John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. We do indeed have a two-thirds majority for all tax increases.

Mr. SHADEGG. I would just like to commend the gentleman from Texas, actually all three gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, Mr. Pete Geren, and Mr. Hall, who have shown great leadership here. I think I heard Mr. Hall recite that whether we passed it today or not, if in the unlikely chance we do not pass this measure today, he had great confidence that we would be here carrying this fight forward in the future, and, for the reasons that Mr. Pete Geren pointed out, I indeed, so long as I am a Member of this body, until we are successful in this effort, will be here to fight for it precisely for the reason he pointed out, and it is the reason shown on the chart just to your side, and that is job creation. This measure will aid the American economy. It is wonderful that we have 10 States to look to which have had experience with a supermajority for tax increases; that is, with making it slightly harder to raise our taxes again. And that experience teaches us; it teaches us that the economy and those States where they have made it a little harder to raise taxes, as we propose to do here today for the Nation, have grown at a significantly faster pace, over 40 percent versus under 30 percent. Now, in the discussion beforehand, and the gentleman might recall that our colleague from Virginia, Mr. Moran exercised some great concern about whether or not it would be possible to ever muster the two-thirds majority that this measure would require for a tax increase. Well, the history shows that while it may indeed be and should be somewhat more difficult, our goal is not here today to make it impossible to raise taxes, and I would just like to point out that on at least four recent occasions more than a two-thirds majority has been mustered for a tax increase, both here in the House and also in the Senate. The Tax Adjustment Act of 1966 got 74 percent of the Members of the House in its support and 94 percent of the Members of the Senate. The Interest Equalization Tax Extension Act of 1967 got 73 percent of the Members of the House to support it and a similar number in the Senate. In 1989 the Senate passed by a vote of 93 percent of the Members and the House passed by a vote of 58 percent of the members the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989. But the most compelling example of where a supermajority was accorded is what is now the infamous or famous Tax Reform Act of 1986. That probably is one of the best known tax revisions in this Nation's history, and that measure in its final version passed this Congress in 1986 by a vote of 292 to 136 in the House and by a vote of 74 to 23 in the Senate. So for those who say that a two-thirds barrier is too high, is too extreme, I would call these examples to their attention, and I would simply like to reiterate. The gentleman was asked before, the average American family today spends more on taxes, according to the figures we have been provided, than on food, clothing and shelter combined. When we have reached the point in this Nation where we spend more on taxes as an individual family than on food, clothing and shelter combined, indeed I believe it is time for reform, and the reform we bring here is not a radical one. It is a logical one, not a rightful cut in taxes, but simply a provision that says the next time we try to raise taxes again we ought to have to do it with a two-thirds rather than a 50 percent majority.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas and join him in calling for the passage of this amendment. Let me talk about why. On the list of States which my colleague put up which have enacted a supermajority requirement, you will find the first State is my home State, the State of Arizona. We enacted that requirement in 1992. It compels the State legislature there to assemble a two-thirds majority before yet once again raising taxes. Now, why? The reason for that is that we had had a spiralling increase in taxes in our State year after year after year, and the consequences were devastating. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman did a great job of showing exactly how that comes about. I want to focus on just one of those charts. This chart alone says it all. For my colleagues in the Congress, I urge them to study this one chart. It says a very simple premise: Where taxes are high, where they are raised time and again, over and over, there is a consequence to be paid for that. In Arizona it was that we had gone from a high growth State with low taxes and a booming economy to years of tax increases, and we had become a low growth State. We had injured our economy. So we put an issue on the ballot, an initiative drive which I helped head, which the people had a chance to vote on. By a margin of 72 percent of those voting, we enacted a supermajority tax limitation. Those words are kind of confusing, supermajority tax limitation. What it says is simply this: Where today in this Congress we can raise taxes with a simple majority, 50 percent plus one, we would change that standard and make it not impossible but slightly more difficult to raise taxes yet one more time. Mr. Speaker, we are not cutting taxes, we are just saying that the bar over which we should have to climb to raise taxes yet again ought to be slightly higher. In my lifetime we have raised taxes in this Nation, income taxes in this Nation, on the average American family by 1,200 percent. The consequence is we are doing to the national economy what the non- supermajority States have done to themselves. That is, if you look at States where it is slightly higher and slightly harder to raise taxes, the supermajority States, you will see economic growth is significantly higher than in those States where there is no supermajority and where, accordingly, it is slightly easier to raise taxes. The premise which this amendment raises is a straightforward issue of fiscal responsibility. Should Congress be more responsible about spending the hard-earned dollars earned by the citizens of this great country? If you believe it should, then you must vote for this amendment, because by making it slightly harder to raise taxes in America, we will force this Congress to have discipline. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the record of this Congress and of past Congresses on controlling spending is abysmal. We have failed time and again to control spending. Thus, we need a supermajority requirement, a discipline on our ability to raise taxes, because that will force us to spend the money we have more wisely. As the gentleman indicated, there are 10 states that now require this. It is not a radical reform. I would like to point out that some of those who have considered it view it as indeed a rather prudent reform. George Will recently writing said, ``The proper reverent reason for amending the Constitution is to revive those of the framers' objectives that have been attenuated by political developments since the framers left Philadelphia.'' What indeed has happened in America is that we have lost many of the first principles established in our U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has as of today so expansively read the commerce clause that this Congress has vastly more power than it did a decade or two or three decades ago. Indeed, it has the power to reach into the pockets of Americans time and time again, to spend that money on almost anything it will. Six times since 1980 we have raised taxes. On one of those occasions, we had the two-thirds majority. On all of the others, we did not. Yet we raised taxes over and over again. The 1993 tax increase, the largest in American history, would not have passed this body if one vote had switched. It would not have passed the Senate had the vice president not broken a tie. Let me conclude by pointing out the words of two scholars who have looked at this issue. John McGuinness of the Yeshiva University's Cardoza Law School and Michael Rappaport of the University of San Diego Law School have said about this amendment that the amendment should be seen as an attempt to revive the original values of our Constitution, rather than as a radical innovation. The opponents of this amendment will argue that it offends the notion of majority rule; that whenever the majority wants to do something, they ought to be able to do that. Regrettably, they ignore that the first premise of a constitution is to protect the rights of a minority. Indeed, in this instance, it is critically important that in the area of taxation, we protect the rights of the minority. That is why a constitutional amendment is the proper device. It is indeed not a radical innovation, but rather an idea that will restore the Founders' intent. I would invite the other gentleman to join us here.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. If I can make one quick point, and then I would like to allow my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, to be able to respond, first, the fundamental point here is that you could accomplish any of that with a simple majority provided it was tax-neutral. So were you to raise a premium, you could offset that by lowering a tax on some other location. I believe, however, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] will point out, it did not apply to this instance at all.

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

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, on tax day 1996, today, we have a chance to amend the U.S. Constitution to require a supermajority to raise taxes. The last speaker on the opposite side of the aisle ridiculed the notion that it was difficult to raise taxes. In fact, she said that it is very hard to raise taxes, one of the most difficult of all votes. Since 1980 this Congress has raised taxes six times. Each of those times it has increased the burden on the average American taxpayer. In my lifetime, that burden has been increased 1,200 percent. I do not know a constituent who believes they are getting 1,200 percent more out of the Federal Government today than they were in 1950. The premise underlying this constitutional amendment is straightforward. It is one of fiscal responsibility. If you believe this Congress must be more responsible about spending the money it has, then you believe you must vote for this constitutional amendment, because by making it somewhat more difficult to take taxes out of the pockets of the American taxpayer, we will force ourselves to spend the money we have more prudently. I urge passage of the amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, today on this floor we will debate the issue of tax limitation. Many editorial pages across the country have criticized this concept. They say it is tampering with the Constitution. They suggest that it is dealing improperly with the sacred concept of majority rule. Indeed, they say and suggest it is a dangerous proposition. I suggest to the contrary. Indeed, I think history proves to the contrary. There are 10 States in this country which now have tax limitation amendments. My State, Arizona, is one of those States. In Arizona, we added to our Constitution in 1992 a supermajority requirement very much like the one we will debate on this floor. It allows revenue neutral tax reform, but it says that when the Government seeks to raise taxes, to increase the Government tax bite out of the pockets of average citizens yet one more time, there ought to be not the narrowest of agreement on that idea, but a broad consensus. We ought not to foist down the throats of American taxpayers yet one more increase in taxes without first having developed a broad base of support for the belief that that increase in taxes is necessary. Now, why? Where are we today? What has the history been? Well, the history is that Government is a growth industry, that throughout my lifetime this Government has grown and grown inexorably, taking an ever larger bite time and again out of the pockets of the American taxpayers. Six times since 1980 alone we have raised taxes in this country. In that time period, we have enacted some 4,000 tax changes. But those six specific tax increases have been passed by this Congress. And on what basis? Well, the most striking of them was the most recent, the 1993 tax increase, the single largest tax increase in this Nation's history. By what margin did it pass? By the barest of possible margins. Had simply one vote in this body switched, it would not have passed. We would have not exacted that largest tax increase in U.S. history from the taxpayers of this Nation, by the switch of one vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. But the contrast is even starker when we look at our body across the way, the U.S. Senate. There this measure was in a dead heat, a 50-50 tie. Not even a simple majority of U.S.Senators agreed on that massive tax increase. So the Vice President stepped in and he broke the tie, and we enacted that massive tax increase. Now, for those who say we ought not to do this, we ought not to go from a simple majority to raise taxes, 50 percent plus one, to two- thirds, because somehow it offends notions of majority rule or of constitutional sanctity, let me point out that at 10 different places in our current U.S. Constitution, a supermajority is required. But let me also point out that 3 of those 10 were not in the original requirement. Three times since the birth of this Nation, three times since the adoption of our Constitution, we have added provisions requiring a supermajority for approval. Why? Because there can indeed be a tyranny by the majority of the minority. Indeed, if you reflect on the premise, if you think about the reason for the Constitution itself, it is to guarantee certain rights, but, most importantly, to guarantee to the minority rights that they not be run rough-shod over by the majority. Let me cite just one example of such an instance in the tax arena. In 1990 this Congress passed the so-called luxury tax on expensive boats and automobiles and airplanes. The idea was we will punish the rich; we will make them pay a larger share of the tax burden of this country. Indeed, it passed by the barest of majorities without a supermajority. But what did it do? Did it punish the rich? It did not. It punished the poor. It punished working Americans. Go anywhere in this Nation where we were leading the world in the manufacture of yachts, and you will discover skilled workers, skilled carpenters, skilled fiberglass layers, skilled people in the marine industry, who lost their jobs, whose jobs were wiped out because of the tyranny of the majority, which said we ought to enact a tax on those items. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this amendment. It is not radical, but, rather, it goes a significant way towards restoring the balance that the Founding Fathers envisioned in our U.S. Constitution.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, today on the floor of this House, we will debate and I sincerely hope pass a constitutional amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a provision which will provide a necessary level of discipline to this body. Ten States in the United States currently have a supermajority requirement for future tax increases. Why? They have this provision because it has turned out to be necessary in order to restrain the ever-growing demands of Government for additional spending. What has been the effect and what has been the experience of those States? It is quite simple and it is quite straightforward. In the 10 States which have a supermajority requirement to raise taxes yet one more time, things, which we would expect would have indeed happened, spending has gone up less rapidly in those States with such a provision; taxing has gone up less rapidly than in States without such a provision; but, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, in those States which have done what this Congress has a chance today to do, and that is to require a supermajority for future tax increases, economic growth has increased at a faster pace than in those States without this restraint. Mr. Speaker, what is the issue? The issue is a simple one. If we make it harder, somewhat harder as this constitutional amendment would do, to exact additional tax dollars from the people of this Nation, then this Congress and the Federal Government will spend the money which it has more judiciously. Now, is that necessary? Indeed, it is. The record of this U.S. Congress in controlling spending and the record of preceding U.S. Congresses is abysmal. In 1950, the year after I was born, the average American family with children paid $1 out of $50 to the Federal Government in income taxes. They earned $1,500, they sent $2 to the Federal Government in income tax. By 1993, that had become $1 out of $4, and today it is dangerously close to $1 out of $3. Earn $100, do not send $2 to the Federal Government in taxes, but rather send $33 to the Federal Government in taxes. We will hear from the other side grave reservations, that we are tampering with the U.S. Constitution, that this violates the premise of majority rule. For those people who make those arguments, let me point out that the U.S. Constitution today requires a supermajority in 10 days. In places where the Founding Fathers thought that restraint was necessary, and they should also be reminded when they harken to this premise of majority rule, that the fundamental purpose of a Constitution is to restrain the access of legislative majority. Indeed, a legislative majority enabled this Congress in 1993 to enact the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Even in the U.S. Senate with a majority of the Members of the Senate, that tax increase was dead tied, 50-50, for and against, until Vice President Al Gore broke the tie and increased taxes. For those who believe we ought to be concerned about minority rights, I would point out the experience in which, in the 1990 Omnibus Tax Reconciliation Act, we destroyed a major U.S. industry by imposing through a majority vote a mere, simple majority vote, an excessive burden on just one industry. For those who say that tax limitation is a radical idea, let me point out that one-third of all Americans today reside in a State in which there is a constitutional supermajority requirement in their own constitution. The other argument we will hear is that this provision is unworkable. In point of fact, as rewritten by the House, it would allow revenue-neutral tax reform to go forward. What it would not do, however, is allow this Congress to reach into the pockets of Federal taxpayers already overburdened, and take yet one more time from those taxpayers. The fundamental purpose of a constitutional amendment ought to be to seek to restore to the Constitution the founders' original intent. I would suggest that that is precisely what this amendment does. If we look at the history of this Nation over the past four decades, we will see that the Supreme Court has read the commerce clause so expansively that the Government is vastly more powerful than it was in the past. This measure, this simple idea of saying to raise taxes yet once again we ought to have a supermajority, will provide needed restraint. I urge its adoption.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I just listened to this story, and it kind of amazes me. If you would be willing to, I would like to enter into a little colloquy to see if I really understand this and see if we can flesh this out a little bit. You are telling me that the essence of this judge's ruling was that the search, the stop made by the police and the search which led to the evidence which showed enough cocaine to give every single child in Detroit one administration or one dose of cocaine, the search led to that, they found that much cocaine and the judge threw it out. And the reason he threw it out is because for people to run from the police is normal conduct in that neighborhood, and does not justify the police in having suspicion that some criminal activity has gone on?

Mr. SHADEGG. This is a city in America, and this is a judge now appointed by the Clinton administration to the Federal bench, and his decision is that when police look at somebody engaged in what they believe is strange activity, those people decide to cut and run, the police are not entitled to determine that there is something suspicious going on and make a stop?

Mr. SHADEGG. If the gentleman would yield, I would be happy to talk about some other points on this particular topic. And I do want to address this issue of illegal drugs and what has gone on in America since the beginning of the Clinton administration, but I just want to bring this one point home. At least in Phoenix, AR, we have told the police in my district that if you have a reasonable suspicion, you can stop someone and inquire into their activity. That is in fact the law in America. In Phoenix, AZ, if police see some group of individuals at 5:00 in the morning or midnight or practically any time of day, and upon those individuals recognizing them as police the individuals scatter and run in six different directions, that certainly would be for any judge in Arizona articulable suspicion and reasonable grounds for them to stop those individuals, to make an inquiry, to require them to produce some identification, and to find out whether or not criminal activity is going on. I, myself, signed a letter today calling for Judge Baer to immediately resign from the Federal bench. If you contemplate the society which he is calling for, it is a society in which the norm is citizens may run from police, and when police see them run, they are to assume, well, there is nothing wrong. I guess if we have understood what he said, he said, well, in this particular community the norm would be that it would have been strange if they had stood silent. I guess the standard Judge Baer is calling for is that if the citizens of that community see a policeman and they stand still or they continue what they are doing, then the police have the rights to come up to them and say, ``This is awfully strange. Judge Baer tells us that normal conduct would require that you run away from us, but we will require you to stay here. He thinks it's odd only if you do not run. Therefore, since you didn't run, we're going to ask you for identification and determine whether or not illegal activity is going on.'' It is hard for me to believe that that is the standard set by a judge in America. It is hard for me, even further more difficult for me to believe that that judge has now been appointed by this administration to the Federal bench, and I can see why the good Senator would have had perhaps some buyer's remorse on this recommendation.

Mr. SHADEGG. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHADEGG. I would like to make a few points here. I come to this Chamber as former assistant attorney general. I spent 7 years in the Arizona attorney general's office, in the fight against crime and in the fight against drugs. I think there are some points that need to be made that I am gravely concerned about. I am concerned about them because I am the father of a 14-year-old daughter who is in junior high this year and next year will begin high school, and I am told that drug use will be prevalent and drugs will be available in every high school she can go to, no matter whether we select a private high school or a public high school. Today I want to compliment the chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, the gentleman from New Hampshire, William Zeliff. Today they released, and it will be made public 5 days from now, their ``National Drug Policy: A Review of the Status of the Drug War in America.'' Now, many people listening tonight might say, ``Well, we can really win the drug war in America,'' and they would make that argument. What this report shows and what is of grave concern to me is that one thing is clear. We may not be able to win the war against drugs, but when we surrender any effort to stop drugs, when we give up on that war, there are consequences, and I would like to talk about some of those consequences. First let me talk about Arizona. In Arizona we are a border State. Seventy percent of all of the illegal drugs which come into this country come across the Mexican border. The efforts of Chairman Zeliff and of his subcommittee on which I serve could not be more timely in terms of Arizona. Let me talk about what is going on in my home State. Current use of all illicit drugs is up among public school students at both high school and junior high levels. The 1995 Substance Abuse in Public Schools Survey put out by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission says that current use of methamphetamines, hallucinogens, and marijuana amongst high schoolers is at the highest level it has been since 1988: 21.8 percent of all Arizona high school students reported using marijuana in the last 30 days; 16.8 percent of those students reported using marijuana within the last 10 days. Equally frightening, as the gentleman from Kansas has pointed out, is the link between this drug use and crime. The crime rate in Arizona has doubled, from roughly 19,000 in 1985 to more than 28,000 violent crimes by 1995. Ask yourself why. Why do we have this surge in violent crime? Why do we have this dramatic surge in juvenile drug use? Let me recite the record of the Clinton administration. First, upon taking office, President Clinton gutted 80 percent of the staff of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. He took the staff from 146 at the level when he acquired office to 25, an 80 percent reduction. One of the first announced goals of Attorney General Janet Reno was to reduce the mandatory minimum sentence for drug trafficking and related Federal crimes. The Clinton administration national security policy subsequently passed and the President signed a new directive ordering a massive reduction in Defense Department support for interdiction efforts. And, as we all recall, President Clinton's Surgeon General called repeatedly for serious consideration of drug legalization. We have a problem in this Nation. It is a serious one. It is one where we have abandoned the war on drugs. My friend the gentleman from Kansas pointed out early on that the President was AWOL in this fight. I think he indeed is AWOL in this fight. Almost a year ago, former First Lady Nancy Reagan came before our subcommittee and asked a very telling question. How could it be that we had gone from winning and making serious progress in the war to stop, at least to stop the ever increasing use of drugs by more and more of our children and the use of dangerous drugs? How could it be that we had in a span of just 3 years dropped so dramatically from significant success in that area to significant failure? Chairman Zeliff's subcommittee in the writing of this report held 5 oversight hearings during 1995 to assess the status of the Nation's drug control strategy. While I will not belabor each of the points, some are worth making note of. First of all on March 9, 1995, Bill Bennett, a respected scholar in this area, a respected leader in this Nation, and the former drug czar and former Office of National Drug Control Policy Chief of Staff John Walters both testified, and I quote, if the drug use trends continue, by 1996 the Clinton administration will have presided over the greatest increase in drug use in modern American history. What has that led to? Let me cite just some of the sad statistics. I note that the President today has convened a conference to address this issue. I applaud him for that effort but I am concerned that it is only an election year effort. Casual drug use in America is dramatically up in virtually every age group and for every illicit drug, including heroin, crack cocaine, hydrochloride, LSD, non-LSD hallucinogens, methamphetamines, inhalants, stimulants and marijuana. Ask yourself why. For one reason, the nationwide street price for most illicit drugs is lower than at any time in recent history. It is because this administration reduced its efforts to interdict the flow of drugs into this country. It has also dramatically reduced its efforts to cut off source production. The potency of the drugs, the same drugs, particularly heroin and crack, is higher according to the nationwide survey than any time in recent history and nationwide drug-related emergency room admissions are also at an all-time high. It is a situation which has gone unnoticed by the press and which must not go unaddressed by our Nation. We are at risk of losing a generation of Americans and we must do something about it. I could cite a great deal of statistics. I am sure the gentleman has them of his own. For example, the nationwide Pride survey of 200,000 students showed that 1 in 3 American high school seniors now smokes marijuana. There has been a 36-percent increase in cocaine use among students in grades 9 through 12 just since 1991 and 1992. Hallucinogen use by high school students has risen by 75 percent since the 1988-1989 reporting period. Cocaine-related episodes in 1994 reached their all- time high in U.S. history, a 15-percent increase from 1993 and a 40- percent increase from 1988. These statistics cannot be ignored. It is time that the President address this issue. it is critical that the Nation do something about this. I think the statement of the gentleman from Kansas that the President has been AWOL, absent without leave, on this issue are exactly right. It is time that he did appoint a tough drug czar, it is time that we went back to working interdiction, it is time that we went back to examining the transit zone, it is time that we made a serious effort to go at source production in the source-producing countries. We know those countries. We had effective efforts before them to begin with. But more than any of that, it is time for this President to lead nationally, to set an example. He has to take the bully pulpit and talk about this scourge or he will be responsible for the loss of a generation of Americans to illegal drugs and their corrupting influence.

Mr. SHADEGG. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss with my colleagues and those who are paying attention the recent allegations against GOPAC. Indeed, we have read a great deal about them. Much of the information that has been put forward has been put forward on the premise that it is fact. Well, it is not fact. What is going on is a lawsuit, a partisan political lawsuit brought to stop a political movement, a movement which captured the hearts and minds of the American people over the last few years. We ought to get some facts on the table. What are the facts? Is it true that GOPAC broke the law, the Federal Election Commission regulations which say that it cannot involve itself in Federal campaigns without first registering as a Federal PAC? That is the essence of the allegation. Let us begin with one fact. When was the lawsuit brought? It was brought by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on the eve of Speaker Gingrich's 1990 reelection campaign. Indeed, within 30 days of when he stood for reelection, a tough reelection campaign. You might ask yourself if the timing of that was at all political. I suggest it was. That is almost 5 years ago that they brought those allegations against the Speaker and against GOPAC. The essence of the allegation was that GOPAC had crossed the line, that it had failed to register as a Federal election campaign committee and, therefore, had violated Federal law. And that was investigated by the FEC and ultimately a lawsuit was brought. Last week they brought all kinds of new information to the table. The shocking thing about that information is that although it was presented as fact and as woefully damaging to GOPAC, in fact it was vacuous. It lacked any substance whatsoever. Here is the issue. The allegation is that because people are involved in GOPAC, including the Speaker and his advisors, discussed their ultimate goal at retreats of winning the presidency and some day taking over the Congress of the United States for the Republican cause, for a conservative movement, for a movement which believes in limited government and lower taxes and sending authority away from Washington and giving it back to the people and the States, that because they generally discussed those ideas at GOPAC meetings, that was a violation of Federal law. Think about that theory. I call upon the ACLU across this nation to think about that theory. The theory is that if you and a group of like-minded people sit down in a room and/or at a retreat and you discuss your goal, your goal is some day to have a Republican President, because we do not have one, or your goal is to take over Republican majority, a conservative majority of the United States Congress, because we do not have the right then, instantaneously, as a result of those discussions, you are required to register with the Federal Election Campaign Committee and to file their reports year in and year out. Every first amendment lawyer in America ought to be aghast at that allegation, but that is the premise that the FEC brought. What does it mean? It means if you or your wife or your husband are the member of a Republican women's club or men's club back home or a Democrat women's club or men's club and if in fact you attend one of your meetings and in those discussions you talk about the fact that you would like to see a President elected of your party or you would like to see the Congress strengthen its hold in your party or take over the majority for your party, suddenly those mere discussions subject you to regulation by the FEC. The notion is shocking. It is a frontal assault on the first amendment. And yet that is exactly what happened, because we learned that at the North Pole Basin retreat of GOPAC, where those involved in this movement, a grass roots movement, which admittedly had as its goal the election of State and local officials to State and local offices, who believed in the agenda of smaller government, who believed in lower taxes, that when they discussed those things, that that was okay until the moment that they said, and some day it would be nice to take over Congress or some day it would be nice to have a Republican President, suddenly at that moment because they had those discussions, there was a requirement that they register with the FEC and a requirement that they then comply with all of the laws. I submit that that argument is so absurd that the reverse is true. If you had had a retreat of GOPAC and they had simply discussed the Super Bowl or whether or not somebody was going to win the national bake off, then there would have been shocking news. In fact, the allegations are vacuous, and no one can substantiate what was said against the speaker or against GOPAC on those occasions.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I would just conclude by saying, we have spent most of the last hour, with the leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] talking about the nitty-gritty of this and the details, and the fact that using real numbers and using a common set of numbers is important. However, one of the greatest communications, I get from my constituents is a sense of frustration: Why can they not in the Congress and in the White House act like adults and resolve this issue? I would ask the American people to step back and to recognize that this is not a petty little fight over numbers; it is a contrast between two different visions for America. One which simply says, we can go on the way have been going forever and we do not ever have to pay the piper, that in fact we can spend and we can spend, and the Federal Government is not too large and it can do all things for all people. The other is a very different view of government, which is the Federal Government has tried for 40 years to be all things to all people and has failed, and in doing that, it has not solved the social problem it has addressed, it has made them worse. But worse than that, in doing that, it has created the debt that burdens our children and our grandchildren. So I implore those listening tonight at home that, yes, it looks like a petty fight, but it is really a very important fight; it is a fight over different visions of America and one which we all hope to resolve as soon as possible, but one which is essential to determine the direction of this Nation for the future of our children and our grandchildren and for the solvency of the Nation as we move forward.

Mr. SHADEGG. The natural consequence of what you are explaining is that the choice that the American people are hearing from the White House right now is a false choice. Let make that point. What the White House is saying is that Republicans want to cut these programs too far, and what I propose is that, instead, we could keep them all going and you will have them. So it is a choice he is presenting between we can have what we have plus maybe even a little bit more off into the future, or less, which is what the Republicans are proposing, that we have to scale these programs back down to where their growth matches inflation. He says, that is the choice. That is a false choice, because in reality, and even the President's own cabinet in the instance of Medicare has made this point poignantly clear in their report, that is not the choice at all. If we pursue the course that the President is advancing, that is, allowing the growth to go unchecked, in a very brief time, it will be bankrupt. So it is not a question of keeping it the way it is or scale it back; it is a question of scale it back or have it go bankrupt and be gone, and not be there for anyone. That is the fundamental falsity in the debate. We simply have to in these entitlement programs restructure them in a way that makes them sustainable over time so that the beneficiaries can get the benefits, or they will go bankrupt and be gone and not be there for anyone, and that is the fundamental truth.

Mr. SHADEGG. As did the First Lady. In any event, they can mischaracterize our program as long as it does not go into effect. Look at this poll. This poll shows even with their mischaracterization of what we are doing, and by the way this says ``Cuts,'' which in fact we all know none of these are cuts, every program is going to grow, and grow roughly at the rate of inflation or better in some instances; but even with all that and even with the media opposition we have, as a very current poll done by Time Magazine, not in-house by any stretch of the imagination, says that the American people are divided on this issue, with 46 percent saying we are either going about the right amount of cuts, or maybe not going far enough, versus 47 percent saying we have gone too far.

Mr. SHADEGG. I would quickly point out, even the question puts it wrong, ``have the cuts,'' and we are not cutting, we are not. No, they are not cuts in Federal spending; have we gone too far--they are not cuts in Federal spending, they are reductions in the increase in spending. Had the question been put properly, the numbers on this graph would be dramatically more in our favor.

Mr. SHADEGG. Just one quick question. The credibility risk is by our colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, because they are making the claim that what we have done is extreme. As soon as we get it into effect and we are at the next election and you can see what the reality is, that claim will be clearly hollow, and how they will defend it then will be a grave problem for them, I would suggest.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and my other colleagues here tonight. I really came down from my office after listening to the discussion here on the floor to make two points. The first has to do with the discussion of what numbers do we use in trying to balance the Nation's budget. I was on the floor when I listened to the gentleman from California's remarks about yesterday's appearance by the President's Chief of Staff on this week with David Brinkley. I will tell you I was shocked by that, because it was really, in fact, a rather shocking revolution, or revelation, which is not part of this revolution. What happened is that Cokie Roberts said, ``Look, you, through the President, agreed 3 weeks ago after a 6-day shutdown, the Nation was shut down, the Federal Government did not operate for 6 days, at the end of that you came to an agreement. The agreement was that you would put forward or ultimately agree to a budget which balanced in 7 years using CBO numbers, and with consultation with OMB.'' She put to him point blank, ``in that agreement you said you wanted to protect certain programs: Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment. Is it possible,'' she put directly to him, ``Is it possible, Mr. Panetta, for you to put forward a budget which the President will agree to which is scored by CBO, reaches balance in 7 years, and protects those programs?'' And as you pointed out, he dodged the question the first time. He dodged it the second. He dodged it the third. Ultimately, in frustration, Ms. Roberts said to him, ``The answer is it is not?'' And essentially he conceded that point. He basically nodded his head and acknowledged that he had grave doubts. As a matter of fact he went beyond that and he said, ``No, not without further revision in the current CBO numbers.'' That is, ``No, it is not possible. It is only possible for us to do that if CBO changes the numbers.'' That raises a fundamental question, because as my colleague, the gentleman from California, has pointed out, it is impossible to do a budget using two different sets of numbers. We have to first come to agreement on a set of numbers. Why, the American people should ask themselves, did the President agree 3 weeks ago, now almost 4 weeks ago, that he would propose a budget or agree ultimately to a budget which balanced in 7 years, using CBO, after consultation with OMB, that protected those priorities, his priorities on education, Medicare, Medicaid, and the environment, if in fact his Chief of Staff 3 weeks later says it is impossible, it cannot be done? I was shocked by that revelation. I was further shocked to find that in the day we discovered another fact. That was while the President had asked for OMB to consult, OMB did not begin consulting until the day before the day the budget resolution had to be agreed upon; that is, funding ran out on our current resolution on the 15th, and the President's OMB office did not even begin consultation, something he had fought for, until the 14th, a second shocking event. Then I was rather stunned when last evening I flipped through the dial and I caught the President himself being interviewed in front of the church he attended yesterday. He was asked the same question. I do not know how many of you caught it. He was asked the question: ``Mr. President, is it possible for you to put forward a budget balanced in 7 years by CBO numbers that protects your spending priorities?'' And in direct contradiction of his Chief of Staff, he said, ``Absolutely.'' As far as I am concerned that means he has a duty to put it forward, he should put it forward. If he says absolutely, he needs to sit down with his Chief of Staff and put it forward so we can all move forward and get it started again. The second point I want to make is one I found phenomenally encouraging. It actually made my day today. That was as revealed in this chart. Tomorrow I am going to have a larger blowup of this chart made. I have distributed copies of several of my colleagues here. There is tremendous encouragement for the Nation here in this chart. We all know that we must reform entitlement spending if we are going to save the Nation. If we are not going to continue to pass the debt as laid out in the chart behind you on to our children and our grandchildren, it is necessary to look at our spending priorities. This chart is phenomenally encouraging. It appeared in today's Time Magazine, the Time Magazine which has the Speaker on the cover and makes him Man of the Year. It is a poll taken by Time and CNN, by the Yankelovich Partners, Inc., taken December 6 and 7, that it is a very, very current poll. The fascinating thing about this is that although our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent $22 million in advertising telling us how draconian and how extreme our cuts are, and although the President has had almost a monopoly on the press coverage and the media coverage saying how extreme and outrageous our cuts are, here is where the American people stand as of December 6 and December 7. True, 47 percent of them have bought the argument that our cuts go too far. But look at the other side of the graph. If you add up those who say our cuts are about right, 27 percent, with those who say we have not yet gone far enough, which is 19 percent, you discover that 46 percent of Americans think that we either have gone the right distance or should be actually cutting even further. That is a dramatic testimony to the validity of what we are doing here in the Congress, to the message that we are getting out. Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that you can mischaracterize our program until the cows come home until it is enacted. It is what our mothers taught us as we were going to the doctor and dentist at the time: Anticipation is worse than realization. They can claim that we are gutting Medicare, because our proposal is not in law. All we can do is rhetorically defend it, and point out that Mr. Panetta voted for deeper cuts in Medicare himself.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2677. It seems to me this is a common sense bill that the American people are crying out for and we hear such silliness here on the floor. The National Parks and National Wildlife Refuge System Freedom Act of 1995 addressed a simple problem, but a problem that can be very severe. In my State of Arizona, during the last shutdown, we had a tragedy, actually we had many tragedies. People who make their livelihood off the national park were devastated. People would who wanted to visit one of the 7 Wonders of the World, the Grand Canyon, were told they could not do so. And why were they told that? They were told that because the premise is that unless you have a Federal employee employed by the Federal Government standing at your side, you cannot enjoy, indeed, the Federal Government will prohibit you from enjoying the grandeur of the Grand Canyon. There is nothing more absurd in my lifetime than that notion. The shutdown of the Grand Canyon National Park was itself politics that hurt the American people. At no time in the history of this Nation should politics or political posturing be allowed to injure the American people as they did in that shutdown. Yet let me bring you a statistic. In the 32 times that the Government has shut down in the last 2 decades, the National Park Service has not once told a private concessionaire that it had to leech the park. Now, ask yourself why did it do it this time? Why did the Government insist that this time concessionaires in private parks must leave the park? I submit to you it was political posturing. When we asked in the hearing held last Friday the Federal Department of Interior officials the answer to that, their answer was a fascinating one. It was that well, if the shutdown had lasted only 2 days, one could fudge the Anti-deficiency Act. But if it lasted 3 days, one could not. Now, I asked them to find and their lawyers to find the language in the Anti-deficiency Act which says you can fudge a shutdown for 2 or 3 days, but you cannot fudge it for 3 or 4 days. They could not do it. There is a tragedy here, a tragedy of arrogance, arrogance at the Federal level. The notion which we have heard on the floor today that the American people should be denied the right and visitors from across this Nation and visitors from around this world who have traveled thousands of miles to visit the Grand Canyon, indeed, one of the 7 Wonders of the World, should be sent away because a Federal bureaucrat is not there to stand beside them as they stand at Mather Point and try to absorb the beauty of the Grand Canyon. The Governor of my State, Governor Symington, came forward with a simple, common sense idea. He said while you all posture in Washington, let me in the State of Arizona run that park. I take great umbrage at the words said on this floor moments ago that the State of Arizona could not run the park well because it has only 200 employees. Such arrogance at the Federal level is offensive. This bill should pass. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to briefly respond to the remarks we have just heard. The notion that is posited here that this is a one-sided problem, that, indeed, only one party can be blamed for the budgetary impasse that we have before the Nation right now, nothing could be further from the truth. The simple truth lies in the words which were used. Pass a bill the President can accept. It is a simple proposition. No measure passes this Congress without the votes to pass it, but it does not become law until the President also signs. The budget impasse we face today is of equal burden and falls upon both parties. I have a discussion with my staffers when I hire them. There are two kinds of people in the world, those who look for ways to solve problems and those who look for excuses why they cannot be solved. What we have heard today is that there is an acknowledged problem. We have a budget impasse. The other side of the aisle says here are excuses why we cannot solve the problem. Our side says we can find a solution. This bill is the solution. I simply want to add a dimension of the problem. This is a letter written by Susan Morley of Flagstaff, Arizona. It details how her husband died in 1992 of cancer at the age of 41. He asked his ashes to distributed at Ribbon Falls in the Grand Canyon, and then there was scheduled this year a family reunion of their entire family from across the Nation to visit Ribbon Falls in his memory. They were denied the right to do that, and she details in here her 13-year-old crying because she could not go to Ribbon Falls to celebrate her father's passing and his memory because of the Federal Government shutdown. There is a way to solve this problem and not to look for excuses. It is in this bill. I urge its passage.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and would say that I am thrilled to be here with my colleagues tonight and to bring a western perspective. It is fun to come and bring that perspective. In the West, we are intense on these issues. Mr. Fox asked the question: What does it mean if we can balance the budget? I harken back, looking at the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] who serves on the Committee on the Budget, to the day when the gentleman and I sat on committee and Alan Greenspan came forward. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] asked that question: What would it mean if we actually balanced the budget? Mr. Greenspan began answering that it would do this and this and this, and it causes long- term interest rates to do this, and short-term interest rates to do this. Mr. Kasich stopped him and said, ``Wait a minute. I want you to tell me what it would mean to real Americans, the average husband and wife at home raising their kids.'' Mr. Greenspan sat back and, and Chris, I am sure you remember this, and he said, ``It would mean that once again they could look forward to their children doing better than they do.'' That is, what he said was, if you gentlemen can balance the budget, you will restore for America the American dream. The dream that we all have for our children that they could do better. I heard the gentleman from Georgia make a reference to last Thursday's vote and the passage of the reconciliation. To me, that was a thrilling night; the most thrilling night since we have been here. If you put aside the bunk and garbage that we hear about, ``We are cutting Medicare,'' which is just flat a lie, it ``ain't'' true. You don't raise spending from $4,800 per individual to $6,700 per individual and define that as a cut anywhere but inside the beltway that surrounds this city.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask you quickly if you happened to hear the four Wall Street economists who came before the policy committee today and who testified that we had already, by what steps we have taken, brought interest rates in America down by 2 percent since we took office in January. They compared that 2 percent reduction in interest rates here in America with other comparable economies, where interest rates have come down 1 percent, and they said, ``The policies you have adopted have already had the effect of reducing the interest rate here in America by 1 extra percentage point below what it had been before you got here.'' That is a real savings in car loans and home mortgage loans across the board. Now if we go the next step we will see a real dramatic impact, and they predicted 2 more percentage points' drop in the interest rates.