Chip Pickering

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to return to Washington, DC, today due to a death in my family and missed the following votes: Rollcall vote No. 165, passage of the rule on House Resolution 160. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Rollcall vote No. 166, on agreeing to the Conference Report House Concurrent Resolution 84, the FY 1998 Budget Resolution. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Rollcall vote No. 167, the Campbell Amendment (No. 52) to the Smith Amendment (No. 41) on H.R. 1757, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. Had I been present, I would voted ``nay.'' Rollcall vote No. 168, the Smith Amendment (No. 41) to H.R. 1757, to prohibit U.S. population assistance for foreign organizations that perform abortions in foreign countries, or lobby for changes in such laws. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Rollcall vote No. 169, on agreeing to the Conference Report H.R. 1469, the Disaster Recovery Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to return to Washington, DC today due to a death in my family and missed the following votes: Rollcall vote No. 157, ordering the previous question to H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Rollcall vote No. 158, passage of the rule on H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Rollcall vote No. 159, the Skaggs amendment (No. 45) as amended by Mr. Diaz-Balart to H.R. 1486, to continue funding for TV Marti broadcasts to Cuba. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Rollcall vote No. 160, the Hamilton amendment (No. 65) to H.R. 1486, to authorize the President to implement, in the most efficient and effective manner possible, the President's proposal to consolidate and reinvent the foreign affairs agencies of the U.S. Government. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Rollcall vote No. 161, the Bachus amendment (No. 40) to H.R. 1486, to require the State Department to report to Congress by March 1 of each year a listing of overseas U.S. surplus properties for sale and require the amounts received from such sales to be used for deficit reduction. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Rollcall vote No. 162, the Goss amendment (No. 108) to H.R. 1486, to strike bill provisions which establish new responsibilities for the Office of the Inspector General at the State Department. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Rollcall vote No. 163, the Paul amendment (No. 47) to H.R. 1486, to add new provisions to the bill which repeal the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organizations Act, and the United Nations Environmental Protection Act of 1973. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall vote No. 164, the Stearns amendment (No. 6) to H.R. 1486, to allow Congress, instead of the Secretary of State, to decide to withhold 20 percent of the funds appropriated to the United Nations. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to return to Washington, DC, today due to a death in my family and missed the following vote: Rollcall vote No. 156, passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (H.R. 1420). Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I must return to my congressional district for a previously scheduled constituent meeting and will miss the following votes: Rollcall vote No. 111, the Stupak amendment (#1) to H.R. 3 to authorize discretionary grants for juvenile crime prevention and control and strengthen federal juvenile court proceedings for dealing with violent juveniles. Had I been here I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall vote No. 112, the Waters amendment (#2) to H.R. 3 to strike the provision that requires juveniles who are accused of conspiracy to commit drug crimes to be prosecuted as adults. Had I been here, I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall vote No. 113, the Conyers amendment (#3) to H.R. 3 to strike provisions in the bill relating to the prosecution of 13-year-olds as adults. Had I been here, I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall vote No. 114, the Scott amendment (#4) to H.R. 3 to strike provisions in the bill that allow states to use block grant funds to build prisons and detention centers. Had I been here, I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall vote No. 115, the Lofgren amendment (#5) to H.R. 3 to earmark 50 percent of block grant funds for juvenile crime prevention programs. Had I been here, I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall vote No. 116, the Dunn amendment (#7) to H.R. 3 to require States, in order to receive Byrne Grant funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, to submit a plan to the Attorney General to notify parents whenever a juvenile who has been found guilty of committing sexual offenses is enrolled in an elementary or secondary school. Had I been here, I would have voted ``aye.'' Rollcall vote No. 117, a motion to recommit H.R. 3. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall vote No. 118, final passage of H.R. 3. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Teacher Appreciation Day to express my gratitude to teachers who have helped shape my life, and to my family, many of whom have taught, and continue to teach today. The theme of this year's National Teacher Appreciatiom Day is: One teacher can shape a child, one child can shape the world. I am thankful for this day so that we can praise those who shape not only our lives individually and our children and our communities but also shape our future. My grandparents on my mother's side were both teachers; W.C. Thomas and Ivon Thomas. They came of age during the Depression. My grandfather became a principal at a small rural agricultural high school and then went on to teach at the junior college that serves my area. I had the benefit during the period in which I grew up of having adults come to me as a child and saying, ``If it had not been for your grandfather, I would not have stayed in school, and I would not be what I am today.'' It gave me a true appreciation and an understanding for the role of what teachers and those in the education community give to people. My mother was a teacher and was a director of a kindergarten program. I have three sisters. Today, one teaches fifth grade in Opelika, AL. My oldest sister has six children and home-schools. My other sister taught freshman composition at the University of Mississippi. My aunt, Karen Pickering, teaches fifth grade at Calhoun Elementary School. I come to this day with appreciation for what teachers give, and I want to give specific praise to one teacher, one coach, who had a specific influence on my life and to whom I am not sure that I would be here as a Congressman today if he had not given me encouragement at a critical point in my life. His name is Lonnie Meaders. He began teaching and coaching in 1950, and he served the Jones County-city schools for almost 30 years. He was my junior high football coach. When I finished junior high, most people thought that I was too small and too slow to continue at the high school level. He encouraged me to continue playing when no one else did. My 10th grade year, my first year in high school, I was the smallest on the team. I made up for the lack of size with an even greater lack of speed. In my 11th grade year, I began to play. In my 12th grade year, I had enough success on the field to earn a college football scholarship. It was that experience of continuing to play when no one else thought that I could or should that gave me the confidence and gave me a foundation to believe that with hard work that I could succeed. It was Coach Lonnie Meaders who influenced not only my life, but countless others who went through the Laurel city schools. He was also the tennis coach, his 9th grade team went 18 years never losing a match. We are blessed to have those like Coach Meaders who teach us and encourage us at critical points in our lives. I now have four children ages 7, 5, 3 and 1, and I want to thank Mrs. Harper, who teaches my oldest child today. She has brought a young, shy, 7-year-old out, and he is beginning to blossom as she encourages him on a daily basis. My job in representing the teachers and the families of my district is to make sure that we give the resources, the freedom, and the flexibility to our teachers so that they can help shape the character of our children. Teachers can help establish the fundamentals upon which our children will prosper and, hopefully, one day succeed at whatever their dream may be. For those who have taught me, to my family which has served the education community, I want to extend a special thank you to them all.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of this resolution for my family, which for most of my life operated a dairy farm. There is a Greek proverb which has special meaning to me. It says, ``Milk the cow, but do not pull off the udder.'' On this day, April 15, which for most people is the day of infamy, they feel they have been pulled and stretched for too long, way too long. Let me give my colleagues two examples in my district of individuals and families that are affected by the current tax burden. Chester Thigpen, 85 years old. He has four children. On his first day of labor, in 1918, he earned 35 cents. From that first day of work he built up a tree farm, for which he is proud. He is the first African-American to earn the honor of Mississippi and the National Tree Farmer of the Year Award. He wants to leave that legacy, that farm, to his four children, but our Government wants to confiscate it. Now, is that fair? Is that not double taxation after a lifetime of earning and paying taxes? From his grave they will tax him. Is that not taxation without representation? We need to act now to provide reform so that families can leave their legacy and their small farms and businesses to their children. Another example: Bobby and June Pickle. They have two small children in Pearl, MS. After the birth of their first child, June Pickle wanted to stay home with her children, but they soon discovered that the tax bill was too high and that she must go back to work. Does she have the freedom to stay at home with her children? Is that fair? Mr. Speaker, we must act now to give families a tax credit, $500 per child, that can give people and families back some of the freedom that they have lost and some of their hard-earned wages.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago, a national journalist asked, ``What kind of nation are we that would allow a procedure known as the partial birth abortion?'' I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 929--the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997. Currently, thousands of these types of abortions are performed annually from the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy through the full term on healthy mothers carrying healthy babies--babies that have reached the point of viability. The partial birth abortion is so gruesome, even some supporters of abortion are opposed to it. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan refers to this heinous procedure as infanticide. In 1995, the American Medical Association's Legislative Council--a panel consisting of 12 doctors-- unanimously voted to recommend banning partial birth abortions. One of these doctors described the procedure as ``basically repulsive.'' More than 300 physicians and medical specialists joined former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop last year in saying that this procedure is never medically necessary to protect a mother's life or her future fertility. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate and disturbing that President Clinton, even when presented with clear medical evidence, refuses to support a ban on partial birth abortions. Opponents of the ban on this type of abortion characterized the procedure, in previous congressional debates, as a rare technique seldom used for anything but protection of the life of the mother or in cases of extreme fetal abnormality. But then, Mr. Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, a pro-abortion group, admitted that he ``lied through his teeth'' last year when he said that this procedure is rare and only performed about 500 times a year under extreme circumstances. Mr. Fitzsimmons now says that thousands upon thousands of these procedures are performed every year, on primarily healthy women with healthy babies. Mr. Speaker, I have four young children. During each of my wife's pregnancies, modern technology allowed me to hear our babies' heartbeats. Sonograms allowed me to see inside the womb as my children kicked and moved. I watched their heartbeats and counted their fingers and toes. In later stages, I touched and felt their movements inside their mother. These experiences presented clear and unmistakable evidence that there is life before birth. Through recent technological advances, we now know many things about child development prior to birth. Sonograms and other technologies make it possible for all parents to hear, see, and touch our children before actual delivery. With this new knowledge, we cannot turn our backs on our responsibility to protect the lives of innocent children. We must ask ourselves the same question as the journalist, ``What kind of nation are we that would allow partial birth abortions?'' An early observer of America, Alexis de Tocqueville, said ``America is great because America is good.'' If this is to continue to be true, we must act now to stop this grisly procedure that opponents and supporters of abortion alike refer to as infanticide. Mr. Speaker, it's time to call on our Nation's conscience and the ``better angels of our nature.'' It's time to stop partial birth abortions and pass this bill for our children. We are a better Nation than one that allows such practices to exist. We can start here to renew and reaffirm that we hold certain truths as self-evident--that life and liberty are inseparable and both should be held as sacred.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Hulshof for putting this together for new Members of Congress so that we can talk about the importance of family and the importance of families to the success of our country. I have four children, four boys, ages 7, 5, 3 and 1. Our campaign slogan was, ``If not your support, your sympathy.'' And tonight they are at home watching. I miss them but I hope as they watch what I do here in this body and what I try to do to serve my country that at the end of my days they will see that what we were all about is not just about taxes and spending and the issues that come before us, but it is about strengthening and supporting and sustaining the key to our success, our family, of having a culture that discourages violence and crime, that promotes strong education, that seeks to remove the barriers and the penalties and the punishment that we now see too often placed on families. And if we can be a part of that, then I will be very proud of my service and that I hope my four boys will think that we did something to make their generation live in a free and prosperous and moral country. In May 1988, President Ronald Reagan visited the Moscow State University and before leaving held a short question and answer session with some of the students. He made a statement that I think is appropriate tonight. President Reagan said, ``Progress is not foreordained; the key is freedom.'' For our families to make progress and succeed, our families must have freedom. Freedom to grow, to prosper, to spend time with their children, freedom from an overly burdensome government. Sonny Montgomery served in this district before I did. He met the challenge of his day helping build a strong defense and contain communism to give my children and to give us the freedom and the prosperity that we enjoy today. Men like Bob Dole. I believe the challenge of my generation, the challenge that we face today is strengthening and providing the environment for families to prosper. We will have to make some tough decisions as we go forward. The American family today is gripped by taxation, regulation. It seems to punish those things we believe in: marriage, investment, work. It seems to side against families trying to raise their families consistent with their faith and their values. We are trying to propose legislative solutions that help; that bring common sense and lift the load and the burden from the family. What are some of the ideas that we are talking about, some of the solutions, the alternatives to the failed old policies that have mortgaged our future? What we want to do is provide hard-working families more time for their children and more money for their pockets, and the ability to pass on not only their good name but the fruits of their labor without the fear of the IRS. We want to pass the Working Families Flexibility Act, on which we voted today. We want a balanced budget. We want to end the marriage penalty and to implement a family tax credit. We want to end the death tax, the inheritance tax. Tonight I want to tell a few stories about families back home in my district. A man named Chester Thigpen, 85 years old, has worked his entire life to provide for his family, his wife Rosett and four children, two boys and two girls. Mr. Thigpen's first day of work was back in 1918. On that day his labor yielded him 35 cents. Today he is a successful tree farmer, with several hundred acres of prime timberland. He has been a tree farmer for over 40 years and he has worked daily to ensure a bright future for his children. He is an example of the American dream. He is the first African- American to win the honor of the Mississippi Tree Farmer of the Year and the National Tree Farmer of the Year. But what threatens him and his family today? It is not pine beetles, it is not tornadoes, it is not termites. His farm is in jeopardy because of the death tax, the inheritance tax. He has worked hard his entire life and would like to leave what he has done to his children, to give them the fruits of his labor. In Proverbs it says that a good man leaves an inheritance for his children's children. Mr. Thigpen wants to do this, yet our Federal Tax Code wants to confiscate it, to take it away. He has been successful, so our Government wants to penalize him. He did not work his entire life to see his farm, his inheritance that he wants to leave to his children, taken away. The Thigpens say to their children, ``Let what you do be an asset to your community.'' They have lived that. They are testimonies and they are examples of that. We need to stand for Mr. Thigpen and his family, to do away with an estate tax that punishes hard work, that takes away the inheritance he wants to leave his children. It is clearly the worst example that we have in our tax system, to tax people from their grave. Taxation without representation in its purest sense. It is a horrible, horrible example that must be changed. I want to talk about hard-working families that now pay more in taxes than they pay in clothing, in transportation, in their mortgages and their rents. They pay all of that, more than that, in taxes. In 1948, the typical family of four paid 3 percent of its income to the Federal Government in direct taxes. In 1994, the equivalent family paid 24.5 percent of its income to the Federal Government. We do not need another 46 years of growth in taxes, we need 46 years of growth in prosperity for our children and our children's children. This is our battle for our generation, to preserve the freedom, to support our families. I will close with one last example of another family in my district from Pearl, Mississippi, Bobby and June Pickle. They have two boys, Brett and Lake. Mr. Pickle said, and I quote, ``Taxes eat us alive.'' When they had their first son, Brett, June, their mother, quit her job. She wanted to stay home to raise and nurture her family, but she could not afford to do so. The bills were too high, the taxes were too high, and she was forced to go back and work. It is time to change our priorities. Family tax credits that we are proposing will help families who choose to have a mother or a father stay home with their children. Hopefully they will have the economic freedom to do that. There are many things that are important in this Congress, none more important than supporting, strengthening and sustaining our families. The gentleman from Oklahoma, J.C. Watts, is a good leader on the Community Renewal Act that will help us move families from welfare to work, that will help strengthen the values that we cherish, to look to nongovernmental solutions, faith-based and community-based organizations, to help strengthen families and communities. All this and more we can do to strengthen our families. I thank the gentleman for granting me this time tonight and look forward to working with all the Members in this body to do everything we can to support our families.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the resolution as a new Member of Congress, coming with what I hope will be a new start, a clean slate. There is much at stake, and we have great opportunity to do something that has not been done in 28 years. That is to actually reach agreement on balancing our budget. I am disappointed in the President's budget that, as both the President and Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, we all ran on the same themes of a smaller government, of balanced budgets, of tax relief for families. Unfortunately, the facts of the President's budget do not meet the words and the rhetoric. The facts are that the President's budget increased taxes, increases taxes $23 billion over the next 10 years. In fiscal year 1998, it increases the deficit $24 billion. It undoes more than 50 percent of the savings in last year's welfare reform bill. It is $69 billion short of a balanced budget in the year 2002. And instead of providing entitlement reform, it creates $70 billion in new entitlement spending over the next 5 years. The saddest or the most troubling component is that it leaves 98 percent of deficit reduction until after the President leaves office. Those are the facts, but it affects our families. I am here today representing the Third District of Mississippi, which has been represented in a tremendous way by G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery. He met the challenge of his day. He built a strong defense, contained Communism. Helped win the cold war. My children today have freedom and prosperity in large part because he was willing, and his generation was willing to sacrifice. I have four small children, four boys, ages 7, 5, 3 and 1. At the end of my days, I want to say, I was part of giving them the same freedom, the same opportunity, the same prosperity. To do so, we must create a new foundation, a new framework to reach a balanced budget. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of House Resolution 89 as a new Member of Congress, coming with the hope for a new start, a clean slate. I am here today not only as a Representative from the great State of Mississippi, or the successor to the legendary G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery, but as the father of four young boys. There is much at stake in this budget cycle, and we have a great opportunity to do something that has not been done in 28 years. That is to actually reach agreement on balancing the Federal budget. I am disappointed in President Clinton's rhetoric concerning a balanced budget because his words do not match his actions. As the father of four boys, age 7, 5, 3, and 1, I would like to leave a nation as great as the one I received from my father. Unfortunately, at the rate our Government spends money, my four boys, and millions of other children across this great land, will not receive an inheritance from those of us in this generation. No, Mr. Speaker, we cannot be confused, the children of today will not inherit the legacy that we did. They will not inherit the classic American dream. They will inherit our debt. The President spoke often during the campaign of his bridge to the 21st century. And I look forward to the start of the 21st century--the next American century. However, we will not, and cannot stand by while this administration builds a bridge to the 21st century on the backs of our children. As of today, each child in the United States, will inherit over $188,000 of debt from us. Mr. Speaker, that is not the American dream. This is not the American way. This is not how we restore public trust in our Government. In America we have always passed on the hope for a better, bigger, and brighter future. Yet the children of today can only look forward to debt, our debt. Mr. Speaker, this is not the right thing to do. Nor is it right for the President to promise a balanced budget during the election and then provide us with yet another budget that simply does not balance. While the President claims his budget comes into balance by 2002, it includes new spending initiatives and savings gimmicks that could cause the deficit to balloon in the subsequent years. The tax cuts he provides are temporary while his tax increases will be part of the inheritance for our children. Mr. Speaker, the tax increases are permanent while the tax cuts are temporary. In the President's budget, if the deficit reduction targets, based on rosy economic scenarios, aren't met, the President repeals the tax cuts in 2001 but the tax cuts are still in place. We have many choices to make in this Congress that will effect the next generation. While we contemplate and debate which path to take, I recommend that we use our God given common sense. I would suggest that it is only common sense to balance the budget. Millions of families across the Nation balance their checkbooks on a monthly basis. Is it too much to ask that the Federal Government does the same thing? Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that while we journey toward the 21st century that we take the road to action to ensure that our children are not stuck in a future with little or no hope. We have made great strides toward balancing the budget, but we have more to do. Balancing the budget is just the first step. House Resolution 89 will ensure cooperation between the Congress and the White House in working toward a balanced budget. By using the same economic assumptions we can find the middle ground necessary to make the tough choices that lie ahead.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, religious freedom is once again under attack in our country. In my neighboring State of Alabama, the recent controversy over the Ten Commandments highlights the contempt that some people in our country have for religious freedom. Alabama Circuit Court Judge Ray Moore opens each session of his courtroom with a prayer. The Ten Commandments hang on the walls of his court. Once again, the ACLU is saying that it is a terrible thing for the basis of our laws to be displayed in a court of law. I am proud to join with so many of my colleagues and Alabama's Governor Fob James in supporting Judge Moore's right to display the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are a symbol of our past and a hope for our future. They are the foundational elements of our history, heritage, and laws. Tradition is said to be ``nothing but the acknowledgment of the authority of symbols and the relevance of the narratives that gave birth to them.'' We have many such symbols and traditions in this Nation. We have biblical symbols in the Supreme Court, ``In God We Trust'' is inscribed here in the Chamber of the House and on every piece of U.S. currency and in addition each day of Congress opens with a prayer. Clearly, our country was founded upon religious principles. Unfortunately, some believe freedom of religion means freedom from religion. On September 17, 1796, George Washington gave his farewell address saying, ``Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. * * * Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.'' Those who want to take down the Ten Commandments and banish from our history the principles that guided our founders are the same ones that move our country away from moral absolutes to a value system of no right and no wrong. The values embodied by the Ten Commandments lead to political prosperity, civic responsibility, and renewed culture. Their absence, unfortunately, leads to chaos, destruction, and the loss of moral constraints. If the ACLU is successful in tearing down the Ten Commandments from our society what will they choose to replace them for a basis for law? What will the ACLU choose for us as a moral compass? Who gives them the right to change the founding principles of our country? Those are the questions that need to be asked. While some will side with the ACLU, I will side with the Founding Fathers of our country. We are reaping the consequences today of an anything goes society. Our culture is permeated with crime, drugs, violence, and family breakdown. Those who want to take down the Ten Commandments from the Alabama courtroom cannot be allowed to do so. For 30 years, there has been a deliberate march and assault on our traditional values. This is where we should draw the line.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, on roll call no. 14, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' personal explanation