John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

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

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very enlightening debate. Fortunately, I think the American people are smart enough to understand this debate. They understand that, for example, even though there won't be a tax increase before the election in 2008, that policies that get adopted this year will force tax increases in future years. I think they understand that. I want to comment on the remarks of the committee Chair who just spoke. I think he made a compelling case for leaving the priorities that are in this bill precisely where they are. I think your committee, with the help of the minority, worked diligently to produce a sound product, a product that attempts to allocate the resources amongst the various priorities. But there will come a time when this Nation wakes up. There will come a time when we will have to be responsible about spending on this floor. The speaker before the last speaker criticized Republicans and said, ``You spent too much on your watch,'' and he was dead right. This is the Hefley amendment. I voted for the Hefley amendment every time, trying to get us to cut 1 percent. Let me explain why. Because in 1994 when I was elected to Congress, and in 1995 and in 1996, we went across America, Republicans and Democrats alike, and we asked the American people if they wanted us to continue spending at that pace or if they were willing to see us reduce that pace of spending to reduce the burden on our children and our grandchildren. One after another of them rose and said, ``Don't cut my program''; but one after another of them, every single one of them that I heard, at field hearings in Prescott, Arizona, and in Wyoming and Montana, said that if the cuts are even, if the cuts are evenly spread and fair to everyone, then, yes, you are right. We have to rein in spending to a level we can live with. That is what this amendment does. It is responsible. It is good public policy. I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to clarify the unanimous consent request that is before us and get a further understanding of any other agreements that may have been reached. And I would appreciate if I could clarify these points with the distinguished majority leader and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. First, as I understand it, the agreement is that with respect to the 10 bills that will come up following this bill and Military Construction, that is the bills that we would begin on, I presume, Monday, there is an agreement that all of those bills will come to the floor with all of the earmarks which are proposed to be placed into those bills added to those bills before they come to the floor. That is an extremely important point. That was the issue we have debated for the last few days. We believe that sunshine is the best way for us to ascertain what is in those earmarks. Admittedly, we may have no objection to any of those earmarks, but that is only possible if we know that the earmarks which are to be added to those bills are added to the bills before they come to the floor. So, I would like to know if in fact that is the agreement that has been reached. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, then I guess it is my understanding, at least so far as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is concerned, there is no agreement that all future earmarks will be added to the bills at this point in time?

Mr. SHADEGG. I would be happy to yield to the majority leader.

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, as I understand it, then, with regard to nine of the 10 remaining bills which have been mentioned by the minority leader, all of those bills would, in fact, have all earmarks listed in them before they come to the floor. Is that correct?

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, then, as I understand it, for the nine bills other than Energy and Water, the earmarks will be included on those bills before they come to the floor for debate. For the Energy and Water bill, because of the additional time that is required, the earmarks would be listed, then subsequently attached to a bill that comes to the floor and could be debated and challenged on the floor before that bill is presented to the Senate; is that correct?

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, but those earmarks would be subject to challenge and debate here on the floor.

Mr. SHADEGG. At least a point in time before the bill is transmitted to the Senate; is that correct?

Mr. SHADEGG. Let me ask a second question. As I understand it, there is some discussion, and perhaps I should yield to the minority leader on this point, with regard to an attempt to reach a unanimous-consent agreement on each bill as that proceeds forward. Is that correct?

Mr. SHADEGG. I would be happy to yield to the minority leader.

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, with the exception of that remark, is the understanding as explained by the minority leader the understanding of the majority leader?

Mr. SHADEGG. I would be happy to yield to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Is that also your understanding?

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, as I understand it, this is an attempt to make sure that we don't waste time on dilatory tactics; that, rather, we proceed through these in an orderly fashion, but if someone has a substantive objection, that should be accommodated; is that correct?

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the patience of all the gentlemen in this conversation. I would like to just confirm two more facts and then be happy to the yield to the ranking member on this particular bill who would like to ask a question. The minority leader just indicated that all of these bills under the contemplated agreement would come to the floor under an open rule. Is that the understanding of the majority leader and of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee?

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, that is not a part of the agreement? I thought I just understood the minority leader to state that that was a part of the agreement.

Mr. SHADEGG. Certainly.

Mr. SHADEGG. Certainly.

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, I have just one further fact I would like confirmed, actually from both the majority and minority side, and, that is, nothing in this agreement precludes the right of any Member to object to a unanimous-consent agreement on each bill as they proceed. Is that the understanding of the minority leader?

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, I certainly understand the intent of the agreement and the intent of those of us who have been engaged in this discussion for the last 2 days. I simply want to get clearly on the record that any agreement which is intended to move the body forward and move through these bills and to do it as we have done it in the past with an open rule and then hopefully at some point a unanimous-consent agreement, that that remains subject to the objection of an individual Member to say, I object to the unanimous consent.

Mr. SHADEGG. I would be happy to yield to whichever of you would prefer.

Mr. SHADEGG. Certainly. And I think we will. Except, as you say, you're not sure if you understand what would be dilatory tactics. We're not sure if we understand and can't know now what we might consider to be a substantive amendment which you would view wasn't. And so I just want to confirm that the right of an individual Member on the minority side to object to the unanimous-consent agreement remains intact and hasn't been waived by any portion of this agreement. And I presume that's the understanding of the majority leader.

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I thank all the gentlemen. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. SHADEGG. I think it's my right to yield, and I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

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