Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. The mystery is over. Finally we have someone explaining how they made up their numbers. I am happy to know how the gentleman made up his numbers. He basically said if spending is going to decrease from 10 percent to an increase of 5 percent, he said beneficiaries are going to pay half of it, and providers are going to pay the other half. The gentleman makes one astonishing assumption: his astonishing assumption is that the increase in spending for Medicare patients and Medicaid patients has to be 10 percent. Why does the gentleman make that assumption? Why do we make the assumption that Medicare and Medicaid can continue to go at 10 percent, when the private sector is going at 4 percent? We make it a very real assumption. We are going to give beneficiaries new services. We are going to allow the private sector to offer a whole host of them. Beneficiaries are going to see their costs not increase to 10 percent. They will not have to pay these absurd increases that this side of the aisle has suggested.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I point out to the gracious gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] that Medicare spending in the great State of New York is now $14 billion. It is going to rise to $19 billion in the next 7 years, a 36-percent increase. The per-beneficiary cost is going to go from $5,312 to over $7,000 per beneficiary.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I was sitting in the Committee on the Budget when the gentleman from Texas spoke about a secret plan, and I began to look at this blank sheet, and I thought, well, this blank sheet is the President's balanced budget plan, and I thought, no, no, that is not what it is. It is his plan to save Medicare. It is blank. It goes bankrupt in 7 years. And we are going to save it, even if the gentleman from Texas does not want us to. Now, the challenge that we have is that the gentleman makes up numbers. He says we are going to do all these things. What he does not realize is no, what we are going to do is allow beneficiaries choice, which they do not have now. We are going to allow the private sector to give them rebates, which they do not have now. Some beneficiaries will actually get money from Medicare because the private sector will be able to offer it to them. We think it is incredible that we have allowed Medicare and Medicaid to rise at 10 percent when the private sector is rising at 4 percent. We would like to get Medicare and Medicaid into the 21st century and be able to provide choice. In Texas, Medicare is going to go up 50 percent. Only in Washington is an increase in spending called a cut.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the gentleman that we are spending more money on Medicare. In Massachusetts, we will be spending 40 percent more in the next 7 years on Medicare. The amount per beneficiary is going to go up from $5,900 to $7,814. Only in Washington, only in Washington, when you spend [[Page H5146]] more money, do people call it a cut. We are going to improve this system.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, only in Washington is an increase in spending a cut. In Michigan, to the gentleman that just spoke, we are going to spend 44 percent more in Medicare, the per beneficiary is going to go from $4,600 to $6,100. The gentlewoman before talked about it being a cut when we are increasing Medicare in Texas 53 percent. The per beneficiary is going to go from $5,000 to $6,600 per beneficiary. Only in Washington is an increase in spending a cut.

Mr. SHAYS. I would just like to point out to the gentleman that in Alabama, the amount of money it gets is $3 billion under our plan. By the year 2002 it will get $4.3 billion. I point out to the gentleman from Alabama that the per beneficiary amount is $4,800. Under our plan it goes to $6,361. Mr. Chairman, only in this town do you call an increase in spending cut.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. All my life I have wanted to serve in Government, whether it was as a civil servant or as an elected official, so it was a dream come true for me to have an opportunity to serve first as a State legislator and then as a Member of Congress. When I was a State legislator and first elected I started to notice that Congress, unlike the States and unlike my State of Connecticut, could spend more than it raised. And I thought, well, they can do it but they will not. And I saw it happen one year, and I saw it happen another year, and I saw it happen another year. For 13 years I watched Congress spend more money than it raised. And I know who is hurt by that. It is all of the children who have to pay the bill. So I saw my Congress spend more than it raised. And when I was in Congress, along with a number of others, I have been working and waiting for the opportunity to vote finally for a budget that will get our financial house in order. Today I have this chance. I have waited 20 years for this day to get our financial house in order, and that is what we are doing and we are doing it fairly. We are going to take 7 years admittedly, but we are going to spend 19 percent more in the seventh year than we spend today. We are going to slow the growth in spending. Only in Washington. I know no other place in the world, only in Washington is an increase in spending called a cut, only in Washington. Where else when you spend more do they call it a cut? I never found a place anywhere else but in Washington. We are going to spend more. Admittedly domestic spending is going to go down, because we are going to downsize and we are going to reorganize it and provide better services in the process. International, foreign aid is going to go down; that is a cut. Defense spending is going to stay relatively the same. But Medicare and Medicaid, they go up. Medicaid goes up 36 percent in the next 7 years, it goes up, it does not go down. I hear cuts. It goes up. It is $89 billion; it will be $121 billion. We are going to spend $33 billion more in the next 7 years than we spent in the last 7 years. That is a spending increase, maybe not as much as some people want, but it is not a cut. But most importantly, we want to save Medicare. It is going bankrupt. We know from the President that in the next year it starts to go bankrupt and in 7 years it is bankrupt. We want to protect it and we want to improve it. We want to save Medicare. We are going to have a 45-percent increase in Medicare. That is a cut? Well, in Washington it might be, but nowhere else in the world. We are going to spend $659 billion more in the next 7 years than in the last 7 years. Is that a cut? No. We are going to spend more. Only in Washington is an increase in spending called a cut, and I am fed up with it. What we are doing today is we are having a sea change. We are going to change the way Washington does things.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I know the gracious gentlewoman from California talked about cutting spending in California. I would just like to point out to her, they get $21 billion now and they will get $31 billion under the Republican plan in the next seven years. That is a 46 percent increase in Medicare. The per beneficiary goes up from $5,800 to $7,688. Only in Washington is an increase like this called a cut.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. My friend from Illinois may not realize that under the Republican plan, Illinois will get $2.7 billion of additional dollars in the next 7 years. Their per beneficiary for Medicare is now $4,500. It will go to $6,000 per beneficiary, per beneficiary. We are not cutting choice for seniors. We are going to change the system, allow them to keep what they have, if they want, but we really believe they are going to choose to be in programs that will provide them rebates and give them other opportunities, and in our plan we hope that we can allow seniors to police their bills and get 10 percent of whatever they find is a mistake. We are going to open the options. We are not going to cut. Only in Washington, only in Washington is an increase in spending a cut.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to use some of the gentleman's time to correct some of his comments.

Mr. SHAYS. I want to make sure I understand the gentleman. The gentleman says in Minnesota he provides good health care. I think we do in Connecticut, as well. In both instances, we are getting 40 percent more in the next 7 years.

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman will yield further, in Connecticut we are given from the Federal Government in Medicare $2.5 billion, and it goes up to $3.6 billion. That is a 40 percent increase. We are equal. Per beneficiary it is $5,135, and that will go up to $6,782 per beneficiary, per beneficiary.

Mr. SHAYS. The per recipient number in Minnesota, given that they are getting 40 percent more in the next 7 years, it is presently $3,840. It goes up to $5,000 per beneficiary.

Mr. SHAYS. It will go up $3 billion 400. It will go up 40 percent.

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, in Minnesota the gentleman has an amount of money for Medicare now of $2 billion 429.

Mr. SHAYS. I just need to know that that is the case.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, let me just ask the gentleman, does he not understand when you are spending more money, you are spending more money?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The distinguished gentleman from California talked about Medicare. We want to save Medicare. We do not want it to go bankrupt. It starts to go bankrupt next year, and in 7 years it is bankrupt, and the Congressional Budget Office said in the next 3 years after we spend more on Medicare than they do, because their fund runs out, Medicare Part A. This is the Democratic plan to solve and resolve the Medicare trust fund problem. It is a blank sheet. That is their plan. And the gentlewoman from Colorado talks about she wants to balance the budget. She voted against the balanced budget amendment. My only question is if she wants to balance the budget, when, and how.

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

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995, and in support of the Saxton- Boehlert substitute to the bill. Maintaining a strong Clean Water Act is essential for Connecticut and the Nation. Unfortunately, H.R. 961 does not build on the success the Clean Water Act has had over the past 23 years. Instead, it rolls back standards, loosens regulations and weakens protections. Under H.R. 961, 60 to 80 percent of our Nation's wetlands would be either removed from any level of protection or destroyed. Industrial pollution standards would be significantly weakened, allowing discharge of industrial waste into lakes, rivers, and harbors. The entire coastal zone nonpoint source pollution control program would be repealed, and the Federal Government would be saddled with payments of more than $15 billion as a result of illogical and unfair takings provisions. While it is important the Clean Water Act is reauthorized, it must not be at the environmental cost that would result from passage of H.R. 961. The Saxton-Boehlert substitute is a sensible alternative that makes necessary modifications without repealing or rolling back important protections that have contributed to the Clean Water Act's enormous success. Specifically, the substitute makes improvements over H.R. 961 in four important areas: wetlands protection, storm water management, coastal water pollution, and nonpoint source pollution. The Saxton-Boehlert substitute recognizes that there have been problems with the wetlands permitting process. But unlike title VIII of H.R. 961, the substitute streamlines the permitting process without leaving millions of acres of wetlands unprotected. It utilizes recommendations made by the National Governors Association to simplify and expedite the wetlands permitting process without establishing a bureaucratic classification system. Wetlands serve as a breeding ground for fish, are critical habitat for wildlife and are necessary for most migratory birds. They are critical to Connecticut, where they also serve to filter out nutrients and toxics that would otherwise end up in Long Island Sound. The sound is already suffering from nitrogen overload that has resulted in hypoxia--low levels of dissolved oxygen which cause significant, adverse ecological effects in the bottom water habitats of the sound. Local, State, and Federal Government resources are being spent to reduce nitrogen levels in the sound, and it doesn't make sense to counter these efforts by removing wetlands from protection. H.R. 961 would repeal the entire stormwater program in the Clean Water Act. This is unnecessary and harmful to health and safety. Stormwater is one of our most significant water pollution programs, but H.R. 961 would allow it to be freely discharged into our waters. H.R. 961 would also repeal the coastal pollution control program. Over the past 5 years more than 10,000 beaches in the United States have been closed because of coastal water pollution. Over one-third of all shellfish beds in the United States are closed or threatened by water pollution. Connecticut is a world leader in oyster production, and this industry is dependent on clean water for prosperity. Repealing the coastal pollution program is harmful for Connecticut economically and environmentally. The majority of coastal water quality impairment is the result of nonpoint sources of pollution, another major contributor to problems in Long Island Sound. In fact, nonpoint source pollution impairs more water bodies nationwide than any other pollution source, resulting in beach closings and declining fisheries. It threatens drinking water quality and impacts millions of coastal residents. Yet H.R. 961 loosens regulations for nonpoint source pollution. While the legislation authorizes funds for accountability for the moneys it provides. Clean water is essential to the economy, health, and livelihood of everyone, not only in my State of Connecticut, but in the entire country. We have made solid progress in clean water protection since enactment of the act in 1972. As we look for improvements to the act and solutions to the challenges that lie ahead, we must be both ambitious and thoughtful. We must seek rational policies that make sense. The Saxton-Boehlert substitute, not H.R. 961, achieves that goal.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. First, I would like to start off by thanking the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] for yielding time to the Republicans who opposed term limits. I thank the gentleman. I also thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], for his graciousness in yielding time against the amendment to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I would have loved that honor to yield to that gentleman, but I thank him for yielding time in that way. Mr. Chairman, lots of things we could say. But I think we all speak from our hearts, and that is probably the best way. And then the people decide through their elected Representatives. I signed a Contract With America, and there were parts I liked a lot, parts I did not like much at all. There was one part I wanted not to be part of the contract, and that was the concept of the term limits. I did not particularly like the language used, because it did not describe the way I feel. But what we said in our contract is: As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives. That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print. The last item that we promised to do, and it is very clear, we said, ``A first-even vote on term limits to replace,'' and this is the term I did not like, ``career politicians with citizen legislators.'' That is what we are doing. And Republicans can feel very comfortable that we are fulfilling our contract in having this debate. As an opponent of term limits, I am very happy we have had this debate. I align myself with the remarks made by many on my side, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. I wish I could be as eloquent in terms of their message. I hope the American people have been listening to their comments. I look at Mr. Inglis and I say he is the best argument not to have term limits, because he defeated an incumbent. And I say to Republicans, in the late 1940's and early 1950's, ``You got Mr. Roosevelt, you got him good, real good. You punished Eisenhower, and you punished Ronald Reagan because they could not return to a third term.'' I have an amendment to repeal the 22d amendment. I say to the Republicans on my side of the aisle, you can really get at the Democrats, you can end 40 years of Democratic control. You thought we could not do it by beating them at the polls; so what we did was we limited their terms. I had someone who said candidly they did not like Henry Waxman, so they wanted me to support term limits. I said, wait a second, Henry Waxman is in California, and they said, ``I know. I can't vote there. The only way I can get at Henry Waxman is to vote for term limits.'' Think of what we are saying. We are saying that Americans are trying to vote in districts they are not even represented by. Mr. Waxman has been a very active Member. He was elected by his constituents because they want him here. We should not decide in another area whether he can run. I am in my 4th term. Since that time, 291 people have been elected, new Members; 254 of them are serving right now. There are times I would love to be home living with my family 7 days a week, having my weekends, and, yes, making more money, because I would. I serve here because I think I am of service and because I believe I am making a difference. I may not be. My constituents can tell me that in a brutal message. They can decide not to reelect me. We need in this Chamber a mix, we need the young, we need the new, those who have served here for some time, and those who have served here for a long time. That mix will create the change 40 years of one- party control.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, who is represented by two Senators who, if this resolution were to pass and would be in full operation, would not be allowed to serve, Mr. Dole and Mrs. Kassebaum. (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of a committee that focuses its attention around the world. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)