John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, I rise today to proudly recognize Betty Knight Scripps, newspaper heiress, for her extraordinary and generous charitable spirit, and her countless contributions to society. She is viewed by many as America's first lady of philanthropy. Mrs. Scripps and her late husband, Edward W. Scripps, advanced the interests of freedom and a free press through their work as publishers of a chain of newspapers throughout the United States, and through their active involvement in the Inter-American Press Association, which advanced the causes of independent journalism and a free press throughout Latin America. In 1984, Mrs. Scripps established the Edward W. and Betty Knight Scripps Foundation to serve mankind by supporting the advancement of health care, education, journalism, the First Amendment, and the arts and culture. For eight years, Mrs. Scripps served as General Chairman of the Washington National Opera Ball raising record-breaking proceeds for the 50-year-old organization, bringing together leaders of the diplomatic, government, corporate and arts communities in our Nation's Capital. Mrs. Scripps has also chaired the International Red Cross Ball in Palm Beach, Florida, and the English National Ballet Gala in London, England. Mrs. Scripps is undoubtedly one of Scripps Health's and Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla's most esteemed benefactors, as evidenced by her leadership, commitment and generosity. Mrs. Scripps has chaired the prestigious Candlelight Ball, which has raised close to $20 million in philanthropic support for exceptional, life-saving care at the nonprofit hospital. Mrs. Scripps continues the legacy of the Scripps family member who founded the hospital in 1924. Madam Speaker, I ask that you and my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives join me in recognizing Betty Knight Scripps, an extraordinary American and humanitarian.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation creates a $5 billion government loan program to assist people in purchasing energy efficiency devices. Anytime we spend that amount of money, we ought to be very careful about the spending of that money, especially since we face a $1.3 trillion deficit. Earlier this year, the GAO conducted an investigation which found rampant fraud and abuse in the highly touted Energy Star Program. Sadly, many companies have become very creative in ripping off the Department of Energy and the Energy Star Program. The motion to recommit makes a number of sensible changes and restrictions to protect the taxpayers in the implementation of this legislation. First, it urges that the GAO and the Secretary of Energy report any waste, fraud or abuse found in the program. This is simply good governance. Second, this program, which provides government subsidized loans, makes sure that these home improvement loans are eligible only to people who deserve the largesse, the assistance, of the government. First, it says, for example, loans can be only used for primary residences. Energy Star loans subsidized by the government under this legislation could not be used for vacation homes or beach houses. The taxpayer should not be providing energy-efficient appliances at luxury homes. Second, the motion to recommit strikes community-based organizations from potential lenders. This goes back to the problem of ACORN and the strong belief that they should not be in the position of using or having access to these funds. Third, the MTR ensures that these retrofit loans are only available to households where the gross income is less than $250,000. It should go without saying that if the other side is proposing to increase taxes on earners in this category, we should not be opening up subsidized government loans to people who make money at that level. Third, the motion to recommit provides that homeowners who are delinquent in their child support payments, so-called deadbeat dads, are not eligible for these subsidized loans. It's pretty simple and straightforward that when the government decides to help people in these circumstances purchase energy-efficient equipment that they can't otherwise afford, that we should not be doing that either for deadbeat dads or for the wealthiest of Americans. It also provides that loans and loan subsidies under this legislation cannot be used for such luxuries such as swimming pool heaters or to purchase LCD TVs or fancy TVs. While these technologies may save energy, the dollars in this loan program, $5 billion, which I would argue we don't have right now, should not be used to fund luxury items. People should not be using a subsidy from the government or a subsidized loan to buy a flat-screen TV or swimming pool heater. Last, the MTR provides to fill in the standards in the legislation, ensuring that sketchy contractors cannot implement this program. For example, the construction cannot be done by contractors convicted of fraud. Finally, and most importantly, the legislation provides that the programs must be deficit neutral. If either program, if either program is found to have a negative effect on the national debt, then that program is suspended. My colleagues on the other side will find this one of the things that they call a gutting amendment, but it really isn't. It is simply put in place to say that if you don't want to pay for the bill, which we would have argued for it and which we offered amendments in Rules for, then we should not allow it to increase the Nation's deficit. As I mentioned, we face a $1.3 trillion deficit. This simply says that before we provide subsidized government loans to people to buy energy-efficient equipment, that should not be done in a deficit situation where we are expanding the deficit and passing the cost of the program on to our children and our grandchildren. These are simple, straightforward, good-government provisions. They make the legislation better. They enable it to do what the authors of the legislation intended it to do without adding to the financial burden on the American taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHADEGG. I am, in its current form.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the restoration and preservation of the 40-foot gaff rigged schooner, Fame, a piece of nautical history, and one of America's maritime treasures. Fame is a 1910 Schooner rigged daysailer that was designed by B.B. Crowninshield, a naval architect from Boston, Massachusetts, and built by Rice Bros. Co., East Boothbay, Maine. In designing Fame, he wanted to create ``the largest and fastest boat he could handle and take care of alone.'' Fame is also noted to be the sister vessel to Fortune, a 50 foot schooner built in 1925, also designed by B.B. Crowninshield. Fame's second owner was Theodore (Ted) M. Dunlap, who in partnership with Fred W. Weston, purchased her in 1926. Dunlap, known as ``The Commodore,'' taught many young people to sail aboard Fame in the waters of Lake Michigan. Three Lake Michigan clubs have named trophies after Fame, and she is well known along its shores. At one point in her history, Fame had been in dire need of repair, and was auctioned off to Ray Kazlas and Gint Karaitus, who began her rehabilitation. In the 1990s, her next owners continued fixing the aged schooner. Unfortunately, in 1995, on a passage from Chicago, Illinois, to Racine, Wisconsin, Fame sank when she took on water from large waves and her pumps failed. Luckily, she was quickly raised. Thanks to the steadfast vision and immense generosity of her most recent owner, Dennis Conner, the famous racing skipper and four time winner of the America's Cup and seven time yachtsman of the year, Fame has once again made a comeback. Mr. Conner previously restored the 80- year-old Q boat, Cotton Blossom II. According to some classic yacht enthusiasts, Fame has once again been restored to her original beauty. Fame will celebrate her 100th Birthday at the San Diego Yacht Club, in San Diego, California, on Sunday, July 11, 2010. Madam Speaker, I ask that you and my colleagues in the House of Representatives join me in recognizing Fame, in her centenary year. It's with Fame's restoration and preservation that she will be again admired by yachting enthusiasts and maritime historians now and in the future.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, let me just briefly say I have spent a great deal of my life advocating for the victims of crime. It seems to me this is an outrage that exists in current law. The victims of crime should not be revictimized. In this case, American law does revictimize those victims of rape under these circumstances. I think it is high time that we correct it. I thank, again, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee and the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for making the correction of this injustice possible.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment, but in particular in support of my amendment in that amendment, number 30. Under current American law, veterans are entitled to certain emoluments when they pass. These include burial in a veterans cemetery or in one of our national cemeteries or in a State cemetery supported by veterans' funds, a flag to drape the coffin, a military honor guard, and a certificate from the President. In 1997, however, following the bombing in Oklahoma City, this Congress recognized that those benefits were still accorded to veterans who had committed even capital offenses, and they recognized that Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, would have been entitled under current law to be buried with all of those honors. So this Congress, in good judgment, decided to revoke those emoluments, those honorary benefits from veterans who had been convicted of the violent crime of murder. And, indeed, we revoked it for all capital offenses. In 1997, we expanded that and said it would be applicable to anybody convicted of a capital offense, whether they were sentenced to death or not, but we left a gaping hole in the law. My amendment simply seeks to fill that hole. It's a gaping hole which says that if you have been convicted of the violent rape of a woman, you may still receive all of those honorary emoluments, you may still be buried in a veterans cemetery with an American flag, with a certificate from the President, and with a military honor guard. That dishonors all of our Nation's veterans who are indeed buried in those cemeteries as appreciation for their great service to this country. I believe, and I believe that this body recognizes that rape is one of the most violent of all crimes. It's not committed in the heat of passion as murder sometimes is. It is indeed a plotted, carried-out crime, a crime of immense violence. This issue came to my attention when Jenny Bush, a recent college graduate, went home on Halloween evening from her job, entered her home, and was accosted there by a man who had entered during the day through a first-story window. He taped her with duct tape, held her at knifepoint, and violently raped her. Fortunately, her rapist was caught, and in the course of the proceedings it was determined that he was a serial rapist. He had indeed raped 10 other women, including a 9- year-old girl. And yet under the law in America, he was entitled, upon his death, to receive all of the military honors we give to those who have not committed such heinous crimes. That is an injustice, and it is an injustice that this amendment corrects. This amendment was brought to me by Jenny Bush's father following the incident where the rapist, the serial rapist who raped this young lady committed suicide on the morning of his sentencing and then was buried with all of those military honors. I don't think that we should say that our veterans cemeteries are open to the burial and to utilization by sex offenders who have committed violent rape against America's women. This has been a 3-year struggle where we have sought to amend the law. I want to thank the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order. I want to thank Steve Bush and his daughter Jenny for their courage in raising this issue. I want to thank Ann Ream, who is with the Voices and Faces Project; Stephanie Hanson and Joanne Archambault with End Violence Against Women International for their work in trying to help pass this legislation. It seems to me that it is well time for us to correct the injustice which exists in our law on this issue. I commend the committee for making it possible for us to correct this. I want to make it clear that this amendment only takes away those honorary emoluments. It does not financially punish the family of the perpetrator of these crimes. It simply says that we are not going to give these special honors to someone convicted of such a heinous crime as rape. I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee. I believe this is something that will in fact honor this Congress by recognizing we do not, as a Nation, tolerate violent crimes against women. Our Uniform Military Code of Justice indeed already provides that rape is in fact a capital crime. So this brings our code in line with the current provision of the law. The FBI ranks rape second only to murder. And as I have already indicated, I believe you can make the argument that rape is indeed a more heinous crime than murder because it is always carried out with forethought and planning and perpetrated often with great violence, as it was against Jenny Bush. This legislation mirrors a bill which I have introduced in the Congress for the last 3 years called Jenny's Law, named after Jenny Bush. It has been officially endorsed by the RAINN Network, which is the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, and has also been endorsed by the Military Order of the Purple Heart. I will insert a letter from the Military Order of the Purple Heart in support of this amendment for the Record at this point. Military Order of the Purple Heart, Springfield, VA, March 1, 2010. Hon. John Shadegg, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Shadegg: I am writing to inform you that the Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH) is in total support of H. R. 731 ``Jenny's Law.'' MOPH shares your view that regardless of the service to America, if following that service, those individuals who are convicted of committing certain sex crimes should not receive certain burial benefits and funeral honors. These individuals should not be eligible for burial in National cemeteries administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Arlington National Cemetery and certain State Veterans' Cemeteries. While these individuals may have served honorably in the Armed Forces, their crimes following that service are so onerous that the crimes, in our opinion, negate that service. Respectfully, James M. Sims, National Commander. Let me simply conclude that I encourage my colleagues to support the en bloc amendment. I yield to the ranking member.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, never before in the history of our Nation has such a massive change in policy been made on a purely partisan basis and in the face of such overwhelming opposition. Tragically, this bill will destroy freedom and do incredible damage to the very fabric of our society. This bill is a bailout for the insurance companies. They get the individual mandate that they wanted all along--a mandate that is un- American and unconstitutional. Mark my words: The massive expansion of Medicaid in this bill will bankrupt our States. Premiums for average Americans will go up, taxes will go up, the deficit will go up, and the debt will go up. This bill is the epitome of Washington politicians telling the American people, We know better how to run your lives than you do. We owe the American people much better than this. We owe them real health care reform. We owe them the kind of reforms that will bring down their premiums. We owe them across-State-line purchases. We owe them health care pooling so that the sick and the ill and those with preexisting conditions can get their health care paid for. We owe America better than this.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I think the gentleman makes an excellent point. The truth is America's health insurance companies are playing under the rules we set, and the rules we set say they really don't have to compete for my individual business, for John Shadegg as an individual customer, or yours, or our colleague from Texas because the Tax Code says we cannot buy health insurance like our employers can. We can't buy it tax-free, but our employers can. I think the gentleman is absolutely correct. I think the reason that the auto insurance industry competes every day, day-in and day-out, pounding us on TV saying, you buy our plan from GEICO or Progressive or Allstate or Farmers, we will give you better service for a lower cost; and the health insurance companies don't compete day-in and day-out saying, you buy our health insurance plan from United or from Aetna or from Blue Cross-Blue Shield, and we will give you a better price at a lower cost. The reason they don't compete like that is because the government sets the rules. And the rules say that they sell pretty much exclusively to big companies, and we say to the poor working stiff who can't get employer-based health care, too bad, pal. You kind of don't count in the system. The insurance companies don't really want their business, they don't market to you, and if you buy their product, you have to buy it with after-tax dollars. Tragically not fixed in this bill.

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, it seems to me that while we do not know what the quid pro quo was for any given deal, we know a couple of things: We know the insurance companies went in first and foremost and said, We want an individual mandate. We want the government to compel every American to buy federally approved, Federal Government approved health insurance, and we want the IRS to enforce that mandate. You must buy Federal Government approved health insurance. That is what the insurance companies wanted going into the deal. Funny, that is what they got. They got an agreement that there would be an individual mandate. So if this becomes law, every single American will be required to buy a government-approved health insurance plan. And if they don't, the IRS will tax them. Huh. We also know, although the gentleman points out, there is no individual mandate in the Senate bill--there are some things that are pretty close to it--the insurance companies didn't want competition. They certainly didn't want across-the-State-line competition, they didn't want the State tax code to say you and I could buy it tax-free so they would have to compete with each other like the auto insurance companies. It sounds to me like we can kind of decipher some of the outlines of the deal that occurred.

Mr. SHADEGG. I do. I want to thank the gentleman for conducting this special hour, and I want to talk about a number of issues that you have already referenced. Number one, health care reform: I certainly think we need health care reform. I know you do. I know that we believe that while the current system provides very high-quality health care, it often denies people access. But I want to talk a little bit about what's in the bill as well. The gentleman talked about this massive takeover. One of the things that stuns me more than anything else--and I know that you find this confusing--is that the proponents of this bill say that Republicans are defending the health insurance companies in America. Really? Really? This bill says that we're going to enact a mandate, an individual mandate compelling every American to buy health insurance from the health insurance companies that are selling them health insurance now. Huh? I'm sorry, I find that a little confusing. There is an individual mandate that says if this bill passes and becomes law, as the Speaker would like to do this week, you--every single American, every American listening tonight--must go out and buy health insurance from the very health insurance companies that are ripping us off right now. Why? Why in God's name would we want to force Americans to buy health insurance from the same health insurance companies that are ripping us off right now? This is a massive subsidy to those health insurance companies. It's a law. It will be the law of the land that says, you must, whether you want to or not, buy a government-approved health insurance plan from one of the companies selling health insurance right now. If they were doing a great job of selling health insurance right now, wouldn't the cost be affordable? Wouldn't they be holding down cost? Wouldn't they be giving us good service? Wouldn't they not be cheating us? I've got to tell you, I don't know any Republican who thinks that it's a great idea to compel people to buy health insurance from the same insurance companies that are selling us health insurance now. And yet that's what the individual mandate in this bill does. I guess they like it because it has been applied in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts they passed a mandate like this. They said that every single person in Massachusetts, by gosh, we're going to force you to buy a health insurance plan from some health insurance plan offered from a health insurance company in Massachusetts, and that will fix the problem. Did it fix the problem, Doc?

Mr. SHADEGG. Oh, the cost went up. Wait, the cost went up? They have forced everybody in Massachusetts, like this bill would do, to buy a health insurance plan on the premise that the cost would go down. But in Massachusetts where they did it, the cost went up.

Mr. SHADEGG. Ah, so it's Republicans who oppose this bill that are the pals of the health insurance industry? I don't think so. And you're telling me that in the one State where we've already tried this, a mandate that you must buy health insurance, costs did not go down, but costs went up. The cost of health insurance for the people in Massachusetts from before they enacted the mandate to after they enacted the mandate went up?

Mr. SHADEGG. Wait, the gentleman's telling me that never before in Federal law have we ordered people to buy a particular product, that we don't do that in Federal law as a routine matter?

Mr. SHADEGG. No, we don't force people to do that. I guess we do say that if you want to drive in some places, you have to buy auto insurance to insure against damage to somebody else. Right?

Mr. SHADEGG. That's not a Federal mandate?

Mr. SHADEGG. So this would be the first Federal mandate saying you must buy a product because the Federal Government tells you you must buy a product?

Mr. SHADEGG. You are referring to the sign I have next to me.

Mr. SHADEGG. That's the IRS. The IRS is going to force you and me to buy health insurance from an approved health insurance company, federally approved health insurance. Maybe you can answer the question that is posited on this graphic: Why does the Democrats' bill subsidize health insurance companies? I don't quite get that. Why is it that Democrats are so adamant that we subsidize America's health insurance companies, those companies that are already ripping us off, overcharging us, undercompensating, don't pay our claims when we submit them, make the doctors turn in 46 copies of every form, then kick it back, then kick it back again? Can you tell me why the Democrats want to subsidize America's health insurance plans by ordering every American to buy one of those plans? Because I don't get it.

Mr. SHADEGG. Wait, wait, wait. Are you telling me this is a deal? You're telling me these health insurance companies went into the White House and struck a deal, and the deal says, If you'll pass a bill forcing everyone in America to buy our product, we, the health insurance industry, will support your bill. That's a pretty good deal. Can I take, like, maybe some other company, a lumber company or an auto company, into the White House and say, Hey, if you'll strike a deal, we'll support some bill you want. You just have to force every American to buy our product. Right? Because, what the heck, let's strike a deal. It seems to me the health insurance companies must have very good lobbyists closed tight, very closely to the Democrat Party. Because if I remember correctly, the health insurance industry wanted two things. They wanted a mandate. They wanted you and me to be forced to buy government-approved health insurance from these health insurance companies and to have the IRS enforce it. They wanted it. They got it. They did not want a so-called public plan to compete with those health insurance companies. The health plans said, No, no, no. Competition, no, no, no. We health insurance plans don't want to have to compete. So we don't want to compete with a public plan. We don't want to have to compete across State lines. We don't want to have to compete for the business of individuals. We don't like that thing about competition. As I understand it, those health insurance plans get out of this bill a mandate that you and I have to buy their plan, and there is no public plan to compete with them. That's good lobbying, I guess. If the Democrats will carry your water and say, We're going to enact a law that says that every American must buy health insurance from these health insurance plans and, oh, by the way, those health insurance plans don't have to face any competition. They don't have to compete with a public plan. They don't have to compete across State lines. They don't have to even compete for your business and my business because right now, the Tax Code says that if we get it from our employer, it's tax free; but if you and I want to go out and buy it alone, if we made poor United or poor Aetna have to compete with each other for Dr. Burgess' business or for John Shadegg's business, oh, they wouldn't like that. That might drive down costs. That might drive their profits down. That might drive down profits or the salary of their executives. Well, they didn't want that. And in the Democrats' bill, you know what, they don't have to. There's no competition across State lines. There's no competition under the Tax Code letting you and I buy health insurance on the same tax-free basis that our bosses can buy at the companies. Boy, I'll tell you, those health insurance plans got good lobbyists in the White House. And that was a meeting, that was a deal that was struck down at the White House?

Mr. SHADEGG. The gentleman raises one of the things that makes me so upset in this debate. And quite frankly, as you've pointed out, I've worked on health care reform since 1995. It seems to me morally indefensible, morally indefensible to say to the American people, If you work for a big, big, big employer--like you and I do, the Federal Government--or like we'll say, General Motors or Intel or Motorola or AT&T or any of those big employers, you work for a big employer, you're a lucky guy or a lucky gal because your health insurance is tax free. Your employer buys the health insurance and writes off the cost of buying that health insurance. Your employer then gives that health insurance coverage to you, and it's not income to you. So the tax on-- we'll say a $5,000 insurance policy--zero, zip, zero, nothing because you were lucky enough to go to work for a big employer. But the law in America--and I think this is what is morally indefensible. And the law in America, even after this bill passes, says to the little guy, to the least among us, to those who are just barely getting by, to that person who works for, we'll say, a small garage or maybe, in my State of Arizona, a small lawn service company----

Mr. SHADEGG. Or maybe even a small doctor's office. If their employer doesn't give them employer-paid health care coverage, here's what we do the little guy. Here's what we do to the least among us. We say, Oh, you really ought to be insured, but we're going to smack you down. We're going to make you pay income tax first before you buy that health insurance; that is to say, we're going to punish you if you decide to spend your money on health insurance. So the $5,000 health insurance policy that this guy over here got from his employer that cost him zero in taxes, maybe it cost him or his employer $5,000, that plan for the little guy who doesn't work from an employer that provides health care coverage, that plan costs $5,000, we'll say, plus another third, or another, close to a third, we'll say another 15 or $1,800. That plan costs the little guy $6,800, because he has to go out and earn the $5,000, then he has to go out and earn $1,800 in income taxes on top of that and spend the total $6,800-- $5,000 on insurance, $1,800 on income tax--to get the same policy that the guy that worked for the big employer got for free. How can we morally justify that in this Nation? How can we say that it is right to treat those people lucky enough to work for the Federal Government or a big employer, Intel, Motorola, you name it, UPS, you get essentially free health care paid for by your employer and not taxed to your employer or you, but this little guy who works, or woman who works for a small day care company or who works for a small sewing shop, she gets no health care for free, and she has to pay income tax on her income before she even gets to go buy a health insurance policy? How can that be justified, and why isn't that fixed in this bill?

Mr. SHADEGG. Going back to my board here, why don't Democrats want to force United to have to compete with Aetna for the business of that little guy so that he or she can buy health insurance, tax-free, like Intel can or Motorola can or the Federal Government can? Why is it that America's politicians, about to pass this bill perhaps as early as this weekend, don't want to force those health insurance companies to compete? What's wrong with competition? You mentioned auto insurance. I turn on the TV at night and I see TV commercials for every single auto insurance company I can imagine. I see one for GEICO. They've got their little gecko. I see Progressive. I see Allstate. I see State Farm. I see Farmers. I see all these insurance companies. They're all pounding me with their ads, and every ad says, Come buy your auto insurance from our company, and we will charge you less and give you better service. And yet, there's not a single ad like that I've ever seen on TV where Aetna or United or any of those health insurance companies who, by the way, don't want competition from a public plan but do want an individual mandate compelling us to buy their product, I never see them advertise to me and say, Hey, John, come buy our health insurance policy, and we'll charge you less and give you better service. Could that be because they don't have to compete for our business? Because under the Tax Code that we're not fixing in this bill, you and I can't afford to buy health insurance directly from them, so they don't have to compete. They're protected from competition. They just want an individual mandate. Since they don't have to compete with each other, they complain that not enough people buy their policies. I think it's because their policies are too expensive. Since they don't have to compete, now they need a mandate to force us to buy their policies. Why don't they have to compete like the auto insurance companies do?

Mr. SHADEGG. So competition brought down the cost of that kind of insurance.