John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. It actually doesn't work.

Mr. SHADEGG. I agree with the gentleman completely. But we don't mandate a single auto insurance policy for the entire country in auto insurance. We let the 50 States define what constitutes auto insurance in their State. But let's talk about how mandatory auto insurance actually works. I don't know if the gentleman knows it, but 48 States have mandatory auto insurance. So if you own and drive a car, you are compelled by law to buy liability insurance. Two States don't: Wisconsin and New Hampshire. Guess what? The percentage of people in those two States who are uninsured is lower than the average percentage in the States where it's mandatory. That's right. In the 48 States where the government says you must have auto insurance, fewer or a lower percentage are actually insured than in the two States where they don't have mandatory auto insurance. I think that proves mandatory auto insurance doesn't work. But what I really love when the other side cites the beauty of mandatory auto insurance is of the 48 States that mandate that you cannot drive a car in that State without auto insurance, 22 of those States mandate that you must also buy uninsured motorist coverage. Wait a minute. Let me see if I understand this. We have told all the people you must buy, as a matter of law, auto insurance, but in 22 of the States where they've done that, they are so confident that many people will break that law that they mandate also, the government putting a gun at your head, uninsured motorist coverage. Now, if everybody was going to comply with the first law and buy auto insurance, why in God's name would you need the second law? And the answer is mandates don't work. In at least those 22 States, the legislatures have openly acknowledged that mandatory auto insurance doesn't work, so we're going to require mandatory uninsured motorist coverage.

Mr. SHADEGG. A higher level of insured and a lower level of uninsured.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mandates don't work.

Mr. SHADEGG. Will my colleague from Texas yield?

Mr. SHADEGG. Briefly, we serve on the Commerce Committee. We're going to get to have a markup next week on this bill, but we will not have ever had a hearing on the bill. And as we pointed out earlier, there is no bill yet. But in the discussion draft that has been released, there is stunning information. It's one thing to talk about the stuff in the bill that's goofy; it's something else to talk about stuff in the bill that's outright absurd. The gentleman talked about penalties. There is a provision in the bill that is outright absurd, and it goes to the point the gentleman just raised. The bill not only has a mandate that individuals must buy care, it has a mandate that employers must provide care. Okay. Maybe that's a good rule. But guess what--here's the absurdity. If you, as an employer in America, comply with that law, and you buy health insurance for every single one of your employees, and one of your employees says, ``You know what, I don't want your insurance. I decline it,'' you, the employer, must pay a penalty of 8 percent of that employee's salary because the employee chose to turn down the coverage. So you are penalized not for failing to offer the care. You are penalized because the employee said they didn't want it. What if the employee didn't want it because they preferred their spouse's coverage? That's the story in the Shadegg family. For years my wife worked for the school district in Arizona. She was offered health care coverage. She declined it because she took it under my coverage. There's no point in buying two policies. Apparently under this bill, were she to decline it in the future, the Federal Government, that pays my health insurance, would have to pay a fine--of course they wouldn't apply the penalties to the government--of 8 percent of her salary because she turned down the care. You've got to be kidding me. You can't come up with stuff that goofy, but they did.

Mr. SHADEGG. I would be happy to. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have worked on health care reform since I got here in 1995. It is a passion that I have. I believe we can do better than the current system, and I applaud the President for calling for health care reform. I personally believe the current system is damaged by the fact that it's controlled by third parties. Your employer picks your plan, and your plan picks your doctor. What I heard the President say and what I heard, quite frankly, the current Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton, say when she was a candidate was, ``If you like what you have, you can keep it.'' You know, I think if most Americans hear that, they're going to be fairly comfortable because many of us are worried really about two things: We're worried about the cost escalating too quickly, and we're worried about the uninsured. But as I said earlier, some 83 percent of Americans are satisfied with their care. Guess what--that promise ``If you like what you have, you can keep it,'' by the current President and by Democrats in this Congress, is simply untrue if you read the discussion draft that's out there. It is blatantly, patently, clearly, unquestionably untrue. Here's why: As the gentleman from Texas points out, the legislation creates the Health Benefits Advisory Committee. As my colleague from Georgia pointed out, what that committee is going to do is it's going to define what constitutes health insurance in America. It's going to set the standard for every single health care policy sold in America. We are going to have literally a one-size-fits- all mandate or dictate from this Health Benefits Advisory Committee. They're going to say, ``That's a policy, and it qualifies.'' ``That's not a policy, and it doesn't qualify.'' There is no chance that the rules they issue will, in fact, allow the policies sold all the way across America today to all of the employers who provide health care to actually fit into their new rules. So as a practical matter, virtually every American--I suggest indeed every American in the span of 5 years--will lose the health care plan they have. So if the statement, ``If you like what you have, you can keep it'' turns out not to be true because, as my colleague Mr. Price from Georgia pointed out, we're going to have a board that constitutes a policy, no policy currently sold by employers will fit what that board dictates. Therefore, in 5 years they will no longer be able to give you that plan. You might lose your health care plan the first year, but you will certainly lose your health care plan and not be able to keep what you have in 5 years because the law says, In 5 years every plan must fit the dictates of that new advisory board. So if you like what you have--as I said today earlier, and I say it again--if you like what you have, be prepared to lose it because you are going to lose it. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Passing this bill at this time will be a tragic error. It simply cannot be justified on a cost-benefit analysis. Every day we make decisions in our lives by balancing the costs of our decisions with the benefits of those decisions; and on that basis, this bill can't be justified. As a Republican who crossed my leadership on many major-profile bills, I urge my colleagues on the other side who are being pressured and all my colleagues who have doubts to carefully think through this vote. Crossing your leadership is not fun or easy, but sometimes its the right thing to do. I know. I've done it. First, while we have been told that the science on this issue is settled, it clearly is not and is becoming less and less settled every day. Carbon dioxide emissions in the United States have gone up every year since 2001, but global temperatures have remained flat. Carbon dioxide emissions are going up; global temperatures have been flat since 2001. They have stopped going up almost a decade ago. More and more scientists are coming forward every day casting doubt on the alleged consensus that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in America to receive a meteorological Ph.D., expressed relief upon her retirement last year, saying she could now speak freely about her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist, recently said--and he contributed to the U.N. climate report--he called man-made warming the worst scientific scandal in history. Second, even if you assume that man-made greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide are causing global warming, this bill can't be justified because it doubles the cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Witnesses testified before our committee that they can control CO2, but that the cost of doing so under this bill would be twice as much. And why is that? It's because they have to pay first to buy carbon credits and then they have to spend the capital to improve their plants.

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SHADEGG. I simply want to clarify the points that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) was making before and make sure I understand this. This is the printed version of the bill which apparently went to Rules last night. As I understand it, these are the 304 pages that make up the manager's amendment. And together, as I understand the Chair's ruling, this constitutes the official copy; is that correct?

Mr. SHADEGG. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SHADEGG. Each of these pages, as I understand it, could change a page in this matter, and so the Clerk is presently trying to meld these together. So you can't read this without also reading this, and this modifies any given page in this; is that correct?

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Would the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, the committee report for H.R. 1145 states that the purpose of the bill is to coordinate the Federal Government's water programs to ensure they are conducted in an ``efficient and cost- efficient manner.'' There are currently over 20 Federal agencies carrying out research and development on water programs, not counting the State agencies that engage in the same kind of work or those at the county or local level. While the interagency committee is directed in the bill to avoid duplication of efforts, the bill fails to take the necessary step to implement that directive. It does not in fact provide the committee with explicit authorization to recommend against the funding programs that are duplicated amongst different Federal agencies or initiatives that are duplicated at the State level as well as at the Federal level. My amendment is simple and straightforward. It has simply two provisions. The first says that they should identify Federal water- related research and development technological innovative activities that are duplicated by more than one Federal agency or program and make recommendations to the President how to avoid such duplication. Simple, straightforward. Simply says where there is duplication, make a recommendation to the President of the United States on how I might avoid that duplication. The second says to identify Federal water-related research development and technological activities that are duplicative of those conducted at the State and local or at the tribal government level. Again, simple and straightforward. That is the essence of my entire amendment. It is intended to look at the issue of efforts at the Federal level which duplicate each other and to at least make a recommendation that they be consolidated for reasons of efficiency, and to do the same with regard to State, local or tribal efforts. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that everyone in America is currently tightening their belt. The least this Federal Government can do is to look--and that's all my legislation does is require the government to look if those things are duplicated and eliminate that duplication where it can be done efficiently. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHADEGG. My concern about the comments of the gentleman, I would share those comments. I am concerned about the cost of such an effort, but nowhere in the legislation that I have offered is there, in fact, a requirement that all duplicative programs be researched or that a certain amount be expended to do that. But more importantly, in the gentleman's remarks he's at least twice said that the duplicative programs would be eliminated, and I would simply suggest that in the wording of the amendment we offered, we make no such requirement. There is no requirement, for example, if there were a program being conducted by a tribe and also by the Federal Government that it must be eliminated or one that was being conducted by the State of Arizona versus the Federal Government, that it must be eliminated. Indeed, the language of the amendment as written simply says they are to make recommendations to the President on how to avoid simple recommendations on how to avoid that. And in addition, it leaves the issue open with regard to conflicts with State and local implementation to simply say there is, in fact, a duplication without requiring any elimination that, for the very reasons the gentleman has noted, indeed, to have Arizona researching water recharge and Florida doing it with very different situations makes all the sense in the world.

Mr. SHADEGG. Could I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. SHADEGG. I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. SHADEGG. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to respond to the point about the language of the bill or the amendment as offered because I think there is a clear misunderstanding here. The language that was referred to, ``the President shall not request'' or the ``President shall instruct the agencies participating shall not request appropriations for those activities'' is not applicable to the actual duplicative conduct. It is to the research to determine what is duplicative. There is nothing mandatory in this amendment. We intentionally wrote it to say it would be a simple recommendation of the President to eliminate duplication. The prohibition is on requesting further funds to do these activities because in the course of doing the activities, we believe that can be done as part of the other work under the legislation. But just to be very clear, the ``shall'' language does not refer to duplicative efforts. The amendment does not offer binding language to say, if it's duplicative, you cannot engage in it. And that's simply a misreading of the language of the bill. I would urge my colleagues to support this. I believe it's a straightforward provision that would save the taxpayers money. It is simply advisory. It asks these agencies to take a look at areas that are duplicative. I think it's the least we can do under the circumstances. I yield back.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize today the 50th Anniversary of PING, a company that has become a legend for its contributions to the beloved game of golf. It was on March 23rd in 1959 that Karsten Solheim, PING's founder, applied for a patent on the 1-A putter that made the famous ``ping'' sound heard round the world. Not long after that, PING opened their headquarters in Phoenix--where they have proudly stayed for many years. Their Phoenix facility both manufactures and assembles PING golf clubs and over the years has provided countless jobs for Arizonans. Karsten and his wife Louise have always been mainstays of our community, as widely respected as the clubs they produce. Though Karsten sadly left us nine years ago, his legacy lives on and his story is a credit to our community and a testament to the drive and creativity of the American entrepreneur. I congratulate PING and all its employees on this most auspicious occasion and wish them another 50 years of great success.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I compliment the Republican Study Committee budget. Madam Chair, it has been, indeed, the most conservative and the lowest spending budget ever presented on this floor, year after year, for every year that I have been here. I want to address one of the comments made on the other side. The other side has said over and over again there isn't a tax increase. Well, you can use those words carefully, but you have to look at the reality of the budget. In point of fact, there is, roughly, $682 billion in government revenue to be derived from the imposition of a cap-and-trade program. That revenue has to come from somewhere. It will come from the American people. Indeed, it probably isn't a tax increase because it will come from every single American, including those who currently don't pay taxes. If that's not a burden on this economy at the wrong time, I don't know what is. In point of fact, this budget contains the largest deficit, $1.8 trillion in 2009, four times larger than the largest previous record of $407 billion. It contains the largest deficit as a percentage of the gross domestic product since World War II, and it will result in the largest national debt, $12.7 trillion in 2009, greater than the sum of all debt from 1789 to today. Our grandparents and parents have been recognized as the greatest generation. They conquered fascism. They saved freedom. They put America on a course to prosperity. With this budget, we are progressing rapidly toward what will be labeled, I fear, the ``reckless generation.'' We are shirking our responsibility to our children and to our grandchildren. It will double the national debt in 5 years, and it will triple it in 10. Do we want to be remembered as that ``reckless generation''? Every American balances their budget. We must balance the Nation's budget.

Mr. SHADEGG. What we just heard was something rather amazing--it is that you can get something for nothing. But as Americans know, that simply isn't true. Indeed, what you get for spending is debt or higher taxes. And there are some facts in this debate. We spent a lot of time discussing today whether or not the cap-and- trade program is a tax. The majority side said, ``Oh, no, no, it's not a tax.'' But in the Obama budget it produces $647 billion for the government. That's an additional weight on every single American--not just taxpayers--but every single American. That's higher energy costs, that's higher costs for everything we buy. Now let's talk about some of the facts.

Mr. SHADEGG. I will yield like you yielded earlier. The largest tax increase in our history--$1.4 trillion over 10 years. It contains the largest deficit--$1.8 trillion in 2009. Four times larger than the previous record of $407 billion, the largest deficit as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product since World War II, and the largest national debt. I would suggest to you there are facts in this debate. Those facts include that the Republican budget which was put together by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) spends $4.8 trillion less than the Democrat budget, and it borrows $3.6 trillion less than the Obama budget. So what does that mean? What it means is that if we pass the Democrat budget, we are rapidly going on the path of becoming--not the greatest generation, which is what our parents and grandparents created, and gave us the defeat of fascism, the advancement of freedom, and putting America on a course to a level of prosperity we have never before seen. What we are going to give our children, what we are going to give our grandchildren, is the most reckless generation--a generation that is driving itself deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. It stuns me that the other side was so concerned when my Republican colleagues were overspending, but not concerned today. Well, this budget that the Democrats have proposed will double the national debt in 5 years, triple it in 10. The facts are there. We cannot do this to the greatest generation or to the next generation. Let's not become the reckless generation.