Zach Wamp

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as cosponsor of H.R. 111.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise today, Mr. Chairman, as a member of both the House Committee on Budget and the House Committee on Appropriations to say that, yes, this budget proposal is balanced; yes, it locks away all of the Social Security revenues into Social Security for the first time in a generation; yes, we increase veterans' benefits significantly over last year and way above the President's request; yes, we increase education funding above the President's request; yes, we protect Medicare and do not cut Medicare benefits as the President's budget does. But I want to say that the goose that lays the golden egg called the budget surplus that we are here today to discuss is not us. It is the economy. The economy must be considered as we look at the fiscal discipline that I am here to talk about today as a member of the House Committee on Appropriations. It is going to be hard later on, no question about it. But should we exert fiscal discipline? Listen. Chairman Greenspan, the guru of the American economy, has told us time and time again that, as we exert some fiscal discipline in this Congress, the economy continues to improve. That is the goose that lays its golden egg. We need to feed that goose, feed that goose by exerting fiscal discipline, holding the growth of Federal Government spending below inflation in the last few years for the first time since 1969. That is the fiscal discipline that we must enter into. This budget does that. It is going to be a tough year. But let me tell my colleagues, if we show the markets that, here in Washington, we are not going to spend foolishly or blindly any longer, the economy will continue, revenues will continue to sore, the budget surplus will continue to increase, and we will have good discussions here on the House floor of where to invest in the American society as opposed to those discussions we used to have about how to reduce the deficit instead of how to invest the surplus.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, my ancestors' history in East Tennessee goes back 200 years. The region is rich in people, culture, and heritage, but our success has not come easily. At the turn of this great American century the Tennessee Valley, at the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains, was burdened by poverty and illiteracy. However, two great institutions fueled the region's economy early in the 20th century, the University of Tennessee and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Then a powerful U.S. Senator from Tennessee helped to locate a critical defense mission called the Manhattan Project in Oak Ridge, and the Federal Government invested billions in Tennessee to help win the Cold War and break the back of communism, preserving peace in the world. Today, as we turn into this next great American century, the East Tennessee region is home to a thriving technology corridor and a hotbed for investment and private sector economic opportunity. With the combination of quality of life and great natural beauty, a highly-trained workforce, and investment opportunity, the East Tennessee area is one of the best examples in our country of turning lemons into lemonade. With the siting of the Nation's top science project, the Spallation Neutron Source, at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the University of Tennessee will play an even greater role in international research and development and rise to an even higher level as one of the Nation's top educational institutions. Mr. Speaker, we are indeed proud of the excellence in education at the University of Tennessee. But this week, this fine university celebrates another excellent achievement. The 1998 men's football team joined the Lady Vols basketball team as undisputed national champions. Led by Al Wilson, Raynoch Thompson, and Eric Westmoreland on defense, and Tee Martin and Peerless Price on offense, this national champion team is not only a team of destiny, but also serves as a good example for our young people of the ``team approach.'' These fine football players worked their way to an undefeated 13 and 0 season and the first national football championship for the University of Tennessee in 47 years. To Coach Phillip Fulmer and his staff, Dr. Joe Johnson and the leadership of the University of Tennessee, 107,000 diehard fans and the best college football team in America, I salute you for your achievement, and thank you for instilling such pride throughout the Tennessee Valley.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, other than the church and the family, I believe the United States Congress is the greatest institution in the world today and has been for a long time. The American people do not really know the details of what is going on up here over the last few days. They know the Congress is staying late to try to complete its work on reaching an agreement with the administration on the important budget for the next year and how we are going to spend their hard- earned tax dollars. But this afternoon on the way over here to vote, Mr. Speaker, I stopped on the lawn of the Capitol, took a deep breath of some really clean, crisp fall air on a beautiful sunny fall afternoon, looked at the glorious dome above this magnificent building and reflected a moment on what this really is all about in my heart. It is really about patriots wrestling with other patriots over their different approaches to the many challenges that we face as a people. Domestic challenges like education and drug abuse, challenges around the world militarily, economically. But it is really about good people trying to come to an agreement over issues that we share in common and challenges that we share in common. I was reminded of Winston Churchill. To paraphrase him he said, ``This is the worst form of government imaginable, except for every other.'' What he meant is that sometimes it is difficult, sometimes it is painful, sometimes it is even messy. But it beats the heck out of everything else. It is still the way to do it, to settle our differences peacefully, without bloodshed, by freely electing our representatives and letting them be your voice through the debate, but at the end of the process come back together for the good of the greatest nation in the world and move forward. When President Reagan was in the White House, he had a Democratic Congress, they went through the same process, regardless of what you have heard. This is nothing new really. It has been going on a long time. President Clinton is now in the White House with a Republican Congress. The same thing. You have to fight it out and at the end of the day reach a compromise, come to the middle, move the process forward. So what is the bottom line with Congress about to adjourn for the end of the 105th? The bottom line is that the Congress is getting the job done. The bottom line is that the administration is getting the job done. In a few important days, the American people have a job to do and that is to exercise their privilege to participate and to vote and to freely elect their representatives to come here and hammer out these important decisions. This is really a great place, filled with good people. I wish each and every one of them all the best as they go back to spend some well-deserved time with the people that love them the most.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman yielding to me. Madam Speaker, I had no intention of coming to the floor and engaging in this debate, but I really believe it is important from time to time for people to come maybe to the center of this institution and put things in somewhat of a perspective as we prepare to go home at the end of the 105th Congress. I have been here 4 years and have grown to deeply and passionately, not only love this institution, but love people on both sides of the aisle. When I hear people like the gentleman from California come here and make statements about people not doing their job and not working hard, I want the people to know, everybody in this institution that I know have works their tails off. When my 11-year-old son and my 9 year-old-daughter watch these proceedings and know how much time I spend away from them and how busy I am and everybody in this institution, this institution means more than either one of our political parties. It must be held up. If not, the cynicism in this country is going to grow. I strongly encourage Members on both sides to say what they mean and mean what they say and quit using words that demean this institution. It is not in our best interest. It is not to our children's best interest. What is in their best interest is to know that we all work hard and do our very best for the people that we represent. We should debate the issues, but to use shallow rhetoric about this body not having done its job last year or this year, I have been here 4 years. I have seen people work around the clock from both sides of the aisle. Four hundred thirty-five people work, from my perspective, as hard as they possibly could. I worked with my friends on the other side of the aisle on campaign finance reform. I tried not to come down here and run my mouth if I did not have something to say that was a value to this process. Please, for the sake of this government, for civil government, for decency, for cooperation, for the next Congress and the next Congress and Congresses 100 years from now, quit using shallow rhetoric.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I come with a little different angle to the floor today, Mr. Chairman, to say that when I made the decision this spring to join the discharge petition and bring this issue back to the floor of the House against the wishes of even my own party, the majority party, I said to the Speaker of the House, ``Mr. Speaker, we should not defend the status quo. We should not defend this current system. We should not be caught dead defending this system. As a matter of fact, we did not create this system.'' And I said it has been around since Watergate and it created some things that are now coming back to haunt us, I think. I said we need to do one of two things: either make the intellectual argument that we should do away with this system and go back to the way things were, which the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) does very intellectually in my opinion, or do the best we can to fix the current system. I do not believe the majority of American people want us to go back to the way things were before Watergate. So I joined the Shays-Meehan effort, did my best to improve it, take out things that I thought were not acceptable and make it as perfect as possible, which it is not perfect, but it is as perfect as possible to build a majority consensus. I think we must try to fix this system. And Shays-Meehan is the best effort in the last 4 years to do that, and that is why we got 237 votes. I think we need to try to fix this current system. My colleagues can make an intellectual argument, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) did, that PACs have created a problem and they kind of got washed out by the proliferation of soft money. But, frankly, all of that is part of this system. So intellectually I am not going to disagree with him. But practically and pragmatically, we need to do the best we can to fix this current system. That is what Shays-Meehan represents. That is where the momentum is. That is where a majority is. And I am proud that today the House will, I believe, pass as the king Shays-Meehan and encourage the Senate to do likewise.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Madam Chairman, what an honor to close the debate on this most important issue that affects every single Member of this House and the political parties, and most importantly, the American people. I say to my colleagues that tonight really is the moment of truth. The truth is that for a generation, the majority in the Congress opposes reforming the current system and the minority supports reform. Before we took a majority 4 years ago, the very same people who opposed reform tonight supported the same kind of reforms, because they were in the minority. That is the truth. It is inherent, supposedly, upon the majority to support the current system. However, I come from the majority. I come from the freshman class of the 104th Congress. We have reformed a lot of things. We have changed this place in many respects, but we are pulling up short if we do not reform our own campaign system. It is important that we face the truth. The truth is that banning soft money cuts across the spectrum. Everybody gets treated the same. If we find it offensive that tobacco can give a half a million dollars on a single night at a fund-raiser when tobacco legislation is pending before the Congress, vote for this bill. It does away with that. If Members find these ads run by these outside groups offensive in the final 60 days of a campaign, where they do not have to tell the truth and they come in unlimited and unregulated, all we are saying is they have to abide by the same rules that I do as a candidate or a political action committee does. We are not restricting their right to speak; we are saying, you have to play by the same rules as everybody else from now on. If Members want candidates to have better reporting, better disclosure, more accountability, vote yes on this bill. It is the moment of truth. If Members think that a commission can report back recommendations for the rest of the details of campaign finance reform, vote yes on this bill. All four of these things are a step in the right direction. The truth is, this bill is as fair to Republicans as it is to Democrats. The truth is that it affects any outside groups. It is the same for Wall Street or the labor unions, the same for the Christian Coalition or the ACLU. Everybody gets treated the same. Is that not fair? Is that not reasonable? I say to my colleagues in the majority, this is the moment of truth. I ask Members, will they please put the public interest above their personal interest? Will they please put good government above their political party? Will Members please do the right thing for the American people, and send the signal that we have gone the distance on reform? Vote yes on Shays-Meehan.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, for those that may be following this debate and wonder at times what ``poison pill'' and some of the references actually mean, I want to point to the motives of the Shays-Meehan effort. That is really to try to remove the influence that special interests have on Federal election campaigns. I also want to point out, with this amendment being an example, that we are not killing everything that comes up. If it is germane, if it is special interest, if it is about money in Federal elections, and it is something that is going in the same direction of real reform, we are willing to work with the authors of amendments such as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and this is a great example. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his work and his persistence on this legitimate issue of foreign money coming into the American Federal political process. There is some domestic money that we think is also egregious and we are trying to put some reasonable limitations on soft money and the proliferation of these outside interests. I thank the gentleman for his work.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, the amendment has been accepted, but we will have a voice vote at the pleasure of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is another good example where the gentleman offering the amendment is in a constructive way enhancing what we are trying to accomplish with good reform. Certainly the reformers here in support of Shays- Meehan accept the amendment and commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) for bringing this idea to us and actually putting it into a form that will certainly strengthen the Federal Election Commission and the laws and rules that govern we as candidates here in the House and in the Senate. I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time normally in opposition but not to oppose the amendment.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, recognizing that the gentleman from Kentucky has the right to close, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I may be uniquely qualified to address this amendment because, as the gentleman from Kentucky knows, he and I got here together in early 1995 and within just a few weeks, I had a bill on the floor called the Wamp Congress Act of 1995. I think the gentleman from Kentucky was probably one of my cosponsors, which actually did in fact increase the individual contribution limit. But over the last 4 years as I have worked this body on both sides of the aisle to try to build consensus around this issue of campaign reform, knowing that there were land mines throughout the entire process and knowing that this fundamental system has not been changed since Watergate because there are too many good ways to kill it, I looked for a consensus around a few principles, and that is what we have on the floor tonight represented in Shays- Meehan. That is why I reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment. Because there is an intellectual argument to be made for the fact that an individual contribution in 1974 is actually worth about $3,000 today, but the fact is there is not much support in this body for raising individual contribution limits, and none of us can be king for a day. If I were king for a day, I would have my own bill here and it would be much different than what we have. But this process is a process of compromise and consensus. We are looking for a majority, especially a bipartisan majority, so that we can actually accomplish something that has not been accomplished in a generation because there are too many ways to chop the legs out from underneath this particular issue, because this one issue is the issue that is at the heart of whether or not we can stay in power as Members of Congress, and that is why the oldest trick in this business is to put something on the floor and promote it, that then everybody can say, ``Well, I supported that but I didn't support this, therefore, I didn't support final passage'' and we never get reform. That is why I rise today even though I did support this principle early in my career here, knowing that there is no support here for that, and we cannot add it to this bill because frankly it is one of the things that will sink the boat. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise, too, in very reluctant opposition and I say reluctant because the author of this bill the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) is not only one of the brightest individuals in the House, he has been a true reformer, offering multiple bills and multiple amendments, really an academic expert in this issue of campaign finance reform. But I do come from the other ideological perspective. I encouraged the authors of Shays-Meehan early on when it was in a different form not to go the route of public financing, not to go the route of broadcaster financing and we have put together this coalition amazingly well of people who had great heartburn with those two provisions. This would effectively take us there, albeit in a small way, but it would take us there to public financing. Frankly I am on this train with the understanding we were not going to go to this destination. So I certainly want to speak to that. But I very much commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for all that he continues to do because he is truly trying his best to go in our direction.

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

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, the operative word is ``finance.'' This is about campaigns, this amendment. I agree, frankly, with the intent of the author of this amendment. I agree so many times with my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). But campaign finance is about raising money and spending money and reelecting Federal candidates. That is what we have been working on here. This actually is a legitimate issue. It is like combining school vouchers with a higher education bill. They are both education, but they do not belong together. This issue does not belong in this bill. We need to pass this bill clean, and we need to vote down this amendment, even though I agree with the intent of the author, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip, yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make two points. One is this House has come together in an extraordinary way in the last 24 hours. Last night's meeting, a joint caucus and conference meeting between the Democrats and the Republicans, was this institution at its finest. I think in the memory of these two outstanding men, we should all commit ourselves to love each other more, to be more civil, to hold this institution up in the way that they deserve. In memory of them, that we would, as a people, find some good in this and come together in an extraordinary and historic way. Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to come today to this floor and recognize a great ``Tennessee Volunteer,'' Senator Bill Frist, whose second nature was to help; to put himself in an awkward position as a physician, though to always put that patient first, regardless of who that patients is. A great Tennessean of whom we are all very proud, Senator Frist came where he was needed most and gave of himself in an extraordinary way. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the Speaker and the minority leader for this House coming together for these two remarkable men.

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

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of the bicameral and bipartisan Tennessee Valley Authority Caucus in the 105th Congress, I submit the following: Remarks by Craven Crowell, Chairman, Tennessee Valley Authority, to the Institute of Economic Affairs, European Electricity '98 Conference, July 7, 1998--Brussels, Belgium The Role of the Public Power Company in the Deregulated 21st Century Thank you for that very kind introduction, and good morning, ladies and gentleman. It is indeed a great pleasure and an honor to be here today and I'm grateful for this opportunity to discuss--from the American perspective--some of the issues surrounding deregulation with experts from Europe, and around the world. I'm going to want to talk about the role of public utilities in a deregulated economy--and I'll try to keep my remarks general--but I'm most familiar, of course, with the Tennessee Valley Authority, where I serve as Chairman. So I hope you'll forgive my spending a little time about about TVA. I'm certain that many of you are already familiar with the Tennessee Valley Authority but for those of you who are not, let me offer just a brief sketch of TVA's history--or at least that part of our history that's relevant to the issues we're discussing today. We are a public utility--100 percent government owned--and we're the largest supplier of electricity in the United States. We're also a major employer, with over 14,000 employees. We were created by the United States Congress in 1933 under the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In fact, TVA was created just 37 days after FDR took office, so I think it's clear that the mission of TVA had a high priority for the newly elected president. FDR said that the Tennessee Valley Authority was to be ``a corporation clothed with the power of government but possessed of the flexibility and initiative of a private enterprise.'' So you can see, from the start, that TVA had something of a dual identity--public ownership and public responsibilities, but the expectation that the company was to be fast on its feet, nimble and flexible, like a private corporation. TVA was created at a time when America and much of the world faced enormous hardships. The Great Depression-- remember, this was 1933--was challenging whatever optimism remained after the tragedy of the Great War. But leaders like FDR believed that human will, properly channeled, and organized on a grand scale, could conquer hardship and adversity. Human will, harnessed by large-scale government works programs could--the ``New Dealers'' believed--reclaim the land, rebuild the shattered economy, and restore hope. These bureaucrats--I guess that's what we'd call them today--believed that a public corporation like TVA could save the poor and the destitute of the Tennessee Valley. So TVA was not created principally to provide electric power to the Appalachian farmers who lived in the remote hills of the Tennessee Valley--in fact, electric power was not even part of its original mission. TVA was created to rebuild a broken society, and that's exactly what it did. Farmers needed to rebuild a broken society, and that's exactly what it did. Farmers needed to learn new methods of conservation so they could restore fertility to their barren farmland. Agricultural experts from TVA taught them. The rivers, prone to flooding and hazardous to navigate, needed to be tamed so they could serve the people who lived in their valleys. Engineers from TVA tamed the rivers. TVA trained tens of thousands of poor farmers and gave them new skills. They built huge hydroelectric dams and sent electric power lines into parts of America that had never seen an electric light or used an electric appliance, and when electricity became a part of everyday life, experts from TVA helped teach energy conservation to the consumers of the power TVA produced. Think about that. Long before conservation became fashionable, TVA was teaching people how to use less of what we make--not exactly part of a standard commercial business plan, but part of what we see as our public responsibility. Back in the '30s, TVA served the public good in thousands of ways and, most people would agree, helped break the stranglehold of the Great Depression. I like to think that TVA played a significant part in creating the modern economy of the United States and the prosperity we've enjoyed in the second half of this century. But what about the next century? What will be the role of a public utility like TVA and public power companies in general in the deregulated 21st century? Public power now supplies 24.4 percent of the kilowatt-hours consumed by individuals and industries in the US. Will we continue to supply a quarter of the nation's electricity under deregulation? And what about rates? The cost of electricity in the United States can vary between 4 cents per kilowatt-hour in Kentucky, to nearly 12 cents in New Hampshire. The political pressure to level the national rate structure will be enormous. What role should public utilities play in that debate? As we wrestle with all of these questions, I believe the challenge for the public utilities will be to continue to embrace the dual identity Franklin Roosevelt envisioned sixty-five years ago. Public in fact, private in behavior-- solid and responsible, yet creative and competitive. In this way TVA, and public utilities like ours, will set a standard for public responsibility against which private companies can be measured . . . even as we continue to provide our core product--wholesale electric power--at competitive prices. What will this mean in practice? Well, if we've learned anything in the United States in this last decade it is that deregulation does not automatically mean consumer benefit. We deregulated our telecommunications industry and, while we'd hoped to see new competition result in lower rates, the results--so far at least--have been mixed. The same with banks. Deregulation has, theoretically at least, made it easier for new banks to compete with established banks. But while thousands of new banks have been created, many of the big established banks have merged, meaning, for many people, less consumer choice, not more. I guess we shouldn't be surprised to find that the ``law of unintended consequences'' applies to deregulation, just as it applies to everything else. So, after about a decade of experience, we in the US have learned, I think, to approach deregulation carefully. Rushing headlong into a deregulated economy can, we have found, usher in new problems, even as it solves some of the old ones. The key to measuring the success of deregulation is, and will be, of course, the degree to which regulatory change benefits the public. Again, we come back to the idea of the public good. But how will this benefit be measured? And what should we look out for? I would suggest that one of the greatest services public utilities can provide in a deregulated marketplace is vision, especially in the context of the public interest. The independently owned, private utilities might say that they are the ones who bring ``vision'' to the utilities industry but I would challenge that view. In fact, competition-- especially in this era of ``just in time`` delivery--often breeds a corporate vision that sees no further than the next quarterly report, or today's closing share price on the New York Stock Exchange, and this lack of vision, especially in our industry, can have very serious consequences. Public power's vision starts and ends with public responsibility. Let me give you an example. This summer, if we're unlucky-- and let's hope we're not--we could actually find ourselves short of power in one or more major American cities. Just imagine the impact on computers and transit systems if that were to occur. Now, private utilities also know that the American economy is increasingly dependent on electrical power, but their bottom-line calculations don't allow for the generation of very much excess capacity just because we might, in a heat wave, find ourselves running short. Right now, they would argue, construction of another major generating unit would not produce the return on investment their shareholders demand. Surplus capacity is unsold inventory. It's ``inefficient.'' At TVA, of course, we don't have shareholders. We have the public. So, while TVA does not build facilities for power production greater than the requirements of our service area, we do operate with a surplus to avoid a power shortage to our customers. We provide this margin for unexpectedly high demand and generation which is sometimes unavailable. In the past five years, we've seen load growth of about 3.9 percent per year in the Tennessee Valley and 2.7 percent across the US--and the US Department of Energy projects load growth of close to 2 percent nationally every year for the next decade--so, frankly, it is our public responsibility to continue to provide a margin for the Valley as the load continues to grow. Which is not to say that we couldn't actually run short of power in the Tennessee Valley this summer. We could. There's no telling just how high the temperature will rise, and for how long. (Someone else is in charge of the weather.) But at TVA, we think long and hard about these issues. It's our responsibility, because we're a public utility. Let me offer another example of the vision of the public utility. As far back as 1933, when TVA was created, it was clear that the system of streams and rivers that feed the Tennessee River--and the Tennessee River itself--could be both friend and foe to the people in the valley. TVA was charged with the responsibility of managing the river first as a natural resource and second as a power resource. In fulfilling this responsibility, our public utility has helped reclaim thousands of acres of farmland and stem the tide of seasonal flooding. Private utilities count on other government agencies to handle land and river management--in the US, that's usually the Army Corps of Engineers--but in the Tennessee Valley, water resource management is the responsibility of TVA, a public utility. Our public utility has also helped industries in the Tennessee Valley grow and prosper. We've helped arrange loans for small businesses, we've helped locate industrial sites, and we've provided technical expertise to start-up companies and major corporations who have chosen to make the Valley their home. But as the deregulation debate heats up in the months and years ahead, I'm sure that some will question whether TVA or any public utility should continue to manage such a broad portfolio of public service. ``That was fine during the 1930s,'' some will argue, ``but we're a long way from the Great Depression. We don't need a TVA for the 21st century.'' I would argue, in fact, that we will need public utilities more than ever. Even if deregulation succeeds in lowering electricity costs for most Americans (and I think everyone agrees that it's unlikely to reduce electricity costs for all Americans), there are still questions about the overall benefits of deregulation to the public. But let me be clear here. TVA is pro-deregulation and pro- competition. The US government, in a Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan published by the Administration last March, calculates that retail choice deregulation will cut electricity costs by about 10 percent, or about $100 dollars per year for a family of four. That's a significant savings and, again, as a public utility, we're in favor of cutting energy costs for the American people. Deregulation has the potential to save billions in energy costs for commercial customers, which will make American industries more competitive in the global marketplace. This will benefit the entire American economy and, as a public utility, we support lower energy costs for business and industry, and let me be clear about one more important point. Public responsibilities will not--and should not--absolve public utilities of the requirement to operate efficiently and to compete fairly in the deregulated marketplace. At TVA, we're proud of the fact that our production costs are second lowest among the nation's top 50 utilities, and we're hard at work, every day, finding new ways to bring those costs down even lower. But lower electricity costs along are not the sole measure of the public good. If energy companies degrade the environment to produce cheaper electricity, is that a net gain, or loss, for the people who use the power, and live on the land? If a regional power company chooses to neglect its responsibilities to its local customers so as to make a bigger profit wheeling power to a distant market, it that a net benefit, or loss, of the nation as a whole? These are difficult issues now, and they will become even more difficult in the deregulated future. Public utilities, which serve the interests of the people--not just corporate shareholders--will provide a benchmark by which the performance of all power companies will be measured. They will help to define ``the public good'' as it applies to energy production and distribution. And for this reason alone, they deserve their place in the deregulated marketplace of the next century. I know that many of you are wrestling with some of the same issues we are dealing with now in the United States. Deregulating electric utilities will lower energy costs for our citizens and our industries and it is our responsibility to work together--public utilities and independent providers, industry executives and political leaders--to achieve this goal. But if our experience is of any value. I would suggest that you approach deregulation thoughtfully, and with careful deliberation. Above all, I would suggest that you measure the success of your efforts in more than just francs, or marks--or euros-- saved. I would suggest that you measure your ultimate success against the higher standard of the public good. A final thought. The political challenges of deregulation may cause some of us, at various points in the process, to question whether it is a course worth pursuing. I believe that it is, and that we must stay the course, and do it right. I take my inspiration, again, from President Franklin Roosevelt. The day before he died, FDR wrote remarks for a Jefferson Day lecture he was to deliver the following day. He wrote . . . but never said . . . ``The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith.'' And as we move forward, ladies and gentlemen, let us remember to balance our commitments to our various boards and shareholders with a commitment to the constituents who matter most: the publics we serve. Thank you all very much for your kind attention, and thank you to the IEA for inviting me here to Brussels for this excellent and most interesting forum.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, yesterday as we were closing the debate on peanut subsidies, on that particular amendment my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), said if I would have voted or if I did vote for the Freedom to Farm bill, that I should support these reforms. Well, I want the record to reflect that I did not vote for the Freedom to Farm bill in 1996, because I did not think that the reforms they called for went far enough, if at all, in some cases. I want to say, too, that our agriculture friends here in this body are the nicest people in the entire House. It is incredible, from the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) on this side, to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith), to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), literally some of the most genuine wonderful people, close to the ground, and they truly represent the farmers' interest in their demeanor and in their civility. But I really am frustrated that this new majority has reformed virtually everything in sight and come up so grossly short on reforming farm programs. Whether it is tobacco, whether it is peanuts, whether it is sugar, this is still an egregious violation of the free market and of the private sector in this country by the government. I want to say that I will support the final agriculture appropriations bill, Mr. Chairman, but I want to support these amendments, particularly this amendment, and I want to rise today and speak for the thousands of employees in east Tennessee who love the companies they work for, are proud of their jobs, and they happen to be in the food business. We hear about all the jobs on both sides, and I certainly would not take exception or make a dispute out of it. But let me tell you, Chattanooga Bakery makes Moon Pies. I have known those folks all my life. McKee Foods makes Little Debbie's, you probably have had one. They sell them all over this hemisphere. The first Coca-Cola bottling plant in the country, Chattanooga, Tennessee. One of the largest M&M Mars plants in the country is in my district. Planters and Life Savers are made in my district. Double Cola is made in my district, Brock & Brock Candy is made in my district. That is thousands of good jobs, thousands of good jobs, and those people want us to oppose these subsidies because they inflate the price and cut their own benefits in their company. As their employers can pay market price for these commodities, they get better benefits, they get higher wages, and they know it. These are good employers who treat their people well. The fact is, as sincere as all these folks are, this is corporate welfare, pure and simple. The sugar daddies get away like bandits, and the consumers and the taxpayers pay the price. That is the truth. That is why Citizens Against Government Waste is scoring this vote, a very responsible group that takes a real fair approach to this process, they are scoring this, because they know that these farm price supports, quotas, subsidies, are costing the American taxpayer, costing the American consumer. Good government says let us finish the job the Republicans have started and truly reform these farm programs. As these amendments come up, I want to stand in support of these amendments.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I am asked often in my fourth year here in the House, what surprises you the most? I must say what surprises me the most, without question, is that my party, the Republican Party, took a majority in this institution for the first time in 40 years, yet agriculture somehow escaped the reforms. It is unbelievable to me that we are still, in the name of reform, slow-walking reform, smiling at the American people, and saying we reformed agriculture. My goodness, we are so deep in the agriculture business, it survives whatever winds blow through this city. They are so institutionally prominent. Whether it is peanuts, sugar, tobacco, whatever, price supports, subsidies, quotas, they make no sense in the free market. The government should not be this involved in the farm business. Mr. Chairman, I come from a deep farm history in the Sequatchie Valley of east Tennessee and in northeast Alabama, and the farmers in my part of the world want to be left alone. They want to farm all by themselves, without figuring out what the government is doing next. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment on peanuts. There are several reasons why this amendment is appropriate. Perhaps one of the most important reasons comes from a government policy perspective. The U.S. peanut program stands out as a glaring example of inconsistency with well-established agricultural trade policy and principles supporting fair and free trade. In a new era of U.S. agriculture, where almost every food commodity is produced and exported competitively in the world market, the peanut program especially stands out as completely contrary to the objectives of the rest of agriculture. In fact, a 1996 NAFTA case involving, dairy, poultry and eggs illustrates the problems the U.S. peanut program creates for other American commodities. In its pleadings before the domestic peanut market. The Canadians even threatened retaliation in the form of a trade case against the peanut program, had there been an adverse panel decision against Canada in the dairy, poultry and egg case. With exports of U.S. agricultural commodities totalling approximately $60 billion annually, and many more billions of dollars of export potential, it is difficult to understand why both-makers and growers of other commodities would jeopardize this export trade in the interests of a relatively small group of peanut quota holders who refuse to compete in world markets. In fact, peanuts represent only one-half of one percent of the total value of all U.S. agriculture commodities. Almost all U.S. commodity programs stepped up to the plate during the 1996 Farm Bill and agreed to remove restrictions on production. At the same time, peanut quota holders clung to the past and ignored market realities. The many sectors of agriculture that compete in world markets should no longer allow the peanut program to impair their export opportunities. The future of U.S. agriculture lies in exporting commodities where we have a competitive advantage. While this amendment does not eliminate the peanut quota program, it begins to move the U.S. peanut quota price support toward the world market price. However, if we want to begin the process of making the peanut program more market-oriented, we should support this amendment.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to stop, too, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations and pay my respects to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade). In my 2 years, a short term on the committee, I have just thoroughly enjoyed the working relationship that I have with these two men and am constantly amazed at how much they know about the work that they do. Sometimes in this institution Members do not follow in the level of detail what these two gentlemen do day in and day out on the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, knowing every single program area, the funding amounts, the priorities, somehow keeping it all in perspective and serving this institution so well. I could not be more unhappy that two people are leaving this body at the same time as the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Pennsylvania. They have served our country with such distinction. They will be sorely missed. Mr. Chairman, as they know, I have been an advocate for the environmental cleanup efforts in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Following the successful Manhattan Project and winning the Cold War and our nuclear buildup, now we have got the responsibility of cleaning it up. They also know that of the three gaseous diffusion plants in this country, one of them is in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 very specifically told the Congress to fund the cleanup at these sites in the future. We had those funding requests made for this fiscal year. Unfortunately at a time which they have articulated so well of declining discretionary accounts, we did not have the funding to fully fund the President's request for this coming year for the decontamination and decommissioning of these gaseous diffusion plants. The President asked for $277 million. The Senate marked up a $200 million level at the committee, and then reduced it by $3 million on the Senate floor last week. So the Senate is at $197 million. The President's request was at $277 million. The House did add money back in and brought us to a $225 million level. I just appeal to the conferees as we come to the floor today to clear what I hope to be unanimous certification of our Energy and Water bill here today, and they deserve a unanimous vote from the full House, I want the conferees to know that the $225 million even that the House Committee on Appropriations passed is still not sufficient. We need really $15 million more to get to a level of $240 million in order to not miss a stride in the environmental cleanup which is so important to all three gaseous diffusion sites, but particularly in the State of Tennessee where we constantly wrestle with the State of Tennessee on meeting our compliance levels and meeting our timing on the environmental cleanup as called for in the Energy Policy Act which we all know was a comprehensive piece of legislation affecting all of the nuclear sites in America. I appeal to the conferees with much gratitude that the House appropriators saw fit to increase the level from the Senate mark to $225 million, I just appeal that we find $15 million more somehow as we approach the final Energy and Water conference report for fiscal year 1999, trying to get us to the $240 million level so that this important cleanup can continue.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for yielding. Mr. Chairman, on this issue, probably more than others that we will address, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. This bill, of course, is not perfect, but it is good. It is better than what we have now and it is better than it used to be, because I frankly do not like taxpayer financing or broadcaster financing of campaigns. They took that out of this bill and they replaced it with some better provisions. The two things we should focus on is banning soft money, which any thinking person is for, it is way out of hand; and, secondly, trying to hold accountable these outside groups that come in in the last few days of a campaign and assassinate people with unlimited, unregulated, now huge sums of money dumped from nowhere in campaigns. Pretty soon we as candidates will not even be able to control the message in our own campaigns. Mr. Chairman, I have been at this long enough to know also that reformers need to come together. I hate to see reformers carping at each other over details. If we do not come together on this issue, it is not going to happen. What should the measurement be? Is the bill better than what we have now? This bill clearly meets that test. This is a messed up system. We have got to change it. We cannot go back to the way things used to be, even though I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) that ideally that would be nice. But I do not think that is practical. What is practical is to try to reform the current system we have today. This is a step in the right direction.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, while I think this is a cynical amendment, and certainly I do not want to question anyone's motives, I do think this is valuable in that an amendment like this will bring out the more extreme viewpoints in the House on this particular issue, because we have people from one extreme that say we need a constitutional amendment, which obviously most of us think is a bad idea, and then the other side that says we should just have unlimited expenses by whoever and whatever and whenever, no matter which direction our society is going in. I want to bring the perspective of kind of the logical, commonsense approach from East Tennessee, kind of out of the heart of America. I do not accept PAC money. I always thought that was kind of a bad thing, so I just decided a long time ago not to take that money. I raise my money from individuals, the old-fashioned way. I can look them in the face. In 1996, 95 percent of the money in my campaign was from the State of Tennessee, just kind of down home grass roots. I think we keep our hands more clean that way and say no to it all. Where I am coming from here is I do not want big special interest groups with tons of money to dominate our elections to the United States House of Representatives. I think there is a commonsense approach that says we should have some limits on soft money from tobacco and alcohol and gambling interests, of all things, that is climbing so fast that it is going out of control. Do we want big tobacco to have the ability to just dump millions of dollars, which they already have, directly to the political parties, without any restraints or any controls? Do we want to cause Members of the House of Representatives to lose control of our own elections because of outside influences, where they had independent groups come in and bombard them with their $1 million, and they raise money from individuals back home, and they cannot even stay in the game because of these outside influences? Come on. Common sense says there is some reasonable balance, and we can reform this system. I want to thank the leadership for bringing campaign finance reform to the floor, but I want to encourage our leadership to do what they said they were going to do and bring reform to the floor. We have a bunch of good substitutes to choose from, and it is time we bring them to the floor. I do not mind staying up until 4 in the morning, but I want to see these votes scheduled. I say to our leadership, I thank them for changing their strategy and bringing this issue back to the floor, where it deserves to be heard. But I also say, let us get on with it. I am an appropriator. I know we have appropriations bills to bring to the floor, but we cannot just continue to delay this issue. I am not using the gentleman's name, I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip. I just meant to say, let us not delay, no pun intended, sir. I have the greatest respect for the gentleman. But we do need to debate these substitutes. As soon as we can, we need to move beyond the cynicism, beyond the extreme, come to the middle ground.

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