Zach Wamp

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a few moments to acknowledge Don Fontana, an outstanding leader in the mental health community from the Third District of Tennessee. Don recently retired as chief executive officer of Volunteer Behavioral Health Care System. His contributions to this organization and to the community and State, are many. I'd like to highlight just a fraction of Don's accomplishments. It was with great vision as the CEO of Johnson Mental Health Center, that Don saw the future and the necessity for community mental health centers to meet the challenges of managed care. Under Don's leadership, several community mental health centers joined together and the Volunteer Behavioral Health Care System was created. Today, the center consists of Johnson Mental Health Center, Hiwassee Mental Health Center, and Plateau Mental Health System. Don has served not once, but twice as the president of the Tennessee Association of Mental Health Organizations, as well as a task force member for Children's Services. He has extended behavioral health care services to 27 counties within Tennessee. In addition, one of the most notable contributions he has made is the establishment of safe, supervised housing for severely mentally ill adults where 75 of our community members live. Mr. Fontana's commitment to affordable mental health services for those who could not otherwise afford them has made him a giant in the mental health community. His extraordinary service and commitment of 19 years will be missed, but because of his leadership and guidance the programs he has established in our community will continue. Personally, I worked with Don years ago as a volunteer member of the advisory board of the Joe Johnson Mental Health Center. I know first hand of his true commitment to those in need. I am proud to have the opportunity to publicly acknowledge Don Fontana's fine service in the mental health field and wish him well in the future.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, how do you follow that? Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise today to commend and salute one man in Chattanooga, TN, who is making a huge difference in the life of children. His name is Chris Allen. He is a reporter with WDEF Channel 12 in Chattanooga, but he is being recognized this month by the President of the United States as one of 28 citationists of over 3,600 nominated from the Points of Light Foundation. Chris, several years ago, was on a routine mission studying the inner city schools in Chattanooga and found that the library books were not on the shelves, that the materials were not in the classrooms, and he began an organization that has now helped over 11,000 children and raised over $500,000 to help the inner city schools in Chattanooga, TN. Chris Allen deserves this recognition. He deserves for the House of Representatives today to recognize him, which I do at this time. We commend you, Chris Allen. One man can make a difference.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I have to say in opening I am from Chattanooga, TN, home of the Cinderella team this year in the Sweet 16, the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, the Moccasins; the Mockingbirds, excuse me. We have changed our name. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, the businessman from Texas, Mr. Ross Perot, who sometimes I agree with, sometimes I may not, but he said that we have good people in Washington trapped in a bad system. I certainly believe that there are good people serving in the U.S. Congress but the system of campaign reform, which has not changed since 1974, needs to be changed. There is no perfect bill, there is no silver bullet, there is no magic solution. It is very complex, but it is a bipartisan problem. This week the Democrats may be in more trouble on this issue than the Republicans, but who is to say that the system may not swing the other way. I really believe neither party has an exclusive on integrity or an exclusive on ideas. This is a problem that both parties share. Some basic principles we should agree on and change is that a majority of our money in campaigns should come from our home States; that the influence of special interest political action committees should be reduced; that we should ban soft money, corporate contributions to the political parties that are funneled back into media advertising should be eliminated; and that we should somehow work to reduce the overall money spent on political campaigns in America. I think we can agree on those basic principles. Conflict, Mr. Speaker, brings about resolution, and we have a conflict in this country. Yes, every day there is new revelations, but it is time to use these conflicts to bring about change. There is no perfect solution, but we must agree on some basic principles, come together in a bipartisan way. I do not agree with everything in the bipartisan campaign bill but I believe we can change it and improve it as we go. The issue is, will we defend the status quo again this year in this body, or will we come together and change this system for the first time in 23 years? The status quo obviously is not serving us well in campaign laws. Reform is in order. If Members have ideas, if they have disagreements, come to the reform movement. Do not fight it or look the other way or make excuses to get by any longer.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I had to get up and pipe in here if I could, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding, because many people have asked me about these years in the 1980's. I am a freshman Member of this body. I have participated in the first Congress in 26 years that actually voted to cut spending. Not a single Congress for 26 straight years actually voted to cut spending. People ask me, how did this happen in the 1980's, if Reagan's tax policies actually worked? And you are, right here, right now, showing us exactly how that happened. Frankly, I believe that if this Congress, the one we have now that has cut spending for the first time in 26 years, would have been the Congress under Ronald Reagan, the growth here, coupled with the spending cuts, would have achieved a balanced budget, because the two coming together is what you do. You cannot have spending rising above income. Income was going up. Spending was going up even higher. A lot of Members were getting reelected by giving away the ranch, so to speak, and continuing to do that. And we have just now accepted our fate as a nation and come to these tough votes to reduce spending for the first time. The country does have a choice this fall. We cannot have President Reagan and this Congress, but we can have the next best thing. That is somebody who believes in Reagan's growth policies, tax policies, and this Congress. And what you will see, I believe firmly in my soul, is growth and spending reductions and the most responsible coming together of those two forces in our budget process, and achieve a balanced budget and help all families create more wealth and keep more of their take-home pay, as we make progress towards a balanced budget.

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

Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding. You have given a great historical perspective of how we got into this dilemma and what forces are necessary to pull us out of this dilemma with our debt and this issue of taxes. I think it is very important. We need tax reform. We need tax relief and tax reform, I think, at the same time. I grew up as a member of the Democratic Party. Ronald Reagan and his tenure is what brought me to the Republican Party on some simple principles of exactly how large the Federal Government was going to be in our lives, exactly how intrusive. I remember he said at one time, I do not think it was an original quote, but he said a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. And I just wonder how far we are going to go down this road toward big government and more and more of our resources and our rights taken from the big central government. Our Founding Fathers, I am sure, are rolling over in their graves, but it is this principle. I am not a partisan person, really becoming less and less partisan the longer I am involved in public policy. I think, though, that there are some stark differences between the Democratic agenda in 1996 and the Republican agenda. One of them is a very simply issue of whether or not we are going to stand on the side of the American taxpayers, that they are already overtaxed. Let me give you a historical perspective. We all know that the average family now, the mother and the father are both having to work. That is happening because one of them is working for the government and the other one is working for the family. And we know that is not right. And just in my lifetime, this has happened. This has not been going on for a long time. In 1957, when I was born, my father paid less than 10 percent of every dollar that he made to the government combined. State, Federal, and local governments combined was 10 cents of the dollar, about what you are supposed to tithe in church. the Federal tax rate was between 3 and 4 percent. The whole thing was less than 10 percent. Today, one generation later, that figure is roughly half of every dollar an American makes goes to the government. My son is 9 years old. Then he is my age, just going through one more generation. That figure is going to be about 84, 85 percent of every dollar he makes. Let me tell you, we cannot sustain our freedom going in this direction. I have been to fundraisers. I have heard wealthier people say, we do not need tax relief. It is okay, just hold the line. Well, those wealthy people may not need tax relief. It is the people in the middle and at the bottom who need tax relief the most, and they are the ones that are having a hard time keeping their heads above water. I constantly think of single moms who are working to get their kids ready for school during the morning and they are going to work, and they have no hope of ever getting ahead. They are barely keeping their heads above water, day in, day out. I think of parents, both working, and they just have a little hope anymore in our society, knowing that as the government grows they are going to have to take an extra job. Many two-parent families are working multiple jobs because the government is taking a larger and larger chunk of our resources. So this issue, fundamental issue, as we make measurable progress toward a balanced budget and our President continues to say, and this is one thing we agree on, we have got the lowest budget deficit in 15 years because this Congress cut spending for the first time in 26 years, and because the economy, albeit 2-percent growth versus 3- percent growth, has grown somewhat, we have this low budget deficit. Is it reasonable and logical to give the American people some of their money back as we make real and measurable progress toward a balanced budget, give them some tax relief and tax reform, simplify the system and at the same time give them some of their money back? Yes, it is reasonable and logical. Why? Because we are at 50 percent, and we are climbing, of every dollar we make. Our Founding Fathers warned us that the big central government could get bigger than the people that are supposed to control it. We have already passed that day in America. We need to go back slightly, ever so slightly, and give them some tax relief. I am not going to endorse any plan. I am not going to endorse President Clinton's plan. I will not unilaterally endorse Mr. Dole's plan. I am going to endorse the notion of giving the American people some of their hard-earned money back and try to give it to everybody. The Kemp Commission made some excellent recommendations about how to create growth and opportunity by using our Tax Code. We ought to go to that Kemp Commission recommendation. We talked about what hourly workers make in this country just a few months ago in this body. But we talked about what 2 percent of the workers make, and that is minimum wage. We did not talk about what the other 98 percent of workers make. The other 98 percent of workers should have a pay increase now. We should do that by making that Social Security tax, that FICA tax deducted from their paycheck, fully deductible, so we are not taxing the tax, and putting money back in the pocket of every working American. That is a recommendation of the Kemp Commission, which worked for months to establish pro-growth policies, and there is tax relief that can return more money to the Federal Government. A capital gains tax is a tax on inflation. It is an unfair tax to begin with. And if you reduce the rate, it is a pro-growth policy. When we reduced the capital gains tax rate in this country previously, the history shows the revenues for capital gains increased each and every year to the Federal Government. We return more revenues. There are people out here pent up with assets, many of them poor to middle income, not rich, not wealthy, regular folk that are waiting to sell some stock that they may have inherited because the appreciation, the inflation that has set in made that asset worth so much. Why should we as a Nation tax inflation? Inflation on other things with Federal Government, we actually index them and compensate people for inflation. But with an investment we actually tax the investment. No wonder we do not have enough savings and investment in this country like they do in other industrialized countries. Japan and Germany, they know not to overtax investment and savings. We need a pro-growth policy. We need some tax relief to be done in a reasonable way. This Congress, early next year, is going to address this issue, I am quite confident. There is a big difference between the two parties on this issue of how much of your money you get to keep every time you get paid. We want you to keep more of your money and we are willing to make those tough votes to shrink the Government so you can keep more of our money. It is a defining issue, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the people in this country will wake up to these issues and realize there is a big difference and our future is at stake, because I want my son to keep more than 15 cents of every dollar he makes when he gets my age. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, tonight I want to make reference to four retiring Members, and there are many great Members from both parties that are retiring, but four that have particularly meant a lot to me: Sonny Montgomery of Mississippi, a Democrat, Tom Bevill of Alabama, a Democrat; John Myers of Indiana, a Republican; and Jimmy Quillen from Tennessee, a Republican. All four of these men have meant so much to this institution and this Nation, but so much to me personally, and it is two Democrats and two Republicans that I got to know extremely well that are all wonderful human beings and they will be sorely missed. And we do have an extraordinarily high amount of senior Members retiring that need proper tribute during these final days of the 104th Congress, the final legislative days of the 104th Congress. Madam Speaker, as you know, there are 435 men and women in this institution, but there are very few of those human beings that are actually institutions themselves. Jimmy Quillen is an institution. Many, many years ago the love affair of east Tennesseans began with Jimmy Quillen. I believe that love affair developed because Jimmy Quillen was willing to do whatever it took to please those people in the First Congressional District of Tennessee where he is such an institution. I think if they called and said their cat was in a tree, that usually is reserved for the fire department, but Congressman Quillen's staff, I am sure, would make sure that those people got their cat out of the tree. It does not matter how small the request or how large the challenge, Jimmy Quillen would get it done. He was a doer, a man of action his entire career here in this institution and we are going to sorely miss that. You know, I was about as scared when I first met him as Dorothy was in the Wizard of Oz before she met the Wizard of Oz. It is that kind of awe and reverence in the State of Tennessee in which Congressman Quillen has held for many, many years, and I was scared of him but I got to know the man behind the institution and I have found him to be a very funny, warm, compassionate human being with an incredible memory. Even though he is 80 years old he does not forget a thing. Sometimes I wished he would. He remembers all those stupid things that I have said in my brief career, and some of those things that I wished I had not said he does not let me forget. We have a standing joke in east Tennessee that he treats Congressman Duncan like his son and he treats me like his stepson but I will take that. Madam Speaker, Jimmy Quillen is a great human being, and he really is like a father to me, and I just cherish the moments that I have spent with him here. I know for a fact because the man gets up and walks and stays healthy; he walks at 5:45, 6 o'clock in the morning and his chief of staff, Frances Light, is also an institution here. She has been with him basically the whole time. And Frances deserves a lot of tribute here tonight as well. As we pay tribute to this brilliant career of this man, we better remember that staff, especially Frances, who has meant so much to that office. You know, it is the constituent service that built that institution called James H. Quillen in east Tennessee, and it was her effectiveness day in and day out that made that office second to none, world class congressional office in terms of efficiency and effectiveness and reaching the people's needs of east Tennessee. He gets up and walks and stays healthy so I know he is going to live a bunch more years and I will get to enjoy a lot more time with him. I tell you, Madam Speaker, I love Jimmy Quillen and I really appreciate that my life has been blessed by knowing him personally over these last few years and hope that we have many together. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the safe drinking water conference report. Mr. Speaker, as vice chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I know that among the most important items we have considered in this 104th Congress is the Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization. This has already been an active week, and we have seen just how productive our majority can be when we work with our colleagues across the aisle to do the Nation's business, the people's business, on behalf of all those who sent us here. If we are to see progress in our environmental laws to give us cleaner, safer, healthier water, we must work in a timely and bipartisan manner. That is what we have done, with the help of some dedicated staff from both our committees and the other body. I have been especially interested in the area of providing safe drinking water supplies to communities in need. While we have debated some important national policy items this year in both Chambers, and I'm sure we will again in the remaining days of the 104th Congress, nothing we do is more important to the individuals residing in districts across this country than ensuring their ability to drink clean, pure, safe water. As I hear from the people in my district so often, this is ``where the rubber meets the road'' on our national water policy. One last note about meeting our most pressing local needs: in communities where there is no reliable supply of water--either due to contamination of their wells from natural causes or human activity or because of other circumstances beyond local residents' control--our constituents don't think that getting help hooking up to a nearby public water system is anything more than fulfilling our responsibility to provide for their health and safety. Every community with needs like that should have a chance to look for help from this bill, and priority should be given to those in the most urgent state of need. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Chairman Shuster and Chairman Bliley, and my other fellow conferees, I appreciate being given the opportunity to work with you and everyone on this conference committee to lend a hand to shaping this legislation. East Tennessee--and particularly Chattanooga--has a reputation for being pro-active in finding solutions to our environmental problems and working together as a community to promote sound, scientific research in many areas, but especially in the area of water. I've pledged to the people I represent to make water quality a top priority while I'm in Congress, and participating in this conference has been a great help to me in understanding these complex issues even better.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the work Chairman Shuster and Chairman Boehlert, and Transportation Committee Ranking Members Oberstar and Borski have put into this bill, in a bipartisan manner, and for the excellent support the staff has given us on this bill. Their expertise on the vital issues contained in this bill is something of which the citizens of this country should be proud, and this story of how Congress helps better the lives of every American is too often untold. I'm proud of the work we're doing here. As I recently expressed to the majority leader, it is important that we deliver on promises to our districts in ways that our constituents tell me are most vital to their everyday health and safety. Poll after poll tells us that these bread-and-butter issues are far more important to average Americans than broad, theoretical policy objectives. This bill accomplishes just that. WRDA will benefit many of our communities. My district has several pressing needs in flood control, stream bank protection, inland waterway navigation, basic infrastructure, and environmental protection. The fundamental mission of the Corps of Engineers is widely recognized in east Tennessee. Fulifilment of our commitments to these communities, which are faced with both safety and economic concerns, can happen if H.R. 3592 gets passed into law swiftly. Unlike the fate of the WRDA bill from the last Congress, I believe that this work will get done. The other body is poised and ready, and today, we take another huge step forward. I expect that these vital issues will not get bogged down in Presidential politics or die in conference. Ironically, these are issues in which the other body has taken the lead and House action will bring us tangible results. Mr. Speaker, I encourage our colleagues not to shrink from this task at hand because some may call this bill pork. Our process here has revolved around sound science and engineering, authorizing those projects that fit criteria and pass muster from the Corps of Engineers. My father served in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--wore castles on his lapels--and I know the quality of the work done through their civilian works program. This bill is about responsibly authorizing needed works in a cost- effective manner, not simply allowing Congress to appropriate money without due process. In some cases, this bill will authorize projects at dollar amounts below original estimates because we worked with the involved parties to find better solutions than the most expensive plans out there. We increase local responsibility and expect the Federal Government to be responsive to local needs. One final note, Mr. Speaker, You will notice that while the Corps of Engineers is very active in Tennessee, in my home State, and the six other Southeastern States served by the Tennessee Valley Authority, which also falls under the jurisdiction of this committee, we have many ongoing projects and needs that are not mentioned in this bill. That is because TVA, in its ongoing mission and existing authorization, carries out projects every year that have to compete for those same scarce appropriations dollars coming out of the energy and water bill. We all know what a squeeze is on for these dollars this year and the situation may bet worse before it gets better, as we balance the Federal budget. I want to remind our colleagues that although you will see no TVA project mentioned in H.R. 3592, the Tennessee Valley region still has needs that TVA is expected to meet in the coming years. Because TVA has ongoing authority, I hope that this committee, the Appropriations Committee, and the Congress will not prejudice any TVA project that meets the same criteria as these projects listed in this bill when it comes time to funding just because it is not listed in this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the work you, Chairman Boehlert and ranking Members Oberstar and Borski have put into this bill, in a bipartisan manner, and for the excellent support the staff has given us during the hearing process and drafting of this bill. The expertise within this committee on the vital issues contained in this bill is something of which the citizens of this country should be proud, and this story of how Congress helps better the lives of every American is too often untold. I'm proud of the work we're doing here, and it's one of the reasons I asked to serve on this committee and under your leadership, Chairman Shuster. As I recently expressed to our House majority leader, it is important that we deliver on promises to our districts in ways that our constituents tell me are most vital to their everyday health and safety. Poll after poll tells us that these bread-and-butter issues are far more important to average Americans than broad, theoretical policy objectives. This bill accomplishes just that. WRDA will benefit many of our communities. My district has several pressing needs in flood control, stream bank protection, inland waterway navigation, basic infrastructure, and environmental protection. The fundamental mission of the Corps of Engineers is widely recognized in east Tennessee. Fulfillment of our commitments to these communities, which are faced with both safety and economic concerns, can happen if H.R. 3592 gets passed into law, and I hope that this bill will not suffer the same fate of the WRDA bill from the last Congress. Today, we take another huge step forward. I hope these vital issues do not get bogged down in Presidential politics or die in conference. Ironically, these are issues in which the Senate has taken the lead and House action will bring us tangible results. Mr. Speaker, I encourage our colleagues not to shrink from this task at hand because some may call this bill pork. Our process here has revolved around sound science and engineering, authorizing those projects that fit criteria and pass muster from the Corps of Engineers. My father served in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--wore castles on his lapels--and I know the quality of the work done through their civilian works program. This bill is about responsibly authorizing needed works in a cost- effective manner, not simply allowing Congress to appropriate money without due process. In some cases, this bill will authorize projects at dollar amounts below original estimates because we worked with the involved parties to find better solutions than the most expensive plans out there. We increase local responsibility and expect the Federal Government to be responsive to local needs. One final note, Mr. Speaker. You will notice that while the Corps of Engineers is very active in Tennessee, in my home State, and the six other Southeastern States served by the Tennessee Valley Authority, which also falls under the jurisdiction of this committee, we have many ongoing projects and needs that are not mentioned in this bill. That is because TVA, in its ongoing mission and existing authorization, carries out projects every year that have to compete for those same scarce appropriations dollars coming out of the energy and water bill. We all know what a squeeze is on for these dollars this year and the situation may get worse before it gets better, as we balance the Federal budget. I want to remind our colleagues that although you will see no TVA project mentioned in H.R. 3592, the Tennessee Valley region still has needs that TVA is expected to meet in the coming years. Because TVA has ongoing authority, I hope that this committee, the Appropriations Committee, and the Congress will not prejudice any TVA project that meets the same criteria as these projects listed in this bill when it comes time to funding just because it is not listed in this bill.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and all those involved from both sides of the aisle on a job well done. As the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, I strongly encourage our colleagues to support the Water Resources Development Act and remind our colleagues that behind the national defense of our country, as our ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] so eloquently reminds us on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, this was the second function of the Federal Government, to meet the basic infrastructure needs of a thankful nation. The natural disasters that we have, flooding, bank stabilization along our riverways and waterways. Very essential function of our Federal Government. Many of these needs are met by the Army Corps of Engineers. Ladies and gentlemen, my father wore the castles of the Army Corps of Engineers on his lapels. They do good work and we are grateful for their service. The Water Resources Development Act meets real needs in real people's lives all across the country. Earlier this year I held a field hearing in northeastern Oklahoma, where Kansas and Oklahoma and Missouri all meet. This bill meets real needs in that part of the world, in my part of the world, in the Southeastern United States. This is one of those critical functions that we are here to deliver to the people and they are waiting for this bill. Many people. Let us come together today with an overwhelming show of support. This bill will save money. I encourage my colleagues to have an impact on the people that we are elected to represent. Vote yes enthusiastically for WRDA.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlemen from Wisconsin to eliminate funding for the Department of Energy's [DOE] Advanced Light Water Reactor [ALWR] program. The fiscal year 1997 House energy and water development appropriations bill provides $17 million for this program, which will conclude the Federal Government's participation in the development of the ALWR. This program is a joint DOE-nuclear industry program with the industry contributing more than 50 percent in matching funds. Although I opposed funding for the ALWR last year, it has become apparent to me that this program represents our Nation's last hope of building the most technologically advanced nuclear reactors. More importantly, I have learned that termination costs built into the contract create a potential liability far exceeding the $17 million provided for in this appropriations bill. Therefore, it will be more expensive to terminate this project under the Obey amendment than to let the authorization expire. It should also be noted that the Federal Government will receive royalties from the sale of these newly designed reactors. It is well known that our Nation's growing dependence on imported oil--particularly from the Middle East--poses a serious threat to our national security. I firmly believe we must maintain a strong Federal commitment to researching alternative fuel sources. As the world becomes more dangerous and less stable, it is all the more important that we reduce our dependence on foreign sources of fuel to meet our energy needs. Mr. Chairman, for these reasons and others I have decided to cast my vote against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the Obey amendment.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, but more importantly for his leadership on this issue. As a member of the Speaker's task force on reform, I have worked with many others tirelessly on this effort for many months. But Chairman Thomas has been working on this effort for many years. Unlike other senior Members, some other senior Members of this body, he has pursued reform on campaign finance for year after year, and I commend him for this responsibility and balanced approach. Mr. Chairman, I am 1 of only 22 Members of this body that refuses to accept any PAC money, so I really come to this argument with a desire to eliminate political action committees. As a matter of fact, I testified last week before the Committee on Rules and asked for an amendment that would ban political action committee contributions and force the Supreme Court through expedited review to go ahead now and determine should we ban political action committees or can we constitutionally do so and, if we cannot, then let us set a new limit, but let us go ahead and have the Supreme Court determine as soon as possible. Obviously, that is not going to be done. That is my preference. But I am a reformer, one who refuses to accept the money, and I will tell you that this bill is reform. It is a step in the right direction. It is certainly not totally comprehensive, it is not perfect. Frankly, no bill that I have seen in the last 2 years is perfect, but this is a step in the right direction because it cuts PAC's, special interest political action committee contributions in half. That is a step in the right direction: disconnecting so much of their influence. It requires a majority of a Member's money to come from individuals in their home district. Another great step in the right direction. Why? Because some Members take the majority of their money from people outside their district. Some stay here in Washington and raise all their money and do not count on the folks back home to tell them what to do and then follow their instructions. It also leaves the individual limit. The bill that is on the floor today, not a bill that was floating around before, the bill this majority has brought to the floor leaves the individual limit at a thousand dollars, but it indexes it into the future because it is set for 22 years at $1,000. The cost of money has changed in the last 22 years, so it should be indexed into the future, not retroactively. This bill indexes it prospectively. It is a commnsense solution, and it is real reform. Every Member of this body should support this reasonable approach that took many months and a roller coaster ride to arrive at. I want to say this in closing, Mr. Chairman. The gauntlet should go down today. This issue must be addressed early in 1997 by the next Congress, regardless of this fall's elections. For the good of this country, do not put this issue off until the second year in the 105th Congress. Do not put this issue off until late in a cycle. Address it early, address it in a bipartisan way. We have to do it, and we need to send more Members to this institution that will say no to political action committees from both parties. Let us address this in a bipartisan way.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, cutting PAC's, political action committees, contributions from $5,000 to $4,000 simply is not enough. Let us cut them in half to $2,500. That is one basic difference. We have seen an exhibition on partisanship and demagoguery. For the gentleman from Texas or New Jersey to tell me that this proposal is a sham is offensive. Listen to me. I am one of 22 Members, as is our chairman, that does not accept PAC money. We are the ones you should listen to. A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. This is a small step, but it is a step in the right direction. This bill is late. I wish we would have been addressing this bill last year. We tried to push it. It took too long. The bill is late, but it is not a dollar short. This bill is real reform. It moves us in the right direction. We have got to cut PAC's in half and listen to the folks who have the guts not to accept the PAC money, not the people with a million bucks in the bank that take all the PAC money they can get. Listen to us, the people who make the phone calls to individuals in our district to raise our money. The pure people say, pass this bill.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I want to leave the time to close to the distinguished TVA Caucus chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen]. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the Academy Awards could be given out here tonight. TVA's budget is about $5.5 billion. One fifty-first of that budget comes from the Federal Government. The rest of it is ratepayer income. It is one of the biggest power companies in the country. We cannot take the budget from the power side and compare it to the nonpower side. They are phasing out the economic development budget; not phasing it out, they are moving it over 3 years from the nonpower program, which we subsidize, over to the power program. If we add up the ARC money, the EDA money, and the TVA money our region gets, we are still way behind the rest of the country. That is what we have to point out. The entire Appalachian region, gentlemen, has been impoverished since the Great Depression, and we are still behind the rest of the country. There is a legitimate reason for some of this funding. You cannot just wipe it all out at one time. We are downsizing TVA efficiently, effectively. We took a cut last year. We are taking another cut this year. But you cannot just wipe it all out.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Madam Chairman, one of the most wonderful lessons for the young people of this country is that great things can be done in our society when it does not matter who gets the credit. The Republicans should be commended for taking Medicaid off of their welfare bill because the President, our President, came here in January and asked us for a clean welfare bill and said he would sign it into law. We should not worry if he gets the credit for doing that. This is the clean bill that he asked for; it is. We disconnected Medicaid so he would sign it, not so he would veto it. We should pass it today and give him this clean bill. It does not matter if he gets the credit. The Democrats should not care if the Republicans get the credit, because it is these children that are trapped in dependency and poverty that are going to get the benefit and the reward. We are doing the people's business. We should support the conference report when it comes back, and we should support the President so he can sign this bill into law and do the people's business.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. I want to just speak a moment to the separation of policy versus politics in this debate, because we know it is sound policy to address the welfare system in this country, replacing welfare with a working populous of able-bodied people. But there is also a political equation here. There has been for many months. We know that welfare reform has been passed twice by this Congress and vetoed both times. But our President, Bill Clinton, came into these chambers and delivered the State of the Union address in January, and he challenged us to send a clean welfare reform bill back to him. There were some politics associated with whether or not he might sign it, take the credit and all of that. I want to say that as a freshman Member of this body, many of us have been very unfortunately blamed for some of the misfires of the last few months. We have been called unreasonable, radical, extremist. We, many of us, went to the leadership of our side, our party, Members like the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] myself, and said let us disconnect Medicaid, health care for the poor, from welfare and do what the President asked us to do and send a clean welfare reform bill, and as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] articulated, the President is expected to sign this bill because we are sending him substantive welfare reform, effective and efficient welfare reform, but we are sending him the clean bill that he asked for. We did make that decision on this side of the aisle to disconnect the two so that he could not say I do not want Medicaid attached to this. This comprehensive bill provides the job training, the child care, the career education, those components that we all believe should accompany a comprehensive welfare reform bill. This is going to be one of the greatest successes of this Congress. Yes, he will get credit, but we will get credit. We are doing the people's business.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I am probably a minority within this body, not just because I am a freshman, but because I did not come to Washington with wealth or money, to speak of. I had a good job. I have a nice home. I have a loving wife and two small children. I have a lot to be grateful for. But I came here not to represent Wall Street, but to work real hard for Main Street. I came here to look after the underdog, the little guy, the working folks in this country that right now I think are having a hard time. I am not talking about people on minimum wage. That is 3 percent of the work force. That is people at a starting level, just coming into the work force. I am talking specifically about the other 97 percent of the work force that are making more than minimum wage. They are also having a very difficult time today. The gentlewoman from Washington talked about the special interest groups, Mr. Speaker, the PAC money, the influence these lobbyists actually have in Washington now. I am one of the very few Members of this body who do not take any of their money. I listen to the folks back in Polk County and Meigs County and small counties in east Tennessee. They are the ones that sent me here. They are the ones I take my campaign contributions from. They are the ones I listen to. I listen to small business people real close to the ground, and I think they are having a difficult time. They are overtaxed, they are overlitigated, they are overregulated. I think of small business people like my father, who in the 1950's paid less than 10 percent of every dollar he made to the Government, total: Federal Government, State government, local government combined, less than 10 cents of every dollar. Today that obligation in this country is about half of every dollar a man or woman makes goes to the Government. It is climbing to where, when my children are my age, it is going to be more than 80 cents of every dollar. How much can we pay as a free nation and a free people in taxes? We are overlitigated: too many lawsuits in America. We need lawyers in America, but we do not need this many lawsuits. We do not need so many lawsuits. We need tort reform, clean up the legal system, make it quicker and cleaner if you have a dispute. Frankly, we have too many lawyers in this body. We have 148 lawyers in Congress. No wonder the laws that are passed here help lawyers make money. We have too many lawyers in Congress. We are overregulated. Frankly, a lot of our businesses are moving overseas because our regulations are extreme. Because of the new Congress, EPA and OSHA are making some reforms and going in the right direction. There has been a lot of screaming and yelling since we got here, this new Congress, but the fact is those agencies that have been screaming and yelling are actually making the reforms that we have advocated. But the average person is losing ground. Economic insecurity I think is setting in. I think of single parents, single moms who are getting up in the morning and getting their kids ready, sending them off to day care, sending them off to school and going to work, humping it, working hard, trying to make ends meet, just to keep their head above water, not to get ahead, just to get by. I think of parents like myself with small children who are having a tough go of it, people in their thirties who are accumulating debt that frankly they do not know how they are going to pay. I think of people in their forties and fifties with strained family budgets right now, having a difficult time getting by. Our senior citizens are worried right now that politicians are not going to do the right thing to preserve and protect Medicare. They are worried up here that they are not going to keep it intact, and we are trying to do that, and I think they are beginning to see through the smoke and mirrors of the people who are opposing the necessary changes to Medicare. I look around the world, Mr. Speaker, and I see nationalism growing in other countries. We see Israel. In elections there, nationalism wins. We look at the Soviet Union, nationalism is on the rise. What about our country? Where is our nationalism? Where is our sense of country, our patriotism today? Mr. Speaker, I am for free trade, but by George, we need fair trade, not just free trade. We are losing our manufacturing base in the United States of America, and we are not willing to stop and say that we need to renegotiate NAFTA. We need to stop. It is not working. It is costing us farming jobs, it is costing us manufacturing jobs in appliance manufacturing. Our textile industry is moving overseas. The gentlewoman talks about China. Most-favored-nation status should not be given to China. They are actually taking our intellectual property. They are pirating our goods. We have got to look at our country and look after what is best for America. I come from the Teddy Roosevelt-Abraham Lincoln school of Republicanism, where we have to preserve American jobs first. If this country is going to be the world leader that it has to be as the only superpower in the entire world, we have to rebuild America and put America first.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, of course we should all come together tonight and unanimously condemn these outrageous acts. But I want to come tonight from a little bit different perspective because, Mr. Speaker, long before I was a Member of this body, I was a member of a much greater body, and long after I am a Member of this body, I am going to continue to be a member of a much greater and everlasting body. I hope that our gentleman from North Carolina is right that some good can come out of this, and I hope to my core that this serves as a wakeup call to the church, to all churches everywhere, that this could be an opportunity for the church to do its work, to build the kingdom of God; that our brothers and sisters in the predominantly white churches would come out of their churches between now and Sunday and between now and next Wednesday and offer to rebuild these churches; that this would be an opportunity for the kingdom of God to come alive here, that some good could come out, that our brothers and sisters all across the land would offer their support. I hear today that the Southern Baptist Convention took a step, but many more need to be taken to have some good come from this, that the kingdom would be lifted up, that we would go out as churches and offer to rebuild these churches, and that good would actually rise out of these ashes. The most important word in the world today, that is needed so desperately in this country, is reconciliation. This is an opportunity for reconciliation. This is an opportunity for white folks to say, ``We love you, black brothers and sisters, and we want to help you, and we hurt for you.'' Please country, come together. Mr. Speaker, I call on people of faith all across America to get out of your church, take your resources. If ever there was a mission project for churches and religious institutions all across the United States of America, this is the mission project that could heal our land. Let us reconcile as a Nation, Mr. Speaker, through this one action, and have some good rise from these horrific acts.

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that at the full committee level I was on record, and I think our chairman will remember, stating that I wanted to address this on the House floor and I would be looking actively for an offset so that we could do the responsible thing. But I specifically stated at the markup I wanted this addressed and detailed what I wanted addressed on the House floor. So it was not like it mysteriously appeared, Mr. Brown, and in all fairness Mr. Cramer and I think it worked in about the most bipartisan way here. Let us not bring partisanship into this issue of NEXRAD radar system, please. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, as we move into this title, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, my amendment would add $20.5 million to the National Weather Service budget. Specifically, it increases the local warnings and forecast budget by $5 million. It increases the computer facility upgrades budget by $4 million. It increases the advanced weather interactive processing system budget by $11.5 million, for a total of $20.5 million. The entire increase is offset by a reduction of $20.5 million in the polar convergent satellite program, which is a cost-shared program with the Defense Department. Since the defense authorization bill recently passed by this body only authorized $19 million for this program, yet the Committee on Science's mark still continued $39.5 million, we are reducing that amount to offset this increase, so that this increase is fully accounted for by spending reductions in other areas. Why would we do this? The importance of the National Weather Service's modernization effort. We know great work has been accomplished through the Department of Commerce upgrading our National Weather Service system, implementing the NEXRAD radar system, in next generation radar nationwide. Many outstanding Members of this body, like my friend, the gentleman from Huntsville, AL [Mr. Cramer], have been very active in this effort. We are installing new, more powerful Doppler radars and state-of-the- art satellite across the Nation. However, there are some areas that have been identified as being deficient, where the service is degraded because of soft spots in the system, and the Department of Commerce actually recognized that three of those areas exist in southeast Tennessee and northeast Alabama, one area, actually two congressional districts, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Cramer's, and mine, but one area; plus Indiana and Arkansas. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] and the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] are affected as well, and we have Doppler radar needs that the Department of Commerce has certified to build these radars in our region, because the radars that are part of the NEXRAD system are too far from our area and are too high up in the air to cover the storms that blow through our region. Specifically, this last weekend, again, tornadoes touched down in Bradley County, TN that were not detected from Morristown, TN because the radar is too high, so new Dopplers that are programmed in the system for these three areas have been approved and certified by the Department of Commerce. Mr. Chairman, one of the best nonpartisan things we do here is the health and safety of the citizens of this country, and local weather forecasting is as close to the ground as it gets. It is important that we come together in a bipartisan way. I did not just want to increase spending, so we offset it. We worked with the chairman of the Committee on Science. We hope that the committee, the full committee here will support this reasonable increase in funding, since it is offset with another program that obviously does not need the money, based on our latest defense authorization bill. amendment offered by mr. brown of california as a substitute for the amendment offered by mr. wamp

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. WAMP

Mr. WAMP. Amen.

Mr. WAMP. Amazingly, as a freshman, it shocked me when I got here how from the day you are here as a new Member they separate you, Republicans over here, Democrats over here. Republicans get this training, Democrats get this training. The freshman class did not even meet as a freshman class. It was the Republicans over here the Democrats over here. And so the only way to build bridges is one on one, interactively. We even sit over here, they sit over there. Mr. Speaker, I mean, that is amazing to me because, as Billy said, we all had to fight the same fight to get here, and we all represent the same number of people or thereabouts, and so I think you have to. I am in a weekly small group, bipartisan, Democrats and Republicans. We meet every week to just walk through the problems with our lives here and to hold each other accountable while we are separated from our families, while we are here. It is a great thing, and it is bipartisan. Some of my greatest relationships here: Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania and Bart Stupak of Michigan, are Democrats, are in my small group. Some of my greatest relationships now have been built with my friends from the other side of the aisle. I think these small group efforts sometimes, if you exercise, you need to physically keep your body alive, you develop relationships exercising with friends from the other party. You mentioned the prayer breakfast. There are some retreats that are now planned in a bipartisan way so that people can build relationships because, once you build a relationship with somebody, you are not going to trash that person's ideas or ideology.