John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. At this point, I will insert in the Record an exchange of letters between the chairman of the Commerce and Energy Committee and the chairman of the Science Committee on the issue of jurisdiction over this legislation. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Washington, DC, June 29, 2006. Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Science Committee in H.R. 2730, the United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Act. The Science Committee acknowledges the importance of H.R. 2730 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I agree not to request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forgo a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Science Committee, and that a copy of this letter and of your response will be included in the Committee report and in the Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the House Floor. The Science Committee also expects that you will support our request to be conferees on any provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference on this legislation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Sherwood Boehlert, Chairman.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, my colleague from the Commerce Committee, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet (Mr. Upton).

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2730) to establish a grant program to fund eligible joint ventures between United States and Israeli businesses and academic persons, to establish the International Energy Advisory Board, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2730, the United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Act and urge my colleagues to support its passage. The U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Act will help curb America's reliance on foreign oil and increase our use of new energy technologies. As the gentleman knows, the price of gasoline has risen to well above $3 a gallon across America. Indeed, it is drastically affecting the pocketbooks of all Americans and all American businesses. It affects every aspect of our economy; and, indeed, the rising cost of energy threatens the American economy. That is at least one of the reasons why the United States and Israel need to work together in partnership to look for ways that we can reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy and particularly on foreign oil. This bill utilizes the critical and close relationship between the United States and Israel on a common area of interest, that is, energy and energy independence by creating a vehicle for innovation and security. Mr. Speaker, every American is aware that the United States is too dependent on foreign sources of energy. Every American should realize the danger this creates for us as a Nation. The United States Government predicts that by 2025 America will import almost 68 percent of its oil; and, increasingly, this oil comes from dangerous parts of the world. It comes from unstable areas, including the increasingly unstable Middle East. Global fuel and consumption, however, is projected to increase by 100 to 150 percent over the next 20 years, driven largely by the rapidly growing Chinese and Indian economies; and this growth and this increase in demand will force prices even higher. If the United States is to protect itself from the economic and the political threats created by this excessive dependence, we must reduce our reliance on foreign energy sources and on foreign oil as quickly and as efficiently as possible. But there is a common interest between the United States and Israel in this work. Israel, too, is too dependent on foreign sources of energy; and this legislation takes care of that issue. It allows the United States Department of Energy to invest up to $20 million annually in joint energy projects between American and Israeli businesses, scientists and academics. Eligible products include research, development and commercialization of alternative energy sources, improved energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. It is important, Mr. Speaker, to understand that legislation is not a handout, unlike other similar programs. Every single recipient of funds under this legislation is required, by the terms of the legislation, to pay back the American taxpayers in proportion to the Federal Government's share of the overall investment in the project. What that means is that if a successful project is developed as a result of these funds and if an energy source is found, according to rules provided by the Secretary of Energy, the Treasury of the United States will be repaid in proportion to the Federal Government's investment in the research involved or in the project which created this new energy. H.R. 2730 has wide bipartisan support, including more than 100 Members of this House. It passed the Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously. I believe it is a critically important piece of legislation, and that that view is shared not only by those of us in this Congress but also by the people of Israel. Not long ago, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, addressed a joint session of the United States Congress here in this Chamber. In his speech to the United States Congress just a few weeks ago, he expressed his support for this legislation, stating that ``through the United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Act, in collaboration with our U.S. counterparts, Israel will increase its efforts to find advanced scientific and technological solutions designed to develop new energy sources and encourage conservation.'' I would suggest it is not common for the Prime Minister of another nation to call on the United States to join them in the passage of a specific piece of legislation which will benefit both nations. The United States and Israel are both at the cutting edge of research in energy technologies, but we must do more to end our dependence on foreign energy, and we have every reason to cooperate. For example, in my own State of Arizona, an Israeli scientist is working with an Arizona company on a demonstration project involving a very fast-growing algae which can be used to power a biomass energy plan. By passing this legislation, the United States and Israel are fostering a partnership dedicated to scientific breakthroughs and improvements in energy innovation. This modest investment in scientific research will help both the United States and Israel in our efforts to develop new energy technologies, and it will help both of our countries reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5611, the Fuel Consumption and Education Act. I would begin by noting that in the debate on the last bill and, indeed, in the 1-minute speeches which occurred in this Chamber just this morning, it was noted that the cost of gasoline across America is spiking. Indeed, it is imposing a severe financial burden on every single American family and on every single American business. Rightfully, the American people have asked Congress to solve this problem and to solve it quickly, and yet I think most Americans understand, indeed, survey data show that they understand, that there is no single silver bullet that we can enact and solve this problem overnight. But, Mr. Speaker, there are steps we can take. And this legislation, the Fuel Consumption and Education Act, takes one of those important steps. The rising cost of gasoline is a hardship, and this bill goes right at how we might address that hardship, and that is to reduce unnecessary demand for gasoline and gasoline products through a cooperative effort to understand how we can reduce that demand. Indeed, the problem of high cost is, in part, specifically that, a result of excessive demand and inadequate or insufficient supply. This bill establishes a fuel conservation public service education campaign aimed at lowering demand for gasoline in the short term. And, indeed, it can work. Using mass media to influence energy consumption behavior across the country has been proven to work in the past. Let me give you some examples. In January of 2000, increased energy demand led to rolling blackouts in California. A part of the effort to combat those rising energy costs and to avoid rolling blackouts was a government-funded, public-private cooperative campaign undertaken to help reduce demand. Over the course of the year, Californians reduced peak demand by 89 percent. That is a fact. That is not a mistake. Californians, through this education program, reduced peak demand by 89 percent. They reduced total consumption by 6.7 percent in that year. There are many things that can be done to reduce consumption, from properly inflating the tires of a vehicle, to making sure that the engine is tuned, to making sure that the air cleaner for the vehicle is replaced when it should be, to making sure that the fuel filter for the vehicle is replaced when it should be. Mr. Speaker, there are many steps that we can take, that the average consumer, the average automobile driver does not understand and does not routinely do. All of that causes demand to go up, and all of that forces prices higher. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I believe it is critically important. I want to commend my colleague from Texas, Mr. Conaway, for introducing this legislation and bringing it forward. It is the kind of step that we can do immediately to address both our excessive demand and the high prices. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 454) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support civil rights and the constitutional right of each and every individual to vote unimpeded by government or any other entity. Regrettably, however, this piece of legislation is deeply flawed and offers a disincentive for many States to continue on the path to voting equality. Let me explain why. The 1965 Voting Rights Act helped rid the voting process of structural discrimination against minority voters--in every State and every region. Provisions such as section 2 of the act bar the dilution of minority voting rights anywhere in the United States. The VRA also includes a formula to impose increased scrutiny on election-related decisions in certain States or counties. These jurisdictions--all or part of 15 States covering most of the South and my State of Arizona-- are required to ``preclear'' every election change with the U.S. Department of Justice, everything from decennial redistricting to simply moving a polling place. The Department of Justice is tasked with determining whether election changes would diminish minority voting rights. Today, 41 years later, the VRA's preclearance provision still relies on the formula derived from 1964 election data. The legislation before the House today does not update the formula to include more recent electoral data, nor does it modify the formula in recognition of the accomplishments of States since that time. This portion of the VRA simply does not reflect America's changing demographics or the progress our society has made over the last 40 years. States, particularly ``section 5'' States, have worked tirelessly to ensure that discrimination has no place in the voting process, yet the legislation before us continues to single out these States for unique and extraordinary scrutiny and it imposes no additional scrutiny on States that have impaired minority voting rights in the past since 1964. Neither is fair. While not perfect, I would support an extension of the existing VRA. However, the bill on the floor today includes new requirements that minority groups must have the ability to elect ``preferred candidates of choice.'' The Department of Justice will somehow have to determine what constitutes a ``preferred candidate of choice''--potentially concluding that a minority candidate must be of a particular party. Expecting the Department of Justice or courts to determine the ``preferred candidate of choice'' invites electoral disaster. Prominent VRA experts, including former Solicitor General of the United States Theodore Olson, have concluded that this bill may result in the Department of Justice requiring district lines be drawn to benefit a particular party, politicizing redistricting and the VRA in a particularly egregious fashion. The original bill theoretically allows jurisdictions to bailout of section 5 coverage. However, no State has ever been able to do so. If we want to encourage States to get out from under section 5 ``preclearance'' we must give them incentive to do so. Under the current criteria, no State will ever be able to get off the list. Equality in the voting process is of utmost importance to me and I believe it is vital to protect minority rights. For this reason, I voted against an amendment that would strip the bill of its multilingual ballot provisions. Whether an individual is Hispanic, Navajo, or of any other background, he or she should be able to seek help when it comes to casting their vote. Mr. Chairman, the right to vote, unimpeded, is a constitutional right for all citizens of the United States and should be protected. However, this act does not recognize the great progress that has been achieved over the past 40 years. This is a bill trapped in time; and for that reason, I ask you to join me in voting against H.R. 9 in its current form.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I compliment him on this bill. I also compliment the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and Chairman Oxley and Chairman Sensenbrenner and my colleague, Mr. Wolf, with whose remarks I associate myself. This is a huge problem. I have observed in my lifetime many, many, many people whose lives have been destroyed by unregulated gambling. Story after story was brought to me when I worked in the Arizona attorney general's office about people whose lives were destroyed because one member of their family became addicted to gambling. Now, we have regulated gambling in this Nation, and that is one thing and nobody is trying to ban that by this bill. But Internet gambling is totally unregulated gambling, and it victimizes people and it destroys lives. It seems to me that the critics of this bill, including those in the paper this morning, say it does not go after every gambling operation in the world. Of course it doesn't. There are regulated gambling organizations which are legitimate and at least have some government oversight. What this bill goes after is the epidemic of unregulated gambling that is destroying lives that puts a full online casino in every single home in America to corrupt the people there and destroy their lives. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I commend the leaders, including Chairman Sensenbrenner, who have brought it to the floor.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5589, a bill to transfer a Customs Patrol Officers unit known as the ``Shadow Wolves,'' to the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement branch. The Shadow Wolves were created by an Act of Congress in 1972, establishing a Native American customs unit to operate along the Tohono O'odham Nation's border with Mexico. The unit is entirely composed of Native Americans and is tasked with infiltrating and disrupting drug cartels and smuggling operations along the border. In March of 2003, I had the opportunity to visit the Tohono O'odham Nation during a Congressional hearing on border security and our anti- drug efforts. I met with the Shadow Wolves, and found them to possess a unique dedication toward pursuing smugglers. Their investigative skills and tracking techniques provide vital information and intelligence to local, state, and federal law enforcement agents. Their traditional roles in intelligence gathering, evidence collection, and prosecution have been imperative to our national security and anti- drug efforts. Unfortunately, these roles have been altered since being reassigned to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, CBP, which does not view itself as responsible for intelligence gathering and evidence collection. CBP's control has stifled the impact of the Shadow Wolves. Since the transfer to CBP, the number of drug seizures has noticeably declined. In 2002, before the transfer, the Shadow Wolves interdicted over 93,000 pounds of marijuana. Only two years later, under CBP, only 52,000 pounds of marijuana were seized. Under CBP, the Shadow Wolves have been hampered by operational restrictions that continuously undermine the unit's unique capabilities. They are now confined to a seven mile grid along the border, which hampers their ability to track smugglers; they were told they can't do undercover work because ``the Border Patrol doesn't do that;'' and all of the Native American informants on the Reservation are now handled by non-Indian Border Patrol agents. A unit that once had 21 agents is down to 16 and is under the threat of losing more. Low morale and a lack of respect and purpose under the control of CBP threaten their very existence. H.R. 5589 would restore the vital role the Shadow Wolves have traditionally played in drug interdiction and combating smugglers along our border. I strongly support this legislation and hope that it will reach President Bush's desk quickly.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I welcome this debate, and I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to terrorism and in support of honoring our commitments. I rise in support of this resolution. It is clear that one-half of those engaged in this debate believe we need to get out of Iraq and believe we need to get out soon. In support of their position, they cite mistakes that were made leading to the war and mistakes that have been made in conducting the war, and they cite the recent increase in terrorist attacks and incidents. Let me make it clear, Mr. Speaker, reneging on our commitment to defeat terrorism in Iraq now would be a mistake of monumental proportions for which future generations would pay and pay deeply. Of course mistakes have been made. In every human endeavor, mistakes are made. That is the nature of human endeavors. I personally am convinced we had too few troops in Iraq when Baghdad fell. I joined my colleague John McCain in visiting Iraq. I have been there multiple times, and it was obvious to me we needed more troops there. I have joined his call for sending more troops repeatedly, and I join those who call for sending temporarily more troops now to take advantage of the death of Zarqawi as an opportunity to crush the insurgents. And no doubt, other mistakes have been made. But whatever mistakes have been made, they do not justify cutting and running. Recently, a constituent of mine, a Vietnam War helicopter pilot, approached me in Phoenix and said, This war is unlike Vietnam. It is unlike Vietnam, he explained, because were we to abandon this effort without succeeding, make no mistake about it, the consequences would be far reaching and disastrous. Let's talk about some of those. First, it would be a humiliating defeat for the United States. Look no further than the words of Osama bin Laden. He said: ``The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.'' Future commitments by the United States could be scoffed at by our allies and by our enemies around the world for generations to come. It would shatter the trust we have built amongst our allies in the region. The newly elected Iraqi Government, and I find it ironic that we are having this debate within days of its selection, would collapse and we would have the creation of a radical, oil-funded terrorist state. But sadly and most importantly, to fail now would establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that our brave soldiers, men and women, who gave of their lives or who suffered grave injuries that will be with them for the remainder of their lives did so in vain. Most importantly, it is not necessary. We can succeed, but the path to defeating terrorism in Iraq is not surrender; it is resolve. The opponents argue that we have suffered recent increases in violence and insurgent attacks. The increase in those attacks is not proof that we are losing, and it is certainly not proof that we cannot prevail. Rather, I submit to you it is proof that the insurgents understood that the period leading up to the election of a permanent representative government in Iraq was their best chance, and they took their best shot. And they failed. For all that is rational, for that is honorable, we must not now within days of the election of that new permanent government cut and run. No, indeed, we must give it an opportunity to do its job, an opportunity to succeed. Now, those who say that we are losing ignore that by their own admission al Qaeda is acknowledging that it is failing in Baghdad. I urge us not to cut and run now for our children and for our grandchildren.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Refinery Permit Process Scheduling Act. If anything, I wish this bill went much further. One year ago, I went to New York and visited the New York Mercantile Exchange. The traders on the floor that I spoke to said the exact opposite of what we just heard on the floor of this House. What they said was that this Nation is in desperate need of additional refining capacity. They grabbed me by the lapel on the floor of the trading mercantile and said, Do what you can to get additional refining capacity built. That is not a windfall for the oil companies, that is a windfall for consumers. As the chairman of the committee mentioned, opponents of this bill cite the experience of Arizona Clean Fuels in Yuma as an example for why they say we don't need to improve the refining process or the regulatory process governing the construction of a refinery. Yet that example proves them wrong. It took Arizona Clean Fuels 5 years and 4 months, from December 1999 to April 2005, to obtain their permit. It simply is not logical nor is it reasonable to say to investors in a market, if you want to build a new refinery, you have to spend almost 6 years seeking the permit to build that refinery. Our opponents on this bill say, Well, we don't need any additional improvements to the process and we don't need to lower the environmental standards. Yet it has been made clear over and over here on the floor in the debate that we are not lowering environmental standards. Indeed, the legislation calls for the EPA to be the primary scheduling agency. There has been no new refinery built in the United States for 30 years, since 1976. Opponents of the bill say, Well, that is all right, we have made up that by increased capacity at existing facilities. Well, let's see what we have done. We have dropped from 324 refineries in 1981 to only 148 refineries today. Relying on ever larger existing facilities, without constructing new ones, does not benefit the consuming public, as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have taught us. This is good legislation. It needs to be enacted. And the experience in my State proves this kind of regulatory improvement is absolutely essential. I urge the passage of the legislation.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Chair ruled earlier that once a point of order has been raised, it is not in order to discuss the merits of the underlying issue. It is only in order to discuss whether or not the point of order is appropriate. Is that not what the Chair ruled?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, does that mean by moving to strike the last word following the ruling of the Chair?

Mr. SHADEGG. By separate amendment not in that debate, is that correct?

Mr. SHADEGG. And so if it is the question of the order, that means not the substance underneath, but rather the question of the procedural issue of whether or not the point of order should be sustained?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to try to clarify this debate and bring a little clarity here. It is true that we are really arguing over roughly $.5 billion and points are flying back and forth about what that means and whether or not this is a technical point. But there has also been some focus here on the issue of whether or not our war effort is going to be harmed and whether or not our soldiers are going to be harmed. I want to be clear that there is no effort, in any way, to harm the efforts of our military, or to, in any way, inhibit our ability to fight the war on terror in the point of order that was raised by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling). Indeed, there has never once been brought to this House by the President of the United States a single request for a war supplemental that this House has not funded. We have funded it, we are currently working on one that will be funded, and there will be another one funded very, very soon, as soon as we get a few more months down the line. There is no issue here about not funding the war on terror. And there is no issue here, ladies and gentlemen, about not funding the quality of life of our soldiers. So what is the issue? What are we talking about? What we are talking about is sleight of hand. What we are talking about is, well, let us take the really defensible funds and call them a part of the war on terror and let us leave the money that we put in the bill, by the way, there is $.5 billion in this bill not requested by the Pentagon, $.5 billion that the Pentagon said it didn't need, $.5 billion that the Pentagon itself didn't say was necessary either for its ongoing operations, for quality of life for military personnel, or for the war on terror. Interesting number, $.5 billion. Now, there is an additional $.5 billion listed here as, well, it is not emergency, but we are going to take it out of this fund to fund the war on terror. Now, that is kind of interesting. We take the stuff that we wanted, we take the stuff that was not requested by the Pentagon, $.5 billion, and we put them over here in the bill. But then we say, well, we need another $.5 billion and we will call that critical for the war on terror. This is not about whether or not we fund the war on terror, it is not about the military quality of life, it is about how we hide spending in this budget process and how we deal with it. And it just so happens that the President himself said none of these were emergencies. He doesn't even agree that these were essential for the war on terror at this point. But if we call them essential for the war on terror, and if we take them out of the fund that we have set up to deal with the war on terror, that enables us down the road to impose that additional $.5 billion burden on the American people. That is what this discussion is about. It is not about military quality of life. It is not about fighting the war on terror. It is about being able to increase the overall spending and, quite frankly, being able to increase that overall spending for things the Pentagon did not even request.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I take the strong statement we just heard as an endorsement of the RSC budget. He talked about the budget you are proposing will increase the deficit. In fact, he wasn't talking about the RSC budget. Indeed it will produce $392 billion in net deficit reduction. I rise in strong support of the Contract with America Renewed budget and compliment the gentleman from Texas for his hard work on this budget. This budget is a reasoned and responsible budget based on the Contract With America budget that I proudly voted for in 1995 and that the chairman of the House Budget Committee who sits here tonight also voted for, along with 108 other Republicans and two Democrats. And I certainly hope that tonight they will once again vote for this budget. Mr. Chairman, when the Republicans were entrusted with the majority in 1994, we made a number of promises to the American people, but none of them was more important than our promise and nor more critical than our promise to the American people to shrink the size and the scope of the Federal Government, to have it tax less, spend less and interfere in our lives less; and, Mr. Chairman, it is time to keep that promise. As the accompanying chart shows, in the time period from 1995 to 2005, Federal spending has increased at three times the pace of the average family income. Mr. Chairman, that simply is not tolerable. This chart shows it. In that time period the average family income has gone up by 8.2 percent. Total Federal outlays have gone up by 25.6 percent. Growing the Federal Government at three times the pace of the family income simply is not tolerable, cannot be defended, and will not work in the long run. The total amount of Federal spending is hard for the average American to comprehend. It is $2.2 trillion. In $1 bills it would stack halfway to the Moon. It weighs 10 times as much as the Sears Tower, and it would blanket the State of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, growth in spending has grown dramatically just in the last few years. From 2002 to 2005, the inflation rate was 2 percent. But we grew spending in 2002 by 7.9 percent, in 2003 by 7.4 percent, in 2004, by 6.1 percent and in 2005 by 8.2 percent. Each year, three to four times the rate of inflation. Mr. Chairman, it is time for fiscal sanity. It is time to end the overspending. I urge my colleagues to support the Contract with America Renewed budget.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill and commend the chairman for his hard work on it. Witness after witness on the other side has stood up and said, well, this is wrong with it, and that is wrong with it, and this is wrong with it. I want to make the point that, in the course of this debate, while we have been here on the floor, the press has broken a story that a businessman just pled guilty to paying a $400,000 bribe to a Member of this institution. Now, I am not going to mention that Member's name. I don't think we need to sink to that level. But it does yet, once again, in the midst of this debate, illustrate the need for this bill. Of course you can always stand on the outside and criticize the efforts of those who are in the arena doing the job. But this bill does take steps forward. My colleague on the other side just said it does nothing to change the policies that govern this institution. That is simply flat wrong. This bill, for example, enacts dramatic new earmark reform which has not existed prior to now, which will shine sunshine on earmarks so that if a Member tries to steer an earmark to their personal benefit, or any earmark, it can be seen. I would have wished we would move quicker on this, and indeed, perhaps there are some things we could have done sooner. But it takes time to build a coalition. This bill ends the situation right now where a Member convicted of bribery may collect his pension funded by the American taxpayers after his conviction. If that doesn't create a different incentive in this institution, I don't know what it does. I would reiterate the chairman's marks. You cannot oppose this legislation, vote against it and say you are voting for reform, because what you are doing is leaving in place the current rules which do not go far enough. I include in the Record a letter from the Congressional Research Service referencing the loss of Federal pension annuity payments for conviction of certain crimes and contract issues. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, April 27, 2006. memorandum To: Honorable John B. Shadegg From: Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division. Subject: Loss of Federal Pension Annuity Payments for Conviction of Certain Crimes and Contract Issues. This memorandum is submitted in response to your request for a brief legal analysis of the permissibility of changing, by legislation, the annuity formula and availability of annuity payments under the federal retirement system for federal officers and employees, including Members of Congress, if those employees, officers or Members commit certain federal crimes in the future. Constitutional considerations concerning the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution counsel against an attempt to retroactively deprive former or current officers, employees, or Members of Congress their federal pensions, that is, based on a conviction of law for conduct that occurred before the current legislative changes proposed to the pension laws are enacted. A prohibited ex post facto law is one which makes criminal an action which when engaged in was innocent under the law or, as explained by the Supreme Court in 1798: ``Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. Chief Justice Marshall explained simply and clearly that an ex post facto law ``is one which renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed.'' Regarding specifically the pensions of federal officers and employees, a lower federal court in the celebrated Alger Hiss case found that the ``Hiss Act'' was, if applied retroactively to deny Alger Hiss his pension, punitive in nature and not regulatory, and was therefore a prohibited ex post facto law adopted by Congress after Hiss had engaged in the subject conduct: The question before us is not whether Hiss or Strasburger are good or bad men, nor is it whether we would grant them annuities if we had unfettered discretion in the matter. The question is simply whether the Constitution permits Congress to deprive them of their annuities by retroactive penal legislation. We conclude that it does not. We hold that as applied retroactively to the plaintiffs the challenged statute is penal, cannot be sustained as regulation, and is invalid as an ex post facto law prohibited by the Constitution. Legislation which is prospective only, such as the provisions of the current proposed pension changes in H.R. 4975, 109th Congress, do not appear to offend the constitutional clause relating to ex post facto laws. The provisions of H.R. 4975 would apply the further penalty of loss of creditable service for one's federal annuities to those who are convicted of particular federal offenses (such as bribery, acting as an agent of a foreign principal, and conspiracy to commit such offenses) only after, that is, subsequent to, the enactment of the proposed legislation. It is not a violation of the ex post facto clause to increase by legislation the penalties of criminal offenses committed after the enactment of that legislation. As to any future annuity payments affected, even those ``earned'' or expected prior to the commission of the particular crime in question, judicial precedents have provided a clear indication that future annuity payments to be provided by the Government for its officers, employees, veterans or others, do not create a current property right or interest in such future payments, but rather create a mere ``expectancy'' or ``government fostered expectation'' which may be modified, revoked or suspended by the authority granting it through subsequent legislation. That is, as specifically found by federal courts, ``even where . . . there has been compulsory contribution to a retirement or pension fund the employee has no vested right in it until the particular event happens upon which the money or part of it is to be paid,'' and thus a ``pension granted by the Government confers no right which cannot be revised, modified or recalled by subsequent legislation.'' There would appear to be no violation or abrogation of any specific ``contract'' by increasing the penalties for the violations of certain specific crimes to include forfeiture or partial forfeiture of anticipated federal annuity payments, even those future benefits which had accrued (or for which credit had been ``earned'') prior to the commission of the crime. It should be noted that the current provisions of the so-called ``Hiss Act,'' originally adopted in 1954, operate in the manner questioned, that is, a federal officer's or employee's annuity payments, even those that were ``credited'' to him or her or ``earned'' over the course of many years with the federal government, may be forfeited upon the subsequent conviction of one of the particular national security-related crimes designated in the Hiss Act. While there exists no current property interest or vested right in future benefits and payments under the federal retirement system, there are substantial arguments and indications that there does exist a current, vested property interest of federal employees in the contributions that the employees or officers themselves make to the retirement system. In a tax related case, a United States Court of Appeals found that an employee's contributions to the retirement system ``represent valuable rights which were vested in him at the time . . .'' and are therefore currently taxable income to the employee: ``Present vesting of a right, even if its enjoyment is postponed to the happening of a future event, is an important aspect of gross income for income tax purposes.'' As to the employee contributions to and earnings in one's Thrift Savings Plan, the legislative history of the provisions establishing the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) indicates that Congress intended for such an account and its earnings to be a current vested property interest of the employee, which is not merely a promised future benefit, but rather ``is an employee savings plan'' where the ``employee owns the money'' which is merely being held ``in trust for the employee and managed and invested on the employee's behalf . . . .'' The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has explained that where there is more than the mere expectation in future benefits, and where the employee's rights have already vested in certain amounts, then the retiree has a ``protected property interest'' in such amounts already vested. There may thus be different legal and constitutional considerations concerning the denial of future annuity payments to federal employees, as opposed to the forfeiture of one's own contributions to the retirement system or to the Thrift Savings Plan. This is not to say, of course, that the Government may not by law provide for the loss or abdication of one's own ``property'' through fine, forfeiture or other such transfer of that money or property, but rather that legislation which would change the current law to require loss or forfeiture of vested ``property'' must meet certain constitutional criteria.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the full committee chairman, Mr. Barton, who is not with us today, who has been hospitalized as a result of a medical problem and, I understand, doing well; the ranking member, Mr. Dingell; the chairman of our subcommittee, Mr. Deal; as well as the ranking member, Mr. Brown, for moving this important legislation forward. It is in fact critically important legislation for all Americans but particularly for those with preexisting conditions and those with chronic illnesses. H.R. 4519 extends Federal funding, which was first made available under the Trade Act of 2002, for the establishment and the operation of State high risk pools. The bill provides $15 million in seed grants to any State or, as a result of a bipartisan amendment of the bill, to any territory which has not yet created a State high risk pool for creation of that high risk pool. That is very important, because a number of States do not yet have them. This money is available as $1 million one- time grants for the creation of such a high risk pool. In addition, it provides $75 million in each of the fiscal years between 2006 and 2010 for the operational expenses of these high risk pools. Those moneys are allocated according to a formula referred to a moment ago by the ranking member, Mr. Brown. That formula includes the number of qualifying States, the number of uninsured individuals and the number of individuals enrolled in the State's high risk program. These moneys are extremely important, and I think it is important also to note that territories are available both for the seed grants to establish a high risk pool and for the operational grants. State high risk pools, as have been noted here, help provide health insurance for those who have preexisting conditions or chronic illnesses or who for any other reason cannot afford health insurance. High risk pools allow individuals who are eligible to purchase health insurance to pay a premium and receive coverage. Because they are at-risk people with very high medical needs, these premiums are capped in the high risk pool, and often the premiums do not cover the cost of the health insurance that is provided. As a result, the cost of operating the pool needs to be subsidized or offset by the States. States operating these pools make up that shortfall, and the operating funds that are provided here assist in doing that. There are many things that we can do in this area of health insurance; and I agree with my colleague, Mr. Brown, that high risk pools are not in fact a solution; they are, in fact, rather a symptom of a problem we have in health insurance today. I think that there is much more that we can and should do to make health insurance affordable and available to all Americans. I would like to see us create here in this Congress a refundable tax credit for all Americans so that they can go out and purchase health insurance themselves. We have sadly today in America some 44 million-plus who cannot afford health insurance and who are, therefore, uncovered. If we were to create a tax credit allowing people to take a portion of the income taxes they would otherwise send to the government to go buy health insurance, and for those who are poor and do not pay income taxes now, make that a refundable tax credit, that is, actually provide them with a voucher or with cash to go buy health insurance, we could cut the number of uninsured in America dramatically. And that would be a huge step forward in this Nation, to reduce the number of uninsured and make sure that everyone in this country has health insurance. Unfortunately, that legislation is not before us at this point. It is the kind of progress that I hope we can make. But this legislation is. Before we move forward on the idea of a refundable tax credit, we must make sure that we take care of those who are most in need in America. High risk pools are a targeted tool for the uninsured. They are a safety net. In addition to providing access to insurance for those with preexisting conditions and the chronically ill, they also alleviate the need for cross-subsidization. All of us are aware that those of us buying insurance today pay a higher premium because of the needs of those who cannot afford insurance. High risk pools alleviate that need. I join my colleagues in calling for the passage of this legislation. I appreciate that it is a bipartisan effort, and I want to thank my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle for their help. I urge passage of the legislation.

Mr. SHADEGG

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