John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. And I will continue to say that a $15 billion cut in skilled nursing facilities is, from my perspective, a bad idea, much worse than a $101,000 cut from the Secretary's budget. And, therefore, I rise in strong support of the McHenry amendment because I don't want to see skilled nursing cut as the Democrats propose to do in their SCHIP bill. I support the McHenry amendment which would cut $101,000 from the Secretary's budget because I don't support cutting rehabilitation facilities as the Democrats would do in their SCHIP bill. Indeed, I would much prefer to cut $100,000 from the Secretary's budget than to cut, as the Democrats do in their SCHIP bill, rehabilitation facilities. Point of Order

Mr. SHADEGG. As I believe I have, quite skillfully. I do rise in very strong support of the McHenry amendment because I believe that cutting the Secretary's budget is a much better idea than cutting skilled nursing facilities. I believe it is a much better idea than cutting long-term hospital facilities, as the Democrats do in their SCHIP bill. And I think it would be much better to cut $100,000 from the Secretary of Agriculture's administrative budget than to cut, as the Democrats do, funding for long-term care by hospitals. It seems to me this is a simple debate: Where do we cut? I would much rather cut $100,000 from the budget of the Office of the Secretary than to cut $9 billion from Medicare plan B, including payments for oxygen, as the Democrats do in their SCHIP bill. It seems to me that kind of cut in their SCHIP bill is a bad idea. I would rather support the gentleman's amendment. Point of Order

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I seek a clarification. What was the ruling of the Chair?

Mr. SHADEGG. Precisely how did my remarks not----

Mr. SHADEGG. And I thank the Chairman for her ruling, and I am pleased to say that each of my points have tried to explain that I support, adamantly support the amendment by the gentleman to cut $100,000 from the Secretary's budget because I don't favor these other cuts. I don't favor cutting the funding for end-stage renal disease programs. I would much rather cut the Department of Agriculture administrative budget than do as the Democrats would in their SCHIP bill, cut $3.6 billion from the end-stage renal disease program. It seems to me that the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina to cut $100,000 from the administrative budget of the Secretary is a much-preferable method to achieve the savings that we need. In each of these instances, I believe that cutting the Secretary's budget would make much more sense than cutting the Medicare program. I have constituents in my district who would much rather see us cut the Ag budget than see us cut Medicare or see us cut end-stage renal disease or than see us cut oxygen therapy as is all done in the Democrats' SCHIP bill. For all of those reasons, I believe it is very important that we support the gentleman's amendment. Point of Order

Mr. SHADEGG. There is nothing irrelevant about it.

Mr. SHADEGG. I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHADEGG. As I understand the ruling of the Chair, it is appropriate for me to say I support the gentleman's amendment because I do not support cuts in skilled nursing facilities or cuts in rehabilitation facilities or cuts in long-term care hospitals or cuts in oxygen, or cuts in brachytherapy, or cuts in end-stage renal disease or cuts in Medicare Advantage; but that I cannot say which appear in their SCHIP bill. Is that correct?

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank you very much for your ruling. Madam Chairman, I do rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I believe that we have to find the funding necessary for essential government programs and that cutting the Secretary of Agriculture is much better than cutting such programs as skilled nursing facilities, rehabilitation facilities, long-term care hospitals, oxygen under Medicare, brachytherapy under Medicare, end-stage renal disease funding under Medicare or Medicare Advantage. For those reasons, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Hoyer

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I like us being pleasant with each other. I think this is a fascinating debate and an important debate, and, quite frankly, I have watched it unfold over the bills earlier this year. And the reality is, in Washington, nobody has the high ground on spending. When I and my colleagues as fiscal conservatives get up on this side and say cut spending, as we are in this amendment by a mere 1 percent, it is absolutely fair and absolutely true for my colleagues to get up on the other side, as they have done and done well, and lecture us about spending. You guys are the, to use the words a moment ago, platinum standard on spending. And in many ways they are absolutely right. I note with chagrin that because neither Republicans nor Democrats have the high ground on spending, something has to be done, and I would suggest at some point we have to begin. Maybe it is with this amendment, maybe it is not with this amendment, maybe it is with something else. But let's talk about spending. On our watch, on the Republicans' watch, family income grew from 1995 to 2004 by 8.2 percent. Pretty good. Not bad. We could all wish it had been better. But what did Republicans do on spending? Republicans grew Federal outlays by a staggering 25 percent. You are right, we don't have much high ground to talk about. But when, then, will we start? And who will it be that starts? Your side of the aisle encouraged the American people by saying, James Clyburn, Democratic House chairman, said in a press release on October 10, 2006: ``Democrats offer a new direction which includes fiscal responsibility.'' Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi in a press release November 16 said: ``We will work together to lead the House of Representatives with a commitment to integrity, to civility, which we have seen a little bit of tonight, and to fiscal responsibility.'' And Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said: ``It is imperative to the future of our Nation, and I agree with him, that we come together, Democrats and Republicans, and restore fiscal responsibility.'' There are some hard facts that both sides have to deal with. Those hard facts include: As we stand here debating this bill, it will increase spending by 6.7 percent over last year, this particular bill. That is nearly three times the rate of inflation. It might be less than Republicans grew the spending in some occasions; but nonetheless, if we keep growing spending at three times the rate of inflation, we will double the size of this government in a short 10 years. I would simply suggest that neither Republicans nor Democrats can defend putting that kind of a tax burden on our economy and on our taxpayers and sustain it. And I would suggest that the respected leaders of the Democrats' party, Mr. Clyburn, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Hoyer, acknowledged that when they said it is time to restore fiscal responsibility. This kind of an explosion in Federal spending is simply not sustainable. Now, I have listened to my colleagues on the other side say, well, you guys spend in this area or that area. Now you want to cut here. You come in and say, we spent in an inappropriate way on, call it corporate subsidies, call it tax giveaways, whatever it is. So be it. That is fair criticism, too. But the question I think that presents itself to all of us, Republican and Democrats alike, is: When do we reduce spending? If you don't want to reduce spending on this bill by 1 percent or on the next amendment by one-half percent, then where are we going to cut spending? Because at the end of the day, this economy, I do not believe, will sustain, whether it is driven by Republicans or Democrats, a continued growth of three times the rate of inflation. The average American gets by without anywhere near that kind of an increase in their spending. The average American's budget doesn't double in that short a period of time. It doesn't go up by 6.7 percent per year. And it seems to me, whether it is on your watch on this bill, on your watch on a different bill, or on our watch someday down the line, we have got to rein in government spending, or we will cripple this economy. And if you want to change the priorities and spend in different places, that is your right. You are the majority. But somebody, whether it is you or whether it is us, has got to reduce the level of spending, because it simply isn't sustainable.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this amendment. It is an amendment that I hope all our colleagues understand. It would reduce the increase in spending not by 3 percent, not by 1 percent, but by one-half of 1 percent. Now, it is not a cut. The word ``cut'' gets misused on this floor, and we have heard it misused and misused and misused and misused here tonight. No one is proposing a cut. We just heard a long discussion about how the last amendment was going to cut spending for airport security. It was going to cut spending for housing for the elderly. It was going to cut spending for this program and that program and the other program. Let's assume every single one of those programs is a very worthy program. There is no doubt that they are. They are indeed very worthy programs. But not a single amendment has been proposed tonight, not one amendment, not one amendment proposed by my colleagues, would cut spending. Every single amendment proposed by this side, every single amendment proposed by my colleagues over here who have said we want to change the bill a tiny amount, would increase spending, but we would reduce the increase by a tiny amount. Only in Washington can a reduction in an increase be called a cut with a straight face. This bill grows spending by 6.7 percent. Almost no American is going to get an increase in their income this year, in their salary this year of 6.7 percent. So we said wait, wait, let's reduce the increase. We're going to have an increase; every amendment is going to have an increase. Let's just reduce that increase by a tiny amount, by a 3 percent reduction in the increase, or a 1 percent reduction in the increase, or on this one, one half of one penny on the dollar. And that's too radical. And that's called a cut. Well, let's be honest; it's not a cut. None of these are a cut. But it is time to slow the pace of growth of government spending. It is time to slow the pace of that growth because it imposes a burden on every single American. And we are simply standing here, and I'm proud to stand here, and if somebody wants to call it a ``fringe group,'' that's their choice. But I'm proud to stand here in defense of the American taxpayer and not to slash and burn and cut. There is no cut. What we're saying is this side has proposed spending at an increase of 6.7 percent, almost three times the increase in inflation. We're simply saying how about take off one half of one penny. I think the lady's amendment is right, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I understand the gentleman intends to withdraw the amendment. However, I want to rise in strong support of the amendment. As the gentleman knows, we live on opposite sides of the country, you in New York and I in Arizona. But the essence of your amendment says we should not be judging these schools until they've had a chance to, in fact, educate these children in a second language. And judging them after only 12 months, as the gentleman clearly pointed out, is unrealistic and punishing the school, which means to punish all the students at that school and all the parents of those students and all of the teachers and administration officials at that school by evaluating those children and holding them accountable after only 12 months is unrealistic. I would be happy to join in your letter, and I commend the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this is supposed to be a healthy debate, and quite frankly, I don't think Members on either side should criticize Members for coming to the floor and debating issues. The gentleman from New Jersey raised, I believe, a legitimate issue, and that is the issue of the equity of people from one State paying in much more money to the Federal Government than they get back versus people from another State getting much more money back from the Federal Government than they pay in and questioning a particular program. That's the kind of debate that is supposed to occur here. It's the kind of debate that should occur here. Indeed, I think everyone on this floor acknowledges we have a problem with having spent too much money. We have a problem with too much debt, and I think the people on this side of the aisle have tried to make the point that at some point we need to stop that spending or slow that spending, and I believe the people who have carried forward this discussion, at least from this side of the aisle, have readily acknowledged that a great deal of that overspending occurred on our watch. We're not trying to point blame, but we do have a duty to come here and debate our financial priorities and debate our jobs.

Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to conclude this by simply noting that no Member who brings an amendment to an appropriations bill is criticizing the ranking member or the chairman of that committee. Indeed, I think it's a long-standing tradition and an honorable one in this body that appropriations bills come to the floor under an open rule so that we can have these discussions, and the votes reflect the will of the Nation as they should. So I want to make it clear that I don't believe that by the gentleman from New Jersey or myself or any other Member of this body, any Member on the majority side, offering an amendment, and there have been amendments offered, in doing so that they are in any way criticizing the good hard work. Indeed, I think we're honoring the tradition of the Appropriations Committee in that these are, in fact, brought to floor under an open rule, and we have full and open debate which I think is what the American people want. And I compliment the Chairman of the committee and I compliment the ranking member of the committee for their hard work in doing their jobs. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

Mr. SHADEGG. I was standing and I have an amendment that goes to page 82.

Mr. SHADEGG. Yes, I do.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this is a simple and straightforward amendment. It is premised on the notion, not that the program doesn't work, but rather, that when the task is finished, the funding should stop. This program, the Advanced Credentialing Program, was established by the Congress to develop teacher standards and to have those standards developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards or other nationally certification or credentialing organizations. That task has, in fact, been accomplished. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, a private body, has received more than $180 million from the Department of Education since 1991. These Federal funds supported the development and implementation of the certification standards and assessments in 24 different academic fields. That task has now been completed. In addition, since the legislation called for such standards to be established by other nationally recognized certification or credentialing organizations, the Department awarded $32.8 million in a 5-year grant to the American Board for the Certification of Teacher Excellence. That board will receive the final year of its funding in Fiscal Year 2007. By Fiscal Year 2008, the American Board for the Certification of Teacher Excellence will have successfully completed the development and implementation of its teacher credential system. As a result, State and local teaching organizations, educational agencies, will have not one but two different sets of standards to pick from, one developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards and one developed by the American Board for the Certification of Teacher Excellence. I believe when the task has been completed, it is important that we stop the funding. I want to make clear that the purpose of this amendment is not to eliminate funding for States to encourage teachers to receive advanced degrees or to assist them in that endeavor. My wife is a teacher. She has a master's degree. She received her advanced credentialing in order to improve her education and her ability to serve as a teacher, but the task has now been accomplished. The Department, as well, supports giving States and districts more tools to help them identify and retain effective teachers. Indeed, the 2008 budget requests $2.8 billion for the improving teacher quality State grants program and an additional $199 million for the teacher incentive program. These programs combined provide flexible sources for State and local education agencies to use to improve their teacher recruitment and retention systems according to their own needs. The goal of this amendment is to simply acknowledge that the creation of the standards has been accomplished and accomplished by two different entities, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and the American Board for the Certification of Teacher Excellence. In addition, I would note for anyone concerned about this that the effects of the NBPTS credential system on student achievement have been somewhat mixed. There are studies that show it has been somewhat helpful. However, the studies have found the positive effects are very small and that they are neither large enough nor consistent enough to justify further Federal funding beyond that which is provided in the existing $2.8 billion for improving teacher quality State grants, and the $199 million that I already referred to in teacher incentive fund training. I do wish, at this point, that I had reallocated the $10.7 million that would be saved by this amendment to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Having listened to the discussion of the last bill, I note that IDEA is underfunded. It has all been underfunded, and I wish that I had cast this amendment in that fashion. I did not do so but I, nonetheless, would encourage its adoption and would encourage, perhaps, those at conference to take that $10.7 million and to add it to IDEA funding. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHADEGG. Will the gentleman yield? I certainly believe IDEA is underfunded. I know in my school districts in my schools there is a crying need.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.