John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time so graciously, and I want to compliment him on his service as the Committee on the Budget chairman. I think he has done an exemplary job in a very, very difficult position. I want to point out that in my tenure here in the Congress, and I am in my ninth year, I have worked very, very hard to honor the budget and support the budget we adopt. Indeed, early in my tenure in Congress, I served on that Committee on the Budget under John Kasich, and the current chairman of the committee was on the committee at the time. We labored long and hard to produce a workable budget. But the sad truth is, and I doubt if all of our colleagues here in Congress, much less the people across America, understand that that budget, while it is always a product that entails a lot of work, is almost never honored. In 1995 and 1996 we honored the budget that we adopted. But from 1996 to this year, we dishonor that budget. We outspend that budget year after year. And that is why I rise in strong support of the Family Budget Protection Act, because the reality is that the hard work that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the members of his committee put in to write a budget and to craft it and to have it work becomes meaningless, or at least near meaningless as we go through the process. Because, quite frankly, it is not law. It is only the resolution, hopefully, of the two bodies. And so its goes out the door. That is why my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), is proposing that we make the budget resolution not a resolution but a law, so that all the work that Chairman Nussle and members of his committee put in works, and so that we can tell the American people that we are going to live within a budget. But how do we break that budget? We break that budget year after year after year after year by trick and game. One of those has been talked about here tonight, and that is emergency spending. We called the census, which is commanded by the U.S. Constitution, the decennial census; we called that emergency spending and we spent outside the budget. The American people, I think, get it. They think we should have a budget that we live within, a budget that we honor and that we should not spend at two or three times the rate of growth of the family budget. So I rise in strong support of the Family Budget Protection Act.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the reality is, it is a common-sense amendment. I was here in 1995 when the government shut down. My colleague from South Carolina said look, it is simply not needed. The current process works and this process helps us. Since 1977, in 27 years, we have shut this government down 17 different times for a total of 109 days. What that means to the American people is that in 1995, 368 national parks closed, 7 million visitors were turned away, a loss of $14 million in tourism revenue, and 20,000 to 30,000 applications for visas went unprocessed every single day. It is not a yielding of our constitutional authority, it is indeed a rational way to deal with the process. We need to do our budget work, and if we cannot get it done in time, we need a process to keep the government open and running to serve the people. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this amendment. My colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations correctly point out that the engine driving the train here is entitlement spending, not discretionary spending, over which they have control. And they are right. Every American, I think, understands in their gut that entitlement spending is out of control. It is out of control because there are no restraints on it. I would like to point out, as my colleague from Pennsylvania did just a moment ago, in 1963, not that long ago, 25 percent of our spending was entitlement spending. Today it is over 60 percent of all our spending. We have to control that, and this is a rational basis to do it because it limits the growth to the growth in the population of the constituency plus inflation. That is the only way we can rationally limit spending. And it is not a meat cleaver. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 660 and to congratulate and honor Randy Johnson of the Arizona Diamondbacks, more affectionately known to us in Arizona as ``The Big Unit.'' As I think everyone knows, on May 18 of this year in an extraordinary feat against the Atlanta Braves, Randy Johnson became only the 17th pitcher in the history of major league baseball to throw a perfect game. That is right. Twenty-seven Atlanta Brave hitters came to the plate, and 27 Atlanta Brave hitters went down. Now, many of us strive for perfection in many aspects of our lives, but it is rarely achieved; but not only did Randy Johnson do this on May 18, but he was at the time 40 years old, making him the oldest pitcher in Major League Baseball to throw a perfect game. Now, prior to that, Cy Young, in whose name a famous award is given each year, at the age of 37 had been the oldest pitcher to throw a perfect game, having done it 100 years ago in 1904. Randy Johnson is also only the fifth pitcher in major league history to throw no-hitters in both the American and the National Leagues. In fact, Johnson's previous no-hitter came in 1990 while pitching for the Seattle Mariners. Johnson grew up in Livermore, California, where his father, Bud, was a police officer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. As a young boy, Randy would practice pitching against his garage door, pretending to be in the big leagues. Even at 8 years old, Johnson threw the ball so hard it would pop nails loose from the wood siding. After he was done, his father would proudly come up to him and hand him a hammer and tell him to go put the nails back into the wall. Standing 6 feet 10 inches and with a 38-inch arm, Johnson is one of the most intimidating pitchers in all of the game of baseball; and it has earned him, as I indicated, the nickname ``The Big Unit.'' Randy Johnson's perfect game will certainly fit nicely within his already very, very impressive list of accomplishments. Throughout his 21 years in Major League Baseball, Randy Johnson has won a World Series, beating the New York Yankees in 2001; during his tenure, he has been named World Series co-MVP, along with former Diamondback pitcher Curt Schilling; thrown no-hitters in both the American and National leagues; as I mentioned, won the Cy Young Awards in both the American and National Leagues; and set multiple strikeout records, trailing only Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens, and Steve Carlton on the all-time strikeout leaders list. By pitching a perfect game, Randy Johnson joins an elite class of pitchers that spans the ages and includes some of the all-time baseball greatest. In his quest for perfection, Randy Johnson threw only 117 pitches, 87 of which were strikes. He struck out the first 13 of 27 hitters he faced, utilizing his blistering fastball and devastating slider to perfection, and went to a three-ball count on just one Braves hitter. To understand just how perfect ``The Big Unit'' was on this night, we need only look at the radar gun on his very last pitch. Randy Johnson's 117th pitch of that night, his final pitch, was clocked at a shocking 98 miles an hour. Randy Johnson is considered one of the best pitchers in Major League Baseball today and has set a course that will lead him straight to Cooperstown. I am very proud to honor him in this effort.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote Nos. 229, 230, and 231, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''. I went on the CODEL to Normandy to honor the 60th Anniversary of D-Day and the sacrifices of those who liberated Europe from Nazi control. Unfortunately, our Air Force plane had mechanical difficulties over the past 2 days that prohibited our travel back to the United States to participate in these votes. I regret the fact that I was not here to honor President Reagan and his legacy, but am honored to be present at tonight's state funeral.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan ran for President to change America. In the end, he had changed the world. As Arizonans, we can be proud that our state played a vital role in the ``Reagan Revolution''. Barry Goldwater started what became the Reagan Revolution with his own run for the Presidency. For the first time since Calvin Coolidge, conservatives had a champion. Some dismissed Goldwater's loss as the end of the nascent conservative movement, but they were wrong: it was just the beginning. Reagan took to the national political stage during the Goldwater campaign 40 years ago with his seminal speech ``A Time for Choosing.'' In losing the battle for the White House, Goldwater passed the conservative torch to Ronald Reagan to continue the war of ideas. Together they nurtured the conservative movement and helped it grow. In 1966, Reagan's campaign for Governor of California struck the same themes as Goldwater's presidential campaign. He won in a landside. It was the biggest political victory of the conservative movement since Goldwater had defeated the sitting U.S. Senate Majority leader in 1952. My father, Stephen Shadegg, was Goldwater's campaign manager, speechwriter and a close friend. Growing up in Goldwater's shadow and being a part of the conservative movement from birth gave me a special appreciation for who Reagan was. Just as Goldwater, Reagan's greatest tool was the truth. When Ronald Reagan said something, you knew it came from the heart. Reagan was one of the few politicians who had deeply held beliefs and never strayed from fundamental principles. The rarest commodity in Washington, D.C. is courage, yet Reagan was nothing if not courageous. He also touched people's lives. Just look at the hundreds of thousands of people who stood in line for hours this week to pay their last respects. A telling tribute to a man who had done so much for his country and whose citizens admired and loved him in return. President Reagan is rightly remembered for numerous accomplishments. We are all better off today thanks to the economic revolution that brought double-digit interest rates and inflation to its knees. His tax policy proved that ``a rising tide'' of economic recovery ``lifts all boats.'' Reagan is best known as the aggressive opponent of communism, the strong cold warrior that stood up to the Soviets and their allies across the globe. Less known is that this doctrine of ``peace through strength'' allowed President Reagan to sign the largest arms reduction treaty at the time. Ronald Reagan was a normal citizen who used his charm and steadfast beliefs to shape the United States into the Country it is today. He provided great optimism, sparked economic growth, gained military superiority, and bridged international relations. We all have a special memory of Reagan. Obviously for me, the 1964 speech was a formative part of my political life. In the speech he outlined his dedication to limited government and personal responsibility, ideals that guide me as I serve the people of my district and Arizona. This idea that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this nation: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. He had a simple vision. He knew that individual choice and freedom was essential for people to feel pride in themselves, instead of dependence on the government. Reagan knew that the true American dream was to be free to live your life and achieve your goals without government interference or regulation. President Reagan was one of the towering figures of the 20th century and one of the greatest defenders of freedom that America and the world has ever known. Ronald Reagan was an heir to Barry Goldwater's vision that the greatness of America lies not in its government but in its people. His faith in the individual, belief in free enterprise, and unending conviction in providing freedom of choice in everyday decisions, helped to restore ``the great, confident roar of American progress, growth, and optimism.'' Rather than mourn our loss following the passing of President Ronald Reagan, we should instead celebrate his life and his countless contributions to our country. And, we should renew the promise to keep America ``that shining city upon the hill.''

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to close by thanking all of those who participated in this debate and who discussed the issue of this resolution. The issue of this resolution is not legislation as we debated the last hour regarding the defense appropriation. The issue of this resolution is the honoring of those American armed services personnel who have died in our Nation's service and of the great tradition of Memorial Day. We heard here today in this discussion that there is indeed a great tradition surrounding Memorial Day that all Americans should be reminded of and should remember; a tradition that, as the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) reminds us, began as far as back as 1866 where veterans who had died, soldiers who had died in the Civil War, both Union and Confederate, had their graves decorated by the wives of Confederate soldiers who had died; a tradition that carried itself forward all the way to this day, a tradition that inspired the poem ``In Flanders Fields,'' read so eloquently by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. There are indeed many poems that commemorate this great day in our history. One of them, ``We Shall Keep the Faith,'' written by Ms. Moina Michael of Athens, Georgia, the second city that supported and recognized Memorial Day, says: We cherish too, the poppy red That grows on fields where valor led, It seems to signal to the skies That blood of heroes never dies. We have heard in this debate a discussion of the heroes who serve our Nation today, those who have tragically died in combat both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I think it is indeed fitting that this year all Americans would acquire a red paper poppy and would acknowledge the sacrifice of those who have died. As I indicated earlier, the red poppy is the national symbol of sacrifice all over the world, not just here in America. That was a tradition inspired by the fact that the red poppy was the first living plant to sprout from the devastation of the battlefields of northern France and Belgium during World War I; and its bright, vibrant color of red brought life and hope and reassurance to those still fighting and was the inspiration for the poem ``In Flanders Fields,'' which I would at this point like to insert in the Record, as well as the ``Poppy Poem'' by Doris Theiss, an American Legion member from Arizona, who brought this issue to my office. It seems to me that it is fitting that this year with so many Americans still engaged in battle and the risk that today or tomorrow or the day after tomorrow or indeed when we celebrate Memorial Day next weekend itself, some American soldier may lose his or her life in the service of our country. For our colleagues who are watching and for those around the Nation, this four-petaled crepe paper poppy became the official memorial flower of the American Legion and the American Legion Auxiliary in 1923; and in 1927, at the Paris Convention, it was decided that only veteran-made poppies would be distributed by the American Legion Auxiliary. All of the poppies we see here on the floor today, and I would assume through the balance of this week are handmade by veterans. I think it is most fitting that we honor our veterans, most fitting in particular that we honor those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. And I would hope that by this debate and by this memorial, Americans across the Nation would remember once again the significance and the meaning of Memorial Day they would hopefully acquire from the American Legion or from the VFW, which also recognizes the red poppy, a red, four- petaled poppy like this one, and this coming Memorial Day weekend recognize and honor the tremendous sacrifice made by all those who have died in our Nation's service. In Flanders Fields (By Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918) Canadian Army) IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place, and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 424. Mr. Speaker, many of those watching today's proceedings may notice that many of us here on the floor are wearing the red poppy. It is, in fact, a symbol of Memorial Day and an acknowledgment of the sacrifice made by armed services personnel in fighting for our freedom throughout the world. Next weekend, our Nation will celebrate Memorial Day. All too often we forget the purposes of those celebrations, but Memorial Day is a very important day set aside to honor and acknowledge the sacrifice of all of those who have served our Nation and died in their service to our Nation. It is a day, as we will hear during this debate, with a long and important history. It is a day which began as Decoration Day, following the deaths during the Civil War of so many soldiers, a day, as we will hear in this debate, civilians went to the fields to decorate the graves of soldiers who had died in battle and decorated the graves of all soldiers, both Confederate and Union. Mr. Speaker, it is most fitting that this year, in this resolution, we would call upon the American people to make a special point of wearing a red poppy and of acknowledging the ultimate sacrifice made by our troops. Because this year, on Memorial Day, we will have troops in the field in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and throughout the world, who are serving our Nation and who themselves have been joined by soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. This resolution acknowledges the importance of the red poppy, which has been adopted by the American Legion and by the Auxiliary of the American Legion as the official flower honoring the sacrifice of those who have died in our Nation's service. It seems to me, as Members will hear in this debate, there was a time in our Nation when all Americans on Memorial Day wore a red poppy to acknowledge sacrifices made by our Armed Forces personnel. It has now become a worldwide tradition. I commend the gentleman for offering the resolution, and I encourage my colleagues to join in this debate, and I thank them for wearing the red poppy today. Some 535 red poppies were donated to Congress, and every Member of the House and Senate has a red poppy to wear today and on Memorial Day in recognition of this grand tradition and in recognition of the sacrifice paid by our soldiers, including those who have lost their lives in the recent battles in Afghanistan and Iraq, one of those soldiers being Pat Tillman from my State whose life was tragically lost within the last month. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this resolution.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the underlying legislation. I want to compliment both the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on the Judiciary itself, as well as the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce itself, for bringing this legislation forward. This is critically needed legislation. We face a crisis in this country in health care because of a runaway tort system. But the specific point I want to make goes to the next step in this process. Under current law, a law called EMTALA, passed by this Congress in 1986, millions of dollars' worth of free health care is provided at our Nation's emergency rooms across the country. It is provided because we have decided that someone who presents himself to an emergency room should not be denied that care, and so they must be screened and they must be initially treated and they must be stabilized. And I think that is a fair and balanced social policy which says that we in this country do not want anyone to go without health care; and clearly that is an important, appropriate policy that we have adopted. But I think there is an unintended consequence of that law. The law says that this care must be provided by doctors and hospitals for free of these emergency rooms, but it does not provide that they have to provide their own malpractice insurance to cover that, and yet the current law says if they are sued for malpractice in such circumstances, they must pay the damages.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I apologize for the rather disjointed nature of this presentation. Mr. Speaker, the point I wanted to make is we under EMTALA require doctors and hospitals to provide free health care in our emergency rooms. That may be appropriate as public policy, but the unfair context is that while forcing them to provide this free care, if they in fact are alleged to have committed malpractice, either the hospital or the doctor while providing free health care, they are on the hook for that alleged malpractice. It seems to me only fair that if we are going to force doctors and hospitals to provide free health care to anyone who presents at an emergency room, then we should either cover the cost of their medical liability arising out of that, which I have proposed in an amendment and in separate legislation, providing that free EMTALA care would come under the Federal Torts Claims Act or we should grant immunity. It seems to me to add insult to injury to say to a doctor at a hospital, you must provide free health care to anyone who presents at your emergency room and you must pay for the substantive cost of that health care, but that in addition to that, you must cover the medical liability that arises out of it. That is in fact driving doctors away from emergency rooms and imposing unfair costs on both emergency rooms and emergency room doctors, and I hope the Congress will consider that legislation in the near future.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is a second concern with an impact on the formula were the language of the current amendment, in fact, adopted. Is that also correct?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, as I understand from discussions with the gentleman's staff, the concern he has is, I guess, two points. One is not with PM-10, which I think the gentleman would agree with me that funds be used under CMAQ to mitigate PM-10 pollution at this point; but as I understand it, the gentleman has some concern with whether or not PM-2.5 can be mitigated with these funds as the Senate is trying to do. Is that correct?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?

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

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this amendment. It is largely a technical amendment. In our Nation we face a serious air quality problem with tiny particles of dust and chemicals. This particulate matter is a health hazard because people breathe it in, and it irritates their lungs and can cause severe respiratory problems, and we have tried to deal with it. There are two types of particulate matter considered by the EPA. One is PM-10, which is a fairly fine particulate matter, and the second is PM-2.5, an extremely fine particulate matter. Both are produced by vehicles driving on both paved and unpaved roads. Current law allows States to obligate funds under the Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement Act, referred to as CMAQ, to areas which are not in attainment for either, but it does not distinguish between PM-10 and PM-2.5. The other body has passed legislation which would allow funds to be allocated to achieve attainment on PM-2.5. My amendment ensures that States will be able to use these funds to achieve attainment on both, particularly PM-10, and also on PM-2.5, which is the language which the Senate has adopted. This language is absolutely essential because areas which are not in attainment for PM-10 incur significant costs in order to clean up their air and meet the standards for them and to curb emissions, particularly emissions of these pollutants from roads. Measures which States and counties and cities have to take include purchasing specially designed streetsweepers, curbing, paving, and stabilizing the shoulders of paved roads; paving, vegetating, and chemically stabilizing access points on unpaved roads; timing traffic lights; and using reformulated gasoline. Vehicles on both paved and unpaved roads are significant sources of PM-10. And for example, in my State of Arizona in my hometown of Phoenix, PM-10 is estimated to be produced from traffic on both paved and unpaved roads. In addition, my amendment would strengthen the position of the House in going into conference, as the House version of the bill currently does not have any language similar to that in the provision. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the offer that is being made by the ranking member, the gentleman agrees to work in conference to address the importance of being able to fund the cleanup of PM-10 particulate matter and ensure that the law continues to allow CMAQ funds to be used to clean up PM-10 materials.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, with that understanding, and I have always had a good working relationship with the gentleman, if the majority will also commit to work on the PM-10 issue and to work with me to ensure that funds can be used to clean up PM-10, I would be amenable to withdrawing that amendment with the understanding that it will be worked on in conference so that we can ensure CMAQ funds can be used to clean up PM- 10 materials, because that is an important issue to my constituents and, quite frankly, to all the States of the West.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With the understanding I have just reached with the ranking member and the spokesman on behalf of the majority, it is my understanding that we will all work together to assure that CMAQ funds can be used to address PM-10 pollutants as they currently can, as they would be then in the future under the legislation. That is extremely important to me and to the States I represent and to the States of the West.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I commend the Budget Committee and the gentleman from Iowa for their work. The Republican budget is, in fact, a very solid step in the right direction, and it deserves the support of our Members. I rise, however, in support of the RSC budget because I believe it is one step better than the Republican budget, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I cannot engage in this debate without commenting on how really sad it is that to too many people across our country this looks like a complicated debate with a lot of fighting back and forth about technicalities. Yet in reality it is very simple, but here is how it gets complicated. A few moments ago the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) said these Republicans are cutting, and he said GOP does not stand for Grand Old Party, it stands for Get Old People. But if Members listen carefully to his words, the first time he said ``cut,'' he wanted to induce the belief that the Republican budget, the budget put forward by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), was in fact reducing the amount of spending for the research programs he discussed. But the gentleman is a smart Member, and he was very careful in his next comment. What the gentleman said, and I wrote it down as I listened carefully, he said ``by refusing to fund the increases,'' they are doing this, this and this. That is the essence of this debate. One side of the aisle says fund the increase, fund the increase, fund the increase. And their fundamental complaint is the rate of growth we have had in this budget, 3.5 percent is not enough. But let us look at the history. The history is not a 3.5 percent growth, which it might be in the current budget. Let us talk about the real growth. For the last 3 years in America, notwithstanding the complaints from the other side of the aisle, we have not had a problem with Americans being undertaxed, we have had a problem with Congress overspending, and here are the hard, indisputable numbers. From 2001 to 2002, we increased spending by 10.7 percent, almost 11 percent in that 1 year. In the next year, from 2002 to 2003, we increased it by 15.6 percent; and last year, we said, wait a minute, we said, we had better slow down, and we increased it by just 3 percent. That is almost 30 percent in 3 years. What the RSC budget says, what the Republican budget says to a slightly less degree is having grown spending by more than 10 percent a year over the last 3 years, it is time to take a break, it is time to slow down. So the RSC budget does not say, let us freeze for 1 year, let us have a small, modest 1 percent cut in nondefense, nondiscretionary spending. Make no mistake about it, they want to raise taxes. It is not about cutting spending, it is about not increasing spending, which is what their budget does.