Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. When the gentleman said not positive it will work, I am absolutely as positive as I can be that this system will work extraordinarily well. The issue is will the savings be 270? 260? 280? How many people will choose private care? Will it be 24 percent that the Congressional Budget Office says? My judgment, based on all the people that we have interviewed, says that well more than 50 percent by the seventh year will have chosen private care. They are going to choose it because they get better opportunities. The certainty is no one can predict exactly what it will be in the seventh year. Is it 45 percent who are in private care? 60 percent? 70 percent? That is the uncertainty. To what extent will that happen? But the one thing we are certain of, we are certain that we will provide $4,800, as we do not, per beneficiary. We are certain that we will provide $6,700 in the seventh year. That is a 40 percent increase per beneficiary. There is over $600 billion into the plan. Doctors will get more; hospitals will get more; all the people who provide quality service will get more, not less. There is not anything like an increase in the number of hospitals and [[Page H 10135]] doctors of 40 percent. So those who are in the system now that are being told that somehow they are going to have to make extraordinary sacrifices, it is just not accurate.

Mr. SHAYS. The gentleman said 1 billion?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to weigh in on this. I was listening to both of you in my office and I felt compelled to join you, because this is something that we have been working on for years, particularly this last year. We are going to spend $675 billion of additional new dollars in the next 7 [[Page H 10131]] years as opposed to the last 7 years. We spent about $926 billion between these last 7 years, and in the next 7 years we expect to spend about $1.6 trillion. That is an extraordinary amount of new dollars. Those new dollars are going to be used to help beneficiaries. What amazes me is that when I listen to the plan, described by some of my constituents, that was described candidly by Members on the other side of the aisle, I thought, I do not like that Medicare plan. They described to me a plan that created new copayments and increased existing copayments. That is a not. They described a plan that created new deductions and new deductibles and increased the deductibles that exist. That is a not. The hospital deductible, the doctor deductible is going to stay the same. They described premiums where they were going to have to pay more, and the fact is they are going to pay 31.5 percent, which is exactly what they pay now, and it will stay that way. As health care rises that premium cost will go up, as it has during the last 7 years. I thought, none of that is true. As I talk to my constituents, they say it is a not. I have been told it was. It is not true. The bottom line is no copayment, no deductible, no increase until premiums. But they say, but I have been told I cannot have my doctors. I am going to be forced out to get private care. That is a not as well. It is not going to happen. Beneficiaries can stay in the same program they are in now. If they have a doctor for their heart, kidneys, or stomach, or any other ill they have, they can keep those doctors. No change whatsoever. I am excited about this plan, because it allows people to stay in the existing plan, but it then allows them to get into private care plans if they want. They can even have a medical savings account and buy a large deductible if they want to do that. They have so many options. They can stay in fee for service. So I look at what we are trying to do, which is slow the growth of this program to about 6.3 percent. I would just come back to the original point: In the 7th year we are going to spend 54-percent more than we spend today. That is a gigantic increase. In the 7th year, beneficiaries, per beneficiary, are going to get 40-percent more per beneficiary. I look at the plan and say this is a job well done. I would defend this program anywhere. I would debate anyone on this issue. It simply is a plan we can be very proud of. I hope ultimately the American people are focused in on what this plan is and not a plan described by people on the other side of the aisle who simply want to prevent this from happening.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, one of the plans we are allowing, we are allowing doctors and hospitals to have their own program. In other words, they can now compete directly with the insurance industry; they can compete with HMO's, health maintenance organizations. They can participate in this process. I believe that they will be able to provide patients extraordinary care at significant reductions in price. One of the things that happens is in this process of choice, they can stay in their fee-for-service. The only way they have to leave is they have to choose to leave. And the only way they will choose to leave is if they can get better health care in one of the private plans. So, for instance, if a private plan wants to say that their premium will be less, they will get a rebate or, in fact, their deductible, which presently is on hospitals and doctors, would be reduced, they can get that. Some plans might entice individuals to participate because they will get drug care for the first time, or eyeglass care or dental care, which they might not get now. The only way that happens is if they can convince individuals they should leave their plan. Now, if they leave their plan, under our proposal, we are allowing Medicare patients every month to go back into their old system. There is a 2-year window where they can simply go back the next month. And then, in the third year, it would be every year. So we are saying if an individual really wants to test it, and they are not sure they will like it, they can go right back to what they have. I have tremendous confidence a lot will choose to do the private care and they will stay there because they will find they will be better.

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman would yield, we basically have a plan that has no increase in the deductible, no increase in copayment, keeps the same premium cost, allows individuals to keep the present system they have, allows them to move into private care, if [[Page H 10132]] they do not like the private care, they can come right back in. Someone said, well, why not take the premium, which is 31.5 percent and have it go down? What they are saying is, on Medicare part B, which is what the premium pays for, all the health care services, we are saying the taxpayer is going to continue to pay 68.5 percent. If we allow the premium to go down, we are then saying the taxpayers are going to have to pay 70 percent and 80 percent and so on. So we are saying taxpayers will stay at 68.5 percent for Medicare part B, and those who receive the care are going to stay at 31.5 percent. To me, that is a very honest and straightforward way. The taxpayers will have to pay more as health care costs go up, and the premium will also go up slightly as well, but we are keeping that bond and that protection. While we are not always mentioning this, it is something that I think should be put on the table. We are trying very hard to make sure that there is not a transfer of wealth from families to senior citizens. We have to be straight with everyone here; that the Federal Government cannot continue to pick up more of the percentage, because, otherwise, we will make families poorer and poorer. And it is not easy for a family today with two children, that makes $40,000, that now does not have the same deduction per child that my parents had. My parents had, in today's dollars, the equivalent, $8,000, they could take for each child, and a family today has $2500. My parents paid about 20 percent of their income in Federal, State and local taxes. A family today pays 30 to 40 percent. We have to, when we talk about what we are doing for our elderly so we can protect Medicare, we also have to focus in on what we are trying to do for families.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I would just say that he is part of an incredible family, the Bailey family. John Bailey, his father-in-law, the chairman of the Democratic Party in Connecticut, in fact brought that Democratic Party from minority status to extraordinary majority status, helped elect the first Jewish Governor, the first woman Governor. He was all part of this incredible family. There is a real loss in Connecticut with the passing of Jim Kennelly. I thank both my colleagues for allowing me the opportunity to really say something that I feel very deeply about.

Mr. SHAYS. He sure was.

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman would just yield so I could express my admiration and love for Barbara Kennelly, and let her know that everyone on our side of the aisle has extraordinary respect for her and hopes that the next few days are as easy as possible for her.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, Jim Kennelly was the best speaker that I have ever seen in my life in the 20 years I have been a member of the State house and Congress. He was someone who believed so passionately in the institution and his responsibilities of guiding the chamber that he was quite willing to make a ruling that may not have been what he wanted to make, and may have caused tremendous problems for the operation. But he would, on occasion, agree that the minority's point was well taken, and in spite of the pressure that he might have gotten from a whole host of different people and in spite of the pressure he might have felt for himself to move business along, he was willing to concede that the process was so important that he would adjust his timetable and his schedule and accept the ruling that was in fact against his own wishes. He was extraordinarily kind. He was as intelligent as I have ever known anyone to be. He was a leader in terms of our constitutional convention when we established our new Constitution for the State of Connecticut. He was a man you could go to and always know you were going to get a straight and direct answer and know that it came with a great deal of thought and energy. He was a wonderful man. He enriched my life. I used him as a model. I am not saying that I followed him. The gentleman would probably say I did not follow him well at all, but I certainly knew what an ideal legislator was like, and he was it.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 104) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SHAYS

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

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I think they saw that in the vote on the temporary continuing resolution. The Government would have stopped being funded at the end of this month. What is that, tomorrow? In fact, we were able to get together and extend on a temporary basis at 90 to 95 percent of funding so we are not adding new money, we are putting in less money into the plan, giving ourselves 6 more weeks to have a dialog among Republicans and Democrats. We have a debt ceiling question. I am not voting to increase the debt ceiling, but I am going to vote for increasing the debt ceiling when this President weights in on a 7-year budget, then the President decides with us where we make our changes in programs, where we cut, where we slow the growth, we participated on a bipartisan basis. But we are going to get that budget balanced in 7 years, we are going to save Medicare, and we are also going to transform this social and corporate welfare state into an opportunity society. We are going to do that, and I think we can do it on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. SHAYS. That is well said. I was thinking as we were talking, making reference to people on the other side of the aisle, candidly that is not usually my way of feeling comfortable because there are a lot of good people on this side of the aisle who have made a contribution. I think part of it is the frustration of here we have a plan that we think is so good and we are willing to debate it on the ideas. In other words, if you do not think there should be the private sector, if you do not think people should have choice or you do not like the kinds of choices, debate it on that. But do not tell my constituents that there is going to be a co-payment, that there is going to be a deduction. Do not go into nursing homes and tell everybody that they are not going to be able to live here next year. It brings out a side of you that you would just as soon not get into. I just want to make this point to you. One of the constructive arguments that people on this side of the aisle were making was, hey, we should see this bill, it should have the light of day and so on. We had a conversation with our Speaker and he totally agreed. Ideas win. We have every reason to be proud of this plan. So this plan has come out in full detail today, the legislation. It will be introduced to the committee but not voted on next week, in Commerce, I believe. Members will be free not to be here. They can study it every day. This bill will be debated on in committee and Democrats who have ideas to improve this plan, not just criticize it but to improve it, will make a wonderful contribution, because we are listening. If we can make this plan better, we are going to do it.

Mr. SHAYS. I am flying home tonight. You are telling me it is vacuum tubes?

Mr. SHAYS. Vacuum tubes? Do they still make vacuum tubes?

Mr. SHAYS. I have waited 20 years for the opportunity we have. I was a State legislator. I saw the Congress deficit spend. I served here 8 years. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] has been here much longer. We have an incredible opportunity to get our financial house in order, balance the budget, save Medicare and some of our other trust funds and change our corporate and social welfare state into an opportunity for society. This chance is here. It can happen on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. SHAYS. And that is not going to happen.

Mr. SHAYS. Every single store in the country. And they have it centrally located. The Federal Government does not do a great job of controlling costs, but it also does a terrible job in getting at waste, fraud, and abuse. I had a hearing on waste, fraud, and abuse. The estimate was between 10 and 20 percent. Not 10. Ten is the low end of waste, fraud, and abuse. It really goes up to 20 percent. I would love to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], an expert in this area, and tell you that we have got lots of opportunity here.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of factors here. First, let me say when we said how are we going to save Medicare, we have four basic choices. We can increase taxes, and that is the payroll tax of 1.45 percent, and if you are self-employed, it is 2.9 percent. That is a no. We can affect the beneficiaries, we can affect the providers, or we can change the system. We are looking to change the system and allow choice and still allow people to keep the same plan if they want. Now, how is the private sector going to step in? Well, all you need to do is just think about how the Government is running things. The FAA, for instance, knew 10 years ago that we were going to have double the increase in traffic. Yet the FAA has not planned for that. So what do we have right now? We have a system that is basically shutting down. But that is the Government running it. Medicare and Medicaid cannot tell you what hospitals have sent money, even a year later. They do not even know why it sent money. If we want to come back and find, out, they have to reconstruct it. But Home Depot can tell you at 9:30 in the morning what they sold the 2 hours before and they have already ordered----

Mr. SHAYS. However, I think the gentleman was making another point. Americans have 2 years, and during those 2 years they can go into the private plan, the Medicare Plus plan, but if you decide you do not like it, it was not what you expected, you can come right back into what exists now.

Mr. SHAYS. I would love to just weigh in and just thank the gentleman for being such a catalyst when he was on the side I am on right now, and now as a new Republican, because you have been a force for many years in the very things that we have been working on. It just really is extraordinary to have the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] as part of our family, and to say to the gentleman that we have such an opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I get up every morning and I just count my blessings for the opportunity to be a part of a Congress that is bringing about extraordinary change. There are people on this side of the aisle as well that have weighed in and have added their part, a lot of good people on this side of the aisle. The gentleman mentioned that he believes that there are a number of Democrats who will vote ultimately for the Medicare plan. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman know why I think so? First off, the plan that some on the democratic side have described is a plan that does not exist. I had community meetings the last two weekends and I met some real hostility. People said, you are going to increase the copayments, you are going to have copayments. I said, no. They said, but you are going to have increased deductions for hospitals and doctors. I said, no. They said, well, you are going to increase the premium, and I said, no, the premium is going to stay at 31.5 percent, and it is going to stay at that percent, and the Federal Government's taxpayers are going to pay 68.5 percent. Then they said, oh, you are going to push everybody out of fee-for-service, our Medicare system as we know it. That is simply not true. That is another no; they can stay in that plan, but if they want, they can go to all the kinds of plans the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] mentioned, and he mentioned three, but candidly, there are an unlimited number. Mr. Speaker, there are certain kinds of programs, but you can have providers that come in and say, if you want a certain kind of eyeglass care or dental care or drugs, they can encourage you to leave that traditional fee-for-service. What is so darned exciting, and the Democrats have simply not yet caught on to what is so exciting, that we are saving this plan and we are making it better.

Mr. SHAYS. Plus.

Mr. SHAYS. Incomes under $200,000. It may be that ultimately that number comes down, but 75 percent of all families make $75,000 or less, so 75 percent of the people who get this benefit make $75,000 or less than $75,000. Why would we want a $500 tax credit? It is quite simple. My parents, and I am one of four boys, in the 1940's and 1950's took the equivalent deduction off their taxes of today of $8,000. In other words, they had the benefit of being able to deduct for every child in today's dollars $8,000 off their total income. That is $32,000 that they could deduct from their total income. It meant they did not have to pay taxes on $32,000. What are families allowed today? They are allowed $2,500. Families when we were growing up only paid 20 percent in taxes, Federal, State and local. They pay 40 percent today, so our first effort is to help young families cope with what is a very difficult environment. That is part of our tax cut. The thing I want to weigh in on is that we paid for it. We made cuts to this budget, and I know, because you and I were on the budget, and my colleagues, we have all had to vote to cut spending to pay for it. It has nothing to do with Medicare. Medicare is a separate challenge. Medicare is going bankrupt, Medicare part A. We have to save that trust fund, totally separate. So, wrong, first, that this is a tax cut for the wealthy; wrong that it somehow, that the tax cut, is related to Medicare. Let me make one last point. The most outrageous thing is to say it is a cut of $270 billion. We spent, in the last 7 years, $900 billion. In the next 7 years we are going to spend $1.6 trillion. We are going to spend well over $600 billion more in the next 7 years than the last 7. We are going to spend now $4,800. It is going to go to $6,700 per beneficiary in the seventh year. Only in this city and where the virus has spread in other parts of the country, when you spend more money like this do people call it a cut. It is not a cut. We are slowing the growth.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted to involve myself in this debate, because you are talking about the difference since the beginning of this year with the new majority. What we did is we ended 40 years of one-party control. That was a system where the chairman became so dominant that even a rank and file Democrat had no power, even in the majority. I would wager to say a rank and file Democrat Member has more power today under our system than they did under their system, which meant that the chairman decided every issue. You would bring a bill before the chairman. If he did not want to hear it, it did not happen. If the chairman did not want to have a public hearing on it, it did not happen. If the chairman did not want to invite these witnesses, it did not happen. If a bill was being debated and someone wanted to amend it and the chairman did not want it to be amended, under the old system it did not happen. What we have now is the expression of a lot of different ideas. We have a lot of Members on both sides of the aisle empowered to make significant change. I remember when the Contract With America was first brought forward. We, and I am looking at the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Hoke, because we are fortunately in the majority, because we are here with three outstanding new Members of this House. For the first time as incumbent Members, we said that ``If you elect us, you will elect a change of government.'' Then we invited those who were challengers to participate in making up our Contract With America and giving the American people a very positive presentation. I remember the press when we did this said, ``This is ridiculous.'' They said, ``It is going to cause the defeat, particularly of moderate Republicans.'' I was thinking to myself, ``Why would it do that? There are eight major reforms to this institution. We have 10 major bills we would pass during the first 100 days.'' However, they said, no, it would cause our defeat. When no Member lost, moderate or conservative, who was a Republican, and all these new Members were reelected, they said, ``You used this contract to get elected but you would not implement it''. Then we started in the opening day. I remember candidly thinking the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], thinking he was going to be in charge of the rule. I was thinking these new freshman Members, I could not have brought out a bill on the opening day or dealt with a rule. And I was thinking, ``Can you guys do this?'' You got together as a group, I watched what you did, you came to the floor of the House, you presented the rule. I could not have been more proud of any Republicans than to see what our freshmen did on opening day. They basically were the only ones to speak, the only ones to bring out the rules. It was awesome. I just want to thank all of you for what you have done to make it possible for this country to change. I make this point to you. They said moderates would lose. Moderates did not lose. Then they said we would not complete our Contract With America, we would [[Page H 9730]] not try to work on these eight reforms and these 10 bills, and we did. Then they said moderates and conservatives could not work together. We get along fine. In fact, we find we have a heck of a lot in common. Then they said, ``You will not get along with the Senate.'' I actually like Senators and we work well with the Senate. Then they said, ``You voted to balance the budget, but you would not be so stupid as to vote to balance the budget and cause a lot of anguish and all those special interests that are going to weigh in.'' And would you look at entitlements? That has been sacred, that we should not look to try to get our financial House in order. We are doing that. This is what we have done. We have left the old world for the new world. We are not going back to the old world. We burned our ships. We are in the new world. We are going to conquer this new world. We are going to make sure the American people see a change. What are they going to see? They are going to see us get our financial House in order and balance the budget. They are going to see us save our trust funds, particularly Medicare. They are going to see us change this corporate, this social and corporate welfare state, into an opportunity society. I really believe we are going to accomplish all that. I would love to weigh in just a little bit on the whole issue of Medicare, but I do not want to monopolize the time, just to say it is really a pleasure to be with you. We need to talk about what we and the American people have so much to be proud of, a new Congress that is bringing extraordinary change.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader has stated Members should not expect any recorded votes until Wednesday, October 11. Any votes ordered on Tuesday, October 10, will be postponed until Wednesday, October 11.