John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, secondly, a company may continue to make contributions to such an employee stock ownership plan, an ESOP, for purposes of meeting the safe harbor provisions of the nondiscrimination test established by section 401(k), and that such contributions would not be subject to the diversification requirement established by this legislation.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to clarify that the diversification requirements in the legislation do not apply to privately owned corporations, but only to those corporations whose securities are tradeable or traded on an established securities market.

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

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Reluctantly, I rise to oppose this rule. I am disappointed in it. This is a piece of legislation about which there is legitimate disagreement. Some believe it will enhance competition, and their belief is genuine and sincere, but others believe it will not. Many of us believe that it will indeed hamper competition and that we will have a further strengthening of the existing Bell monopolies. But that really is not the issue that is fundamental to the rule. The issue that is fundamental to the rule and the reason I oppose it, and I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to vote against this rule, is that it is fundamentally unfair. With this rule what happens, which is sad and which is unfair, is that we deny the opponents of this legislation a fair up-or-down vote. Now, it is true that often legislation is brought to the floor and that those who want to improve it are allowed to offer a manager's amendment to improve it. But in this instance that is not what is happening. Instead, what is happening is that the improving amendment is being offered as a second-degree amendment. That is a perfectly good structure in one sense in that it will allow people to vote on that second degree amendment, but it is not the norm, and it is not what will allow people to have a chance to vote up or down on an amendment that would call for true competition in the form of line-sharing. It is sad to me, it is disappointing to me, that the opponents of this bill do not get a fair chance to voice their view. Now, also under this rule I will note that at least two-thirds of the time is being given to advocates of the time, while it appears less than 10 minutes, maybe at best 10 minutes, will be given to those who oppose the bill. I believe that is another defect in this rule which we ought to be concerned about. For those who are concerned about competition, for those who favor markets, for those who oppose monopolies, and for those who support fairness, I urge my colleagues, please follow this debate and please vote against the Buyer amendment. Though its authors believe it will allow competition, it will not, in fact, do so. Vote for the Cannon amendment, and vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. SHADEGG

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

Mr. SHADEGG. Will you please read it, Chris?

Mr. SHADEGG. No. Well, read it right now, and read these words, Chris. Would you read these words? It says ``retire outstanding debts.''

Mr. SHADEGG. Chris, I would be happy to yield to you, if you would look at the words and insert, or the gentleman from Connecticut. Will the gentleman from Connecticut read the words of his bill and show me a word in there that says that it cannot be used to repay hard debts?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me the time. I spent almost a decade of my life doing campaign finance law before being elected to the United States Congress, and in that tenure I never advised a Republican Secretary of State, but I did advise two different Democrat Secretaries of State, and I want to focus on this language because I think it does matter. I am glad that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), my colleague, has acknowledged that we are going to correct or they claim they are going to correct this flaw, but all day long they have been saying it was not a flaw. Indeed, this morning, the heat of debate, oh no, this language is perfect, we would never do such a thing. I want to walk us through the language. I began today by calling the lawyer who replaced me as the adviser of the Arizona Secretary of State, and I faxed her the language and said does this language allow soft money to be used to repay a debt for dollars that were spent as hard dollars? She reviewed the language and in a phone conversation said to me, clearly, it does, there is no question about that. Tonight we hear that in a last minute motion to recommit we are going to correct an error that they denied all day. I guess my question is, how many other errors are there? It is interesting to me. I guess the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) now says that the two letters that were produced today saying this defect is not here, in fact, are wrong themselves. I am glad he concedes that. As a matter of fact, the first of those two letters says it is clear that under current Federal election law only hard money can be used to pay off a loan where the money was used as hard money. Well, yes, that is the law now but we changed the law, and he says under section 402(b), language that I guess the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) now disagrees with, that soft money can only be used to pay off soft-money expenditures. Except that is clearly not true, if my colleagues read the language; and interestingly, neither of the letters of those who propose this language offers a single citation to a single case making the point, nor do they point to any sentence in the bill itself; but my colleagues do not have to be a lawyer. All they have to do is read the bill. It is plain language.

Mr. SHADEGG. Oh, it is not ambiguous, Chris.

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, find me one sentence in here, Chris, find me one word, you can read English, do you have page 79 of your bill?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in strong support of his amendment. The constitutional rights of many Americans are being trampled upon by this legislation; but I want to address my remarks to a more troubling issue, an issue that arose last night at midnight. It is the language on page 79 of this legislation which does something shocking. It provides that in this election and this election only, you can spend money that you borrow as though it were hard money to expressly advocate the defeat of a candidate, and then you can repay that debt with soft money. If soft money is so evil, why was this language inserted in the bill late last night? I know that Mr. Shays did not write this language; and I know that both sides, Mr. Shays and his colleagues on the other side, have said it is not our intent to do that, and I have read the two letters they have produced to address that issue. But it is our job not to rely on our intent, but on the words we write; and I would urge my colleagues to read the words on page 79. They are very clear. They say: ``The committee may spend such funds to retire outstanding debts.'' It does not say outstanding soft-money debts, Chris. It says outstanding debts of every kind. I have read both of the letters that you have produced, and I want to ask you, Chris, if you understand that this language means that you can take soft money that you have on hand and spend borrowed money for hard-money purposes, you can advocate the defeat of a candidate with that and then repay it with soft money, something you say you do not intend, are you willing to amend this? Because that is what this language does. It will create a huge loophole through which $40 million of money can be borrowed and then spent on hard-money purposes to advocate the defeat of candidates this year, and then repaid with soft money. The letters do not say to the contrary, Chris.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Medicare Regulatory and Contracting Reform Act. Since I have been in Congress, I have constantly heard from hospitals and physicians about the guessing game they must play in order to be compliant with Medicare regulations. The paperwork that providers must complete both for private insurance and for Medicare is overwhelming them. Where twenty years ago, it was uncommon to have more than one administrative person working in a physician's office, today it seems to be the norm to have multiple employees handling claims. Like a punch-drunk fighter, our nation's health care providers are dizzy from the barrage of notices, guidance, and issuances from Medicare describing ever-changing policies and regulations. Worse yet, many of these providers approach the billing process with trepidation. Fearful that they may be audited or have payments withheld, many physicians downcode so as to reduce their potential exposure even though they legitimately deserve reimbursement for a higher code. Moreover, a simple, honest mistake, providers fear, will result in harsh penalties and send them into a regulatory spiral, thus taking them away from their patients. This is one of the reasons I was a cosponsor of the Medicare Education and Regulatory Fairness Act and support the bill on the floor today. H.R. 3391 provides important reforms of the Medicare system to streamline Medicare's regulatory process, ease paperwork burdens, and improve Medicare's responsiveness to beneficiaries and health care providers. I am particularly pleased that H.R. 3391 includes provisions aimed at improving the functioning of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, better known as EMTALA. While a well-intended provision to ensure that patients coming to hospital emergency departments are not shipped from hospital to hospital or ``dumped,'' EMTALA is now serving as an impediment to hospital emergency department access, the exact opposite of what the original legislation was intended to do. The provisions I included at the Full Committee markup include recreating the EMTALA task force, something suggested not only in the January 2001 Inspector General's report, but also in the June 2001 GAO report. Physicians and providers are crying out for clarification and guidance on how to comply with the myriad, confusing EMTALA regulations and this task force will be charged to work synergistically to make the regulations manageable. In addition, the bill on the floor today implements another suggestion from the Inspector General, mandatory peer review organization. Under current law, a peer review organization must review any EMTALA deficiency or violation involving medical treatment before a civil monetary penalty can be levied, but the same does not apply to those providers facing removal from the Medicare program. The Medicare Regulatory and Contracting Reform Act will restore equity by requiring PRO review in the Medicare conditions of participation. Last, the bill will require the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to notify providers directly when an EMTALA investigation is closed. Mr. Speaker, these are important provisions to address a complex situation--emergency department overcrowding--and I thank Chairman Tauzin for working with me in Committee as well as members of the Ways and Means Committee as we merged the two committee bills.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 3323, the Administrative Simplification Compliance Act. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I introduced legislation, H.R. 1975, that would have greatly assisted health care providers, physicians, health plans, and the states in coming into compliance with the Administrative Simplification provisions that were passed as part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). My bill recognized the difficulty that health plans, providers, and states face in updating their computer systems by delaying the HIPAA compliance date to the later of October 16, 2004, or two years after the Secretary finalized all of the Administrative Simplification regulations. Unfortunately, however, there was skepticism as to the merit of any extension. While the intention of the Administrative Simplification requirements is meritorious--moving from a slothy paper-based health care transaction system to an efficient electronic-based one--it is clear that health plans and providers will not be able to meet the deadlines set forth in regulations that were late in their release. According to a recent survey conducted by Phoenix Health Systems, ``industry-wide readiness for the October 16, 2002 transactions deadline is questionable--even unlikely. Further evidence of the difficulty of meeting the October 16, 2002 deadline for transactions and code sets found in an October 11, 2001 letter signed by the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, Council of State Governments, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors which stated ``State and local governments will be unable to meet the requirements of HIPAA under the current implementation schedule. Regardless of whether other covered entities-- such as hospitals, health plans, providers, and clearinghouse--except to be compliant with HIPAA under the current system, if state and local governments are not ready, HIPAA will not work.'' The bill on the floor today represents a compromise. The bill does not contain all of the provisions I would like. It is, however, an improvement over its original form, which contained an onerous user fee on Medicare providers, an idea that has been rejected by the House of Representatives time and time again. In addition, the compliance plans that covered entities will have to submit--something that will get entities to focus on how to come into compliance--will be less burdensome under the new amended bill. I still have concerns about the bill's effect on small providers, but believe that the exceptions we have included are sufficient to not punish small physician practices. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Hobson, Mr. Sawyer, Chairman Tauzin, and Chairman Thomas for their work on this issue.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. It is not as though there is not any spending going on.

Mr. SHADEGG. I think the gentleman makes an excellent point. Both the 1960s tax cut and the 1980s tax cut stimulated the economy. Maybe we ought to agree, okay, we will expand the size of the unemployment benefits because as long as you will also give us the tax cuts because then we can stimulate the economy and at the end of the day those unemployment benefits will not be needed because America will go back to work. Historically it has proven true. It is the direction we need to go.

Mr. SHADEGG. They not only do nothing, but what they are demanding is pieces of this bill, large portions of it, their latest demand is that half of it not go to stimulus at all and the other half go to stuff that will not actually stimulate the economy. We do not need a stimulus bill that does not stimulate the economy.

Mr. SHADEGG. Just to comment a little bit further, President Bush's economic stimulus proposal would, according to a study by the Heritage Foundation, create 211,000 new jobs next year. It seems to me that is what a stimulus package ought to be about. The key elements of that are acceleration of the personal tax rate reductions, the tax package we passed earlier in the year. Let us move those dates up. The average American understands that that bill passed but that the rate reductions do not occur for years down the line. And a reduction in the capital gains tax. That is a reduction that would affect every American. It does not favor business; it favors every single American because we are all in an investing economy right now. It seems to me as the Senate and the House and our negotiators begin to go at this issue, it is not just critical that we pass a stimulus bill, it is critical that we pass a stimulus bill that will actually stimulate the economy and create the job growth that will put America back to work, which is where people want to go. I compliment the gentleman and appreciate his efforts.

Mr. SHADEGG. It was almost half again as big or even more, I believe.

Mr. SHADEGG. That was a war year, was it not?

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me first compliment the gentleman and his colleagues for this important hour discussing these issues. I want to touch on a point the gentleman just raised. It seems that the debate right now has our colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying that any tax cut is being done just to benefit the so-called rich. But I would like to put the lie to that by history and talk about it in terms that the average American can understand. I would just ask the gentleman a question. Was it not President Kennedy, a Democrat President, who cut taxes in 1960? And is he not the one who said in his famous phrase, a rising tide lifts all boats? And was that not a reference to the fact that if you cut Federal Government taxes when they become excessive that you stimulate the economy and the reference to a rising tide lifts all boats was that it did not just help some, it would help everybody. It is not just going to help the rich or those who are currently employed, it is going to help everybody, at every sector of our economy. And that is our goal. And specifically to help those who are unemployed. I have close friends in Arizona, a close friend who has been unemployed now for quite some time. He does not want unemployment benefits. He wants his job back. And stimulating the economy. That is why I think it is so important. But is my history correct? Was it not President Kennedy that made those points?

Mr. SHADEGG. If I could just briefly as we summarize here kind of reiterate an important point in this debate, because too often things get politicized and we miss the issue, some people have pointed out that we have already agreed in the House bill there needs to be an extension of unemployment benefits and health care benefits. We need to take care of people who have already lost their jobs. But the other debate that goes on is a rejection of any kind of tax relief. I think it is important for the listening audience to remember that under both Democrat and Republican presidents, President Kennedy, a Democrat in the sixties, President Reagan, a Republican in the eighties, when we cut taxes, when they had become excessive and we cut taxes, we stimulated the economy, and, as President Kennedy, a Democrat, said, a rising tide lifts all boats. It put all Americans back to work. It stimulated the economy for all Americans. Every time I hear this phrase that tax cuts are just for the rich or tax cuts for the rich, it enrages me, because the reality is the way to stimulate this economy is to give all Americans some tax relief. That is what we were proposing to do, that is what will stimulate the economy, and that ought to be a part of the package and will benefit every single American, not just one sector, as President Kennedy said.

Mr. SHADEGG. For those of you who have been here a little less time than I have, I came in the 104th Congress and joined this body in 1995, and for years after that we grew the economy at three and four times the rate of inflation, grew the size of government at three and four times the rate of inflation, year after year after year. We were spending at 8 and 12 percent, year after year, and that did not stimulate the economy. Indeed, that government spending, as you point out in your chart, from 1992 to 2001, if government spending was going to stimulate the economy, we would have a booming economy. The reality is, to stimulate the economy in this kind of circumstance, you have to put some cash back into it. The way government can do that is by cutting taxes.

Mr. SHADEGG. It seems to me that this is an important concept for our colleagues and for the people across America to understand. The bottom line is that a stimulus package is not really a stimulus package if it just extends unemployment benefits. If that is all it does, it is not going to boost our economy. It may help people temporarily while they are out of a job, and perhaps we need to do that, but if we do not go beyond that, if we do not stimulate the economy by reducing taxes, those people are not going to get their jobs back. At the end of the day, the bottom line is unemployed Americans want to go back to work, and that is why it is called a stimulus package.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to the World Champion Arizona Diamondbacks. The 2001 World Series has left poets and historians searching for ways to digest where it fits into the fabric of great sporting events we have witnessed in a lifetime. Unquestionably, it was the greatest sporting event I have ever witnessed and it's bound to have a lasting impression on my son who sat beside me at game seven. The 2001 World Series explained why they play, and why we watch. The world found out on Sunday night that miracles do happen, they just don't always happen for the New York Yankees. Sunday was the Arizona Diamondbacks chance to be the ``Phoenix'' rising from the ashes in the ninth inning. The Yankees three straight dramatic wins in New York supposedly had the Diamondbacks demoralized and beaten. It was only a matter of finishing the series and collecting the rings. But ``destiny'' and ``momentum'' only go as far as your last game. The Diamondbacks showed tremendous talent and heart to overcome the magic of the Yankees comeback wins. The Yankees came to Arizona with seemingly insurmountable momentum. However, it evaporated in Phoenix on Saturday as the New Yorkers and their fans endured a 15-2 drubbing. The stage was now set for one of the most memorable game sevens in baseball history. The game seven pitching match up of Curt Schilling and Roger Clemens had all the makings of a classic duel. Both had Cy Young Award worthy seasons and they both dominated throughout the post season. On top of that, Schilling attributes his success over the past few years to a ``talking to'' Clemens gave him. Before the game Schilling said he felt like he was in an essay contest with Hemingway or a ``paint-off' versus Picasso. And then, on Sunday night, after the Yankees took a 2-1 lead late and appeared headed to their fourth straight world title, the Diamondback miracle happened: The Yankees had gotten the seventh game right to where they wanted it, with a one-run lead and the ball in the hands of their phenomenal closer, Mariano Rivera. But Rivera, virtually unhittable at all other times, gave up four hits, two runs, the lead, the game and the series. The Arizona Diamondbacks beat the best to become the best!!! The Diamondback victory really comes down to the overwhelming desire of great baseball players to reach the pinnacle of their sport. From the first day of spring training, rookie manager Bob Brenly and D-Back players, had a goal of not just getting to the World Series but winning the World Series. They never looked away from it and emerged from a very dark moment until the light of triumph was blinding. While the entire Diamondback franchise--from owner Jerry Colangelo to third base coach Chris Spier--played a part in their World Series victory, I want to single out two remarkable D-Backs who will go down in history as the most feared one-two pitching punch in baseball. Congratulations Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling for being awarded Co- MVPs of the World Series. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Arizona Diamond Backs and the New York Yankees for treating fans across the country to a thrilling World Series. Two classy teams rose to the top of both leagues this year, and they gave us a World Series for the ages. They gave us the pure entertainment of a great sport played at its highest level and got this country's mind off darker concerns for a couple of weeks.