[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 205 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15283-H15284]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      BOTTOM LINE IN BUDGET BATTLE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my colleague and 
say to him that this is about everything that is important. I have 
waited 8 years to see my Government finally balance its budget and get 
its financial house in order, and that is what we are attempting to do.
  We are attempting to do three basic things. Get our financial house 
in order, balance our Federal budget, is one. The second issue is to 
save our trust funds, particularly Medicare, from bankruptcy. It starts 
to become insolvent next year and becomes literally bankrupt in 7 
years. The third thing we intend to do and are working very hard to, is 
to change both the social and corporate welfare state into a caring 
opportunity society.
  That is our objective. I know my colleague feels very heated about 
this issue, but it is really a distortion to talk about cuts to 
education when education loans are going to go from $24 to $36 billion. 
That is a 50-percent increase in education loans.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. If I could just make some points first. Then if I have 
some time, I would be glad to.
  Again, let me say that we intend to have this go from $24 to $36 
billion. Only in Washington when you spend 50 percent more on student 
loans do people call it a cut.
  Our Medicaid number is going to go from $89 to $127 billion. Again, 
only in Washington when you spend so much more do people call it a cut.
  We are increasing the school lunch program. We are increasing the 
student loan program. We are increasing Medicare, we are increasing 
Medicaid.
  We are absolutely determined, and this is not something which one 
part of our party feels strongly about, we, this Republican Conference, 
have been working all year long to balance our Federal budget. That is 
what we are going to do. We are going to get our financial house in 
order.
  It is just amazing to me that we have had such a struggle throughout 
the year.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. No. I will not yield yet. I will be happy to yield later 
if I have time. I only have 5 minutes.
  I do want to make the point and I think it is very important to be 
made. We are not saying that it has to be the Republican balanced 
budget. We do not even come close to saying that.
  Yes, we would like to see tax cuts, if it is going to be extended 
over 7 years. I would be happy to give up any tax cut if we balance the 
budget in 5 years, but if it is going to take 7 years, I cannot 
understand why we cannot balance the budget in 7 years with a tax cut. 
Balance it in 4 or 5 years without a tax cut, it makes sense.
  It does not have to be our spending priorities on discretionary 
spending. Obviously the President and this Congress, Democrats and 
Republicans, have to weigh in. It is just wrong, in my judgment, for 
anyone on that side of the aisle to suggest that it has to be our 
budget. No, it does not. It just has to be balanced in 7 years using 
the nonpartisan numbers of the CBO.
  I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my good friend from 
Connecticut, when he spoke about taking care of Medicare and not 
letting Medicare go bankrupt, the actuaries said that it would take $89 
billion to ensure that Medicare would not go bankrupt. Why then under 
the Republican plan are there $270 billion worth of cuts?
  Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman needs to recognize that 
we need to make it solvent for many more years, and we want to bring it 
up to the year 2010, 2011, which is the start of the baby boomers. Your 
plan brings it to solvency for a few more years but does not get it up 
to the year 2010, which is our objective. We want to balance our 
Federal budget, we want to save Medicare, and we want it to be solvent 
to the year 2010.
  I would be happy to yield to my colleague.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the shutdown. 
You and I had a lengthy discussion yesterday. I raised the issue to you 
that this shutdown is costing the American people over $800 million. 
You indicated to me that you all felt that this was the only way you 
could get the attention of the President of the United States. So the 
purpose of this shutdown has nothing to do with the balanced budget but 
with trying to get the President's attention.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and I plead this not be 
used against my time. It is very simple to respond. I wish that 10 
years ago this Congress had shut down the Government and balanced our 
Federal budget, and we would not be in the mess we are in today. Our 
big regret on this side of the aisle is that we gave the President 30 
days to come forward with a balanced budget and he chose not to. That 
is the bottom line to this issue.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I am happy just to continue with the time that I have 
left.

[[Page H15284]]

  The bottom line to this issue, Mr. Speaker, is that we need to get 
our budget balanced. We would like to do it in less than 7 years. We 
are determined to save Medicare in particular.
  Mr. Speaker, we are determined to balance our budget, get our 
financial house in order, and save our trust funds.

                          ____________________