Zach Wamp

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. If the gentleman would yield, and the theme and the message there is what you said earlier. We are reflective of the American people. I said as a candidate that I thought that Congress was a mirror image of America. Whoever is sent here is in fact a mirror image of what is out there. Mr. Speaker, if we are mean and shallow and harsh, the country is mean and shallow and harsh. If we are kind and respectful and dignified, the country is kind and respectful and dignified. That is how important this is. This is a critical issue. I think we should take the initiative, Congressman Tauzin, to actually discourage the leadership of both parties from engaging in these short speeches, just openly critical, playing the blame game. I think we ought to as a group, we ought to take the lead on that to say, you know, it is time because it does not matter who wins or loses in the political blame game here. What matters most is that this institution is sinking in esteem and that our young people are seeing the wrong thing, and we need to take that off. I like your V-chip idea. We ought to V that right out. We ought to get that right off the page here. Both parties would not be any better or any worse off if we did away with that because each party gets equal time, and they are basically just blaming each other. I do not think the people out there in the hinterland, whether they agree or disagree with people, much care for that kind.

Mr. WAMP. Another interesting dynamic, if my colleague would yield, please, is that many of the new Members feel that the seniority system in this institution that had grown out of touch over a period of time needed some reform, that the seniority system did not serve us too well, because whoever was around the longest got to be in charge, and some things just inherently were not fair. They did not reward hard work and effectiveness, they really rewarded the seniority of Members. I think in the passion of the day, even some of my freshmen colleagues failed to recognize that while the seniority system is moving aside, I think after the last election, half this body about had been here less than 3 years, and after the next election, based on the turnover we anticipate, it may be two-thirds of this body will be here less than 5 years. So the seniority system is being moved out. As the seniority system moves out, we have to recognize that the respect has got to stay. We cannot move it all out and replace it with some kind of bomb-throwing mentality, that we are going to storm this place and rock this place. This place is unreal. It is magnificent. It sends chills up and down your spine when you walk the hallowed Halls of the U.S. Congress. We got to leave it that big. It is that big, and it deserves that.

Mr. WAMP. To me, the greatest tragedy of all, Congressman Dickey, our young people in this country are watching what we are doing. I know, as the gentleman from Louisiana said, when the parties come down on the 1 minutes in the morning, sometimes the 1 minutes from the people on my side of the aisle, they are doing it, I am going, ``Oh, why does he have to do that? Why does she have to do that?'' The people back home know better. They have designed these games to trash the other party and to play the blame game, and the American people are tired of the blame game. They want solutions. They sent us all up here to work together on some solutions, and the greatest tragedy is our young poeple are looking at it and saying, ``Well, I know one thing, I don't want to go into that business. I would rather play basketball for a living or go make some money and be a professional.'' All those are good aspirations, but I yearn for the day when there is a young man or woman in this country who wants to be Thomas Jefferson, who wants to be a leader, who wants to go and help other people and to run this country and to say, ``I am so proud to be American, and I am so proud of my people in Congress and what they are doing and how well they regard each other, and is not it interesting how they disagree on the issues but they come back and respect each other. They do not trash each other.'' We owe it to our kids. Our kids do not want to be involved in politics. It is a mean, dirty business and it should not be. We are disconnecting them from their own future, Jay. That is the greatest tragedy of all.

Mr. WAMP. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Blute. One of the greatest honors that has been bestowed on me since I got here was being elected as a freshman as the cochairman of this Blue Dogs group over here on our side of the aisle, a group that does seek bipartisan solutions, willing to work with people on the other side, trying to find the principles and values that we might come together on and leave partisan politics and shallow rhetoric aside so we can try to get together and do the people's business. Many of us, as myself, are former Democrats who joined the Republican Party. I know for a fact in my life there are many, many good people in both parties across the country. And, in fact, neither party has an exclusive on integrity or ideas. Right down here on the dais, in this great room in the House of Representatives, are the words ingrained in the wood, ``Peace, liberty, tolerance and justice.'' I think we need to remember peace and tolerance more often as we do our business here in the House of Representatives. Not a day goes by, Mr. Speaker, that I am still not just fascinated by this opportunity that I have to serve in this incredible Capitol of ours that really has not changed much since Abraham Lincoln was the President of our country. And as I show young people through this place, I am constantly just enthralled at the magnitude of what this opportunity really means. I think we owe it to our predecessors, we owe it to the American people to put this institution above our own careers, our own ambitions, our party's agendas. Anything that may demean or degrade this institution needs to be set aside. The fabric of the American quilt is woven with diversity, diversity of religion, color, culture, and ideas. The thing that is different about America is that we in this country can passionately and aggressively argue the issues of the day but remain civil and come back as a Nation, come back as people at the end of the day, having argued passionately, taken sides, we can come back at the end of the day in a civil and respectful manner. And I think that is an important lesson for our children. It is an important lesson for our colleagues. It is an important lesson for the leadership of either party. Because, frankly, if the leadership of either party thinks they are always right and the other party is always wrong, they are tragically mistaken. And the American people know better. The American people expect us to find ways to work with each other, and I think we need to do this for them. The shallow and harsh rhetoric that has pervaded this institution in recent months needs to be set aside, from both parties. And now that the emotion of the new Congress, after 40 years of one party rule, is kind of mellowing out, I think some Members of both parties need to cool their jets just a little and get along with each other and remember that while we can disagree, we have to put this institution above the passion of the moment. I want to close, Mr. Speaker, by talking about a word that I think is the greatest need in our country and in our world today and that word is reconciliation. I think if people, men and women, young and old, all across this country and this world would reconcile with each other, we would be so much better off. That is the No. 1 problem that separates people. It causes anxiety and division. We are, in fact, Mr. Speaker, all God's people, and I think it is important that we remember as we come together tonight as Democrats and Republicans and talk about this issue of civility, that we remember the two great commandments; put God first and treat everybody else the way we want to be treated. And if we treat in this body everybody else the way we expect to be treated, the meanness would go away. Kindness would permeate because we would expect to be treated with that same respect and dignity. And we need to do that. I look forward to the days ahead where we can work with our friends on the other side of the aisle, do the people's business and disagree. By George, I am not going to sacrifice my principles for anything. But if we agree on principle, we need to come together here on the floor of this House.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, to kind of cut through the heavy air here today, where we have had some pretty high drama and a great sense of emotion, let me say from the freshmen perspective that 44 out of 74 of the freshman Republicans, I would argue the most ardent budget balancers to come here in a long time, have signed on in support of taking the transportation trust funds off-budget. You can in fact balance the Federal budget and return these user fees to the people who paid them. We see it as a matter of principle, and the principle is to the Federal Government: Don't take the money from users if you don't need it, if you don't need to spend it. Don't take it. Don't store up these trust funds and not put the money back for the use and from the people that you took it. That is the matter of principle. We would like to kind of draw a line in the sand on this issue and this is an important issue and it puts and invests the money back into our economy which we desperately need. These are user fees from roads, airports, harbors. Put them back to use. Support H.R. 842.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I must say, as a freshman Member of this body, it disappoints me to see the kind of name-calling, shallow partisan rhetoric that seems to always seep its way into this debate, particularly by senior Members that have brought distinction to this institution for a long period of time. And now it seems like the same angry, hostile words are used over and over again as if the American people do not know better. I am not much for partisan rhetoric and shallow words, and I do not come down here on a regular basis to say that Republicans are always right, Democrats are always wrong. I come down here tonight because I do think this is a fundamental issue in 1996. It is the litmus test of this whole process today, and that is the size and scope of the government and the difference in the two parties and their positions and their record on this issue. The barometer of the issue of the size and scope of the Federal Government is taxes. The government is going to grow as the Congress taxes the American people. The government is going to shrink which the American people would like as we reduce taxes on the American people. Our party, the party of Lincoln, clearly today stands for less government and lower taxes. The Democratic Party, as you have seen tonight, is still Congress coming down here in defense of big government, in defense of higher taxes, even stating that maybe we should or inferring that we should have higher taxes like other countries in other parts of the world where I personally do not want to live. I want to live here, and we want our country to have lower taxes. Let us look for a moment where we have been: $2,286 per person was paid in 1980, just a few short years ago. I remember that year very well--1980, per person to the Federal Government, $2,286. Last year, that figure was $4,996, almost $5,000. We have gone from $2,286 per person to almost $5,000, well over doubled in those few short years the amount the average American is paying to the Federal Government. I tell you, the reference was made to our Framers of our Constitution and our Founding Fathers. Obviously they cannot report to us tonight, but here is what I think they are doing tonight, they are rolling over in their graves, screaming we told you so, we warned you time and time again about the government. You know, think about this, a balanced society would have government, business, religion, and family, all four at the same level in a healthy balance. Do we not realize that the government is way above the line? The family is now way below the line, our religious institutions are way below the line, business is now way below the line, because the government has sucked off the responsibilities of those other four institutions. In order to bring it down, we have got to reduce the tax burden and balance out our society. We had the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] report that in 1950 we paid 2 percent of our dollars in revenues to the Federal Government; now that figure is 25 percent. I have a 9-year-old son and a 7-year-old daughter. My question is, at this pace, what are they going to be paying or will they have anything at all left from the dollars that they make? Because I suspect that they will not unless we draw a line in the sand tonight. Ladies and gentlemen, people of America, this is about drawing a line in the sand and saying we are not, as a responsible Congress, going to raise your taxes anymore. We are going to have to learn to do with less. We need to limit Congress' ability to raise taxes. It happened in 1993. I think that one vote was the defining vote of the election of 1994 if there was one vote you could turn to. This is something we need to do. I come from east Tennessee. I consider east Tennessee the center of the universe. The hills and valleys of east Tennessee, the people are honest and straightforward. They believe very passionately that the government is too big, that taxes are too high. They want me to do something about it. And I am.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Hoke, let me reclaim my time and make my point, if I could, please. You know, this has been a long and difficult year. It has been 11 months nearly now, and a lot of people are tired in this Chamber, and I can tell it on the floor today, and I can tell it with people's tempers, and what I would just respectfully come and say to our Members from both sides of the aisle is try not to be so disingenuous with your comments and your positions. This business of coming to the floor tonight and saying we should somehow stay on Sunday when on Sunday there is probably not going to be anything to vote on. Let me tell you that beginning in 1991 I began running for the U.S. Congress, and I decided early on that I was not going to sacrifice my commitment to my wife and my children by entering the public arena, and I said I will not campaign, I will not do anything on Sunday, except go to my church, worship the God that I serve, and spend that day every week with my family, with my wife and my children, and I have not backed down on that commitment in 4 years. In the first race the incumbent said we will debate you if you want to debate. She had a tremendous advantage. She said we will debate you on Sunday night, and I turned down that network-televised debate because I was not going to back down on a commitment that I made to live a balanced life of mind, body, and spirit, and I think it is very disingenuous for Members to down here and talk about us staying. We are staying tomorrow, we are staying Saturday. Mr. Speaker, I have been here. I left home at 6:30 Monday morning, and we are staying Saturday. We are staying Saturday, and we are working, and we are going to go home for one day so I can go to my church with my children and spend a day with my family that I love. There is a problem with the continuing resolution, there is a problem here, we all know it. All week long we have heard about policy and popularity. Well, let me just say this, please. It is popular, and it has been popular for years, to overpromise and overspend, and even if it is not popular today to do what we have got to do to save this country from the train wreck that we are destined to have if we do not turn around, even if it is unpopular, I am willing to do it, and many of my colleagues are willing to do it. This should not be a popularity contest. This country has got to quit worrying about polls, and how they run them, and what the results are. Thankfully my district did respond this week. It was four to one all week in favor of what we are doing in standing tough, standing firm, on a balanced budget. One day it was six to one. But what really bothers me is that we are the only generation in the history of this great Nation that is going to leave this place in worse shape than we found it. I would like to retire when I am 75 or 80 years old, and I would like to sit there with my grandkids and know that we did the right thing in 1995, that we stood in the gap for their future, that we made some tough decisions, that we did not back down when it all of a sudden got a little hot, like they done since 1969, said they were going to do it, got there, and we had a little pressure, and they had to back away from it, and the conservative Democrats over here, my hats are off to you. Forty-eight of you joined me, defected from President Clinton's commitment not to balance the budget, and joined us, and there are more every hour coming over. Why? Because it only makes sense. Mr. Speaker, we have a reasonable proposal. We have stripped it down to the bare essentials of the 7-year balanced budget. It is time to move. It is time to do it. If not now, when? If not now, when are we going to do it? I want to stay until the budget is balanced; that is what I came here for. We have got to take a step and come forward. I did not come here to play games. This is not a Republican-Democrat thing; it is a liberal and conservative thing, and we need to come together.

Mr. WAMP. Reclaiming my time, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Madam Speaker, yesterday the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] came to the House floor and declared how mad she was that this could happen, that the President and Congress could not get together and that Federal employees may be furloughed. Let me tell you what makes me mad. It even makes me sick, that in my lifetime, since 1969, this Government has run up 5 trillion dollars' worth of debt and our children are going to have to pay it. And almost everything they earn is going to go to the Government in the future. Stop the madness, Mr. President. Balance the budget. That is all we have to do is come together this week for our children and their future.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, compassion should not be measured by how many people are in government housing, or by how much money we spend on government programs. Compassion should be measured by how few people are in government housing, and how efficient we use the limited resources we have in the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we have been to this floor and this House many times this year benefiting senior citizens. As a matter of fact, I believe that last Thursday when we passed the Medicare Preservation Act it was the most courageous vote that we will cast the whole time I am here, and I just got here, for senior citizens. This bill cures two problems that have been identified with senior citizens. Those who have equity that they can use to generate income on a monthly basis for themselves, and those who do not have home equity that are living in government housing to make that a safer place. For 4 years my grandmother, at 85 years old and on a $450 a month income, campaigned to send me to Congress, and she died 10 months ago. Today she would be pleased.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. WAMP. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it can be in the State of Alabama, as long as it covers Chattanooga and southeast Tennessee adequately. I appreciate that, and commend the gentleman.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer], as I supported that amendment at the level of the Committee on Science, recognizing that for the folks back home, the Democrats and Republicans are working together on this issue. I commend the Chairman of the subcommittee, the chairman of the full committee, and those on the other side, because we have worked together for a number of years on this issue. When it comes to health and safety, we are working together to make sure that politics does not enter into this. I do not believe for a second that it has or is entering into this. However, with the potentiality of degradation in some areas of the Weather Service as we transition into a brand new national NEXRAD system, which is coming on- line, it is important that we do not have soft spots. Let me give a recent example. In southeast Tennessee, which I represent, which has been identified as one of five vulnerable areas in the country by the National Research Council's findings, which they are now reporting on to the Department of Commerce, we are awaiting, I think, Department of Commerce clarification to make sure that these five areas are potentially degrading areas, so we can actually accommodate through some construction these areas to improve these areas. As Hurricane Opal last week worked its way up through the Gulf of Mexico right through, I suppose, the district of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] and my district, we have had our people who have relied on our local Weather Service office for years calling Morristown, TN, some 114 miles to the northeast. Storms do not come from the northeast to the southeast in the southeastern part of the United States, they come from the south. We have to have that service and those reportings coming from a closer area. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] very responsibly offered legislation at the committee level to accommodate these soft spots. I commend him for that. The transition, our local Weather Service Office is closing. The calls came from our local media representatives to the Morristown office. We did not have the responsiveness that we have had in recent years as this hurricane came through town. These are critical health and safety concerns that must continue to be addressed. I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] for the hearings, but again I do think this is a responsible approach. It does not matter where it comes from in this body, from that back corner or this back corner; when it is a responsible approach, we need to all embrace and recognize it. I urge all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer]. This team worked, saved lives and mitigated millions of dollars in property damage. Furthermore, it enabled Federal officials to control releases from the Central Valley Project dams, thereby avoiding further destruction downstream significantly. During this emergency, the radar in Sacramento which provides primary coverage to the region north of Redding failed to adequately detect precipitation in the mountains where the flooding originated. Had it not been for the heroic efforts of experienced Weather Service personnel in Redding, the devastation would have increased dramatically. Mr. Chairman, despite the firefighting lessons we learned last spring, the Weather Service is still determined to eliminate the requirement that the service certify that the closures would not degrade services to the region, which could literally place the safety of thousands of people in jeopardy. Mr. Chairman, this would have ramifications that move far beyond even flood management. It would also severely impact the Weather Service provided to forest fire dispatchers from the Forest Service, BLM and California Department of Forestry, who are housed in the same facility as the Weather Service and who have relied on the forecasting for meteorologists and technicians in the Redding office for over 30 years. Furthermore, it would jeopardize the safety of travelers along the vulnerable Interstate 5 corridor who rely on the accurate storm and snow reports for safe passage between Oregon and California. Mr. Chairman, the situation in southern California is not unique. There are communities all over the country which are in jeopardy of losing adequate weather service under the present modernization plan. We must reinstate a mechanism to check a potentially dangerous bureaucratic fiat. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that mechanism. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Cramer amendment.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I certainly commend our distinguished chairman of the full Committee on Science for this action. What has happened here is that at our Committee on Science earlier this year as we did our work, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] actually offered an amendment that said, and it passed the Committee on Science, that if the appropriators actually appropriated a dollar figure higher than the authorization that we were setting in place there, that we could increase these funds at that time, and this accommodates that desire. As he knows, my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, and I were prepared to offer an amendment, which is at the desk which I do not believe is necessary at this time, which would actually accommodate this, and the chairman saw this need to increase this funding up to that appropriated level in 1996. I want to point out this keeps us within our budget caps, keeps us on the glide path to a balanced budget, something we can all agree must be done. I commend the chairman for this action and support his initiative.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify then, now in 1996 the gentleman's amendment ups the amount to the full appropriated amount?

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, in 1997 is it not possible we could reauthorize again next fall? We are talking somewhat semantics, to reauthorize into the future. I understand the gentleman wants the stakes to be set in the ground. The fact is the appropriators are also going to have a voice in what we spend in 1997 as well.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we are having a healthy discussion this afternoon about the role of the national laboratories. We need to have this discussion, and actually I think this first amendment here is going to flesh out a lot of the feelings and points that Members need to make with respect to this issue, and probably avoid a lot of discussion in the later amendments. I want to back up just for a moment, though, because I have become so sensitive since I became a Member of Congress to how the use of words can confuse people. I want to go back to what our distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], said in the well just a few minutes ago when he was talking about Bob Galvin's recommendations and the Galvin report when he used the word privatization. I just want to point out that the word ``corporatization'' is what Bob Galvin used time and time again in the Galvin report. Privatization has a different meaning to a whole lot of different people. I do not want anyone thinking that the Republican chairman of the Committee on Science recommended privatizing our national laboratories based on his use of that word a few minutes ago. Corporatization is a different approach. It is not selling off the laboratories. That is not what Galvin said. Let the record be clear, that is not what the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, just said. I want that pointed out. There are so many people that take words and use them, that the ``Republican majority is trying to privatize.'' No, corporatization means private contractors manage. We have that right now across the country. It is more efficient, wherever it can be properly applied. Let us not abuse the word privatization. Mr. Chairman, I do want to identify myself with the comments from the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], on his bill, H.R. 2142, which I do support, which redefines the missions of our Federal laboratory system in the post-cold war era. I support that concept, and it really does not line up with the proposals that are before us in these next three amendments.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted to come in my subcommittee chairman's absence and rise in support of the bill offered by the chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], H.R. 2142, which actually sets new priorities for our national Federal laboratory system. While I very much respect my colleague from Indiana and know that everything he does is well-intentioned, and I think he is one of the brightest stars on this side of the aisle, but in this case it is the wrong approach to how we make our Federal laboratory system more efficient. It does not take into consideration the priorities that need to be set for where we spend our money in these critical areas. It would be like coming into a plant and saying you are all of the same worth and everyone is going to have to be reduced over time by these figures regardless of your productivity, regardless of your efficiency, regardless of what time you come to work and what time you leave. What we need to do, as Bob Galvin, through the Galvin Commission actually identified, is redefine the role of our Federal laboratory system and come up with a whole new mission in the post-cold-war era of what our laboratories should actually do, and we need to make them more efficient. Secretary O'Leary has actually enacted quite a few cuts in the programs of the Department of Energy, including the laboratories over time. Maybe some of them do not go far enough, and I think this side of the aisle will make sure that they go further. But I think that while your approach is well-intentioned, it is the wrong approach at the wrong time. I think another amendment will be heard later today that just says let us sell off all the laboratories except three, which again is a meat-ax approach to a very delicate thing. Our laboratories in this country are essential to our international competitiveness, and I know the gentleman from Indiana knows that and recognizes that. So I think our intent would be the same, but your approach I cannot agree with.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a man who has made unique and valuable contributions to his chosen calling, radio broadcast journalism, and to the community as a whole in Chattanooga in the Third District of Tennessee, which I have the honor to represent. In many ways, Earl Freudenberg is a perfect example of how to get ahead and better yourself in America. He started early, worked hard, and moved up the ranks quickly. But Earl Freudenberg is not the kind of man who would be content simply bettering his own lot in life. Throughout his life, Earl Freudenberg has served as a fine example of the doer and the joiner who pitches in to help out on all manner of worthy community projects. Earl got his feet wet in radio broadcasting when he was barely in his teens. While still at Northside Junior High School in Chattanooga, Earl helped out at WAPO Radio in Chattanooga by pulling copy off the wire machine to help the sportcaster broadcast road game scores for the Chattanooga Lookouts baseball team. As a junior at the Kirkman Technical High School in Chattanooga, Early wrote advertising copy for WAPO and later he operated the control board at the station. The day Earl graduated from high school he was offered a weekend operators job at WDOD radio in Chattanooga and before long he had a job as program director at the station, becoming the youngest program director in the Chattanooga market. Earl Freudenberg had achieved solid success early in his chosen profession. But when duty called, Earl answered. He joined the U.S. Army in 1970 and served in South Carolina and Germany. While overseas he worked on the staff of the Armed Forces Network. After his military service, Earl returned to Chattanooga to become news director at WDOD. In the early 1980's he broadened his experience by serving a stint as news director at WDEF, channel 12, the CBS television affiliate in Chattanooga. Later he returned to WDOD where he has remained since. But--as I said a moment ago--Earl is one of Chattanooga's doers. For years, he served as announcer for Chattanooga's nationally acclaimed Armed Forces Day parade. He has pitched in for numerous civic organizations in the Chattanooga area. A special cause of Earl's is the Chattanooga Police Forgotten Child Fund. Each year at Christmastime Earl broadcasts from the chilly parking lot of a shopping center in Chattanooga in an effort to build support for this wonderful venture. He doesn't mind--he even seems to enjoy--braving the cold weather to bring some warmth into the lives of little children. He also serves on the Forgotten Child Fund's board and on the governing groups of several other civic groups, including Bethel Bible Village, the Kidney Foundation, and Teen Challenge to name but a few of his civic efforts. His achievements have been recognized both by his professional associates and the community at large. In 1978, he was recognized by Sigma Delta Chi, the professional journalists society, and in 1981 Earl Freudenberg was named Tennessee Press Association Broadcaster of the Year. He has won numerous community awards, including Red Bank Outstanding Citizen, the Walker County Law Enforcement Award, and the Scenic City Beautiful Award. In 1993, Earl won the coveted Chattanooga Downtown Sertoma Club's National Heritage Award. The award's citation gives a good summary of who Earl Freudenberg is. The Sertomans said the award was going ``to an individual who has not only dedicated a portion of his life to providing service to the community but has also dedicated his life to upholding the ideals upon which this country was founded.'' Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honored to recognize on the House floor this fine citizen of the Third District of Tennessee.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall 539, I meant to vote ``yes'' and I accidentally voted ``no.'' amendment no. 48 offered by mr. castle