Chip Pickering

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), I rise in proud support and sponsorship of the Armed Forces Tax Relief Act of 2002. As we return from the 4th of July recess, I can think of nothing more appropriate or better to do than to correct the injustice and the wrong code in our tax system that we would take a tax at the very worst time in an armed service member's family's life when they have lost someone in the line of duty, in combat. We, as a government, have said that we will give that family a death benefit. We should not be taxing them on that; we should be helping them. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Texas. This is simply wrong and immoral. We must do something. This act will correct that injustice, and we will say to the family, we are proud of your family member's service to our country. We want to help you in this most difficult time, and we will not increase your burden, but we will stand with you and try to comfort, not tax you. The other thing that is most important in an armed service member's family's life is when they move or sell their home and the quality of life that is so critical to be able to sell a home and buy a home and improve that home, and to create the comfort and the quality for their children. We should not be taxing them in a way that makes that very important and essential component of their quality of life more difficult. So I am very proud to see that we are adjusting the Tax Code. In my home State of Mississippi, we have two military bases in Meridian and Columbus, Mississippi. Our Air Guard and our other Guard and Reserve forces are being deployed on an even more frequent basis, and we should not count that time of their serving our country, being deployed in foreign countries, fighting a war on terrorism or conducting humanitarian missions or whatever their mission may be, and then penalizing them as they try to sell their home and create a better place and a better home for their family. So this is an act that is long overdue. It is something that is done in tribute on this, the week after the 4th of July, as our men and women are fighting a war on terrorism. I can think of nothing more appropriate or right to do as we today pass, later this afternoon, the Armed Services Tax Fairness Act of 2002.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, today the latest in a string of absurd court decisions was handed down from a Federal Appeals Court in San Francisco. This court decided that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional and cannot be recited in schools. This is an unfortunate assault on America's tradition of recognizing the role of God in our country's life and as a foundation of our liberties. This most outrageous decision cannot and will not stand. Our forefathers authored the 1st Amendment to protect Americans from a ``national church or national doctrine'' not from the Pledge of Allegiance. For far too often the most liberal Members of our courts have abused the 1st Amendment to remove any acknowledgment of God or a higher being from the Federal Government and our daily life. I would simply remind my colleagues that we sit in a chamber that has the words ``In God We Trust'' engraved on the wall. From the beginning of our Republic a higher being has been acknowledged by this government and the Pledge of Allegiance simply is consistent with that history and tradition. It is hardly comparable to note that the Pledge of Allegiance is relative to the establishment of a national religion, church or doctrine. The court in San Francisco is the most overturned appeals court in the Nation. I am confident that this decision will also be overturned, but to ensure that the Pledge of Allegiance continues to be observed I am introducing legislation to amend the Constitution to ensure the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutionally protected speech.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise to proudly support the rule and this resolution. One Nation under God, indivisible. If we look in this great Chamber, behind the Speaker, ``In God We Trust.'' My colleagues may not be able to see, but right in front of me, lining this Chamber, there are historical figures. The most central historical figure is Moses, the 10 Commandants. If we look to the symbol of our Nation, the eagle, under the eagle are the words ``e pluribus unum,'' ``for many there is one.'' This Pledge has united school children across our country for generation after generation. It is a uniting force, indivisible. It is not a force of division in our country. It recognizes that our country under God, our liberty under God, our unity under God. We need to make sure that this out-of-control court is put back in place and that our traditions and our expressions are maintained, whatever it takes. The dissenting judge in this case says, In God we trust or under God have no tendency to establish a religion in this country or to suppress anyone's exercise or nonexercise of religion except in the fevered eye of persons who most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life. The dissenting judge goes on to say that by this logic ``America the Beautiful,'' ``God Bless America,'' ``The Star Spangled Banner,'' our currency would be wiped away. We must stop it now. We must stop it today, and we must reestablish that our country is one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise proudly as a cosponsor of this resolution. For over a generation now, our courts have taken the wrong path, eliminating prayer from schools, eliminating Christmas from our courthouses. They are saying today in our courts that access to child pornography is a constitutionally guaranteed right, and today they are saying that saying the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Something is wrong. They are trying to drive God from the public square, and this is their fallacy. We believe that our creator endows all men with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. History shows that every godless state every time trampled on the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under God and through our creator, we have our rights. We must never forget that. We must protect it so those who disagree with us will have their rights protected as well. I urge my colleagues to continue standing for the expression of our freedom under God.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in proud support of the rule and the effort of this body. It is an historic opportunity for us. If we put the politics and the extreme language aside, these are the facts: $350 billion will go to our seniors for prescription drugs, to our rural hospitals, to our health community centers, to those who need it most. In my home State of Mississippi, 55 percent of all seniors live at the rate that will get the fixed income assistance, which means no deductible, no premium, only a copayment of $2 to $5 per prescription drug, an enormous benefit for the seniors who need it most. Fifty-five percent of seniors in Mississippi. If we look at those who have catastrophic occurrences in their life, when drug costs exceed $3,700, they will see no cost over that. Those most in need will be helped. It is responsible, it is reasonable, it is right. I urge the Members to follow and support the rule.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire about the impact of the hybrid cutting provision with respect to CBI that is contained in the amendment. As my colleagues know, the amendment contains language requiring that apparel made of U.S. knit or woven fabric assembled in the CBI qualifies for benefits only if the U.S. knit or woven fabric is dyed and finished in the United States. The hybrid cutting provision allows benefits under CBI if apparel is made of components cut in the United States and in the CBI of fabric wholly formed in the United States from yarns wholly formed in the United States. Is it my colleague's understanding that the dyeing and finishing requirements for U.S. fabric contained in the amendment also apply to the hybrid cutting provision?

Mr. PICKERING. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 241. I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report and to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for their leadership as we do a bill that is good for our farmers, good for the environment, conservation, and good for our catfish farmers in Mississippi as we stop the Vietnamese imports of false labeling, of the taking the good name that we have developed in the southeast of the good catfish, good flavor, the good taste. I also want to say that this is good for research as we see our land grant universities increase in research, for our rural communities, and as we see our key infrastructure needs being met. As a sportsman, it will be good for wildlife as we see the CRP and WRP programs almost double. I support this legislation which establishes a safety net so we can plan and plant and prosper in Mississippi and across the country in agriculture. This is good legislation, a good farm bill, and I thank the chairman for his good work.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their tenacity, their advocacy, their philosophy, and their approach, as it comes to telecommunications broadband and the questions before us. But we simply want one clean vote: Do we stand with competition, or do we go back to the old fragmented, segmented, monopolistic ways of what we tried to reform in 1996? For those of us who want multiple choices, not just one or two but many choices, the free market enterprise of competition, innovation, lower prices, then we need to vote for the Conyers amendment; and we need to vote for the Cannon amendment. We need that clean chance. If we believe in States' rights to help advocate competition and deployment, if Members want to maintain the regulation against child pornography and obscenity on the Internet, then Members need to vote for Cannon and Conyers. This is our one chance in this debate to have one simple vote. We believe that it is the right vote. I ask for Members' support on the previous question.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the majority leader, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment is very compact, simple and precise. My amendment preserves the free speech rights of any constituency or grassroots organization that desires to educate the public as to the voting record, statements or actions of Federal officeholders or candidates for office as they relate to the second amendment. This amendment protects all parties that want to engage in the debate over the second amendment, from Sarah Brady to the NRA. One of the fundamental problems I have with this legislation is its regulation of free speech by grassroots organizations that engage in issue advocacy and educating the public to the voting record and positions of candidates. The base text of Shays-Meehan regulates the free speech of everyone from the far left to the far right, from the prolife movement to farmers, from veterans groups to religious organizations. I regret that I did not have more time to draft an amendment that would have been able to restore more of the free speech rights of some of these other organizations; however, I believe this amendment is a bright line for which Members must make a stand on whether they support the first amendment protections afforded to our citizens and afforded to grassroots organizations, or whether they support the regulation of these groups' free speech rights. In short, you are either for the first amendment and the second amendment, or you oppose those free speech first amendment rights and the rights of those who want to defend the second amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. Let me use the words of those who advocate this reform to tell what this legislation is all about. They are very clear about their purposes. Scott Harshberger, the president of the Washington D.C.-based Common Cause, says, ``We need to make the connection with every person who cares about gun control that there is a need for campaign finance reform because that is how you are going to break their power.'' He goes on to say, ``The equation,'' he says, ``is a simple one. A vote for campaign finance reform is a vote against the second amendment gun lobby.'' It says, ``This is one of those times when there is a very direct connection.'' They say, ``A vote for campaign finance reform is a vote for policies about guns.'' It is very clear that their intent here is to gut and to defeat those who want to advocate and defend the second amendment. A vote here is to take away the rights of those on the first amendment, the freedom of speech, to help defeat those who want to defend the second amendment. This is about the second amendment. The whole underlying text of the legislation of this section is unconstitutional. I am convinced it will be struck down. But we need to make sure that people know what is really going on right here. This is an attempt by their own words to defeat those who want to defend and protect the second amendment. If one stands for the second amendment, if one believes in the first amendment, then I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma. The previous amendment dealt with the second amendment. We are trying to make the point, whether it is on civil rights or the second amendment, whether it is a prolife group, religious or secular group, farmers, veterans, those who want to participate in the political process, that we are going to regulate them, restrict their first amendment or free speech rights, their political rights to express themselves. In my district, the African American community, the Choctaw Tribe, the Mississippi Band of Choctaws, a growing Hispanic community, if they want to engage in a grassroots organization in informing people of the positions and the parties or the candidates, are we going to place the heavy hand of government on them to make it more difficult to participate, to restrict their freedoms? This is something that should cut across all groups, all parties, in the defense of the very fundamental rights we have as Americans, that we enjoy as Americans, and that is the freedom of speech without government regulating it, restricting it, or making it more difficult for people to participate regardless of their power or their position. This is a long tradition that we have had in American politics. I think in name of reform we are forgetting very foundational, fundamental truths and principles that we want to protect as a country, as a Nation, and as a people. So I rise in proud support of the amendment. I am disappointed that the previous amendment on the second amendment did not pass, but this is still the fundamental issue before us; the first amendment rights for all groups at any time to participate without the government regulation and restriction upon them.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Mr. Fred Gaddis, Sr., a former businessman and mayor of Forest, MS. Mr. Gaddis was beloved by the citizens in his community for his vision and dedication to improving the quality of life for all those around him. His death was devastating to those who knew him and certainly affected the town of Forest and Scott County. Mr. Gaddis attended both Mississippi State University (MSU) and the University of Southern Mississippi (USM). At MSU, he was a classmate of our beloved 3rd District Congressman G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery. He left USM to serve our country in the Navy during World War II as a pilot. After his service to the Nation, he returned to Forest and Scott County where he began his legacy as a pioneer in the poultry industry. He started his first poultry plant with under $1,700 and then built Gaddis Industries, which included 38 poultry farms and several other farming industries. His vision has helped make Scott County the fifth-largest poultry-producing county in America. He has been recognized at State, national, and world levels for his work in the poultry industry. He even represented the United States Government at the World's Food Fair in Tokyo and Hong Kong. For his pioneering efforts and success in the poultry industry, his picture hangs today in the Mississippi State University Poultry Hall of Fame, and in the Mississippi Agricultural Museum in Jackson. Besides being a successful and visionary businessman, Mr. Gaddis served the city of Forest as mayor for 32 years where his mission was always serving the people. He fulfilled his mission by improving the quality of life for those in Forest and Scott County. During his tenure as mayor, a new community center, library, fire station, airport, coliseum, and city hall were built. He also personally bought a bus for the school system when they could not afford it, and paid for lunches out of his own resources for the students in the Forest schools before the Federal lunch program was established. As a tribute to his many contributions one of the city parks in Forest is named for him. Mr. Gaddis was particularly active in community and religious activities. He served as a deacon at Forest Baptist Church, and sponsored the building and furnishing of a cottage in the Baptist Children's Village in Clinton, that houses 14 boys. He is the recipient of the Silver Beaver award from the Boy Scouts and the Troop 63 Eagle Class is named in his honor. Mr. Gaddis is also a Mason and past president of the Lions Club. Survivors include his wife of 58 years, Mary (better known as ``Tweency''), sons Michael and David, daughter Beverly, two sisters, 12 grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren. The citizens of Forest and Scott County will sorely miss him. Fred Gaddis's resume may span several pages for his successful business, and his vision as a mayor for Forest and service to his community. However, the legacy he leaves behind cannot fully be expressed by what he did, but rather by the people he touched and the way he lived his life. He had a deep love for God, family, friends, and community. I extend my sympathy to his family and all those in Scott County who have been affected by this loss. I am very appreciative of Mr. Gaddis's legacy, and am hopeful that it will encourage others to follow in his footsteps of public service for a better community and concern for others.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, today I rise before the House of Representatives to honor the life of an outstanding American, Vincent E. Parker. United States Navy Petty Officer First Class Vincent E. Parker is originally from Preston, Mississippi. Tragically, Petty Officer Parker was lost on Sunday morning, November 18, 2001, along with one of his shipmates, Petty Officer Third Class Benjamin Johnson while serving his country in the Persian Gulf. Vincent Parker, noted for his devotion to God and country, grew up in rural eastern Mississippi. He attended Macon Elementary School and graduated from Nanih Waiya High School in Louisville. He was a devout member of the Assembly of God Church in Columbus, Mississippi, and he grew up in a loving, well-respected family with five siblings. Like his brother John, he enlisted in the Navy upon graduation from high school. He successfully climbed the ladder as an enlisted man and was rated as an Engineman First Class Petty Officer. He was serving onboard the USS Peterson. This deployment was to be his last, completing a successful career in the Navy. His mission on November 18th was to enforce the United Nations sanctions imposed upon Iraq following the Gulf War. He boarded Samra, a ship believed to be smuggling oil for Saddam Hussein. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Petty Officer Vincent Parker for his 19 years of service to the United States of America and the United States Navy. He is also to be commended for his life-long devotion as a son, husband, brother, father and citizen. Petty Officer Parker is survived by his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Glenn D. Parker Jr. He is survived by his wife, Charlotte, and their two children, Vincent Jr. (age fourteen) and Rachel (age twelve). He leaves behind his sister Ruth Marie, and his four brothers, Glenn, Andy, Steven, and John. Vincent was known onboard the Peterson not only for his Naval leadership, but also for the example he set as a citizen and man of God. He was simply known as ``Butch'' to his friends. He enjoyed the simple pleasures in life such as family and deer hunting. He will most be remembered for his devotion to God, country, and family. Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in remembering an American hero, Petty Officer First Class Vincent E. Parker. Our sincere prayers and thoughts are with the Parker family at this difficult time. May God bless the Parker family, and may God continue to bless the United States of America with heroes like Vincent Parker.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, the United States spends over $30 billion each year in caring for persons who have suffered from strokes. Stroke is the third leading cause of death in this country, claiming the life of an individual every three and a half minutes. Today, Congresswoman Capps and I are introducing a bill that will help to educate the public on the symptoms of stroke and the importance of rapid treatment. My home state of Mississippi is ranked seventh in leading the nation in stroke deaths. The STOP Stroke Act will provide the necessary tools to help hundreds of thousands of Americans make the right choice in seeking medical help with the onset of a stroke. We know that it is important that treatment be administered as quickly as possible after a stroke, yet fewer than three percent of patients receive clot- dissolving drugs that are necessary to improve the patient's recovery. It is important that we take the steps that are required to educate the American public about the symptoms and treatments of strokes. We must work to pass the Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention (STOP Stroke) Act to ensure that we save lives and improve the quality of medical treatment to stroke victims.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Jones County Junior College Bobcats for winning the state championship. I am very proud of JCJC which is in my home county. Both of my parents are alums of Jones County Junior College and I was raised supporting the school and its athletic programs. The Bobcats finished the season with 10 wins and 1 loss. Congratulations are in order for Jones County head coach Parker Dykes, his staff and his team. Their victory brings pride and respect not only to the athletic program, but to the college as a whole. Jones County Junior College continues to set the standard not only in athletics, but in academics as well. The technical and vocational training provided at JCJC equips students with the necessary skills to enter the 21st century workforce and become successful members of their community. I am always pleased to see our junior colleges excel. Again, congratulations on an outstanding season.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support of language in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Conference Report for FY 2002 directing the Department of Justice to fund the building of a jail facility for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. I would like to thank Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Serrano for including language in the conference report to address the law enforcement needs of the Choctaws. It has taken the Tribe over 4 years to reach the point of obtaining funding after the Congress directed the Department of Justice to fund the design phase of the detention facility in the FY 1998 Commerce, Justice, State Conference Report. The Choctaws have encountered many obstacles as they sought to satisfy both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Justice Department through compliance with their varying jurisdictions, regulations, and interpretations of law enforcement for Indian tribes. These delays have resulted in a deterioration of law enforcement, disrespect for the tribal courts and an escalation in the costs of the facility. Further delay will only exacerbate these problems. The Choctaw Tribe is firm in its view that detention is essential to the maintenance of law and order on the Choctaw Reservation. The detention facility currently being used was built in 1973 by the Bureau of Indian Affairs as a temporary holding facility designed to hold 18 prisoners for up to 72 hours. Today, an average of 33 offenders are being held daily. Due to the lack of space, only the most serious and repeat offenders are incarcerated to serve time, The lack of space has also hindered the courts and law enforcement officials because judges have to rely on ``deferred sentencing.'' Simply put, the current facility is inadequate to meet existing needs, not to mention the projected law enforcement needs of the Tribe and its growing population. I would also like to point out that two studies performed in 1992 found the facility to be ``not fit for human habitation'' and ``structurally flawed and essentially inoperable.'' The first study was completed in October 1992 by the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. The second was completed in December 1992 by the U.S. Public Health Services, Office of Engineering Services, in New York, New York. Tribal funds were used to correct the most egregious life safety code violations and to renovate a small portion of the facility to house more juveniles. Yet with these and other continuing efforts, the current facility still poses a threat to inmates, staff, and the public. To ensure the Choctaws can exercise fully and fairly its sovereign responsibility to protect all people and property on its reservation, they have sought funding from the U.S. Department of Justice for construction of a new jail facility to house both adults and juvenile offenders. The conference language will allow the Department of Justice to expedite the allocation of FY 2002 funds to the Choctaws so construction on the new detention facility can begin as soon as possible. The Mississippi Choctaws have worked tirelessly to preserve the integrity of the Tribe's law enforcement services on the reservation, despite the lack of an appropriate detention facility. I am pleased that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have recognized the great need to fund this important project. I look forward to working with the Mississippi Choctaws and the Department of Justice to ensure the Tribe's law enforcement needs are addressed.

Mr. PICKERING

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to Jerry Montgomery--a man who has meant so much to so many people in my home state of Mississippi through his service as faculty advisor for the Sigma Chi Fraternity at the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) for the past 15 years. I'm proud to call Jerry a friend and even more proud that he's part of our family as my brother-in-law. Despite Jerry's extremely busy schedule as a husband, a father, and the coach for the women's tennis team at Ole Miss, he always finds time to fill his role as faculty advisor to Sigma Chi. As a Sigma Chi, I am personally grateful for Jerry's leadership and the guidance he offers the young men of the fraternity. Jerry serves as a positive role model and a good example for the young men of Sigma Chi to look up to for advice and guidance. The ``Standard'' on which Sigma Chi was founded requires its members to be: A man of good character; A student of fair ability; With ambitious purposes; A congenial disposition; Possessed of good morals; Having a high sense of honor and a deep sense of personal responsibility. These attributes certainly describe Jerry and the way he sets an example for the men of Sigma Chi. I want to extend my heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to my friend, my brother-in-law, and a true friend to Sigma Chi, Jerry Montgomery.

Mr. PICKERING

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