John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the inclusion of the Salt River Project in the Local Legacies Program of the Library of Congress. I nominated the Salt River Project for this honor because of the pivotal role which it has played in the growth of the City of Phoenix and Central Arizona. This nomination was a natural decision for me: my father Stephen Shadegg wrote several books on the Salt River Project, including its first narrative history in 1942, and subsequent works on the importance of the Project to Arizona's development. These books include: Arizona: An Adventure in Irrigation (1949), The Phoenix Story: An Adventure in Reclamation (1958), and Century One: One Hundred Years of Water Development (1969). In 1868, Phoenix had a population of 100 people; it is now the sixth largest metropolitan area in the United States. All of this growth was made possible by the development of water storage and irrigation facilities and, since 1903, the Salt River Project has played a central role in this development. In a desert state like Arizona, access to a reliable supply of water is literally a matter of life and death. The early settlers recognized this fact and constructed the first of many water supply canals in Phoenix in 1868. These early canals relied on diverting water from the rivers but did not include the construction of dams to create water storage reservoirs. This failure to store water proved to be a fatal flaw when drought hit in the 1890's. For three years, there was no rain and the rivers ceased to run. The population of Phoenix plummeted and conflicts, some of them deadly, erupted over the limited water available. This devastating drought forced the citizens of Phoenix to band together and create an organization capable of financing, constructing, and operating a water storage and delivery system. It required the highest degree of personal commitment: each property owner in the Phoenix area pledged his or her property as collateral to finance the construction of the system. In 1903, this organization took shape as the Salt River Water Users' Association, now a part of the Salt River Project, and became the first water storage system organized under the Federal Reclamation Act. Today, it is easy to take the necessities of life for granted, including the ability to get water by simply turning on a faucet. However, the laws of nature still apply and, in a desert, a reliable supply of water will always be a matter of life and death. Life in Arizona, Southern California, and other desert regions is only possible because a guaranteed, permanent supply of water is available. While the laws of nature should be self-evident, there are some individuals and organizations who refuse to accept them and instead advocate the destruction of the water supply reservoirs which make life in the desert possible. We are currently locked in a struggle against the willful ignorance of these groups and individuals and, while we are supported by the facts, we must not underestimate the zealous dedication of the other side. We must not allow such destructive proposals as the draining of Lake Powell to lead to a repeat of the devastation inflicted on Phoenix by the drought of the 1890's. As long as people live in the desert, there will be a need for organizations like the Salt River Project to supply them with the most basic substance needed for life. I salute the Salt River Project for its historic role in the development of Phoenix and its continued importance, and welcome its inclusion in the Local Legacies Program.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in Arizona and was unable to vote on rollcall No. 211. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in Arizona and was unable to vote on rollcall No. 212. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in Arizona and was unable to vote on rollcall No. 213. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I was attending my daughter's high school graduation and was unable to vote on rollcall No. 209. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I was attending my daughter's high school graduation and was unable to vote on rollcall No. 210. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I was attending my daughter's high school graduation and was absent for a series of votes on May 18. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on No. 202, ``no'' on No. 203, ``no'' on No. 204, ``yes'' on No. 205, ``yes'' on No. 206, ``yes'' on No. 207 and ``yes'' on No. 208.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gekas amendment. Each year, this Congress is faced with a government shutdown. Indeed, as an earlier speaker noted, there have been 17 government shutdowns since 1977. The last speaker made a point that it would be an admission that somehow this would reflect badly on this body. I want to echo what was said earlier by one of my colleagues from Iowa. This is not about us. I have great respect for the Committee on Appropriations. They work very hard at doing their job. They sort out the priorities and do it very, very well. But this is not about us. This is about the American people. Quite simply, the American people deserve better. They deserve to know that, if this Congress, working with the President, cannot come to an agreement, the government will not shut down. They deserve to know that they will not become the innocent victims of our inability to reach an agreement. Let me ask a simple question. I would make the point that if my wife and I could not come to an agreement on our family budget, would we stop feeding our children? Would we stop paying our light bill? Would we stop paying our mortgage? The answer is no, obviously we would not. Indeed, this is a reasonable proposal, and the notion that the budget would go on auto pilot and nothing would happen is ridiculous. What would happen is that we would debate the spending bills as we should debate them, on the merits in them, without a gun at our head and being forced to say we must reach agreement by a certain deadline or we will hurt innocent people. The notion of hurting innocent people should not be a part of this debate. What should be a part of it is responsible government. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Gekas amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate all the work he has done on this legislation. What we have before us is a purely political move by our colleagues on the other side to cover exactly what has happened here yesterday. Let us make a point, first on substance. The language of the motion to recommit, which we have in front of us, does not protect the trust fund. It does not protect the Medicare trust fund or the Social Security trust fund. What it says is that we will not diminish the benefit obligations. You tell me what ``benefit obligations'' means. The reality is the language we offered last night and that this House voted on last night protected the trust fund for Social Security, it protected paying down the debt, it protected Medicare, and it made sure that we did not raid Medicare over time. There were four certifications. This motion today is simply an effort by the other side to join us. I am glad that they are willing to join us. I am glad that they are not stripping this language, because the language they have offered does not go nearly far enough to protect the trust fund. Indeed, on its face it does not even claim to protect the Social Security trust fund. Last night in a vote on this floor, the vast majority of my colleagues on the other side voted not to protect the Social Security trust fund. They voted not to protect the Medicare program. They voted not to ensure that we were paying down the debt, and therefore they were willing to put at risk America's seniors and America's grandchildren. Today The Washington Post pointed out exactly what was wrong with their position, and that is, that it puts their bill, it puts conservation and buying more Federal land ahead of every other program. If they were genuine about this, why is there not additional language in here to protect, for example, education ahead of buying more Federal land? The answer is, this is a protect-your-backside vote on Social Security and Social Security only. And if it stripped the language of the Shadegg amendment last night, then it should, indeed, be defeated. But it does not do that. To their credit, they do not strip the critically important language that we put into the measure. They do not strip the language that Republicans adopted last night to protect Social Security, to protect Medicare and to pay down the debt by 2013 as this Congress has agreed. If it were not so, if this were not just simply to protect themselves, then, in fact, they would agree to allow this to pass on a voice vote, but I assure my colleagues they will not allow it to pass on a voice vote. Last night, we took the right steps, and I am glad that having read The Washington Post editorial which pointed out that the automatic spending in this bill was irresponsible, particularly irresponsible since we were going to have a downturn in the economy at some point in time, I am glad they have woken up and decided to protect themselves. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues that because this is a Pyrrhic and empty amendment simply for political purposes, I urge that we adopt the motion to recommit.

Mr. SHADEGG

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

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, let me simply point out, just to use their words, this is an attempt to strike the legislation, to gut it, it is a red herring, it is to make sure that no funding can ever be spent. The whole point, so my opponents say, is to stop the funding. They used the word ``kill''. They say it is designed to kill. They say it would kill the funding. Indeed they are prescient because they can read my mind and understand my intent. Well, let me make clear. This year the Secretary of Treasury could certify that, in fact, we are paying down the debt. We are on the track to eliminate the publicly held debt. This year, the Secretary of Treasury could certify and would certify we are saving 100 percent of Social Security. This year, the Secretary of Treasury could certify and would certify that we are not expected to run a deficit in Medicare within the next 5 years, and that Social Security is not expected to run a deficit within the next 5 years. All of the conditions set in this legislation are met this year. Indeed, it is very clear that this year, 2001, even if the Shadegg amendment is adopted, the bill's money will be spent exactly as urged. It is no attempt to gut the bill. It is about protecting Social Security. It is about protecting Medicare. It is about paying down the debt. This year, the money could be spent. It is not an attempt to gut the bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SHADEGG. No, no, no.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to point out that it does not stop that spending. It only stops that spending from automatically happening. The spending could still occur with the approval of Congress.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would point out that this still allows these monies to be spent. It requires a straightforward certification that these conditions are met before those monies can be spent. And it is a straightforward attempt to make sure that we protect Social Security, we do not raid it; we protect Medicare, we do not raid it; and, we stay on the commitment of this Congress to pay down the debt, the publicly held debt, by 2013. It is a straightforward and honest amendment that says conservation funding is still important and it ought to occur, but not at the expense of Social Security, not at the expense of Medicare, not at the expense of paying down our debt.

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

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the American people have spoken. They agree that conservation funding is important. I commend the sponsors of this bill on that point. But there is a very important condition. They do not agree that we should raid the social security surplus. They have made that position extremely clear last year and the year before. They want 100 percent of the surplus set aside. They also want to know that Medicare is funded and solvent. They have made that very clear. They want to know that it is there for their health care as seniors. And they want to know that the public debt will be paid off by the deadline of 2013 that this Congress and the President have agreed upon. Mr. Chairman, we are being urged tonight to vote against every single amendment to this bill. I would urge my colleagues, do not put their brains on hold. Listen to the debate. I urge Members to vote for this amendment. If they vote against it, they will hear from America's seniors. Let me explain why. CARA creates a $3 billion mandatory spending program to provide funds for land acquisition and conservation activities. If this bill is signed into law as the authors have written, this $3 billion will be spent every single year, no matter what. Under this bill, if Congress and the President do nothing, the money will nonetheless be spent. If the government is running a deficit and raiding the social security trust fund and stealing money from social security, then this $3 billion will still be spent on land acquisition and conservation. If social security or Medicare are going bankrupt, this $3 billion, which is what we are putting on auto pilot, will still be spent. It will not be set aside for Medicare. If there is not enough money to pay down the publicly-held debt by 2013, a commitment that this Congress and this president have made, nonetheless, the $3 billion in this bill gets spent, no matter what. Congress should support conservation, I agree with that, but not at the expense of our commitment to protect social security, not at the expense of our commitment to protect Medicare, not at the expense of America's seniors, and not at the expense of our grandchildren by burdening them with additional debt. The American people have spoken, Mr. Chairman. In a poll conducted, 20 percent of voters said preserving social security was their top priority. Ten percent said paying down the debt was important. Only 1 percent said creating more parks and additional conservation was important to them. Yet, under this bill, if social security is bankrupt and the debt is increasing and we are raiding the social security surplus, the law would require that we still must spend $3 billion a year on acquiring more Federal land and more conservation funding. It would not allow that money to be spent on saving social security or paying down the debt. The Shadegg amendment is simple and straightforward. It deals with this very problem. It protects social security. It protects Medicare. It says that the Secretary of the Treasury would have to certify that four conditions are met: First, that we are on track to eliminate the $3 trillion debt by 2013; second, that we are saving the social security surplus; third, that Medicare is not expected to run a deficit within the next 5 years; fourth, that social security is expected not to run a deficit within the next 5 years. If the answer to each of these four questions, and they are laid out right here, is yes, then the money gets spent under the bill. If the answer is no, that is, if we are raiding Social Security or if we are raiding Medicare or if we are not paying down the debt, then the money would not be spent before the Congress acts. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I point out that it has the support of the United Seniors Association, the Sixty Plus Association, and it addresses the concerns of the Concord Coalition.

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). (Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

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

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to clarify the intent of the amendment and the language of the amendment, which says the funds simply would not be automatically spent under those conditions. If the Congress wanted to go ahead and make the appropriations to spend them, then that could occur. It does not prevent them from ever being spent; it simply says they are not spent as an entitlement.

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

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending both the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), chairman of the subcommittee, for their assistance with this legislation. I also commend the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member, who has spoken on this legislation, for their assistance with H.R. 2647, the Ak-Chin Water Use Amendment Act of 1999. As both of my colleagues have indicated, this legislation is critically important for the Ak-Chin Indian Community. The history has already been recited. The United States Congress in 1984 established the Ak-Chin Indian Community's right to 75,000 acre-feet per year of CAP water. In 1992, the tribe sought the authority to lease this water for off-reservation use. That is a critically important issue in Arizona, because there is tremendous demand for this water for off- reservation uses. The Congress extended the tribe that authority, but it placed a 100- year maximum term on the lease, and this is where the issue comes, it failed to allow the tribe to extend into options to renew such leases or to extend such leases in any way, shape or form, setting a maximum period of 100 years. Mr. Speaker, this legislation corrects that defect by providing that the tribe may enter into either options to renew a lease or renewals of a lease for no more than the original term. And, importantly, it provides that the tribe may not permanently alienate the water at issue. What this legislation does is that it enables the Indian tribe to get the highest value for its Indian water rights and for its CAP water. Without this legislation, the tribe is restricted to only being able to alienate the water, or lease the water, for 100 years. As the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) explained, that simply does not meet the requirements of Arizona law, which requires a 100-year assured water supply. This legislation has the support of Governor Hull of Arizona, it has the support of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, and most importantly it is sought and has the active support of the Ak-Chin Indian Community. It will enable them to lease this water, or enter into a renewal or option to extend the lease of the water, for an additional period of up to 100 years. That is critically important to making the water valuable. It is also critically important to the development of the water supply for Arizona and for the community affected by this existing lease. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for their support of the legislation on the committee, again, and I call for its passage. General Leave

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the tax limitation amendment. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for bringing this amendment forward. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), his cosponsor. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) who has led this fight year in and year out. 1993 was not that long ago. Indeed, it seems to me like 1993 was just the snap of a fingers or a blink of an eye ago. It was just a few short years ago that we were standing here in 1993. Yet, why is that year significant to this debate? Because if we were to return the tax burden on the average American family to the level of that tax burden just 7 years ago, in 1993, as a percentage of our economy, every American family would get a tax break, would get tax relief of $2,500 a year. That is how much taxes have gone up as a proportion of our economy in just 7 short years, $2,500 for the average family across America of four people. Now, what does $2,500 mean? It means an extra $200 a month in their budget. The reality is, in this city, in this Congress, government has grown year in and year out, in good times and in bad times, the last 40 years straight. I believe the American people deserve a break. Let me talk to that point. What would $2,500 a year for the average family of four or $200 a month for the average family of four mean? Well, in 1996, we were engaged in a debate about tax relief on the floor of this House. Many of my colleagues said, well, the American people do not really want tax relief. So I went home, and I said to my scheduler, I want to spend an hour in front of a grocery store or drug store on one side of my district talking to people, and I want to spend an hour in front of a grocery store or drug store on the other side of my district talking to people. I went first to the east side of my district. The east side of my district is middle- to upper middle-income Americans. I stood there on the corner, and I talked to them about this issue. The first problem I had was to convince them that I really was the Congressman in that area. But once I got beyond that, their second concern was, look, politicians will never cut taxes. You do not believe in cutting taxes. You will never give this. This is just political talk. When I explained to them, no, we were really serious about this. On the east side of my district, they said, Congressman, sure we could use some tax relief. It is important to us. Almost 70 percent of them said to me, Absolutely. Give me some tax relief. But the important part of this discussion was what occurred on the west side of my district. On the west side of my district, we are talking middle- to lower middle-income and below. I stood in front of a drug store on the west side of my District, and voter after voter after voter after voter, citizen after citizen that I got to engage in this discussion, once I get beyond the, no, you will never really give us any tax relief, and got into the substance, they said, Congressman, if you could give us any break at all, it would make a huge difference in our lives. The people who are struggling to get by, those Americans who can barely pay their bills, who wake up each morning and struggle to get their kids fed and get them off to school, and the husband goes off to work and the wife also has to go back off to work, and they go through their day, and they come home, and they get their kids, and they struggle to get them to Little League or piano practice and get the homework done and get them back in bed, those Americans just barely getting by said to me, Congressman, if you could just give me a little bit of a break. What have we done to those Americans in the last 7 years? We have added $2,500 to their tax burden. We have increased their tax burden on those poor, working, struggling-to-get-by families by $200 a month. Now, what does this amendment say? Does this amendment say, let us give them a break and give them that $200 back, let us work, give them a chance? It simply says let us make it a little harder to raise taxes again. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.