Zach Wamp

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) very much for the time. And certainly I join my colleagues in grateful appreciation to Ron Lasch who is a dear friend of mine, and I hope we continue to be friends as long as we live and beyond because so oftentimes I think the American people understand those of us that are in public office and who we are, but they do not know who is behind the scenes making the process work. Ron Lasch is a creature of this House, having spent most of his life on this floor fully understanding the operations of this House, as my gentleman friend said, always knowing what the schedule might be but much more importantly understanding the history and the civility and the importance of this institution and always sharing it with Members. Ron Lasch was born on the 1st anniversary of Pearl Harbor, December the 7th, 1942, and spent almost his whole life serving the United States House of Representatives, serving the Members. He would offer his advice to us when we asked it, but he would never offer it without us asking him first, and he would offer not just advice that you might get from some people that had an axe to grind or an agenda but the honest perspective of what is best for the United States House of Representatives. And I would tell you he is a dear friend, and the information is invaluable. And he served the Speaker of the House, through so many Speakers of the House on this floor so well. Ron is the kind of person who would not even want us to be here paying tribute to him. He is not the kind of person who announced his retirement and then waited some weeks so that there would be receptions and all the hoopla around his retirement. He served quietly and effectively, but I will tell you when the greatness of this House is written, it would be a shame if Ron Lasch's name were not permanently enshrined here in the United States House of Representatives, because he gave his life to this institution. He cares as much about the House of Representatives as any man that I have ever known or probably any person that I ever will know and that, Ron Lasch, is why I love you so much and I appreciate your dedication and service to this great Nation. Civil government is worthwhile. Civil government is worth our time and our effort, and it was worth your life's investment, from the House of Representatives and a grateful Nation, thank you Ron Lasch for a career of public service to the greatest Nation in the history of the world.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I hope I can do it in 2 minutes. Before I engage in a colloquy, I do want to associate myself quickly with all the outstanding comments that have been made about the brilliant political career, the public service, and especially the attitude of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). People from one end of this place to the other really appreciate the spirit of the gentleman from California. The gentleman from California has done a great job and brought so much to public service in this country. And I hope the gentleman enjoys the game of golf from this point on, because the gentleman deserves his retirement. Mr. Chairman, the Spallation Neutron Source is one of the most important science initiatives of our generation and represents a $1.4 billion major construction project supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Science to build the world's's most powerful source of pulsed beams for scientific research and development. With its advanced accelerator technology and world-class instrument design, SNS will be more than 12 times as powerful as the world's current leading neutron source in the U.K. and offer unprecedented research opportunities for up to 2,000 scientists each year. This research is crucial to supporting advances in biology, polymers, magnetic materials, superconductivity, and materials research that will continue to keep the U.S. economy strong and keep us at the forefront of scientific endeavors around the globe. SNS has been subject to many technical and management reviews in the past 4 years, including review by the DOE, several external independent review teams, the GAO, and the House Committee on Science. These reviews have shown conclusively that the technical basis of the SNS is sound and that the SNS management is on a solid path to complete the project within budget by 2006 as planned. All conditions prescribed in the committee report on last year's Energy and Water appropriations bill have been satisfied, and the House Committee on Science has recommended full funding of the SNS in fiscal year 2001. The SNS will fully obligate $190 million in this fiscal year, including the fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $100 million in construction funds and $17.9 in R&D, plus the fiscal year 1999 balances brought forward of about $71.4 million. Significant design and construction activity has taken place in the last year, with most title I design completed, approximately $75 million in procurements being awarded and major excavation and grading of the 100-acre site well underway. Fully funding the fiscal year 2000 requested level is essential to maintain the current schedule to complete SNS in 2006 within the total project cost of $1.4 billion. I know how hard the chairman and his staff have worked to get this project to where we are today, and I appreciate that. I acknowledge the budget constraints that we are currently under and that so far we have not been able to provide the necessary funding that this project needs to meet the necessary milestones over the next 12 months. I am asking the commitment of the chairman that, as we work together during conference, we will do everything possible to significantly increase the funding for the Spallation Neutron Source. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for his response.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I want to identify myself with the comments that I have heard this morning from both sides of the aisle relative to this bill. When we wrote this bill at the subcommittee, where I serve with the distinguished chairman and the ranking member and some very thoughtful Members, I spoke with great reservations about the allocations that we had with respect to this bill. The balancing act that we have is that the American people expect us to do our job to the fullest extent. And without the resources of Congressional Research Service, without the Capitol Hill Police to adequately protect all of the grounds and the people and the millions of visitors that come through here every year, we cannot adequately do our job. And so, that is the balancing act. Yet, we must lead by example on tightening our belts as tight and as slim as we can without crossing the line of inefficiency. Sometimes we cannot afford not to invest in these resources. And that is where we find ourselves. So this manager's amendment restores the necessary money for us to feel like we are doing our job effectively and efficiently, which is what the people demand. I want to applaud our leadership for finding the extra money, working in a bipartisan way, staying cool, working together, because, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, at this point my reservations have diminished and we can support this bill collectively in a bipartisan manner knowing that we are doing what is right, because these are critical needs. Our Capitol Hill Police deserve our appreciation. They deserve to be called by their first name. They deserve to be recognized on a daily basis for laying their life down. They stand between any threat to not only us but all the people in this great place. It is important that we appreciate them. It is important that we fund them adequately. The folks at the Library of Congress deserve our support. Encourage them to be more efficient but support these critical missions of the legislative branch through this bill. I hope in a bipartisan way the whole House will now come together and rally around this bill and support it enthusiastically because I think it strikes a careful balance between efficiency and funding the essential services that the American people expect to see and to benefit from through the United States Congress.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for those kind words and for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important bill. I think few people realize how important this appropriations bill actually is to security, peace, tranquility, justice in this country. It, pound for pound and dollar for dollar, may be the most important appropriations bill of all 13. Over the last 2 years, we have had approximately 23 hearings each year. I have attended virtually all of those hearings, and I have to tell my colleagues I am so impressed with the leadership of the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers). No one in this body knows their business and their subject matter better than the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers). If the term limits for subcommittee chairmen rule holds, and, frankly, I hope in certain cases it does not, if it does hold, this may be his last presentation of the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary mark. He deserves great credit. As he hosts those hearings and interrogates our witnesses on critical matters around the globe, he knows his issues so well. Attorney General Reno, Secretary Albright, Secretary Daley, Louis Freeh of the FBI, we fund almost 300 embassies and consulates around the world. There are so many critical parts of this bill. He knows the ins and outs. He has steered us over these last 2 years through the difficult issues of the census and the U.N. arrearage issue, both of which we now have behind us, and he has done it remarkably well. That is why the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), our ranking member, speaks with such respect about the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers). I thank him for being sensitive to the little issues as well. It is no longer a little issue, as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) and I both know very well, the issue of methamphetamine production in rural America, where in east Tennessee we have got a bad, bad problem, and kids are dying and lives are being destroyed. This bill funds the remedy for fighting methamphetamine production, and it is so critical. It is a balanced bill. We do not have as much money as we would like. But I will tell my colleagues this is a very responsible prioritization of resources within the limits that we face. Today I come to the floor hoping that this is not the last subcommittee mark of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) that goes through the full committee and through the House for the first time but hope, in fact, that he can stay. But if, in fact, this is his last mark, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his leadership, I thank him for all that he does for the United States of America. A job well done.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding very much. I did not intend to come to the floor and speak tonight but I was watching this discussion on television and decided to come and share just a couple of points I think that are important. About 3 years ago, we passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It had a lot of good things in it and a few bad things in it. As we oftentimes have to do, you have to weigh the good versus the bad and make a judgment call. I think a lot of good came out of that. But very few people out there realize that at the very last minute of the negotiations of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which really have set in place the framework of the balanced budget and the spending caps that have kept the budget balanced and I think stimulated the markets and given investors confidence and helped this economy thrive over these last 3 years, but at the very last minute, one of the biggest disappointments that I have had in the last 6 years that I have been here was that they changed their plans with respect to the elimination of the death tax or the lifting of the exemption of the death tax, because the negotiations centered around doubling the exemption back in 1997 for the estate tax, the death tax so that when people die, a certain percentage of what they have is not taxable. And it was a great disappointment at the 11th hour back in 1997 when, instead of doubling the exemption for the death tax, they came back and put just an annual index on it. So it gradually goes up. That was a big disappointment, because back home in Tennessee, where I live and spend time with my family and the people that I represent, there are a lot of stories about regular people, hard-working small business people that are affected by this unfair tax at death, where the taxman comes, when a family member dies, and asks for the money very soon after death, within 6 months, and you have to pay up. You have to find the money to pay up. In Washington, we went through an appropriation's markup today. There is a lot of rhetoric from the other side of the aisle about this whole tax proposal to eliminate the death tax over time and to raise the exemptions and to give death tax relief to small business people and individuals out there. There is a lot of talk that this is a tax plan for the top \1/10\ of 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans. Let me tell you what my experience is: This is all about doing what is fair for people in this country. Some of them, yeah, they were in business. Some of them are family farmers, but a lot of them are just grassroots small business people that find themselves in a position that they have to pay the taxman when maybe their parent passes away. I just want to tell a story, without naming names, about a young man, a young family in my Sunday School class at Red Bank Baptist in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This young man is in business with his father. He lost his mother just a few years ago. When his mother passed away, he analyzed the situation being in business with his father, because it really hit him like a ton of bricks that he needed to have some tax professionals look at his situation. He found that if something were to happen to his father, he would owe the taxman large sums of money and, effectively, be forced to sell his business. Now, this is not some kind of big business. Let me tell you. This is small business. I am talking about old buildings. I am talking about a lot of maintenance. I am talking about very few employees, less than 10. I am talking about a very small family business, yet, over time, they built up enough momentum and enough assets that at death this individual, if his father passed on, would have an enormous and immediate tax bite. Frankly, all that money that has been generated for this family business over this generation has already been taxed, yet, the government in this country at a time where we have a budget surplus, where we do have a good economy and consumer confidence, this is the time where WE say what are the most unfair taxes and let us eliminate them; what are the taxes that will give the most economic stimulus, and let us cut them. This is a time where you can return some of the money to the people that pull the wagon in this country, and that is what I found. My friend needs this tax relief. He is not wealthy. He needs this tax relief so if something happens to his father, he is not forced to sell that business. We have to have some generational equity in this country again, where families work and invest and hand down and pass down the fruits of their labor. We cannot have let us take it all out, we have to have, you know, a culture that says let us invest and save and pass down. That is the American dream. This legislation will shore up that American dream. In closing, let me say this, our free enterprise system is what people in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were willing to risk their lives to have. We run all over it. We take it for granted. We mistreat it. We overtax it. We overregulate it. We overlitigate it. It is the goose that lays the golden egg of American opportunity, and that is our free enterprise system. It is precious. This piece of legislation is the next great example of the difference between the two approaches of whether we hold up profit as a good word and the free enterprise system as really the anchor of our society. The free enterprise system; yes, you can go into business in this country; yes, you can make a profit. Greed is a bad word. Profit is a good word. Let us quit treating profit like it is a bad word. The free enterprise system is what the other folks want to have. Let us treat it fairly. Let us give it what it needs. Let us treat these small business people with dignity, and let us lift this estate tax exemption as much as we can. I would say over time, let us just wipe it out, but let us take this next first step on Friday, and let us not let the demagogues win. This is not about tax breaks for the wealthy. This is about working people that pay the taxes that pull the wagon, and we have to give them some help and get the government off their backs. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for everything he has done over the years in this institution in the Committee on Ways and Means. I appreciate what he has done for the free enterprise system in this country. I wish him all the best. I am proud of him for what he has done in his personal life. It is outstanding. I appreciate the opportunity.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, as the representative for the Oak Ridge operations of the Department of Energy, I rise in support of this resolution, a sense of the Congress resolution, but also in support of further action that is going to be required in order to bring some benefits to the House's acknowledgment that there has been a disaffect from certain workers who were exposed through our nuclear buildup to radiation and beryllium and other sources that have caused these health problems. The Department of Energy has now recognized that these problems exist and need to be addressed. The Congress needs to come along. We need to move quickly with the hearings and move quickly with the legislation. There are four committees of jurisdiction. This is a problem that we need to unify on quickly and move forward. We need these committees to come together. I came to the floor today to appeal to all the committees of jurisdiction to try to waive as much of their jurisdiction as possible so we can get legislation through this year to get benefits. We have to be careful that we do not create such a broad benefits package, but we have to get help to these workers.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, it is a bittersweet day as our vice president of our current Prayer Breakfast experiences the loss of his son, and we, all this week, will mourn and grieve and pray and just yearn for that family and the loss that they have experienced. But it is a great day that we can recognize ``Sonny'' Montgomery, and I know ``Sonny'' would also want us all to pause and reflect and share with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and his family as they have lost B.J., their 17-year-old son over this weekend. But I knew of General ``Sonny'' Montgomery long before I got here, and I am now in my sixth year, and I was blessed recently with the House Members asking me to serve as their president. But I knew of ``Sonny'' and the great tradition that he brought from Mississippi because I went to the same prep school, which was a military school, the great McCallie School, in Chattanooga, where political leaders like Governor Carroll Campbell and Senator Bill Brock and Senator Howard Baker and General ``Sonny'' Montgomery went to school, and business people, the likes of Ted Turner, a great tradition. ``Sonny'' went there. He was raised up right. But he comes every week. Thursday morning, folks, for an hour is a sacrosanct set aside time. He would want me to recognize that that is a special hour for Members to come in a non-denominational, interfaith way, and just share our faith in God and understand the goodness in each of us, and peel back our heart and share with each other in a human way so that in the middle of what people see as a war here sometimes on Capitol Hill, there is peace and tranquility and we all share in our humanness together. We sing and we pray and we talk and we fellowship, and it is a great hour, and every week ``Sonny'' is there, year in, year out, decade in, decade out, he is the rock, he is the anchor. And H-130 where we meet in that sacrosanct fellowship every week should be named after him and in his honor. So I thank the gentleman from Indiana for this initiative. I thank the gentlemen from Mississippi that have honored ``Sonny'' today, and all the Members, because in a bipartisan way, there is no more love in this institution than the love for ``Sonny'' Montgomery, and I thank the gentleman for allowing me to honor ``Sonny'' Montgomery today.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. I certainly believe, Mr. Speaker, if the economy either turns down or experiences some restrictions, that the American people will be heard demanding change, because I still hear it a lot, frustration with this current Tax Code, people who are both paying too much in taxes and also experiencing too much red tape with this Tax Code, spending too much of their time wrestling with this Tax Code. I really believe as the economy goes through its normal cycles and turns down, we will hear loud and clear that this is one of those issues that the American people demand change on, is a simpler, more fair tax system. Frankly, welfare laws changed, not because of Republicans or Democrats, but because the American people demanded it. The budget is balanced not really because Republicans or Democrats, but because the American people demanded it. The American people are going to be demanding a more simple and fair Tax Code. I think ultimately those that come today against this legislation will support it, because the American people will demand it. I would love to see our campaign finance laws change, but until the American people get more engaged, the folks up here are not going to change it. The American people need to lead this. We have presidential candidates now espousing certain philosophies. They need to be telling the American people what kind of Tax Code they will sign into law and, therefore, we need to take this action so that we have some limits, we have a firewall. We say we are going to do this, we have plenty of time, 4 years. The gentleman is being very reasonable setting up a time frame so that we can make these plans and get the presidential candidates to say yes, I will sign this. We have at least three options: Either keep the current system; single rate income tax with fewer deductions; or wipe out the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax. Let the debate begin. Let the candidates for President, for Congress, declare what will you have, what will you sign, what will you agree to. The American people need a simpler Tax Code, they need lower taxes, they need less interference from the Federal Government, so that free enterprise system can continue to carry the world economy.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, did my colleagues know that when one puts a frog in a pot of water and sets it on the range and slowly turns up the temperature, the frog will stay in the pot and boil to death without jumping out. But if one puts a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will jump right back out. So it is with our world today. The self-indulgence of our society causes the stark contrast between right and wrong to be clouded so that we actually, as a society, tolerate these type issues. Mr. Speaker, few politicians have credibility on the major moral issues of our day. So who does? The Majority Leader mentioned Mother Theresa, probably the most Godly life in the world during the 20th century. She said this, ``I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means willing to be willing to give until it hurts.'' She said, ``Many people are also concerned about the violence in this great country of the United States.'' She said, ``These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today: abortion, which brings people to such blindness.'' She said, and I continue to quote, ``The child is God's gift to the family. Each child is created in the special image and likeness of God for greater things, to love and to be loved.'' She closed by saying, ``We cannot solve all the problems in the world, but let us never bring in the worst problem of all, and that is to destroy love. This is what happens when we tell people to practice abortion.'' Mr. Speaker, this great Nation finally recognized that slavery was wrong, and we did something about it. This great Nation must now recognize that abortion is wrong and adoption is the option. Let us love our children, and the world will be a better place.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, this month marks the 25th anniversary of the founding of Christian Embassy, a spiritual resource to government and diplomatic leadership in Washington. I would like to congratulate its founders, Dr. and Mrs. William R. Bright, and honor them for their commitment to serving those of us who are public servants in our Nation's Capital. Dr. Bright is also the founder and president of Campus Crusade for Christ, of which Christian Embassy is a part. He has authored numerous books and articles on the Christian life and has received a host of awards, among them the 1996 Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. His wife, Vonette, is co-founder of Campus Crusade. Her commitment to prayer for our nation and work in the Kingdom of God is a tribute to their family. Dr. and Mrs. Bright have spent many hours with political leaders in Washington, offering encouragement and spiritual counsel. They feel strongly that leaders of integrity are vital in the task of strengthening the fabric of America and ensuring its stability for future generations. In commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the inception of Christian Embassy, I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to the vision and faith of its founders, Dr. and Mrs. William R. Bright.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, if they are in rural east Tennessee, the biggest drug problem they face is not from overseas, it is somebody's garage close by where methamphetamine may be being made by young people who read about it on the Internet. The year before last, 42 labs were seized in Tennessee. Last year, 116 labs were seized in Tennessee. So far in this fiscal year, just in a few months, 137 labs had been seized. This is an epidemic. General Barry McCaffrey says, ``a seriously potentially national problem to become the next crack cocaine epidemic.'' McCaffrey says, ``Methamphetamine remains one of the most dangerous substances America has ever confronted. It is proliferating terribly.'' Local law enforcement breaks a lab up. They have a toxic site. It costs $5,000 to clean it up. There is no way local law enforcement can keep up with this. Our committee is doing a great job of fighting it. We have got to have DOJ's help. We have got to have the COPS program help. This $15 million is the least we can do to help local law enforcement break up methamphetamines and clean up the labs. This is a cancer in our culture, and it is attacking rural America. We have got to fight it at the State, local, and Federal level. We need this amendment to pass.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding the time. It is an honor to come and close this debate today. I know later tonight as we close up this great debate on the budget this year that we are going to give proper recognition to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich), but I think over the last 15 years, as many have labored in the fields for a more responsible approach on the Federal level, there is not a person in the United States Congress that deserves more credit for bringing us to a balanced budget than the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). He is a genuine man, and everyone in this institution I think respects and appreciates the gentleman. Do not take too much of my time. We are going to do this again a little later on. We are going to do that again. I admire the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), but I have to tell you, I spent the first half of my life as a Democrat for 20 years. And I spent the second half of my life as a Republican, and I joined the Republican party in 1980 because I felt like the Federal Government was growing too big and out of control in some respects, and we needed to restore more accountability to Washington, D.C. I would say as a member of the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations that this majority has hit its stride in balance, fairness. And I think this budget is the best product that we have come up with in the 5\1/2\ years that we have had an opportunity to present our way. My 13-year-old son is in the Chamber tonight. He will be 13 Sunday. And I really believe that this issue, I have heard reckless tax cuts all night long, but let me tell you when I was in born in 1957, the American people paid less than 10 percent to the Government at all level combined. And today it is almost half. When my son is at my age, at the current pace, three-fourths of what he makes is going to go to the Government at some level, and that is reckless. That is the truth. We need to bring more accountability to this process of where we are going to restrain government growth. That is what this budget does. Greenspan knows it. He says it, the economy is the goose laying its golden egg. And we have to restrain the growth of spending. The Democratic substitute here actually grows discretionary spending at twice inflation. We cannot continue to do that. Tax fairness, ladies and gentlemen, time has come, and Democrats and Republicans are agreeing that we need to reduce the tax burden on working families in this country. And I am proud of this budget, because it is fair and reasonable. I come from sort of the center here to say that it is time that we all come together around this budget, live within our means, fuel the economy, save Social Security, protect 100 percent of it, strengthen Medicare, do all we can with that prescription drug benefit, retire that public debt in a bipartisan way, give some tax relief to the American families while we can. If we do not do it now, with unprecedented surpluses, we will never do it. We have to do it now. Let us come together. Yes, we are not restoring America's defense. We need to do more, I say to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). We need do a lot more, because we got people spread all over the world overdeployed, underpaid, ill-equipped. We need to do more, but a billion dollars is at least a step in the right direction and invest in education and science. Let us pass this budget tonight.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a citizen who has contributed as much as anyone in the Third District of Tennessee to the wonderful quality of life that all of us who live there are privileged to enjoy. The occasion is his 78th birthday, but this tribute could be delivered any day. It is a testament to how universally known, loved and admired he is that you only have to say the word ``Luther,'' and just about anyone will know you are referring to Luther Masingill, who has made Chattanooga's mornings brighter for 60 years. He signed on as host of his near universally known morning show on WDEF Radio, then an AM only station, on December 31, 1940. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was President then, and we were on the eve of World War II. Luther has seen Chattanooga--and the world--change mightily during his years on the air. Eleven U.S. Presidents as well as numerous Tennessee governors and Chattanooga mayors have come and gone while Luther has held way on the air. Luther has stayed on, however; and the ``secrets'' of his success and value to the Chattanooga area have remained the same. His radio show, now broadcast on WDEF AM and FM from 6-9 a.m. each weekday morning, does not focus on the controversies that tear us apart. By design, Luther devotes his show to the things that bring us together and make us human. Is your dog or cat missing? Would you like to buy or sell an animal? Is your civil club meeting or having a sale? His show is very much about neighbors helping neighbors and swapping information across the backyard fence, or at the grocery store, or after church. And his devoted listeners treat Luther as their friend and neighbor, which indeed he is. Luther plays relaxing, traditional music in between announcements; and his warm, re-assuring voice has made countless folks in Southeast Tennessee, North Georgia, North Alabama and Western North Carolina begin the day in a better spirit, no matter what the day may bring. He also does a spot on the noon news on Channel 12, WDEF television, and he's been with that station since it signed on in 1954. Today, March 9, 2000, is your 78th birthday, Luther; and so we say a loud ``Happy Birthday!'' and thanks for all you have done to enrich our lives and communities. And here's wishing you many more years on the air!

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I especially thank the gentleman for all the work that he has done. He is the bulldog around here for marriage tax penalty relief. It is many years he has been working day in and day out to bring us to this point. Tomorrow we will actually have this significant vote. We have even brought the President to this issue. And I think there is now some bipartisan support around marriage tax penalty relief. But I wanted to make four points today about this very important initiative. First, the marriage tax penalty is a penalty. So when people say tax cuts, and we have had all this rhetoric about tax cuts, this is actually a penalty. So we want to do away with penalties. This is an equity issue, a fairness issue. Frankly, I think it is very similar with the death tax. I think the death tax is grossly unfair. Since that money has already been taxed while an individual is living, it is grossly unfair when they die the money is taxed again. And so those really are the two linchpins of equitable taxation, is to eliminate this marriage tax penalty and to eliminate the death tax. I think we should try to do both, and I am very encouraged that we are bringing Democrats and Republicans together around this first step, which is marriage tax penalty relief. Also, I want to remind everyone in this House that when I was born, in 1957, the combined State, local, and Federal tax liabilities of the average American was less than 10 percent. My father reminds me of that often. Ten cents on the dollar. Down South they have that bumper sticker that says ``What is good enough for Jesus ought to be good enough for Uncle Sam.'' And that is the 10 percent figure. Today, though, that combined tax liability for working Americans is approaching 50 percent. Now, we have held the line on taxes for the last several years and that is good. We have a good economy, and there are many economic benefits of what is going on in this country. But we must recognize that the trend towards higher taxation is not a favorable trend. And if this continues, the young people in this country will be saddled with so much of their take-home pay going back to the government in taxes that they will not be able to survive. Frankly, there are many families that have to have two income earners now, and now those two income earners are working multiple jobs. It squeezes the time that we can spend with our children. There is a real crunch there. We have got to give the American family some tax relief. This is one step in that direction. We must roll back the layers of taxation on the American people, and we must have a tax program that encourages marriage and encourages families. The third point. We need to advocate pro-family tax relief for the institution of marriage and the institution of family. We need to go beyond this. We need to look at some of the systemic problems with early childhood development, to use our Tax Code to give families the ability to stay with their children more in those early formative years. This past year I was vice chairman of this bipartisan working group on youth violence. We found many things through that great process, and other Members in this chamber today were part of that process; and one of the things that was undeniable is that violent behavior or any kind of adverse illegal-type behavior manifested among teenagers is actually traced back to their loving, tender care at an early age from their parents. If a teenager is violent, they were probably neglected or abused or mistreated as a small person. There is a direct connection with a loving, caring parent and good behavior later in life. We need a Tax Code that really encourages the stay-at-home opportunity for a mom or a dad, or whatever the family chooses, so that our young people have more family time with their parents. So this type of tax policy, one that eliminates the marriage tax penalty, one that encourages families to spend more time together, quality time, and allows families to economically stay ahead but also spend more time together in bringing our children up in the proper way in this country is at the heart of a great society. We should be a great society. In order to do that, we need to come together in a bipartisan way and pass this with overwhelming support and send a message to the President that it is time now to sign marriage tax penalty relief. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely a thrill for me to be here as a Member of the House to recognize one of these great Americans. I think it is entirely appropriate for our country to name these schools of government after great American leaders in government. One of these, clearly, is Howard H. Baker. He was a great United States Senator, White House chief of staff. Few people have done more for the University of Tennessee over the course of its history than Senator Baker. In fact, few people have done more for the United States of America in this century than Senator Howard Baker. Mr. Speaker, when I think of Senator Baker, the first word that comes to mind is civility, and the second word is trust. Members of the United States Senate from both parties truly respected and trusted Howard Baker. He had a reputation and continues to have a reputation that few people in the history of the United States Congress enjoyed. I think of justice under the law. Even to this very day, the rooms that the Senate majority leader resides in on the Senate side, the offices are named the Howard H. Baker, Jr., rooms in recognition of his reputation. I think of intellect and hard work and the combination of the two. I think of knowledge of the law. Frankly, from the Watergate hearings to the years of Senate majority leader and White House chief of staff, I think of good old, down-home southern charm, laced with humor and respect for others and a reputation that few have ever had. This is a proper tribute. The University of Tennessee will be better off. Students will learn from that school of government, and the name on that school of government, Howard H. Baker, will actually represent dignity, grace and justice, all three of which his life represents.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for an outstanding job, not just this year, but in previous years, outstanding staff on both sides of the aisle; and I say to my friend, the ranking member who is also an outstanding gentleman, I am reminded today of what Ronald Reagan once said, something like this, I am paraphrasing, that somebody who votes with me 80 percent of the time is not 80 percent my enemy, he is 80 percent my friend, or he is not 20 percent my enemy, he is 80 percent my friend; and I really think that the opposition to this bill is focusing on a few narrow problems that on October 21 we need to get beyond. It is time to get beyond this October the 21, in this year pass this bill, move it out of here; and I hate to see the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) break his perfect record on supporting this because I think it runs counter to the philosophy of the Committee on Appropriations where we do work in a bipartisan way, we do build consensus, we do work through these conference committees, and my colleagues know the old saying that we say in the House from time to time, that maybe the Democrats are our opponents, but the Senate is the real enemy. That seemed to not have changed regardless of who is in the majority. But that is just reality. At the end of the day the Senate does not do what we want them to do, but we have got to move the process forward. So, please do not hold this bill up. I want to focus on a couple of things that have not been talked about yet, and that is the energy piece of this bill, a little over a billion dollars out of $14 billion in energy research, fossil energy and energy conservation. Let me just say some people may ask why do we fund these programs. Energy research really was brought about by the oil problems of the 1970s and the need for our country at the national level, the Federal level, to rely on research, basic research from the Federal Government, to pursue alternative energy sources so we are not so dad-blasted dependent on Middle Eastern oil. We have got to fund those programs. We are increasing the funding on those programs. That is at the heart of this bill. We fund the good guys. We fund the Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Geological Survey; these are the good guys. We are trying to fund these good guys; help us fund these good guys. But we also have to reduce our reliance on Middle Eastern oil for the peace and well-being of our country at large. We hear a lot about climate change, does it lead to global warming? I do not know what the actual science is. I have great questions about it, but I know this. If we can develop better policies through fossil energy research to reduce CO2 emissions, it cannot do any harm; it can only do good. Why not do it? That is in this bill, strong effort, thought through, good science. We studied it; we developed these priorities. It is in the bill. Do not hold that up. Move fossil energy research forward; we will have cleaner air guaranteed if we fund these programs. Energy conservation, things like weatherization. We do not want cool air to just leak out of our public housing in this country or warm air just to leak out. We want to come up with smarter ways to build public housing in this country to make sure we reduce the cost for our residents and for our Government to take care of the indigent in our country through weatherization programs. This research is working. It is basic research fully funded in this bill, the kind of things that we need. This is a good bill. It went through the process, we had the hearings, we do travel, we hear from everyone, we vent, we work through it. Dad-gummit, it is October 21. Let us pass this bill with bipartisan support like we always have before and move this process forward. It is not time to obstruct or delay unless my colleagues are being excessively partisan, and I am not one that is excessively partisan. I jump back and forth depending on what my guts tell me to do, and it is time for my colleagues who want to play partisan games at the end of the year to do the right thing, move this bill forward, pass the bill. Congratulations.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the debate this summer over religious liberty issues, I was struck by a remark made by a Member opposing the free exercise of religion. One amendment to the juvenile justice bill here in the House forbids discriminating against people of faith involved in juvenile rehabilitation programs. An usual objection was made against that amendment, and I quote: ``The amendment seeks to incorporate religion into our justice system. Both of these entities have distinct places in our society and are not to be combined.'' That is amazing. They believe that if we forbid discrimination against people of faith, it somehow unconstitutionally incorporates religion into society. Unfortunately, it appears that many in today's legal system agree that it is appropriate to discriminate against faith. For example, in Florida, during a murder trial of a man for the brutal slaying of a 4-year-old child, the judge ordered the courthouse copy of the Ten Commandments to be covered for fear that if the jurors saw the command ``Do not kill,'' they would be prejudiced against the defendant. In Pennsylvania, because a prosecuting attorney mentioned seven words from the Bible in the courtroom, a statement that lasted less than 5 seconds over the course of a multiday trial, the jury's sentence of a man convicted of brutally clubbing a 71-year-old woman to death was overturned. In Nebraska, a man convicted for the repeated sexual assault and sodomization of a 13-year-old child had his sentence overturned because a Bible verse had been mentioned in the courtroom. That is incredible. Despite the DNA evidence and the eyewitness testimony used to convict a murderer and a child molester, the mere mention of a religious passage was so egregious that it caused the physical evidence to be set aside and the sentences to be overturned. The mention of religion in a public civil setting is apparently more dangerous than the threat posed by convicted murderers and child molesters. What is the root of this doctrine that is so hostile to religion? According to the left wing in this country, the doctrine finds its roots, and I quote, ``in the major precepts that our Nation was founded on the separation of church and state.'' Tonight, Mr. Speaker, we are addressing the origin, the meaning and the abuse of the phrase ``separation of church and state,'' and just as it is easy to show that our opponents across the aisle are wrong about their use of that phrase, it is equally to show how wrong they are about their claim that the exclusion of religion from civil justice is a major precept on which our Nation was founded. Consider, for example, the words of James Wilson, an original Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, the founder of the first system of legal education in America and a signer of both the Constitution and the Declaration. Justice Wilson declared, quote: ``Human authority must ultimately rest its authority upon the authority of that law which is devine. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends and mutual assistants. Indeed these two sciences run into each other. It is preposterous to separate them from each other.'' Clearly, Constitution signer and original Supreme Court Justice James Wilson strongly disagreed with today's left wing, and Constitution signer James McHenry also disagreed with him. He declared, quote: ``The holy scriptures can alone secure to our courts of justice and constitutions of government purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions.'' Additional proof that there was no intent to exclude religious influences from civil justice is actually provided by the history of the Supreme Court. There were six justices of the original Supreme Court; three of them had signed the Constitution, and another one of them had authored the Federalist Papers. So it is safe to assume that those on the original court knew what was constitutional. According to the records of the U.S. Supreme Court, a regular practice of these original justices was to have a minister come into the courtroom, offer a prayer over the jury before it retired for its deliberation. Religion in the courtroom and by our Founding Fathers. But I thought that our colleagues across the aisle said that the exclusion of religion from civil justice was one of our founding principles. Well, perhaps the signers of the Constitution just did not understand the Constitution. No, to the contrary. The problem is that today some people do not understand the Constitution. One final piece of irrefutable evidence proving that our legal system never intended to exclude religious influences is the oath taken in the courtroom. Some today argue that the oath has nothing to do with religion, but those who gave us our Constitution disagree. For example, Constitution signer Rufus King declared: ``By the oath which our laws prescribe, we appeal to the supreme being so to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths.'' And Justice James Iredell, placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, similarly noted an oath is considered a solemn appeal to the supreme being for the truth of what is being said by a person. And Daniel Webster, the great defender of the Constitution who served as a Member of this body for a decade, a Member of the other body for two decades, declared ``Our system of oath in all our courts by which we hold liberty and property and all our rights are founded on a religious belief.'' And in 1854 our own House Committee on the Judiciary declared, quote: ``Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment without a firm belief that there is a power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.'' And Chancellor James Kent, a father of American jurisprudence, a famous judge, a legal instructor, taught that an oath was a religious solemnity and that to administer an oath was to call in the aid of religion. Constitution signer George Washington also declared that a courtroom oath was inherently religious. As he explained, quote: ``Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oath which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?'' There are substantial legal authorities, original signers of the Constitution, original Justices of the Supreme Court, founders of early law schools, authors of early legal text, and they all agree that religion was not to be separated from civil justice. The claim made by those across the aisle that the exclusion of religious influences from the civil arena is one of the Nation's founding principles is no more true than their claim that the First Amendment says that there is a separation of church and state. The First Amendment simply says, and I quote: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' The First Amendment says that we in Congress cannot pass a law to establish a national religion or to prohibit religious expression, but the First Amendment says nothing about separation of church and state, and there is also nothing in the Constitution or in early American records which requires legal justice to be hostile to or to exclude religious influences. So to oppose a measure that prohibits discrimination against people of faith and to claim that such an anti- discriminatory measure would violate the Constitution is not only a travesty of history and of the Constitution, but of the very justice system which some people claim they are protecting. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for bringing us together to shed light on a fundamental liberty in our Republic, the freedom of religion.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) who has shown exemplary demeanor all day today.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to say that this substitute is an honest effort, frankly, to address this issue because it is intellectually pure and ideologically doable, and I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle). Unlike the third substitute amendment which we will consider tonight, the Thomas substitute, which is really not about campaign finance reform, it is about campaign reform and FEC reform and technical corrections, and we tried to make an amendment to the underlying bill instead of a freestanding substitute. This substitute and the Hutchinson substitute are good efforts to look at the alternatives that we have before us. But this is not an ideologically perfect situation because I do not think the American people would allow us to go back to the way things were a long, long time ago with unlimited contributions. I understand full disclosure would be there and the American people could go out and elect folks, but in this day of money and power and influence and the entertainment industry really having such an impact on people and television being such a powerful medium, I think the people expect us to try our best to fix the current system. Mr. Chairman, that is what Shays-Meehan does, and I support it and not the substitute.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) who represents Cooperstown and the baseball Hall of Fame. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, Yogi Berra once said, ``It is deja vu all over again.'' And that is where I feel like we are today. We have been down this road. Under the leadership of a former Member, Ms. Smith of Washington, this legislation pending before the floor is very clear in exempting voter guides from any of these provisions. But the big concern here is about these political ads in the last 60 days of the campaign. The warning that I would raise is candidates are losing and will lose control of the messages in their own campaigns if the outside groups that run these ads in the final 60 days do not declare who they are and if they do not come under the same rules as candidates. Candidates, all of their money, income and expenses, are regulated. These groups should be regulated in the exact same way, no restriction on speech any different than a candidate. I would be the last one to support any restrictions in the ability to speak in the final 60 days of the campaign, but the candidates must prevail.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we are now at the heart of the substantive debate and the general debate for a bill that makes significant progress to improve the current system. Since 1991, I have either been a candidate for election or reelection to the U.S. House of Representatives and filed the necessary paperwork. All the money that I raise and spend is regulated by the Federal Government. Should we in any way restrict what a candidate who files, who puts their life on the line and their body in the arena, so to speak, should they ever be restricted in what they say, whenever, however or whoever they talk about? Absolutely not. But we are going to talk about today whether or not these outside groups who call themselves citizens for motherhood and apple pie should live under the same rules that I do as a candidate, or that you might as a candidate. Candidates should be able to speak and groups should be able to speak and we should all come under the same rules so the American people have some accountability to look to on who they are and who is pulling their strings.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, it is great to be loved by both sides here today. I rise in support of the rule and in great appreciation for the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules who I think has been very fair and courteous through this process, and also in great appreciation to the Speaker of the House who is proving to all 435 Members of the House today that he can be trusted to follow through on his word; that we would, in fact, this week in September consider the issue of campaign finance reform after an overwhelming success last year on basically the same decision, and that is, the underlying text of Shays-Meehan, which we have before us today. Of the four major alternatives that the gentleman from Arkansas laid out a few minutes ago, three of them truly address systemic campaign reform, that is, the issue of money and influence on the federal process. One of those four alternatives, though, frankly, does not stack up to the level of significant campaign finance reform as the other three. And that one is the Thomas substitute. Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on House Administration is a brilliant man in this House; we all know that. He understands all of these issues extremely well, but what he has offered and the Committee on Rules embraced as a substitute really is an amendment, and my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), and I appeared before the Committee on Rules and asked that that amendment be ruled in order, not as a substitute or an alternative to the other three major provisions, but as an amendment so that it could be attached to our bill, because frankly, there is nothing in it that everybody would not desire as an amendment to any of the three major alternatives. Yet, it was chosen as a substitute. Now, folks out there do not know what this really means, but what happens here is if it gets more votes than the rest of the bills, it goes forward; the rest stop, dead in their tracks, and therein lies somewhat of a gimmick in this whole process of today. So there are issues that will be considered as we go through this day, and we are grateful for the opportunity that will not be what they appear on the surface, because people will be voting against things that are perfectly good so that the underlying bill, the Shays-Meehan bill, the bill with momentum, the bill that is the most significant campaign finance reform legislation to move through this Congress since 1974 can be considered on its own merits. Now, today, as we go through all of this debate, Members are going to look for places to hide. I have seen this; this is my fifth year here. They look for some way to position themselves so that they can say I am for it, but. And the American people should say, the buts must stop now. You are for it, you are going to vote for it, you are going to move it forward. Soft money is the target. There are a lot of details that people will hide behind, but soft money is not defensible in today's environment. It is excessive, onerous, egregious, and should be removed.