[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 166 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10834-H10835]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  GETTING OUR FINANCIAL HOUSE IN ORDER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weldon of Florida). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  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 

[[Page H10835]]
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.

                          ____________________