Amo Houghton

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts said something about referring to a dictionary and trying to find out the definition of the word warm. I tried to do the same thing. I was thinking of Jerry as a great marine, a model marine, and I looked up model and it said miniature replica of the real thing. So I decided I would not use that. However, I do think of an article I read many years ago written by Bob McNamara, when he left Ford Motor Company and he joined the Defense Department, and he described people in positions of importance, of leadership. And he said there were two types of people; people who were sort of judicious and passive and sat back and made their judgments; and the others, who were active and pushing and doers and enablers. Jerry, you represent the finest of that, and I am honored to have served in this body with you.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I wish there were more discussions like this, people from both sides of the aisle talking about positive things and talking about individuals like Congressman McDade. But I want to admonish Congressman McDade. You do not want to inhale everything that has been said, because so many nice things have been said about you. I look at Congressman McDade in a couple of ways. First of all, having been in business so many years, the one thing you want in a director or employee or a stockholder or somebody when times are tough is somebody who is going to be with you. And you do not know what it is. You do not know what you are going to ask of them, but you have a sense in their character that they are going to be there. I know this personally because of a situation that occurred, not only in Mr. McDade's State, but in mine in 1972 when we had Hurricane Agnes, and there was terrible flooding. The response from people like Mr. McDade and his associates was extraordinary. We literally could not have gotten through that if it had not been for the efforts of the people up there who lived and breathed it and understood it and suffered through it. So I do not think anybody in the area that I represent will ever forget that. It is something to remember. It is something important to all of us. The other thing is I have always felt that we have a limited period of life, and time is the most precious thing. Many times, it is more important who you do something with than what you do. The fact that we have been able to do something with you, Joe, has made it all worth the ride. I thank you very much for that.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) is retiring from this House at the end of this year. Lee has represented the ninth district of Indiana for 17 terms, 34 years. He is an extraordinary man. I happen to think that the idea of curtailing terms is a good idea, but if there ever is an excuse for not doing it, for not having term limits, it is Lee Hamilton. This is a man who has all the characteristics that we want here. He has extraordinary judgment. Whenever I have a problem, he is the first person I like to talk to. He has a sense of history. He has a sense of this place. He has a sense of what service versus self-service is. Also, he really believes in the Arthur Vandenberg School of Government, which is partisanship stops at the water's edge. In all of the things he has done, he has always reached for bipartisanship. This is a fine man. He is now going to the Woodrow Wilson school, and his goal there will be to try to bridge the gap between the academic and the political policy of the schools of thought. Mr. Speaker, he is an extraordinary man for an extraordinary time, and we will miss the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton). I say that as a Republican to a Democrat who I admire so much.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we are so dug in here we are sort of getting to the point where we are not listening to one another. Both sides want to pull down the debt. Both sides want to take social security out of the spending pool and build it back. But the President has other ideas. The Republicans have other ideas. It is not just one sole mission. To pull this thing down into something which is at least meaningful to me, let us assume we have a little business, and the business has not made money for 29 years. All of a sudden it starts to make money. During those 29 years, we have had to borrow money. We have had to pull down from our pension, our unfunded liability. That is not good. We want to build it up. We feel badly about it. We are able to cover our pensioners, but not the way we would like. All of a sudden we start to make money. Not only that, we look at the future and it looks like we are going to continue to make money. So what do we do? Obviously, start to pay back our debt, but certainly we start to pull back the pension account, which in this case is the social security. Also I think we say to our stockholders, we have not given you any dividend increases for years. Therefore, you stuck with us, your capital has been involved. You have been decent about this thing. We would like to help you a little bit. This tax decrease amounts to .009 percent of our Federal revenues. That is not very much, $60 per person. We can do the other things, we are doing the other things, but we have to take a look at the individual shareholders of this country and pay our respects to them.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of fast track. I was not ready for the vote the last time, because I thought that there were some things that we could do as far as protection of our jobs, as far as the environment, but I voted on it. It may not be the appropriate time now. I do not know when an appropriate time is. But I will tell my colleagues the thing that I worry about. This is not just an intellectual discussion here in this Chamber. We are living in a real world, and the world is passing us by, particularly now with the emphasis of the Asian flu. I have taken groups down to Chile, to Argentina, to Mexico, to other parts of the world, all privately sponsored, and the one thing they ask is, ``When are you going to give the President the authority to negotiate with us, not just on a bilateral but a multilateral basis?'' Mr. Speaker, I think it is so important that we do that. Time is important. It is not just an intellectual argument or a legal argument. It is an argument that has to do with business expansion. And countries and institutions and industries are passing us by, and I think it is very important we look at that. Another thing I think is important we look at is separate the two economic issues. People say we have to protect our jobs. Therefore, we cannot have fast track. But protecting our jobs, there are things we can do through 301, super 301, section 201 of the Trade Act. But to protect our jobs by not allowing our salesmen to go out and sell our products is crazy. Ninety-six percent of the customers of this world are outside of this country. We have got to reach them. Time is against us. We must pass this legislation.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise, along with my colleague Representative Louise Slaughter of Fairport, NY, to introduce a bill to correct a harmful competitive imbalance that has developed because of an aberration in our tariff schedule. This bill is a companion to the one recently introduced by the two Senators from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Al D'Amato along with Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. The Chicago based M. Wile & Co., produced fine quality suits in Dunkirk, NY. M. Wile recently closed down their Dunkirk operation; 200 employees were left out of work. The company's Buffalo office is also in danger because of this anomaly in the U.S. tariff schedule. You may have heard of a company called Hickey-Freeman. Hickey-Freeman has produced fine quality suits in Rochester, NY, for nearly a century. Unfortunately, the U.S. tariff schedule now makes it difficult for Hickey-Freeman to produce such fine suits in the United States. Learbury, in Syracuse, NY, also imports high quality wool for use in their suits. The fact is that companies like M. Wile, Hickey-Freeman, and Learbury must import very high quality wool fabric used to make men's and boy's suits. To do so, they pay a tariff of 31.7 percent. They compete with companies that import finished wool suits from a number of countries. If the imported suits are from Canada, the importers pay no tariff at all due to NAFTA regulations. I'm told that Canadian shipments of men's suits into the United States have gone from 0 to 1.5 million in the past 10 years. If from Mexico, the tariff is 11 percent. If from other countries around the world, 20.2 percent. Domestic tailors are clearly at a disadvantage. The tariff structure forces an incentive to import finished suits from aboard, which takes critical jobs away from American suit manufacturers. The results of this have been noticed in western and central New York, and Pennsylvania. In fact, production of fine suits in the United States has dropped by 40 percent, and the number of employees has been cut from 58,000 to around 30,000. These are high paying jobs that have been lost to this unfair tariff schedule. This problem can be corrected before the entire industry is lost. This bill can be an important tool to correct the problem. It suspends these tariffs through December 31, 2004 on the highest grade of wool-- called Super 90's--produced only in a limited way domestically. It would also reduce the tariffs for slightly lower grades of fabric-- Super 70's and 80's--to 20.2 percent, which is the same as the tariff on finished wool suits other than those from Canada or Mexico which receive more favorable treatment under NAFTA. Mr. Speaker, this bill corrects a critical problem for suit manufacturers such as M. Wile, Hickey-Freeman, and Learbury. I urge my colleagues to support this important effort to save American jobs.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, so many people have talked so eloquently about these two brave men that I am not going to try to do that. However, in less than an hour and a half we will be having this service in the Rotunda which the President, the Vice President, the members of the Cabinet and Senate and the House are going to be paying their final respects to these two courageous, courageous men. But I guess I ask myself how can we help? What goes on afterwards? We have had 2 days of mourning. There will be other mournings that go on. But sooner or later those families are going to be on their own, and they are going to need our help, and I hope we can be of help to them whether it is through any contributions we can make to funds, whether it is some help to their children, whether it is in a variety of different ways. I think those are the times when we will be needed. Also, I would like to feel that we can do what is needed to be done for the Capitol Police in terms of buttressing them and making sure that they have the proper protective equipment. Another thing I think is that there are a great many people out there who were not in Washington but have the same types of functions, and these people need our protection and our help. I know in my communities and the district in which I live similar people are exposed daily to the type of dangers that these two brave officers were. And also I think that there are a variety of people who are not in self service but are in service to this country, whether it is in the military or judiciary or a whole variety of things that really we should be aware of and sensitive to the conditions under which they work.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the words of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and talk a little bit about Mr. Pickle. I am honored to be able to stand here and endorse the naming of this Federal Building in Houston in the name of J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle. As my colleagues know, many times this is a now community, out of sight, out of mind, because there is so much going on here. But it is not so with Jake Pickle. He was a real hero. He was, first of all, as others have said, a national hero, having been a great member of the United States Navy during World War II; certainly a congressional hero in terms of the legislation which he was part of, passed, supported and also his work on the Committee on Ways and Means. I am not a resident of Austin, Texas, but I remember going down with the Committee on Ways and Means, and Jake was our host, and he is a real folk hero in that area. I can understand it, having known him and worked with him, but one has to go down there to see it to appreciate his association with that great community and the people in it. Also, frankly, he is a personal hero. I worked with Jake in many different ways. The one I think I remember best is working with him on the Committee on Ways and Means and the Subcommittee on Oversight. The Republicans at that point were in the minority, and I was the ranking member on the minority side. That never bothered Jake. He never made a decision, and he never sort of threw his leadership around without checking with me. He did not have to, it was not necessary, but with all the discussion of bipartisanship and civility, he represented it, he lived it, he spoke it and was a wonderful, wonderful example to me. So all I can say is, ``Jake, if you ever will read the record of this proceedings, I love you, you're a great man, and you're a standard for which this institution, all of us, strive to reach.''

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute today to an outstanding American at the close of her career as an officer in the U.S. Army. On June 30, 1998, Lieutenant Colonel Daphne D. Sahlin retires after completing over 20 years of service to her nation and the U.S. Army. Daphne hails from Louisiana, and was graduated from Rice University with a degree in history. She came to the Army's officer corps from the ROTC program there. She later completed a master's degree in management. Daphne's service includes tours of duty in Korea and Germany, as well as various stateside posts. Throughout her career, Daphne has been a continuing inspiration to her superiors, peers and subordinates. She has typified and personified the dedication ethic that our Armed Forces aspire to attain. Daphne has stood as a role model of courage, competence and candor, leading both her soldiers and the Army into a new age. She has not only watched, but she has been in the midst of the change in the Army that allowed the role of women to expand and take on significant new meaning in today's force. Perhaps no other officer is better qualified to comment on the gender issues that are under discussion still today than Daphne Sahlin. Her perspective is that of one who has made the ultimate contribution, having taken on a career in the Army when the climate was challenging and an expanded role for women was only a goal in the mind of the forward thinkers. But throughout over two decades, Daphne relentlessly pursued those very goals that legions of others could only hope to achieve later on. She held an impressive series of key jobs in the field Army, from platoon level up to the staff of the Secretary of the Army. Daphne took on the tough jobs, serving in key military intelligence units of the Army, to include the famed XVIIIth Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg, North Carolina where she was required to participate in parachute operations. But this was no challenge for an officer of her caliber and stamina. She later went on to serve in the Pentagon in the top operations office in the most fast paced and demanding job in the Army. There, Daphne was a principal assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations. Every item of interest and each piece of correspondence that was routed to the Army leadership for decision came across her desk. Her role was essential and she once again subordinated personal interests to those of the Army. After her noteworthy service in the Pentagon, she came to Capitol Hill to begin her service to the U.S. House of Representatives. Many of my colleagues and their spouses and staff know Daphne well in her role in the Army's Liaison Office. From that posting, she has indeed made a difference and touched all our lives. Daphne has traveled across the globe with Congressional delegations in support of the House International Relations Committee, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the National Security Committee, and most importantly to me, the U.S.-Canada Interparliamentary Group. Daphne has been to the most remote regions of the world. Whether the destination was Beijing, Pyongyang, Damascus or Sydney, Nova Scotia, Daphne provided the Members of this body the same superb assistance each and every time. She organized, planned and executed these flawless trips, despite any logistical challenges, and allowed each delegation to focus on the business at hand. Mr. Speaker, Daphne really established the standard for all of her successors and we are grateful to her for such honorable service under such often difficult circumstances. As we honor her, we note that this institution and our country is better off for the major contributions she has made over a sustained period. We wish her all the best in her future endeavors as she enters civilian life.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am joined by my colleagues, Messrs. Levin, Crane, Matsui, Herger, Johnson, English and Neal, in introducing legislation to simplify and reform our current international tax laws. As all of you know, we are in a period of fundamental re-examination of the Internal Revenue Code. One of the most complicated and impenetrable areas of the Code and most in need of change is the foreign area. Our international trade laws have gotten ahead of our tax laws for this area. We consider our bill to be a ``down payment' on needed changes in this area. Now as we begin the process of re-examining in fundamental ways our income tax system, we believe it imperative to address the area of international taxation. In an Internal Revenue Code stuffed with eye- glazing complexity, there is probably no area that contains as many difficult and complicated rules as international taxation. Further, I cannot stress enough the importance of continued discussion between the Congress and Treasury of simplifying our international tax laws; especially in the areas of interest allocation, partnerships, and the European Union. The business world is changing at an increasingly rapid pace. As we all know, tax laws have failed to keep up with the rapid changes in the world technology and economy. Neither one of us is under any illusion that the measure which we introduced removes all complexity or breaks bold new conceptual ground. We believe, however, that the enactment of this legislation would be a significant step in the right direction. The legislation would enhance the ability of America to continue to be the preeminent economic force in the world. If our economy is to continue to create jobs for its citizens, we must ensure that the foreign provisions of the United States income tax law do not stand in the way. The focus of the legislation is to put some rationalization to the international tax area. In general, the bill seeks in modest but important ways to: (1) simplify this overly complex area, especially the foreign tax credit and the various antideferral mechanism; (2) encourage exports; (3) enhance U.S. competitiveness in other industrialized countries. And it seeks to achieve these objectives in a revenue-conscious manner. Specifically, the provision regarding the Subpart F exception for active financial services income is based in large part on the one-year rule embodied in H.R. 2513, the House passed bill that resulted from lengthy negotiations between the Treasury Department and the financial services industry. The bill's provision are not intended to replace the one-year rule in H.R. 2513 that could well be enacted this year. Rather, the bill includes additional options that taxpayers would like to see in a permanent rule, to facilitate discussion regarding the parameters of a permanent rule that would effectively level the playing field with respect to our foreign competition. Furthermore, the bill allows deferral for cross-border income received by controlled foreign corporations engaged in the active conduct of a banking, financing, or similar business, under narrowly defined circumstances that are designed to preclude opportunities for excessive ``mobility'' of income. The first safeguard is the requirement that income eligible for deferral must be derived from a transaction with a ``customer;'' the definition of a customer (which is identical to the definition prescribed under proposed treasury regulations dealing with passive foreign investment companies) would not permit a related-party transaction to qualify if one of the principal purposes for such transaction was to satisfy the underlying provision. Second, the requirement that employees meet a ``material participation'' test will reinforce the ``active'' nature of the covered activities. Thus, corporations holding passive investments would be precluded from relying on the rule. The law as now constituted frustrates the legitimate goals and objectives of American business and erects artificial and unnecessary barriers to U.S. competitiveness. In addition, the law stands as a monument to the act that the conceptual complexity of man as applied to the Internal Revenue Code knows no limits. Neither the largest U.S. based multinational companies nor the Internal Revenue Service is in a position to administer and interpret the mind numbing complexity of many of the foreign provisions. Why not then move toward creating a set of international tax rules which taxpayers can understand, and the government can administer? In summary, therefore the proposed changes we believe represent a creditable package and a ``down payment'' on further reform in the international tax area. We ask you to join us, in this bipartisan effort, by supporting our legislation.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, there is not a single piece of legislation, no matter how good, that cannot be picked apart with the technical arguments. I am not going to do that. I am going to get away from emotions and the words and all the negative aspects. I think that there are really two words that come to mind, and that is it is just ``too much.'' It is too much money. I cannot imagine looking at a primary election in California where two people spent $60 million. Is that free speech? It is not free to me; it is pretty expensive. Will it be $60 million next round? Will it be $100 million? With the gross domestic product going up and inflation going up, will it be $200 million? What is too much? Where does this lead us? Is this what we want to leave as a legacy? Mr. Chairman, I ask this about my children. Do I want them to come into this body, or try to come into this body, and say, listen, it is going to be a great run and it is going to cost $50 million. And if they run for five terms, it is maybe $250 million. Is this what we want? It is crazy. We have real limits for individuals and groups and we have absolutely no limits for this loophole which was never intended to be. Our job here in this and other legislation is to close loopholes. They were never intended they should not be, we should get at it. The Shays-Meehan bill does this, and I feel we should support it.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take long here, but I do think that this is something which I would like to share an idea or two with my colleagues. Let me tell them a story. There was a man called Robert Ruark, and he wrote a story called ``Something of Value'' which talked about the end of colonialism in Africa and the total chaos, and the reason there was chaos is that there was nothing to take the place of the old governments. And I think he said we could say as almost a general statement, ``When you take something away, you must be able to put something in its place.'' Now I do not consider this a political argument at all. I consider this an argument of technique. Some people think that the idea of forcing an issue is the better way to get to an end rather than logically taking a look at what the steps are in order to get where we ultimately want to be. I do not think anybody is happy with this Tax Code. I do not think anybody is happy, as my colleagues know, really since the days of our Lord when the Publicans were running around. I say ``Publicans,'' not ``Republicans,'' were going around and trying to collect taxes. But really the question is: What is out there? I think we must exert an element of judgment here. As my colleagues know, to force something without anything at the end, and let us say at the end of June in the year 2002 we have nothing; what do we do? Where do we go? How does somebody plan? Will there be Social Security? Will there be Medicare? Will there be anything else? No one really knows. Mr. Speaker, this is a very high stakes game, and to use a technique of forcing something without any anything on the other end I think is highly irresponsible, and therefore I think it is a bad measure and something which we should vote against.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for all Members to have five legislative days to be able to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3156.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for yielding me this time. I would like to talk about this bill, H.R. 3156. I think it is a very important bill because it attacks an important issue in our society and one of the most exemplary men who lives today. This is a bipartisan bill. Beside me is the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) of the Committee on International Relations. He and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Lee Hamilton), who is the minority member of that committee, have been endorsing it; the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Newt Gingrich), the Speaker; the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt); the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Steve Chabot); the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mark Sanford); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Charlie Rangel); the gentleman from California (Mr. Tom Campbell); the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Don Payne); the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Doug Bereuter); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Alcee Hastings); the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. John Lewis), importantly the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis); the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Jim McDermott); the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Bob Menendez); and Mr. Ron Dellums, among others. And I think, as the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) said, there are almost 300 people that have signed on to this. The Congressional Gold Medal is really very, very special. It was awarded first to George Washington in 1776, and then to a variety of other people, Jonas Salk, Robert Frost, Walt Disney, Mary Lasker, Frank Sinatra, Billy Graham, Mother Teresa, and Colin Powell. Nelson Mandela is really an appropriate addition to this esteemed list. The simple yet important bill we propose here today recognizes Mr. Mandela because of several features: one, his ending of racism in that important country of South Africa, in Africa; promoting democracy and also encouraging this extraordinary concept of truth and reconciliation. Also, I would like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that Peter and Linda Biehl of La Quinta, California, are also recognized by the bill. Some of you may remember, this is an extraordinary family, whose daughter Amy was killed in one of the districts in South Africa trying to help and encourage in the teaching of young black children. There is no recrimination, there is no nastiness, there is no retribution there. They actually testified in front of Bishop Tutu's Truth and Reconciliation Committee and really represent everything that I am sure Mr. Mandela would have liked to have seen if he had been there by an example of his life. The timing of this bill is pretty important. Today is called Youth Day. And Youth Day really represents an extraordinary day in 1976 when there was the student riots in Soweto and the ensuing deaths of many people. Also, it just so happens, 2 days from now, on the 18th of June, will be Mr. Mandela's 80th birthday. Now, let me also give credit to people who stood beside us as we were proposing this legislation. And sometimes we do not hear about them. There is the Fulbright Association, the Young Women's Christian Association, the Results Group, the Catholic Relief Services, the American Committee on Africa, the Education on Africa, African-American Institute, and Senator Al D'Amato. Let me try to encapsulate briefly what this medal means to me personally. First of all, it means great courage. Here is a man at the peak of his life representing everything that was good in South Africa, who was thrown into jail and stayed there almost unknown for 27 years. He came out of jail and, without any sense of violence or recrimination, started the process of healing the country, which ultimately ended up in his election as president. I can remember myself personally going into Soweto in 1985 at Christmas time, and it was one of the most terrifying experiences. I had been in World War II, but this was pretty terrifying. Some of these southern Rhodesians that had come down as police, the apartheid police, ransacking their car, practically stripping them bare to see if they concealed any weapons. This was the type of country that he came back to try to reconcile. He also has been associated with another hero, a great hero, which is Bishop Desmond Tutu, who has been in charge of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Another thing that I think of with Mr. Mandela is here is a man who is really putting this nation back on track. As President Clinton has said many times, freedom means nothing unless you can do something with it. He said this when he was over in South Africa in the presence of Nelson Mandela about a month ago. He is really trying to knit together the economy so that the people who have been waiting for generations to be able to have meaningful jobs can get those jobs. It is not easy. We are trying to help. But he represents sort of an economic hope of job security, which nobody heretofore has represented. Another reason is that this is pretty important for the continent of Africa. As my colleagues know, we cannot pick up the paper, whether it is the story of Nigeria or the Sudan or anything, without realizing the terrorism and horrifying examples that are taking place over there. Here is a man defying all the elements of dictatorship, striding ahead, representing the best that country has to offer. Mr. Speaker, I really think that from my own standpoint, and I really sort of echo the feelings of my friends I hope, the world needs heroes and here is the genuine hero. I was reading something by the historian Daniel Boorstin the other day and it said, We are overwhelmed by the instant moment. We have lost our sense of history. We have lost interest in the real examples which alone can help us share standards for the humanity of the future. Everything that we do in America is based on the lives of people, some of whom we do not know, have never met, and never will. When we try to find out how those people have lived, we are really trying to find out how we ourselves live and what we are all about. This is what Mr. Mandela is. Mr. Speaker, I am in awe of this man. Obviously, that is clear from what I said. There is no more fitting use of this great award than to give it to one of the world's great leaders. I thank my colleagues very much for letting me express myself here. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach). (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues very much for this debate. Mr. Speaker, this has been a wonderful debate, a wonderful expression of sentiments, feelings about people in this country. As I listened to it, Mr. Mandela is not only bringing South Africans together but I have a feeling he is bringing all of us together. One other point: I am told that all great ideas ultimately degenerate into work. There was a great deal of enthusiasm, but also there was a great deal of work involved, and I want to thank Robert Van Wicklin for all he has done. General Leave

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I will make this very brief. I am going to have to vote against the Spratt substitute budget since it suggests a variety of policy changes that I do not think are appropriate. But I will support the Kasich budget. I feel we need to keep the process moving. Having said that, in all honesty, I do this with a great reluctance. Let me tell my colleagues why in three reasons. First of all, the premise of long-term tax cuts partially paid for by short-term expense reductions violates the pay-go principles that we so hard fought for several years ago. This is like taking out a 30-day note to pay for your dream house which you hope to live in for the rest of your life. It does not make any sense at all. Secondly, I worry about putting expense numbers on a piece of paper which are important, impact the future but which are totally unrealistic. This does not represent profiles in courage. Thirdly, I have lived long enough that a tree does not grow to heaven. We are enjoying a strong economy, maybe even a bubble economy. I do not think we should do anything to do something untoward at this particular time, so we really understand what we are going through now. So one can ask, why do I feel and why am I going to vote for this budget at all? I feel it is important for the body to send a document, imperfect as it may be, to conference with the Senate. I stand behind the process. I want to keep it moving. However, as a parting shot, if the numbers come back to us after the conference as they are set out before us now, I am going to vote the other way.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). He has talked eloquently about a very, very sensitive subject. There is no question that this amendment improves the bill. However, it does not change the basic premise of it, that is, a bill which I basically oppose. It is hard to sort out the issues here, because both sides claim they are on the side of the righteous. Since 1995, we have had a religious equality amendment and a religious liberty amendment, and now we have got a religious freedom amendment. What are we trying to do? Who are we trying to help? What are the facts? Well, the facts are, as I see them, these: This is a constitutional amendment. It will alter the First Amendment's religious clause for as long as we can see; and, thirdly, it expands government's involvement in religious activities, and is this really what we want? When I was elected here in 1986, one of the premises on which I came down here was to try to get government out of peoples' lives. I received a letter 2 days ago from an 83-year-old lady in my district, and let me just read you part of it: I remember when there was mandatory prayer in my public school. Before the prayer, which was recited by the teacher, those who were non-Christians had to leave the room and stand in the hall until the prayer was over. I am a Christian, but I decried this practice then and I do now 60 years later. The Supreme Court did not take God out of our schools. Parents have taken God out of their children's lives by not praying with them. People are screaming to get the government off our backs, but they turn around now and want the government to tell our children how to pray, a function which is only between them and God.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) for yielding the time. First of all, I want to say that this is a very, very difficult subject because it digs right down into our emotions, our religious beliefs and what is right and what is wrong. I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I am sure he is a far better Christian than I am. I am sure he really has thought through this thing very carefully. I just come out on a different side of this thing. I talked a little bit about this last night, so therefore I will not go into all the sort of philosophic background here. I just would like to make a few points. First of all, there is not anybody that I know of who likes persecution, particularly those people who are being persecuted. The worst kind of persecution, of course, is religious persecution. And we would all like to have it stopped, period, end of it. The question is how do we get at it? It seems to me that when we want to help somebody, we should make sure that the people we want to help want to be helped. That is a sort of a basic human axiom. And the research I have done and the contacts I have made, particularly through the National Council of Churches, or through other friends I have had in the world, I have traveled around to different parts of this world and talked not only to business and political, but also religious leaders, not a single religious group wants this. So I am saying, why are we doing this? Why are we superimposing our feeling of guilt upon people who do not want us to get involved? Now, there are a lot of horror stories, and I am sure I can give them on either side, but the question is, do we want to put ourselves in a position of sort of being post-colonial arbiters of what is right and what is wrong as far as religion is concerned? People are scared. Dr. Billy Graham's son is scared for what will happen in China. I know some of the people in Russia are scared of what will happen there. I know people in Sudan are scared. I have talked to somebody who is the titular head of 29 million Muslims in Indonesia; they are scared of what the United States is doing. There are always horrifying acts. We had one in Waco. Obviously, there was one in Israel when Prime Minister Rabin was shot. But these are fringe religious groups, and no government can control fanatical religions. It is wrong to, therefore, label a government because of those fanatics. We must be sure that as we reach out to the rest of the world, we are attuned to what they need, what they want, what are those things which are so important to them, not just how we approach it. Because it is those people that we will affect.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I am sure those people the gentleman just referred to feel very deeply about this, but I want to say in response to that that I have not had a single letter from anybody other than Washington or New York who has espoused this. None from overseas.