message the Democrats have been drumming into the elderly and the children of the elderly all year. The Democrats used to complain that the Republicans used wedge issues; this is the super wedge. And it's wrong. In the long run, if it succeeds, the tactic will make it harder to achieve not just the right fiscal result but the right social result. The lesson to future politicians will be that you reach out to restructure Medicare at your peril. The result will be to crowd out of the budget other programs for less popular or powerful constituencies--we have in mind the poor--that the Democrats claim they are committed to protect. There's ways to get the deficit down without doing enormous social harm. It isn't rocket science. You spread the burden as widely as possible. Among much else, that means including the broad and, in some respects, inflated middle-class entitlements in the cuts. That's the direction in which the President ought to be leading and the congressional Democrats following. To do otherwise is to hide, to lull the public and to perpetuate the budget problem they profess to be trying to solve. Let us say it again: If that's what happens, it will be the real default.

Mr. SHAYS. This is truly an historic moment for all of us and an opportunity that I think my colleague from Kentucky would agree has presented itself after a tremendous amount of work. We want to seize this opportunity. When we talk about getting our financial house in order and balancing our budget, we are doing it by still allowing government to grow but in many cases we are slowing the growth of government. In some cases we are eliminating programs, cutting back in others, consolidating departments, eliminating some units within departments. Having real cuts, spending less the next year, eliminating the Department of Commerce as one of our first steps in consolidation. In other cases, with entitlements, we are allowing them to grow. Medicare and Medicaid will grow significantly. We have had talk about the earned income tax credit and talk on the other side that we were cutting this program, when in fact it is going to go from $19 billion to $27 billion, excuse me, $25 billion, an increase of 28 percent, not a cut. Only in Washington, when you spend so much more, do people call it a cut. The school lunch program is going to go from $6.3 billion to $7.8 billion, an increase. The student loan program is going to go from $24 billion to $36 billion. I do not know how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can say it with a straight face and say we are cutting the student loan program when it is going to grow, 6.7 million students, it is going to grow to 8.4 million. Medicaid is going to grow from $89 billion to $127 billion. Medicare from $178 billion to $289 billion. We are cutting programs. We are slowing the growth of others. But these programs have significant increases. Yet our colleagues call it a cut. Ultimately in 7 years, we will have slowed the growth of spending so it will intersect with revenue and we will have no more deficits. That is an important element of this. But another important element of it is, in the process of reducing our government, we are also going to transform it from a welfare state, both on social programs and even on corporate programs. We are going to transform it into an opportunity society. We are going to teach people how to grow the seeds instead of just giving them the food.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I guess I have 12 more minutes, and I am delighted that you are willing to stay and allow me to have this special order with my friend from Kentucky. I would just like to express extraordinary gratitude for the opportunity I have, and my colleagues have, to serve in this House at this historic moment in the history of our country. For the last 30 years, our national debt has gone up from $375 billion to over $4,900 billion, a 13-fold increase. During a good part of that time, I served in the State House and I wondered how Congress could do such a thing to its children. I could not comprehend how they could do it. The White House as well, of both parties. We have seen this incredible deficit increase, continue every year adding to the national debt 13-fold and this Congress has decided to put an end to it. Today, we passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1996, which gets us on a glidepath to a balanced budget in 7 years. When we first started out last election, we had a Contract With America and a number of people said that will cause the defeat of moderate Republicans in particular and that it was not a very wise thing to have done politically. I remember being asked by one of my editorial boards how I could have signed it. I asked this question, what do you think of the Contract With America that the majority party at that time has? And there was deafening silence because they did not have any program in the opening day for reforms. They did not have 10 major reforms during the first 100 days. They had nothing. I wondered why people would be critical of a contract that did not criticize the President of the United States, did not criticize the Democrats in Congress, but was a positive plan for what we wanted to accomplish. After we got elected with no incumbent Republican losing, fighting for a very positive program, people said, well, you used it to get elected but you will not implement it. We started to implement it. And then they said, well, you are not going to be able to, moderates, of which I think I am one, pretty much more in the center, and I think my colleague from Kentucky would probably consider himself more to the right and more conservative, they said, you all will not get along well together. We get along tremendously, because there is so much common ground that [[Page H 13296]] binds us in wanting to save this country from bankruptcy and to do two other things. We want to get our financial house in order and balance our Federal budget. We want to save our trust funds, particularly Medicare. And the third thing we want to do is we want to change and transform this care-taking social and corporate welfare state into what I would call a caring opportunity society, a word that we would hear conservatives use more than a moderate. But that is what we want. We want opportunity in this country. So we started to implement this plan and getting along well with each other for a common purpose. Then they said, well, you will not get along with the Senate. Frankly, we get along quite well with the Senate, as I think my colleague will agree. Then they said, well, you voted for a balanced budget amendment but you would not be so foolish as to try to pass a balanced budget in 7 years and take on all the special interests in the process. And we proceeded to do that. If someone wants to know the determination we have, I would describe it this way: We left the old world and we traveled by ship to the new world and we got to the new world. We set out to conquer this new world, knowing that we would never go back to the old world. We burned our ships. There is no retreat. We do not want to go back to the old world. We want to save this country from bankruptcy and transform this corporate and welfare state into an opportunity society. Before yielding to my colleague in just a few seconds here, a few minutes, we proceeded to take on every special interest in the process. I want to express gratitude to the Washington Post, which in a sense has been watching us for the past nine months and has been critical of certain things we have done. But they had an editorial yesterday entitled, The Real Default. And I just will read what they said about what we have attempted to do. They started, ``The budget deficit is the central problem of the Federal Government and one from which many of the country's other, most difficult problems flow. The deficit is largely driven in turn by the cost of the great entitlements that go not to small special classes of rich and poor but across the board to almost all Americans in time.'' Then it goes on to say, ``Bill Clinton and the congressional Democrats were handed an unusual chance this year to deal constructively with the effect of Medicare on the deficit and they blew it. The chance came in the form of the congressional Republican plan to balance the budget over 7 years.'' Then they said, finally, ``Some other aspects of the plan deserve to be resisted, but the Republican proposal to get at the deficit partly by confronting the cost of Medicare deserves support.'' The Washington Post grades us pretty tough. They have given us an A plus. I just want to express my gratitude to the people at the Post for recognizing that there has been incredible courage on the part of all Republicans, conservatives and moderates, to save this country from bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. SHAYS

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

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is also incorrect about what we are doing with Medicare. We are spending more. We are spending 40 percent per beneficiary and 54 percent more in total. In fact, we are going to spend over $674 billion more in the next 7 years than we did in the last 7 years. Only in Washington when we spend so much more money do people call it a cut. The earned income tax credit will go from $19.8 to $25.4 billion. The School Lunch Program is going from $6.3 to $7.8 billion. The Student Loan Program is going from $24 to $36 billion. The Medicare Program is going from $178 to $289. Mr. Speaker, only in Washington when we spend so much more money do people call it a cut.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but I do not want to give him this present.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, it is intoxicating to be in an environment where we are working on a bipartisan basis. I did not think so soon I would actually stand up and oppose one of my best friends in Congress, and someone who I have such high respect for, but I oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] primarily based on the fact that he puts in tremendous jeopardy an effort that began in the Senate, came to the Committee on the Judiciary, was passed by the subcommittee and the full committee without amendment, to finally get us to reform the Lobbying Disclosure Act. Mr. Chairman, if I recall, the gentleman from Pennsylvania was born in 1947. In 1946, before the gentleman was born, was the last time we amended the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and it was gutted in 1954 by the Supreme Court. Mr. Chairman, we need to get a strong lobby disclosure bill. This amendment, in my judgment, however strongly the gentleman from Pennsylvania and others feel about it, does not merit placing in jeopardy such an important bill that we could send to the Senate if it is not amended.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time, and I say that I was contemplating not opposing this amendment for two reasons: One, I like it, and second, it is being offered by the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, who is my chairman, and I believe the best chairman in Congress. He has made that committee such an outstanding committee. I hope he does not tell the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] that I said that. My big concern is that this amendment has never had a hearing, never really had the opportunity to be considered, and I would like to encourage my chairman to offer this as a bill, take it up in our committee, allow people on both sides of the aisle to come before the committee, allow the administration to defend some of the outrageous things they have been doing and some that have been done in previous administrations, because this has been an abuse. What a golden opportunity to set on the record a document that would justify its passage, and so I hope that by the time I wake up tomorrow the chairman of my Committee on Government Reform and Oversight will realize that it really belongs in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. This is not the right place or the right time in my judgment to tack on so many amendments to this lobby disclosure bill when it has not passed in over 50 years or 49 years. When nothing has gotten through this Chamber in nearly 50 years, to me it is just to invite a very unfortunate situation, and that is that lobby disclosure will once again be killed.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, but there have been so many who have been working on reform, and I think one of the reasons why I have stayed here tonight is it is rather comforting and calming to be in an environment where Republicans and Democrats are working together for a common cause. It may not be as exciting, but it sure is relaxing. I first want to thank the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], the chairman, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the ranking member, for doing yeoman's work in getting this bill out of their subcommittee intact, identical to the way the Senate passed the bill, getting it through the full committee intact identical to the way the Senate passed this bill, and for good reasons. The Senate passed a fine bill. They passed it way back in July, and candidly we probably would not even be dealing with this legislation today if it was not for the work of Mr. Levin and Mr. Cohen and Mr. McConnell, and the work that they did in the Senate in giving us a bill that we can present to the President of the United States if it leaves this Chamber without amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have one gigantic choice. We can amend the bill and send it to the Senate, where it may pass eventually someday, some year at some time, or we can send it to the President where he will put his signature and for the first time in nearly 50 years we will have an updated and better lobby disclosure bill. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 deserves to be made law. It will for the first time require the registration of people who have not been registered before. It will require them to disclose general information about what they do and how much they spend, and I know that in addition to the fine work of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] he has had a supportive committee on both sides, Republican and Democrat, and I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] for their help, and also the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett] on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale] on the other side of the aisle. This is legislation that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale introduced in support of what the Senate has done. There really is no excuse for us to cave in and do candidly, and when I say ``candidly'' it almost sounds like the gentleman's name, candidly to do what unfortunately some in my own leadership want to have happen, they want this bill amended. Mr. Chairman, for some reason my colleagues want it sent back to the Senate. For some reason they want it to go to conference. I do not understand why. To me it is simply the wrong way to go. There are going to be some excellent proposals made, and it is going to be tempting to go along with those proposals, but we have a chairman and the ranking member of the committee who have agreed to take these good proposals, to take action on them, and bring them back to the floor of the House as a separate bill, and then we can send that bill to the Senate, and let us see what happens. I would just like to read from the language that accompanied the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, two paragraphs, and one of the things that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] pointed out is that in 1991 the General Accounting Office, GAO, found that almost 10,000 of the 13,500 individuals and organizations listed in the book ``Washington Representatives'' were not registered under the 1946 act. GAO interviewed a small sample of the unregistered Washington representatives listed. Three-quarters of those interviewed contacted both Members of Congress and their staffs, dealt with Federal legislation, and sought to influence the actions of Congress or the executive branch. We have 10,000 of the 13,500 listed as Washington representatives not registered as lobbyists. I mean there is a reason. When we passed the act many years ago in 1946, the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946, the Senate, the Supreme Court, significantly weakened that act in 1954 and basically made it pretty much unworkable. The 1946 act requires anybody whose principal purpose is influencing legislation to register with the Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate. It simply is not being done because the Senate gutted that requirement. So I am concerned a bit about the fact that we will seek and discuss amendments tonight. I am concerned that tomorrow we may just have one vote after another. All it is going to take is just one amendment to basically send this bill back to the Senate. There will be for some reason some people satisfied and happy that we have sent it back to the Senate. For the life of me I do not understand why we would not want to know who is a lobbyist, know what they do, and how much money is involved.

Mr. SHAYS

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank the majority leader for scheduling a vote on this very important bill of lobby disclosure and to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the other members of the Committee on Rules for having an open vote. I am hoping at the end that this bill will remain as it is, unamended and sent directly to the President instead of sent to the Senate where it could likely die. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] for keeping this bill clean in subcommittee and in the full committee. I just want to weigh in as strongly as I can that lobby disclosure has basically not changed since the late 1940s. In 1946 we passed a lobby disclosure bill. The courts basically gutted that law in the early 1950s. We have, it is estimated, 40- to 60,000 lobbyists in Washington. Only about 4,000 or so are registered. This bill is necessary. The President supports it. The President deserves for us to send it to him rather than back to the Senate. I am hopeful that the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, if there are logical amendments to this bill, are able to hold hearings on those amendments but not incorporate them in this bill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Gingrich amendment to House Resolution 250 and commend the gentleman from Georgia on his valuable contribution to this debate. A total gift ban, as proposed in the Gingrich amendment, makes sense. It's simple, straightforward and strong. The American people want gift reform and this amendment goes even further than the Senate-passed rule many of us have been advocating. I thank Speaker Gingrich for coming forward with this bold proposal, and urge its adoption.