Fred Upton

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would note that there is no decline in benefits. They cannot say no, they cannot blackball one from enlisting in any of the programs, and benefits cannot be cut. One has got to have at least a standard benefit package that is there today. It can only be broadened, not lessened.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, we changed the House rules, but we are not living up to them. Maybe we should get the mace out.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, it was about a year ago that this House first took up some of the contract items and passed a number of things the first day and the first month, certainly. As I recall, one of the things that we passed on the very first day was a change in the House rules to allow for honest budgeting. As my colleague pointed out, school lunches are going up at least $200 million each and every year. I can hardly wait next fall to go to the schools where they believe that school lunches are going to be over and sit down and have lunch with my fourth and fifth graders and say, ``Oh, my gosh, we are still having lunch.'' I signed some mail today, people complaining about Medicare cuts. It is going up any way you look at it, 50 percent over 7 years in the plan that we passed and the President vetoed. And it is going up on a per beneficiary basis by $2,100. But I thought it was in this House that it passed almost unanimously, not quite, 390-something to 12 or something like that, to use honest budget numbers. And what that meant to me was that we were not going to start looking at these things as cuts, unless they actually went down. Is it a violation of the House rules to talk about cuts when in fact they are going up?

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, as I understand, it was a $200 million increase each year for 5 years.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow those phony assumptions to come into place. That is why, as we make the tough decisions today, Medicaid, Medicare, what size of the tax cut, if any, that ought to be there, all the tough choices, we do not want to go through this drill again and come up $250 billion off when we say it is going to be balanced.

Mr. UPTON. But, you know, back in 1980 when I first came to this town and worked for President Reagan, the baby-boom generation, our generation, was 30 years away from retirement. The deficit then was a lot smaller, the national debt was a lot smaller. The amount of interest that we paid on that debt was about $50 billion. Today, 15 years later, 16 years later, we are now 15 years away, our generation, from the big retirement age, with all the entitlement kick- ins and all of that, and we are not spending $50 billion on interest, we are spending $250 billion on interest, and the debt, not being $1 trillion or so, is now actually over $5 trillion, and in 2 years, we will be spending more just on the interest, servicing that $5.5 trillion national debt, than all of defense, foreign aid, Congress and the Intelligence budgets put together. We have got to make some tough choices. It is not easy to say no to some of these different groups that are coming in. The easy vote is always yes. Somehow in this Chamber, working with the administration downtown, because we do not have the votes, let us face it, to override a veto, we have got to work together and bridge the gap to get the job done. I have a 4-year-old and I have an 8-year-old, and a newborn child today is going to pay, their share of what we owe is $185,000 in taxes just to pay the interest on the national debt. Somehow I think that it should be incumbent on everyone in this Chamber, as we think about our kids and their kids and this country, to work together in a bipartisan fashion to do a number of things. First of all we have got to come up with a balanced budget. Why did our side pick 7 years? Because the markets, those folks running the markets say if it is not 6, 7, or 8 years, it is not going to be credible; you put it off in the future and no one will believe it. We need declining deficits each and every year. None of this stuff where you have a straight line deficit, and then the last 2 years it falls off to zero. They have to be real, and they have to come down in benchmark fashion each and every year. The other thing, we said this on our side and so has the President and the Democrats, is we have got to have an honest scoring mechanism, the Congressional Budget Office. I want to share a story. Back in 1990, when President Bush was in office, you probably went down there, as well as I did. In fact on the budget agreement in 1990, President Bush, I spent a lot of time with him. I worked with him. I worked with President Reagan, as I said earlier, for a number of years. His office was around the corner when he was Vice President, and my office, I was in charge of congressional affairs at the Office of Management and Budget. President Bush called me down to his office and put his hands on my shoulders. He said: Fred, you can vote for this. You are going to get reelected. I have been to your district. I know you. You are going to win your race, and I need your vote for this. This is so important. We have the gulf war coming up, and we need to get this off the table and get this country on a sound fiscal basis. And I said: Mr. President, I cannot vote for this because I did not run for office, and I do not feel in my heart that I can vote to increase spending and increase taxes, and that is what your budget does. And as I look back at those numbers, back then, in 1990, in my notes, his statisticians told him if his budget passed, and it did, we would have a surplus in 1995 of $63 billion. Well, they are off only by $250 billion.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the diligent work of our chairman of the full committee and subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley]. This is a very tough and complex issue, flow control and interstate waste. There has always been a fear, particularly from those of us in the Midwest, that one might pass without the other. Frankly, I was prepared to vote against this bill under suspension, in fact signed a bipartisan ``Dear Colleague'' letter with a number of my colleagues asking us all to do so. But today's assurance that the Governors of the impacted States will in fact help forge an agreement that is acceptable to all of us helps resolve my goal of making sure that we will not see unfair control of interstate waste legislation move forward unless they in fact are dealt with together. I accept Rules Committee Chairman Solomon's pledge of cooperation in working this out. In fact, I am going to go back to all of my colleagues to make sure that when this conference report comes out that it will be an acceptable bill. Out-of-State waste is a very important issue. Our landfills will fill up years ahead of schedule because cities like Chicago, New York, and Boston churn out garbage faster than they can deal with it. Interstate waste is an important tool. It allows States the ability to limit garbage that crosses my borders. My State should not be forced to accept other people's garbage. Michigan isn't a dumping ground for other States' mistakes. Michigan has had the foresight to develop a plan to dispose of our waste. We are now being forced to deal with garbage from States who haven't. I make no apologies--frankly, New York City, Boston, Chicago, your garbage isn't our problem. `We Recycle'--it says so right on the blue trash cans in my office. I've got to separate white paper from wet trash, glass from cardboard. But the Federal Government doesn't afford my communities with this luxury. Michigan communities shouldn't be forced to clog up their landfills with trash from cities hundreds of miles away. When it comes to dumping in landfills, it all gets thrown into the mix--Kalamazoo's, New York City's, Benton Harbor's, and Boston's--Michigan couldn't bar any State from dumping trash on us--until now. In a recent letter sent to Speaker Gingrich, Michigan Governor John Engler and several other Midwest Governors wrote ``Citizens constantly ask us why they should recycle in order to conserve space for other States' trash. We need assurances that we can conserve landfill space for our own State's disposal needs.'' Governor, you got your assurance today. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letter: State of Ohio, State of Michigan, State of Indiana, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, January 25, 1996. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: We are writing to express our opposition to considering a flow control bill on the House floor under suspension of the rules without the inclusion of interstate waste provisions. As governors of states that have been receiving considerable amounts of out-of-state waste, we feel it is essential that the House move interstate waste and flow control together as one bill. As you know, 23 governors wrote you in June to express strong support for the interstate waste provisions in H.R. 2323, the State and Local Government Interstate Waste Control Act of 1995, introduced by Congressman Mike Oxley and passed by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous Materials in May. For too long, states have had only limited ability to place restrictions on shipments of municipal waste across state lines. Although mandated by federal law to develop comprehensive waste management plans, states' efforts to enforce their own planning rules have been overturned repeatedly by the federal courts. Lacking specific delegation of authority from Congress, states that have acted responsibly to implement environmentally sound waste disposal plans and recycling programs are still being subjected to a flood of out-of-state trash. We are not asking for outright authority to prohibit all out-of-state waste. We are asking Congress to provide state and local governments with the tools they need to manage their own waste and limit waste from other states. Any proposal to grant specific flow control authorities, therefore, should not be considered without also including these essential interstate waste provisions. We strongly believe that Congressman Oxley's interstate waste provisions address many of our concerns. Twenty-three governors and the Western Governors' Association have supported the interstate waste provisions in this bill and seek two strengthening amendments. One would allow states to place a percentage limit on the amount of out-of-state waste that can be received at new facilities or major modifications of existing facilities. The other would allow states to authorize the collection of a $1-per-ton surcharge on waste from other states. H.R. 2323 would give large exporting states sufficient time to plan for the disposal of their own waste. It also would give those states that have acted responsibly to implement environmentally sound waste disposal and recycling plans assurance that they can save space within their borders for their own disposal needs. In addition, we oppose any provisions that would prohibit interstate waste restrictions at facilities that are subject to flow control authorities. Such a provision would prohibit state and local governments that exercise flow control authorities from having the opportunity to accept or reject out-of-state waste shipments, and they could be forced to receive it unwillingly. We strongly believe that one community should not be forced to accept other states' waste while another community has the opportunity to turn it away. Again, we respectfully urge that interstate waste and flow control move together as one bill. By considering flow control separately, Congress would only address one side of the equation and would not give importing states the tools they need to limit the large amounts of waste crossing their borders. Sincerely, George V. Voinovich, Governor of Ohio. Evan Bayh, Governor of Indiana. John Engler, Governor of Michigan. Tom Ridge, Governor of Pennsylvania.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a couple of things during this span, as we wait for the rule to come down from the Committee on Rules. On this side we want a balanced budget. I believe a lot of Members on that side want a balanced budget, too. They want it honestly scored, and that means by the Congressional Budget Office. We are tired of smoke and mirrors and phony numbers and the CR that we had last time. A lot of us were optimistic that something was going to happen, and it did not. That is why we are in the situation that we are in today. Mr. Speaker, I reminded a colleague of mine earlier this afternoon that I was one of those who voted against the Bush budget back in 1990. I remember being down in the White House and meeting with a number of his advisers, and I said then that his assumptions and statistics that he was showing us in 1990 were wrong, because he told us that if that budget passed in 1990, and it did, despite my opposition, that we would have a surplus in 1995 of $65 billion. The OMB was off $225 billion. We are tired of that. We are tired of trying to hoodwink the American public in terms of making tough decisions, and when the pie is finally taken out of the oven, it is not done. We want it done. The end product every one of us on this side wants and a good number on your side, and I hope including yourself: that pie done in a balanced fashion by the year 2002. One of the things we are trying to do now is to get the sides together, put them in a room, lock the door, call out for Domino's Pizza on whatever you are going to do, and not let them out until we get a deal.

Mr. UPTON. I believe so, and I think that is what we all ought to be working here tonight to try and do, and tomorrow night and the next night, until it is done.

Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. UPTON. Reclaiming my time, I think that we can reach a bipartisan accord. The vote that we had here 2 nights ago, it passed big time: 7 years, CBO numbers, most of us, again. I think only 40 Members voted against it. I think that there is room for a bipartisan agreement, and there are a number of us that want to do that.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be the sponsor of H.R. 1020, the Integrated Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Act of 1995, a bill that will make the Federal Government live up to its promise of building and operating a high-level nuclear waste repository by January 31, 1998. While nearly 200 of my colleagues have cosponsored H.R. 1020, there are several that were unable to do so after the bill was put on the House calendar. I would like to acknowledge the following Members as supporters of doing what is right, making the Government live up to its promises: Charles Bass, Helen Chenoweth, Barbara Cubin, Jay Dickey, Van Hilleary, Marge Roukema, Mac Thornberry.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and give sincere thanks to a long time member of my congressional staff who has been an unflappable administrator, devoted public servant and loyal friend. Jack Baker, my 6th District Congressional District Director, is embarking on the well-deserved retirement he had originally planned for nearly 10 years ago. As Jack leaves, he departs from a district operation that is strong and swift in response because of the rock solid foundation he laid nearly a decade ago when I tapped him as my one and only choice to build a top notch constituent service operation, second to none. As we know all too well, public service can be a very demanding occupation. Throughout the many legislative battles we have experienced out in Washington over the last 9 years, it was a great comfort to me to know that Jack was back home dutifully at the helm of our district operation. As captain of our constituent service ship, Jack has kept us on a steady course, never underestimating the value of the views of ordinary citizens; never failing to give it his all to respond to their needs. For Jack, no problem was too big or too small. Jack leaves, I am quite sure, with many good memories and outlandish stories of his life in our congressional office: yes, truth sometimes is stranger than fiction as Jack could tell you. Despite the many challenges of being a district director, and the curve balls frequently thrown, Jack always maintained a common sense approach, easy going manner, and a much welcomed and finely honed sense of humor. It is for those qualities that he is known and loved by the numerous people he has come in contact with over the course of his career in our office. It is very rare to find an individual who can so effectively yet humbly perform his or her duties, day in and day out, without demanding anything more than the enjoyment that comes from serving others. Jack Baker, through thick and thin has always treated people with respect, dignity and decency. He leaves a tremendous void and will be sorely missed by the many who have enjoyed working with him as he oversaw and actively participated in the vast myriad of services provided by a congressional district office. Jack, for many years you have enthusiastically and effectively served the people of the 6th District; you have warmed many hearts and made a difference to many people. I wish you and Teri many years of good health and happiness as you open a new chapter in your life together.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, actually it was 260, not 280, Democrats that voted for it. But the outcome was the same. As we go back home to our districts, people ask us, ``Why don't you take some action? What is going on?'' This is exactly the same vote in essence of what we did with the Durbin-Bennett vote on the gulf war, and, that is, Congress ought to have a say in what goes on. It does not say whether we will approve it or not, but Congress ought to have a say. And this vote, of which your side of the aisle voted 260 to 5, ought to reflect that on this resolution, which does virtually exactly the same thing.

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

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. I will not offer therefore my amendment this evening and look forward to working with both gentlemen in the future.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I was prepared this evening to offer an amendment that would permanently ban Members, former Members of Congress forever from lobbying on behalf of a foreign government. I had intended to offer that amendment because I believe very strongly that it is wrong for former Members to use their job here as a revolving door to cash in later on behalf of a foreign government. Currently there is a 1-year ban on that activity, not a lifetime ban. Americans all across this land are very upset with the role that lobbyists play here in Washington and with good reason. All too often our elected leaders represent perhaps the most influential lobbyists rather than the people who elected them. Executive branch officials, I might note, are in fact barred for life from lobbying on behalf of foreign governments. The underlying bill that we are taking up today, H.R. 2564, also bars U.S. trade officials from representing foreign countries for life. As we work to restore the public confidence in this Congress, we should apply that same standard to Members who serve here. I feel that we need to encourage folks to become public servants for the right reasons and that reward for helping people while you serve, not using that service to benefit our own pockets. It is not right that taxpayers send their representatives to Washington to fight for them and then that elected official leaves office and perhaps sells that knowledge to another government at the expense of the American people. Each of us were sent here to represent our own districts and our State and certainly our country. And it would be wrong for us to use that experience to represent someplace else. I understand the debate that is going on tonight. The bill that has come over from the Senate, the committee chairman, subcommittee chair as well as the ranking side prefer no amendments because they want to get this bill through. In a number of private discussions that I have had with Members this evening, I feel that it may be more prudent in fact to offer this at another time on another bill, but in fact in this Congress to get the job done. I might. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] for some clarification of that.

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

Mr. UPTON. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate those comments from both my friends. I would at this point indicate that I will not offer my amendment.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I have had extensive discussions with the chairman of the House Commerce Committee concerning the fact that teaching hospitals and academic medical centers have traditionally had higher costs. This is due to the special mission that these institutions have providing specialty patient care, conducting clinical research, and training new physicians to treat our poor. After these discussions, I have been assured that it should be the policy of the States, when creating their new MediGrant programs, to take it into account. Obviously, it is in the best interest of this Nation's health care to ensure top quality doctors and research facilities, along with continuing specialty care. This can be done if the States recognize that additional reimbursements will be required to these types of facilities.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn]. (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, days like today we need to think about the reasons why we are here. Are we here to talk about problems or are we here to solve them? The current Medicare Program today is going bankrupt. You know that, and we know that. Can you imagine the answer to the question in the next decade if today we shirk our responsibility from saving Medicare from going bankrupt, what seniors will say about this Congress? ``What the hell happened when you all saw the writing on the wall? What did you do?'' Two years ago there was a lot of talk about the Clinton health care plan, and the more that folks heard about it, the more they did not like it, and it never even came up for a vote. Today, as I have met with hundreds and hundreds of seniors and many of my providers, I realize that the more folks understand this bill, knowing that the alternative is either doubling the FICA tax or letting Medicare go belly up, the more they like the idea of themselves choosing the plan that fits their needs best. The right to choose, with knowledge that they can keep Medicare the way they have it now, without a reduction in benefits, will always remain as an option. Mr. Chairman, I do not ever want to look in the eyes of one of my seniors and say ``Medicare went bankrupt on my watch.''

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, all of us here have been elected to represent the 600,000 people in each of our respective districts, but each of us also knows that we need to put always the interests of our great country ahead, No. 1. We are all Americans and we are proud of our heritage and this body. Today, we have a terrible deficit and debt, $5 trillion. Each of us has to look under every rock and stone to try to get that deficit down. Somehow, though, certain interests have been able to keep mining royalties tied to 1872 law. That is ridiculous, and what a bargain for them. Mr. Speaker, I am aware that if this bill goes forward there are interests that have a lock on about 1,200 acres of land that they are going to be able to put a claim on for about $8,000 or $9,000, and they are going to make a windfall profit of $10 billion on that money that they invest. That is not right. That is not right at all. In fact, that is why the Citizens Against Government Waste say this, and I will include the letter for the Record. Mr. Speaker, the letter reads, in part, as follows: ``Dear Representative. In July, the House voted 271 to 153 against corporate special interests. This sounds like reform, but it is not; it is pure corporate welfare. As much as $15.5 billion in taxpayer-owned minerals will be sold beginning September 30 if the moratorium is not renewed.'' That is tomorrow. ``Instead of taxpayers receiving billions in return from these sales, CBO estimates that the Senate reforms will provide a mere $150 million over 7 years. Simply put, a moratorium period must be adopted to allow for more comprehensive reform.'' ``The Interior Department estimates this single action could result in the issuance of 600 patents covering 230,000 acres of taxpayer land in the next 2 years. The Citizens Against Government Waste urge you to support the motion to recommit and pass mining claim patent moratorium language.'' Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this Interior appropriation bill unless we also pass and adopt the motion to recommit. The rape and pillage of taxpayers across this country has got to stop and we can do it with this motion, and I hope that we are successful. Citizens Against Government Waste, Washington, DC, September 28, 1995. Dear Representative: The 600,000 members of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) urge you to support the motion to recommit the FY 1996 Interior Appropriations conference report and instruct the conferees to renew the moratorium on patent applications for public lands. In July, the House of Representatives boldly voted 271-153 against corporate special interests and extended the moratorium for another year. However, during the conference, a Senate provision was adopted which lifts the patent moratorium and allows mining claim patents for the price of the land surface. This sounds like reform, but it's not: it's pure corporate welfare. As much as $15.5 billion in taxpayer- owned minerals will be sold beginning September 30 if the moratorium is not renewed. Instead of taxpayers receiving billions in return from these sales, CBO estimates the Senate reforms will provide a mere $150 million over seven years. Simply put, a moratorium period must be adopted to allow for more comprehensive reform. The Interior Department estimates this single action could result in the issuance of more than 600 patents covering 230,000 acres of taxpayer land in the next two years. CCAGW urges you to support the motion to recommit and pass mining claim patent moratorium language. Sincerely, Thomas A. Schatz, President. Joe Winkelmann, Chief Lobbyist.