John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Norwood amendment. I do so with personal experience in my own life, and with now 5 years service in this Congress, where I have talked to teachers, I have talked to principals, I have talked to school administrators, and I have talked to State legislators about this issue. I want to make it very clear, IDEA is a well-intended law. Indeed, it does a great deal of good. No one on this side of this issue would argue that there are not disabled children who deserve protection, that there are not seriously disabled children who need the protection of this law, children with Downs syndrome, children with cerebral palsy, children with other severe disabilities. My friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) is right to say we need to fight to protect those children, and fight to protect the parents of those children who are trying to take care of those children. But the sad truth is that there are other children who are misusing the law, who are perverting IDEA to protect their disruptive conduct. These are not Downs syndrome children, these are not cerebral palsy children. These children are not severely disabled. They do understand the rules of conduct. Their disability does not prevent them from complying with the rules of conduct. They understand those rules and they can conform. But my colleagues, the sad fact is, some of these children are gaming the system. They game the system by saying, I am disabled, and getting a psychiatrist or psychologist to say they are disabled, to protect their disruptive behavior in class. If my colleagues on the other side do not recognize that there are people in our system today, kids, aided by their parents, using IDEA to shield them from their discipline misconduct, which allows them to disrupt the classroom, prevent schools from having appropriate learning atmospheres, and destroy the education of other children, if they do not understand that that is occurring, if Members do not understand that there are children and parents perverting the system, and that they are disrupting the education of every child, then Members are not talking to the teachers in their district, they are not talking to the principals in their district, and they are not talking to parents in their district, or the administrators in their district. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members, this is a commonsense amendment, but we need to go much further than this. This is closing the barn door after the horse is out. We need to give parents, teachers, and principals the ability to control schools when children pervert a good law to use it to their benefit. I urge my colleagues to support the Norwood amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment, and I want to make it clear what it does and what it does not do. Project Exile is a very simple project initiated by the U.S. Attorney in Richmond, Virginia, and it is straightforward. It simply says we will have zero tolerance for two things: crimes committed with guns and possessing a gun when one commits a crime. The U.S. Attorney in Richmond, Virginia said, ``You know what? We have got lots of criminals committing crimes with guns and lots of criminals, indeed many of them previously convicted felons, who cannot possess a gun, committing crimes while they possess a gun; and we are going to adopt a policy that says we will tolerate that not one iota, zero tolerance for crimes committed with guns and for possessing a gun while committing a crime.'' So they decided to aggressively prosecute those two crimes. What was the net effect? Three hundred ninety defendants have been prosecuted in Federal court. But that is the shocking result. The shocking result is that the crime, the homicide rate in the city of Richmond, Virginia was cut by one-third. Let us talk about what this amendment says. The amendment says straightforward, findings about what has happened, and says ``enhanced punishment and aggressive prosecution for crimes committed with firearms, or possessing a firearm during the commission of a crime, are common-sense solutions to deter gun violence.'' Who can argue with that? We need to prosecute those crimes as aggressively as possible and should hope we can achieve the results that Richmond, Virginia has achieved. I urge Members to support the amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the proponents of this legislation who, I think, are pursuing a worthy goal, it is simply not true that we can afford to do this at this time. The theory says, trust funds should be trust funds. But in reality, we cannot afford this legislation. The simple fact is that we are dipping into the general fund for 30 percent of these monies. We are dipping into the general fund for $3.3 billion. H.R. 1000 will force Congress to break both the budget caps that we agreed to with the President and to spend part of the Social Security surplus. We simply cannot afford to do that at this time. I urge my colleagues to support the Young-Kasich amendment and to pass the legislation with that amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, right now airline passengers face an 8 percent domestic ticket tax; they face a $12 international departure and arrival charge; they face paying taxes of 4.3 cents per gallon on domestic jet fuel; and right now they face up to a maximum of a $3, by the year 2000, domestic per-flight segment fee. This legislation raises that fee. My colleagues, a tax increase is a tax increase is a tax increase. Fundamentally, this money is reaching into the pockets of the American people and increasing the charge on those who want to fly. Sure, our airports are economic engines and they need funds to operate, but the case they need these funds has not yet been made. And for many people the ability to take a discounted short flight to go on their vacation is vitally important to them. Why do we need to double this fee from $3 to $6 at this particular point in time? The National Taxpayers Union has written on this point and will score this vote, and they say there is no need for this tax increase. At a time when we should be cutting taxes for the American people, at a time when virtually everyone in this room agrees that the American people are taxed and taxed very heavily, instead of cutting taxes, we are increasing taxes. We are giving the local authorities the ability to raise the fees they already pay. Is the 8 percent domestic ticket tax not enough? Is the $12 international departure and arrival charge not enough? Is the 3.4 cents per gallon domestic jet fuel tax not enough? No, the answer is we need to increase it. Right now we will increase it from $3 to a maximum of $6 per flight segment. The cumulative rate will go from $12 per flight to $24 per flight. We in Phoenix, Arizona lots of times like to go to San Diego, California for the weekend, and we can do that for $39. If we pass this and they add on what they might be able to add on, perhaps as much as $24 or certainly add on $12 for that flight, then we will have taken a $39 ticket and raised it to $41, $49, $51, maybe even more than that. This is a regressive tax which is not needed now. I urge my colleagues to join and support the Graham amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. What the Skelton amendment does is not what was just described. What the Skelton amendment does is give an absolute blank check. Let me make it very, very clear. The language of the bill does not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Indeed, nothing in the language of the bill would in any way hamper the peacekeeping effort or the effort of our troops. What the language of the bill does, which the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) would like to strip out, is to say that the Congress has a proper role in deciding what our expenditures in support of the operations in Kosovo and in Yugoslavia ought to be. It says that, in subsection (a), the President cannot spend these monies appropriated for other purposes in Kosovo. But it says in subsection (b) that the President has to, instead, come back to the Congress and ask for a supplemental appropriation in which he specifies what he wants for the operation in Kosovo. That is perfectly logical, and I defend the product of the committee. It makes sense. It defines the proper policy and gives the Congress the role it ought to have. But here is the problem with the Skelton language. The Skelton language would delete subsection (a), taking away the prohibition, giving the President the ability to do what he wanted to do with those funds. But then it leaves Pyrrhic language which does not protect anyone. It says if the President wants to use those monies in Yugoslavia, in Kosovo, he can go ahead the minute he transmits a request for a supplemental appropriation. It does not say he has to get a supplemental appropriation, it does not say that Congress has to pass a supplemental appropriation. Indeed, any court reading the fact that this Congress had in the base bill subsection (a) saying the funds cannot be used and subsection (b) saying he must ask instead for a supplemental appropriation, and watching that on this floor we strip subsection (a), would read what we had left to say there is no prohibition. The President can do whatever he wants. He has a blank check. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Skelton amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, let me precisely explain. The gentleman is right. This language says that this piece of legislation would not authorize the President to continue the conduct of the war or the peacekeeping mission. That would leave the President with the option, which he has at any time, to bring forward a request for a supplemental appropriation specifically for the operation of the war. Then we could debate that issue, should we fund the war and at what level, or should we fund the peacekeeping effort and at what level? Nothing in this language says the President is precluded from bringing forward such a proposal, and I give the gentleman back his time.

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

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), and I want to compliment him for bringing it forward. But I also want to clarify the discussion which just occurred because I think it may have left some ambiguity in the minds of Members. Let me make it very, very clear. This amendment does not in any way prevent the President from coming forward in a straightforward fashion and saying to the Congress, ``I want and I request and I ask you to appropriate additional funds for the conduct of this war or for the conduct of peacekeeping.'' What this amendment does is say, ``Mr. President, the power we have in the Congress is the power of the purse. You have clearly indicated that you are going to proceed on your own within your authority.'' So be it. But we do have the power of the purse, and this amendment would say, ``Mr. President, you have 4 months to conclude the action, and then if in that 4 months you want more money, come back to the Congress and ask for it,'' and I think that is a perfectly legitimate role for the Congress to play; indeed, it is the role that the Constitution contemplates that we should play, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment for that reason. But I want to move on to another topic because I think there is going to be some additional confusion later in the discussion. Later today, on this bill, my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I believe is going to offer an amendment to strike the language in the base bill which prohibits funds in fiscal year 2000 from being used for the war. Specifically, on page 270 in section 1006 he is going to move to strike lines 21 through 24. That is the language that specifically prohibits the President from using fiscal year 2000 moneys for the conduct of this war or peacekeeping without coming back to the Congress for permission. But in a move which will confuse Members he is going to leave in place the following language in subsection B of that section on page 271 which creates the impression that the President will have to come to Congress and ask permission, but not the reality. I urge my colleagues to support the Souder amendment and to oppose the Skelton amendment, Mr. Chairman. The Skelton amendment appears to force the President to come to the Congress for proper budget authority for the conduct of this war, but it will not do that.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing a water rights settlement which was entered into on May 4, 1998, by the Gila River Indian Community and the Phelps Dodge Corp. As my colleagues who are involved with western water issues know, reaching a settlement to an Indian water rights dispute is an incredibly complex and contentious task. The parties to this agreement should be commended for their willingness to work cooperatively to settle their differences and for their perseverance in striving to reach an agreement. While the settlement which my legislation authorizes is an important step in the right direction, it is in many ways the vanguard for a much larger settlement currently under negotiation. These negotiations are intended to permanently and comprehensively address the water needs of central Arizona and the Phoenix metropolitan area while providing a final settlement of all water claims by the Gila River Indian Community. The issue of long-term water supplies is of the utmost importance to Arizona. Phoenix is currently the sixth largest metropolitan area in the United States and it continues to grow rapidly. It must have permanently assured, affordable water supplies to maintain its prosperity and sustain its growth. Any settlement which is ultimately reached must be crafted to ensure that water is readily available a century and more from now. The legislation which I introduce today provides a vehicle for advancing the process of negotiating a comprehensive settlement. I will work tirelessly to ensure that any settlement which is reached protects the water supplies of all Arizonans in perpetuity and acknowledges the primacy of State water law over allocation of this precious resource.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce three bills which will assist Indian tribes in their efforts to develop their economies. The federal government has an important obligation to the Indian community; however, simply increasing federal funding for various programs will not solve the long-term economic and social needs of all Native Americans. While the federal government has spent billions of dollars to aid Native Americans, thousands still live in substandard conditions with no real opportunity to overcome the cycle of poverty. Funds earmarked for Native Americans are in many cases being wasted by the federal bureaucracy. I believe there is a better approach. Rather than spending ever- increasing amounts of money on wasteful programs, Congress should promote real, long-term economic development for Native Americans. Let me be clear about what I believe is real economic development. I do not believe that gambling on reservations will provide lasting economic stability for Indians. While a small number of tribes have enjoyed huge windfalls of economic prosperity, the majority of Native Americans live in areas that do not facilitate profitable gambling operations. This is aside from the fact that we have yet to determine the true cost of increased gambling to Indian communities and neighborhoods surrounding the reservations with casinos. Because of my concern for the long-term negative impacts of wasted federal dollars and increased gambling operations, I am introducing the following three bills to help tribes with economic development by providing various tax and investment incentives. The first of these bills is the Indian Reservation Jobs and Investment Act of 1999. This bill provides tax credits to otherwise taxable business enterprises if they locate certain kinds of income- producing property on Indian reservations. Eligible types of property include new personal property, new construction property, and infrastructure investment property. The second bill is the Indian Tribal Government Unemployment Compensation Act Tax Relief Amendments of 1999. This bill clarifies existing law so that tribal governments are treated identically to State and local units of government for unemployment tax purposes. The third piece of legislation is the Tribal Government Tax-Exempt Bond Authority Amendments Act of 1999. This bill provides additional tax-exempt bond authority to tribal governments to fund infrastructure and capital formation. Currently, reservations are restricted to issue tax-exempt bonds only for ``essential government functions'' and certain, narrowly defined, tribally-owned manufacturing. By providing additional tax-exempt bond authority, new sources of capital can be attracted to reservations and may provide additional economic development. Incidentally, the bond authority would not be extended for the construction of gaming-related operations.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I applaud the gentleman for being willing to withdraw the amendment if he cannot get permission to fix the drafting error. Again, I want to make my point, and that is the subcommittee chairman, my colleague from New Mexico, my neighboring State, did do a good job of trying to craft this legislation. I think the bigger question is, how does it fit into a larger puzzle. That is the concern I wanted to raise. I would agree with the gentleman that I think the cattlemen in Arizona and the farmers in Arizona, they are in dire shape and they do need help. The least thing they are concerned about is space planning in the Department of Agriculture, and they are more concerned about the dollars we can get to them that would help them very much.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in support of this amendment. My good friend from New Mexico, I know has worked very hard on this legislation, and I know him to be a talented Member who works very hard. He is from my neighboring State of New Mexico, and I applaud him for his efforts. Indeed, I applaud him for his efforts throughout this legislation because I think he does a good job for the agricultural community, and this is an important piece of legislation which we are considering here today. I certainly support all of his efforts and all that he has done to support the ag community. However, I must rise in support of the amendment itself because of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. It seems to me that there is a proper time in the course of events when one can look at, how could we improve the situation at the Department of Agriculture buildings; how can we ensure their proper maintenance, how can we indeed perhaps strategically plan their use of space; and there is a time in the course of events when one can afford to do those kinds of things. But my belief is that at this particular moment, this particular allocation of $21 million, a little over $21.5 million, comes at a moment in time when we face some very, very difficult challenges, challenges having to do with the confrontation we face in the Balkans, the challenge we face in meeting our commitment to the American people in other spending priorities, and particularly with regard to our overall spending plan. It seems to me what we have done is, we have placed individual subcommittee chairmen, individual cardinals such as my good friend, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) in a difficult position, because right now, what we have done is, we have come to the floor to debate one of the 13 appropriations bills which we need to debate and which I agree we must, in fact, pass as we move forward; and I think we must pass them as expeditiously and as quickly as possible because it is our obligation to fund the government and it is our obligation to do that in a timely fashion. However, when we engage in that debate, we need to put it in a context in which we look at the entire spending pattern of the government. I am now beginning to serve my fifth year in the Congress and to look at our spending priorities, and I know that when I look back at how we have handled the appropriations process in the last few years, the commitments we made to the American people when we came here and the way we have on, quite frankly, too many occasions allowed the process to spin out of control and gotten ourselves in a position where late in the game, late in the appropriations process, we cannot come to agreement, and we wind up breaking our commitment as to how much money we should spend to fund the government. We come back and we break our word to the American people about what we are going to do in terms of putting a tax burden on them. I think we do not engage in this overall debate and have a plan and have each bill come with a measured response that will fit into an overall plan, and what we instead do, as it appears we are doing this year, is we bank on the future, bank on a windfall, bank on extra monies coming in and kind of put off to the side the financial commitments we have made to live within our means or to put off until a later date that debate; and all we do is create problems. Mr. Chairman, I stood on this floor and watched us year after year get into a confrontation with the President where he demands higher spending and higher spending and higher spending, but we have put ourselves in a crunch at the end of the legislative process where we have, in the end, absolutely no choice but to agree with that. I, for one, am very reluctant to ever again come to this floor, vote for a spending bill which puts us in that position at the end of the year, and then I have to go home and look my constituents in the eye and say, yes, we did not live up to our word. So I rise in reluctant support of the gentleman's amendment and in reluctant opposition to my good friend from New Mexico on the bill, because I think, on balance, he has done a good job on this bill. But the bill is a part of a larger mosaic, it is a part of a 13-piece puzzle. Earlier in the day, I raised the question of how does this bill fit into our overall commitment to the American people, because I simply think we cannot break faith with the American people yet one more time, on spending. Mr. Chairman, we have all kinds of rules back here. We live within these budget caps and we get to talking about caps and we get to talking about the 1997 Budget Act. Quite frankly, the people back home in my district say that discussion of budget caps is a lot of inside-the- Beltway gobbledegook that they quite frankly do not understand. However, they understand one thing. They understand fundamental principles and they understand hypocrisy. And we have put out a commitment to the American people that we will not break our word and spend one penny of the Social Security surplus. We have laid that marker down. Now, that is not some big notion of budget caps, that is not some law dictated by something we did 5 years ago; that is a very clearly enunciated principle that says, we will not this year, once again, raid Social Security. And yet I see us, because we have all 13 pieces of this puzzle put into place, risking that commitment. So I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

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

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. That is exactly right. The whole theory behind the Patients' Bill of Rights is between a combination of complex government regulations, and going at the issue of ERISA reform by allowing lawsuits, we can solve the problem. That is not going to solve the problem. Our legislation says, let us create a marketplace. If people want to buy a plan where the plan is less expensive because they have given up their right to sue their plan, let them do that. On the other hand, if people want to pay a little bit more for a plan and recognize that in paying more, they are getting the right to sue their plan, that seems to me to give them an option. In addition to which I think this Congress is going to move forward on thoughtful legislation for HMO reform which will not open the door to unlimited lawsuits. I agree with the gentleman, the last thing we want to do is create a litigation frenzy.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I presume he is going to discuss with us a little bit later some issues about national defense, and I will await hearing his topic and hearing his remarks. Mr. Speaker, today, on behalf of myself and 13 other colleagues, I have introduced the Patients' Health Care Choice Act, H.R. 1687. We are embroiled in a great debate about health care reform in this Nation, and it is appropriate that we should be embroiled in that debate, and there is a great deal of discussion about how we ensure that Americans get quality health care. But, as a part of that discussion, we have left out a big piece of the debate. We have talked a lot on this floor about patient protection legislation. I want to make it very clear. I do think that we need HMO reform. I do believe that we need to do something to ensure that Americans get the health care that they purchase and that they pay for and that they deserve. But I want to make it equally clear that the entire problem cannot be solved by a mega-regulatory piece of legislation which puts a Band-Aid on the current problems in health care, which addresses the short-term problems we have and ignores the long-term problems with our health care system. And be sure, there are long-term problems. The Patients' Health Care Choice Act is a bill that takes a long- range look at the health care industry and says that we can do it better. Fundamentally, it operates on the premise that giving Americans greater choice in their health care options, that giving them greater access to health care and improving the incentives for them to purchase and consume health care services in a responsible fashion will do far more to improve our health care system in America than a whole new set of complex government regulations that try to mandate the marketplace and tell businesses how to run their businesses. Let me talk about those three issues that I have just addressed, greater choice and health care options. Today, most Americans get their health insurance through their employer; and that has been a good system. It has enabled millions of Americans to get health care. But, regrettably, it does not give those Americans the kind of choice that we have everywhere else in the market. If any one of us wants to go buy an automobile, we have dozens we can take our pick from. If we want to buy a pair of shoes or a new suit or a new home, we have virtually unlimited choices; and this is a great aspect of the American economy. But one of the drawbacks of the health care system that we have in America today is that many Americans, indeed more than half of the Americans who are insured, are given two choices or less. And indeed many of those, and the statistics are disputed, many in fact get only one choice: Their employer says, ``You may have this plan.'' This bill, the Patients' Health Care Choice Act, says we ought to be giving Americans a much broader choice. Let them pick the kind of health care plan they want. Let them pick the plan that suits their needs and their family's needs. Let them shop with their feet and make market decisions about their health care. Now, how can we do that? Well, I will explain how this bill does that. But there is a second aspect of our health care system that is equally broken, and that is access to health care. Let me explain that. Beginning during World War II, many employers wanted to be able to give their employees additional incentives to work for them and they wanted to do that by giving them raises. The government, however, had instituted wage and price controls. As a result of those wage and price controls, employers were prohibited from giving their employees additional raises. So, the mind of man being ingenious, they came up with the idea of saying to their employees, ``We will give you health care benefits.'' And as a result of a ruling of the IRS and a ruling of the Tax Code, what we established during World War II was a policy which has driven employer-based health insurance. And that policy says that if their employer provides them health coverage, that health care coverage is a deductible expense to the employer. That is, he can deduct it from his tax return before he pays taxes on that tax return or before she pays taxes on the earnings of that business but, most importantly, it is excluded from income to the employer. That is to say, it is unlike wages, which would be taxed when received by the employee. Instead, health care benefits are excluded from income. Now, what has that meant? What it has meant is that many, many businesses offer very, very strong health care plans that have many aspects to them and give Americans health care. That is very, very good. But there has been an unintended consequence of that, one I already mentioned, and that is now we have got employers purchasing health care, not individual employees, and that is taking away choice, as I already mentioned. But another consequence of the current structure is that all of those Americans not fortunate enough to be working for an employer that offers them health insurance coverage are left out of the system. Let me try to explain that. If they are a lucky American and they work for an employer who provides them health care insurance, they are getting that health care from their employer and they are getting a tax subsidy because their employer's cost is subsidized. It is a deductible expense to the employer, and it is not income to them. But what about those uninsured Americans? Today, in America, there are 43 million uninsured Americans. How do we treat them under our Tax Code? The answer is we kind of give them the back of the hand. Now what we say to them is they are not going to get a subsidy from the government for their health insurance. They are not going to get a tax write-off. What we are going to do is say to them, we are going to punish them. If they decide to go out and do something prudent and take some of their hard-earned dollars and buy a health insurance plan, we are going to punish them because we are going to say that they have to pay for that plan with after-tax dollars, dollars on which they already paid taxes. What that means to the average American whose employer does not provide them health coverage is that their cost of health coverage is somewhere between 30 and 50 percent higher than their peer that works for an employer who provides health coverage. I suggest that that is absolutely irrational and insane. Let me make a point at this particular instance. In America, I believe we have reached a consensus some years ago, maybe 5, maybe 8, maybe 10, that no American should go without basic health care. If that is our belief, if our public policy in this Nation is that people should not go without health care, then how can we have a policy that says, if they are lucky enough to work for an employer that provides health care, the government will subsidize it with a deduction to that business; but if, by pure happenstance, they are either unemployed or they are employed by an employer who cannot offer them or does not offer them health insurance coverage, we are going to punish them and we are going to say they ought to go out and buy insurance but, if they do, we are going to charge them 30 to 50 percent more because the government will not help. Well, the Patients' Health Care Choice Act takes a giant step towards helping those people by providing a refundable tax credit for those people. It is a refundable tax credit set at a modest level, but its purpose is to put on an equal footing to create equity between those Americans who get their health insurance from their employer and those Americans not lucky enough to do that. What would this tax credit mean and who would be eligible for it? Any American who does not get health insurance coverage from their employer would be eligible for the tax credit. The tax credit would be set, is set, at an amount roughly equal to the tax benefit that employers now get, the tax subsidy that those who are employed now get for their coverage. All one would have to do to qualify for the tax credit would be to go out and buy at least a catastrophic policy. You would then apply to the government, you would certify that you have bought the policy and you would immediately get the tax credit. Is the tax credit difficult to administer? It is not. It works through the withholding system, so that you could withhold from your wages, or you would get a benefit in a withholding of your wages to allow you to pay for your health insurance as you go and let you buy that health care as you move forward. We honestly believe that is a giant step forward for Americans. I do not know how I am doing on time, but let me just finish with the last portion of the bill because I think it is critically important. The third piece of the bill is to institute some major improvements to both the group insurance market and the individual insurance market by instituting health marts, association health plans, and a new concept called individual membership associations. Health marts are organizations that are set up, and association health plans are similar to those, to create new pooling mechanisms so that companies could go together and create pooling mechanisms to offer their employees greater choice. Individual membership associations are a new concept in the law, and they do essentially the same thing, only they move away from relying solely on employer-based health insurance. What they say is that new organizations, like for example the American Automobile Association, or any other association, the Daughters of the American Revolution, in my home State of Arizona the Arizona State University Alumni Association or the University of Arizona Alumni Association, could sponsor a health care plan, pool together a large number of Americans and have a group health care plan called an individual membership association. Those health care plans would provide new pooling mechanisms and help bring down the cost of insurance. The last aspect of this bill that I think is critically important goes to the issue of choice, is that as I mentioned at the beginning, many, many Americans are trapped in one health care plan. Their employer offers them only one plan and that is the plan they get to pick from. Sadly, that does not give people the kind of options they want. The final piece of this bill, to encourage the creation of a market and to give people choice, is a provision in the bill which says that at the employer's decision, employees could be allowed to opt out of their company's health care plan. Let us say right now you are an employee of a company and you are being offered a health care plan. Let us say hypothetically after this legislation goes into effect, you say that you would rather go shop in the private market, you would rather go look and see if you wanted to join a health mart or see if you wanted to go to an association health plan or see if you wanted to join one of the insurance plans offered by an individual membership association. What you would do is you would go to your employer and you would say, ``I would like to consider opting out of my employer-sponsored plan.'' The employer would then calculate his or her actual cost of insuring you. In reality we know that younger people cost a lot less to insure than older people. So an employer might do a calculation. To insure a single young woman 21 years old might be as little as $850 a year. By contrast, to insure her counterpart, a 58-year-old secretary, might be two or three or four or five times that amount of money. The employer would make this calculation based on an actuarial basis, looking at the employee's age, sex, and geographical location, and come up with a figure. That figure for a young employee might be $800; for an older employee it might be $4,000. They would then say to the employee, ``This is the amount of money you have to shop.'' If the employee then went out and shopped and found a health care plan which better suited his or her needs or his or her family's needs, that amount of money could be spent by that employee to purchase that amount of insurance. Now, we do require that the money must be spent to purchase insurance. However, if you are lucky enough to go out and buy, for example, a catastrophic policy and have some savings, the legislation allows you to roll that savings into a medical savings account or a medical IRA for future health care needs. What we will have done by achieving this is we will have truly made health care personal and portable for those Americans who choose to opt out of their employer's plan. We, the cosponsors of this legislation, the Patients' Health Care Choice Act, H.R. 1687, believe that giving Americans choice will create the right kind of market incentives that will improve quality and bring down cost, and will do so in a fashion that will benefit the entire system. We also believe it will be tremendously beneficial to small employers with a relatively small number of employees who do not want to be in the business of procuring health insurance for their employees. They would have the option of allowing their employees to opt out and creating this new system. We have dealt with the problem which will be raised, the issue of adverse selection, by allowing the employer to make this actuarial calculation, so that people will not have a motivation to opt out of their employer's system for any reason other than they would like to have a choice. We believe fundamentally that choice and market incentives will improve health care. We would end the problem that plagues our current system of overconsumption. Right now, the current system, because your employer pays for the plan and you consume it, has created a great incentive for overconsumption. The average employee, understanding that somebody else or believing that somebody else, their employer, has already paid for the benefits, they tend to overutilize the system. I recently had a conversation with a leader in the Senate who indicated to me that he had recently had a conversation with a family member who had a cold. The family member said, ``I'm going to go see the doctor tomorrow about this cold.'' This leader said, ``Well, jeeze, why are you going to go see the doctor about the cold?'' The individual said, ``Well, I already paid for it, and it's free.'' Of course that is not true. They did not already pay for that particular visit, and of course no visit to a doctor is free. But that is the mind set we have gotten into in America, where we have made people not individually responsible for purchasing their own health care acting in an irresponsible fashion. I believe this legislation takes us in the right direction. I am extremely pleased that as we introduced it today, the House majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), was an original cosponsor of the bill and had some very nice things to say about this legislation. He said, ``I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Patients' Health Care Choice Act,'' and he complimented the tax credit provision of it which will deal with the problem of uninsured Americans by giving them a tax credit to go out and buy health care coverage. I am also extremely pleased that the American Medical Association, in a letter sent to me on April 29 of this year after having reviewed our draft legislation, specifically said, ``Your proposed bill will make a significant step in the right direction.'' I think that is because the bill does many of the things that the American Medical Association says need to be done. We need to make health care personal, we need to make it portable, we need to change the system where one person, employers purchase health care, but others, individual employees, consume that health care. We can restore the marketplace here, we can do things that will benefit people in a very positive fashion, and we can do that through this legislation. I am extremely excited about it. I am thrilled to have the encouragement of the AMA and of many leaders here in the Congress. I look forward to working on this legislation, the Patients' Health Care Choice Act of 1999, H.R. 1687, I am thrilled that we can move this kind of legislation forward to give Americans a long-term solution to the health care problem.

Mr. SHADEGG. Surely.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but begin by associating myself with the remarks of my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), from the other side. I thought he was brilliant, and I hope that our colleagues were listening. I have put up here on this poster a quote from John Randolph. John Randolph served in this body in the late 1800s as a Member of the U.S. House and then as a Member of the United States Senate. And he said what this debate is really all about, and that is that ``One of the most delicious of privileges is that of spending other people's money.'' That, Members, is fundamentally what we do here when we spend taxpayers' dollars. When we enact program after program and tax increase after tax increase, we indulge ourselves in that delicious privilege of spending other people's money. That is what this debate is about. This debate is about should it be easier to continue to spend ever increasing numbers of other people's money, ever increasing amounts of other people's money. Not our money, not our money out of our own wallet, but money taken out of the wallets of the taxpayers of America. Should we make it easier to do that or slightly harder? The answer is that those who oppose this amendment want it to be easy to take money out of other people's wallets because they enjoy the privilege of spending other people's money. But the sad truth is it is never enough for those who want to spend other people's money. In 1950, just a few short years ago, in my lifetime, the average taxpayer sent $1 to Washington for every $50 that they earned. Today it is $1 for every $4 and approaching $1 for every $3. It has become a radical increase in the growth and the size of the Federal Government and its tax bite so that people in this body can enjoy that privilege of spending other people's money. Now, what is it that we propose to do about it? We propose to do something that has in fact been called radical on this floor today, but is indeed not radical, and that is to put in a rational limitation on the power of this Congress to increase taxes once again. And do not be fooled by these constitutional arguments. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) pointed out, the Founding Fathers did not impose an income tax. They did not believe there should be an income tax. Indeed, that was not adopted until the 16th Amendment. So the argument that we should not have this kind of a constitutional amendment, and that the Founding Fathers rejected it, is simply false. Now, what is our idea? Impose a constitutional amendment that makes it slightly harder, a two-thirds majority, not a simple majority, to raise taxes. This poster shows that 68 percent of all Americans live in States where the same type of limitation has been passed. Indeed, 14 States, from Arizona to the State of Washington, listed here, have all enacted similar measures, saying, ``No, you should require a supermajority before you raise taxes yet one more time.'' It is not a radical idea, it is a commonsense idea. I was reading a statistic earlier today that went to the issue of this debate. It pointed out that the IRS sends out 8 billion pages of forms and instructions each year, the equivalent of paper made from almost 300,000 trees, and receives back enough paperwork to circle the earth 36 times. I could not help but be struck by the fact that what that proves is that, vis-a-vis the IRS, the beavers that we have just learned about who on the Tidal Basin in the last few weeks have chewed down one or two trees, maybe three or four trees before they were caught, they are pikers compared to the IRS. The IRS in 1 year, not one little aggressive beaver chewing down four or five of our beautiful cherry trees in any given year, the IRS with its 8 billion pages of forms and instructions each year consumes almost 300,000 trees. Maybe the IRS should employ those beavers.

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the cosponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). He has been a tireless champion for this cause. But as this body knows, this is a bipartisan measure, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) from the other side for their support of this effort. Just a moment ago I heard one of my colleagues on the other side call this a ``show boat'' measure. And just after that, I heard another one of my colleagues say, well, this is really not about doing the majority will of the American people. I want to begin this debate by pointing out that 68 percent of all Americans approve of adopting this kind of amendment. And as my colleagues might expect, that support is stronger amongst Republicans than amongst Democrats. Indeed, 75 percent of Republicans polled across America favor a constitutional amendment making it necessary to have a two-thirds majority before we can raise taxes yet one more time. But, very significantly, I want my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to hear this figure. And it is that 63 percent of all Democrats in America, in a recent poll on this issue, favored this amendment. This is not show-boating. This is substance, and it is doing what the American people want. Today, this year, tax day, the Federal Government will take over 20 percent of this country's gross domestic product. Of everything we produce, the Federal Government will consume over 20 percent of it. That is the largest proportion of our production consumed by the Federal Government since World War II. And when combined with the highest, higher than ever, State and local taxes, it means the American people are paying taxes at the highest rate ever in the history of this country. Indeed, it is now, I hope, well-known across America that, sadly, the average American pays more for taxes, spends more today on their tax bill, than they will in the entire year for food for their family, clothing for their family, shelter for their family, and transportation. Indeed, I think it is kind of interesting that studies show feudal serfs, who were identified as indentured servants, paid only 30 percent of their income to the lord. It seems to me this trend of ever-bigger government is something we absolutely must stop. This is not a debate about cutting taxes. This is, however, a debate about making it somewhat harder to raise taxes yet one more time. For the past 40 years, Madam Speaker, the size and scope of the Federal Government and its tax burden has grown. Year in and year out, in good economies and bad economies, it becomes bigger and bigger and bigger, and it consumes an ever-increasing share of a family's income. Indeed, in 1980, just a short 19 years ago, the average Federal tax burden was about $2,300. By 1995, it had more than doubled to almost $5,000. Now, the original intent of the Founders was to place certain checks and balances under the Constitution. Sadly, Madam Speaker, those original checks and balances on the Federal Government, many of them have been eroded over time. The 10th Amendment has been tremendously weakened. The commerce clause of the Constitution has been read by the courts to be much more broad. Indeed, this is a debate about placing some restriction on the power of the Federal Government, not to do what it is doing now, not to perform the important functions it is engaged in today, not to continue the programs we have identified. It is a debate about whether or not we ought to make it slightly more difficult, not impossible, to raise taxes, to increase the burden on the American people, yet one more time. And I suggest that the debate is simple and straightforward. For those who believe there should be a broad consensus in this country for yet another tax increase, for an increase in the burden of the Federal Government on the American people, this is a simple vote, vote ``yes.'' For those who oppose this and think it should be easier to raise our taxes, vote ``no.'' I think the people will judge what we do. For our friends who say this calls for the tyranny of the minority, I would point out to them that this country and our Constitution long ago established the principle that we protect minorities and minority rights time and time again in our Constitution and in our system of government and we should protect minority rights. We, as a Nation, do not accept, indeed we reject, the notion of tyranny by the majority. And this measure simply says we can have tax tyranny by the majority if we allow taxes to go up and up and up. And it does not repeal tax. It does not decrease taxes. It simply says we should not make it easier, indeed we should make it marginally harder, to raise the tax burden on the American people yet one more time. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support H.J. Res. 37.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by responding to a series of the arguments that have been made on the other side, and I suppose the one that I am tempted to respond to first is the one we heard repeatedly on the other side, that this is not a serious debate or a serious initiative. I have put 5 years into my fight for this legislation, I have worked shoulder to shoulder with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and let me assure my colleagues on behalf of the taxpayers of America this is deadly serious. Indeed I think it is vitally important to the survival of the Nation. Now let me talk about how they say it is not serious. They say it is not serious because it is a gimmick because it is brought forth on April 15. The date is irrelevant. Would it be a gimmick if it were brought forward on Election Day? Would it be a gimmick if it were brought forth on the birthday of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) or my birthday? Would it be a gimmick if it were brought forth on January 1? It makes it a gimmick because it is brought forth on April 15? I do not think so. I think it is a substantive provision which is appropriate to be brought forward on a time when Americans are focused on the tax burden in America. The opponents say: ``Well, it's a gimmick, and it's not serious because it has failed before.'' That is one of the most stunning arguments I have ever heard on the floor of this House. People in this room benefit today from changes that were fought for in this country over years. The Constitution itself says it can, in fact, be amended by a supermajority, and thank God we have in fact on many occasions amended it, and that is most appropriate, and none of those amendments have passed on the first try. So of course it has required multiple tries, and we will try again if it fails today. The opponents say: ``Well, if it was serious, they would have taken it to committee.'' In point of fact they know full good and well that it has been taken to committee. It has been taken to committee more than once in the past. Indeed this exact language was taken to committee last year. It went through subcommittee and full committee and was heard, and the amendment which the ranking member on the other side has proposed, which indeed might be a thoughtful amendment, limiting the rule of the courts, was not proffered when it went before committee last year; it was not proffered until it came to the Committee on Rules this year. Now I want to turn to another argument. My colleague the other side, the ranking member, has talked about de minimis and how this is a great legal flaw in this measure, and yet throughout this debate today we have heard that this is a terrible provision because it would freeze in stone forever and ever our current Tax Code. That argument is not genuine, it is not honest, because the opponents of this legislation know fully well that it is crafted carefully to allow tax neutral tax reform. Indeed the word that the gentleman questions, ``de minimis,'' is an attempt to say: ``Look, our goal is to make sure that if you want to make tax neutral tax reform; that is, tax reform that does not increase the tax burden on the American people, you may do so with a simple majority vote.'' Nothing in this measure would inhibit the ability to do tax neutral tax reform. Now let us talk about the Heritage Foundation study. We have a duel of studies. They have their study, we have our study. Let me just recite the facts of the Heritage Foundation study because I think it is very important. It proves that tax limitation works. As a matter of fact, looking at the States where it is enacted, tax limitation, in those States taxes go up at a slower rate, only 102 percent. Mr. Speaker, 102 percent is quite a bit, but only 102 percent over 12 years versus States which have no tax limitation; they have gone up by 112 percent. Spending? Spending and tax limitations, gone up. It has gone up by 132 percent, but not by as much as spending in States without tax limitation. In those States it has gone up by 141 percent. Fundamentally and most importantly for my colleagues on the minority side, the job base grows more rapidly in those States with tax limitation. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) from the other side pointed out, if in fact there was no constitutional authority for an income tax when our Constitution was adopted and, as my friend, Mr. Traficant from the minority, pointed out, he believes that pretty well establishes looking at the tax structure then, then it would have required a two-thirds majority and the Founders would have supported a two-thirds majority for future tax increases. But let us talk beyond the studies; let us talk about experience. In my State of Arizona, when we adopted this in 1992, our economy had been struggling. Since then it has boomed. We have created more jobs than we have helped more people. Now the last argument and perhaps the most telling argument proffered by the other side is that this will create a rule of tyranny by the minority. Again, that argument is a fraud. We do not have, and my colleagues on the other side understand this and agree with it, we do not have the rule of simple majority in this country. We do not in this Nation allow majorities to run roughshod over minorities. Throughout our Constitution 10 different places require super majorities, but throughout all of the rule in law in this Nation we prohibit majorities from imposing their will unfairly on minorities. Our Constitution protects minorities, as well it should, and that is what this measure says. But it is interesting. They say do not enact a supermajority requirement for tax increases, and what they imply is that we will require a supermajority to ever adopt any tax. But this is not being offered any point in time when there are no taxes in America, it is not being offered at a time when we will repeal every tax and say we will only pass any new taxes. We will have no tax in America without a supermajority to impose any taxes. That is not the situation. What this measure says is we have a very heavy tax burden today. It consumes 20 percent of the gross domestic product, and before we raise it yet one more time, before we increase it to 25, or 30, or 35, or 40 percent, or 50 or 60 percent, we ought to have a broad consensus. I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 37. We need a tax limitation amendment.

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

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman, who makes a good point, if they are not now, perhaps they should be. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague read the Washington Post editorial this morning, and I understand that the Washington Post thinks that this is a show boat. That is their opinion. They also say it is the view of the minority. The polling data that I have shows it is the view of 68 percent of Democrats in America and 75 percent of Republicans.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 472, the Local Census Quality Review Act, and in very strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). I think indeed the amendment may be well-intended, but I suggest that its author does not understand the problem faced by western States with vast rural areas. Let me begin by pointing out this is not a debate about sampling. Rather, this is a debate about creating the most accurate census, indeed a census that counts every single American. I strongly support, everyone on this side strongly supports, a census that counts every single American, and precisely because we want to count every single American, we believe that a post-census review is critically important. The efforts which have been discussed on the other side to consult with local government before the census are indeed good and worthwhile and supported by this side. But why? Why would anyone say, having consulted with local government before the census, before Census Day, we will not talk to them afterward? I suggest we cannot possibly get as accurate a count if we only talk with local officials before and not after the census. And let me point out exactly, and that is what the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) does, but let me point out the proponents of the Maloney amendment say, well, it is focused on new construction, and it is focused on addresses which are in dispute. Let me point out that in Arizona we have unique problems. In my State we have tens of thousands of voters who register without an address, who live in such a rural location, many of them Native Americans, that they register by reference to a map like this showing that they live 2, or 3, or 5, or 20 miles north of a given dirt road and 8, or 10, or 12 miles west of a stream, or of a ridge, or of a mountain top. Now that kind of rural situation is not repeated in the State where the author of this amendment comes from. I suggest that when we have those kind of rural conditions as we have on Arizona's Native American reservations and throughout all parts of rural Arizona, it is critically important that we talk with local officials, not just before the census to tell them what they ought to do, to tell them where there are pockets that they ought to go talk to people, but that we talk to them after the census. Now my colleagues should ask themselves, if the goal here is to produce the most accurate census, why would we want to tie one hand behind our back and say we will not talk to local officials, we will not talk to tribal officials about whether we have found people who register 8 miles north of a dirt road and 20 miles west of a particular stream as their home and identify that is where they live? Why would we not want to talk to them after the census is conducted to see if, in fact, the information we gathered is accurate? I suggest that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) indeed will not produce a more accurate census. It may produce a more political census, but it will hurt rural voters across America who desperately depend upon local consultation for an accurate census.