Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. Ganske]. (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Pete Hoekstra.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this is a debate I have not looked forward to because there are such strong feelings. This is kind of an in-house debate. We talk one way here and the general public on the outside hears and sees something totally different. We do not win friends, but this is a debate that we have to have. I say we are at the crossroads in this Congress, and I particularly speak out to my Republican freshmen. They came as reformers, and already some of them are getting sucked up into this place. I believe we have to reform gift ban and lobby disclosure, and I believe the time is now. Mr. Speaker, I salute the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] for promising a vote. Little did I realize how many of our conference did not want him to do that. My admiration goes out to him, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], who I call a seasoned veteran with a freshman heart, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], for the fine work he has done. I encourage my colleagues as much as I can to defeat the Burton amendment, and I encourage the staff that are watching to wake up their Members and have them realize that if Burton passes, reform is dead. And tomorrow I know what the headlines will say. They will say this Congress is against reform. And if we do support the Burton amendment, we are against reform. Mr. Speaker, we need to clean up our own House and we need to act quickly. I urge Members to oppose the Burton amendment. I urge Members to consider the Senate amendment, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett] and others. It is a fine sensible proposal. We will also have the opportunity to get rid of all gifts, which may be Members' decision, and something that we ultimately all may do, but we do not get to the Senate proposal, the Barrett proposal, the Waldholtz proposal, we do not get to the Speaker's proposal of no gift if Burton passes. The Burton amendment keeps things the way they are now, except it just discloses how sleazy this place has become. I urge my colleagues to wake up and understand what this vote is all about. It is about whether we go forward or go backward, and I urge it to happen on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to point out that a vote for the Burton amendment is a vote against reform. It allows gifts of up to $250 each year, or $500 per term. It allows any gifts under $50, countless gifts under $50; it allows paid vacations in the name of charity, in many cases funded by lobbyists. The passage of the Burton amendment prevents a vote on the Senate bill and the Waldholtz-Barrett bill. It also prevents a vote on the Speaker's bill of no gift. I urge an absolute no vote on the Burton amendment.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Scott Klug.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out that the Burton legislation is not full disclosure. Any gift under $50 is not part of the disclosure; it is not part of any limit. We can have countless numbers of gifts under $50. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I was elected to the State House in 1974, and began to serve office in 1975. At that time the national debt was about $375 billion. I periodically would pay attention to the spending habits of Congress and note that it would spend more than it raised in revenues. In the State House, I wondered how Congress could do this, because in the State legislatures, we of course have to balance our budgets. Obviously, a Congress, when times are difficult, during times of war and so on, during times of recession, it is logical that Congress would want to generate economic activity and help bring the economy out of its recession, but Congresses and Presidents collectively, Republicans and Democrats, allowed for deficit spending. The national debt since that time has grown to $4,900 billion, or $4.9 trillion. When I was elected to Congress in 1987, I joined with a group of Republicans, primarily, and a few Democrats who wanted to end this. At the time our group was about 35 Members. Each year it kept growing, with each election it kept growing more and more and larger and larger, until last year our number was about 160. Finally, with the election of 1994, we got a bulk of Members, Republicans and Democrats, who voted for the balanced budget amendment, as the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley] pointed out, 72 Members on the other side, and every Republican except 1, I think, or 2 in the House. What are we trying to do? The first thing we are trying to do is get our financial House in order and balance our budget. The second thing we are trying to do is save our trust funds, particularly Medicare, from bankruptcy. The third [[Page H 13141]] thing, and it is equally as important, we are trying to transform the social and corporate welfare state into an opportunity society. This is not easy; if it was easy, it would have been done a long time ago. It is not popular, or it would have been done a long time ago. We are determined to balance our Federal budget, but we are doing it, in many cases, by slowing the growth of spending. We are still allowing programs to grow. The earned income tax credit, which some of my colleagues on the other side accuse us of wanting to cut, we are going to have it grow from $19.8 billion to $27.5 billion. The school lunch program we are going to have grow from $6.3 billion to over $8 billion. The student loan program is going to grow from $24.5 billion to $36 billion, a 50- percent increase in the student loan. Students are going to grow in the next 5 years from 6.7 million students to 8.4 million. It is a growing program. Medicaid is going to grow from $89.2 billion to $124.3 billion, and Medicare is going to grow from $178 billion to $273 billion. Only in this Chamber and in Washington, when you spend so much more money, do people call it a cut. We are spending more money. I really appreciate and I really want to thank the Washington Post. It is nice to have a paper that has been pretty hard on us recognizing that the real default is not in this Chamber, it is by the White House, in failing to want to participate in this effort. When Leon Panetta was a Member of this Chamber, he said, ``The only way you are going to control the spending in Congress and our Federal budget is to control the growth of entitlements.'' We are taking on entitlements. It is not an easy thing to do. No complaints. I am proud of it. I am happy to go to my constituents and explain what we are doing. For instance, with Medicare, we have no copayment increase, no deduction increase. We are allowing the premium to stay at 31.5 percent. The taxpayers will continue to pay 68.5 percent. We are allowing individuals to stay in their private fee-for-service system that has gone from the 1960's on up, this Blue Cross-Blue Shield program. We are allowing them to stay there, but we are also going to give them a Medi-Plus program. They can get better service if they get into private care. If they leave and get private care and it turns out they do not like it, they have the opportunity every month for the next 24 months to get back into the traditional Medicare program. My point is, I am so proud of what this Republican majority is doing when it comes to dealing with the budget. Now, would I like the President to weigh in? Yes. I want him to agree to a 7-year balanced budget. But I am not saying he has to agree to our priorities. If he wants to put more money in urban areas, frankly, I hope he does. I would like to join him in that effort. If he thinks that our tax cut should be slightly different, then I hope he does. I would be happy to assist him in that effort. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that we are going to get our financial house in order, with or without the President's help, but it would be a lot easier with his help.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on another note, today we will be taking up Gift Ban and Lobby Disclosure, two bills that were passed by the Senate a number of months ago. My plea to this Chamber is that on a bipartisan basis we can pass both bills. I salute the Democrats for pushing these issues before the Chamber, and my Republican colleagues who want to move forward. I encourage them to vote against the Burton amendment, which, in my view, is a gutting amendment, and will keep things basically the way they are. I encourage them to support the Senate proposal or even better, a total ban, as the Speaker has proposed. On lobby disclosure, we need no amendment to that bill; we can send it on to the President. I understand a number of my colleagues on the Democratic side want to send it to the President. I encourage a number on my side to oppose any amendment and finally get lobbyists to register.

Mr. SHAYS

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

Mr. SHAYS

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for the incredible work he did on congressional accountability when he was in the majority and also when he was in the minority. We can work on a bipartisan basis, I think, to pass this bill unamended and then to work for logical reform.

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

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman. He introduced this bill identical to what the Senate did and then incorporated his bill and the committee bill. I just want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and to say that it has been a pleasure to work with him as well. I am sorry I left him out of my salutes because he deserves to be on the very top.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I first would like to start by thanking you for your fine delegation of responsibilities here. You have been an outstanding acting chairman. To weigh in on this issue, I consider this a very mischievous amendment because candidly I do not think it will accomplish what the gentleman wants, but I think if it were to be adopted, it would put in serious jeopardy passage of this lobby disclosure bill. Again, I want to point out to the Members here and for the record that the last time we had any lobby disclosure bill was in 1946. In the early 1950's, the Supreme Court basically gutted that. There was report language brought forward by the committee that points out that those who are listed in the Washington representatives listings of the 13,500 individuals and organizations, 10,000 of them did not register as lobbyists. The individual who is offering this amendment, I know, is doing it in good faith. I am fed up with hearing Sam Donaldson go after honoraria when we know he accepts so much of it. And if he thinks it affects Members of Congress, of course, it does not affect him. I mean, the same logic should apply to him. I think of him and others, I would love to know how much they are paid. But it says in this amendment only lobbyists have to disclose. Well, that is a simple wrap to beat. You just simply have someone other than a lobbyist paid that honoraria. If the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] was aware of how hard we have worked to get this on the floor and maybe was aware of how hard it has been to even get our own Republican leadership to schedule debate on this bill and if the gentleman were aware of the attempts to find any amendment to this bill so that it would, in fact, be sent back to the Senate, he might be more sympathetic to why we are finding it so difficult to accept this kind of amendment. It is true, and I have to agree with the gentleman, 435 Members ultimately have to decide whether this bill gets amended and ultimately killed in the Senate. But I just would try to encourage Members and particularly Mr. Weller, on this amendment, that this deserves a hearing. This deserves to have the kind of report language that the bill we have before us has, that documents the need and shows how it would in fact be effective or not effective, that documents that it would be, in fact, constitutional, that documents that it would achieve the results that the gentleman desires. On the basis of the motion, I, too, would like to know what media is paid what, but I do not think this amendment does it. I think it places in serious jeopardy passage of this bill in the Senate.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, former Prime Minister Rabin of Israel once said, politicians are elected by adults to represent the children. Children do not vote. They do not respond to political polls, but they ultimately are the ones who will be helped or hurt by what we do here. That is why we are determined to get our financial house in order and balance our budgets. We are determined to save our trust funds, particularly Medicare, and we are determined to transform this social and corporate welfare state into an opportunity society. For our children, we are determined to balance our Federal budgets within 7 years with or without the help of the President. And we are doing it by increasing the earned income tax credit from $19.8 billion to $27.5 billion. The school lunch program, from $6.3 billion to $7.8 billion. The student loan program from $24.5 billion to $36 billion. The Medicaid program from $89 billion to $124 billion. The Medicare program from $178 billion to $278 billion. Only in Washington, when you spend so much money for our children, do some people call it a cut in spending. Over 300 Members of this House supported a balanced budget amendment in 7 years, Republicans and Democrats. We are asking the President to join with 300 Members, well over two-thirds of this body, to get our financial house in order. Balance this budget and save this future for our children.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, former Prime Minister Rabin of Israel once said, ``Politicians are elected by adults to represent the children.'' Children do not vote, they do not respond to political polls, but they ultimately are the ones who will be helped or hurt by what we do here. That is why we are determined to get our financial house in order and balance our Federal budget within 7 years, save our trust funds, particularly Medicare, from bankruptcy, and transform our social and corporate welfare state into an opportunity society. For our children we are determined to balance our Federal budget within 7 years, with or without the support of the President. We are doing it by increasing spending. EITC goes up from $19.8 to $27 billion. School lunches go up from $6 to $8 billion. Student loans go up from $24 to $36 billion. Only in America and only in this place when you spend more money do people call it a cut.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that this law would not have passed if it had not been for the gigantic support of all the new Members of Congress. I was listening to what you had to say and felt compelled to come here because as someone who worked on Medicare and Medicaid on the Committee on the Budget, I know that we are saving the program. I know we are helping to slow the growth of spending. I also know that we have no new copayment or an increase in the copayment, no new deductible or increase to a deductible. The premium stays at 31.5 percent. I know you all have mentioned that, but the key point is to know the Government still is paying 68.5 percent. President Clinton has decided that he wants it to drop down in the election year to 25 percent and actually have people pay less premiums next year in the election year. Then they go up just as ours go up as the cost of the program continues. But the interesting point is, his 25 percent of the higher increase in cost ultimately means that the difference between our two programs is only $4.70 each month. I make this point that I know has been made a number of times but I want to emphasize it, we are going to spend 73 percent more in the next 7 years than we did in the last 7 years. We are going to spend $674 billion of new money in Medicare. And on a per-person basis, we are going to spend, as you have pointed out, I want to emphasize it again, $4,800 to $6,700 per beneficiary. Only in this country and in this city when you spend more money do people call it a cut. The amazing thing is, you mentioned the polls, the President is listening to the polls. I had people say, are you not concerned about the polls? If President Lincoln had listened to the polls, we would not be one nation under God, indivisible. We would be two nations. There is a point where we just have to be willing to take on the special interests, who are willing to distort the information, and talk to the American people, tell them the truth. You tell them the truth and they will have you do the right thing. But polls are being pushed aside and a lot of Members, particularly on this side of the aisle, are willing to take on those special interests to save Medicare and also make sure that our children are not going to have to pay these horrendous debts. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I notice we have a new Member here.

Mr. SHAYS

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

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. The concept of listening, learning, helping. We helped to make this program a better program and now we are going through the process of leading, and leading takes some heat. I am more than eager, because I believe so strongly in what we are doing, to take that heat. Mr. Speaker, I give my colleague the minute left to close up this discussion.

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman would yield, I was asked by a Time magazine reporter, she wanted to follow me around because she heard that so many people did not like the Medicare plan. She came to Greenwich and I had a dialog on the radio and people seemed [[Page H 12348]] comfortable with it. She was disappointed and she said ``I know that people do not like it.'' I said, ``You come to Bridgeport and we will get on Tim Quinn's program and I will let him get the troops all riled up.'' We got there a half an hour after he started the program. The first call, I noticed that the Time reporter was very excited. The first call was, ``Mr. Shays, I have a problem with my heart and I have Dr. So-and- so. I have a problem with my kidney, and I have Dr. So-and-so. My regular doctor is So-and-so.'' And they said, ``Am I going to be denied the ability to have those doctors?'' The answer was a simple, ``No.'' Just to reiterate the point, the calls from that point on, when people understood the plan was, ``Tell me more about the plan.'' We can talk a long time about Medicare. The bottom line is that it is an exciting program that we are doing with MedicarePlus. Participants can keep the old system or get a new system.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I was thinking that the President did come in with a 10-year budget. I got excited. At least we had a 10-year budget. But he did not have any details. Then we gave it to the Congressional Budget Office, and they said the 10-year budget is never in balance. They point out in the last 6 years, basically in 1997 his deficits would be $205 billion, then it goes to $203 billion, $250 billion, $221 billion, $215 billion, $209 billion, $207 billion, $206 billion. In the year 2005 it is at $209 billion of deficits. Really, what I think we would be asking the President to do is come in with a 7-year plan, your plan. We have our plan. Then let us compare it. Let us see where the similarities are. Let us see how we can go forward. Mr. Speaker, we have 15 minutes left, and I would love to weigh in on one issue, that is Medicare. It is just an example of a program that we designed which I think saves money and also improves the system. If the gentlemen do not mind, I would love to just kind of weigh in. This is an example of a program that simply was growing at more than 10 percent to 12 percent a year, doubling every 5 to 7 years, depending on which years it was growing, and we said that we felt that we could make a savings in the program, allow it to grow at about 6.5 percent a year, save $270 billion in the process. We were able to do it by actually improving the service. [[Page H 12347]] I have had people say, ``How could I vote for the Medicare plan?'' I say, ``Describe it to me.'' They describe a plan described by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, which is not our plan. Our plan has no copayment, no increase in the copayment, no increase in deduction, no new deduction. The premium stays at 31\1/2\ percent. As health care costs go up, the premium will go up at 31\1/2\ percent of additional health care costs. Who pays the other part of that Medicare Part B premium? The taxpayer. They pay 68\1/2\ percent. We are saying that the taxpayers will continue to pay 68\1/2\ percent. Taxpayers will pay more and more of Medicare. Now, we have this plan and we basically do not change in a negative way any beneficiary except, candidly, some in my district that tend to be wealthy. Those who are the wealthiest, if you make $100,000, you would start to pay more for Medicare part B. If you make more than $125,000 and you are married, you start to pay more for Medicare part B. The wealthier, more affluent will pay more for a certain part of Medicare, but only the wealthiest. Then I have people who say, ``Congressman, I want the same kind of health care you have: Choice.'' What we have done with our Medicare plan is give them choice. We allow people to stay in the traditional fee-for-service system they have, or we say they can go and get any host of new programs. The only way that they have to leave, they never have to leave, they can stay as long as they want in the present Medicare System, they keep their same doctors, and they would only leave if they proactively decide to leave. If they leave and get into private care plans, they can come back every month for the next 24 months, the next 2 years. We allow people to go in, and if they do not like it, they can come back and get what they always have had. I think to myself, how can anyone oppose it? No increase in copayment, no increase in deduction, the premium stays at 31\1/2\ percent, and now they have MedicarePlus. They get to choose. Why would they leave the system they have? They can get eye care, dental care, they might get a rebate on their copayment or deduction, or they may have their Medigap paid for the new plan, or there may be no Medigap costs. We devised a plan that gives them choice, allows them to keep what they have, allows the program to grow from $4,800 per beneficiary to $6,700 per beneficiary. To me this is just one of the good examples that we have found a way, nothing magical about it, just good common sense, to save money in Medicare and increase and improve the plan for everyone, and in the process save Medicare. I would just make this final point: What happens to the $270 billion of savings? One hundred and thirty-three billion dollars of it goes into the Medicare part A trust fund that is going bankrupt. One hundred and thirty-seven billion dollars of it goes into Medicare part B, so that $270 billion is saving the program from bankruptcy. It is not going into the general fund, it is not being used for tax cuts. It is going directly into saving the Medicare plan.

Mr. SHAYS. It comes from Maine. I do not even know in Connecticut.