Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, we have a major task. Our task is to get our financial house in order and balance our budget, and we are going to do it with the help of our colleagues on the other side or without it, but we are going to do our job. I would just like to reemphasize the fact that my esteemed chairman has made a point of, and that is that we have only had eight months to deal with a problem that has existed for a long time. I readily agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that both Republicans and Democrats have their fingers in this problem that has existed with the deficits going higher and higher and higher. The bottom line is, we had a Republican President, we had a Democratic Congress for much of that, and both sides simply could not agree. Republicans wanted to spend more on defense, and Democrats did not want to control the growth of entitlements, and they both agreed to disagree and end up with large deficits. That was then, and this is now. Now is, we have a chance to deal with the problem. The way we are dealing with this problem is to slow the growth in spending so, ultimately, it intersects revenue seven years out. We are still going to have over a trillion dollar increase in our national debt, but it will not be $3 trillion or it will not be $2.5 trillion. We are going to slow that growth so, ultimately, in the seventh year, we have a balanced budget. In the process, we are going to save our trust funds. Our trust funds are going bankrupt, particularly Social Security. It becomes insolvent next year. It goes bankrupt in 7 years. We are going to stretch that out so it does not go bankrupt in the year 2002. It is going to get up to the year 2010. The third thing we are going to do, and the most important, is we are going to transform this social and corporate welfare state into an opportunity society. We know we have welfare that we focused attention on in the social side of our budget, but we also have corporate welfare as well that we are getting at, to the tune of $29 billion. When I hear things about cutting and I know we are spending more, I just do not know how you can keep saying that. The bottom line to this issue is that we hear comments about how we are cutting Medicare, and I know we are not cutting it. We are going to spend 73 percent more in the next 7 years than we did in the last seven. I know we are going to spend over $674 billion additional in Medicare. I also know, at the same time, that we do not have an increase in copayments. We do not have an increase in deductibles. I know the premium stays at 31.5 percent. It means the taxpayers are going to pay 68.5 percent; and as health care costs go up, as they have in the past, that 31.5 percent will go up as it has in the past. I know we are not forcing people out of Medicare. They can stay where they are. They can get the traditional fee-for-service program they have gotten for the last 30 years. But if they want to, we have a plan that enables them to get private care and get better eye care or better dental care or maybe get a rebate, a refund in their premium, getting into the private sector plans. So I know we are not cutting Medicare. I know we are not cutting Medicaid. Then I hear about school loans. School loans go up from $24 billion this year to $36 billion in the seventh year. I think about that, and I think only in this place and where the virus has spread, when you go from $24 billion to $36 billion in school loans, do people call that a cut. What are we asking? We are saying that grace period that students will have to pay the interest when they get out of school for that next 6 months, that grace period, they are going to have to pay the interest. It amounts to $9 more a month for those students who have borrowed $17,000. So I am thinking, $9 more a month, and that is a cut. We are going from $24 billion to $36 billion. Replete in our budget, time in, time out, we are spending more, but you call it a cut, and it is not a cut. It is an increase. Bottom line, we are going to get our financial house in order, we are going to balance our budget, we are going to save our trust funds with or without your help, and we are going to transfer this social and corporate welfare state into an opportunity society. It would be nice to have your help, but if it is not there, we will just have to proceed on our own.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the Coalition. The Democratic alternative is a very fine plan. I think there is some if not a good deal that we should be talking about when we ultimately come to a conference agreement between the House and the Senate. When I look at this budget, I see that their budget balances the budget in 7 years, and that is what we are asking the President of the United States to do. If he does that, we go a long way to having a point of agreement. So I am encouraged that my colleagues on that side of the aisle who will vote for it will be sending a message to the President. I am also encouraged that it looks at the growth of Medicare and Medicaid and particularly Medicare and attempts to cut the growth by $170 billion. We are attempting to cut the growth by $270 billion. So there is a difference of $100 billion. In my judgment, that $100 billion change in the growth needs to happen. So we have a disagreement there. But, on balance, there is a lot that can be complimented about this. I like the plan that we have done, and I believe in the tax cuts. I believe that if we are going to take 7 years to balance the budget, that we can, in fact, afford a tax cut; and I believe that the group that needs it the most are those that have children that are under 17 years of age and can get that $500 tax credit. I also believe in the capital gains, because I think it generates economic activity rather than causing a loss in revenue. But, on balance, I congratulate my colleagues. They, I think, have gone a long way in helping the White House and both Chambers realize that, ultimately, we can come to an agreement.

Mr. SHAYS

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

Mr. SHAYS. Nobody will be taking any earned income tax away. They will not get an increase.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just think the numbers you all are using are bogus. I am fed up with it. These are not accurate numbers. You are not disclosing that it is to be increased. There is no cut to a constituent in my district because of the earned income tax credit. It has got to end.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I say the reason the gentleman has not heard from us is he has not been on the floor listening. Just taking Medicare, for instance. We have not increased co- payments; we have not increased deductibles. The premium stays the same at 31.5 percent. No one has to leave their fee- for-service system. If they want to, they can go. If they go into a private care, every month they can come back into their system. What the gentleman does not want people to know is that we are going to spend 73 percent more, over $600 billion more in the next 7 years than we did in the last 7 years; what the gentleman does not want people to know is in the 7th year we are spending 50 percent more than we do today on Medicare; and what the gentleman does not want people to know is that the per beneficiary goes from $4,800 to $6,700. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Risk Management and Speciality Crops. (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin], a very valued member of our conference.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, so the gentleman is talking about the earned income tax credit. Is it the gentleman's point on the floor of the House that any of my constituents who get the earned income tax credit will get less next year?

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

Mr. SHAYS. I would be happy to point out to the gentleman, but we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to say is I would not vote for the plan described by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], and I do not think anybody on this side of the aisle would, but that is not our plan. That does not seem to matter to the gentleman from Minnesota and others. We have had a budget deficit that has gone up and up and up, a debt that has gone from $385 billion 25 years ago to $4,900 billion, or $4.9 trillion. Our colleagues on that side of the aisle who have been in power for 40 years have had a chance to deal with that issue. We need to get our financial house in order, and we need to balance our Federal budget. We need to save our trust funds, particularly Medicare, and we need to transform our social and corporate welfare State into an opportunity society. The bottom line and the most difficult part is saving our trust funds. We know what the board of trustees of the Federal hospital insurance trust fund have said. they have said that in basically 7 years the Medicare part A trust fund literally goes bankrupt, but nobody on that side of the aisle even wanted to address it until a few weeks ago. We are addressing that fund. We are making sure that $333 billion benefits the Medicare part A trust fund, and $137 billion benefits the Medicare part B trust fund. We have extended its insolvency and its ultimate bankruptcy from the year 2002 to the year 2010. What is so important about the year 2010? That is when the baby boomers start to get into this fund. At that point, we have the baby boomers from year 2010 to the year 2030. By the year 2030, baby boomers from the age 65 to 85 will be in the fund. What does that mean? We have workers right now, three and one-half workers are working for each individual in the trust fund. Right now three and one-third workers work for every person in the Social Security trust fund. By the year 2030, 35 years from now, there will only be two workers. We are talking about what has happened over the last 40 years, and particularly, the last 25. Our Congresses and, regretfully, our Presidents have mortgaged the farm, and now we are trying to buy it back for our kids. this is about kids. It is about saving this country. I could not be more proud to be part of this reconciliation act. My only regret is that the President has not joined in in this effort.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. SHAYS. If I heard the gentleman correctly, Mr. Chairman, we have 27 minutes and this gentleman has 30 minutes remaining. Is that correct?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] for his help on the spousal impoverishment, which was very fine help. We appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] of the Health Subcommittee from the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], another distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. ENSIGN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, I say to the gentleman from Texas, you have given statistics. I want you to know that your vote against the $500 tax credit is going to cost your constituents $60 million.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just have a very calm dialog with my good friend; he truly is a good friend and someone I respect from Texas. I would just ask the gentleman to share that, the gentleman says in my district, What?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Texas a question. Does the gentleman from Texas know how much money he is depriving his constituents by voting against the $500 tax credit?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, a gentleman who had much time in Vietnam to think about how much he cares about our country and its children.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, given that we are ahead in time. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman discontinuing his presentation, inasmuch as it is totally unrelated to what we are speaking about on this side, agriculture. Again, I protest the process. On that side they have legislation that was not approved by the committee, which is, in my years here, in the history of this Congress, basically the first time that that has been done. I am terribly embarrassed, one, and upset and frustrated that this process has gone on. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in my office, and I have been hearing some of the most partisan, outrageous comments I have heard in the history of this place, and I guess that is saying a lot. I have been in office 20 years now. I was 30 years in the statehouse in Hartford, CT, and now 7, almost 8 years now, in Congress, and I remember my time in the statehouse looking at Members of Congress and looking up to them but wondering how they could, how they would be allowed to, and why they would spend more money than they raised in taxes and why they would deficit spend. I knew I could not do that in the statehouse. I knew that in the statehouse that we had to spend only what we raised in taxes. If we spent more, we would have a deficit, and we were not allowed to by law. I just think that it is immoral for a country that gets, in a sense, I hear the imagery of a farmer, I will use that same imagery, our forefathers gave us a farm and it did not have much debt, and this generation has mortgaged the farm to the hilt and is passing it on to the next generation with so much debt you can hardly pay the bills, and that is where we were at. We are here because 20 years of deficit spending has put us in the mess we are in. I am not going to say that it is the Democrats' fault, because it is not. We had a Congress on one side which was mostly Democrat. You had a Republican Presidency for most of that time. The White House, Republicans did not want to cut defense, or at least they did not even want to control the growth of defense. You had Democrats who did not want to control entitlements. You had Republicans who thought there was no defense program that they did not want to spend money on, and you had Democrats who realized that half the budget are entitlements, and they continued to go up and up. So Republicans did not give in on defense, and Democrats did not give in on entitlements. The end result is we have had one deficit after another. I vowed when I was elected that I would be part of a process to help get our financial house in order, and that is what we are doing. The sad thing is we are doing it now without the help of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that know we have to get our financial house in order, and we are doing it without the help of the President. I am as proud as I could be to be part of this effort to get our financial house in order. We want to do that and balance the budget. The second thing we want to do is save our trust funds, particularly Medicare which needs to be protected and preserved and strengthened. It is going insolvent next year. It goes bankrupt in 7 years, totally bankrupt. The third thing we want to do is we want to change the social, corporate, and farming welfare state into an opportunity society. I look at this, and I say how can anyone justify 4 miles of public housing in Chicago, 17-story buildings, that is the legacy of the welfare state; the legacy of the welfare state, our 13-year-olds having babies, 14-year-olds selling drugs, 16-year-olds killing each other, 18-year-olds who cannot even read their diplomas, 24-year-olds who have never had a job, 30-year-old grandparents. We have got to change that. In our society we become a caretaking society instead of a caring society. What ultimately has to happen is Republicans and Democrats, one, have to realize we have to balance the budget. I would like it in 4 years. If it takes 7, so be it. We have to get our financial house in order. The second thing we have to do, clearly, is decide how we do that. We have a disagreement with the White House right now. The White House does not want to weigh in on a 7-year budget. They are going to have to do that. The one thing I am not giving in on is to continue to say we are going to balance the budget out years and years out, but the President does not have to take our 7-year budget. The Democrats do not have to take our 7-year budget. If they do not like that, they can come in with a proposal as some of them have, but the bottom line is we have to get our financial house in order. I hear the dialog about cutting things, cutting school lunch programs. No. They are going up 4.5 percent each year. Yes, they would have gone up 5.2 percent. We think they should go up 4.5 percent. Cutting Medicare? Give me a break. Medicare, we are going to spend $1.6 trillion in the next 7 years. The last 7 years we spent about $900 billion. It is going to go up over $675 billion. We are going to spend 75 percent more in the next 7 years than we did in the last 7, 75 percent more, excuse me, 73 percent more. Only in this place where the virus is fed, where you spend 73 percent more, do people say it is a cut. In this year compared to the 7th year, we are going to spend 54 percent more. The 7th year, in Medicare, 54 percent more than today. People say you have more beneficiaries. Even if you take it on that, we are going to spend $4,800 per beneficiary today, $4,800. It is going to go up to $6,700 in the 7th year. That is a 40-percent increase. Only in this place when you spend 40 percent more per beneficiary do people call it a cut. Are we going to force people out of Medicare into private care? No. They can stay where they are. They have no increase in copayment, no increase in deductions. The premium is going to remain the same, 31.5 percent. Taxpayers are going to continue to pay 68.5 percent unless you are the most affluent. I have the most affluent in my community. Yes, they are going to have to pay more. If they are married, after $150,000, they pay all of Medicare part B. If they are single, after $100,000, they pay all of Medicare part B. For the most affluent, people want to talk about how we want to help the wealthy, we are saying the wealthy should pay for more for Medicare to help save the trust fund. Do we force people to get off private care? No. They can stay there. If they want to go into private care, they can do that. Why would they want to do that? Because they can maybe get better eye care for the same cost, might get dental care, might get a reduction or rebate in their premium. They might not have to pay that copayment or a deductible with some private care plans. So they can do that. Nobody makes them. If they decide to go into private care under our Medicare- plus plan and they do not like it, they can come back. For 2 years every month they can go in and come out. They do not have to wait a year. Only in the third year would they have to stay in the plan. When I hear people say we are cutting, I think, yes, we are cutting some programs. We are not cutting Medicare. We are not cutting Medicaid. They continue to go up. We are slowing the growth of those programs. We are changing them. We are allowing people to have other opportunities. I hope eventually the rich-and-poor dialog just falls by the wayside because it is simply a sham. We have the biggest cut in our tax program is two-thirds of our cut is $500 tax credit per family. You mean to tell me if you have a kid under 18 and those who might be listening to this right now, you ask yourself if you are wealthy, if you have a child under 18, you are going to get a $500 tax credit; you are going to get one; and if you are wealthy, then we fit the description. But if you happen to be like most Americans, 75 percent of whom make less than $75,000, they are going to get that $500 tax credit. The earned income tax credit is being eliminated? No. We are saying it is not going to increase above $28,000. If you are at $28,000 and you and your husband are working and you only make $28,000 or just one is working and you have 4 kids, you pay no Federal taxes. You get actually a rebate. You are paid by the Federal Government, no tax; you are paid. We are just saying we cannot increase that to $35,000. We are also saying that if it applies to a senior, you know, Social Security should count as an income. So I listened to the rhetoric and some of it has some truth to it, some of it, but some of it is just so off base. I am just proud to be part of this Republican majority that has the courage and the determination to get our financial house in order.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn. [[Page H 10484]]