Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, good morning and aloha, and good morning and aloha to my good friend and most excellent chairman, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young]. Both the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], and the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], introduced this bill, a hallmark of bipartisan cooperation dearly to be cherished and assiduously sought afdter in legislation to come. In my view, Mr. Speaker, and in the view of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], H.R. 1266 provides for a beneficial resolution, both for the economy and the environment of southeast Alaska. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Resources has a long history of concern for the management of Admiralty Island National Monument. While the wilderness and wildlife values of Admiralty Island are very special, responsible operation of the Greens Creek Mine is not necessarily compatible with the conservation purposes for which the monument was established. This legislation would allow Greens Creek to explore 7,500 acres of nonwilderness lands adjacent to the existing mine, allowing mine operations to expand with relatively little surface disturbance. By virtue of the agreement negotiated between the Forest Service and Kennecott, the environment will benefit both in the short term through $1.1 [[Page H4925]] million of land acquisition from willing sellers, and in the long term when mining operations cease and the lands revert back to the Forest Service. In addition, the bill creates a land acquisition account to be funded by the first $5 million of royalties collected for further land purchases in the Tongass National Forest, with priority to non-Federal lands within the national monument. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, if Greens Creek fails to purchase and deliver title to $1.1 million worth of lands acceptable to the Forest Service, the land exchange will not be consummated. Mr. Speaker, it is important to consider this agreement in the context of efforts to reform the mining law of 1872. The notion that those of us who favor modernizing the mining laws are opposed to the mining industry in this country is simply false. My support of this legislation, which is likely to significantly enhance the economics and life of the Greens Creek Mine, should put that falsehood to rest. This legislation does set an important precedent that the Government should receive a royalty share for the development of public lands. At the same time, I do not consider the 3-percent net royalty negotiated in this agreement as universally applicable for purposes of mining reform. I recognize there were concessions from both sides in the negotiating process and I am reluctant to rewrite the deal. On balance, however, I applaud both Kennecott and the Forest Service for their efforts, and I ask Members to support the bill. May I add personally, Mr. Speaker, again my congratulations to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young]. the chairman, and the appreciation of all the members on the minority side for his openness and, as always, his willingness to be cooperative with us. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. ABERCOMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago this year Senator Daniel Inouye was fighting to liberate Italy from Nazi oppression. He lost his arm and almost his life, as did many other American soldiers of Japanese ancestry. What a savage irony it is that Senator Inouye and other veterans of the 442d and the 100th Battalions have to listen to the kind of mockery that was displayed on the 50th anniversary of the defeat of nazism by Senator Alfonse D'Amato. I trust that Senator D'Amato will display some sense of shame. I would like to believe it was an anomaly, that it was something that was spontaneous and not well thought out. I would like to think that Senator D'Amato would have the common courtesy, as well as a sense of shame, to let Senator Inouye and all Americans of Japanese ancestry know that he apologizes.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I submitted to the Rules Committee an amendment to H.R. 1215, the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995, regarding the one-time exclusion of gain from sale principal residence by individual who has attained age 55. However, under this closed rule I will not have the opportunity to offer an amendment which deserves consideration by the House. Currently, under 26 U.S.C.S. section 121, an individual has the option to elect not to include gain from the sale or exchange of property if they meet certain criteria: First, the taxpayer has attained the age of 55 before the date of such sale or exchange, and second, during the 5-year period ending on the date of the sale or exchange, such property has been owned and used by the taxpayer as his principal residence for periods aggregating 3 years or more. Furthermore, the limitations for the application of this option are subject to: First, dollar limitation. The amount of the gain excluded from gross income shall not exceed $125,000--$62,500 in the case of a separate return by a married individual, and second; application. An individual can only elect to utilize this option once. Mr. Chairman, section 121 was added to the code in 1964. Initially, an individual had the option to exclude a gain of $20,000 from the sale or exchange of property. The attainment age was 65 and during an 8-year period ending on the date of the sale or exchange, such property had to have been owned and used as a principal residence for 5 years. Since that time section 121 has been amended to its present form. yet, the last time the option to exclude from gross income was increased was in 1981 from $100,000/$50,000 to $125,000/$62,500. My amendment would increase the exclusion on sale of principal residence to $250,000/$125,000. Also, I have included language so that the property would has to be owned and used by an individual as a principal residence for 6 out of the 10 years on the date of sale or exchange. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is not for speculators. The purpose of the amendment is to provide a real option for individuals who have seen property values increase dramatically since 1981, particularly in the State of Hawaii and other high cost housing areas. In 1980-81, the average cost for single-family housing in Hawaii was $169,000, In 1994, the average cost for single-family housing had risen to $430,000. Nowadays, most of my constituents do not even have the opportunity to purchase a house. They have been priced out of the market. By the same token, seniors who in may cased have lived in the same house for their entire lives do not have the option of selling their property because it would be fiscally imprudent. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that as the House moves to consider legislation to establish tax fairness I am unable to offer an amendment that would move towards this goal.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, last week a bill passed on tax deductions for health benefits for the self-employed. Unfortunately we had a containment; contained within that bill is an exemption to allow billionaires to escape paying their taxes. Now, I understand they are going to give up their citizenship in order to not pay their taxes. My understanding is the present conference report is being held in the Senate over that language. I certainly hope that is the case. In the meantime, having succeeded at that, we now find, I understand, that there is a bill circulating in this House to give one of these billionaires who renounced his American citizenship, who owns a foreign cruise ship, a tax exemption, tax deduction, for business meals and entertainment, and that is contained in the bill. I can assure you, if the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] says, as he has, that he will fight the minimum wage with every fiber in his body, I can assure this House that I will fight this billionaire who has renounced his American citizenship to have a foreign-flag, foreign- crewed, foreign-owned cruise ship that takes money from Americans and get a tax break on top of it. You can bet I am going to fight that with every fiber in my body.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, several references have been made already during these special orders and several references were made during the day, Mr. Speaker, to the question of the conference on the health premium deduction for self-employed, and repealing the tax preference for minority broadcasters. Some of those who are observing our activities here today may wonder who they are put together, in fact some Members from the Republican Party asked us to provide information as to why we were bringing up the question of billionaires who leave the country in order not to pay taxes and renounce their citizenship, asked us to explain how that was relevant to a bill having to do with the deductibility of employers, the self-employed for their health benefits. The reason is very simple: You have to pay for it. In order to pay for it, you must pick and choose how you will offset the cost of the deduction. Everyone is in favor of the deduction; the question is how to pay for it. We had a choice. We had a choice between eliminating the possibility for minorities, including women, of expanding their capacity to be involved in the communications industries, or we could tax billionaires who are leaving the country and renouncing their citizenship in order to avoid taxes. That is the plain and simple fundamental element that was involved here. This not merely a question of expatriation in the sense that someone's literary sensibilities were offended, that somehow ideologically or philosophically they found themselves in opposition. Good Americans have the opportunity to contend with these ideas as we are on this floor. They stay and fight, they stay and make their case. What we have here is not expatriates, what we have here are Benedict Arnolds, Benedict Arnolds who would sell out their citizenship, sell out their country in order to maintain their wealth. That is it. My good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], came to the floor and indicated that he could not understand why we were excoriating these people. That was the word he used, ``excoriating.'' Of course we were excoriating them. He said that was already current law that took care of this, then went on to say that the current law does not work well enough and that it needed to be fixed. That is what we were going to do with this bill, we were going to fix it with this bill to see to it that the deductibility was going to be paid for by the billionaires who were renouncing their citizenship. I think that is completely clear, that is what we were going to do. I remember that when I was a child I think the most potent story that we learned in elementary school was one entitled ``The Man Without a Country,'' the man without a country. And as I remember the conclusion to that story, the man without a country was left permanently at sea, seeing constantly the horizon of the United States, bereft of the benefits of citizenship. Well, today that has been transposed into the jet set, people who are able to retain property in this country, able to retain income, able to live in this country 120 days a year, able to establish residence in a country or region that will allow them not to pay taxes, enjoy the full benefits of all of the wealth that they have accumulated in the United States of America as citizens, and renounce it at the same time, while we are asked to give more time to the Republican majority to craft not to be abrogated in any way. We have been passing legislation at freight train speed to overturn all of the situations that would undergird the possibility of feeding our children their school lunches, of seeing to it that our students are able to maintain their financial aid, asking immigrants to come to this country and to achieve their citizenship as rapidly as possible. Where I live in Hawaii we have immigrants coming in every day who are establishing themselves, working hard, paying their taxes, working forward and eager to the day that they can become citizens of the United States of America. How is it possible for a political party to defend those who have enjoyed the full benefits of citizenship in the greatest country on the face of the Earth, in the history of the world, and defend them when they seek to run away from the responsibilities that every other person in this country is pleased and happy and eager to undertake? To have billionaires able to renounce their citizenship and have that excused and have them released from being able to pay for it off receipts that are needed in order for the self-employed to be able to deduct their health costs is a blot and a shame on the legislative business of this House of Representatives.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I am very glad this has been cleared up. This is not a House Republican position. The desire to allow billionaires to leave the country and renounce their citizenship is a Republican Party position. That goes through both houses. Let it be explicitly clear, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has made it clear, this is not something that was done just at the behest of the House. The entire Republican Party is now on record favoring billionaires escaping this country, not paying their taxes, while we have immigrants coming into this country desiring citizenship that ask only the opportunity to become Americans and pay taxes. My name was invoked by the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], and I appreciate his friendship. He said I am emotional on this issue. I think I am. He is quite right, I am emotional about being an American. I am proud to be an American. He said and others have said, ``Why are you bringing this up in this bill? It is irrelevant.'' No, it is not. Mr. Speaker, I hope those who are listening in understand this bill has to be paid for and we are paying for it by taking the opportunity of minorities and women to participate in communications and allowing millionaires to get away. That is how it could have been paid for.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The discussion is who is responsible for having these billionaires being able to escape taxation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. We are not discussing that.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So I am correct that the Senate did acknowledge or acquiesce to the House position to drop this particular provision?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, perhaps, I do not want to add to the confusion, but I understood you, maybe you misunderstood my remarks. My remarks were addressed to the question of whether or not the Senate position would be sustained, instruction or not, with respect to this, to closing this loophole for these billionaires being able to escape fair taxation by renouncing their citizenship. My understanding was that the House requested and succeeded in getting this provision dropped from the Senate bill.

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, the other night I came on this floor and indicated that I had come over because I thought there was to be a vote taken virtually immediately, because I expected the instruction on this would be accepted by the Republican side. Now, for those who are not familiar with all of the ins and outs of what goes on on this floor or for those who are here today witnessing democracy in action and are sitting in the gallery for the Close Up Foundation, young people that come here, for the men and women who work hard and pay taxes and believe in their citizenship and raised their kids to believe in America, that someone like myself to come from Buffalo, NY, 36 years ago, can go to Hawaii and represent Hawaii today in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial society, a rainbow of people, a plurality of people that make up the United States of America, the most unique and special country in the history of the world because we take immigrants in from all over the world and say, you can be Americans and you can achieve your dreams, I am standing here today because of that. My ancestors emigrated to the United States, proud to be Americans. And we have people today who say, I do not want to pay taxes, much of it on inherited wealth, people who have not earned anything but just took money out of the economy, they do not want to pay taxes and they renounce their citizenship. We are celebrating the end of World War II, some of you young people that are listening in and some of your parents and grandparents, commemorating World War II where people fought and died for freedom, and we have people who take advantage of the Republican side goes to the Senate and makes them drop this provision. That is what this is all about. This is whether or not you are for the rich people to denounce their citizenship or whether you are going to be for the ordinary working man and woman in this country, proud to be an American. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rose last week and spoke of three things that determine what a democracy is, particularly American democracy. Among them was the right to a trial by jury, the right to sue, and the absolute right to be able to cast our votes freely and without coercion. I have heard the word ``absolute'' used many times today. I will say this, that restricted access to the ballot box is what this is all about. Term limits is a way to tell the American people who they cannot vote for. It is an opportunity for those who want to restrict access to the ballot box. I have a term limit. We all have term limits. The Constitution says every 2 years we must present ourselves before the American people, before our constituents, to seek their judgment on our performance. It could not be shorter. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] made the point earlier today, not only is it wrong to restrict access to the ballot, but it is dangerous, a fundamental danger to American democracy. I say, turn down term limits and vote for democracy in America.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I originally came to the floor, and I regret to say there are not many people on the floor at this particular time, and I hope some people are tuning into this discussion. I originally came to the floor because I anticipated there would be no dispute about this. I anticipated that this would be agreed to and we would move ahead. This is the most appalling debate that I have ever been a part of or witnessed in 21 years of public service. How is it possible? I have got immigrants, immigrants like my ancestors, driven out of Scotland, people in Hawaii today who are immigrants, paying taxes and working, proud to be Americans, striving for the chance to be Americans. We had a welfare debate in here that said we do not want people in this country unless they are going to be Americans and move toward being American citizens. Otherwise we are cutting them off, even if they are legal immigrants, people that I deal with every day. I say to my colleagues, Maybe some of you come from areas where you don't see many immigrants. Maybe you have forgotten where your ancestors came from in this country. But I see them every day, and we deal with people everyday who are proud to be there. I watched PBS on television last night where people were standing up, singing the Star Spangled Banner, just become being citizens of this country. They were not running away because they made money here. I say to my colleagues, I know what program you saw. I know what got you interested in this. These people who have left this country because they don't want to pay taxes, they don't even have a fundamental ideological motive. They are not opposed to the war unless their ideology is, ``I get to make everything I can or take everything that I can, and, when it becomes inconvenient to pay my share of taxes, like everybody else in America, I get to split, and once more I want my rights, my human rights.'' How dare anybody bring up on the floor of this House of Representatives human rights and compare them to people trying to leave the Soviet Union, Jews trying to leave the Soviet Union, kept there in the iron grip of communism? I ask, ``Do you think they're able to leave Burma today?'' Look at all the analogies that can be authoritarianism, and compare someone leaving the United States. I hear every aspect of their assets will be looked at. If I had my way, this bill, this instruction by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] is lightweight, lightweight. This proposal is not designed to prevent Americans from shifting their assets and citizenship to another country. If it was my instruction, it would. Why should I give two hoots about somebody that wants to give up their U.S. citizenship and shift their assets to another country and then say that they demand human rights, demand human rights as a citizen? It has been brought up about double taxation. I say, ``You can triple or quadruple tax them as far as I'm concerned, run it up to a hundred percent if they want to give up their citizenship because they don't want to pay their taxes.'' They say here that maybe--it is impossible for me to understand why we are not passing this. I will tell my colleagues this: I've tried mostly in my campaigns to say what I stand for and what I believe and not go to the other person, but I'm going to be very interested what the vote is. This is an instruction. This is just an instruction. We all know what `instruction' means. This is a guidepost to you to go into this. I can't believe that anybody will come down here and vote against this instruction, and, if you do, I tell you not only when I go home, but in every chance that I get to speak in this country, and, believe me, I get plenty of them, and to everybody here, I'm going to ask, `How can you be against legal immigrants? How can you be against the kids? How can you say that we should all do our share in America, including making all the kids, and the elderly people, and everybody else, have to contribute to the deficit, to bring it down, and at the same time allow these sleazy bums, who don't want to pay their taxes, to leave this country, and renounce their citizenship, and expect me to have one iota of sympathy for them.'' Pass this instruction, and stand up for America.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I rise in strong support of the Mink substitute because it addresses the causes of poverty rather than penalizing people for falling on hard times. The Mink substitute would provide families with real opportunities to get off welfare and lead a successful self-sufficient lifestyle. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do need to change the welfare system; But it is cruel and mean-spirited to dismantle altogether the safety net and basic services for poor families and disadvantaged children. The Republican's answer to welfare reform is to drop hungry children from the school lunch program, deny basic assistance to lawful immigrants who pay Federal taxes, pit foster children against victims of domestic violence for the same scarce funds, eliminate assistance to disabled kids, and cut programs to reduce child abuse. In the State of Hawaii, we stand to lost $68 million over the next 5 years in Aid to Families With Dependent Children under the Personal Responsibility Act. The Republican plan caps cash assistance with total disregard for the unique economic situations in each State. Last year Hawaii experienced an unexpected increase in enrollment for AFDC. In February, Hawaii's Department of Human Services Director Susan Chandler testified before the Hawaii State Legislature that this increased caseload was the direct result of the depressed economy in Hawaii and its growing unemployment rate. As a result the Department requested an emergency appropriation of $8 million for the State share of AFDC payments to be matched by $8 million from the Federal Government. Without this appropriation Hawaii's poor families would have been cut off from AFDC for 4 months. This emergency appropriation would be impossible under the Republican's welfare reform proposal. Under their bill, AFDC payments would not increase accordingly with changes in the economy or unemployment rate. If the Republican proposal had been law, Hawaii's AFDC recipients-- most of them children--would have been left to fend for themselves, abandoned by the Government in their time of greatest need. The Mink substitute would reform the welfare system without causing undue suffering for our poor families. It provides the resources necessary to give welfare recipients the education, job training, job search assistance, and child care that they need to find a job and get off welfare. It includes a strong work requirement and increases State flexibility. It allows children and families to continue to receive vital assistance such as health care, child care, housing and food stamp benefits for a short term after the family leaves the AFDC rolls. We need to recognize that simply eliminating assistance for poor families does not eliminate their needs. Most importantly, we cannot forget who is receiving the assistance. In Hawaii, approximately 42,698 children received AFDC benefits in fiscal year 1994. If we pass the Republican bill we will be abandoning our children. We know that family poverty harms children significantly and places young children at risk. Ultimately society will suffer for the abandonment of families and States will have to shoulder the burden of homelessness, crime, family violence, substance abuse, and health problems. We have an opportunity to improve the lives of the poor in this country by changing the welfare system in a positive, not punitive, effort. I urge my colleagues to support the Mink substitute.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my appeal. Respectfully, I am not targeting the Chair. The people of this country are being targeted.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I do not, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, March 8, 1995, I was meeting with a group of high school students--who traveled to Washington, DC, from the State of Hawaii--in a part of the Capitol where the voting bells could not be heard and missed rollcall vote No. 210. I want the Record to show that had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 210, the Cox substitute amendment to the Eshoo amendment.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I find myself discussing this not as a question of partisanship, not as a question of Democrats versus Republicans. refer again to my good friend, the gentleman from California, and some of the others I have discussed this with--of looking at this even as a question of winners and losers. On the particular issue, I think we are ill-served by this contract. This is not a question of loser pays in regard to clients and lawyers. This is a question of whether we are losing as freedom-loving individuals. Some of my libertarian friends that I have on the other side of the aisle find themselves stumbling for an explanation to me as to how they can be for this. This is the ultimate defense of the individual against the State.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. As I bring this up, let me say that I make it a practice of reading this play at least once a year to remind myself of why I am in the Congress. This is one of the reasons why I am here, and I want to tell the Members that this debate has energized me. Sometimes I get up tired in the morning, and I am sure we all have done that. I read in the Post today how tired we all are because we have been moving at a fast pace. That is all right. I do not mind myself, but I realize I am here dealing with the fundamentals, not just me but all of us here, my dear friends and colleagues. We are dealing with the fundamentals. This is what this is all about. More paid with his head. More paid with his head for standing up for freedom. We will not have to do that today. This is my political head or your political head. What difference does that make? Nobody is going to be shot coming out of this Chamber. Nobody is going to be arrested under these circumstances, not coming out of here. But it is not rhetoric for those whom it affects. And when it comes to religion, this is the first, Mr. Chairman. The first of all our amendments, Mr. Chairman, is freedom of religion, Minus this, we lose the entire basis of what the United States and democracy is all about. I plead with the Members, please, to examine the basis of what we are doing here. It is not important to pass everything. It is not important to say yes, every ``i'' was dotted and every ``t'' was crossed in this contract, regardless of how we have come to feel about it. That is why we are having this debate. I wish we had had more time in the committee hearing, but we did not. I appeal to the Members, at least on this amendment, please realize that the basis is not Democrat versus Republican. It is a matter of standing up for the fundamentals, standing up for the freedom of the people of the United States.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I spoke in my opposition to this bill in general, and I will speak in favor of this amendment at least. Mr. Chairman, I am sad to report that one of the great intellects, one of the great playwrights of the 20th century, died less than 3 weeks ago, Robert Bolt. Robert Bolt wrote ``A Man for All Seasons,'' and I commend that to my colleagues who are contemplating voting for this bill let alone voting against this amendment. Let me quote very briefly from the body of the work, ``A Man for All Seasons.'' As you may recall, this is about Sir Thomas More. Sir Thomas More found himself in the position of having to defend the church, and there was an argument over religious freedom. And this was not the kind of argument that we may be having here today. He was having an argument with his prospective son-in-law, a man named William Roper. William Roper is described by Robert Bolt in a manner that I think might fit some of the people who are not thinking clearly about this today: ``William Roper, a stiff body in an immobile face with little imagination and moderate brain but an all too consuming rectitude, which is his cross, his solace, and his hobby.'' And I feel we have many people here like that today, Mr. Chairman. So when Sir Thomas More was confronting his prospective son-in-law, young Mr. Roper, when Roper wanted to have someone seized and arrested because of their views, Roper says, ``There is! God's law.'' And Sir Thomas More said, ``Then God can arrest him.'' Then Roper said this is ``sophistication upon sophistication''--the kind of argument we are hearing on this floor today. And More said, ``No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal.'' ``Then you set man's law above God's! ``No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact--I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God.'' And if he should go, ``if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!'' Then Roper says, ``So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!'' Then Sir Thomas More said, ``Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?'' Roper said, ``I'd cut down every law in England to do that.'' More said, ``Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it-- d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.'' Mr. Chairman, we need to give the Devil the safety of law for our own benefit, for our own safety's sake. And on the question of religious freedom, how can we even be contemplating such a change as is being imagined in the underlying law which we are proposing to pass in this bill? When the last law is down and the Devil turns on you, where will we hide? Loser pays. Loser pays is a vestige of this history in England, and in which class warfare prevails. This is the aristocrats against the commoners. That is exactly what it is all about. No one in good conscience, if they are going to think today, can find themselves resisting this amendment, and I hope and I pray that Members will think further upon what we are doing here. I know the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead] as a colleague. I have had the opportunity to speak with him. I respect him. I think he is among the most decent persons that I have met in the Congress. I respect his civility. Some of the people I have talked to about this bill I respect as libertarians.