John Tanner

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I was in Brussels about a month ago as part of the North Atlantic Assembly, now NATO Parliamentary Group, and had a briefing with General Clark who is Supreme Allied Commander in Europe as well as the Commander of Operation Allied Force, and it was his opinion then and it is his opinion now that we are going to have to deal with Milosevic sooner or later; sooner being preferable, speaking militarily, to later. For one to think for a moment that a war in Europe will not engage directly the United States sooner or later is to turn a blind eye to history this century, No. 1. No. 2, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind everyone that this is a NATO operation. NATO has been the most successful military alliance this country has ever engaged in. Since NATO was formed, no country in Europe has fallen under the Iron Curtain, and this is a part of a much bigger operation than just the United States. One other thing: To send a signal to one's enemy that we are not going to do something or take something off the table is a mistake, whether it is this vote, or whether it is a time line, or whether it is any other signal that sends a conflicting message.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, there will be a lot of rhetoric today, since it is tax day, about the Tax Code, and surely we can do better. It ought to be simplified. But there is one facet of it that I think is good public policy. That is the home mortgage interest deduction. It is simple, straightforward, far-reaching, and over 24 million Americans benefit from the home mortgage interest deduction. I believe that whatever happens with the Tax Code, we ought to continue that as a matter of public policy, because all of the things that we all know as American citizens that we derive from home ownership are a good goal for this government. So I would urge that we continue to support the home mortgage interest deduction.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, this country owes, based on past consumption, over $5 trillion and nobody is talking about paying that back. This Blue Dog budget is the budget that if my colleagues believe, as I do, that when one borrows money as we have from our children and grandchildren, that the responsible, honorable thing to do is to try to pay it back, then my colleagues will vote for the Blue Dog budget. There are $3.8 trillion of debt that we pay interest on every year. Last year we paid almost $250 billion in interest. Now where I come from, if someone owes somebody some money and they come into money, and remember all of this surplus is projected, not here yet, and they come into some money and they go buy an airplane or new car and do not pay the man that they owe, that is considered very poor form. I think, as the Blue Dogs do, that if we save all of the Social Security surplus and pay down the debt, we save half of the real surplus, if it materializes, and pay it down on the debt, this country will be stronger, not weaker. There are events over which we have no control. As long as we are paying down debt, whatever happens there, this country, our children and our grandchildren, will be in a better financial position to deal with those unknowns when they occur. If my colleagues believe, as I do, that we ought to pay back some of this past consumption, then my colleagues will help us pass this Blue Dog budget today.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, short of a declaration of war, a U.S. Representative can never be called upon to make a decision requiring more solemn thought than to vote on articles of impeachment against the President of the United States. Only five times in our nation's history has the Congress voted to declare war, and this is only the second time the full House of Representatives has considered articles of impeachment against a President of the United States. Other than voting to send our troops into harm's way during Desert Storm, this is the most somber responsibility I have been asked to address. Therefore, I would ask for the opportunity to share with you the careful deliberations I made before casting our district's vote on impeachment. Like some, I am repulsed by the President's actions which were immoral and sinful. It is impossible to think of what the President has done without stirring up emotions in all of us. However, I also have a responsibility to the oath I have taken to defend and protect the Constitution. As such, I cannot allow myself to simply follow the immediate impulses of my emotions and moral convictions, but must also be cognizant of the Constitutional and historical consequences of this decision on our form of government. The Constitution is simple and straightforward, yet it still lends itself to interpretation. Accordingly, from time to time it becomes necessary to turn to the writings and records of the Constitutional Convention of 1789. It was at this convention that our basis of government was formulated. George Mason, who proposed Article II, Section 4 (the impeachment clause) of the Constitution, defined ``treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors'' as ``great and dangerous offenses'' of ``attempts to subvert the Constitution.'' After extensive reading and review on the creation of our Constitution and our country's history, particularly the discussions and writings dealing with the impeachment process. I concluded that the President's actions did not reach the high threshold our forefathers envisioned to remove a President from office, and, in effect, thwart the elective will of our citizens. It is clear from those writings, that impeachment is not about punishing the President, but about protecting the country from the unlawful and the illegal exercise of executive power against its citizens. The Starr referral contained no allegations of this type. In fact, Judge Starr exonerated the President of all charges relating to using the FBI to investigative private citizens, or the firing of federal civil service employees in the White House travel office, charges that would fit the mold set forth as impeachable offenses by the framers of our Constitution. In the final analysis, the Starr report did not present conclusive evidence that this President used the power of his office against our nation or its citizens. I also believe that our founding fathers did not intend for impeachment to be used as a judicial tool. It was not intended to be utilized as a mechanism to prosecute the President for crimes committed. This view was clearly articulated by Alexander Hamilton, when in the Federalist No. 65 he writes, ``The punishment which may be the consequences of conviction upon impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender. After having been sentenced to a perpetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.'' In other words, the founding fathers did not intend for impeachment, itself, to be the punishment. The debate clearly indicates the framers belief that the prosecution of crimes remain within the Judicial branch, not the Legislative branch. Nowhere did the founding fathers suggest that impeachment, or any other Constitutional process for that matter, be used to prosecute a President. Rather, they held the President should be subject to the scrutiny and prosecution of the criminal justice system, just like any other citizen. That is not to say that they intended for the Constitution to shield the Chief Executive from being punished for any and all crimes which fall short of the ``great and dangerous offenses'' or ``attempts to subvert the Constitution'' standard for impeachment. To the contrary, the historical debate suggests the framers intent was that the Chief Executive be accountable to the criminal justice system for all crimes that do not meet the high threshold for impeachment. As the statute of limitations will not expire before the President leaves office, it will be possible to prosecute him for perjury or any other alleged offense. It convicted, he would still be subject to imprisonment and/or fines, just like you or me, as he should be. During the Watergate hearings, the standard for impeachment was defined as ``a Constitutional remedy addressed to serious offenses against the system of government.'' Several Republican Members of the committee in the minority report, argued for an even higher standard of judgment, saying in their report ``the President should be removable by the legislative branch only for serious misconduct dangerous to the system of government established by the Constitution.'' For example, President Nixon was found to have cheated on his federal income taxes. On July 30, 1974, the Committee considered an article of impeachment stating that President Nixon knowingly and fraudulently failed to report certain income and claimed unauthorized deductions in the years 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972. They concluded that President Nixon lied by signing a false income tax return. After debate by the Judiciary Committee, the Committee decided not to report this Article of Impeachment to the House of Representatives. While this action by President Nixon was a crime, the Judiciary Committee found that it did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. It was a matter of personal wrongdoing, and not considered to be a crime committed according to their standard for impeachment, ``against the system of government.'' It is also critically important to realize that moving forward with such a low threshold for impeachment will almost certainly jeopardize the viability of the presidency. We must take great care to ensure that the long-term consequence of this House's action is not one that establishes a precedent that dramatically weakens any President and the Office of the President compared with the other two ``separate but equal'' branches of government. For our system of government to work, raw political power cannot be invested in one branch of our government to the exclusion of the other two. Checks and balances are imperative and the Constitution's framers recognized that clearly. One can forget about President Clinton because he will be leaving office in 24 months regardless of this process. Nevertheless think about the ramifications of this kind of precedent relative to future Presidents. The Supreme Court recently said, wrongfully I believe, that anyone can file a civil lawsuit against any President at any time over a matter which did not occur while he/she was in office and has nothing to do with the presidency. Are we setting a precedent whereupon a future President can be made to give a deposition where his whole life can be combed through, and if there is any misrepresentation in that deposition, then the political opposition can bring that to Congress and ask that he be impeached for perjury? Any political enemy could bring a lawsuit against a future President and require him to go through this process. In my judgment, this could threaten the presidency with judicial tyranny. The President's independence from Congress and the Judiciary is fundamental to America's unique structure of government. The lower the threshold for impeachment, the weaker and less equal is the President compared with the Judicial and Legislative branches of government. On the final analysis, I concluded that impeachment was established to guard against a President's use of the authority conferred on him/ her to carry out activities against the country or its citizens. After weeks of deliberations, I came to the conclusion that alleged perjury and efforts to conceal a consensual sexual relationship did not reach the threshold needed to impeach a President of the United States. I do not think the President's actions reach the high Constitutional bar set by our forefathers. Mr. Speaker, I do not condone what Bill Clinton did. I think his actions were despicable. He says he is paying a dear price with his wife and daughter. He deserves to. This President's actions have been committed to history's record and his legacy will forever be cloaked in shame. History and God will be his ultimate judge.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, many Members have spoken from the heart and out of their conscience on either side of this issue today, and I want to talk about the procedure, because I am deeply troubled by the procedure that we are following here today on the House floor. This has been a very divisive issue in our country about what should be done. People of just as good will as any of us in this room, people who have the same purity of motive that we all claim for ourselves in this room, people who have the intellectual honesty that we all claim for ourselves, and who have exercised that, and people who are just as patriotic as any one of us, have reached a different conclusion in the country about what should be done. Now, we are not being allowed a vote on censure tonight. Let me read in the Constitution what it says: ``Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office,'' et cetera. It says nothing about censure; it says nothing about prohibiting it. And what troubles me is that there are millions of Americans of goodwill, purity of motive, intellectual honesty that have expressed their view that censure is an appropriate remedy, and those voices are not being allowed to be cast tonight by a vote of their member, and that is just plain unfair. If the shoe were on the other foot, and we had a motion to only censure and not impeachment, you would be right to scream that that is unfair, and I would agree with you.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, recently, the House passed S. 505, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. Provisions were included in this legislation relating to fairness in music licensing. Some have expressed concerns over these provisions. The Congress has been advised by the Secretary of Commerce that the fairness in music licensing reform legislation violates U.S. international treaty obligations. The United States Trade Representative, the Register of Copyrights, and the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks have all joined with the Secretary of Commerce in voicing concerns over these provisions. They believe that the exemptions included in Section 202 of Title II would ``violate our obligations under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.'' As a consequence, it could result in the WTO finding that United States has violated its multilateral treaty obligations. Adequate attention was not given to these concerns.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Neal, for taking the lead on an issue that affects rehabilitation hospitals and units. It is very important that we work with Mr. Neal on this issue to correct some problems that were created by the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). Mr. Neal's legislation restores incentive payments for PPS-exempt rehabilitation hospitals and units that were changed by the BBA. It also changes the provision in the BBA which imposed a 15% reduction in capital payments for PPS-exempt hospitals and units for FY1998-2002. In our efforts to restore Medicare to financial stability last year, we may have approved cuts to rehabilitation hospitals and units that actually save Medicare dollars. I am afraid that these cuts may undermine patient care and force them to either stay in hospitals longer or to be discharged home prematurely, or worse, to a nursing home. Studies confirm that early rehabilitation for stroke and traumatic brain injury leads to shorter overall hospitalizations, less mortality and fewer complications. This translates to both federal and state, as well as private dollars, saved. A few studies have shown that stroke patients who receive rehabilitation have better outcomes that those who do not. These studies also indicate that stroke rehabilitation patients are more likely to be discharged to a home than to a nursing home. They confirm that comprehensive rehabilitation programs are effective in treating low back pain, and that pulmonary rehabilitation reduces expensive re-hospitilization and emergency room visits. Rehabilitation also maximizes the restoration of functional capacity, and it helps people adapt to a more independent life. Rehabilitation can help older individuals avoid the services of a nurse or home health aide in many cases. All of this translates to savings to Medicare, Medicaid and the health care system. While we obviously cannot move legislation this year, I am concerned about the impact that BBA is having on the payment for providing rehabilitation services to Medicare beneficiaries. I am afraid that, in our efforts to restore financial stability to the Medicare system, we may have implemented a policy which will actually increase Medicare spending. While I am cautious about suggesting any legislation that may add additional costs to the Medicare system, I do not want us to be penny wise but pound foolish. I would hope that the Congress can examine this issue carefully in the future.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, the McKenzie Banner's Chuck Ross tells the story of Bob Owen and what Bob has meant to the town of Gleason as well as anyone could. I have known Bob Owen since the late 1970's when I served in the Tennessee General Assembly. Bob is the Bank of Gleason without question and his service to the community is what makes Gleason and the surrounding communities such good places to raise a family. As we celebrate Bob Owen Day in Gleason, I want to add my thanks and appreciation to Bob for everything he has done to improve the quality of life for those who live and work in and around Gleason. Printed below is a copy of a story published in The McKenzie Banner on October 7th, and written by Chuck Ross. Bob Owen: The Last of The Country Bankers (By Chuck Ross) It has been said many times that a trip of a thousand miles begins with a single step. In this instance, a distinguished banking career began by default. The wartime army called him for induction, yet turned him down on three occasions. As a young high school graduate, shortly after the great depression and right in the middle of a world war, he could not find employment. Then a helpful uncle got him a job as the lowest man on a small banking staff, the first step in a career that has spanned 54 years. Robert Hiron ``Bob'' Owen was born on February 19, 1927, in the Old Union Community in Henry County Tennessee, the third of four children born to the union of Robert Owen and Katie Highfill Owen. Both parents had migrated to this area from North Carolina. The first of the children was James Flemming, who died as an infant. The second was Mary Elizabeth Owen Travillian who lives in Gleason. Bob's younger brother Oscar lives in McKenzie. Owen said his middle name is unusual, and not many people refer to it when using his name. His mother said she once saw the name in a book, and liked the sound of it. Only his sister still calls him Bob Hiron--when she is mad at him. Bob's father worked a small farm of 67 acres. The family's property consisted of three or four old cows, a team of mules, and the farm on which they lived. The elder Owen died in 1939 when Bob was only 12 years old, leaving his mother to do odd jobs in order to raise the children. Few jobs were available for women in those days, so she worked as a seamstress, and took in washing and ironing in order to provide for her young family. The only material possession the family had was the small farm, but they made a go of it because, as Bob said, ``Mom worked hard and provided plenty of love.'' When work was caught up on their farm, he remembers that the family worked on the farms of neighbors for fifty cents a day, carrying their lunches to the filed in a tin bucket. He started school at four and one half years of age, in the Liberty Four area in Henry County's New York Community, beginning early because retention of teachers at that time depended upon having a minimum number of pupils in the classes. His first years of school were spent in a one-room facility which housed all eight grades of elementary school, with a single teacher for all grades. After completion of the elementary grades, he began high school at Henry Station, but changed schools after two weeks. At that time, a school bus route began which transported students from his area to Cottage Grove. He graduate from Cottage Grove High School in 1944. When he graduated high school, he had very little success in finding work. With World War II in full swing, all young men who were of draft age could expect to receive a summons from Uncle Sam to join in the defense of our country, and nobody wanted to hire a man who would probably be absent from the job within a matter of weeks. He knew there was very little change that he could enroll in college, because his family did not have the means to pay the costs, and there were no loans and grants available at that time. Bob tried to get a job at Wolf Creek Arsenal (now Milan Arsenal) but they were not interested because of his draft status. He wound up doing odd jobs he could find until he indeed received his invitation from the Army. He was registered in Henry County, and was sent to Fort Oglethorpe Georgia for induction. As part of his physical examination, it was determined he was not qualified because of a hearing problem, and his draft classification was changed to 4F and he was sent back home. Subsequently, he was recalled on two other occasions, and was rejected both times because of his hearing. Mr. Owen said that, although he had not originally volunteered, it was embarrassing not to be in service. Every able-bodied man of his age was off fighting the war, and he was forced to stay at home. Then along came the Korean Conflict, and despite being married and within six months of being too old for military service, he received another call from his government. This time, he boarded a bus along with 52 other younger inductees, bound for the Veterans Hospital in Memphis. This time, he was one of the few to pass the physical examination. In 1952, he was sent to Fort Jackson, South Carolina for 16 weeks of basic and infantry training, and was assigned to army finance. He served for a time at Fort Jackson, and later in Japan, Okinawa, and Formosa, converting money and making sure the troops were paid. Having served a two year hitch, he came home based on an accumulation of service points. After high school and prior to military service, Bob had spent quite a lot of time in trying to locate employment. Finally he had been able to find a company that would hire him. Irish Gates, who ran a sawmill near the Como Community, agreed to give him a job. His mother did not like the idea of him working at the sawmill because it was somewhat dangerous, and just plain hard work, but he was determined to have a job and that was the only one available. In expressing her concern regarding this job, his mother told him it would be hard work, and informed him that the new guys got the toughest and dirtiest jobs. But she also informed him that ``We didn't raise any quitters!'' He worked carrying slabs cut off the logs as lumber was processed. After two months, the sawmill closed down, and he again found himself unemployed, but not too sorry because he indeed found it to be hard work. On August 13, 1944, Bob got a break which proved to be a turning point in his life. His uncle, Bennie Oliver, found that the Bank of Gleason was going to hire somebody to work in the bank, and helped him get an interview. He was signed on as the lowest of the three employees at the bank--for a trial period of six months. Those six months turned out to be more than 54 years. He had grown up in Henry County and didn't know anybody in Gleason, and didn't even know how much he would be paid until he received his first paycheck after 30 days, when he found he would receive a whopping 50 dollars a month. He didn't really like the job, but was afraid to quit because nothing else was available, so he continued to work six days a week from 8 o'clock until 4 o'clock, including sweeping the floor, building a coal fire in the stove every morning, and doing all the tasks assigned to the junior employee. After a while the Gleason community began to ``grow on him,'' and the job turned out to be better than he thought, As he proved himself to his employer regarding his ability, he began to move up in the bank. Owen then established a self-imposed objective of becoming a bank officer by the time he was 21 years old. He was appointed Assistant Cashier, which afforded him officer status, in January 1947, just a month before his 20th birthday. In 1950, he received his appointment as Cashier, and became Vice President in 1951. In 1954, he was appointed Executive Vice President and was elected to the bank's board of directors. He was elected President and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank of Gleason in 1965; and was advanced to his current position as Chairman of the Board in 1993. When he returned from his tour of duty with the Army, he attended Bethel College for a while, not pursuing a degree, but working on courses that would help him do a better job in the banking business. He is also a graduate of the Tennessee School of Banking at Vanderbilt University. When asked, he agreed that people in the community refer to him as ``the last of the country bankers.'' He went on to explain that there is a great deal of difference between country and city banks. People in the country are very loyal to the bank with which they do business. Owen said, ``We're in the retail money business. We work hard to give people the service they're so entitled to. We never lose sight that service to our customers is really what it's all about.'' He continued, ``Over the years the community could not have been nicer to me, what with me being an outsider!'' The greatest changes he has noted in 54 years in the banking business are ``air-conditioning and computers--in that order!'' He noted that he began working at the bank when it had three employees. They now have 28 employees between the main bank in Gleason and the satellite facility in McKenzie. When he started, the total assets of the bank were about one half million dollars. Today, their assets total 82 million dollars. In 1947, Bob Owen married Darreen Shaw, from the Tumbling Creek Community. At that time, she worked at Salant and Salant, a shirt factory in Paris. After they married, she went to work at Martin Manufacturing Company, which manufactured army shirts. Prior to his entry into military service, the Owen family started an insurance agency, the Owen Insurance Company, which was pretty much a ``moonlighting'' operation necessary to let them make enough to support the family. While he was in the Army, Darreen operated the business, and continued to do so until, as he so aptly put it, ``we got in the boy business.'' Their first son, Robert Shaw Owen, was born in 1955; Alan came along in 1958; and Eric was born in 1960. Robert received a degree in agriculture from the University of Tennessee. Martin, and Eric completed a double-major degree in chemistry and math at Bethel College. Robert and Eric now have a farming partnership in the county, farming more than 2,000 acres. Alan Owen completed a business administration degree at Bethel College. He worked part-time at the Bank of Gleason during his college years, and is now a Senior Vice President of the bank. Their sons gave Bob and Darreen seven wonderful grandchildren; Robert Blaine; Kody; Megan; Ericka; Ellen; Samuel; and James. Darreen passed away in November 1989. Robert Hiron Owen has served his community for many years. He served as Mayor of Gleason, is past Commander of the Gleason American Legion Post #166, is a 32nd degree mason and a shriner--having received his 50 year pin as a mason recently, is a member of the First Baptist Church in Gleason, and is a charter member and past president of the Gleason Rotary Club. He also served as President of the Tennessee Bankers Association in 1992-93; presently serves as a Director on the State and Federal Legislative Committee, has served on the Board of the West Tennessee Public Utility District for Benton, Carroll, Weakley, and part of Henry County since 1957--and currently is chair of the Utility District. Bob has served as a member of the Weakley County Jury Commission for the past 25 years, has been a partner in Finch-Owen Insurance Agency since 1957, and is a former partner of the Gleason Lumber Company. He is presently a partner with Travillian-Owen Farms. And his community service has been appreciated. He has garnered a list of honors which is much too long to print in this article. A partial list includes the following. He was appointed Aide-de-Camp on the Governor's Staff by both former Governors Lamar Alexander and Ned McWherter; was appointed to the Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation by Governor McWherter in 1988, and continues to serve in that capacity; he was Grand Marshal of Tatertown Festival in 1978 and 1990; he was named a ``Paul Harris Fellow'' by the Rotary Club; he received the outstanding citizenship award in 1959, and was named ``Boss of the Year'' by the local Jaycee Chapter in 1978. He was honored by local townspeople with a ``Bob Owen Day'' in his honor. At that time, an annual ``Bob Owen College Scholarship'' was set up by the Bank of Gleason, to be awarded to a high school senior, based upon their overcoming financial and hardship difficulties. The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a resolution in his honor, he was made an honorary staff member of the 77th Legislative District of the Tennessee House of Representatives by then State Representative John Tanner. The Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society presented him an Honor Plaque for Outstanding Citizenship, and he was named Rotarian of the Year by the Rotary club in 1978 and 1979. In keeping with his humble nature, Bob Owen, said, ``I'm in the banking business by default, because I couldn't find anything else to do.'' Regarding his life, he continued, ``It's been a great ride, I came from a humble background. My Mom had to be something out of this world. My father died when she was only 47 years old, and she raised three children with the sweat of her brow, and a lot of love.'' It may be accurate for the community to refer to him as the last of the country bankers, but Bob Owen is a world-class citizen, who cares deeply for his community and the people he serves. As was so appropriate by stated by the late Billy O. Williams, Associate Poet Laureate of the State of Tennessee, during a presentation on Bob Owen Day in Gleason: ``He must have done some things just right, as he walked down life's highway, `Cause folks have come from all around, on this his special day. Being fair, being honest and being kind, has been his life's ongoing. May the good `Lord' bless, years of happiness, for Robert H. `Bob' Owen.''

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, Dale Calhoun is a fourth generation builder. What he builds has brought him richly deserved recognition. Mr. Calhoun builds boats. They are special boats with a unique history forever tied to the legend of Reelfoot Lake. He builds them by himself and he builds them by hand. And this week, his talents, nurtured with four generations of family experience, were recognized at the White House. Mr. Calhoun was one of 15 recipients of the National Endowment for the Arts' prestigious 1998 National Heritage Fellowship, which recognizes outstanding contributions to America's folk and traditional arts. Along with the National Heritage Fellowship, Mr. Calhoun received $10,000. For 52 years, Mr. Calhoun became a master builder of the famed Reelfoot Lake ``Stump Jumper'' after honing his craft with skills learned from his father, William Calhoun. His father learned the craft from Dale's grandfather, Boone Calhoun, and his great-grandfather, Joe Calhoun. The boats are made of cypress and covered with fiberglass. Each one is nearly 16 feet long. And they are typically powered by anything from a three horse-power engine to an eight horse-power engine. The boats have become known as ``Stump Jumpers'' because they can go in 12 inches of water, or even less as long as the boat is able to float. People as far away as California call to order these boats that are built to last for decades. What's more, they have become part of the legend of Reelfoot Lake, the largest natural lake in Tennessee. Reelfoot Lake was created during the earthquakes of 1811 and 1812 when for a time during each of the earthquakes the Mississippi River flowed backwards and filled in what is now Reelfoot Lake. Dale Calhoun is carrying on the tradition with his fourth-generation mastery of the craft, and he is being correctly honored with the 1998 National Heritage Fellowship. I want to congratulate Mr. Calhoun for the skills he has honed over more than 50 years of boatmaking, his wife, and his father, grandfather and great-grandfather for all of the stories they have made possible with the thousands of ``Stump Jumpers'' they have built by hand. Printed below is a story published in the Union City Daily Messenger with the headline: ``Reelfoot Lake boatmaker reels in $10,000 award.'' Reelfoot Lake Boatmaker Reels in $10,000 Award (By John Brannon) At Calhoun Boat Works at Blue Bank, the phone sometimes rings and rings. That's because Dale Calhoun has to stop whatever it is he's doing to walk over and answer it. Phones ring every day everywhere. No need to get in a hurry. But this call got his attention, took him by surprise, even stunned him, It was from Washington. ``It was unreal. Unbelievable. It's something that happens to somebody else, not you,'' Calhoun said. ``It's like the lottery. You have a ticket but somebody else always wins.'' Not this time, though. The caller was an official from the National Endowment for the Arts. The occasion was good news: NEA had selected Calhoun to receive one of its 1998 National Heritage Fellowships. The award, one of the nation's most prestigious honors in folk and traditional arts, includes a $10,000 cash prize for each of 15 artists in 11 states. Calhoun, a well-known builder of the Reelfoot Lake ``stump jumper'' boat, still finds it hard to believe. ``They told me I'd won but not to tell anybody about it until their press release came out,'' he said. ``Well, the press release is out and I'm telling everybody.'' Other honorees include a jazz fiddler from Kansas City, a silversmith from Oklahoma, a beadworker from Oregon, and a trio of Jewish musicians from Florida. ``These performers and crafts-people, who together represent a rich cross-section of America's many cultures, are honored for their achievements as artists, teachers, innovators, and keepers of traditional art forms,'' said Cherie Simon of NEA. ``They join the ranks of previous National Heritage Fellows who include bluesman B.B. King, Irish stepdancer Michael Flatley, cowboy poet Wally McRae, and acclaimed musicians Bessie Jones, Doc Watson and Bill Monroe.'' Calhoun and other honorees will attend a special presentations program Oct. 5 at Washington. Calhoun said he will be accompanied by his wife, Joanne. He's already kidding about it. ``She's going to be there to get the check. I told her I'd bring it back, but that didn't work,'' he said with a grin. Calhoun, who in July 1997 retired from 25 years service with the Tennessee Department of Corrections, is anything but retired from building Reelfoot Lake boats. In fact, he is a fourth-generation boat builder, in direct lineage from previous masters of the craft--his father, William Calhoun; his grandfather, Boone Calhoun; and his great-grandfather, Joe Calhoun. Calhoun estimates in his time he's built thousands of the shallow-draft boats a writer once dubbed the African Queen of Reelfoot Lake. ``Standard length is 15\1/2\ feet. Made of cypress, covered with fiberglass, powered by anywhere from a 3- to an 8- horsepower motor and a set of oars,'' he said. ``It's called a stump-jumper because it'll run in about 12 inches of water. As long as it can float, it will go. You take care of it. it'll last a long time. There's some around here that's 50 and 60 years old.'' Price of one of his boats ranges from $1,500 to $2,500. Calhoun has displayed his boats and demonstrated his craftsmanship at the World's Fair at Knoxville in 1982, the Tennessee Aquarium at Chattanooga, and at the Smithsonian Institute at Washington. At the boat-building demonstrations, a curious public stops and watches, he said. Invariably, wherever he's set up shop, a curious public always asks the same three questions. ``Those questions are, `What kind of wood do you use?', `How many do you make in a year?, and `How long does it take you to make one?' '' he said. ``I don't know how many I make in a year. It takes me about 10 days to make one, but I take my time, and the phone rings, and ain't nobody here but me. Besides, I'm supposed to be retired. So who knows? I still have orders to fill. I just put their names down and get to 'em when I can.'' A Reelfoot Lake boat is one permanent display at Obion County museum, Dixie Gun Works, the Tennessee State Museum at Nashville, and the Fish and Wildlife Museum at Atlanta, GA. Calhoun's customers are nationwide. ``I keep a boat on hand for a man in California. He might call today and say. `Send it to me.' He's the largest wholesale grocer in California, and he gives Reelfoot Lake boats to his customers,'' Calhoun said. ``He says they can't get one like it anywhere else, so it's something unique for them.''

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, for 50 years Harold Holt has been active in public service. For many more years than that, Harold Holt has positively contributed to the quality of life of his fellow citizens, not only in Dyersburg and Dyer County, but throughout West Tennessee. Today, I want to salute a good friend and former colleague, who I served together with in the Tennessee General Assembly. An aggressive leader for his community, Harold Holt never lost a race for public office and built a respected career in banking. His solution-oriented, consensus building style helped pave the way for the widening of U.S. 412, now a four-lane highway connecting Dyersburg and Jackson. He was known for his strong support for the best education possible for Tennessee's children and effective law enforcement in our communities. He is rightfully proud, as we all are, of his wife, Bonnie, and their two sons, Jeff and Steve. Printed below is a copy of a story published in the Dyersburg State Gazette titled ``A Lifetime of Concern for Others.'' A Lifetime of Concern for Others When Harold Holt was growing up on a farm near Finley during the Depression, he saw neighbors pitching in to help those facing hardships such as serious illness of the family bread-winner. He never has forgotten the spirit of cooperation and helpfulness. ``Each neighbor took care of their neighbor,'' he said. ``If a family couldn't get a crop in, other neighbors would pitch in and put in the crop for them.'' ``Everybody in the community was close; even though they weren't related, they were very close.'' That closeness and concern for others has made Holt perhaps the premier politician in Dyer County. He has served as county trustee, county commissioner and state representative and has never lost a political race. His son, Jeff, has followed in his public service footsteps and now is serving his second term as Dyer County sheriff. ``I've been involved in the political process since 1948,'' Holt said. ``That was my first presidential election, and I voted for Harry Truman.'' Former Dyer County Executive P.H. White said Holt is a person who can be trusted. ``Harold is a very trustworthy person in both word and deed,'' White said. ``He's always done what he thought was right, and he's very dedicated and devoted to his family.'' Longtime friend Dr. Douglas Haynes said he admires Holt's integrity--and memory. ``He's a person of absolute integrity, and he has the most fantastic memory,'' Haynes said. ``He knows a story about just about everyone in the county.'' Doug Williamson, another long-time friend, said Holt has gained respect through his honesty. ``He's a real forthright, honest person,'' Williamson said. He's just a fine man, and many people respect him for his honesty.'' Holt said he has never been tempted to seek political office on a larger stage than representing the local population. ``Dyer County is one of the greatest communities anybody could ever have the privilege of living in,'' he said. ``The people here have been so kind to me and to my family.'' He said he has been approached several times to run for Congress but never really considered it. ``I was approached a few times, but I never gave it much thought because I would have had to run against Ed Jones,'' Holt said. ``I always supported Ed Jones, and he's a good friend to this day.'' Holt's devotion to his friends and his integrity are remarkable, said Jere Bradshaw. ``Harold Holt is a true gentleman,'' Bradshaw said. ``In my opinion, he's absolutely honest, above board and considerate of other people. I've always been able to rely completely on what he says. ``I've supported him in what he does because it's always for the good of the community.'' Holt said Bradshaw's race for county clerk was the first local political race he ever got involved in. ``I probably worked harder for Jere Bradshaw's election than I ever worked for any of my own,'' he said. Holt served in the Tennessee General Assembly, representing Crockett and Dyer counties, from 1986-91, when he decided to retire from active involvement in politics. In the legislature, he was known as hard-working and fair. Though it is little known in Dyer County, Holt was one of the legislature's most accomplished pranksters. ``Harold was a good representative,'' said state Rep. Frank Buck (D-Dowelltown), one of Holt's closest friends. ``He took his job very seriously, and he did a good job for Dyer County.'' Holt often played his pranks in cahoots with Buck and former state Rep. Floyd Crain (D-Ripley). ``When the scandal about funeral directors was exposed several years ago--about one or two mistreating corpses and burying trash and that sort of thing--we sent a letter purporting to be from a woman who (state Rep.) Robb Robinson (D-Nashville) had mistreated at his funeral home,'' Buck recalled. ``Robinson took it seriously and, though he didn't remember the case we made up, contacted the state funeral directors board to ask if anyone had filed a complaint against him. ``When Robinson found out it was a joke, he got pretty testy with Crain and me, but Harold wasn't there. ``When he saw Harold, he looked at him and said, `I'm disappointed in you, because I knew those other two were common, but I expected more of you.' '' ``Holt's a good guy, but he's sneaky,'' Crain said. Josephine Binkley, who was Holt's secretary when he first went to the General Assembly, said she can still get Holt riled up by saying she is going to tell Buck something about him. ``If I want Harold ribbed about something, I know Frank Buck is the one to do it,'' she said. ``If I just mention telling something on Harold to Buck, Harold will say, `Now, that's not necessary.' '' Binkley said Holt is fun but has another side, too. ``Harold is a fun person to be around,'' she said. ``But he can be tough if that's necessary.'' Buck said the pressure-packed life of a legislator needs to be leavened with humor. ``In the General Assembly, if you can't maintain a sense of humor, especially about yourself, you'll go crazy,'' he said. ``Harold was always able to maintain a sense of humor.'' Since retiring from the legislature, Holt has worked briefly as a lobbyist. ``I worked for Kemmons Wilson for about six weeks when we were trying to enhance and extend the logo sign bill to permit them on state highways and not just interstates,'' he said. ``I still go to Nashville pretty often to visit my friends who still are in the legislature.'' He also served a term on the state's judicial council, which looks at proposed legislation about the judicial system and makes recommendations. He was appointed to the council by former Gov. Ned McWherter. Asked if he has any regrets about his years in the legislature, Holt thought a short while. ``I think the drainage situation at the Tigrett Wildlife Management Area could have been handled better,'' he said. ``We didn't fight hard enough to get legislation that would have given us the type of relief on Stokes Creek that I think is necessary. It needs to be restored to the original course so water can rise and recede naturally.'' Holt says he remembers the area from his childhood. ``When I was a kid there was bottomland hardwood timber there,'' he said. ``But now it's a stagnant swamp. ``If we let it return to its natural course we can restore at least part of that area to what it was when I was a kid.''

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2730, a bill introduced to designate the Federal building in Dyersburg, Tennessee as the Jere Cooper Federal Building. U.S. Representative Jere Cooper represented in Congress a major portion of what is now the 8th Congressional District of Tennessee. During his nearly three decades of service, he distinguished himself on the House Ways and Means Committee as both a member and as its chairman. His service began in 1929 when our country was in the depths of the Great Depression and continued through some of our nation's greatest challenges--World War II, the Korean War and the beginning of the cold war. He served his district, the State of Tennessee, and the Nation with pride and distinction. Representative Cooper was born on a farm near Dyersburg in Dyer County, Tennessee, on July 20, 1893. In 1917, after earning a law degree from Cumberland College, he enlisted in the Second Tennessee Infantry, National Guard and was commissioned a first lieutenant. He served his country in France and Belgium during World War I. He was promoted to captain and served as regimental adjutant until discharged from the Army. He also served as the state Commander of the American Legion in Tennessee. He was first elected to the Seventy-First Congress and to the next fourteen Congresses serving from March 4, 1929, until his death in December 18, 1957. He served as the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the Eighty-Fourth and Eighty-Fifth Congresses. I believe that designating the Federal building in Dyersburg, Tennessee as the Jere Cooper Federal Building is a befitting honor and memorial, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2730, a bill to honor the late Representative Jere Cooper.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I like this tax bill. I think it is good public policy. But for the first time in 29 years we now are in a position where we can say to the American people that there is more money coming into this town than leaving. This is just a projection. Beyond that, what I hate to see us do is there has been a lot of political bloodshed to get to this point of financial integrity once again in this town in terms of our budget. Now, no one can dispute that this is a unified budget, and if one took the payroll taxes, the Social Security taxes that come in here out of the unified budget or out of the budget, we would not have a surplus. That is a fact. That is not a political argument. We still are running an operational deficit. I do not know how many people paid the price in 1993. I know President Bush paid a miserable price in his career for doing the right thing in 1990 to get us to the point where we are not running a $290 billion deficit every year. I am not for any new spending programs, and I am not going to be for this tax cut today. We cannot pay for it. Last year, we had a balanced budget. We paid for the tax bill last year. This one is not paid for; and, for that reason, I think it is financially irresponsible to do this what we are about to do today. I would urge my colleagues not to support this matter today.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the fast track authority, as imperfect as it may be. I will relate why. I think this may well be one of the most important issues we face as a Nation since the end of the Cold War. During this century, most of the standing that this country has enjoyed in the world was really defined by military alliances. During the Cold War, it was who was on whose side, either the East, U.S.S.R. or the West, the United States. I believe in the next century the Nation's standing in the world will be judged primarily by trading alliances. I think in this global economy which we are definitely in we have to remain engaged. It is not a hard question. If one believes, as I do, that we can grow more food in this country than we can consume, we can make more stuff than we can buy and sell to each other, we must have some means by which we sell this to somebody else, or it is an economic fact of capitalism that whoever is engaged in that surplus production is going to lose their job. That is not a political argument. That is an economic fact of capitalism. Now, I regret very, very much that this bill is up today. We, some of us on our side of the aisle, worked our heads off last November to try to get the votes to pass this. I think we were within three or four votes when the bill was pulled. I have not seen, quite frankly, the same effort applied to bring this bill to the floor today. As I said, I think this is one of the most important votes this Congress will take since the end of the Cold War, and I regret very deeply and very much the circumstances under which we are considering it. Nevertheless, I intend to support it, because I think it is that important to the country. I hope after it fails today, which I assume that it will, that we can get together and do something for the country, not our political agendas.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2863 is about common sense and basic fairness. It would replace the ``strict liability'' standard with the ``knew or should have known'' standard that is being enforced in the Fifth Circuit, which includes Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. What it means is that anyone cited for an alleged baiting violation can put on a defense and present evidence to a judge in their case of alleged baiting violations. Both the Fifth Circuit and Fourth Circuit have both agreed this is not presently an option under the ``strict liability'' requirement. Further, the bill clearly makes it unlawful for anyone who places or directs the placement of bait on or adjacent to an area where hunting for migratory game birds takes place. That's just plain common sense to ensure that those involved in these cases have the same rights that are available throughout our system of justice. It also continues to recognize the stewardship responsibilities hunters share relative to the conservation of migratory game bird species. Indeed, enforcement over the past decade in those states with the ``knew or should have known'' standard has been at least as successful as in those states where ``strict liability'' is the threshold. Nearly 90 percent of baiting cases prosecuted in Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana during the 11-year period ending in 1996-97 resulted in convictions and fines. This legislative solution is needed because while the Service has proposed other regulatory changes to existing baiting regulations and recognized as we have that some of those regulations need to be examined particularly in light of recommendations made by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' Ad Hoc Committee on Baiting, it expressly omitted the ``strict liability'' issue saying in the Federal Register that ``no changes are proposed in the application of the strict liability to migratory game bird baiting regulations. No one here today is advocating with this bill that season lengths and bag limits should be changed except by those in the Office of Migratory Bird Management working with their counterparts in state fish and wildlife agencies and input from the public. If someone illegally baited a field they should be punished, but they should also have the opportunity to present a defense when they go before a judge. Indeed, the Law Enforcement Advisory Commission created by the Service in 1990 described the rules governing baiting as both ``confusing'' and ``too complex.'' This common sense change has been recommended by the International's Ad Hoc Committee on Baiting, whose members include: Representatives of all four Flyway Councils, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, the Alabama Game and Fish Division, the North American Wildlife Enforcement Officers Association, Ducks Unlimited, the National Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, and the Wildlife Management Institute. The goal of this bill coupled with issues raised by the Service's regulatory proposal are aimed at addressing the very real concerns about fairness and confusion that many have raised over the past 10 to 15 years. My colleague Representative George Miller, who has done a little hunting himself, spoke articulately in support of the bill when it was marked-up and unanimously approved by the Resources Committee by voice vote. I was disappointed that he saw fit to change his mind, but that is certainly his prerogative. You know, hunters provide more money for wildlife conservation than virtually any other single group and they deserve the same fairness we all expect as citizens when it comes to alleged violations of the law. It should be noted that hunters were and are among the strongest advocates of the implementation of these rules to prohibit baiting to attract migratory game bird species. With that Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage my colleagues to support this common sense appeal to basic fairness. Vote for H.R. 2863. MR. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson, and to honor the sacrifice they made for their country last Friday afternoon. These two dedicated Capitol Police force officers never hesitated for one second when faced with a situation where the lives of others were at risk. They had been trained for such an event and without pause sprang into action and fulfilled their duty. These men are indeed heroes, in every sense of the word. But, they are ordinary men, with families and friends who mourn their passing. While we have seen in the last few days how dedicated they were to their jobs, we have also learned of how caring they were in their homes and neighborhoods. Testimony after testimony from friends and loved ones has shown us the high regard these men were held in their ``civilian'' lives. We have seen photos of the prized garden ``J.J.'' kept and whose bounty he shared with all. We have learned that John Gibson kept an eye on his neighborhood and made sure all was right. For a police officer, constant vigilance is the way of life and both of these men lived that credo. Friday was no exception. As the gunman burst into the Capitol Building through the detector, Officer Chestnut immediately knew trouble was at hand and without hesitation took action. Unfortunately, his assailant had a split second on him and had his gun pulled. Detective Gibson heard the gunshots and knew immediately what the sound was. He was in the immediate vicinity of several staff members and he took action to put himself between them and the danger at hand. It ultimately took the lives of these two officers, but the lives of many others were spared because of the selfless acts by these two officers. No words can comfort their families. No words can change the events of last Friday. No words can make these two men come walking through the door. Our words can only serve as some solace to their loved ones. Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson will long live in our consciousness, and in our hearts. Time may ease the sharpness of the pain of their loss, but, I say to their families, they will never be forgotten. They are, now and forever, heroes of America's democracy.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) for what they have done with the underlying bill. But I want to talk about a matter that involves part of our district in Tennessee, the Land Between the Lakes, because there is a legislative provision protected in the rule that makes little economic sense, is unfair to the people of the country and is punitive toward the Tennessee valley. LBL, Land Between the Lakes, is currently managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority with an annual budget of about $11 million, $4.5 million of that coming from user fees. It draws more than 2 million visitors each year and is the hub of our local economy. TVA's management, policies and employees' performance at LBL has been under a thinly disguised attack by the House leadership for more than 2 years, notwithstanding the fact that virtually every objective person who has an interest in its future agrees that TVA is doing a good job of stewardship. The TVA Caucus, the National Wild Turkey Federation, the Tennessee Conservation League, and the Land Between the Lakes Association all say so. This record of sound management now depends on the outcome of a House-Senate conference reconciling fiscal year 1999 energy and water appropriations. What is protected in this rule is the backup plan, what they characterize as a backup plan. It is part of the continued attack on TVA in general and in my judgement will ultimately imperil LBL's future as the national treasure as a wilderness area in the eastern United States it is. It sets in motion a transfer of LBL's management to the National Forest Service. Given the budget considerations that the Forest Service has in respect to the problems it has budgetarily outlined in the Public Lands Funding Initiative, I would hate to see LBL get lost in the Forest Service backlog. Let me just say this. Transferring LBL to the Forest Service or perhaps other Federal agencies in my judgment will not save the taxpayers of this country one single dime. This is not the way to go on LBL.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. TANNER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand the sponsors of the amendment are going to agree to this, and so in order to save time I submit my statement in support of the Gillmor amendment for the Record. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support an amendment which I have cosponsored with my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Gilmor, which would very simply protect the rights of all American citizens who are eligible to vote by ensuring that they will not be discriminated against as the result of changes we make to our campaign finance law. In our zeal to pass some kind of campaign finance reform, let's not inadvertently take away rights from Americans to participate in our electoral process. I think we all agree that we should be very careful not to pass any reform which hinders Americans from participating. Our amendment would make it clear that U.S. citizens who work for companies in the United States which happen to be foreign-owned will not lose the rights they presently enjoy to fully participate in federal campaigns. An amendment being proposed later in this debate would bar U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies from operating PACS. Under this proposal, the definition of ``foreign'' would be decided by degree of ownership. Any company that is more than 51 percent foreign-owned would not be allowed to operate a PAC--regardless of the number of employees they have in the U.S. or the extent of their contributions to the U.S. economy. Let me first reiterate that U.S. law presently forbids foreign nationals from participating in any way in federal elections, including contributing to and making decisions about a PAC. Many U.S. subsidiaries make substantial contributions to our economy and are stellar corporate citizens. To discriminate against them and the U.S. citizens they hire is simply wrong. For instance, both Hardees and Burger King are foreign-owned, yet they--like U.S.-owned McDonalds--are U.S. institutions which hire American citizens to work in the thousands of restaurants all across my state and throughout this country. It would simply be unfair to deny American employees of Hardees and Burger King the basic right of participating in a PAC while ensuring American employed of McDonalds that they would continue to have the right to fully participate in their own government's election process. After all, those employees at Hardees and Burger King pay taxes, shop at local stores, volunteer for the local charities and otherwise contribute to their communities just as their neighbors do who work for U.S.-owned companies. I urge all of my colleagues to ask constituents in your district who work for U.S. subsidiaries if they should be treated as ``foreign''. I am sure the response will convince you that it is patently unfair to discriminate against these American workers. U.S. subsidiaries of companies based outside the U.S. are increasingly important participants in the American economy. In my home state of Tennessee: 138,200 Tennessee workers are employed by U.S. subsidiaries. From 1980 to 1995, Tennessee employment at U.S. subsidiaries increased more than five times faster than all jobs in Tennessee. Employees at U.S. subsidiaries constitute over 6% of Tennessee's total work force. Support the rights of ALL Americans to participate fully in our political process and give these employees at U.S. subsidiaries the assurance that we will not treat them as second class citizens. Support the Gilmor-Tanner amendment.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself and others who feel as I do with the remarks which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) made. I think what people want us to do is to act reasonably to try to make a fair Tax Code, to try to raise the revenues that are necessary to buy the aircraft carriers, and the planes and the tanks we need for our defense, to try to do some of the things that we spend money on in terms of helping all of us as American citizens whether it is roads and bridges and infrastructure, water and sewer systems, those things that we need to do as a government that private enterprise cannot do, and I think in the end they want us to behave reasonably. Now it is hard for me to understand why a bill that forces us, all of us, not just Members of Congress, all of us as citizens, to either, 1, say it is everyone for himself or herself from now until the year 2002, as this new code that we do not know what is going to look like is rewritten; or, 2, if we cannot come to closure, and, my lord, it is hard enough to reach a consensus on tinkering with it around here, and I am on the Committee on Ways and Means, I see it; if we cannot come to consensus, then what happens? Nobody knows. It would be hard for me to think we could sit here as American citizens and padlock the Pentagon so that whoever wants can come in here in the year 2002 and take whatever is left. I do not think that would happen, but who knows? If we cannot reach a consensus in June of 2002, what is the country going to do? Now I just do not think that this approach, as the gentleman from New York states it, I do not think that people who think about this and think it through believe that is reasonable to put a gun to the collective head of every citizen in this country between now and the year 2002 to say, ``You write the Tax Code.'' Gentlemen say, well, we are going to let the American people write it. Great. How they going to do that? They have got a gun to their head under this bill. Now later on the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) and myself and others are going to have a motion to recommit this as a resolution, a sense of Congress, that says the Committee on Ways and Means will go to work now by a day certain to come up with a Tax Code that does not endanger the balanced budget agreement we just worked so hard to reach. We would like to see that work and get us out of what has been an abysmal hole in the wall of debt that is fair, that is more simple, that encourages savings and investment to make our country stronger, that protects Social Security and those things we want, and to undertake hearings. Can my colleagues imagine it being reasonable to come and scrap the Tax Code without one single moment of hearing on this bill in the Committee on Ways and Means, the committee of jurisdiction? I just do not think it is reasonable, and for that reason I urge a no vote.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today out of sadness. I do not make many partisan statements. I do not do one-minutes. By virtue of the Committee on Rules turning down an opportunity for this House to talk about the Blue Dog budget, it reminds me of a saying that many may have heard, that the Republicans are more efficient than Democrats. They are. By the adoption of this rule, they have achieved the same level of arrogance in 4 years that it took the Democrats that they accused of it 40 years to achieve. To deny us a budget debate on this floor that might pass because it has too much bipartisan support says to me that partisan politics is more important than doing something good for this country. I rise out of sadness because we are not permitted to debate the Blue Dog budget.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1872, the Communications Satellite and Privatization Act of 1998. I believe this legislation will speed the transformation of two international satellite governmental bodies into competitive commercial organizations. The bill will bring competition to the international satellite industry and ultimately, in my judgment, lead to lower telephone rates on long distance international calls and improved services. Long distance companies use satellites to complete many of their calls so the rates they pay for satellite time directly affects the rates consumers pay for international calls. More to the point, our constituents who have family members and friends serving in the military, the foreign service, or simply doing business overseas, will be able to reduce their long distance bills. When the satellite technology was in its infancy in the early 1960s, it made sense for our government and many partnering governments to get together and boost the satellite industry. Today, though, it makes sense, with so many potential competitors, to open competition within this market in an effort to speed the benefit of lower international phone bills.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues a particular provision of H.R. 1252--section seven: random assignment of habeas corpus cases. This section was added to the bill as a result of the testimony of one of my constituents, Mrs. Charlotte Stout of Greenfield, Tennessee. I'd like to submit the testimony of Mrs. Stout for the record since I can't hope to duplicate her eloquent effort. Before I begin, let me first say that I understand the difficulty facing this House in that judicial independence is a cornerstone of our democracy; but independence does not mean that we as a co-equal branch of government abdicate all responsibility for seeing that justice is done in this country. This House has heard all to often that justice delayed is justice denied. This is yet another unfortunate incident where this valid statement applies. I believe we do have a solemn duty to respond to injustice whenever and wherever we can. This section is a response to an injustice and I commend Chairman Coble and his staff for working diligently with me and Mr. Delahunt to add this important provision. The story of Charlotte Stout's daughter, Cary Ann Medlin is one which is too gruesome and too cruel to recount fully and I won't further their suffering by a detailed account--neither would Charlotte want me to. She is not an avenging mother, but a compassionate concerned woman who wants justice for not only herself, but all victims of crime. On September 1, 1979 her daughter Cary Ann Medlin, age 9, went out to ride her bicycle for a few minutes before dinner. Charlotte never saw her alive again. A man, by his own confession, brutally raped, sodomized, and murdered her small child. This man was brought to trial in 1981 and sentenced to two life sentences and death by electrocution. This case was appealed in all the appropriate state courts. In 1992 this killer, filed his second petition for habeas corpus relief in the federal court. In December of 1996, after being reprimanded for delay by the chief judge of the district, the judge finally ruled on this case after having it in his court for 4 years and 10 months. While this one woman's ordeal through the federal court system has made the constituents of my district question our judicial system and rightly so, Charlotte did not come to Washington to testify about an isolated, single case. This federal judge in the middle district of Tennessee, after very lengthy delays, has overturned 100% of all death penalty cases on which he has reached a final decision. Five to ten years is the norm in this judges court and in my view this is unacceptable. This judge delayed eight capital cases a combined total of over 66 years. The citizens of Tennessee are concerned that since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977, this judge has received almost 100% of the cases prior to 1990. He did not transfer the cases back to the district of origin, nor did he recuse himself in hearing the cases. The lengthy and constant delays in these capital cases has resulted in the victims of crime being denied justice. That is wrong; that is an injustice; and I support this section as a minor response to a grave injustice which if left unchecked could threaten the very credibility of the judiciary. Again, I thank the Subcommittee for hearing the testimony of Mrs. Charlotte Stout from Greenfield, Tennessee and the mother of Cary Ann Medlin. House Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Properties--Summary of Written Testimony by Charlotte Stout, May 15, 1997 I am not here today as an avenging mother. I am not here because a Federal Judge overturned one isolated death penalty case. If that were the case, you could discredit me as an emotional extremist and I would be wasting this committee's and my time. I represent almost 27,000 others who are concerned with and perceive a grave miscarriage of justice in Tennessee. The source of our concern is life-time appointed Federal Judge John Nixon of the Middle Tennessee District. Judge Nixon has delayed eight counted death penalty cases a compiled total of 65 years and 7 months. He has then overturned 100% of all death penalty cases on which he has reached a final decision. If our concern stemmed from one isolated decision, then I would also call attention to Judge Morton of Middle Tennessee who has also overturned a death penalty case. Our concerns stems from several reasons, not just Judge Nixon's decision on one case. We are concerned with the consistency with which Judge Nixon makes his decisions. We are concerned about the inordinate delays on death penalty cases in his court. We are concerned because of his misconduct in office by accepting an award from a group who has a previously stated controversial point of view on a legal issue. We are concerned with the amount of financial reimbursement he has authorized in capital cases. We are concerned that since the reinstatement of capital punishment in Tennessee in 1977, Judge Nixon received almost 100% of the cases prior to 1990. He did not transfer the cases back to the district of origin, nor did he recuse himself from hearing the cases. And finally, we are concerned about the system for filing judicial complaints. Twelve (12) complaints were officially filed against Judge Nixon in the 6th Circuit Court. These were reviewed by a judge who is his peer and social acquaintance. From the Governor, (and past Governor) to the ``blue- collar'' workers, from East Tennessee to West Tennessee, thousands believe that Judge Nixon is opposed to capital punishment and is allowing his personal convictions to obstruct the law of the State of Tennessee. Tennessee Senate Joint Resolution 41 has been proposed by Senator Tommy Burks which is a resolution memorializing the U.S. Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against U.S. District Court Judge John T. Nixon. We believe, Judge Nixon who is appointed for a life-time term, will continue to overturn death penalty convictions and order new trials, if he is allowed to continue in his historic path. I cannot begin to elaborate on the number of newspaper editorials, TV news segments, and public commentaries that have been expressed against Judge Nixon. A Federal Judge, who is appointed for life is holding the citizens of Tennessee ``hostage'' to his conscientious beliefs. He does have the right to his beliefs. No one disputes that. But when those beliefs interfere with the administration of justice and the performance of his duties as an officer of the court, he should be removed or at the very least restrained. Capital punishment has been ruled to be constitutionally appropriate. How then, can one individual be allowed to hold his beliefs above the law because he is a Federal Judge? He is frustrating the entire legal system in our state. To what purpose do our law enforcement officers, prosecuting attorneys, Judges and courts spend countless hours and taxpayer dollars to bring criminals to swift and sound justice. How can due process be served when delays of 10 years exist in one court? A fair trial after two decades will be impossible for any of these cases. What a tragedy if any one of these men is innocent. What a tragedy if they are guilty and allowed to abuse the system. What a tragedy if a Federal Judge is allowed flagrant misconduct in office and our elected Representatives refuse to act for the sake of protecting the independence of the judiciary. The framers of our Constitution surely never intended for one branch of the government to act completely independent of the other two branches. If that were the case, there would be no true system of checks and balances. We realize that only 15 judges have ever been brought up on impeachment charges and only seven of them have been convicted and removed from the bench. We realize the grounds for impeachment are complex. The Constitution sets the framework for impeachment and defines an impeachable offense as ``High crimes or misdemeanors'' but also states that judges who have lifetime appointments must be of ``good behavior''. Our elected Representatives can define the parameters of good behavior. On April 9, 1996, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court William Rehnquist said to the Washington College of Law, ``It would be a mistake to think that just because a certain kind of judicial business has always been conducted in a particular way in the past, it therefore ought to be conducted that way in the future.'' We, the people, have only one voice, the voice of our elected Representatives.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] and others who worked so long, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn] in a few minutes. But let me just say at the outset that the tax man has been and will continue to be an easy target since Biblical times. The fact is that the function of the IRS is necessary. Its sole purpose is to collect taxes. No one likes to pay taxes, so their anger is projected upon those who do the collecting. We have to have taxes to fund the vital and necessary functions of the Government, defense, interstate highways, food inspection, public health, FAA, and other missions that only the Government can and must do for all of us. We cannot change the function or the nature of the work the IRS performs, but we can change the approach. The IRS has not been reformed in over 40 years. Currently, it seems to many of us, that the emphasis of the IRS is on collection at all costs by any means necessary. As a result, the IRS is antiquated, less responsive, more aggressive with a persona akin to private-sector collection agencies. The IRS needs a makeover to reshape their image, and they need fresh, new, innovative ideas and new vision. We seek to do that today. We need to transform the IRS from a collection agency to a taxpayer customer-oriented agency which values individual taxpayers and citizens and treats them with respect and dignity and not just as a number. To accomplish this, many of us believe we need to look to the private sector for vision and direction. This bill accomplishes that objective. Also, included in the measures are an expanded taxpayers bill of rights, which the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn] and I introduced to end fishing expeditions, curb IRS summons authority to provide greater protection for taxpayer information, and to require the IRS to demonstrate just cause to pursue an audit. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for H.R. 2676.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.