John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), I offer an amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Chairwoman, this is an issue with which we're all very familiar. We've just heard some interesting debate on the floor here. My colleague, Mr. Cooper, offered I think an excellent amendment to increase the funding for Historically Black Colleges and made a very strong case for that. He noted that he was not able to designate a source for that and that it would require $125 million in funds. We just discussed the importance of science education and the need for funding for that amendment, and the Chairman of the full committee has made the point that there simply aren't enough funds to accomplish these purposes. I would suggest that this amendment is something that we could look to find those funds. It strikes funds for the AmeriCorps program, saving some $255.6 million. That is double the amount of money needed to fund or to plus up the funding for Historically Black Colleges requested by Mr. Cooper and, therefore, would leave room for the science funding that was just advanced. I would suggest that, while well-intentioned, the AmeriCorps program simply does not achieve its goal. It has been plagued throughout its history with paying volunteers for programs that are inappropriate, and I will recite some of those, but more importantly, it denigrates the notion of volunteerism. This Nation has been known since its inception for its grand tradition of volunteerism, going back to Alexis de Toqueville, who wrote about America and the volunteers of this Nation. It simply is important for Americans to volunteer, and the notion of this program to pay young people to volunteer simply makes no sense. Let me talk about some of the abuses. AmeriCorps volunteers have been paid to lobby against the voter-approved California initiative to put violent criminals in prison for life after their third violent crime. AmeriCorps volunteers, if you can call them that since they're paid, have been paid to disrupt Republican political events while working for the liberal advocacy group Acorn. Don't just trust me; it's a fact. AmeriCorps volunteers have been paid to press for rent control in cities across our Nation. AmeriCorps workers, not really volunteers, have also been paid to seek expanded Federal housing subsidies and to enroll more people in welfare programs. Indeed, Citizens Against Government Waste, the watchdog group here in Washington, has vigilantly tracked many examples where AmeriCorps funds have been abused, and Citizens Against Government Waste issued a report saying that AmeriCorps has become a showcase for the waste and abuse inherent in many federalized civic sub-enterprises. Both private and public investigators have determined that AmeriCorps' financial books are unauditable. AmeriCorps' own Inspector General years ago documented cases in which recruits received funds for working at a McDonald's while being paid for not working at all and for working while they were in prison. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I honor each of the gentlemen here who were Peace Corps volunteers. I recognize that they, indeed, may have been inspired to become pure volunteers, unpaid volunteers, as a result of their service in the Peace Corps. But I think what is sad about this debate is we haven't really discussed the issue I raised. My colleague from Connecticut says he is for a program where they are paid a stipend to live and how they couldn't volunteer unless they were paid some living expense or unless they were paid for some food expense. Unfortunately, that's not the structure of the AmeriCorps program. The AmeriCorps program we are debating today, and the one that I am challenging the funding for and suggesting how funding could be better used, provides wages to the AmeriCorps so-called volunteers. If we want to create a separate program, I am in favor of that. If we want to encourage volunteers by paying them a stipend instead of wages, by providing them housing instead of wages, then we might not distort the meaning of volunteerism, but we don't do that. That's not what this program does. This program pays them wages, and as in the example I cited, it pays them wages in some cases to do work for which they are being paid, to work at a McDonald's. It seems to me that if you want to inspire volunteerism, which I encourage and encouraged in my opening remarks, then let's inspire volunteerism. If you want to provide a stipend for housing, let's provide a stipend for housing. If you want to provide a stipend for meals, let's provide a stipend for meals. But don't call wages a stipend for housing or meals. These are wages to which these people are paid. I suggest people that do volunteer in this country, and there are millions, to set up a government program to say the only people that volunteer are people who are encouraged to volunteer by being paid to do so diminishes all of us and all of the volunteers in this country. I wholeheartedly agree that if we want to revise AmeriCorps and make it a program which encourages volunteers and pays them to volunteer and pays them a stipend for a living, including housing and/or food, absolutely. But to pay them wages is wrong. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time that has been yielded to me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I honor him and respect him deeply. But this legislation is deeply and fatally flawed. It will damage America and American interests for two reasons: First, it is a purely political document, hopelessly vague and meaningless. Let me explain why. The bill turns on two key terms. One, that the United States transition to a ``limited presence'' in Iraq within the next 120 days; and, two, that the President provide a justification of ``the minimum force levels required to protect the United States' national security interests in Iraq.'' While I am pleased that the authors recognize that we are in Iraq to protect our national security interests, again, the legislation is hopelessly vague and therefore meaningless. Neither of these two key terms, ``limited presence'' and ``minimum force level required to protect U.S. national security interests'' is defined. Oh, the bill has a definition section and other terms are defined, but ``limited presence'' and ``minimum force level required to protect U.S. national security interests'' aren't defined. You might ask yourself, why would the authors of the measure leave two such critically important terms undefined? Well, the answer is easy: Because this bill is not about policy; this bill is about politics. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows exactly why these terms are not defined, and indeed the Democratic leadership knows why these terms are not defined. They are not defined because they need ambiguity. Indeed, ambiguity in this legislation is essential to its passage. They know that they can't agree on what the meanings of these terms are. You see, if they defined ``limited presence'' as too many troops, then their most liberal, most antiwar Members would not vote for the legislation. They couldn't. And, if they defined limited presence too low, then their Blue Dog Members would not support the bill. Again, this bill is about beating up on the President and about scaring nervous Members of Congress. Again, let's look at the other term, ``minimum force levels required to protect U.S. national security interests.'' Why not define what that minimum is? Answer, again, if they define it too high, those who want out tonight and want our force levels at the lowest conceivable level couldn't vote for the bill. And if they define it too low, then those who recognize we face a threat from Iran and other regions' interests wouldn't vote for the bill. It is deeply flawed for those reasons. And I would ask proponents of the bill what they would say if the President, as he could under the language of the bill, were to decide that ``limited presence'' means 154,000 troops, just 1,000 fewer than we have now? That would comply with the letter of the bill, but it wouldn't satisfy proponents of the bill. And what if the President, as he can under the language of the bill, were to define the term ``minimum force level required to protect U.S. national interests'' not as 155,000 troops as we have today, but rather at 500,000 troops? You see, they can't agree on those terms. I wonder how many of the Members realize that the critical terms in this bill aren't defined. The bill is also flawed for a second reason, and that is that it reneges on the essential agreement Congress struck just 2 weeks ago. It is a little bit like Lucy pulling the football out from under Linus just before he kicks it. Here, don't rely on my opinion; rely instead on today's Washington Post. You see, today's Washington Post editorial makes the case for me. The Washington Post, not exactly a conservative journal, says, ``It seems like just weeks ago, because it was, that Congress approved funding for the war in Iraq and instructed General David H. Petraeus to report back on the war's progress in September.'' Ladies and gentlemen, this isn't September. The Post goes on to write, ``Before Congress begins ordering withdrawals, it should at least give those generals the months they asked for to see whether their strategy can offer some hope.'' We owe it to those generals to give them, as The Washington Post says, the months they asked for, but, instead, we have given them 27 days. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Republican whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the Speaker. I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Republican Study Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inquire as to the time remaining on each side.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, the former attorney general of California, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. SHADEGG. I note the gentleman cited the Washington Post. I wonder if he has read the editorial today which says that we should be giving our troops at least until September. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member of the Republican Study Committee, the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gresham Barrett.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), a member of the Republican Study Committee and the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia. I think it is important to focus on this debate. There is no challenge greater than this facing America right now. It is vitally important that we succeed in Iraq and allow that nation to establish a democracy. I hear on the other side that, well, we have amply funded this already. We are imposing dramatic increases in spending in thousands of other areas, a 56 percent increase in HIV/AIDS funding alone. What message do we send if we reduce spending in this area at this time? I would argue that whether you want out of Iraq tonight or whether you support the current course, it is vitally important that we send every message we possibly can to the Iraqi people and to our Nation that we are doing everything we can to support democracy. That is what these funds are for. Of course, other funds have been spent, but these funds continue the effort to tell the Iraqi people we stand with them. These are funds for domestic purposes, for their security, for governance and for rule of law. I believe it is vitally important, indeed critically important for our Nation, that we fund this money now. I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield. No, we are increasing it.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, by no means was I suggesting we should not be doing that. In fact, that is a discussion for another day. What I was suggesting is that there are many places where we are increasing spending even more dramatically than is suggested by the gentleman's amendment here for what I believe is a vitally important purpose, which is democracy, rule of law and governance in Iraq.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by complimenting the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), for showing support for hydropower in the base bill. Hydropower has long been overlooked as a source for clean energy. I am very pleased that this bill, and the report that goes along with it, support hydropower and encourage its use and its utilization. My amendment builds off of that effort by simply saying that the existing hydropower that we have should not be decommissioned at this point in time. As everybody in this body knows, we are very concerned about greenhouse gases, both on the Commerce Committee, where I serve, and on the Select Committee on Global Warming and Energy Independence. We are looking at the danger posed to this country by greenhouse gases. Indeed, that is a threat to this economy, to this Nation, and to this world. My amendment simply says that hydropower manages to address that issue by producing both clean power and power which has no hydrocarbons whatsoever. Hydropower is emission-free, and it is also completely renewable; so therefore this amendment simply says that none of the funds in this legislation shall be used to decommission any existing Federal dam which is currently producing hydroelectric power. Now, I know of no dam that has currently been proposed to be decommissioned that is a Federal dam and is producing electric power. But it seems to me that this is an action item. This is an opportunity for us to say we are serious about greenhouse gas reduction. We are serious about renewable energy. We are serious about a clean environment. We are serious about not doing more damage by simply saying none of these funds shall be used to decommission or remove from current production any existing hydroelectric power dam that is producing electricity for Americans today. It truly is clean, and it truly is renewable; and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), the former chairman of the Clean Air Resources Board in California.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank both the gentlemen for their comments. Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank both of the gentlemen. I would be happy to work with them. I simply want to stress, we understand, and I think everyone here does, that hydropower is more efficient than virtually all other energy. Ninety percent of its available energy is converted into electricity by hydropower. By contrast, the best fossil fuel power converts only 50 percent of its energy. Hydropower produces zero greenhouse gas emissions. And we have avoided some 160 million tons of carbon emissions by the use of hydropower here in the United States in the last year. The report says hydropower is reliable, it is efficient, it is domestic, and it is emissions-free. Indeed, as I state in my comments, the report is very supportive of hydropower. I think this amendment is an opportunity to take a concrete step both toward renewable energy and toward clean energy that produces no greenhouse gases. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.