Zach Wamp

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. We look forward to working with the gentleman on this important issue.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as one of the most conservative members of the Committee on Appropriations, I rise in support of the bill and in opposition to the amendment. I do rise to commend the author of the amendment and the team of budget hawks that have assembled to begin the process that will last through the year at trying to hold the line on spending, because I do share that goal and think it is important, particularly in times of deficit spending; again, that we attempt to rein in the growth of government and strive for a more efficient and effective government. However, I say today as a member of this subcommittee for the past 6 years, this is unfortunate that the process begins on this bill to try to rein in spending when this bill was very carefully put together, with extreme caution and, really, the motives on this bill to cut spending would run counter to fiscal responsibility in many regards. For instance, would it be wise as a homeowner to allow the shingles to fall off of the roof of his home? It is not frugal, or it is not responsible to do that. I can tell my colleagues, if they want to go to the authorization committee and debate whether or not the Federal Government should own one-third of the land in America, go do that, but the truth is we do own, the Federal Government, one-third of the lands in America. If my colleagues want to travel, as we have traveled, and go to the parks and go to the forests and go to the BLM and see the buildings, see the infrastructure, see the $14 billion backlog that we have on taking care of what we own, my colleagues will know that frugal, responsible leadership warrants investing in maintaining what we have. If my colleagues want to go fight the fight on not having so much, do that, but that is not done here.

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

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we also have had previous speakers talk about how twice the House has passed a budget resolution, and we have already heard the Committee on the Budget chairman speak in support of this bill. But I can also tell my colleagues that a few months ago, the House was overwhelmingly in support of the CARA bill which would have effectively tripled the spending in this bill, and if it were not for the good work, stewardship, and careful crafting of a compromise by this subcommittee, there would be an influx of spending on automatic entitlement payments on conservation and resource-type issues, and we struck a compromise and a balance. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that requires our stewardship. This is what Speaker Gingrich called the best subcommittee in the House, because we fund our public lands and these investments. Let me also tell my colleagues that in a bipartisan way, I am the Co- Chairman of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Caucus in this House. We have half the House that belongs. We have many Members from the conservative Republican faction that have written us saying, invest in energy efficiency and energy conservation programs. I fought for an increase in those programs. If we are going to wean ourselves off of reliance on Middle Eastern oil, Mr. Chairman, we have to invest in alternatives. We have to invest in conservation and energy efficiency technologies. We are going to fight too many more wars at a huge cost if we do not make ourselves energy-independent. That is what this bill funds. We cannot have it both ways. We need to invest in America. This bill invests in America. It is carefully crafted. I would encourage those who want to cut $162 million out of this bill to be specific where they want to cut it. If it is fires, that has to be an emergency. We would love to put it in the supplemental, but the administration, our President from our party, has said no, it belongs in the 2003 bill and we cannot get it in the supplemental. Either way is fine with the committee, but we cannot do it that way, so it is very essential that we move this bill forward. We are going to slug it out here on the floor for a few hours. At the end of the day, though, this is one of those bills that comes from the Committee on Appropriations that needs to pass in very close to its current form. It is a puzzle putting it together to make sure that we balance the stewardship needs of the Federal Government. We have done just that.

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

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, we obviously have been wasting our time for quite some time because the gentleman is wrong. Without the emergencies that the gentleman is referring to, this bill is a 2.8 percent increase. That is a fact. I hope we are not held up all night long on an unfactual basis.

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

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

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding time to me, and I appreciate his willingness to stand in the gap for something that is right, and also the authors of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I come as a father. I have a 15-year-old son and a 13- year-old daughter. Like most teenagers in America today, they spend more time on the Internet than I would personally care for. However, that is the reality that we live in. I think we have an obligation as legislators to try to keep up with the incredible growth of technology through the Internet and the Internet communication, because if we just buried our heads in the sand and took the position of one of the speakers a moment ago and said that the Congress cannot do anything, basically, about a Supreme Court ruling, I think that is nonsense. We have an obligation to come with new legislation so we can find the right cure that is acceptable before the Supreme Court, and that is what I think this is. We should persevere, here. This is a world that changes day by day. We are in the Information Age, the third great wave of change in our country. In the Information Age, we are going to see more and more virtual everything, where if one has a headset on, one might not know where they are at times. As a result, we have an obligation to protect our children. One of my greatest fears as a parent is a pedophile preying on my children. There are child lures through the Internet now that are so dangerous and so manipulative that we have to have protections for our children who are in this cyberworld and they are unprotected. That is a reality. We have an obligation as Federal legislators to work within our constitutional law to find a remedy. That is what this bill represents. Frankly, if the Supreme Court rejects this, we need to come back with another bill and continue to persevere until we find something that is acceptable before the Court so our children are protected. This is fundamental to our job and our responsibility as Federal legislators. I commend the authors and the committee for taking it up; and if we have to come back to the well again and again and again, we should.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, the September 11th terrorist attacks were an unprecedented assault upon the American way of life. It is important that we memorialize the civilians who were killed and console the friends and families who would never want their loved ones to be forgotten. I would like to commend the Oak Ridge High School Student Council in Oak Ridge, Tennessee for their plan to do just that. Since September 17th, they have been working tirelessly to earn support for their plan to purchase all of the scrap steel from the World Trade Center rubble and fashion it into memorial displays for every cooperating high school in America. Their proposal also suggests that a plaque would be affixed to the steel describing the events in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania as a visible reminder of that dreadful moment in our history. Students at ORHS, along with their Student Council Advisor Kenneth Senter, have received the endorsement of their school leaders, their city leaders, and their state legislature. Over one hundred students have helped raise money, write letters, and propose memorial designs. Their next step is to build the sanction of their local government by starting a charitable fund that will pursue national contributions and cooperation. They call on all citizens of this nation--every student, every teacher, every parent, and every leader to contemplate the potential of these memorials. They call on all communities in this nation to come together at unveiling ceremonies across this country to remember that we are all one community and that we arc all one people who firmly resolve to protect liberty and security. They call on everyone who passes by these scarred remnants to work harder, learn more, teach more, and love more. Through this undertaking, these students are learning the true meaning of citizenship. I applaud their efforts and wish them continued success in their endeavor.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I passionately believe that neither party has an exclusive on integrity or ideas or patriotism, but I have to say tonight that the excessive campaign rhetoric of the last 24 hours demeans this process and really falls short of the character of this House. I want to talk about some of the substantive items in this bill. The International Criminal Court is absolutely a bad idea that Members from both parties should reject every opportunity we get, and the distinguished majority whip should be commended for bringing this amendment forward and trying to stifle the advancement of the International Criminal Court. It is a great threat to innocent Americans and is a terrible precedent for the future, particularly at this dangerous moment in American history. Relative to Israel, I do not know what the magic number is. I wish there was a better way of assessing how much they need, and, following the request from Israel, our ally, for what they really need, not using an arbitrary number to establish how much we are sending them. I understand that Secretary Powell and the administration have a delicate balance on trying to negotiate some positive step towards peace, but I do not like funding the PLO or any related organization there at all. I think we need to stand by our ally, Israel, for a host of reasons, most of them Biblical, in my heart, and in no way ever turn away from our ally, Israel, because we will pay the price if we do. But tonight what we have, after all of the rhetoric is out of the way, is an emergency defense supplemental that is absolutely necessary to get the equipment and the funding in the hands of those men and women who are standing between the threat and our civilian population and the advancement of freedom around the world at a time of terror still and a critical time in world history. We must move this defense supplemental forward. It is not about tax cuts or Social Security. Those obviously are campaign issues that are coming in the months ahead. Let us push them off to the campaign and let us come together in a bipartisan way and do what is right for the men and women in uniform. That is the bottom line. We are going into Memorial Day. Last Memorial Day the debate on the House floor was a lot different than this campaign year Memorial Day rhetoric, I promise you that. When I think of Memorial Day, I think of the greatest generation, the World War II veterans. Every time I honor them, which is every chance I get, they say the real heroes are the ones that did not come back. They are the ones we honor this weekend. I will tell you how encouraged I have been since September 11, because the greatest generation, we stand on their shoulders and honor them, and they are the greatest. But I wonder about my generation, the generation that has been called the ``me generation,'' the one that was so selfish and so absorbed with our own world that we might not be the ``giving generation'' or the ``great generation'' of those that came before us. But following September 11, the events following September 11, when we saw first responders put their lives on the line and die for others, following that Biblical mantra of the greatest show of love is to give your life for your fellow man, for your friend, in this case people you did not even know, we, too, have answered this call to courage in our generation. The greatest generation veterans are smiling with amazement at what this generation is actually made of. We indeed are becoming a great generation ourselves. That is why we owe it to the men and women who are willing to serve our country to give them what they need and to work through these details we are debating today to make sure that we do not delay moving these billions of dollars into defense and homeland security and intelligence capabilities to protect our country and to honor those that are willing to fight and die for us. Freedom is not free, and as we head into the Memorial Day weekend, let us come together tonight and put aside our differences. Let us meet at the water's edge as Members of the great U.S. House of Representatives and do what is right for America and send the money to those in the field.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, while there is still civility and sanity on the floor, let me just come to the well and say that I have found some good in all 435 Members of the House, tried to get to know every one of my colleagues, tried to work with all of them from time to time on different issues, and I see a lot of good in this House. There are no clean hands, though, completely spotless hands. There are a lot of good areas, but we all have our own little burdens to bear in terms of taking care of our districts from time to time or putting things in bills that do not belong or might not be germane, and so I think this is a time where we need to come together. My colleagues may have noticed, yesterday I voted present on this rule. I did not like this rule. I am a member of the House Committee on Appropriations, and I frankly think the Committee on Rules went too far. I think rules ought to be more straightforward and a lot cleaner. But I also watched the board as the rule vote was concluded, and the rule passed, and Winston Churchill once referred to our form of government as the worst form of government imaginable except for every other because it sometimes is sloppy. It sometimes may seem unfair, but majority rules, and the rule passed, and at some point we have got to resolve our differences and pass the bill and go home and honor those that have given so much, and maybe check in with our families a little during a weekend, which would be good. I am in no hurry, but I think it is important that at some point we go ahead and say we fought the good fight, we stood for whatever we believed in on both sides and then we worked out a compromise and went home, even if it is not what my colleagues want. Make your case and then let us come together because I think we need to do this work. I think there are a lot of difficult issues that are out there, and I know there are a lot of people of goodwill here. So let us try to do this in a civil way, in a timely manner. State your case. But I have got news for my colleagues. The tax relief was important. We would be in a lot worse economic shape as a Nation today had we not passed that tax relief. So my colleagues can keep arguing that until they are blue in the face, but it was done and it needed to be done. It was the right thing to do, and now we have a whole other set of circumstances in front of us, including a wartime, antiterrorism effort that requires at some point in the coming hours that we meet together at the water's edge. My friends on the Democratic side have seen me come to the well and defend legislation that they offered this year, but at some point in the coming hours, let us find a way to come together and pass this supplemental and go home and honor those that have given so much to our country. amendment offered by mr. gephardt

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, it is an awesome responsibility to serve in this House, but I have no more awesome a responsibility in my life than to be a father of a 15-year-old son and a 13- year-old daughter. The Internet is a powerful tool. It is also a very dangerous tool. I was reminded of F.S. Oliver's poem about politics when he speaks of it being a noble profession. He says, and I paraphrase, there is no other profession where someone can do more good for their fellow man nor is there another profession where you can do such widespread harm, and the Internet has the same potential for good or bad. Dot Kids Act gives young people a domain for use under tight guidelines with standards for content and registration; and as has been stated, it is like a children's section in a library. It is only appropriate. Recent Supreme Court rulings underscore the need to pursue multiple approaches to protecting our children from pornographers and demented individuals like pedophiles. This is illegal pornography that we are trying to protect people from. There is a difference between what is legal and protected under the first amendment and what is illegal and not protected. It needs to be pursued. It is a cancer on our culture that requires aggressive treatment. A journey of a 1,000 miles begins with a single step and this is just one step, but it is an important step; and we have got miles to go to continue coming to this floor and finding new, creative and innovative ways to protect our children from the dangers of the Internet. I applaud the authors of this legislation and the committees for working together in a bipartisan way to do what is right for the children of America in a very dangerous world.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time, and I want to bring a little bit of common sense from the South to this issue. We heard from New Jersey. In the southeastern United States in the Tennessee Valley region, we are heavily dependent on coal-fired plants. I share the environmentalists' goal of trying to reduce the emissions of these fossil-fired plants. We also have in the Tennessee Valley Authority region five nuclear reactors on-line. They happen to be the most economically efficient generators of electricity in the TVA system. They are the most environmentally responsible and clean sources of electricity in the region. There is only one hurdle in our way of having a clean, safe alternative to the fossil-fired problem, and that is this waste issue. This administration, to its credit, has the guts to step up and do what is necessary to provide the alternative. I would say to my friends who protest dirty air and then protest Yucca Mountain, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot eliminate the alternative and then complain about fossil emissions. You cannot do it unless you want our country to be totally dependent on the rest of the world for our energy sources, and we know that sacrifices our freedom. Mr. Speaker, we have got to do the right thing. I appreciate the parochial eloquence, defending your own turf, but for the good of our Nation we have got to place this nuclear waste in a safe repository. My master's is in common sense. Common sense says you have got to do this in order to have clean air and clean water into the future and energy independence for the United States of America. National security hangs on this decision. This is an important decision and one that is not easy to make because we respect our friends in Nevada. We respect our friends in opposition. But this is the right thing to do for the United States of America for many years to come.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a man, who has entertained millions in song and dance for more than two generations while giving of himself to help people in need all across the country. Pat Boone, a direct descendant of pioneer Daniel Boone, was the second most popular singer of the late 50s behind Elvis Presley and sold more than 45 million records. He is ranked as the No. 10 singles artist of all time, with a repertoire that exceeds those of Aretha Franklin, Billy Joel and Frank Sinatra. He also managed to finish his college degree, graduating magna cum laude from Columbia University in New York City in 1958. He was born Charles Eugene Boone in 1934 in Jacksonville, Florida, and moved with his family to Tennessee in 1936. Boone grew up in the Nashville, Tennessee area, where he began singing in public at the age of 10. While still in his teens, he married Shirley Foley in 1953, the daughter of country star Red Foley. Their marriage has endured to this day and they have four daughters: Cherry, Lindy, Debby and Laury. The following year in 1954, Boone recorded his first of four singles for the Republic label in Nashville and appeared on Arthur Godfrey's Talent Scouts and Ted Mack's Amateur Hour, winning both. A short while later Boone was signed to the Dot label, one that he would stay with throughout his run on the charts from 1955 to 1962. His first top-40 song on the Billboard pop charts was Two Hearts, a cover of an R&B hit for The Charms, which went to No. 16 for Pat in 1955. Boone projected a smooth style and a clean-cut, wholesome all- American image. His next offering was a cover of Fats Domino's Ain't That A Shame, a song that propelled both Fats and Boone to stardom. He followed with a cover version of El Dorados' At My Front Door, which quickly became his second record to teach the Top Ten. Boone had his own way of doing R&B songs. His formula worked and his records sold well. He took on Little Richard, recording Tutti Frutti and Long Tall Sally, both of which he made into big hits. By 1957 Boone's popularity had skyrocketed and the movie and television producers came calling. He appeared in 15 films, including Bernardine, April Love, and State Fair. From 1957 to 1960 he hosted his own television series The Pat Boone/Chevy Showroom. His final top-40 song was a novelty record, Speedy Gonzalez in 1962 and it peaked at number six. Boone also had a number of country hits in the 70s, with singles Indiana Girl and Texas Woman and albums I Love You More And More Each Day and The Country Side Of Pat Boone. Pat has also been popular in the United Kingdom, where he had 27 records reach the top 40. Pat Boone has always been a man of deep, personal faith. Over and over again, he has acted on his faith to help other people. He should be recognized most of all for his self-sacrificing devotion to charity work and for simply carrying out God's call to love Him and to love others. Boone wrote a best-selling autobiography and dedicated the proceeds to establish a Christian college in Villanova, Pennsylvania. He has served as the national spokesman for the March of Dimes, National Association of the Blind and many other charities. Boone served for 18 years as the entertainment chairman and host of the National Easter Seal telethon, which raised over $600 million for handicapped and disabled children. Mr. Speaker, today I honor the great Pat Boone on behalf of the hundreds and hundreds of children whose lives have been made better through Bethel Bible Village children's home in my hometown of Chattanooga, TN. For 25 years, Pat has not just associated his name with Bethel Bible Village, but he has put his heart and soul into its success. Each year, for the past 25 years, he has sponsored their largest fundraiser, the Pat Boone Bethel Spectacular, which has raised over $1.3 million to help children in the Chattanooga area whose lives have been shattered by crime and troubled homes. Pat's involvement has brought national recognition to Bethel Bible Village, which has allowed them to expand their ministry exponentially. Pat Boone is a true friend to these children and his personal testimony has had such a positive influence on their lives. Pat Boone is a recording legend and humanitarian role model who understands that the true joy of giving occurs when one doesn't expect anything in return. Over his 40-year career as an entertainer, he has worn the hats of musician, actor, author, and radio host. His tireless commitment to helping others personifies the Biblical instruction that, ``to whom so ever much is given, much is also required.''

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, in trying to change that law, I yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank all of the Members of the House for their patience and their tolerance. I think throughout history the House of Representatives is really no better than its Speaker. I think our House today has the highest approval rating in modern history, in large part because of the dignity, the humility, and the genuine leadership of our Speaker, and I thank him for everything he does for the people of the House. This issue of soft money is central to this entire debate. Fifteen years ago, I was elected as a local Republican Party chairman in Chattanooga, Tennessee. I think that the three best national chairmen that our party has had in the modern era were Lee Atwater, Haley Barbour, and a guy named Bill Brock, who served in the House seat that I serve in now, went on to the United States Senate and serve our party extremely well when Ronald Reagan was elected President. Here is what he says now about soft money. Quote: ``In truth, parties were stronger and closer to their roots before the advent of the soft money loophole than they are today. Far from invigorating the parties themselves, soft money has simply strengthened certain specific candidates and the few donors who can make huge contributions, while distracting parties from traditional grassroots work.'' Both of our political parties will be better served by weaning ourselves from soft money and returning to the people, returning to the foot power, returning to the grassroots. Writing big checks is actually the easy way out for people that want to participate in this process. The harder way is to involve people. We rarely see ads saying, this is what our party stands for. Join our party. Be a part of our platform. Get involved. We mostly see ads that are degrading and divisive. Mr. Chairman, I believe our parties will be better off with this most important step, and I believe there are a lot of people of goodwill in this House that agree. We are going to come together tonight. I believe we are going to finish this business. I believe the President will sign this bill, and I think this will be an important step to restoring the public trust. To my friends over here, I may be wrong, but I think we will be better off because we will all be better off and our country will be better off.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Oregon who said that hard money in the last election was outraised 3.2 to 1, incumbents to challengers, ask him what the ratio is of PAC money incumbents to challengers. It is a lot higher, because PACs do not give to challengers, and at least they can get individual contributions. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof). (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply raises the $1,000 limit for individual contributions to House candidates to $2,000, which is the same as the Senate-passed bill sets for Senators. The Senate-passed bill raised their $1,000 contribution limit for the first time since 1974 to $2,000. I believe that all 435 Members of the House should pay close attention to what is happening, because I also believe that this legislation will succeed through the legislative process and ultimately be signed into law, and I do not think it is appropriate for the Senate to have a different level on individual contribution limits than House candidates. I also think we need to look over the last generation at exactly what has happened in individual contribution limits to House candidates. In 1974, this $1,000 was established, and individuals had that much influence in the process at that time. The fact is that the value of $1,000 in 1974 was a lot greater than the value of $1,000 in 2002. As a matter of fact, if it was indexed to inflation, which we index other factors of money and value, if it was indexed to inflation, it would be well over $3,000. I realize raising it from $1,000 to $3,000 would be too much to swallow at one time. So this amendment is designed to strike a balance, to raise it to $2,000, which was the balance struck that 59 U.S. Senators voted for when this legislation cleared that body, because it is a reasonable approach. And then it prospectively indexes that level to inflation so that you will not have to come back and adjust it later. The fact is this: individuals have less influence today in the political process than they had then just because the value of their participation has been reduced. The Senate-passed bill also sets the limit for White House candidates and Senators, but it leaves the House at $1,000. So we are the only one of the considered that is not raised. I think from a quality standpoint we need to raise it to $2,000. From a value of individual contributions standpoint we need to raise it to $2,000. I think we need to adopt the underlying premise they should be indexed into the future. I will just say this before I reserve the balance of my time: through my 10 years of passionate involvement for campaign finance reform, I have never wanted and never desired not only to hurt my party, but to hurt the two-party system. I believe we should support the two-party system, and I certainly do not want to in any way hurt my party. But I never have been able to measure whether reform would help one party or hurt the other party, and at different times I felt maybe one had an advantage or not an advantage. I do not know how this will end up in terms of who gains the advantage, but I truly believe that this measure will strengthen the two-party system, and it will strengthen the parties at a time where we are removing the unlimited, unregulated soft money loophole. And when you remove that from the process, you need to increase the hard-dollar, the individual dollar contribution participation, so the parties can continue to thrive without looking to some new loophole. The parties need individual participation, and this will encourage individual participation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to try to put this in layman's terms on what this means. Especially after that last colloquy, I think it is easy for people to get lost in all the detail. I run these focus groups. I go to a civic club, a good government group, and I say, let me just ask all of you: Give me a show of hands if you see an ad run in the final 60 days before an election and the ad mentions a candidate's name, would you consider that a campaign ad? And it does not matter if the group is Republican, Democrat, nonpartisan, just about everybody, everybody will raise their hand. They think that is a campaign ad if it mentions a candidate's name. Then I say, okay, do not look at the person next to you, just answer the question: Do you think that if that group that runs that ad mentions the candidate's name, that they should come under the same rules and regulations as the candidates themselves, who also mention each other's names? And everybody raises their hands. And I say it is sad that that is all that this bill does and everybody talks about it being some infringement on your first amendment rights. It treats the groups exactly like it treats the candidates. Now, if that is unconstitutional, then the way they treat us is unconstitutional, and that is not the case. It has been upheld. That is the layman's description of what we are doing. We can get into all the technical explanations, but it is just that simple. That is what this bill does. And most people out there cannot understand why they would not come under the same rules. They can run the ads. We are not gagging them. We are not telling them they cannot, we are just saying they have to come under the same system. Now, I am frustrated with this system, but this system has been in place since 1974, and it has been upheld. It is a regulated system, and I do not think the people are going to let us go back to a totally unregulated, unlimited system. So why can we not all, if we are going to play in the final 60 days before a campaign, why can we not all play by the same rules?

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for the honor of participating here in the closing of the debate on this meaningful legislation. President Roosevelt, the Democrat, FDR, said we have nothing to fear but fear itself. I say to our friends in leadership, do not be afraid of this legislation. Do not be afraid of giving up soft money. I know that fear drives a lot of their actions, but we should not be afraid to go into a new era and to leave the old behind. I think a lot of their mentality is that they cannot survive without it. I respect them but I respectfully disagree. I think both parties will do just fine without it. The American people will be encouraged greatly, the process will be cleaned up, and we will take a major step in the right direction. In a lot of ways this debate is about the leadership versus rank-and- file Members because the truth is there are a lot of rank-and-file Members on both sides, people of goodwill, that know this is a problem and know that something needs to be done about it. My hope is that they will come together later today and along the way for that common purpose. The people ask how could a bill that has overwhelmingly passed the House twice in recent years, passed the Senate with 59 votes, come up again today and have so much opposition; and I can only tell them that the closer we get to finality the more intense the fight, the higher the temperature. President Roosevelt, the Republican, Teddy, passionately fought to make sure that large corporations, rich and powerful people, were not treated differently than ordinary citizens, that they did not receive special treatment. I have got to tell my colleagues this soft-money loophole has brought about that result a hundred years later. My party needs to recommit itself to those TR principles, to make sure that ordinary citizens have just as much protection under our laws and under our rules as rich and powerful people. Soft money is now being given in a shameful way. It has proliferated beyond measure in recent years, and it is a real corrupting influence. Legislation comes before this body at the same time these large unlimited, unregulated contributions go to the political parties. That is wrong. We must stop it. Even the opponents of Shays-Meehan earlier today with their amendments acknowledge it is a problem. They even offered an amendment to ban it. We have made a lot of progress in the last 4 years because their amendments prove that we are on a just mission. This is the people's House. Civility and respect should rule. My colleagues may not want to hear this, but Republicans are not always right and Democrats are not always wrong. Neither party has an exclusive on integrity or ideas. We need to come together as people of goodwill, Democrats and Republicans, who might not agree on any other issues and put the people ahead of our parties, ahead of our own reelection, ahead of all the lobbying and the special interests and do what has not been done in 28 years in the United States of America. We need to move this process forward today and beat back the amendments because this is the most meaningful reform in a generation, and this is the moment. We have been on this mission for a long time. Today, together, in a civil and respectful way, we will prevail.