John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this is in fact very germane. It has to do with the operations of the Federal Government. It is clear to me we do not need to see another Federal Government shutdown. It is important that we take steps now to ensure that Federal employees not lose their jobs, and that we not go through that scenario again. This is a proposal to assure the American people that we do not once again face the prospect of shutting down the Government, and to assure that neither side blackmails the other to ensure or to force increased spending. It seems to me that is germane to this measure. It seems to me it will place this Congress and the U.S. Government in the position that we all agree it should be in. The President has said that we should never again shut down the Government. He made that statement both in January, twice in January, and once again in March of this year. This measure, I believe, is germane in that it assures that Federal employees, veterans, Social Security recipients, all of those who depend upon the services of the Federal Government, would not lose their jobs. In addition, Mr. Chairman, it assures that we will not face a situation where one side can blackmail the other side into increasing more spending. It is identical to the provision which was offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] last week, and it takes important steps that this Government needs to take to assure that operations continue when we reach the end of the fiscal year. It seems to me that if that is not germane to this legislation and the operations of this Government, then it ought to be germane and it ought to be allowed to have a vote at this particular time. I would urge that it is germane, I would urge that it is important that we make it clear to the people of America that we will not ever again shut down the Government, nor will we allow one side to threaten the other side in a blackmail. It is quite evident that the President wants to use the threat of a shutdown in this Congress in order to force increased spending. I think that is inappropriate. This is a proposal offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] to accomplish a very important task for this Nation. It seems to me essential that we act upon it and that we act upon it now. Whether we send it to the President as a freestanding bill or we send it to the President attached to this measure, it is important that we assure all of those who rely upon Government services that spending will continue, that certain minimal services will be preserved. It is also important for those who pay the tax bill that we not allow spending to get out of hand, and that we not allow one side to blackmail the other into spending more money with the threat of a Government shutdown hanging over our heads. It seems to me clearly germane to this issue and very important that we act on this, and that we act on it now. What we were seeking to do last year was serious.

Mr. SHADEGG. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, this week Arizona celebrates Small Business Week and honors one of its outstanding performers in the small business area. On June 6, Rhonda McKenzie, president and CEO of McKenzie Telecommunications Group, Inc. [MTG] will be honored as the SBA 1997 Arizona Small Business Person of the Year at the Small Business Week Awards Luncheon at La Posada Resort in Scottsdale. Rhonda used her 20 years of technical, managerial, and sales experience in the telecommunications industry to build a company which generated over $8.3 million in revenues last year. Founded in 1993 with McKenzie as the sole employee, MTG, Inc., provides total turnkey site development services to telecommunications companies throughout the Nation. Today, MTG has 125 employees in five States--California, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and two locations in Arizona. The primary services MTG provides include identification of suitable real estate for the construction of client systems; representing clients at zoning hearings and community meetings; coordination of all geotechnical and environmental studies; development of construction feasibility studies; and construction and management services. MTG is recognized as fourth in the Nation among site development companies. Its clients are among the industry giants: AT&T Wireless, Sprint Spectrum, PCS PrimeCo, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, and Nextel. Small Business Week is celebrated annually throughout the Nation by Presidential proclamation. Each year, SBA names one outstanding entrepreneur in each State and territory: from this group the national Small Business Person of the Year is chosen. Selection criteria for Small Business Persons of the Year are: First, staying power--a substantial history as an established business; second, growth in number of employees--a benchmark to judge the impact of the business on the job market; third, increase in sales and/or unit volume--an indication of continued growth; fourth, current and past financial reports substantiating the improved financial position of the business; fifth, innovativeness of product or service offered; sixth, response to adversity; and seventh, evidence of contributions by the nominee to aid community-oriented projects through the use of personal time and resources. Small business is the backbone of the American economy. In Arizona, 99.5 percent of our over 407,000 businesses have fewer than 100 employees. These are the companies that provide the growth in jobs and the vitality for our State. It is in these places of work where American dreams are made. I congratulate Rhonda McKenzie for making her American dream come true and for her well-deserved accomplishment in achieving Arizona's Small Business Person of the Year.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, tonight is indeed an historic night. Tonight we get a chance to vote on balancing the budget. Tonight we get a chance to fulfill some of the promises we have made to the American people. While the committee budget does a tremendous job in moving in the right direction, we can do better, and indeed we have an obligation to do better. The American people want change in the way Washington works. They want a smaller, more efficient Federal Government, and that can be achieved through the conservative alternative budget. This chart shows it plain and simple. We made a promise to the American people to deliver tax relief, tax relief for the average family. Regrettably, the sad truth is that the committee budget cannot deliver all of that relief, but the conservative alternative budget can. The fundamental question is, are we going to keep our promise to the American people? Are we going to deliver for them? Do we recognize that they can spend their money better than we can spend it? I think the answer to that question is yes. We should fully fund the tax cuts that we have promised the American people and keep our word. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the conservative alternative budget.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise to join this debate and speak very strongly in favor of H.R. 478, as amended by the Campbell amendment, which has been accepted, and to speak very strongly in opposition to the Boehlert amendment. Let me explain my reasoning. We heard a lot of discussion about anecdotal information. I think it is important to focus on the language and the problem that is before us. Let me begin first with the language of the Boehlert amendment and make an argument and make a suggestion for why I think it does not do what is essential at this moment in time. The Boehlert language says that we could waive the essential requirements only when there is an imminent threat to human lives and property. The key word is ``imminent'' threat. I suggest we look at those words. I went to Webster's International Collegiate Dictionary and looked up the word imminent. The word imminent is defined. Two definitions. The first: ``Ready to take place.'' And the second, ``Hanging threateningly over one's head.'' What that means, Mr. Chairman, is that we would have to wait until the threat was hanging threateningly over our head. We could not do the necessary maintenance until the flood waters were headed our way. That is a serious problem with that language, and let me illustrate that. In my State of Arizona we do not have waters that rise slowly over a period of days. We do not have waters that rise over a period of weeks. We have flash floods, flash floods that occur in an instant, flash floods that come up within a matter of hours and rise instantaneously. This language would make it virtually impossible. We cannot predict a summer thunderstorm. We cannot predict the quantity of water that it is going to dump. We cannot predict it in advance. But under the Boehlert language, since we would have to wait until that threat was hanging threateningly over our head, we would be essentially precluded from doing the necessary maintenance. Now, let us look by contrast at what has been accomplished with the Campbell amendment to the original Pombo bill. I think it offers ample protection, ample protection for anyone concerned. And why? Why does it go beyond the argument of my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. Saxton], that it does not add anything in the bill? Where is he wrong in that? Let us look again at the language. The language says that the exemption would apply only where necessary to protect human life or where necessary to prevent substantial risk of serious property damage. Well, let us go back to the words that are being used. First, it is where necessary. It is not where it would be reasonable for the protection of human life. It is not where it would be good for the protection of human life. It is not limited to where it would be helpful for protection of human life. It does not even apply if it is desirable for the protection of human life. It says, instead, where it is necessary for the protection of human life or necessary to prevent a substantial risk of serious property damage. Again, let us look at the words and go to the dictionary definition. I pull out Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary and once again the definition of necessary is: ``An indispensable item or essential.'' We are not talking about just casual need or desire or reasonable or good or helpful. We are talking about where it is essential to protect human life or essential to prevent the substantial risk of serious property damage. That is what we are talking about. This is not a waiver, a blanket waiver any time anyone feels like it. And as one of my colleagues on the other side pointed out quite early, these issues get litigated. In this case, the litigation will focus on this question: Does someone just want to do this levee work? That does not cut it. Is it good to do this levee work? That would not qualify under the law. If it would be helpful to do the work involved, that does not meet the standard. If it would be desirable to do this kind of maintenance work to protect human life or to avoid a substantial risk of property damage, that does not meet the test. It is defined, as amended by the amendment of the gentleman from California, [Mr. Campbell], as necessary. Understand what necessary means. Necessary means essential or indispensable. That affords the protection which the other side refuses to recognize. Now, perhaps the arguments on the other side were framed before the Campbell language came forward. Perhaps we discussed the threat of a veto before the President knew of the language. But I suggest to my colleagues that this language does do what is necessary to enable us to prevent and to protect against potential flood damage but not to wait until the waters are literally rising. And in my State of Arizona, that is a condition which cannot be met because of the flash flood conditions we face. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, as amended by the gentleman from California, and to oppose the Boehlert amendment. Amendment Offered by Mr. DICKS to Amendment No. 1 In The Nature Of A Substitute Offered By Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank and compliment all of those involved in this great discussion this afternoon. Jackie Robinson played his first major league baseball game on April 15, 1947. That was 7 years before the Supreme Court's historic decision in Brown versus Board of Education. It was 18 years before the voter registration drives in Selma, AL. It was 16 years before Martin Luther King's famous ``I have a dream'' speech. And it was 18 years before passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was 1 year before President Truman ordered the integration of the United States Army and 21 years before Arthur Ashe would become the first black man to win the U.S. Open men's singles title. It was 16 years before Michael Jordan was born and 50 years before Tiger Woods, to the pride of millions this weekend, became the first black man to win the Master's golf tournament. Jackie Robinson and baseball were at the forefront of America's race relations. As baseball went, I am proud to say, so too has gone the country, slowly improving race relations and moving toward equality for all Americans regardless of color. Children growing up in the late 1940's and the early 1950's could look to Jackie Robinson and to his Dodger teammates and witness firsthand black and white working together, being part of a common team. And while there remained much progress to be made after Jackie Robinson integrated baseball and much progress still to be made today, a major step had been taken. When Jackie Robinson and Branch Rickey showed the courage to challenge baseball and America, to reevaluate American racial policy, they helped start a movement that continues to this day. While much progress remains to be made in today's race relations, we have made great strides in the last 50 years, strides that would not have been possible but for heroes like Jackie Robinson and others similar. I join the gentleman and am pleased to support this resolution and am proud to be a part of this effort.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, as the distinguished gentleman from Texas indicated, I did push this measure as an initiative in the State of Arizona, and it passed with the support of 72 percent of the voters. And like the other States which have adopted a measure of this nature, Arizona's economy has gotten dramatically stronger since we passed this measure. I rise in strong support of it, and before I get into my remarks, let me address one point raised on the other side. It was argued that this is a loophole protection act. Nothing could be further from the truth. This measure is simple and straightforward. Anyone identifying what they believe to be a loophole in our law, a corporate loophole favoring some taxpayer, can with a simple majority close that loophole provided that we return those taxes that were being extracted to the voters rather than keep them here in Washington. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple measure designed to make it slightly harder for the Federal Government and this U.S. Congress to raise your taxes yet one more time. Let us begin by looking at the tax increases we have faced in this Nation and the tax burden today. This chart on my left shows us that in 1950, the Federal tax bite required that an average family with children send $1 to Washington for every $50 that it earned, $1 for every $50. By 1996, the chart demonstrates a dramatic change. That figure is not $1 in $50 sent to Washington, it is now $1 out of $4; earn $4, send 1 of them to Washington, DC. That is a dramatic increase in the Federal tax bite. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, just since 1980, the tax bite, as this chart shows, has more than doubled on the average American taxpayer. In 1980, they paid slightly over $2,000 in taxes. By 1995, that figure was almost $5,000, a dramatic increase in the tax bite in just 15 years. Mr. Speaker, a famous Supreme Court Justice in the case of McCulloch versus Maryland, John Marshall, once wrote that the power to tax involves the power to destroy. And indeed, Mr. Speaker, it does. It is close to destroying the economy of this Nation. That raises the question that some argue that what we need to do is raise taxes to deal with the deficit facing this Nation. Let me point out that that is a false premise and that those who argue this measure will keep us from dealing with the deficit are absolutely wrong. The Joint Economic Committee did a study in April 1996, and it demonstrated that when we look at the tax increases this Congress has enacted in recent years, for every $1 in additional taxes imposed on the American public, we did not lower the deficit, we did not lower it by a dollar, we did not lower it by 50 cents; indeed, we raised the deficit. For each dollar in tax increase, we raised the deficit by $1.59, because we spent even more than we increased taxes. As a result of that situation, Mr. Speaker, along comes a reasonable proposal. And we have heard today that this is some sort of a radical motion, that it is not worthy of debate, that this is show or stage, or that this is not a substantive proposal. Mr. Speaker, let me point out, that is again false. Talk to the 80 million Americans, 80 million Americans who live in States that have already passed tax limitations. There are 14 States, as shown on this chart, that have already enacted tax limitations in their constitutions. They are listed here, Arizona at the top and Washington at the bottom. That covers almost a third of all Americans living in States which have chosen to pass a measure virtually identical to what we are trying to pass today. As we have heard this afternoon, the economies of those States are growing faster than the economies of States which do not have a supermajority requirement. I would point out that four of those States have enacted these tax limitation constitutional amendments within the last year. That is, since this last issue was debated on this floor 1 year ago, in April 1996, four more States have chosen to pass a measure of this type. Now, some argue we should not have a supermajority requirement in the Constitution, that somehow that is thought to be antidemocratic. I suggest that it is not and that, indeed, as this chart indicates, in the original Constitution there were seven such supermajority requirements. Seven times the Founding Fathers said this issue is extraordinary enough that we ought to require a supermajority. Three of those require votes here on the floor: For expulsion of a Member, for override of a Presidential veto, or for proposing a constitutional amendment. Three additional amendments have been added to the Constitution which have also put in a supermajority requirement, each of them saying that for certain issues it is vitally important that we not have a simple majority but that we have a broad consensus of support. I would argue that today in America, with the tax bite having been increased to the degree it has been increased, with the power to tax equalling the power to destroy, it is time indeed to say that before we raise taxes on hard-working American families and businesses yet one more time, we say let us have a broad consensus, let us have two-thirds of this body agree that it needs to be done, and that is what we have done in each of these other instances. It is appropriate that we do that. Now, many people have come to the floor and spoken against this measure today and have articulated their views. I think the issue was well summed up by John Randolph. John Randolph served as a Member of this House of Representatives and later as a Member of the U.S. Senate, and he said a quote which I hope every American thinks about and I hope every one of our colleagues reflects upon, Mr. Speaker, and that is, he said, It has been said that one of the most delicious of all privileges is that of spending other people's money. Mr. Speaker, this debate is about the right to spend other people's money. Let me just conclude by saying this is the fundamental issue right here on the floor, the delicious privilege of spending other people's money, and that is what we enjoy when we impose tax increases on the American people. Should we not say that that requires a broad consensus? Should we not say that given the other restrictions in the Constitution, which have been weakened over time, that now is the time to say that before we raise taxes on the American people one more time, before we do as we are doing tonight all across America and reaching into their wallets and taking more money out, that we have a supermajority to do that? I believe we should. I urge its adoption.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Let me begin by addressing a question raised on the other side about why this legislation is here. In his State of the Union address President Clinton declared, and I quote, we should pass flex time so workers can choose to be paid for overtime income or trade in for time to be with their families. It is here because it was in the President's State of the Union speech, among other reasons. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 1, the Working Families Flexibility Act. The No. 1 concern for two out of three working women with children in America today is the difficulty of balancing work and family. Three out of four of those working women with children believe that having the option to choose either cash wages or paid time off for working overtime would help them substantially balance their work responsibilities and their family responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, when I have the chance, I spend time with my daughter, Courtney, and my son, Stephen. Making the choice between fulfilling my obligations of my job and watching my daughter's swim meet or my son's little league game is always a difficult trade-off. But unlike many Americans, Mr. Speaker, I have that ability, the ability to make time for my family when needed. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, many American working men and women in the private sector do not have that choice. They are tied to their desk by outdated and out-of-touch Federal law. H.R. 1 will solve this problem. Today, current law makes it illegal for employers to allow employees to choose between overtime pay and compensatory time off. For example, if a worker in America works 45 hours this week and wants to take time off next week to spend time with his or her family instead of getting paid overtime, Federal law says they cannot, even if they and their employer agree that it would be better. Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case for Federal employees. Mr. Speaker, Federal Government employees are exempt from this rule. The policy of forbidding employees and employers from voluntarily agreeing to take time off instead of paid overtime is dead wrong and fundamentally unfair. It hurts working parents and families. One of our goals in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, ought to be to reduce excessive and irrational governmental interference in our daily lives and our economy. The existing Federal law prohibiting voluntary agreements for compensatory time off is a classic example of excessive Federal governmental interference in our lives. That is why we need to pass the Working Families Flexibility Act and remove this inequity. Under this bill, employees are given the choice through a voluntary written agreement with their employer, to choose to receive paid time off instead of overtime pay. Just like cash, compensatory time accrues at 1.5 times the regular rate. It simply gives the employee the choice. Mr. Speaker, I call for the passage of H.R. 1 and urge my colleagues to join us.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, I commend him for bringing this resolution forward, and I support it. Let me begin by pointing out that this resolution does matter. I sat on the Budget Committee 2 years ago when Alan Greenspan pointed out that if this Congress could balance the budget, it would make a real difference to Americans. Interest rates would drop. This chart shows that following the 1994 elections, interest rates began to drop. But when we failed to agree with the President on a plan that would balance the budget, interest rates began to go back up. This debate does matter. It is critical that we balance the budget. Mr. Speaker, I sat in this room and listened to the President announce that the era of big government is over. I sat in this Chamber and listened to him pronounce that this should be the Congress which finally balances the budget, and yet the budget which the President has submitted does not do that. I rise in good faith to ask the President to join us in this effort, and to point out that a budget which increases the deficit in the coming year by $24 billion over doing nothing is not, in good faith, an effort to balance the budget; that a budget such as the President has submitted, which results in a $69 billion deficit in the year 2002 when it is supposed to be balanced, is not a good faith effort. This is not a partisan fight. Both sides of the aisle agree we must balance the budget. I call on the President to join us in this fight, to join us so that we can benefit the American people by the kind of falling interest rates which will occur, the lower car loans, the lower student loans, the lower home mortgage loan interest rates that Americans would enjoy if we had a balanced budget. I call upon the President to submit a budget which does balance and to join in this effort.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I, too, came to the floor to discuss the issue of drugs. Before I do, I have to turn my remarks to a comment made by one Member from the other side. I have watched time and time and time again in this Congress, on this floor, and in television ads across America, a clear fraud and deception perpetrated on the American people. A quote from the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives that he wanted to see HCFA, a huge, massive Federal bureaucracy that has failed for decades to do its job well, wither on the vine. He wanted to see HCFA wither on the vine. I have watched my colleagues, one after the other on this floor, come to the floor, as happened earlier tonight, and tell the American people that that statement, wither on the vine, was said by the Speaker in reference to Medicare. No honest, self-respecting Member of this institution can come to the floor and continue to perpetrate that misrepresentation to the American people. The Speaker did not then nor has he ever urged that Medicare wither on the vine. He urged that HCFA, a failed Federal bureaucracy, should be replaced. I am tired of hearing it misrepresented. Mr. Speaker, last night at my home I turned on the television after having returned from a weekend trip where I attended two hearings on the problem of drugs in America. As I turned on the television, the camera went live from the TV studio to a location at an apartment complex in my congressional district, where the Arizona Department of Public Safety had just busted a metamphetamine lab in a large complex of apartments. They detailed the danger to the other residents and the fact that the operator of that metamphetamine lab had himself been arrested on the exact same charge just 2 weeks earlier. My colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder], has pointed out that the issue of illegal drugs is one that is not new, nor is it being brought forth just for its political points. Rather, it is an issue that our committee, the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, under the leadership of the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Zeliff], has been aggressively pursuing since the beginning of this Congress. But I must tell the Members, we have so much more to do, and I am so distressed by what has happened. I hope America is listening. I hope they are paying attention. I hope they will cut through the fog of those who say this is just politics. Mr. Speaker, let me bring you some facts. Drug use among American teenagers since 1992 has doubled in America. Overall drug use surged in 1 year, from 1994 to 1995, by a full 33 percent. That is a one-third increase in a single year. Since 1992, 3 years ago, it has increased by 105 percent. Yet, in the face of these staggering statistics, what has the White House said? The White House said that this issue should not be politicized. I agree. The issue of drug use, its terrorization of our children, the testimony that I heard this weekend in Los Angeles County, CA, about the music industry and the entertainment industry and their casual attitude toward drug use in America, indeed, their promotion in movies and records of the drug lifestyle, should not be politicized. The evidence I heard in San Luis Obispo at a hearing sponsored by my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, Andrea Seastrand, where witness after witness from the DEA in Los Angeles, from the DEA in San Francisco, from the Border Patrol in San Diego, from the FBI, from the San Luis Obispo County sheriff's office about the fight they are in for the survival of this Nation and for the lives of our children against the war of drugs being waged on America should not be politicized. Yet, we ought to look at this issue. The President, who says we should not make drugs a political issue, who says they should not be politicized, in February, 1993, eliminated on his own, 83 percent of the staff of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The President says we should not now politicize the issue of drugs. In his fiscal year 1995 budget he called for eliminating 621 drug enforcement agents at the DEA, the FBI, the INS, the Customs Service, and the Coast Guard. The same administration which now says, in the face of the staggering increase of drug usage by our children at every age level and among every drug, it should not be politicized, issued an executive order early in his administration which eliminated nearly 1,000 antidrug positions in our U.S. military. The same President who now says we should not politicize the drug issue in his fiscal year 1997 budget proposal reduced drug ring interdiction spending, proposed that it be reduced by an additional 25 percent. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the testimony in San Luis Obispo, testimony by the special agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration in San Francisco, Mr. William Mitchell, that marijuana is today the No. 1 cash crop in the State of California. When questioned by myself and others on the panel if that was a factual statement, he said, absolutely, it is the No. 1 drug problem, drug cash crop in the State of California. This is a serious problem. I commend those who testified, and I urge our Nation to take a stand against the continued plague of illegal drugs in our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the testimony before the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. If the gentleman will yield, let me just make this point. If Mr. Stephanopoulos said this, ``For this President, words are actions,'' it pretty well defines the situation. I guess then saying that we should end welfare as we know it means that you have ended it. And yet in the first 3 years of this administration, nothing changed for America, not until the rubber hit the road, not until the votes were cast on the floor of this House to actually change the welfare system as written in the law did anything meaningful ever happen. I would like to add one point to that. The victory, while it may been driven in part by the freshman class, as our colleague from Georgia has just pointed out, it was really driven by Main Street, America. This today was and is, and I guess we can claim victory today because the President has come forward and to his credit he has said he will sign this bill, that is victory for Main Street, America, because the values that freshmen have been advocating, the ideas of changing welfare to make it work for all Americans, those in the system and those paying for the system, those ideas came not from freshmen, they came from Main Street, America. They came from the people that we went to and asked what they wanted to see happen in this country and they want change. That is the point.

Mr. SHADEGG. No apology necessary, Mr. Speaker. I am just pleased to join you all in celebrating what I think is a great victory for America today. Today really is not a day for partisanship, it is a day for celebration. The truth is all across America, Americans understand that the welfare system we have, though well-intended, simply is not working. It is not working for the Americans that are at work and paying taxes, now paying taxes of close to half of their income, supporting those people. It is not working for them. But even more importantly, the welfare system that we have created in this Nation, out of a desire to help our fellow man and our fellow women and the poor children in this country, simply is not benefiting them. I think the beauty of it, and it is well put in the gentleman's quote about the young boy who says, ``Now I can say that my mother has a job, or is not on welfare any longer,'' is the benefit for those people who are right now trapped in the system. In a way, God created us to respond to incentives. The incentives in the current system are very bad. The incentives encourage people not to go back to work. They encourage people to have multiple illegitimate births. They encourage people to engage in lifestyles which are self- destructive. All Americans recognize that there ought to be a safety net there to help those in need, but the safety net we have built has become not only a safety net but a trap. People try to climb out of that net and are caught up in it. Indeed, they spend way too long in it. It destroys them, it destroys their self-respect, and it destroys their families. What we have done with this welfare bill, and I commend the President. I do not really care what his reasons are. He opposed it twice before. Now he has joined us. The bottom line point is we are going to make America better. We are fulfilling his promise to end welfare as we know it, because way back 3 years ago when he made that promise Americans understood welfare as we know it was a failure. Now we are embarked on a program which will redesign welfare in America to help those that need help, but not just help them at their down point in their lives, help them get back into the job market, help them make themselves productive citizens again, help them attain back that point in their lives when they can respect what they do and when they can feel good about it, and when they can hold their head high and become participants in this economy and in the great experiment which is America, which is that we are going to reward initiative, that we are going to reward hard work. That is what this Nation was built on. We have been cutting a whole block of Americans out from under that dream, saying to them, ``No, you really cannot work. We know you are not able to work, so we are going to take care of you.'' That is not an answer, and that is not giving them hope, it is not giving them a future. I just think it is a tremendous day to celebrate the fact that we are in fact revising a failed system and making the Nation better, not only for the people trapped in the system but for those of us who are picking up the tab, as well.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Harold Webster Wales, a longtime friend of mine from the district I represent. I am usually reluctant to single anyone out from my district for praise because there are many outstanding citizens in the Fourth District of Arizona. However, Hal's expertise in tax law inspired and encouraged me to take actions to ease the burden our tax system places on small businesses and American families. Harold Webster Wales was born June 23, 1928, in Seattle, WA, and passed away in Phoenix, AZ, on June 1, 1996. Hal was an Air Force veteran, who served his country honorably. He graduated cum laude from Seattle University with a degree in accounting and received his juris doctorate from the University of San Francisco. Admitted to the California and Arizona bars, Hal practiced extensively as a tax and estate planning attorney. He was a recognized authority in these fields, lecturing widely on matters of estate planning, income tax, and charitable organizations. A member of professional organizations, Hal was active in the community both in his professional and civic life. He was president of the Central Arizona Estate Planning Council, president of the Catholic Social Service, and Arizona chairman of the National Foundation for the March of Dimes. Additionally, Hal served as a board member of the Garsky Wellness Foundation and Camelback Hospital as well as a finance committee member of the Marie Academy and St. Thomas the Apostle Church. I have always been concerned by the inequities contained within the current Tax Code. However, when I met with Hal last February he spoke of his clients--honest hardworking Arizonans who were being victimized as a result of overburdensome tax regulations and penalties. These tax horror stories as well as his great knowledge and understanding of these issues prompted me to host a public hearing into the subject at the Phoenix City Council chambers on April 3, 1996. His participation and guidance helped me make this hearing a success. Hal's greatest legacy is his family--his wife, Dorothy; two daughters, Lissa and Mary, grandson, Andrew, three sisters, Joan Wales, Shirley Hoctor, Duane Jones; his brother Bill, and aunt, Betty Spence. My most sincere condolences go out to them on this sad occasion. Mr. Speaker, I plan to continue to fight to reform our Nation's tax system. Whatever success we may achieve will be a result of the tireless effort and wisdom Hal brought to this issue. I owe a great debt to Hal for his knowledge and friendship. His death is a personal loss to me and to the citizens of the Fourth District of Arizona.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Corburn].

Mr. SHADEGG. Perhaps the gentleman was absent from the floor and does not understand the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I think the testimony of the last speaker points out a fundamental disagreement. His premise is that without government funding of this National Endowment, we will forget our history and we will forget our ideas. That is simply wrong, and it is a fundamental disagreement between this side and that side. I would remind the gentleman that before 1965, when the National Endowment for the Humanities was established, we were not forgetting our ideas or our history, nor were we underfunding the research in those areas. I suggest the gentleman's assertion that we need to do this in the Federal Government is simply wrong. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the reference I make is to the fact that many members of this committee, in opposing the Chabot amendment last year, which would have zeroed the funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities, took to the floor and said they supported the position of phasing out the funding over a 3-year period. I have their testimony here from that debate a year ago. Those committee members stood and said, I agree, we should phase it out over 3 years, I can read the gentleman their testimony, and on that basis oppose the elimination over a 1-year period. For that reason my amendment simply proposes to keep pace with a phaseout over three years and not to eliminate in 1 year.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, you are quite correct. No formal agreement was instituted between the parties on precisely how we would phase out.

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

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last year this Congress made a commitment to fulfill its obligation to balance the Federal budget. We face a $5.2 trillion debt and a $153 billion deficit. Our commitment was to reduce the subsidy that we provide to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. I rise to offer an amendment which fulfills that commitment. Last year former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett testified before this Congress that we should eliminate the funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities. And former Secretary Lynne Cheney, who headed the National Endowment for the Humanities, also has called for an ending of this Federal subsidy of the humanities. Many Members of this Congress, Mr. Chairman, campaigned on a promise to balance the Federal budget and to end spending in areas where we cannot afford to continue to spend. As worthy as support of the humanities may be, and this is not about that issue, we simply can no longer afford to continue to subsidize the humanities. My amendment takes a modest step in that direction. It fulfills the promise we made last year. The bill before us makes a mere 5 percent cut in the funding for National Endowment for the Humanities. At that rate, Mr. Chairman, it will take us 19 years to fulfill our promise to end the subsidy to the National Endowment for the Humanities. Instead of doing that, this amendment offers an increase in that figure. It is a 12-percent reduction in the funding and the subsidy by the Federal Government to the National Endowment for the Humanities. The current subsidy is $110.5 million a year. The bill would reduce that by a mere $6 million a year, taking the figure to $104.25 million. That is a reduction of only, as I said, 5 percent. Instead of that, I suggested we make more progress on fulfilling our promise to phase out this Federal subsidy of the humanities. We cannot achieve it at the pace we are pursuing. Therefore, this amendment cuts $12.9 million. It is important, Mr. Chairman, to note that this cut of $12.9 million is taken from administration and grants, but is not, Mr. Chairman, taken from State grants. That is, it would come totally out of the Federal portion and would not reduce the amount of the subsidy which the Federal Government provides to the various States for the humanities. This is a modest proposal which, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, is desperately needed. It fulfills a promise we made to the American people to end the subsidization of the humanities. I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that during the debate last year, the concern was that the money would not be there to support the humanities if the Federal Government did not do that. In fact, the facts are quite to the contrary. Just within the last few months, Philanthropy News Digest has reported more than $50 million given by foundations to support the humanities in America. Mr. Chairman, the debate is not about the importance of the humanities to our culture. The debate is about whether or not we can afford to continue to subsidize at the Federal level the National Endowment for the Humanities when the private sector is clearly fulfilling that obligation. I urge my colleagues to join me and to support this modest amendment to keep our promise, the promise agreed to that we would phase out funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities, that is, the Federal subsidy, over a period of 3 years. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] for setting the record straight with regard to the amendment. It does propose simply a modest cut. Mr. Chairman, it appalls me. Too many people on the floor of this Congress fail to understand the power of taxation. The power of taxation is the power to put a gun at the heads of the American people and take money from them. The average American in this Nation earns somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000 a year. For us to be taking money from them to subsidize the National Endowment for the Humanities, when we face a $153 billion deficit and a $5.2 trillion deficit and when funding from the private sector is abundant, $50 million in funding just in the last few years, Mr. Chairman; by 1992 there were 36,000 philanthropic foundations with $176.8 billion in assets and $10.2 billion in grants in this country for the humanities. I suggest we cannot continue to subsidize the humanities, and this is a reasonable proposal that keeps us on schedule with a 3-year phaseout, the kind of agreement we made with this Nation. It is not a radical proposal to aliminate the funding for this, even though a case can be made for that. It is, rather, a suggestion that we keep faith with the American people and we quit using the gun at their head to redistribute income for worthy purposes like the humanities, when the private sector can, Mr. Chairman, and is doing it. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].