Zach Wamp

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. No. I have not, did not. I have never accepted PAC money. I will make that clear. That is right. I thank the gentleman for clarifying.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Madam Chairman, we have heard it said, the love of money is the root of evil. I will tell my colleagues what Tennesseans say to me when I go back home; and that is, the political parties seem to be addicted to money, both political parties. Too many mailings. Some constituents tell me they have five or six pieces of mail in a single day in their mailbox. They cannot even find the legitimate mail in all the solicitations. It is out of control. Too much money. Not that we can restrict it or that we should restrict it, but that they are too driven by the love of money, and money is power. Unlimited, unregulated soft money must be contained. I particularly find egregious the influences of tobacco, alcohol, and gambling. Tobacco soft money, $30 million over the last several years to the political parties, including $100,000 this month in a single payment to one of the political parties. Alcohol, $26 million over the last several years to the political parties. We know what that money is for. Gambling is the new kid on the block, but they are catching up quick. It is a growing industry. They are going to try to buy influence in the United States Congress. I do not want my children's future to be dictated on the influences of alcohol, tobacco, and gambling soft money which is unregulated and unlimited to the political parties. This open debate is good. I commend our leadership for bringing it up, for even extending the debate so that we can use this House to debate this issue. We are going to have two options, all the way from the proposal of the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) to go back to the way things were before Watergate, and, frankly, there is an intellectual argument that needs to be made about how much better things were before this system came into being, or we can try to fix this system, which I think is practical. We have got some good options, the freshman bill, Shays-Meehan. But we can fix this system, and I appreciate the debate.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the House's attention a wonderful and heart-warming story about a distinguished citizen of the 3rd District of Tennessee. It is a story of service above and beyond the call of duty, courage and of a man who knows how to say thanks with grace and style. That man is John C. ``Thunder'' Thornton, who has built a highly successful business career in Chattanooga and who owns the Crescent H. Guest Ranch in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Describing what happened, Thornton says, ``If you don't believe in Guardian Angels, I've got a story for you.'' It begins on Friday, March 27, a day that started out as a happy family outing to San Antonio, Texas to see the final four basketball tournament but that nearly ended in sudden, tragic death. As ``Thunder'' Thornton tells it, he and his daughter, Dori, 17, and son Johnny, 14, were met at the San Antonio Airport by Cesar Hernandez, who was to drive them in his cab for a tour of the city. They'd planned to visit Trinity University there and to see all the sights in that beautiful old city. Without warning, Thornton began to feel a numbness in his arm and shortness of breath followed by pain and a feverish feeling ``Thunder'' Thornton realized that he might be having a heart attack. He asked Hernandez to get him to the hospital as quickly as possible. Then he passed out. He awoke to find himself in the car at the curbside outside the hospital. Hernandez got him into a wheel chair and into the hospital where he received first-class treatment from Cardiologist Dr. Rusty Felton. Even as the treatment began he could hear Hernandez comforting his son and daughter. Some cab drivers--and many people--would have thought they had done enough by doing only what their job called for in this situation. They'd just call an ambulance and head off to make more fares. But Hernandez went far above what duty required him to do. He rushed Thunder Thornton to the hospital. Then he stayed with Thornton's children while they faced fear and danger, far from home and with neither of their parents in a position to help them. He displayed one of the best traits we like to think we share as Americans, a natural instinct to help others who were in harm's way--even at some personal cost. Unfortunately, we do not see as much of this behavior as we would like in America today. But it was definitely there when it counted that Friday in San Antonio. And Thornton believes that Mr. Hernandez saved his life. But, Mr. Speaker, this is also a story of gratitude and having the good grace to express it. Many folks would have simply sent Mr. Hernandez a note of thanks. But for Thunder Thornton, that would never have been enough. He arranged a two-part gift. The first was a one-week vacation to Thornton's Crescent H Guest Ranch in Jackson Hole. And the second was a brand new White Cadillac DeVille, which Thornton presented to Hernandez in a video-taped family ``thank you card'' that was played at a luncheon in San Antonio. Thunder Thornton's action shows that it is important to celebrate those ``Guardian Angels'' our society needs so badly. It also goes a long way toward telling us the kind of man John Thornton is. Mr. Speaker, the 3rd District of Tennessee is fortunate to count him among its citizens.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I am coming back to this tritium issue, the Markey amendment. We need to focus on this as part of this en bloc amendment. Tritium is a gas. It is necessary to maintain our nuclear weapons capability in the United States of America. Just look around the world and we know that we need to do that. So we have to produce a tritium source again by a date certain. The Department of Energy was given a mandate, as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) said, by Congress to pursue these legitimate options. And we must produce tritium. Two options exist. One is an accelerator-based project, which would be built in the State of South Carolina, at an estimated cost of more than $4 billion with a pretty high annual operation cost. The accelerator has not been built, so the technology is really unproven and untested. The other option, which has been tested, is to use a commercial reactor. TVA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, which has a defense mission in its charter, was given the Department of Energy project to test tritium. It has been enormously successful. We have tested the production of tritium in a commercial reactor. It is safe and reliable, and the operational costs are lower. And the initial capital cost, the total cost, is $2\1/2\ billion less than the accelerator. But the Markey amendment, working with the leadership of this committee, is eliminating the cheaper option completely. The Senate will not revive it, I am afraid. This may be the last chance to save the taxpayers $2\1/2\ billion and do the right thing. The National Taxpayers Union is against it. Citizens Against Government Waste is against it. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) speaks eloquently. But, frankly, there is fear tactics being implemented about the safety of testing tritium or producing tritium at a commercial reactor. This is a political power play that is going to cost the American taxpayers big time over time. This is arbitrary. Please vote and reluctantly vote against the en bloc amendment.

Mr. WAMP. I understand that, sir. This is a $4.5 billion issue. I think it deserves at least 10 minutes on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives at this critical time in history, please.

Mr. WAMP. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, is there any way we could designate that extended time, 10 minutes on the Markey amendment, divided 5 minutes per side, on this critical issue of tritium production in the United States of America?

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation, and ask the ranking member and the chairman to please make sure we get our due time on the floor.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I am going to overlook the specifics and the details for a moment and just say that I am grateful to our leadership for hearing the appeal of some of us and many from the other side to give us an opportunity over the coming days and weeks to debate this issue in an open process. I think, in all fairness, it will be an open process. But just to say that our party, the majority party here, has possibly decided to change strategy and quit running and hiding from this issue and get on the offensive and be proactive. If we disagree with our friends on the other side on the specifics, let us debate the issue, and let us have a vote on each and every substitute, and let us let majority rule. Democracy still works in this country. Back in 1974, when this current system was brought into place, the shoe was on the other foot, and the Democrats were in charge here. They used this floor to debate these issues and bring forth what they thought were their priorities. We should do the same thing. If we have a legitimate disagreement, we should be on the offensive to say this is the way things used to be. I am most concerned about the corrupting influences of soft money in the American political process. Mr. Speaker, alcohol, tobacco and gambling are not the influences that I want to drive this process. They are proliferating. Millions of dollars of unregulated, unlimited soft money from some of these influences that are not good for our country or good for our children or good for this process are now dominating this business. Pretty soon, we, as candidates, will not even control the messages in our own elections if we do not do something about it. We can have an honest disagreement about whether we should fix the current system or even possibly go back to the way things used to be before Watergate. But, most of all, we should have the debate.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I, too, Mr. Speaker, come to the well today with a heavy heart, remembering a wonderful life of our colleague and friend, Mr. Steve Schiff from New Mexico. He was my subcommittee chairman in the 104th Congress in the Committee on Science. He was always thoughtful, always pleasant, one of the most intelligent Members of this body that I have come across. Soft-spoken, very effective, always going the extra mile. I remember he came to Oak Ridge, Tennessee at my request to chair a field hearing of the Committee on Science. I just want to say that part of that arrangement was that I would at some point travel to New Mexico and participate in a field hearing there for him. Unfortunately, I will not have that opportunity. But as he breathed his last breath this day, our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and all those that crossed the path of Steve Schiff. We were blessed with his relationship and his life. I just pray that the peace of God, the peace which passeth all understanding, will be with his family in the hours ahead as the United States House of Representatives mourns the loss of Steve Schiff with his family in New Mexico.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding, and commend him and the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Arkansas and the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Pennsylvania for spending this time to focus on this issue. To the gentleman from New Jersey I will say they are on the way, there will be several speaking because this issue does not receive enough airtime in America today, this issue of drug and alcohol abuse. This is an interesting fall, Mr. Speaker, because on the heels of an unprecedented bipartisan agreement to balance the Federal budget between the President and the Congress, the sea of public opinion is relatively calm. As a matter of fact, we heard two weeks ago national bipartisan surveys that indicated that there were no real issues that jumped off the page in surveys in the double digits when asked: What is the number one problem in America? Three issues were at 9 percent, but for the first time in many years the economy is good and people are relatively comfortable, so the sea of public opinion is relatively calm. But let me say this, Mr. Speaker. I believe that what lurks underneath that calm sea of public opinion today is extremely dangerous and we need to spend some time focusing on it and we need to raise the awareness of the American people, because as we face the turn of this great American century into what I hope and pray is another great American century, the 21st century, we need to recognize that the grandchildren of the baby boomers are becoming teenagers. I served, Mr. Speaker, on the Bipartisan Task Force, and the gentleman from New Jersey spoke of the work of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert]. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] cochair a bipartisan working group here in the Congress on drug and alcohol abuse. We had a briefing a few months ago from Louis Freeh, the head of the FBI, who talked about numbers of teenagers. Because while violent crime and drug abuse is on the decline among grown people, it is on the increase among our teenagers and herein lies the problem. We are on a collision course through the turn of the century. More and more teenagers, as a matter of fact, the bell curve in 2005 is the highest concentration of teenagers that we have had in the history of our country, we are told, more teenagers as a percent of our population than we have ever had. That is wonderful in a sense. It is the grandchildren of the baby boomers. But when suicide, violent crime and drug abuse is on the incline, and the number of teenagers is on the incline, and families are breaking down at unprecedented rates, it is a recipe for disaster and we must once again as a Nation come together at every level and recognize what this problem really is. Mr. Speaker, we are told the common denominator of violent crime among teenagers in America, the most common denominator is fatherlessness. People without fathers as they are growing up have a much higher propensity to commit a violent crime. The number two common denominator is alcohol abuse. Drug and alcohol abuse is destroying our country. Now, I know today things are relatively comfortable and many people might not recognize that, but it is true and we must address it. Drug and alcohol abuse is the manifestation of a hopelessness that is now an epidemic in this country, and what we need as we approach this next great American century is a zero tolerance policy at every level of our society on drug and alcohol abuse. Mr. Speaker, I use the two together because many people talk about drug abuse and they overlook the fact that alcohol abuse is even more prevalent in our society than drug abuse. It is the number two common denominator of violent crime in our country and violent crime is going to be an even greater problem as we turn this century than it is today. Now, what do we need to do about it? We need a balanced approach on substance abuse between prevention, treatment, and interdiction. Today, if my memory serves me correctly, we spend about $16 billion through the Federal Government fighting the drug war. About 20 percent of that money is spent on interdiction and, frankly, that is where we can actually document the most success at fighting the war on drugs, through interdiction. The military is doing an excellent job. There are four supply countries. We actually now do a better job of intercepting drugs from those supply countries than we have ever done. The transit zone in Central America, we have really restricted the transit of illegal drugs into this country. But we are only spending 20 percent of our gross resources on interdiction, yet that is where the most success actually is today. We need to spend more money and help our military fight the international war on drugs. I really believe that. We are spending a lot of money on prevention, and I think there are ways by block granting we can spend it more effectively. A lot of money is being spent on prevention. Prevention really starts at home. If we leave it up to the government to stop substance abuse, and we overlook the importance of the home, as Ronald Reagan used to say, the most important decisions in America are not made in Washington, D.C.; they are made around the dinner table of American families. Is that not true? Treatment is an interesting piece of this, because I believe that treatment should be available in this country to anyone who wants it who has a substance abuse problem. But I can also say that I believe treatment works for people who want treatment, and treatment does not work for people who do not want treatment. That sounds obvious, but we are actually spending a lot of money providing treatment to people who do not even want to get better and, therefore, it is not successful. Mr. Speaker, we need a balanced approach on all three aspects of fighting a real war on substance abuse, I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey. Not just a war of words, but a real attack on this. Mr. Speaker, we need cooperation from the mayors who actually do not need to be lectured by those of us in Congress. They need our help. The district attorneys need our help. We need the administration, the Presidential administration to cooperate. And the Congress needs to get more serious about this issue as we approach the turn of the century than we have ever been. We need to recognize this is a national crisis. It is ripping apart the fiber of our society, drug and alcohol abuse, and it is going to take a team effort to fight it. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], who serves as the distinguished cochairman of our task force, he actually has said at several meetings that he did not really appreciate Nancy Reagan when she was First Lady, but he misses her now and he said, at least then, somebody was saying that it was important to just say no to drugs. Now, we do not have that focus, and there is something about all of us leading by example and hammering away at this issue that this is a national crisis, drug and alcohol abuse. It is going to take a team effort. We need to get underway. I appreciate this night being a start and a step in the right direction. I commend the Members of this freshman class for bringing this issue to the floor, and I thank you. Mr. Speaker, I yield back to my friend the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, they were in the prime of life, full of hope and youthful promise, when they died defending their country and preserving our freedom. Their loss was and is heart-breaking for the families and friends they left behind. And--enjoying the long period of peace and freedom that these young American service men and women bought so dearly--we are in danger of forgetting their great sacrifice. But there is one group of fine Americans who are uniquely able to make sure that the rest of us do not forget. They are the Gold Star Mothers. Each one lost a child who died in the military service of our country during time of war. I am proud and grateful that we have a strong and active group of Gold Star Mothers in the Third District of Tennessee, which I represent in Congress. On Sunday, September 28, they and their counterparts from all across the Nation are marking Gold Star Mother's Day. They are part of a group that had its roots in the first great conflict of the 20th Century: World War I. President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed that service flags would be displayed at homes that had family members serving the country. Blue Stars were displayed for each family member in the Armed Forces. And, as the war progressed and casualties mounted, the stars were turned to Gold Stars to represent each service member killed defending our country. The Gold Star Mothers were officially organized in Washington, DC, in 1929. But one does not have to be a formal member of the national organization to be a Gold Star Mother. The standard for entering this revered group of Americans is much, much higher and more difficult than simply joining an organization. One must have had a child who made the supreme sacrifice for our country. In 1936 Congress--in a joint resolution--designated the last Sunday in September as Gold Star Mother's Day. In 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt further recognized the day. These Gold Star Mothers, perhaps better than anyone else, know the agony that comes from caring for, nurturing, and raising up a child only to see that young life lost just as it is beginning. But these fine Americans, who include at least 62 ladies from the Chattanooga area, deserve the greatest admiration, thanks and respect from all of us. These ladies whose loved ones did not make it home devote themselves to caring for and helping those who did. In a supreme act of love and concern for others, many Gold Star Mothers dedicate themselves to helping the children of other mothers, children who survived war. Gold Star Mothers assist in all manner of ways. They visit veterans' hospitals to help service people there. They take part in patriotic observances that help all of us remember the sacrifices that bought our freedom. On Sunday those in the Chattanooga area are marking the observance of the day during a candlelight ceremony at VFW Post 4848 in Chattanooga. I salute the Gold Star Mothers of the Third District, the Chattanooga area, and the Nation. All of us should be grateful that our Nation produces men and women with the courage and dedication to make the supreme sacrifice so that we might be free. We should be thankful too that our Nation has mothers whose courage and compassion help make those sacrifices worth it and--in the most special way--make sure that the memory of those who died for our country lives on.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring the House's attention to the 200th year celebration of Fort Southwest Point, located in Kingston, TN, on Oct. 5, 1997. Military activities at Southwest Point began in 1792 with the establishment of a blockhouse post for territorial militia troops under the command of Gen. John Sevier who later became the first Governor of Tennessee. During the 1790's, most of the many settlers traveling to the Nashville area passed Southwest Point, and parties of such travelers were often accompanied along the Cumberland Road by guards supplied from the militia post. Subsiding hostilities with the Indians contributed to a change in the role played by Southwest Point and by 1797 the militia had been replaced by Federal troops under the command of Lt. Col. Thomas Butler. From this point until the removal period, the Federal troops preserved the peace primarily by preventing illegal settlers on the remaining Cherokee lands. Fort Southwest Point's role in the peaceful coexistence with the Cherokees was enhanced in 1801 when Col. Return Jonathan Meigs was appointed to be military agent for Federal troops in Tennessee and principal agent to the Cherokee Nation. In 1807 the garrison was removed farther into the Indian territory, and Fort Southwest Point served as a supply depot for other forts until about 1812. Archeological work at this site began in 1974 when crews from the University of Tennessee began to uncover the site of the original fort. In 1984 a cooperative endeavor between the Department of Conservation and the city of Kingston, owner of the site, continued the investigation, and began to rebuild the fort on its original foundations. Now the fort is open as a museum staffed by city-employed agents and volunteers. Work continues on the research and rebuilding and many historically and militarily oriented events take place there. Currently celebrations are in order for the commemoration of Fort Southwest Point's 200th birthday.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, my grandparents were farmers. I represent farmers in east Tennessee. Those same farmers continue to support me even though I voted against the farm bill last year. Why? Because I do not think we can really have reform until we eliminate price supports and subsidies. These farmers that support me are not in favor of price supports or subsidies. They are in favor of being left alone to do their work, whether it is peanuts, sugar, tobacco. I agree, why not all of them? Why do we not eliminate all the subsidies? It does not make any sense. After all, the people of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were willing to risk their lives to have what we not only take for granted but abuse, and that is the free market. We cannot continue to beat up on the free market with price supports and subsidies and have consumers pay higher prices for things because the Government is involved where the Government should not be involved. A pure pro-farm vote is leave the farmers alone and pull the government out of the farm business.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I quit using the word revolution because it implies bloodshed, maybe even chaos. Started using the word correction where all of us, Democrats, Republicans, Independents could follow through on our word, just be consistent, clean this place up together. I do not want to start on a negative here but, if we lose this bill and lose this vote, it will be basically for three reasons: First, it is a true bipartisan effort. Unfortunately, that is not the way things are done in this city. Actually, we have got Members from all over the place here. We have got Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, we cannot tell who is controlling the time from which side of the aisle because it is a true bipartisan effort and some folks do not like that. Second, fear is an easy mechanism to use. We are going to hear all kinds of fears. I have heard caps. I have heard delays. I have heard even the word cuts used here today in Social Security, Medicare, that the tax cuts would be delayed or postponed. That is all a what-if scenario. Theoretically, if Congress and the administration absolutely do nothing, heck, if we did not come back here between now and October 1, the Government would shut down again, but the Congress is not going to let that happen. We should not let this decision be driven by fear of what if. We are responsible Members. We will do what is right for the American folks and they know it. The third thing is a technicality. There are a couple of technical flaws in this bill that we tried to get corrected, and the Committee on Rules said no. I think that is unfortunate. The Committee on Rules should allow us to improve the bill, and I understand that there was an agreement reached, and in the letter of the law we were going to submit the bill that was on the floor a month ago; but we tried to improve the bill, and we can still improve this bill, and it is not a reason to vote against it. I am down here in support of this effort because from 1965 to now, the portion of the Federal budget that the Congress actually appropriates has gone from two-thirds of the total budget to one-third. Entitlements are on automatic pilot, and they are running away with the American taxpayers' dollars, and we must rein it in, not cut anybody's benefits, not reduce anybody's benefits, just slow down the growth and be responsible. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I can tell my colleagues that, if the economy hiccups or belches a few times along the road in the next 5 years, all of the offsets, all of the reductions are going to have to come from the Committee on Appropriations. That is going to put pressure on student loans, on cancer research, on the investment dollars in the next generation. We cannot let that happen. We are going to hear folks from one side of the aisle say, whoa to tax cuts, tax cuts are ok if we are still meeting the discipline and the fiscal restraint on the other side of the ledger. You are going to hear Members on one side of the aisle say, you cannot slow down entitlements. We must come together and do it all and be serious with the American people. That is what this is about. All of my colleagues should vote ``yes.''

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, if we analyze what is happening out here in our country today, in 1997, and we really yearn, as I do, for a renewed sense of ownership from the people of our government and our country, I actually attempt, which may be thinking out of the box, to represent people who are so alienated or so hopeless they may not even be registered to vote. They may have just completely given up on the government, thinking that Washington is just out of control, it is going in the wrong directions, politicians are all the same. My colleagues know what I am talking about, because we have all met those people. Many of them just kind of brush you off. They do not want to have anything to do with you. But if we can repair that bridge, to use the President's term, with those folks, and through real change and persistence convince those people that, yes, this country is worth fighting for and, yes, we can fix any problem that we have and for a sustained period of time, I would not expect them to automatically buy into the notion that Washington is finally changing. Because for so long they saw reform come, and then it really was not reform, and they thought that maybe some progress was being made or they wanted to think that, and it did not happen. So I am really encouraged that we might be able to re-energize these people with a sense of hope that will cause this next generation to vote again, to be active citizens, to take ownership in this great Nation because it is worth fighting for and we cannot afford not to. I do not want to oversimplify it, but there is a lot of talk now of what caused these million families to go back to work and there is a lot of credit taken. The President wants to take credit and the Congress wants to take credit. We all should remember, as Americans, that great things can happen when it does not matter who gets the credit. Some of my folks back home, they do not have much confidence in the President, so they basically say, ``Well, y'all can do what you want to up there, but you cannot work with him.'' Listen, the American people elected him, and our President is there for three and a half years. If he is willing to come over towards the middle and meet us on a balanced budget plan to try to leave his place in history, we should meet him there, we should shake his hand and say, ``We are going to try to work with you.'' The only people fighting that I can see really are the people on the far left. They had their day. They had their day. In the 1960s they promoted the Great Society, the concept that the Federal Government could solve the woes of America, and that was an experiment that failed. We now, being the beautiful country that we are, get up off the ground and dust ourselves off. The people sent some of us here to try to fix this, and it is not easy. The Founding Fathers never wanted it to be easy. They created such a complex system of government, with separation of powers between the executive and legislative branch, they even cut the legislative branch in half so we have got another body over here to deal with, and it is very complicated to change. But I can assure people that the process has begun. This big ship of state that was going so much in the wrong direction slowly over time has begun to turn. If we move that big ship of state one degree back in the right direction, over time you totally alter the destination. That is what is happening in this budget agreement. I was cautiously optimistic all along, wondering if we could make it real, if it would survive, if either side would diminish or bail out of the agreement. I did not want to get too excited about it until I knew more of the details. This week I worked with the leadership on an issue called enforcement provisions. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] and the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and I have been in and out the leadership rooms. This week with all of the leaders of the majority side and the leadership of the blue dog Democrats on the minority side to try to bring a freestanding bill, which they have agreed to do in the month of July, to this floor and, if it passes, to roll it into the reconciliation bill and make it a part of this agreement to make sure that, if the projections in this agreement do not go as well as we hope they will, the assumptions do not live up to their expectation, that there are some floats built in so that we stay on track, so that we actually follow through on this agreement, unlike Gramm-Rudman and previous budget agreements that the Congress did not stick with or stick to, that we will actually do that. Why? Because we, as a country, are on that bridge between skepticism and cynicism, and we cannot lose that next generation. We cannot lose them. We have got to have them. We have challenges. We need them engaged. We need them to be hopeful and optimistic. The whole idea is that through this process we can abandon some of the notions of the past that Federal Government is a cure-all for America and move more in the direction of responsibility, individual responsibility, corporate responsibility. We are first responsible for ourselves, then our immediate family, then our community, our citizens at large. The Federal Government should be one of the last places that we go. But for years and even decades in a row, the Federal Government was the first place people wanted to go, and the Founding Fathers never intended that. Actually, the $5.3 trillion debt is evidence of that tendency for years to go to the Federal Government first to try to solve the problems of America. I want to commend our class's colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], who has come up with a very responsible plan to not just balance the budget and to potentially balance the budget ahead of our schedule, 2002, even earlier, right at the turn of the century, but also to pay off the debt. Because balancing the budget is one thing, and we should all support a reasonable plan to balance the budget while protecting legitimate priorities, and we have come together on that in an unprecedented and, I think, a historic way. But then what about the debt? What about that? Let us go ahead and address that while we are getting the American people fired up about their country again and with a renewed optimism, and then say what do we do to get out of debt. We have a plan. I am sure the gentleman is a cosponsor, I am a cosponsor of the Neumann plan to pay this debt off by the year 2026. I believe we can do it. It is a patriotic challenge of our generation. The economy is good; basically, the world is at peace. We have a few conflicts. America has survived. Let me tell my colleague, this is where we, our generation, should accept this as our challenge, because thank God we are not at war and we do not have the challenges that our parents and our grandparents had to go through so that we could be here today, and we should be grateful for that, but we should not coast. We should not rest. We should not take it easy, and we should not be hopeless. We should stand up to the challenge and face this as a national imperative to get our country back out of debt and be on solid ground. Why? Because the debt is as much as our defense budget. The interest on the debt every year is as much as we pay for national defense, or as much as we pay for Medicare. Those dollars do not feed children, they do not house the homeless, they do not do one bit of good for anyone. They are wasted dollars. If we could reverse that tendency, every dollar we save could go for a productive cause. We have to invest the scarce dollars that the Federal Government collects from its people, and they are too high. The amount of money we are spending on the Federal level is too high. We have to restore more accountability. Steps are being made; more progress can be made.

Mr. WAMP. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, under this agreement, which I now believe at some point will be signed into law and enacted and the people will actually receive this tax relief, 767,000 children in the State of Tennessee alone will qualify so that their parents receive a $500 tax credit in the coming year. That is incredible, just to think about 767,000 just in the State of Tennessee. There was a lot of debate on the floor today about who is wealthy and who is not wealthy. Working families in this country, just because you have a job and own a home, a lot of the definition we heard today, if you own your own home you were classified by their definition today as wealthy. I hope you do own your own home, regardless of what it is worth. Home ownership is a great thing in this country, something that should be held up for hope and for opportunity as a goal that people should have. I do not care if that single mom I was talking about earlier is making $18,000 a year or $30,000 a year, but if she has children 16 years old or under she needs that relief right now. That is going to help her, and I think it is going to stimulate our economy. Then the other two areas of tax relief that I really believe in that are part of this agreement is increasing the level of death tax on families for assets. In my part of the world in Tennessee, many parts of my district are rural, where families own a farm. That farm has risen in value. It is called inflation that brought it up. They did not pay that much for it, but they have had it for a long time. They did not pay that much for it. They did not have that much to pay, but maybe they got it from their parents, and now the farm is worth more than $600,000, so if their parents die they would have to sell the farm, many of them, in order to pay the taxes, sell the family farm. That is unfair. This is an unfair tax. We should continue to lift that exemption as high as we can take it. Then the capital gains tax is being reduced, the rate, and it is an unfair tax, too, because it is another tax on inflation. Other industrialized countries that we compete with in a global economy do not even have a capital gains tax rate, like Japan and Germany. We need to not tax inflation. We need to have incentives for people to save and invest that stimulates the economy. We have an argument in this country over supply-side economics or not, but the fact is tax relief in the right way stimulates the economy and generates more revenue than it ever costs on the budget side. I really believe this is a step in the right direction. I appreciate the gentleman's time tonight. I have enjoyed our colloquy. I hope the American people maybe better understand what we are trying to accomplish in good faith in this city at this critical moment in our great country's history. I hope the gentleman has a grand Fourth of July back in Minnesota.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, and I have enjoyed this discussion immensely. I think it is a worthy effort that we have engaged here in Washington.

Mr. WAMP. Medicare, even though it was demagogued, they called it medagoguery in the last election cycle; it is hemorrhaging, losing millions of dollars every day until we fix it. In order to fix it, we have to rein it in. In order to get that accomplished, we have to say, Mr. President, what does it take to get your agreement? We would not have had the agreement. Frankly, it is not an ideal situation. The ideology cannot win the day. There is a pragmatism that has to set in. In this country today we have this mixed government. We are not going to have another election to change that, so what can we do in the meantime to try to reach some common ground? Move the country forward, engage in the politics of unification again, because our country has so many problems, I am afraid if we do not work together in this city and across this land.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say this again. Sometimes back home I get in trouble for being too honest, brutally honest at times about what really the situation is here in Washington as I explain it to people and do radio talk shows or town meetings or whatever. If we are talking about the deficit for this coming fiscal year, which is fiscal year 1998, and as the gentleman has pointed out, it is $49 billion less than our plan when the Congress came in and passed the 7- year balanced budget plan, the deficit for fiscal year 1998, according to our glidepath that we originally passed, was going to be $139 billion, and now this new plan, as agreed upon by the President, has a $90 billion budget deficit and we discussed the fact that it is up from last year, part of that, though, and in all fairness and in brutal candor to the American people, which I believe that they now expect and deserve, is that the President in this agreement wanted to increase some discretionary spending in the short run over what he calls his priorities. Again, this is a system that has worked very well for over 200 years in this country. It includes an executive branch with veto power. We have to have a supermajority, a two-thirds vote of both bodies to override his veto. This Congress does not have that. If we want to see progress made at the end of the day, there has to be some compromise on both sides. I want the folks back home, some of my wonderful, hardcore conservative friends who say we should not have been increasing domestic spending in the short run in order to get this agreement, in an ideal world I agree, but for 3\1/2\ years politically we do not have an ideal world. We have a split government with an executive branch from one party and a legislative branch solidly from the other party. Where we can, we are going to need to work together. I think the American people last year said, you all let the temperature down just a bit. The 104th Congress was a little too partisan. Try to work together. Do not engage in shallow, divisive rhetoric, because at the end of the day, in my opinion, there are only two kinds of politicians, only two kinds of leaders, those that unite and those that divide. The politics of division is not good for America. It has been very popular in recent years. They even have phrases called wedge issues. By definition that is an issue that will split people into two parts, and then you can pander to one part because the wedge issue divided that group of people. The politics of division has now risen to prominence in America. I think that is part of the cynicism, is they do not like attack politics. They do not like the politics of division. There are leaders who have succeeded by bringing people together. The politics of unity. Alex Haley, a wonderful Tennesseean, used to say, find the good and praise it. We need to find what it is we can agree on and come together on that, and set aside for the purpose of that discussion and for the moment our differences, and certainly not allow the politics of division to win the day. That is not an exclusive propensity for either side of the aisle. I believe neither party has an exclusive on integrity and ideas, and frankly, I believe there are Members of both parties in Washington and across the country that engage too much in the politics of division and not near enough in the politics of unity. We need more leaders in this country that will say, OK, what can we agree on? Where can we meet in the middle? Instead of saying, well, you just cannot trust the President, I think we should say, if the President is willing to meet us close to the middle, what can we agree with? So the deficit does right there tick up in the short run, but we get real entitlement reform to save Medicare, keep it solvent, because it is hemorrhaging.

Mr. WAMP. That is right. If we started prospectively, I am told the budget would be balanced in 2 years. So things are going in the right direction. I believe that the markets are a reflection today of the renewed confidence that things are changing in Washington.

Mr. WAMP. Well, we also talked about the economy. I think it is important to look at what the economy may do in the short run. I am convinced that it will be a real shot in the arm to an economy that is already performing well if we follow through on tax relief. I believe when people look back and say well, how did this economic trend continue for this long, frankly, I think one of the reasons is because the American people sent this new Congress here and they actually saw us reducing spending. Now, as the gentleman knows, I serve on the Committee on Appropriations, and just this week we marked up, we wrote the legislation, for the legislative appropriations bill. Now, there are 13 appropriations bills that have to be passed out to fund the discretionary portion of the Federal Government. It is an interesting trend what has happened since 1965, but in 1965, the Congress actually appropriated about two-thirds of the money, and a third of the money was entitlements, automatic spending. Well, that has just about reversed from 1965 to 1996, last year, where it is just the opposite. Entitlements and interest have two- thirds, and we only appropriate about one-third. Of that one-third that we appropriate, as you well know, about half of it is defense, and the other half is all the other nondefense discretionary bills put together. So here we are making these reductions in this small portion of the Federal budget, but we have shown Wall Street, we have shown the American people, that we are willing to reduce spending for the first time in 26 years. The legislative branch, which we voted on this week, actually is experiencing a freeze after in the last 2 years a slight reduction actually, in actual dollars, not indexed for inflation, but in actual dollars, and previously we had reduced that legislative budget so much, first saying let us clean up our own House, let us start here in the Congress itself, reduce the staff, reduce the committees, reduce the legislative budget. We did that. As a matter of fact, if all of the other appropriations bills were treated the same as the legislative appropriations bill, I was told this week the budget would be balanced in 2 years.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. I hope that after I speak for a moment about taxes and I yield back the time, that you might recognize the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] who has to recognize a patriot. He was not here earlier and, rather than his waiting for an entire hour, if there is any way that we could allow some time to be yielded to him, I would appreciate that. But while we are on this track about taxes, I was also born in the 1950s. I think today is a day that we should stop, the gentleman from Minnesota discussed what life was like in the 1950s, and just reflect a little bit about the growth of the Federal Government and what has happened. Because I think it is worthwhile to look back. In 1957, when I was born, my parents paid less than 10 percent of every dollar they made in combined taxes, local, State and Federal put together. The Federal tax rate was only a third of that, but they only paid a dime out of every dollar. We now know that in today's world, that figure is approximately half. As a matter of fact, Tax Freedom Day is going to take place next week, on Thursday, July 3. That is incredible because July 4, the following day, is Independence Day. And this year independence from the government is actually the day before we celebrate as a Nation that great day each year, Independence Day, because it is going to be July 3 this year before the average American has actually worked long enough to pay all of the taxes that they owe plus the cost of regulation. It is now more than half of every dollar they make. Let me say this, because I have got a son Westin and a daughter Coty, and I do not want them to work until October to pay the government and then keep what is left. We know the stress that this problem has placed on American families because let me tell you, the level of taxation is directly tied to how much quality time you have in your family. You talked about the stress that has caused most families to have two wage earners. Mom and dad are both working. My mother did not work. Thankfully, she did not have to. She spent more time with us. Now moms and dads are both having to work. We also know the family is splitting up and actually single moms I think have it worst of all. And do you know, we need to focus on this issue. While we are talking about taxes, and we have been debating the level of tax relief, but the fact is there are very few people left now in Washington that will actually argue on behalf of not giving some of the American people their money back, because we had the large tax increase in 1993. I think we ought to reflect not on just what has happened in the last 2\1/2\ years but what has happened in the last 4\1/2\ years. The President of the United States, in his first 2 years, went out of bounds. He went too far to the left. Largest tax increase in history, turning health care over to the Federal Government. The country said, whoa, we did not elect you President to do that. This President is a savvy politician so he moved back to the middle, moved back towards the middle, was reelected, moving rapidly back towards the middle. Now he is in agreement that we need to balance the budget within 5 years, reform Medicare, regardless of what was said during the last year's campaign. Now there is bipartisan agreement that we have to do what is right for Medicare to keep it solvent for our senior citizens who so much rely on it and give some tax relief back to the American people, to stimulate the economy and to give that working mother who right now is about hopeless, if she has two children, she is going to get $1,000 back. How important is that for the lady who busts her tail to try to keep her head above water? It is very difficult for a working single mother to take care of her family, go to work, maybe work two jobs, some people working three jobs, just to get by, very little hope. Hope is where it is at. That is what is wrong with so many of our children. They do not have hope. And they are growing cynical. We cannot let our country cross the bridge from skepticism, which they are supposed to be somewhat skeptical of the government. Our Fathers thought that was healthy. But cynicism is disconnecting. No hope. What will I do? Why should I try? We want to give them some hope and reverse the tide, go back the other way, give them a third of that tax increase of 1993, which caused a political change in Washington, give them a third of that tax increase back. And that is what the Congress did today. It is not completely through, but today was a step in the right direction. I want to yield back to the gentleman, but I want to continue this dialogue about where we are on the size of government, the accountability of the government, and why this is real progress. Albeit, not perfect, but it is real progress.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I commend all that have been involved in a very bipartisan way, and just for the people whom I think we so adequately represent here in this body across the country that are wondering maybe what this is all about, this is a group of a few Members on both sides of the aisle that have gotten together and said that the discipline needs to be integrated into this budget agreement. There is a panacea out there that this is a great thing, and I think it has the potential of being a great thing if we follow through on it, and if we do not allow certain predictions that are part of our assessment today that might not come true to blow the thing apart later on. That is what this is about, enforcement provisions. Frankly, neither party has an exclusive on ideas or integrity, and much of this comes from the Blue Dog Coalition on the other side and very accurately, they have assessed that we need some discipline written into this agreement, and many on our side, led by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] and the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and myself, have agreed to this, and now our leadership is accommodating our request that we have an opportunity to bring to this floor the details of how we need to enforce this provision as we go forward. I think that is important for the people to know, and people who have suspicion about this budget agreement can know that we are working to improve it before we finally report it out. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I want to open with some kudos to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. There is always one warrior that is out there with faith when there is little hope; and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], our distinguished Committee on the Budget chairman, was that individual. He stayed with this and persevered months and even years to bring us to this point. What is this about? It is about the average American wanting Washington, D.C. to balance its checkbook the way they have to balance their checkbooks or be penalized the way they are penalized. But as with many other things in this city, potentially the devil is in the details. I am going to vote for this budget resolution, but I share the concerns of the coalition Blue Dog Democrats about potentially the details of this agreement. They are called enforcement provisions. They are simply the teeth in the agreement, when we finish this work weeks from now, that allows us to follow through on the commitments that we make today and tomorrow. Back home on the Tennessee River we have a lock at the Chickamauga dam in Chattanooga. As the water rises before boats pass through that dam, there is a floating mechanism on the lock itself and, as the water rises, the lock rises and it floats up and down. That would be the enforcement provisions. To give Members an analogy of an agreement such as this, so that if the assumptions, the projections, the revenues that we are basing this long-range forecast on hold up, we are okay. But it would actually be a floating provision. We heard earlier today that there is a $26 billion savings from spectrum sales. Frankly, I think that is overstated. If in fact the spectrum sales do not generate 26 billion, where are those dollars going to come from in order to keep us on the glide path to a balanced Federal budget? Well, the enforcement provisions would be details as to exactly what would give or have to give in the agreement in order for the deficit not to rise. That is what we are here in a bipartisan way to support today, is the basic provisions that allows this agreement to succeed over time, not just today, not just this summer but 2 years from now, 4 years from now, 5 years from now. Some Republicans want to make sure that tax cuts are not given up, and we understand that. The Democrats have heartburn every time we talk about capping entitlements, but the fact is this agreement has to have the flexibility based on revenue projections and the economy to have this float built in. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too, unless you are willing to have the discipline to exercise every day. Then maybe you can have your cake and eat it, too. So we are going to have our cake and eat it, too, but we need enforcement provision, which is that daily regimen of exercise necessary to burn those calories if you want to have your cake and eat it, too. Mr. Chairman, this is good for America. It is a good agreement if we make sure between now and the end of June we put enforcement provisions in the agreement.