Chip Pickering

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, many rural and inner city areas of the United States lack proper veterinary care in their communities. As a result, the health of both animals and humans in these areas is at risk. In many cases, veterinarians, upon graduating from a school of veterinary medicine, opt to practice in a prosperous urban setting which provides the highest opportunity for income. This leaves many rural and inner-city regions lacking proper veterinary care. Rural areas in the United States are going through a unique transformation. These smalltown, agrarian communities are literally drying up. These areas can't afford to provide veterinarians the same levels of income as a more prosperous urban area. Therefore, these areas are forced to go without a practicing veterinarian in the area. Not only do families need pet health care in these areas, but farmers and ranchers are forced to conduct their operations without an agricultural veterinarian in the area resulting in the poor health of livestock and humans as well as loss of income to the farmer or rancher. In the same respect, poor, inner-city areas need additional veterinarians as well. These areas are hotbeds for dangerous diseases carried by animals which can then be spread to susceptible children. In response to this disparity, I am introducing the Veterinary Health Enhancement Act for Under-served Areas. Under this proposal, veterinary students will be provided debt relief for their veterinary school loans which often run higher than $120,000. This is a voluntary federal program in which the state school of veterinary medicine may choose to participate. Students may receive this assistance only if they agree to practice in an under-served area as mentioned above. The result of having veterinarians practicing in under-served rural and inner-city areas will help improve animal health, will ensure that the risk of disease transfer from animals to humans is minimal, and will lower the health risks especially to children who are more susceptible to these animal health risks. This is a non-controversial bill which will provide welcome veterinary care to inner city and rural areas. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill on behalf of their communities.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following two articles for the Congressional Record and recommend that all members read and consider them when looking at the issue of AmeriCorps. These articles were brought to my attention by former Pennsylvania Senator Harris Wofford, and I hope that members find them helpful when considering reauthorization of AmeriCorps. [From The Hill, June 21, 2000] Why I Changed My Mind About AmeriCorps (By Dan Coats, former Republican Senator from Rhode Island) When I was in the Senate, I did not support the legislation that created AmeriCorps because of my fundamental belief in private voluntary service and my skepticism about government- based solutions. I thought that government-supported volunteers would undermine the spirit of voluntary service and that new federal resources might subvert the mission and the independence of the civic sector. My faith in the civic sector has not diminished one bit; in fact, it is stronger today than ever before. However, I have changed my mind about AmeriCorps. Instead of distorting the mission of the civic sector, AmeriCorps has proved to be a source of new power and energy for nonprofit organizations across the country. My changed view about AmeriCorps is in no small measure because of the leadership that Harris Wofford, my Democratic former Senate colleague from Pennsylvania, has given to that program. Wofford and I did not vote on the same side very often in the Senate, and we still differ on many issues. But his leadership of AmeriCorps has convinced me that I should have voted with him on this issue. First, thanks to Wofford's steadfast commitment to place national service above partisanship, AmeriCorps has not become the political program that some of us initially feared. Second, he shares my belief that the solutions to some of our most intractable problems lie in the civic sector. Accordingly, he has set AmeriCorps to the work of supporting, not supplanting, the civic sector. I have seen firsthand how AmeriCorps members have provided a jolt of new energy to the civic sector from my experience as president of Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. As Millard Fuller, founder of Habitat for Humanity and another former skeptic of government-supported volunteers, also discovered, the leadership provided by full-time AmeriCorps members is a key addition for nonprofit and faith based organizations that are tackling the most difficult community and human problems. AmeriCorps members, through their idealism, enthusiasm and can-do spirit, have multiplied the impact of organizations like Big Brothers Big Sisters and Habitat, and hundreds of other organizations large and small. The number of Republicans who have changed their mind about AmeriCorps continues to grow. In the last years, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) and Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio) have spoken out about the positive role AmeriCorps plays in strengthening the civic sector. Together, we join a growing bipartisan list of present and former federal and state legislators, governors and civic leaders in support of AmeriCorps. Their support is part of a quiet, yet remarkable, transformation in American politics that has occurred since the white-hot debate that took place a few years ago between those who believed that government should take the lead in solving community problems and those who thought government could accomplish little or nothing, and was even likely to be a negative force. Now, as evidenced by both major party presidential candidates and by growing bipartisan support in Congress, a new middle ground has emerged, leading to a unique partnership between AmeriCorps, the nonprofit organizations and private and religious institutions that are critical to strengthening our communities. It is these institutions that transmit values between generations that encourage cooperation between citizens, and make our communities stronger. In a recent speech to the nation's governors, retired Gen. Colin Powell declared himself ``a strong supporter of AmeriCorps.'' After spending two years working with the organization Powell concluded, ``[W]hat they do in terms of leveraging other individuals to volunteer is really incredible. So it is a tremendous investment in young people, a tremendous investment in the future. . . .'' Later this month, a bipartisan coalition in the Senate will introduce legislation to reauthorize AmeriCorps and its parent agency, the Corporation for National Service. I hope that Congress will move quickly to enact this legislation so that AmeriCorps can continue to work with the nonprofit and faith-based sectors to strengthen our communities and build a better future for us all. [From The NonProfitTimes, March 2000] Two Presidents: A Shared Legacy (By Harris Wofford, CEO, Corporation for National Service and Bob Goodwin, President, Points of Light Foundation) Most people would not think that Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton have that much in common. But, Presidents Bush and Clinton share an important legacy. By making citizen service a central idea of their presidencies, these two presidents have fundamentally changed the land-scape of the civic sector by moving citizen service from the margins to the center of the public agenda. It wasn't always this way. In 1988, President Bush called for a ``thousand points of light'' in his inaugural address and thereafter created the Points of Light Foundation. President Bush recently told us that he never imagined the Points of Light would be viewed as a Republican venture. Nonetheless, Democrats were dubious and sometimes belittled it as an inadequate substitute for government action. Today, much of that skepticism has passed. With bipartisan support, the Points of Light Foundation was included as part of the National Service Act of 1993 and receives regular funding through the Corporation for National Service. The foundation's network of hundreds of volunteer centers, often part of the United Way, is thriving--helping to connect local residents with opportunities to serve. And two years, President Clinton joined with President Bush to resume the Daily Points of Light Award. Simiarly, President Clinton's special contribution to citizen service--AmeriCorps--faced still opposition from some Republican skeptics. After the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, there were recurring threats to eliminate AmeriCorps. But President Clinton was steadfast, governors and mayors, Republicans and Democrats, and local and national nonprofits and faith-based organizations rallied in support, and the critics have been quieted. By a large majority, including many Republicans, the Senate has voted for two years in a row to continued support for AmeriCorps. Republican Sen. Kit Bond stated, ``The battle over whether we ought to have an AmeriCorps program or not is over. It has been decided.'' And Colin Powell has said, ``It is a tremendous investment in young people, a tremendous investment in the future, and I am a strong supporter of AmeriCorps.'' Today, the partisan bickering around service and volunteering has almost disappeared. The call for citizen service is a major theme of presidential candidates of both parties. Al Gore, George W. Bush, John McCain and Bill Bradley all have spoken powerfully on the need for citizen service and the role that nonprofits and faith-based organizations can play in solving community problems and uniting us as a nation. While the political winds have been shifting, two great streams of civilian service--community volunteering and intensive national service--have become partners in communities across the country. These collaborations work because the Points of Light and AmeriCorps are founded on the same fundamental belief: through service we can bring people together to solve the problems that still plague our country. Their operating principle is to provide resources--usually people power--to thousands of nonprofits, with government playing the role of junior partner, supporting the work of these organizations, not guiding it. Three years ago the Points of Light Foundation and the Corporation for National Service cemented and elevated their partnership when Presidents Bush and Clinton came together to convene the Presidents' Summit for America's Future in Philadelphia. They enlisted Colin Powell to chair the Summit and to lead the continuing campaign for America's Promise. Powell's mandate is to rally the forces of all the great institutions in this country, businesses, the nonprofit sector, governments at all levels, and committed individuals, traditional volunteers and those in full-time service, to make a concerted effort to assure the conditions for success for all young Americans. In coming weeks this partnership between the Corporation for National Service and the Points of Light Foundation will be demonstrated again as a bipartisan coalition in the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate introduces legislation reauthorization the Corporation and its three main programs--AmeriCorps, the Senior Corps, and student service learning. This legislation will extend the life of the Corporation and support for the Points of Light Foundation into the next Administration. Presidents Bush and Clinton pressed--and are still pressing--an idea and an ideal. Together they have raised a standard to which, as George Washington said at the Constitutional Convention, ``the wise and the honest may repair.'' This is a legacy of which they can jointly and justly be proud. By passing this legislation, Congress will honor and share in this important bipartisan and nonpartisan legacy.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed the following Rollcall Votes. (1) Rollcall Vote Number 320, H.R. 4690. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. (2) Rollcall Vote Number 321, H.R. 4690. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to bring attention to a problem faced by livestock and food animal producers, animal and pet owners, zoo and wildlife biologists, and the animals themselves, which unfortunately goes largely unnoticed except by those who are directly affected. There currently exists a severe shortage of approved animal drugs for use in minor animal species. These minor animal species include animals other than cattle, horses, chickens, turkeys, dogs, and cats. In addition, there also exists a similar shortage of drugs and medicines for major animal species for diseases that occur infrequently or which occur in limited geographic areas. Due to the lack of availability of these minor use drugs, millions of animals go either untreated or treatment is delayed. This results not only in unnecessary animal physical and human emotional suffering but may threaten human health as well. Because of limited market opportunity, low profit margins involved, and enormous capital investment required, it is generally not economically feasible for drug manufacturers to pursue research and development and then approval for drugs used in treating minor species and infrequent conditions and diseases. In addition to the animals themselves, without access to these necessary minor use drugs, farmers and ranchers also suffer. An unhealthy animal that is left untreated can spread disease throughout an entire stock of its fellow specie causing severe economic hardship to struggling ranchers and farmers. For example, Mr. Speaker, sheep ranchers lost nearly $45 million worth of livestock alone in 1999. The sheep industry estimates that if it had access to effective and necessary drugs, growers' reproduction costs for their animals would be cut by up to 15%. In addition, feedlot deaths would be reduced to 1-2% adding approximately $8 million of revenue to the industry. The catfish industry, a top agriculture industry in my home state of Mississippi generating enormous economic opportunity in the State, especially in the impoverished Mississippi Delta, estimates its losses at $60 million per year attributable to diseases for which drugs are not available. The U.S. aquaculture industry overall, including food as well as ornamental fish, produces and raises over 800 different species. Unfortunately, this industry has only 5 drugs approved for use in treating aquaculture diseases resulting in tremendous economic hardship and animal suffering. Mr. Speaker, joined with my colleagues Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Combest of Texas, Mr. Stenholm of Texas, and Mr. Pombo of California, I resolve to correct this unfortunate situation by introducing the Minor Animal Species Health and Welfare Act of 2000. This legislation will allow pharmaceutical companies the opportunity to develop and approve minor use drugs which are vitally needed by a plethora of animal industries. Our legislation incorporates the major proposals of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine to increase the availability of drugs for minor animal species and rare diseases in all animals. The Animal Drug Availability Act of 1996 required the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to provide Congress with a report, describing administrative and legislative proposals to improve and enhance the animal drug approval process for minor uses and minor species of new animal drugs. This report by FDA, delivered to Congress in December 1998, laid out nine proposals. Eight of FDA's proposals required statutory changes. The bill my colleagues and I introduce today reflects the changes called for in FDA's minor species/minor use report. The Act creates incentives for animal drug manufacturers to invest in product development and obtain FDA marketing approvals. Furthermore, it creates a program very similar to the successful Human Orphan Drug Program that has, over the past 20 years, dramatically increased the availability of drugs to treat rare human diseases. Mr. Speaker, besides providing benefits to livestock producers and animal owners, this measure will develop incentives and sanctioning programs for the pharmaceutical industry while maintaining and ensuring public health. The Minor Animal Species Health and Welfare Act is supported by the Food and Drug Administration, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Animal Health Institute, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and virtually every organization representing all genres of minor animal species. Mr. Speaker, this is vital legislation which is needed now. This Act will alleviate much animal suffering, it will promote the health of minor animal species while protecting and promoting human health, it will benefit pets and promote the emotional security of their owners, benefit various endangered species of aquatic animals, and will reduce economic risks and hardships to farmers and ranchers. This is common-sense legislation which will benefit millions of Americans from farmers and ranchers to pet owners. I call on all my colleagues in this House to support the Minor Animal Species Health and Welfare Act of 2000.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support and as a proud sponsor of this legislation. This is a critically important debate, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) indicated. Whereas, usually we try to find common ground on the Committee on Commerce, and I have with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on many occasions found that common ground, but today we are debating something that gives us a fundamental disagreement or provides a fundamental disagreement. The gentleman from Massachusetts said the wall could be or will be or is being broken that separates church and State. He is correct. But it is not the breaking from the religious, but it is the heavy hand of government coming crashing down on that wall saying this is acceptable or this is unacceptable speech. It is the hand of the government coming in to regulate and to control and to set up a police of our speech, of our religious freedom and expression. It is a very critical issue. Are we going to maintain the current tradition of our religious liberties and expression? Make no mistake, this is not about changing our current practice at the FCC. This is about something that the FCC did that changed, fundamentally changed, and set a new course and a new policy for how religious broadcastings and noncommercial licenses would be regulated, the guidelines for that. Let me read, this is from the FCC, ``This is unacceptable speech: Programming primarily devoted to religious exploitation, proselytizing, or statements or personally held religious views and beliefs.'' They went on to say, ``church services would not qualify.'' So if Martin Luther King were alive today, and he were giving a speech or a sermon at a church, that would not be educational. It would not be cultural. It would provide no instructional benefit to any communities. That is the FCC's view. So if one is Catholic or one is Protestant or African American or serving a rural community or urban, and it is a church service where one has moral instruction, one has cultural benefit, where one has teachings of educational importance, under the FCC's view, no value. This is what the debate is about. Do we value the voice of the religious in the public square, or do we ban, do we exclude, or do we shovel them aside? Does it have value in our culture? Should they be in our public square? Let me read a quote that I think captures this debate. ``Americans feel that, instead of celebrating their love for God in public, they are being forced to hide their faith behind closed doors. That is wrong. Americans should never have to hide their faith. But some Americans have been denied the right to express their religion, and that has to stop. It is crucial that government does not dictate or demand specific religious views. But equally crucial that government does not prevent the expression of specific religious views.'' The person who said those words was Bill Clinton at an address at James Madison High School in Vienna, Virginia. He was talking about this issue, does the religious voice have a place in our public square? He was making the case that it does. What is more public than our public spectrum, our licenses that the FCC gives, the greatest way to communicate on a broad basis. What does this legislation do and what does it not do? Now, if one was listening to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) one would think that no religious institution has had one of these noncommercial educational licenses in the past, that they were reserved solely and strictly for educational institutions, for the CPB or the public stations. The reality is that we have had a tradition and a precedent and a practice of religious broadcasters holding these licenses. What we are doing is not changing current practice, current precedent. We are simply trying to prevent and prohibit the FCC from going down a dangerous path of regulating religious speech, religious expression. We have to do it because the FCC has tried to deem itself the holy trinity of the Constitution. They woke up one day and said, we can decide the establishment clause without a public comment or a public process, we can set a legislative policy that is reserved for this branch, not the executive branch. So they have decided that they are both the court, the Congress, the executive branch in one, and they try to do something that is fundamentally unfair in a closed process that fundamentally challenged our core beliefs of religious freedom and religious expression. What we are saying in this legislation today is not only, must one do everything in a public process, in a public fashion, in an open fashion, there will be no dark of nights but we are not going to allow one to undo the fundamental premises of our founding. We will not allow one to come in and regulate and control the religious speech and the religious beliefs of our people of this great Nation. What is at stake? Do we honor our heritage? Do we say that government has the right to discriminate against religion and control religious speech? Should it be free of government regulation? Is the religious voice valuable in the public square? Is there a place for the religious voice? With this debate, with these votes, we shall say that we will not have government intervention, interference, and regulation of the religious beliefs and religious views. We will find a value for the religious voice in the public square. We will protect that. We will not let the heavy hand of government come crashing down on the wall that separates and protects our people from an intrusive government. I ask my colleagues to continue to vote in support of what we are trying to do today.

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, again I rise, this time in opposition to the Markey amendment. Let me do two or three things: One, establish what the real agenda is in this case; establish the record; and then talk a little bit from personal experience. One, what is the agenda? What happened in the case that was decided in December, the license in Pittsburgh? After the guidelines came out, the Pittsburgh station, the religious broadcaster withdrew its application because it did not want to submit itself to the FCC guidelines. The real agenda here is to banish, to remove, to exclude, the religious voice, the religious broadcasters, from non-commercial licenses, educational licenses. The gentleman from Massachusetts has been very clear. He sees this as public, as educational, not as religious. They have plenty of commercial space, but they should not be on the public and the educational. He does not see them as performing an educational role, a cultural role or instructional role. The agenda is clear: Banish the religious voice from the non-commercial spectrum. If there is a public park, do not let the religious children play. Make them go to the commercial strip mall, and that is the only place we will let them play. But not in the public park. There is no place for the religious voice in our park. Now, we are all somewhat motivated and guided by our own personal experiences. I think many on the other side look at the religious discrimination and religious bigotry and religious bias that has occurred in our history and they see the religious practices as dangerous devices. I have to admit I come to this floor with great concern and disappointment in my heart. I have great respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Michigan, but what has taken place today on this floor is that they try to take the worst examples, the David Koreshes, the Jim Joneses, and they demonize and they isolate and they marginalize the religious voice. They take the whole group of religious broadcasters, and there are over 800 non-commercial religious broadcasters today on radio, and there is not one case, not one case that they can cite of any extreme, hate or group that has not behaved responsibly in performing their public interest, their community service, their educational, their cultural, their instructional roles and responsibilities in the community. Not one example. In the Supreme Court case, Peyote, the Supreme Court said there is no government obligation to protect those who incite hate or who incite violence. So if there is a David Koresh or if there is a Jim Jones who wants this license, they will not be protected under Supreme Court precedent and under the language of our legislation. Look at the report language: ``. . . that the organization determines serves an educational, instructional, cultural or religious purpose in the station's community of license.'' The new section also mandates that such determination by the broadcaster may not be arbitrary or unreasonable. If it is a hate-based, extreme group, they will be viewed as unreasonable and arbitrary. They will not be able to maintain their license if they are those types of groups. But by tainting those who are responsibly serving their community now, I think it is frankly wrong, and it is doing exactly what those on the other side hate. They are demonizing, they are marginalizing, they are isolating, which then leads to discrimination. The religious voice in the public square or in the public park is good for our country. It has been that way from our beginning, it is that way today, and we simply want to protect and preserve that and prohibit the FCC from coming in and regulating and controlling and stifling religious expression. The gentleman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from California say that the Markey amendment will simply return us to the past precedent, the past practice. That is not the case. It will return us to the FCC guidelines issued in December, which they both said was wrong, which led to a regulatory regime of a speech police at the FCC, determining what is and what is not acceptable or unacceptable religious speech, what is educational in their eyes. I urge all of my colleagues, let us not divide, let us not demonize; let us protect our fundamental history and legacy of religious liberty. There are those that are now performing vital roles in their communities. Let us not prevent them from doing so in the future.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, my heart is heavy and saddened today at the passing of Mrs. Josephine Barnett Lackey, affectionately known as ``Miss Jo'', who passed away unexpectedly on Sunday, May 14, 2000, at the St. Thomas Hospital in Nashville, TN, after suffering cardiac arrest. ``Miss Jo'', a constituent of mine from Forest, Mississippi, was the wife of Jimmy Lackey, owner of Lackey Home Center in Forest, and one of the more prominent Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders, and Exhibitors in our state. Her death was untimely, and has certainly shocked and devastated the Forest community. ``Miss Jo'' grew up in the Standing Pine community in Leake County, and graduated from Walnut Grove High School. She graduated from Delta State University with a degree in Elementary Education in the spring of 1950, and shortly thereafter moved to Forest where she taught in the Forest school system. She and Mr. Lackey were married in 1953, and on July 12, 2000, they would have celebrated their 47th wedding anniversary. For more than 50 years, she was a resident of Forest. ``Miss Jo'' delighted in meeting, greeting and helping people. That was her hallmark. That is why the Gift and Bridal Registry Shop she operated in the Lackey Home Center was such a fascination and delight to her. She loved being with people, and offering suggestions that would make their life happier and enjoyable. Sid Salter, editor- publisher of the Scott County Times, summed it up real well when he said in his May 17, 2000, editorial, Josephine Lackey, ``there are few homes in Forest that don't have a piece of fine crystal or china hand chosen by Jo Lackey as a gift. For rich and poor alike, she gave her best advice and treated every customer at Lackey Home Center as a friend.'' ``Miss Jo'' was president of the Forest Garden Club, and was a member of the Hontokalo Chapter of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. She was a member of the Forest Baptist Church and was a substitute Sunday School teacher. Her love and faith in God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, was most evident in the two scripture passages that were used by her Pastor Reverend Gordon Sansing, and her former Pastor Sonny Adkins as the text for their remarks at her funeral. These passages were: Psalms 71:17-18 ``O God, thou hast taught me from my youth; and hitherto have I declared thy wondrous works. Now that I am old and greyheaded, O God forsake me not, until I have shewed thy strength unto this generation, and thy power to every one that is to come'', and Proverbs 3:5-6 ``Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct thy paths.'' Again, quoting Sid Salter, ``Josephine Barnett Lackey was--by every rational measure of mind, body and spirit--a beautiful, elegant woman. Blessed with the beauty nature gave her as a young woman, Josephine Lackey merited the still beautiful face of a faithful wife, devoted mother and grandmother, hard-working business woman and dependable friend she had earned at the age of 70 when her great heart finally failed her. Our community is diminished by her passing and we will--with her family--sorely miss her.'' ``Miss Jo'' had a deep love for her family that included husband, Jimmy, son Jim, daughters Julie and Jenny along with their husbands, and five grandchildren. Another daughter, Joy, preceded her in death in 1996. Without a doubt, the legacy that ``Miss Jo'' would want us to remember her by is the love she had for her Lord, her Family, her Church, her Friends, her Country, her State, and by all means her love for Forest and Scott County. She was truly a dedicated Christian lady, and a great American. I extend my heartfelt sympathy to her family. Also, I want to express my appreciation, and that of all citizens of the 3rd district for her life of service, and contributions to the betterment of our world.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, my heart is heavy and saddened today at the passing of Mrs. Josephine Barnett Lackey, affectionately known as ``Miss Jo'', who passed away unexpectedly on Sunday May 14, 2000, at the St. Thomas Hospital in Nashville, TN, after suffering cardiac arrest. ``Miss Jo'', a constituent of mine from Forest, Mississippi, was the wife of Jimmy Lackey, owner of Lackey Home Center in Forest, and one of the more prominent Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders, and Exhibitors in our state. Her death was untimely, and has certainly shocked and devastated the Forest community. ``Miss Jo'' grew up in the Standing Pine community in Leake County, and graduated from Walnut Grove High School. She graduated from Delta State University with a degree in Elementary Education in the spring of 1950, and shortly thereafter moved to Forest where she taught in the Forest School System. She and Mr. Lackey were married in 1953, and on July 12, 2000, they would have celebrated their 47th wedding anniversary. For more than 50 years, she was a resident of Forest. ``Miss Jo'' delighted in meeting, greeting and helping people. That was her hallmark. That is why the Gift and Bridal Registery Shop she operated in the Lackey Home Center was such a fascination and delight to her. She loved being with people, and offering suggestions that would make their life happier and enjoyable. Sid Salter, editor- publisher of the Scott County Times, summed it up real well when he said in his May 17, 2000, editorial, Josephine Lackey, ``there are few homes in Forest that don't have a piece of fine crystal or china hand chosen by Jo Lackey as a gift. For rich and poor alike, she gave her best advice and treated every customer at Lackey Home Center as a friend.'' ``Miss Jo'' was president of the Forest Garden Club, and was a member of the Hontokalo Chapter of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. She was a member of the Forest Baptist Church and was a substitute Sunday School teacher. Her love and faith in God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, was most evident in the two scripture passages that were used by her Pastor Reverend Gordon Sansing, and her former Pastor Sonny Adkins as the text for their remarks at her funeral. The passages were: Psalms 71:17-18 ``O God, thou has taught me from my youth; and hitherto have I declared thy wondrous works. Now that I am old and greyheaded, O God forsake me not, until I have shewed thy strength unto this generation, and thy power to every one that is to come'', and Proverbs 3:5-6 ``Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct thy paths.'' Again, quoting Sid Salter, ``Josephine Barnett Lackey was--by every rational measure of mind, body and spirit--a beautiful, elegant woman. Blessed with the beauty nature gave her as a young woman, Josephine Lackey merited the still beautiful face of a faithful wife, devoted mother and grandmother, hard-working business woman and dependable friend she had earned at the age of 70 when her great heart finally failed her. Our community is diminished by her passing and we will--with her family--sorely miss her.'' ``Miss Jo'' had a deep love for her family that included husband, Jimmy, son Jim, daughters Julie and Jenny along with their husbands, and five grandchildren. Another daughter, Joy, preceded her in death in 1996. Without a doubt, the legacy that ``Miss Jo'' would want us to remember her by is the love she had for her Lord, her Family, her Church, her Friends, her Country, her State, and by all means her love for Forest and Scott County. She was truly a dedicated Christian lady, and a great American. I extend my heartfelt sympathy to her family. Also, I want to express my appreciation, and that of all citizens of the 3rd district for her life of service, and contributions to the betterment of our world.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Taylor amendment and as a cosponsor. In my great State of Mississippi, we have the legacy of leaders like Stennis and Montgomery, who have built a strong defense. We believe in a strong military in Mississippi. But more important than our leaders has been the men and women, the veterans and the retirees who have honored our country by serving it. How do we honor them? We honor our word. How do we keep recruitment and retention? We honor our word. If we say ``cost,'' they say ``commitment.'' The question is will we keep our commitment, will we find at least a part of the solution tonight? I believe the Taylor amendment does that. I ask my colleagues to support the Taylor amendment. I am pleased to join with him. I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for all of his efforts, from the pharmacy benefit to TRICARE reform to all of the things in the underlying bill that help us keep our commitment as well, but I believe the Taylor amendment is the right thing to do.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in proud support of H.Res. 491. It is a difficult challenge to follow someone like Sonny Montgomery in Congress. But I have the great privilege of today representing Congressman G.V. Sonny Montgomery. And I have the opportunity to see his mark, his legacy throughout my district. If my colleagues go through or travel through the Third District of Mississippi, they will see the G.V. Sonny Montgomery VA Hospital. If they go to the small town of Forest, Mississippi, they will see the G.V. Sonny Montgomery International Airport, or the G.V. Sonny Montgomery Industrial Park, or the National Guard complexes across the district. His name and his imprint is all over the Third District of Mississippi. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) mentioned his role as Mr. Veteran and National Guard and what he has done for the men and women in our Armed Services. His legacy is rich and it is full, and it is well-deserved. But his legacy and his story would not be complete if we did not also talk about his role, his leadership, his contribution in the congressional prayer breakfast. Every Thursday morning, it is time for Members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, from all over the country, all regions, to come together, put our differences aside, and try to unite as we call upon our Creator and as we pray for our President, our Nation, and for the men and women who serve in this body and their families. His responsibility each Thursday is to give the report on the sick and the wounded. When I was first taking office, I was going to my swearing-in ceremony, and Congressman Montgomery blessed me with his presence and his advice and counsel at that event where my family, my friends and people important to Mississippi came. He stood and he said, ``You know, I have got some bad news for you, Chip, today. I know it is a great day for you, but I have also got some bad news. After serving this district and my country for 30 years, there is not a building left on which you can put your name.'' Never did I know that we would start naming rooms in this building for him as well. I give him a hard time, that the only chance I have to name anything after me is my children. I have five boys, and that is the only hope, the only chance, that I have, because his name is throughout Mississippi and his legacy and his presence is continuously there. But I have great privilege today of being part of this event as a cosponsor of this resolution, to have a fitting tribute for his role in keeping this House together throughout his 30 years of service. Many times in great conflict and controversy it was the voice of ``Sonny'' Montgomery and the Prayer Breakfast that brought everyone together. It was his gentle but strong voice that could do so. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) were here, he would tell the story of how, as a freshman coming to Congress, and this is a Member from Pennsylvania who serves on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs today, how he was able to land a slot on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, but he wanted a particular subcommittee, and he went to then Chairman ``Sonny'' Montgomery and asked for a position on a subcommittee, a position that ``Sonny'' currently held on that subcommittee, and the only way that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) would get a slot was if someone would give their position away. It was ``Sonny'' Montgomery who sacrificed his own seat on that subcommittee so that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) could serve, and he asked one thing, one thing in return: Please come to the Prayer Breakfast every Thursday morning, and as anyone knows, every new Member and every old Member here has heard from ``Sonny'' Montgomery inviting them, inviting them again and again to come join us Thursday morning at the Prayer Breakfast. His legacy is rich, it is one that is embodied in the symbols of this chamber. If you look directly over the flag it says ``In God We Trust.'' Directly in front of me in the chamber the historical figures, the central is Moses, and above me the eagle, the symbol of our Nation, and under it, E Pluribus Unum, in many there is one. When we are united, when we have our faith and we are committed to be one, then our Nation can soar as the eagle and it can do great things for our people. ``Sonny'' Montgomery's legacy is one of doing things that not only have significance today, but have value for eternity. I am proud to say that I follow his example, and that he is the Member that I can look to, and he is the Member who well deserves this honor that we are giving him today.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3439, the bill just passed.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as cosponsor of H.R. 3308.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House until Tuesday, May 2, 2000, the Speaker and majority leader and minority leader may be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, May 3, 2000.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize and pay tribute to a remarkable man, State Representative Richard Lee ``Dick'' Livingston, who passed away on Tuesday, March 28, 2000, following a six week battle with cancer. ``Dick,'' as he was affectionately called, was a lifelong resident of Scott County, and a Democrat who served in the Mississippi Legislature for more than 29 years. He represented parts of Rankin, Scott, and Smith Counties. He followed in the footsteps of his father, the late Elwin Livingston, who also served in the Mississippi House of Representatives. ``Dick'' was a native of Morton, MS. He was a graduate of Morton High School, East Central Community College, and Millsaps College. At Morton High School and Millsaps College he was a star athlete in football and baseball. In 1998, he was named Alumnus of the Year for East Central Community College. He was a former teacher and coach in the Scott County School System and owned and operated Dick Livingston Real Estate Company. He was a member of the National Guard, the Mississippi Wildlife Federation, the Morton Lions Club, the Morton Chamber of Commerce, and the Independence United Methodist Church, where he served as Church Lay Leader, Chairman of the Administrative Board, and taught in the Adult Sunday School. In the Mississippi Legislature, ``Dick'' served as Chairman of the Game and Fish Committee, and was a member of the Appropriations Committee, the Public Buildings and Library Committee, and the Education Committee. As Chairman of the Game and Fish Committee, he strongly believed in promoting scenic streams legislation, developing a strong state park system, and providing the necessary leadership on all hunting and fishing matters. ``Dick'' was a firm believer in leading by example. He was an avid outdoors man, and in 1999, he received the Wildlife Federation's ``Conservation Legislator of the Year'' Award. ``Dick'' Livingston had a passion for God's creation, and nothing thrilled him more than being in the outdoors and enjoying the beauty of the trees, streams, and woods. He was extremely dedicated to his family, which included his wife, Martha W. Livingston, his daughters Lee Ann Palmer, Jennifer Miles, Marsha Barnes, Rori Bridges, his son David, and his grandchildren, Blake and Bethany. The legacy Richard Lee ``Dick'' Livingston leaves behind is one of service to his God, his country, his state and his community. I extend my deepest sympathy to his family, and at the same time, express my appreciation, and that of all citizens of the Third District, for his life of service to his fellow man.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and say farewell to a distinguished Air Force officer, Major General William F. Moore, upon his retirement from the Air Force after more than thirty years of commissioned service. Major General Moore has served with distinction, and it is my privilege to recognize this Meridian, Mississippi native for his many accomplishments, and to commend him for the superb service he provided to the Air Force and the Nation. Major General Moore entered the United States Air Force Academy from Meridian, Mississippi in 1965. He received his commission as a Second Lieutenant in 1969 from the U.S. Air Force Academy. Since then, Major General Moore's assignments have made untold contributions to national security. Upon his graduation, General Moore served with the Drone and Remotely Piloted Vehicles System Program Office, Aeronautical Systems Division, at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. He subsequently served in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Development Plans, Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland. In 1976, General Moore received a Master's Degree in Business Administration from the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia. General Moore's career is reflective of his commitment to our country. He served as Executive Officer with the Peacekeeper ICBM Engineering Directorate in California, and as Director of Program Control for the Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile, at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. From there General Moore made many more contributions to our national security, serving as small ICBM Deputy Program Director, Norton Air Force Base, California, and deputy director of Strategic, Special Operations Forces and Airlift Programs, at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. General Moore then served as the vice commander at San Antonio Air Logistics Center, Kelly Air Force Base, Texas. General Moore finished his illustrious career with another stay in Washington serving as the director of special programs in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology and as the deputy director of Defense Threat Reduction Agency both at the Pentagon. General Moore is a fully certified acquisition professional whose awards include two Defense Distinguished Service Medals, the Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal with service star, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and the Vietnam Service Medal. During his long and distinguished career, General Moore served the nation with excellence and distinction. He is a visionary leader, and a true warrior who profoundly impacted the United States Air Force, and made significant contributions to the strategic defense of the United States and its allies. General Moore will retire from the Air Force on May 1, 2000, after more than thirty years of exceptionally distinguished service. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I would like to recognize this Meridian, Mississippi native for his accomplishments and his service. Congratulations on the completion of a long and distinguished career.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dexter McCleon of Meridian, MS. Dexter was an integral part of the St. Louis Rams' road to victory in the 2000 Super Bowl. While at the Meridian High School, Dexter earned consensus All- American honors and was selected as the Super Prep Dixie Player of the Year. Like so many of the great athletes in Mississippi, Dexter showed athletic prowess on both the football field and the baseball diamond. He amassed over 1,500 yards passing and more than 500 yards passing while maintaining a batting average of .395 with 11 home runs and 56 runs batted in. Dexter's persistence and determination led him to the St. Louis Rams as the 40th selection of the 1997 draft. Dexter has quickly become a cornerstone of one of the NFL's most feared defensive backfields. As one of the league's great emerging cover corners, Dexter's 1999 statistics read like those of many NFL Hall of Fame inductees. Dexter's hard work and dedication to purpose reflect Mississippi's record as one of the premier proving grounds for high school athletes. By continuing this dedication and work ethic throughout his life, this young man will succeed in all of his future endeavors. I want to commend Dexter on his work as one of the emerging professional football stars from the State of Mississippi. I would also like to commend Dexter for being a worthy ambassador for our great State. It is my distinct pleasure to be able to congratulate Dexter on his Super Bowl victory.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, in December of last year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) overstepped its bounds and authority by issuing statements that if enforced, would restrict certain types of religious broadcasting. I am happy to report that the FCC reversed its decision on Friday. I applaud the decision of the FCC but am troubled that such a decision was ever made. While issuing a ruling on a routine license transfer, the FCC editorialize about new, strict standards for educational programming that could have affected many non-commercial, educational television broadcasters. The FCC stated that ``religious exhortation, proselytizing, or statements of personnally-held religious views and beliefs generally would not qualify as `general education' programming. Thus, church services generally will not qualify as `general education' under our rules.'' It is arrogance of the highest form for the FCC to attempt to determine what is--and--what is not educational. The FCC's statements amount to an unconstitutional restriction on religious speech. This type of content regulation and suppression of religious expression is not acceptable. The FCC is neither qualified nor does it have any legal authority to engage in this sort of line drawing. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. Shortly after reading the FCC's anti-religious statements, Reps. Mike Oxley, Steve Largent, Cliff Stearns and I wrote the Chairman of the FCC to remind him that the FCC is still directly responsible to Congress and that he should reverse the anti-religious statements or he could stand by and see it overturned by Congressional action. Last week, we introduced H.R. 3525--The Religious Broadcasting Freedom Act to overturn the ruling issued by the FCC and did so with over 60 cosponsors. The FCC is accountable to the Congress and I believe we have demonstrated that we will take decisive action when the FCC or any other federal agency exceeds its authority--and especially when such actions threaten our religious freedoms. The FCC's action was an unprecedented action by a government agency in an attempt to decide what is acceptable religious programming and content. The fact is, it is not the place of any government agency to determine what is acceptable religious speech because religious freedom and freedom of speech are both protected by the Constitution. I have heard from many religious broadcasters in Mississippi and across the country who expressed outrage at the FCC and their actions. I am pleased to tell them that we have stopped this un-Constitutional decision in its tracts. Yet, I urge my colleagues to remain vigilant. I assure you that if the FCC takes any actions that suggest they may attempt to pursue this action in any other format, I will fight it once again.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Wireless Telecommunications Sourcing and Privacy Act, and am pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation by several of my colleagues, including Mr. Markey, Mrs. Wilson and Mr. Largent. This legislation is about nothing other than developing a fairer and simpler way to assign a wireless call to a jurisdiction for tax purposes. Let me be crystal clear at the outset--this proposal is about how the wireless industry administers state and local taxes. It does not reduce or change the wireless industry's tax obligations. This same simplicity will also help lower the cost to states and localities of administering taxes on wireless services. And, this all comes together for the wireless consumer--greater simplicity, lower costs, and reduced chances of getting caught in a ``double-tax'' situation where two tax jurisdictions are seeking to tax the same revenue. There are some practical problems which can arise in the administration of state and local governments on wireless phone calls. For example, different jurisdictions may follow different methodologies making the determination of the correct taxation very difficult. Depending on the methodology a call could be taxed in the town or city where the customer is located; or, in the city or town where the wireless antenna is located; or, even in the city or town where the wireless switch is located. The bottom line--it's confusing, it's costly, it's a practical problem we can fix with the legislation we are introducing today. I would like to stress that this situation is born of good faith efforts of state and local governments to apply existing methods. The problem is that all existing methods do not necessarily work for wireless telecommunications and, due to that fact, sometimes different methods are applied to the same wireless call resulting in double- taxation and confusion. I would like my colleagues to know that extensive discussion of various options to solve this problem has gone on over the past few years among several state and local government organizations--including the National Governor's Association, the National League of Cities, the Multistate Tax Commission, the Federation of Tax Administrators and others--and the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association representing the wireless industry. Together, they have developed a new methodology for dealing with a complex problem--and that new methodology is embodied in the legislation I am introducing today. Under the Wireless Telecommunications Sourcing and Privacy Act, all state & local telecommunications taxes would be assigned to one location--the customer's place of primary use--which must be either the customer's home or business address. This new method of sourcing wireless revenues offers certainty and consistency in the application of tax law, and does so in a way that does not change the ability of states and localities to tax these revenues. I want to also make it clear that this bill in no way provides any determination or has any impact on the work of the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce. The bill also requires the General Accounting Office (GAO) to examine the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) implementation of provisions of current law which requires the telecommunications industry to pay fees to recoup costs of regulatory functions. There has been concern that these fees have not in the past and are not presently being properly assessed. While I do not take a position on this matter at this time, I do think it is important to get a thorough examination of the issue. The GAO study will provide such a review. Furthermore, the bill includes provisions of a bill introduced and led through the legislative process in the House by my fellow Commerce Committee colleague, Mrs. Wilson, on the issue of improving the privacy protections afforded users of wireless communications devices. This bill, H.R. 514, overwhelmingly passed the House earlier this year. Inclusion of these provisions in this bill is a natural partnering of wireless telecommunications issues and will ease member consideration of these important concepts. Wireless customers will benefit because their monthly bills will be simpler and the possibility of double taxation of their mobile calls from competing jurisdictions will be greatly reduced. Tax administration will be simplified for both government and industry. I want to thank my colleagues for joining me in introducing this legislation. I look forward to working with all of them to ensure the full and speedy consideration of this proposal. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support and as a proud sponsor of this resolution before us. The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and her great State had the privilege of watching Walter Payton play for the Chicago Bears. But in Mississippi, he was our native son and he made us all proud in a place that takes football very seriously, where there is Bret Favre, Jerry Rice, the NFL MVPs that we see and watch today on Sundays. But it was Walter Payton, it was sweetness, that first broke through and created the greatness and the pride that we have in Mississippi. He was a tremendous ambassador and representative of our State and one of the greatest running backs of all time. I am sad to say that, with his passing, we will no longer enjoy his example off the field, but we will have the memory and the legacy of what he did both on the field and as a person and as a father. I remember well watching his son introduce him and speak for his induction into the Hall of Fame. What pride would any father have to see a son stand and introduce them into the place where their peers and where history records greatness. But to go to a son, something never done before, to make that introduction was a great example of the priorities of Walter Payton's life. He was a native of Columbia, Mississippi. I am proud to join with my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows), who represents Columbia and who will join us today in speaking of Walter Payton. He was an alumnus of Jackson State University in Jackson, Mississippi, where he received national acclaim as a running back and was chosen fourth by the Chicago Bears in the 1975 draft. He then went on to play 13 seasons in the NFL, winning a Super Bowl and setting the all-time record for most yards at 16,726. He was inducted into the college football Hall of Fame in 1996 and to the professional football Hall of Fame in 1993. He was truly a hero and role model for all of us in Mississippi who had the privilege of watching him play the game he loved so much. My condolences go out to his wife, Connie, and to his children, Brittany and Jarrett. Walter Payton will always be remembered for his style, class, and outstanding reputation on and off the football field. He was a great ambassador for our home State of Mississippi, and he will be missed by all Mississippians. He may not have been the biggest or the fastest, but it was clear he had the largest heart both on and off the field. To Walter Payton we simply say, thank you.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute. Again, with great respect to the ranking member from the other side, I rise in opposition. I do so because the substitute fails in its own objective of eliminating barriers to electronic commerce by recognizing the validity of electronic signatures and contracts. The fact is that the substitute does very little to remove barriers that result from the legal uncertainty associated with electronic signatures and contracts. Actually, the substitute further exacerbates the uncertainty associated with the legal effect and enforceability of electronic mediums such as electronic contracts, agreements, signatures, and records. Under the substitute, electronic signatures and records will enjoy legal effect and enforceability only if they are used in the formation of an electronic contract. Thus, an electronic signature or record is not accorded legal validity unless used in the context of contract formation. The net positive effect of the substitute on e-commerce is minimal at best. Moreover, as the substitute enables a State to exclude any of its laws from the application of the substitute's rule, even that minimal positive effect is at risk of further diminishment. Still another disconcerting fact is that permitting a State to exclude any or all of its laws, the substitute actually undermines the growth of electronic commerce by exacerbating uncertainty by codifying that uncertainty in Federal law. The simple fact is that the substitute fails to facilitate and promote electronic commerce by validating and authorizing the use of electronic contracts, agreements, records and signatures. And resultantly, it fails to promote public confidence in the validity, integrity and reliability of electronic commerce. H.R. 3220 may actually hinder the development of legal and business infrastructure necessary to implement electronic commerce and therefore retard growth in e-commerce. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the underlying bill and in opposition to the substitute.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 543, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 466, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''