John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I hope Mr. and Mrs. America and our colleagues think through that fact.

Mr. SHADEGG. So we are cutting taxes in a draconian way that the Nation cannot survive by letting them have back just a small portion, less than half, of what we increased their taxes just in the last 5 years.

Mr. SHADEGG. If the gentleman would yield, do you mean to tell me that this outrageous tax cut that we are enacting only gives them back 40 percent of what we took from them in the last----

Mr. SHADEGG. Let me just compliment the gentleman for his work on Medicare. I serve on the Committee on the Budget with you. I want to tell you, we went home and did a town hall on the Medicare System, which this Congress has created beginning with the work of your task force on the Committee on the Budget. And it was a fascinating process. And I do not think if we could go through this process for every American, that we would have anywhere near the concern in America that we have. Here is what we did, kind of an interesting idea because of the word ``choice,'' because we are giving senior citizens so many choices and the kind of choices that they had when they were in their productive years, we wanted to illustrate it for them. So what we did is, as they walked in the door, we took one page of white paper and we summarized the current Medicare System for them, the benefits they get and the premiums they pay. We gave that to them as they came through the door. Then we got to the point in our program where we were describing what the Republican Medicare plan was going to be. We said, now we would like you to pull out the papers, and we gave them lots of papers, that we have given you when you came in the door and pull out this particular one. And we said to them, that is traditional fee-for-service Medicare. You have that now and we gave it to you as you came in the door because you have that now. And it has got all those benefits. When you leave here today, leave this town hall, you will have that white piece of paper with all that traditional benefit on it, exactly, unaltered. But then we had people go up and down the rows and we passed out four additional pieces of paper, one pink, one green, one yellow, one blue. On each of those separate pieces of paper we outlined for them one of the four other alternatives they are going to have. So we asked them to pull out the green sheet and we said take a look at this green sheet. This is, and I do not remember which one it was, but let us say it was the Medisave plan. Then we went to patient-physician networks and we walked through each of the alternatives and explained it to them and said, you are now going to get, when our bill becomes law, the opportunity to choose one of those five programs.

Mr. SHADEGG. I would like to ask the gentleman, one thing we keep hearing over and over again is how these tax cuts are for the rich. I had the impression in American that both wealthy and middle-income and poor have children.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about one of the phenomenons that characterizes this city and getting inside the Beltway, and I want to do it in the context of the tax cuts. The truth is that we have all heard this claim that we should not be cutting taxes and the garbage on the other side that we are making tax cuts for the rich. Well, it ``ain't'' so. Mr. Speaker, I had this theory. The theory was that what we are hearing, and what maybe they are hearing, the people who show up at our town halls and the people who show up at Rotary Clubs and Kiwanis Clubs, and have the time to make it and have the time to go to those events, are the kinds of citizens that are concerned about the direction of the Nation. They say, I guess I can pay my taxes, but I am worried about the deficit. They are worried about their kids. I had this theory that Mr. and Mrs. America, the people at home just barely struggling to pay their bills and get the kids dressed, and feed them a bowl full of Cheerios and get them off to school and then back home, for those people the tax bite is too much, and we are not hearing from them. So, I went home a week ago Monday. I had my scheduler set aside 2 hours and I stood in front of a drug store. I had a staffer stand in front of a grocery store across the street. We were on the east side of my district. It is kind of the upper echelon of my district. Those [[Page H 11673]] people are middle-class to upper middle-class families. Mr. Speaker, I engaged people there on the street and I told them there was a debate going on on the floor of this House; a debate whether we needed tax cuts or whether we ought to be doing the conscientious thing and reducing the deficit. They said, on balance, ``Well, we are concerned about the deficit, but boy, we could use a tax cut because we are just barely getting by.'' On the east side of my district, we had about a 60/40 split; 60 percent said, ``We need deficit reduction, but we also need our taxes cut.'' About 40 percent said, ``You ought to be doing deficit reduction.'' Then, Mr. Speaker, we stopped and drove to the other side of my district, and we drove over to the working-class neighborhood where people are doing what I said. People that cannot afford to be a Kiwanis Club member and who do not have the time to come to John Shadegg's town hall meetings. Mr. Speaker, we talked to them. And we stood, I stood in front of Osco drug store, and I had a staffer stand in front of a Megafoods store. We each asked them. Do you know what it was? It was a blowout. The numbers were clear. They said, you are killing us with your taxes. Sure we want to take care of the deficit, but you Republicans have been saying to us for 40 years that government does not need all this much money, that it spends too much, that it taxes too much and that it regulates too much. And if all you do now is take care of the deficit, if you ignore tax cuts, if you suddenly say, wait a minute, we got elected claiming that people are taxed too much but now that we are there all we are going to deal with is the deficit, why should we buy you, why should be believe you? In a ratio of 11 to 1, they said to me in front of that drug store, I need a tax cut. Taxes in this country are killing me. These were not greedy people. They were not selfish people. In front of the Megafoods across the street, which is a discount grocery store, they told my staffer in a ratio of 17 to 2 that they needed a tax cut. Why did they need a tax cut? I will tell you why. Because taxes in this country have become oppressive and burdensome, and we are now going to do something about it. How burdensome? Let me tell you how burdensome. In 1950, the year after I was born, when I was in a bassinet in my parents' bedroom on floors, in those days, that were concrete, we did not have wall to wall carpeting in 1950. The average American family with children paid $1 out of every 50 to the Federal Government in taxes, 1 out of 50. Earn a hundred dollar bill, send in $2. In 1993, that is the latest year for which we have figures, it is now 1 out of 5, it is not 2 out of every hundred dollar bill, it is $1 to the Federal Government in taxes for every $4 you earn. You do not earn a 5 dollar bill, you earn $4, send one to the Federal Government in taxes. It is not to the government in taxes, it is 1 out of 4 to the Federal Government in taxes. How long is it going to be before we are taxing people at the rate of 50 percent? We are taking half of everything that they earn. That is an increase of 1200 percent. And the people in my district, I asked them, when I tell them that statistic, are you getting 1200 percent more out of the Federal Government today than you were in 1950? You talk to them about the burden. A child born in America today will, in his or her lifetime, pay an average of $187,150 in taxes just to pay the interest on the national debt. Why? Because before last Thursday night we did not have the moral courage to stand on this floor and quit spending our children's and our grandchildren's and our great-grandchildren's money to satisfy our needs, our wants, to buy ourselves back onto the floor of this Congress. That is dead wrong, and last Thursday night we stopped it. I will tell you, the American people want tax cuts. They want us to balance the budget. They want less government regulation. They want us to look at serious problems like a Medicare System that is going broke and to say to one side of the aisle that says, do not worry, you have got 7 years, no big deal, that that is stupid. A system that services the entire population and for whom it is vital that we preserve that, to say we can wait 7 years is no big deal. Let us solve it in the 6th or 7th year. We are going to solve it and the plan we passed in that reconciliation bill solves it in a responsible way, a way that although the scare mongers say and they have my senior citizens worried that they are going to take away my Medicare. I heard you mention that these four experts from Wall Street came here yesterday or this morning. They all four said an important message. They all four said, if it comes down to defaulting on your debt or balancing the Federal budget, we do not like defaulting on your debt. But guess what? The market has already calculated for it and you better balance the budget, because that is what the Nation needs. The last point I want to make is that one of them told a fascinating story, which is why we are on the floor here tonight. It is a story about disinformation. This is a guy who is the major investor for a Wall Street investment firm. He controls a portfolio worth billions of dollars. He said, do you know what, in my office there are a whole lot of employees, top- level-paid executives, who came to me a few weeks ago. We had a quick little discussion. They said, this is a real serious problem because we are deeply worried about how America is going to survive if these Republicans dramatically cut Medicare the way they are proposing. This guy listened to this discussion and everybody threw numbers around. This is awful. This Medicare is a vitally important system for America. How can the Republicans talk about dramatically cutting Medicare? This guy listens to all of this. He finally turns to me and says, how much are they cutting it? Various number were thrown out. And he said, do you know what, you guys are wrong. They are not cutting it one dime. As a matter of fact, they are increasing spending on Medicare. This is inside an investment banking firm on Wall Street. And they did not know the facts. They did not know until he recited to them that spending on Medicare per beneficiary--a man that called my office last week and said I am worried about you taking away my Medicare benefits, did not understand because of the disinformation that we are going to give him not $4,800 to spend, as we do this year, but $6,700 for his medical care and $6,700 for his wife's. And this misinformation, the attempts to distort what we are doing are about what we have got to try to fight.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, we are here engaged in a debate, and a central issue of that debate is the question of tax cuts. I hear my colleagues on the other side say we should not be doing tax cuts for the wealthy. Yet at the heart of our tax cut is a tax cut for every American who pays taxes and has children. I do not think that is the definition of the wealthy. But I take the issue of whether or not we ought to be doing tax cuts as a serious one. I have a theory. The theory is that those of us here in this Congress all too often go home and talk to people who attend our townhalls or Rotary clubs or Kiwanis clubs. We do not talk to real Americans. So this last weekend, I went home and spent 2 hours talking to real Americans in front of drug stores and grocery stores and discount stores. I had a staffer do it, too. The results will shock my colleagues, and I urge them to do the same thing. I talked to 55 different real Americans in my district, women who walked up with one child in their arms and a second following along behind them, and I asked them, I said, The Congress is engaged in a debate about whether we need deficit reduction or tax cuts or both. Do my colleagues know how they responded? I will tell my colleagues how they responded. Eighty-two percent said they need real tax cuts in their lives. Of the 55 people I talked to, 8 said we ought to be focused on deficit reduction, just 8 of 55. Thirty-two of the fifty- five said they want to see us both do deficit reduction and tax cuts because they do feel overburdened by today's taxes. Thirteen said they wanted tax cuts only. The burden of Federal taxes in their lives is oppressive. By the way, in 1950 it was 1 dollar out of 50. Today it is 1 dollar out of every 4 that an American family earns. So a total of 45 of the 55 said they needed tax cuts in their families. That is not wealthy Americans. That is not rich Americans. I was not standing in front of ritzy stores. I was standing in front of the grocery stores and the discount markets, the Kmarts, in my district talking to real Americans. This is not a tax cut for the wealthy. It is a tax cut for every single American, and why are we going to do it? Mr. Chairman, it is their money, and they can spend it better than we can.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, enough of the rhetoric from the other side. We are engaged in a great debate here about the budget, about the issue of tax cuts or deficit relief. Mr. Speaker, I just heard the minority leader come to this floor and say the Republicans were out of touch. He said they ought to take a step out and talk to real working Americans. Mr. Speaker, he did not know what I did last weekend because last weekend I spent hours in front of grocery stores and drug stores in any district, and I asked the American people the question my colleagues and I are debating, ``Do you need tax relief?'' And their answer, and I did this in a working-class neighborhood in my district with real people, was that we need tax relief. Mr. Speaker, one of them said, ``Taxes are killing the American people.'' Now the other side calls this tax relief for the rich, but that is garbage, and they know it. Rich people do not have any more children than poor people. As young ladies walked up to me with one baby in their arms and another dragging along behind them, I asked them, ``Could you use a thousand dollars' tax credit?'' Mr. Speaker, they said to me, ``You bet I could.'' I ask my colleagues, ``Whose money is it, and who can better spend it?'' That side says government can spend it better. I say we can spend it better by giving it to the American people.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. And be fined. They get fined for whatever they do because that supports the club and they are helping society and they are helping charities in their community. You know what, that is not America. Real America struggles to get their kids out of bed in the morning and get them dressed and get some Cheerios in them and get them off to school. Then they rush out the door to get to work. They struggle through their 8 hours of work or maybe 9 or 10 and maybe a second part- time job, then back home, pick up the kids from school or day care. You know what they have got to do, get the kids back home, take care of Little League, a couple different things. They have got to do their homework, get them back to bed and do it again. They are not at John Shadegg's town halls. They are not at the townhalls of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht]. They are struggling to get by. Those people are not saying, ``I am undertaxed.'' You said it right. But you know what, we do not hear from them. We all go out and say, ``Well, my constituents say, `Don't cut my taxes, take care of the deficit. I am a big charitable person.' '' They are right, we do have to take care of the deficit. That is for our children and our grandchildren. But you know what we have to do today, we have to cut taxes because the burden is oppressive. I have been saying that whole thing about the people at town halls and Kiwanis Clubs are not real America around here for 3 months or maybe more. I finally said, you know what, with my colleagues saying, ``You are wrong, Shadegg. They are real people.'' I said I am going to test this. You know where I was at 2 o'clock yesterday afternoon? I grabbed one of my staffers. I said, ``We are going out.'' I called last Friday, told my scheduler to put time on my calendar. We went last Friday. We went to an ABCO, a grocery store in my district, we went to a Walgreen's, a drug store in my district on the east side of my district. The east side of my district is a pretty good side of the district. They have some money. They are [[Page H 10711]] comfortable with life. They are doing all right. I started asking, ``We have got this debate going on.'' I stood in one corner and he stood on the other and in front of a different store. We talked to them. We stopped everybody who would talk to us. We asked, ``We have got this debate going on in Washington. Do you think we should be focused just on deficit reduction, this huge deficit we have that does bear on our children and grandchildren, or do you think we ought to also be doing tax cuts?'' Well, on the east side of my district, kind of an even split, although somewhat favoring tax cuts. Interesting, these people said, ``I need tax relief.'' As a matter of act, I did some verbatims from them. We took down notes on what they said. One lady said, ``Tax cuts are always good for people.'' Another one said, ``The average person is paying too much in taxes, but I don't think we will ever see a tax cut.'' So you know what we did after the first half-hour or 45 minutes at that location? We drove across to the west side of my district. Now you are in a more working-class society. You are in America. You are where people are struggling to get out of bed and pay their bills, and the numbers were dramatic. In front of the store where I stood, 11-to-1 was ratio; for 12 people I talked to, 11 said, ``I need tax relief.'' You talk about our friends on the other side of the aisle talking about tax cuts for the rich. This is not a tax cut for the rich. This is a tax cut for Mr. and Mrs. America who just got slapped with a tax increase by Bill Clinton. You know what he said? He looked the American people in the eye, just like I am looking you in the eye, Jack, and he said ``We need a middle class tax cut.'' And you know what? He broke his word. And you know who is paying for it? Those people I was talking to on the working class side of my district, where they are struggling to get their kids out of bed in the morning, get them fed, get them to school, get them home and get their homework done, and get back to work again tomorrow. 11 to 1 they said we need a tax cut. My staffer across the aisle, in front of a MegaFoods, as a matter of fact, that is a kind of get-groceries-cheap, those people are hurting, 17 to 1 was the ratio in front of that store. Overall, we talked to 55 different individual people. Of that 55, 8 said they ought to be looking just at, said you and I and our colleagues watching tonight, ought to be looking at deficit reduction. 32 of the 55 said they wanted deficit reduction and tax cuts. 13 of the 55 said ``I need a tax cut. I do not know about the deficit. I know I am going under.'' Let me read you one of those quotes. ``I pay taxes on everything. I just barely scrape by as it is. I need a tax break.'' The bottom line, the number was out of 55 respondents, 45, or 82 percent, said they needed a tax cut, either as part of deficit reduction or as a part of just lowering the burden on them. Why? Because they cannot bear the burden any longer. They are not undertaxed. You said, Frank, not many of them come up to us and say ``I am undertaxed.'' You know, the truth is, a great philosopher once said America is great only because America is good. If America ever ceased to be good, it will cease to be great. America is good, and the average taxpayer does not want to walk up to you and say ``I need a tax cut,'' because he cares about the other people in society who are not doing quite as well as he is. But you know what? For him bucking up and not coming to us and saying ``I need a tax cut,'' in his heart of hearts he is struggling to get through, and we are making him pay bills for all kinds of things for which there is no justification. I cannot tell you how many people in that conversation came up to me and said ``Well, I pay my taxes, and I am not too worried about it, but, boy, I hate the way you guys spend it.'' They hate the way we spend it. They do not have faith any longer. We have said as a party, and I am going to get partisan, for a long time we have said that the Federal Government is too big and it taxes too much and it spends too much. Before we do tax cuts, we have been doing something about cutting spending. And that is part of what we believe in. But you know what? We told them for 40 years we also believed they were overtaxed. Now it is time to prove it. And that side of the aisle that said these are tax cuts for the rich, they are dead wrong. They are tax cuts for middle Americans who need it, but who cares so much about their brothers and sisters, they ain't raising it.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues, if you are in doubt about this vote two days from now, do what I did: Call a staffer back in your district, if you cannot get home, and do what I did. Go stand in front of a grocery store, go stand in front of a K-mart, or have a staffer do it, and ask them. And they will tell you, if you let them open up to you, they are overtaxed and they need a break. This is the right thing to do for America and for the American people and the American taxpayer.

Mr. SHADEGG. Revenues will grow.

Mr. SHADEGG. I am thrilled to be with you tonight. I appreciate this opportunity. First let me commend you and your colleagues here on the floor for carrying on this debate, talking out in front of the American people about this issue, particularly about the issue of tax cuts. I have got to tell you I am here tonight to discuss that issue. I am here because I think it is a critical part of reconciliation. It is a hot debate before the American people. I want to begin by imploring our colleagues to just stop in their tracks for a minute and consider a few of the facts that are before us, and then I want to urge them to do what I did, which is to quit accepting kind of the public view that they have in their own mind without checking it out and go out and ask people. Let me explain what I mean by that. First of all, I heard here on the floor of this House and in the halls of Congress over and over again this rhetoric, ``Well, we have to focus on deficit reduction. We should not be cutting taxes right now.'' You hear it clearly from the other side. You hear it occasionally from our side, Members genuinely concerned about should we be cutting taxes right now. I have had a theory about that. I went home recently and went to an event in my district, an evening event. After the event was over, two different people came up to me, one a woman in probably her late seventies, the other a man in is sixties, and both of them came up to me and implored me not to cut taxes. They said, ``You should not be cutting taxes. What you ought to be doing is focusing on deficit reduction.'' I looked them right in the eye. I said, ``You know what, I really appreciate that. I appreciate that because what you are saying is what you honestly believe. But let me tell you, you are dead, absolutely, 100 percent wrong.'' When you say that to constituents, you get a little shocked reaction. They said, ``Well, why?'' I said, ``Well, let me tell you why you are saying that and where we are in America. Let us start with the fact we have all heard 100 times,'' and I said probably a thousand times in my campaign, I was born in 1949. The year after I was born, in 1950, the average American family with children paid $1 to the Federal Government in taxes out of every 50 it earned. You earn a hundred-dollar bill, you send $2 to the Federal Government. You know and I know, but I wonder how many people out there know and how many of our colleagues even think about the fact that in 1993, the figure is not 1 out of 50, it is 1 out of 4. Earn $4 and send 1 of those 4 to the Federal Government in taxes. We are not talking State Government. We are not talking local government. We are not talking fees to get into a park. We are talking taxes to the Federal Government. 1 out of 4; 1 out of 50 in 1950, 1 out of 4 in 1993. I tell audiences, ``Have you gotten that much more out of the Federal Government for this mega tax increase we have had over the years?'' And they are suddenly stunned, as these two constituents were. Then I have this theory, and I have been telling it to our colleagues around here time and time again, and they kind of do not buy it. So I decided to prove it. My theory was we are hearing from people who come to our town halls, and we are hearing from people at Kiwanis Clubs and Rotary Clubs, where we go give speeches. Let me tell you, I love this Nation, and I admire the people that come to my town halls, and I respect the people who join a Kiwanis Club and care to go and make their part of making America better by being a member of a Kiwanis Club. But real America does not have time to come to my town hall. They do not. Real America does not even have time or the money to join a Kiwanis Club or a Rotary Club. It is a financial burden. It costs my friends who are Kiwanis Club members $20 or $30 a week to go be part of that club, pay for lunch, take time out of work and support charitable things that club does. That is not America.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Miss Jacquelyn Clark, a student at Horizon High School and a resident of my district in Scottsdale, AZ. Miss Clark is the Arizona State winner of the Veterans of Foreign Wars' Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting scholarship contest. The contest theme this year was ``My Vision For America.'' I commend to you, Mr. Speaker, and all of my fellow Members of Congress, both in this House and in the other body, her words: My Vision for America In 1783, a group of men had a vision for a country based on justice and liberty for all Americans. One of the most beautifully written documents in our nation's history was created, the United States Constitution. My vision for America is that the people of our nation maintain a faith in the ideals held by our forefathers. The United States Constitution has proven itself worthy of our respect and allegiance. It has upheld its values with fortitude, and has stood the test of time by remaining true to its original principles. James Madison, considered the ``Father of the Constitution,'' believed that ``in framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce.'' Our nation has undergone many remarkable changes since its beginning. We have spread the words of liberty across our entire continent, and to all people who call our great nation their home. Amazingly, our Constitution's words are as valid today as they were when first written. These words of hope have served as a guiding light for all men. No matter where our individual paths may lead us, we always know that the rights recognized to us in the Constitution are rights we realize from birth, and rights on which we can depend to shield us from civil injustice and oppression. Included, are the rights to share in our government, the right to worship God in one's own way, and the right to a full and happy life. We must keep in mind, however, that with these rights come responsibilities, and how we invest in our country determines how we profit from it. A wise American once said, ``ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,'' This message remains true today. From its beginning, our Constitution has represented a belief in the future, but this belief must be maintained in the present. My vision for America is the hope of a shared vision between all Americans, and that they would be dedicated to protecting our nation's heritage. Today's Americans must have the desire and initiative to educate our children. Our coming generations need to realize that great accomplishments grow from average people. Every day, men and women had hopes for a brighter future and ended up making our great country what it is today. When I see veterans standing proudly to salute the American flag while the National Anthem plays patriotically in the background, and when I see small children with their hands held over their hearts stumble through the Pledge of Allegiance, I feel such pride for our nation and the principles for which it stands. We need to remember that those who come before us cannot depend on those who come after us to maintain the spirit of our Constitution. The goal of our forefathers was to assure within the wording of this great document that our nation would remain strong and would be a land of opportunity for all who supported it. Our constitutional foundation will remain firm only as long as its holders continue to protect its principles. It is up to us, today's Americans, to cherish the beliefs of our fathers and keep them alive and safe for our children. My vision for keeping this spirit alive is through a personal involvement in our government. Americans have a responsibility to its authors to not only teach the wording of the Constitution, but to demonstrate it's principles through our actions. We need to encourage all citizens to exercise their Constitutional privilege of suffrage, and to actively take part in the decisions that shape and mold our nation. By encouraging our children to participate in the

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report as it is written and to oppose the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, there were, some would argue, good and valid reasons to have a moratorium on mining in America. There were three arguments. One was land was being sold at giveaway prices, $2.50 to $5 an acre. The second was land that was being patented or mining was not being used for mining, it was being used for some other purpose. The third was the fact that there was no royalty being paid. This process is designed to address problems like that, and this bill has done that. Mr. Speaker, the conference committee report, which I urge my colleagues to read and to pay attention to, makes these issues clear. In legislation which we have adopted, in fact, there now is a provision that the full market value of the land has to be paid. There is no [[Page H 9691]] giveaway. So the first argument has been dealt with. Second, there is a reverter provision. If on any occasion the land is not used for the mining purposes, it reverts automatically. The second issue is dealt with. Both of those are dealt with in the conference committee report itself. But third and finally, the issue of a royalty is also dealt with in both the House and Senate reconciliation legislation. A royalty will be paid. There may, indeed, have been good reasons for those who were interested in them to impose a mining moratorium, but they were resolved in this report. I urge my colleagues to recognize we have fixed those problems. The miner moratorium hurts jobs and hurts people. For the other side, for those who oppose it to say we do not need minerals in America, we are anxious to protect jobs, but we do not care about miners jobs, so we do not need minerals produced in America and we can buy those minerals from overseas, they miss so much of the debate. Mr. Speaker, we need those jobs here in America and in the western United States. I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit and to support this legislation.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, it is truly sad when we see a display as the one we just saw. It is regrettable that the proponents of this amendment do not want to deal in fact. In point of fact, we are told the amendment does not apply to lobbyists. This town is knee deep in lobbyists for organizations that get grants and then turn around and use substantial portions of their money to oppose or influence legislation. Here in fact is the list of those organizations which get grants, and grants are gifts of taxpayers' money. Those grants, last year they got $163 million in gifts of taxpayers' money that we voted to give them, and they turned around and used their monies to lobby us. No one told you what the bill said. No one said? What it says is any one of those organizations can come and lobby. We have heard a dozen times from the other side that they cannot come and lobby. Every single one of those times we were being told an untruth. In point of fact, each of those organizations can come forward and spend up to 5 percent of their budget to lobby us, but let us talk about one. The National Council of Senior Citizens got $72 million last year, and they spent 95 percent of that money to lobby.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment. It is with great respect, Mr. Chairman, that I rise to oppose the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], and with great respect for the proponent of this amendment, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay]. The truth is, as the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] said, we do have a responsibility to the global environment. As my colleague from the other side said, indeed, the Global Environment Facility may in fact be dedicated to preservation of the environment, but the simple truth is it is an unabashed failure. It has not done what it proposed to do. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on the Budget, I rise to say enough is enough. We must have the strength to say no to continuing to fund bad programs, even if they are dedicated to worthy causes. Last month the national debt of the United States grew by over $1 billion per day. We simply cannot continue to leave that legacy to our children. We cannot leave it in the name of failed programs like the Global Environment Facility. Let me explain why I call it a failure, and why I call upon my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Delay] and to oppose any amendments which simply reduce its funding. Mr. Chairman, I hold before me a report prepared by an organization called Probe International, out of Toronto, Canada. Its title is ``The World Bank's Persisting Failure to Reform.'' It was written by John Thibodeau, and it is dated May, 1995. It documents in its first section that the Global Environment Facility remains dysfunctional. It says, and I quote, ``The review'' of this program ``was as scathing in its evaluation'' as possible, ``revealing an organization that was fundamentally flawed and unaccountable. The review found that the reason for the existence of the Global Environment Facility was obscure, ``that its operations were dysfunctional and its accountability ill-defined; that the concept of incremental costs was a serious weakness.'' It concluded with the following words, and this is an independent review: ``No further funds to new projects or programs should be made until such time as strategies, policies, concentration areas, priorities, criteria'' have been put in place. That is the conclusion of this report. Let me tell the Members why. Is it in fact protecting the environment? It is not. Its record is fundamentally flawed. The report talks about ``The Tana River Primate Reserve in Kenya, a $6.2 million project to protect two Endangered Species Act of monkeys.'' However, as my colleague pointed out, it is a failed proposal. It is a proposal to resettle 50,000 farmers of the Pokomo tribe. The GEF's desire to resettle this community, however, as is often the case, flies in the face of the evidence, the evidence that the Pokomo people not only co-existed with this endangered species and protected them for centuries, but also introduced them to Kenya, and when the danger to the environment of these monkeys became known, it was the Pokomo tribe that made it clear to the scientists. Mr. Chairman, why does the GEF propose to move them? The report details the facts. In fact, by claiming that the local people are a threat to the monkeys, what is happening is the GEF is conveniently hiding the fact that there are two other failed World Bank projects that are hurting the real environment for these monkeys. The two projects are the Kiambere Dam and the Bura Irrigation Project, both World Bank projects that are over budget disasters, and have so radically altered the Tana River's flow that the future of the monkeys is in danger. Mr. Chairman, the truth is the GEF is there to cover up and add a green tint to failed World Bank projects. In an environment such as we have today, where funds are so scarce, we simply cannot go on funding programs like the GEF. This amendment is supported, because it would save $50 million this year and $400 million over the course of the next 4 years, by Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Small Business Survival Committee, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, Coalitions for America, the National Center for Public Policy Research, the Environmental Policy Task Force, the Association of Concerned Taxpayers, Project 21, and Cato Institute. Mr. Chairman, why do they all support it? Because it is an abject failure. In this age, we cannot continue to support an abject failure, even at the minimal level. While I commend the subcommittee chairman for reducing the funding from a level that was proposed to only the figure of $50 million, it is time to zero this project in the waste and keep the monies where they belong, in the United States. amendment offered by mr. wilson as a substitute for the amendment offered by mr. de lay

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson]. Mr. Chairman, I understand the proposal of those who seek to defend this program. I understand they claim that the corrections have been made. The report I read from, I did not have time to note its date. The report is a report by an independent organization called Probe International based not out of the United States but out of Toronto, Canada, and is dated May 1995. The section of the report which I read was from the independent review. That review was concluded some time ago and it did point out the flaws which have been clearly acknowledged here, indeed the numerous flaws which have been clearly acknowledged in the GEF. But this is a current report which goes beyond that, and says that notwithstanding the claims of the environmental community, in point of fact the GEF is not doing the job correctly today. I suggest indeed it is not. I suggest that as President Clinton called upon America and said we can do better, indeed for those who are concerned about protecting the global environment, we can do far better than to add more money to a failed World Bank-dominated program, a program which puts money in the hands of the rulers of third-world countries and does not achieve its goals, a program which papers over World Bank projects which do serious environmental damage. I think it is important that this Congress have the courage to say ``no,'' not the courage to say, ``oh, it failed so let's give it a little less,'' but the courage to say ``no.'' [[Page H 6368]] With regard to my colleague from this side who said there is great corporate support for this proposal, let me suggest a fundamental flaw in that notion. When he says that many corporate interests in America support this idea and support funding for it, let me point out their hypocrisy. The truth is when polluters pollute, they should pay to clean it up, not the American taxpayer, and in this instance when he cites a series of American corporations who think it is a wonderful idea for us to take American tax dollars and to deal with third-world pollution, indeed, third-world pollution which they themselves may have contributed to, we set the cart before the horse. If the polluters have created the pollution, they should be made to clean it up, not the taxpayers of America, and not under a government program where you and I and my children and indeed with the debt we are creating, my grandchildren are compelled to pay to clean it up, that creates all the wrong incentives. Then the polluter has no motivation to clean up because the taxpayer is going to come along and bail him out. It simply is, as the report I have read from, which is a second report suggests, a failed program. Mr. Chairman, let me simply conclude with this point. If the best that the proponents of GEF can do is to acknowledge its failure, is to acknowledge that a year ago the environmental community, including the Environmental Defense Fund, criticized this and acknowledged that it was a failure, if the best they can do is say, ``Yes, it was poor before, but we've tried to improve, so give us, not $50 million but $30 million,'' I suggest we can, as Bill Clinton said, do better, and we can do better by abolishing the funding and creating a new program, a new program that in fact makes polluters pay for the pollution and does not require the American taxpayer to pay for their pollution or the pollution of other third-world governments.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, the last time I rose on this floor to speak about the issue of tax cuts, I said that my colleagues on the other side simply do not get it. Well, in the time that has intervened, they have not learned anything. They still do not get it. [[Page H5707]] The answer is that American people are not taxed too little. They are taxed too much. In 1950, the year after I was born, the average American family with children paid $1 out of $50 to the Federal Government in taxes. Today that family with children pays $1 out of $4. That is a 1,200-percent increase. They say it is a tax cut for the rich. I say they are wrong. But let us hear the argument. If they believe it is a tax cut for the rich and if they understand that we have had a 1,200-percent increase in taxes in America to the Federal Government alone, why are they not proposing that we cut taxes for people below the level, that we cut them further for the people they say are the poor and the needy? The answer is, they do not believe in tax cuts. The answer is, they are addicted to spending. The answer is that over the past 40 years they created this deficit and now they said, we could not balance the budget and cut taxes. Well, guess what? We proved them wrong. My colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], made the point. We not only balanced the budget, but we lifted the tax burden off the American people at the same time. We must do that. Get it straight. This is not our money. We are not giving back our money. We are letting the working people of America keep their money. That is the fundamental difference. If a 1,200-percent increase is not enough, what would make you happy? Would it make you happy if we had a 2,000-percent increase in the Federal tax burden or a 20,000- percent increase. If from 1950 to 1994, we went from $1 out of $40 to $1 out of $4, how soon will it be that we are at $1 out of $2. Would it be enough if we took from the average American taxpayer $1 out of every $2 that they earned? I tell my colleagues, this is the right budget. It is a historic budget. I urge its support.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the heroism of Mr. Richard E. Lemaster, who was, on this date, posthumously awarded the distinguished National Hero award by the National Association of Letter Carriers for his heroic actions of February 15, 1994. On that date, Mr. Lemaster lost his life while rescuing his niece and attempting to rescue his brother and sister-in-law from their burning mobile home. Mr. Lemaster's widow, Margie Lemaster, her son, Chris, Mr. Lemaster's brother and sister in-law and several other members of his family were present in the District of Columbia today for the award ceremony in his honor. I would like to formally acknowledge ultimate sacrifice made by Mr. Richard E. Lemaster, a U.S. Postal Service letter carrier for more than 23 years, and a true American hero.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I appreciate that. It is actually a great segue into where I was going, and I would like to talk about that issue a little bit. I want to bring you some facts and statistics. Congressman Gutnecht pointed out the elimination of these agencies is not just about numbers. It is not just about eliminating bureaucracy, but it is in part about that issue. I want to bring you some facts and statistics, and I will try to go slow and want you to think about them. I am reading from statistics produced by the Browning Newsletter, and they tell an amazing, a shocking story. Between 1963 and 1993, the average weekly wages of a blue collar worker in America went up 398 percent. Let's call it 400 percent. So average wages, blue collar worker, up 400 percent. The consumer price index is up 458 percent. Call it 460. Wages are up 400 percent, CPI is up 460 percent, consumer price index. That is the private sector, you you about what has happened to the Federal Government. Receipts at the Federal Government in that same time period, between 1963 and 1993, receipts are up 1,024 percent. Expenditures, we all know we have created a deficit. It is no accident I put the debt up here. Here it is, the red ink, and it scares us. Expenditures at the Federal level, they are not up 400 percent or 460 percent like wages and the Consumer Price Index. Expenditures at the Federal level are up 1,241 percent, a staggering increase, three times the amount of increase in Government spending as the amount of earnings for the average blue collar worker in America. The figure I like to cite the most is the deficit. Between 1963 and 1993, while your wages and my wages and the average American's wages were going up 400 to 460 percent, the deficit that you and I ran up by spending too much on the floor of this Congress is up a staggering 6,102 percent. 6,000 percent increase in the deficit that we are racking up.' That burden is immoral. I look here in the audience and there are some people, I would say some young people, watching us here tonight, late in the evening, kind of watching the floor of the House when most of the Members are gone. And those people in that audience tonight and the people back home need to understand that it is simply morally wrong to impose that deficit, an increase of 6,100 percent, and this red ink and debt, on them? To carry their lifetimes? On our children? On my children? I have a 13-year-old and a 9-year-old. I am going to ask them to pay that back because I didn't have the discipline? And on our grandchildren? I am telling you, we cannot do it. So that brings us to why we are about this task. We are abut this task because in part it has failed. Central planning has failed. But it has not failed to burden our children and grandchildren. By dismantling the four agencies we are working on, Education, Commerce, Energy and HUD, we are simply recognizing it is time to think outside the box, that we can do better. That education, I will tell you, in education in my district in Arizona, the constituents are clear. They sent me with one message: Education is not the business of the Federal Government. They believe that their local school board ought to be responsible for setting the policy and the parents and the teachers can do the job. Energy, I am on the task force to eliminate the Energy Department. In 1970 there was an energy crunch. There was a security concern. Today, with a $7.8 trillion debt being the greatest threat to our children and grandchildren, the Energy Department is a demonstrated failure. If we cannot recognize that and go into it conscientiously, seriously, thoughtfully, as we have done today in Commerce and as we are doing in Energy and see what are these functions, which should be performed at the Federal level and which of these should not, and which should be performed by some other agency and which should be handed back to the States and which do not need to be done by Government at all. That is what this problem is about. And it will, if we dismantle these inefficient agencies, if we have the courage to be bold, it will save billions of dollars on our national debt and begin to eliminate that line. Let me conclude with just one last point. Each time I go home to my district, I do not run into people who say to me ``I need more government.'' I do not run into people who ask me for more programs. We did a town hall in my district a few weeks ago. A gentleman came up to me and said he was an executive, mid-level executive in a company in Phoenix, and that in the last 8 years his company had downsized 50 percent. It was half the size that it was simply 8 years ago. And he said, John, we are producing twice the product that we produced that 8 short years ago. Why? Because we have forced efficiencies. Each year I take my budget in from my department to this corporation. Each year I tell them what I think I need to get the job done. Each year they come back to me and give me a number that is too small. I tell them I can't do it. You know what? Each year I have done it. Each year we have become more efficient. That kind of efficiency is what we need to bring to the Federal Government, and the elimination of these wasteful agencies, like Commerce, like Energy, like HUD, and like Education, which have small functions that perhaps should be borne by the Federal Government, but which ought to be passed on to other agencies, and then get rid of the Washington bureaucracy, the Washington bureaucrats, we do not need them. That is the way the American people expected us to lead their Government.

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Congressman Fox. I certainly appreciate your allowing me to participate in this effort tonight and the leadership you have demonstrated on it in seeking this time and giving us an opportunity to raise the issues for the American people to consider. I would like to start, and I know this sounds a little silly, but it is important to thank people and to recognize their efforts. Representative Brownback, who was just here, and Representative Gutknecht, who just spoke, have been two consistent leaders in this area. I recall, as I am sure, Mr. Fox, you do from the early freshmen meetings when we first met as a group of revolutionaries, when we drafted the idea of calling ourselves the New Federalists, when we got bold and talked about, well, should we propose eliminating an agency or maybe two agencies, and then we got even bolder and said, ``Well, why not four agencies?'' And I noticed that the Senate is now matching our trend and saying that if we can eliminate four in the House, we can eliminate four in the Senate, and some of the conservative think tanks around town, Heritage, I think, with a tremendous national reputation, is proposing eliminating, I believe, nine agencies. I have to say that Representative Gutknecht and Representative Brownback have been in the lead in that effort and have demonstrated great courage and great determination in going forward. It is also interesting to me tonight to note that most of the people involved in this effort right now, at least here on the floor tonight, are freshmen who came here with a new sense of the direction the American people want this Government to go. Having said that about the other leaders of this, I could not--I would be remiss if I did not mention Representative Chrysler from Michigan. He has done yeoman's work. The announcement they made today to eliminate the Commerce Department is indeed a bold step forward and a very important step forward for the American people. It is this kind of change that the American people want from us, demand from us, and they do it, and it is important to understand they are doing it out of a sense of frustration. We have spent 40 years building up the Federal Government larger and larger, ever increasing its size, ever increasing its scope, ever increasing its power, saying to the American people time and time and time again that, if they will just give us a little more power and a few more tax dollars, we will solve their problems, and at the end of this 40 years' experience, one message is clear: It is failed. Central planning does not work. We cannot solve the problems of commerce in this country by creating a Department of Commerce. What we can do is suck a ton of money out of an otherwise vibrant economy, put thousands of bureaucrats into high marble buildings, and burden the economy even further, and that is what we have proven, and the bold steps taken today by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] and the others on his task force are testament to the fact we finally sat back and listened carefully and recognized that our efforts to centrally plan commerce in America has failed the way efforts to centrally plan commerce in the Soviet Union failed, and to centrally planned commerce in all the Eastern-bloc countries fails and to centrally planned commerce everywhere throughout the world has failed. Since the rest of the world got the message that planned economies do not work, it is about time the American Government got that message and began moving in the right direction.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. This debate is about the change that we need in America versus the status quo. What we hear from one side of the aisle is that the status quo is fine. Indeed, we have just heard criticism of what this budget does to Medicare. My colleague from Massachusetts happens to not know what it does, because gross spending goes up from $5.5 to $6.7 billion under this budget in Massachusetts. The per capita spending, that is per beneficiary spending in Massachusetts, under our budget, goes up from roughly $5,900 to more than $7,800 under this budget. That is not a cut by anybody's definition. That is an increase in spending. What we are doing is reforming a system. Under the proposal that they put forward, under the President's budget, 6 years from now, no one in America will get Medicare benefits because the system will be broke. This is a debate over sitting with the status quo and burying your head in the sand and doing nothing or moving forward. It is time to move forward in America. This budget does that responsibly. It takes care of our children by saying to them, we will no longer continue to saddle you with an immoral debt burden because we are unwilling to control our spending. In area after area, while I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] for putting together an excellent budget, I must also commend the Kasich budget. It does a marvelous job of addressing the problem that confronts this Nation and about which its citizens are deeply concerned. I urge support for the Kasich budget.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I think the debate today has been fascinating. It illustrates just how far out of touch all of this has become. The American people are screaming for change. They are fed up with a Federal Government that is too fat, and too bloated, and too out of control, and what we hear on the other side of the aisle is a litany of defense of the status quo: This program cannot be cut, that program cannot be cut, no change. They like things just as they are. Well, that is not what the American people asked for in the election on November 8, and that is not what we came here to deliver. I just listened to my distinguished colleague from the other side who said that the Medicare Program in our plan cuts further than it ought to. Well, I would like to ask the question: ``Precisely what are the proposed changes in the Medicare plan under your balanced budget proposal?'' ``Oh, you don't have a balanced budget proposal. I see; you have the Clinton proposal, which is grow. You have a proposal which says, `Although the Medicare system will be bankrupt in less than 6 years, what we are going to do about it is play Chicken Little, or something of that sort, and bury our head in the sand and do nothing'.'' Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve better than that. We have a Federal Government which is totally out of touch with the people it governs. Let me cite some statistics for what we did and why we did it. The 1963 to 1993 comparison is what I would like to talk about. Since 1963, Mr. Chairman, the average weekly wages of a blue collar worker in America are up 398 percent. Average wages, blue collar worker, up 398 percent. The Consumer Price Index is up 458 percent. Let me contrast those numbers with the Federal Government. Federal Government receipts are up 1,024 percent. Federal Government expenditures are up 1,241 percent. The deficit, the problem that they would just as soon ignore, the deficit since 1963 is up a staggering, and listen to this number, 6,102 percent. I got to ask what would the deficit have had to increase for our friends on the other side to say we need to make some change? I don't know what it is; I am still waiting for their balanced budget plan. Mr. Chairman, when the average worker's wages are up about 400 percent, but Government is up in its receipts 1,000 percent, its expenditures 1,200 percent, and its deficit 6,000 percent, it is time to act. It is time to act [[Page H5167]] responsibly. It is time to bring the Government's budget into balance, and that is what this Republican budget does. When I was in Prescott, AZ, at the field hearing and in Billings, MT, the American people said they were willing to participate as long as it was fair. This measure is fair. I urge its support.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to substitute the language of H.R. 50 for S. 219. H.R. 450, the Regulatory Reform Transition Act, passed this body overwhelmingly. It is not an extreme measure. In the debate in the other body on this measure, one of our colleagues said, and I quote, ``Our system of government is working.'' With respect to the regulatory system in America, my colleague's claim could not be further from the truth. He is simply wrong. The regulatory burden we are imposing willy-nilly on American businesses and American citizens is in excess. It is doing severe damage to our economy, and it is time to stop it. We need to subject, Mr. Speaker, all regulations to a risk assessment and to a cost-benefit analysis. That is the substantive review we are seeking. That is what this legislation will do. The time to begin subjecting new regulations to that type of analysis, cost-benefit and risk assessment, is now. That is what H.R. 450 will do. The moratorium simply says there will be a time out, and that we will have that time period during which to pass substantive regulatory review, reform, and then to subject those regulations now going through that process to that substantive review. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to several remarks on the other side. Some of my colleagues have risen to say that this is an extreme measure, and that the Senate measure is a good alternative. That is simply incorrect, because the Senate measure is different. It does not achieve the same goal. I myself support the notion of legislative review of regulatory matters. If, indeed, a regulatory proceeding is extreme and the regulation should be suspended, that is fine. However, that is not what this legislation accomplishes. This legislation says it is known and indisputable in America that the regulatory system is out of control. That is not necessarily true only 90 or 100 or 120 days from now. The regulatory system is out of control now. When we enact substantive review, which requires cost-benefit and risk assessment analysis, we ought to apply that to all of the regulations that are currently going through. My colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], recognized there are thousands of regulations going through at this time. They should be subjected to this review. I urge support of the motion.