Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably absent on March 10 and 11, 2004. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 45, 46, 47, 54, 56, and 57. I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call votes 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, and 53.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 58 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The chairman of the full authorizing committee just made a statement that I think is very instructive. He called this motion rather meaningless. If our colleagues do not know by now, they should certainly be apprised that all of these motions to instruct that are being brought during the waning days of this session of Congress are nonbinding. They offer us an opportunity to have an hour of debate on a particular issue, and that is instructive; but even if this motion were completely binding, I do not know how we could enforce it, because it simply says that the conferees be instructed to insist on the highest funding levels possible for programs authorized by No Child Left Behind. Now, if that means the sky is the limit, then I might have to disagree with my chairman and the chairman of the authorizing committee. We may not want to do that because I do think we should exercise some discretion in the amount of funding. But if it means we are going to do the very best we can, within the confines of the budget resolution, as our chairman has done, then I do support that concept. So I am a little torn, Mr. Speaker. On principle, should I just vote no because it is a meaningless exercise, or should I go along with my chairman and the chairman of the authorizing committee? This, I think, is an opportunity for my friends on the other side of the aisle to try to point out to anyone who is watching that they would spend more money on education if they were in charge and that they would spend a lot more money if they possibly could. They will make that case, but I am not so sure about that contention. The fact of the matter is when the Democrats had control of the Presidency, the House and the Senate, fiscal years 1994 and 1995, they did not fully fund their education bill. As a matter of fact, President Clinton proposed a figure for the Department of Education, and the Democrats and the Congress cut that figure by some $3 billion below the level recommended by their own President, failing to ``fully fund'' the request of their President. During the time of Democratic control of Congress, Mr. Speaker, they funded only 20 percent of the IDEA program for fiscal year 1994. By contrast, in the last 8 years of Republican control in the House of Representatives, Federal funds for education have more than doubled. So I think we can be proud of our record on education, Mr. Speaker, as compared to the prior 6 years under Democrat leadership where they funded Federal education programs by an increase of only 47 percent. Republicans doubled education funding. The Democrats increased funding by only 47 percent. So when it comes to numbers, we really do not have anything to be ashamed of on this side of the aisle. I would point out to my colleagues that during these past years of Republican control, this House of Representatives and this Congress has increased title I aid to disadvantaged students by 84 percent; increased special education grants to States--that IDEA program that I mentioned--by some 330 percent for IDEA programs; and tripled funding for reading programs during Republican rule, Mr. Speaker. We have increased Federal teacher quality funds. We have increased the maximum Pell grant by some 64 percent. We have increased Head Start funding by 91 percent under Republican control. And we have increased Federal aid to America's Historically Black Colleges and Universities. I am proud of what we have done. Of course, raw numbers are not the only answer. The problem with much of American education is the accountability and results, and that is what we think No Child Left Behind is changing. I want to commend Chairman Regula for working across the aisle for a balanced bill that funds many competing programs. He has produced a good result. I believe the conference will do so, too. I just want to congratulate my chairman for funding education as best as we possibly can.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that I have the utmost respect for the previous speaker on the floor this evening. He has been a champion throughout his career for freedom and for regime change in this particular instance, and I salute him for that, although I disagree with the amendment that he has offered. The gentleman from California stated that the issue concerning whether there is a government which can indeed enter into a loan agreement, he considered to be flimsy. I would submit to Members of the House, Mr. Chairman, that that issue has certainly been called into question and is far from settled at this point. The fact remains that a loan can be made only with a binding agreement between an agency of the U.S. Government and a willing borrower with the authority to commit the Iraqi people to repayment. I question whether a binding commitment can be undertaken by the Iraqi Governing Council or by Ambassador Bremer on Iraq's behalf. Certainly members of the administration who have brought this to our attention are not at all convinced that a loan can even be effected in a binding way. But, Mr. Chairman, beside this technical point, let me make a couple of policy arguments as to why I oppose the amendment and why I support the President in his effort to keep this a grant package. Iraq already has well over $100 billion in outstanding debt. Obviously, we are working to get this debt restructured. But still, the nation will be left with enormous obligations for past borrowing. Creating a new U.S. debt will dampen our efforts to get others to forgive debt. We have seen what has happened in the past few days, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Powell and others are going to Madrid to get donors to contribute to the reconstructing of Iraq. Japan is talking about contributing a substantial amount of money, it may be $1.5 billion, in grants. We are hoping that it will more closely approach the figure of $5 billion in grants. If we were to enter into a policy of loans even for a portion of this, then the Madrid conference would be changed to a loaners conference rather than a donors conference, and we would lose a great opportunity. Why is Japan considering doing this? They are considering doing this in their national interest. It is in their interest just as it is in the interest of the United States taxpayers to have a stable, peaceful, democratic and economically viable Iraq. I think we are going to approve this money, Mr. Chairman, and I think we will get our repayment. We are going to be repaid in an invaluable way. By getting water, power and infrastructure reestablished in Iraq, we will help to create a peaceful, stable and democratic Iraq government and a more secure America, and it is hard, Mr. Chairman, to put a price tag on that. The cost of the Marshall Plan was $13 billion in 1948, or some 5 percent of our gross domestic product. This entire package in front of us, reconstruction for Iraq and Afghanistan, represents only one-fifth of 1 percent of our GDP. The reality is that we are trying to rebuild an Iraq and an Iraqi economy that has suffered from decades of a corrupt Saddam Hussein regime. We must achieve peace in Iraq. We cannot allow Iraq to become a failed state or to disintegrate into several states that foment terrorism and instability.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), a subcommittee chairman. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the underlying legislation, and I rise to observe, first of all, that there are at least four different points of view being expressed in the debate leading up to this vote that we will have either today or tomorrow. First of all, there are those who feel that the military action against Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do and that we should stay the course. Secondly, there are those who never supported the President's action and see no need to support him now. Then there are those who disagree with what we did in Iraq, but also realize that we have an obligation, having gone in, to bring stability to the region. Finally, there is at least a fourth group, Mr. Speaker, who were happy to pay for the war, to appropriate funds for the bombs and tanks and ammunition and for our troops, but who are suddenly taken by surprise to learn that we must now spend money to protect the peace. I find myself in the first group, those who support President Bush's action in Iraq and who realize how important it is now to do what is necessary to win the peace. I firmly believe that the United States of America did the right thing in removing Saddam Hussein. It has cost us the lives and health of hundreds of young Americans, to be sure. It is costing our taxpayers billions of dollars, but it is worth the cost. When we consider the history of Saddam Hussein, his torture and cruelty, his use of weapons of mass destruction in previous wars, his repeated defiance of the United Nations, and when we learn what has already been uncovered since our military offensive, then it becomes clearer and clearer that this Congress and this President made the right decision. Contrary to the initial media analysis of the Iraq Survey Group on weapons of mass destruction, the report of Dr. David Kay details discoveries of dozens of WMD-related activities, including significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations, a secret network of laboratories, strains of biological organisms hidden in a scientist's home, plans and advance designs for new long-range missiles, and details of secret negotiations with North Korea to secure technology to develop ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and other military equipment. I believe these findings provide strong justification for our military action. Finally, it bothers me to hear some of my colleagues refer to the $18 billion in Iraqi reconstruction as an outright gift to Iraq. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, whether in the form of a loan or an outright grant, these are taxpayer dollars being spent in the U.S. national interest. Some Americans will be employed using these dollars. There is an element of altruism and charity involved, to be sure, but these reasons are secondary. The principal reason we are appropriating these reconstruction dollars is that they will be used to protect our troops as long as they have to be over there and to provide electricity, water, public safety and other infrastructure so that Iraq can have stability and so that our troops do not have to go back and win this war yet another time. Mr. Speaker, today is a day when we will be called upon to make some tough votes, votes which may not be politically popular at first blush, votes which may require some explaining, but which we are fully able to explain and justify. That is one definition of leadership. President Bush is providing strong national and international leadership. I believe the actions he has taken and that this Congress will take this week are the best chance for a true and lasting resolution to the Iraqi situation, and, in the long run, will provide enormous dividends in our continuing struggle against world terrorism.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. As a fiscal conservative I certainly can appreciate the spirit of what this amendment seeks to accomplish. But as a member of the House I cannot support the abrogation of our constitutional ``power of the purse'' responsibilities to the executive branch. The funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency in this supplemental is precisely the level to meet the unexpected--and emergency--disaster expenses the Bush Administration has said it requires. The amendment before the House stipulates that the executive branch make unspecified cuts to unspecified programs. Funds could be cut from the FBI, DEA, FEMA, Special Education, NASA, transportation and other projects that this House has already acted upon. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch to make these types of funding decisions not the executive branch. Early on in my tenure I had the chance to support a recission bill that pared back billions in previously appropriated funding. So my dispute with this amendment is much more about process than substance. This underlying bill is fiscally responsible. It is important to note that it is almost $1 billion below the original amount requested by the President. If we are serious about fiscal responsibility, we should identify specific programs for specific reductions. This amendment shirks the difficult choices in favor of an easy vote. I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment and pass the bill.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) about the valuable services provided by the Police Corps program, which is funded in this bill. Mr. Chairman, the Police Corps program has had remarkable success in training and preparing our Nation's law enforcement officers. In just 5 years, 22 States have organized and implemented Police Corps programs, and five more States have been approved but await funding. Over 1,000 Police Corps officers are already at work in various State and local agencies. Each of these officers receive a $30,000 college scholarship and 24 weeks of training in exchange for a 4-year service commitment. More than 85 percent of Police Corps officers remain on the job after their required service is complete. I believe every member of this committee recognizes the important role the police officers play in the protection of our Nation and our citizens. I applaud the chairman and the rest of the CJS committee for the commitment they have shown to the Police Corps program. The $28 million appropriation for Police Corps in fiscal year 2004 is greatly needed. This amount is almost double the $15 million appropriated in fiscal year 2003. However, due to the past underestimates in program costs, Police Corps is still struggling to fund its existing State appropriations and is not able to fund additional programs which have already been approved. I would like to ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) his view regarding the important training conducted by the Police Corps program, and I would ask if any additional support may be available for this much-needed program.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and I look forward to working with him and other members of the committee to provide more funding for the Police Corps program.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Some years ago when I first came to this House of Representatives, I was afforded an unusual honor. I was a freshman appointed to the Committee on Appropriations, and at that same occasion I was given an opportunity to be on this very important subcommittee; and I have had the privilege of serving for some 8\1/2\ years in this capacity and watching these debates year after year. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that those Americans following this debate today and down through the years get a pretty good idea of the dynamics going on in this House concerning spending bills. First of all, I want to echo what some of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle have said. We all have a great deal of affection, Democrat and Republican, for the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee. Likewise, I have great respect and affection for the intellect and determination and hard-work ethic of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). We will roll up our sleeves. We will debate in an honest manner. We will come up with a result, and then we will slap ourselves on the backs as Americans and say that we have done the best that we could do for our country and for our constituents. So we are all agreed that we cast no aspersions on each other as human beings. My friends on the Democratic side of the aisle simply have a different philosophy of government than we do on this side of the aisle. They wish that we could spend more money on this bill, and they wish that we could spend more money on a lot of bills, and that is their true feeling; and they also feel that if only we could tax more, if only taxes were higher, then we could spend more money on the programs that they believe in. In response to some of the charges that have been made and some of the statements that have been made by those who are going to oppose this bill today, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), my chairman, has pointed out that this Republican majority has doubled education spending, has tripled special needs education spending, and has doubled research under the National Institutes of Health. And in response to those remarks about huge increases in Federal spending, frankly some of my Republican colleagues, some of my more conservative Republican colleagues actually have concern about that level of increase. They are troubled that we have increased spending so much. They are a bit embarrassed by that, and they say that we did not come here to increase the size of government. So the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), my friend and chairman, has had to strike a balance and come up with a product that will be able to get a 218-vote majority and move this legislation forward. There are 13 bills that must pass this House of Representatives, or we are not doing our duty, and they are the 13 appropriation bills. This is one of the largest and most significant of those, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has done a good job in balancing those competing dynamics and coming up with a very reasonable bill. As has been pointed out by some of my colleagues, this bill tries to hold program level growth and discretionary spending to a 2.7 percent increase from last year. At the same time, it provides the third year of the President's initiative to expand health services through the Community Health Centers program, a program that the President believes in and that he campaigned on in the year 2000. It increases funding for medical research, supported by the National Institutes of Health, by $680 million on top of the doubling of NIH funding that we have had over the past 5 years, which was a bipartisan commitment. In order to frame the debate today, my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle will want to reopen the debate on the tax cut bill which of course has already been passed and already been signed into law. Their contention is that the rich have gotten too much in terms of tax cuts and that if only we would tax the rich a little more, then we could do some more of the kind of spending that they would like to do. I contend that this type of class warfare does not serve our Nation well, and it does not accurately reflect the truth about our Tax Code. The truth is that during the past few years taxes on the richest Americans have increased by some 250 percent. In addition, it might interest Americans and my colleagues to know that the top 50 percent of wage earners in the United States pay 96 percent of all Federal taxes. The top 10 percent of earners in America--the top 10 percent--pay 67 percent, and even after our tax cuts, the top 1 percent of earners are still paying 37 percent of the taxes which our Federal Government receives. Mr. Chairman, we will end the fiscal year on September 30. Unfortunately, we will finish with a $400 billion deficit. We are told by economists that some $300 billion of this deficit is due to the weakness in our economy. The last thing we want to do in a weak economy is start unraveling the tax cut which we passed for the very purpose of getting this economy stimulated. We need to create jobs both in large industry but also in the private sector with our small business individuals. We think the tax cut bill that has been signed into law by President Bush will create jobs. We think that the same Americans who are benefited by the programs in this bill will also be benefited up and down the economic spectrum by the tax cuts because the economy will improve. So I say that we should certainly vote for this bill. I support my chairman entirely. I hope we will reject the amendment as offered by the Democrats, and I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and would like to take a quick moment to compliment the work done by the Defense Appropriations subcommittee. As a new member of this subcommittee, I have been thoroughly impressed by the professional and unified way in which this committee conducts its difficult responsibilities. My chairman, Mr. Lewis, Ranking Member Murtha, and their staffs are to be commended on the difficult work of putting together a fair and balanced bill, while being under such a tight allocation constraint. I would like to call attention to an item in the Defense Health Programs that I believe is noteworthy. Under the committee's action, there are resources allocated for muscular dystrophy research and the muscle research consortium. This research has significant applications for our military in terms of human muscle strength, and the implications for combating bioterrorism through better understanding of how motor neurons and muscle tissue are impacted by biotoxins. It is important that this program be shared in a collaborative consortium of the nation's four preeminent muscle research facilities and a national clinical trials network. More importantly, as the author of the Muscular Dystrophy CARE Act signed into law by President Bush in 2001, I am acutely aware of the tremendous needs for translational research regarding the scourge of childhood muscular dystrophy, and I am encouraged that appropriations such as this will bring hope to thousands of families who suffer much and deserve their fair share of Federal research dollars.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 301 and 302 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, the names Medgar and Myrlie Evers have been well known to me as a Mississippian since me youth. And there is no mistaking that the Mississippi of my youth was far different from today. Today's tribute to these two outstanding civil rights leaders provides an opportunity to look at the progress our State and our Nation have made in pursuit of equality, racial harmony, and reconciliation. Medgar Evers was a man of principle who was not afraid to stand up for his convictions during a difficult time in our history. Myrlie Evers embodies the virtues of perseverance, faith, and belief in justice. Their legacy is one of courage and commitment to bring social change to Mississippi and to the Nation. The impact Medgar Evers had on voting registration, black representation, and social justice is significant and lasting. Likewise, the effect Myrlie Evers-Williams has had as a national leader for all African Americans is a legacy to be cherished. An on-line search for ``Medgar Evers'' returns 29,600 sites. Among them are ``Sergeant, U.S. Army''; ``Encyclopedia Britannica Guide to Black History''; ``The Writings of Medgar Evers''; and ``Medgar Evers College''. From the shores of Normandy as a World War II veteran to the back roads of the Mississippi Delta to the streets of New York City, Medgar Evers made a lasting impact. Many people know the story of Medgar Evers and his wife Myrlie from the acclaimed movie, ``The Ghosts of Mississippi''. They were leaders throughout their lives and determined to pursue a better life for African Americans in a nonviolent manner. It is ironic that the man who so often said, ``Violence is not the way,'' would die a violent death outside his home in Jackson. As Medgar said before his death, ``Freedom has never been free . . . I love my children and I love my wife with all my heart, and I would die, die gladly, if that would make a better life for them.'' Even in death, Evers proved to be one of the most influential civil rights activists ever. His death led to John F. Kennedy's final push for a civil rights bill to ban segregation. It also sparked several marches in honor of Evers and in protest of the injustices of the South. Hours after his death, his wife Myrlie addressed a crowd and said, ``Nothing can bring Medgar back, but the cause can live on.'' How prophetic she was that night. She went on to become the Chair of the NAACP, and she has created the Medgar Evers Institute, which is helping to continue fostering the principles by which he lived and died. Medgar Evers would be proud of the progress we have made in our native State over these past 40 years. We celebrate his legacy today by acknowledging that more work remains to be done and resolving to join together to continue his vision of achieving racial harmony and equal opportunity for all.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a group of remarkable volunteers in my district call Hill T.O.P., which stands for Tupelo Outreach Project. Conceived by the head of the local FBI field office in Tupelo, Mississippi, Hill T.O.P.'s mission is to meet the physical, spiritual, emotional, and social needs of the people of Tupelo and Lee counties. Since its formation in 1995, Hill T.O.P. has quickly grown into one of the preeminent youth outreach ministries in the region. Just a few weekends ago, the annual event had teenage workers and adult supervisors at 57 different sites, helping needy families with yard work, clean up, painting, and minor home repairs. With the idea that ``mission work begins at home,'' the organization started by FBI agent Mark Denham, truly embodies the finest principles of the Golden Rule and the biblical admonition to love thy neighbor as thyself. Once a year, Hill T.O.P. seeks to provide what may seem simple services to dozens of elderly and less fortunate families in and around Lee County, such as painting a fence or raking a yard. To the recipients, these services would otherwise be financially or physically impossible. This ministry is a wonderful example of the kind of commitment to community service that, I am proud to say, is evidenced throughout my home State of Mississippi. The work performed by Hill T.O.P. participants, youth and adults, demonstrates the strong volunteer spirit and Judeo-Christian values which lead so many Mississippians and Americans to become involved in activities to help friends and neighbors in need. The organization's simple focus over the past 9 years has been on team work and serving God. This is probably one of the main reasons Hill T.O.P. continues to attract more enthusiastic volunteers each year. When Hill T.O.P. was started in 1995, Mr. Speaker, volunteers numbered 75 youths, and the group helped eight local families. This year's events included 347 volunteers working on 57 different projects. The volunteers came from different religious denominations, social backgrounds, and races, with more than 35 church youth groups being involved. Everything Hill T.O.P. contributes to the community is the result of a massive outpouring of generosity and a volunteer spirit which is quite alive and well in our society. Professionals give of their time. Donations come from the wealthy and not-so-wealthy alike. Civic clubs and other organizations provide food, and the list goes on. Mr. Speaker, this is an editorial about Hill T.O.P., which appeared in the April 25, 2003, edition of the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal. The editorial calls the efforts ``an amazing pooling of the local volunteerism, inter-church cooperation, and efficient organization.'' Mr. Speaker, the editorial reads as follows: [From the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, Apr. 26, 2003] At the Hill T.O.P.--Amazing Volunteer Days Accomplish Great Things The unusual number of home repair projects visible to passersby today and Sunday in Tupelo and Lee County grows from the work of more than 400 volunteers involved in Hill T.O.P.--Tupelo Outreach Project. The annual weekend of building, painting, cleaning, repairing, roofing and other chores places kids and adult supervisors at 57 sites. The work for people physically or financially unable to do it themselves can be as simple as raking yards and as complex as rebuilding porches or installing handicap access ramps. The project started in one congregation. Now, it involves dozens who share a common understanding that service to others is at the heart of Christian discipleship. Everything about the weekend is provided without cost to the people given help. Tools and materials used in the weekend are mostly donated, and they are stored in a warehouse funded by the Carpenter Foundation, a major funding source for many philanthropic enterprises in the greater Tupelo area. Many of the adult volunteers bring to the weekend a lifetime of professional skills in engineering, home-building, landscaping, administration, the arts, education, and the health sciences. All their labor and knowledge is freely given. Behind the scenes, volunteers from many congregations pool their time and talent to provide food for most meals and snacks for each shift of workers. Outback Steakhouse continues its amazing record of corporate generosity with donation of the Saturday night meals. Ecumenical worship services sustain the inspiration for the weekend. The event also has strong support from many civic clubs, Tupelo's banking community, and individuals who make donations. All in all, it is an amazing pooling of local voluntarism, inter-church cooperation, and efficient organization. Volunteers range from kids in their second decades to seniors in their ninth decade. Mark Denham is the volunteer director, and Bill Dickson is his chief assistant. The two accomplish in one Hill T.O.P. weekend what some would consider the feat of a lifetime. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my friend, FBI agent Mark Denham, for his vision and leadership, and I commend the citizen volunteers of Hill T.O.P. for truly making a difference in the lives of their neighbors.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to specifically support section 16023 of H.R. 6, which clarifies state and federal jurisdiction over the regulation of electricity. When Congress enacted the Federal Power Act in 1935, it limited federal regulatory authority over electricity in section 201(a) of that Act to ``the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce and the sale of such energy at wholesale in interstate commerce.'' It further stated in that section that ``Federal regulation . . . [shall] extend only to those matters which are not subject to regulation by the States.'' Bundled retail sales of electric service, including the transmission component of such service, is a matter that was subject to regulation by the states in 1935 (and well before), and is still a matter regulated by many states today. Yet despite the clear language of the statute, and the clearly established fact of state regulation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is proposing under its `'standard market design'' (SMD) proposal to regulate the transmission component of bundled retail sales of electricity in place of the states. One can only assume that FERC's apparent legal theory for proposing such action is that section 206 of the Federal Power Act requires it to remedy any ``unduly discriminatory or preferential'' practice ``affecting [a] rate, charge, or classification'' subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. After decades of states granting to local utility customers a ``native load'' priority that allows these customers to use utility resources before other customers, thereby ensuring low-cost and reliable service, the FERC in its SMD proposal now finds such a priority unduly discriminatory. This sudden and stunning change of policy by the FERC is a serious threat to retail customers in places that have opted not to risk restructuring of their electric service like my home state of Mississippi. Section 16023 clarifies that native load priority is not an unduly discriminatory practice, and therefore that the FERC does not have a basis for reaching into the jurisdiction of the states over bundled retail sales and their components. The intent of Congress to strongly differentiate areas of regulatory jurisdiction between states and the FERC is clear and unambiguous. Congress has provided explicit direction to FERC that it should stay out of bundled retail sales and bundled retail transmission service. I hope FERC will get this message and go back to the drawing board with its SMD proposal.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I join the chorus of Members who have commended the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who is a patriot and is exactly right on so many national security issues, but I have to oppose this amendment. I believe it would be ill-advised to allow our short-term emotional feelings to affect the long-term security of this Nation and of the world. The nation of Turkey has been an ally of the United States for more than 50 years. During the Korean War, 717 Turkish soldiers lost their lives fighting on our side, and more than 2,000 were wounded. After September 11, 2001, Turkey voted in NATO to invoke article 5 of the Defense Treaty and join the coalition to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban regime, allowing access to airspace and providing intelligence within 24 hours of that vote. The U.S. is right now working with Turkish forces in the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Caucasus. Currently Turkey is allowing flyover rights, supporting our resupply lines, allowing humanitarian aid and the evacuation of our wounded to cross their borders. Although Turkey's Parliament did not vote as we wanted, we need to remember that over 90 percent of their Parliament is brand new at this idea of governing. They were just newly elected, and more members of their Parliament voted in our favor than voted against us. It was only a parliamentary requirement that caused the issue to fail in Parliament. I think the actions of the Turkish Parliament were irresponsible and wrong, but two wrongs do not make a right. And certainly let's not compare Turkey with France and Germany on this issue. Turkey's leadership has supported the United States throughout. It has not been Turkey who has gone globe trotting all over the world, rounding up Security Council votes against the United States' position. It was not Turkey which did this. Further, I think it is inaccurate to make the analogy that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) made with regard to what we do with our children. Turkey is not our child. Turkey is our ally, our partner in NATO. We can love them as a child and love them as an ally, but we must not forget that Turkey is a sovereign nation, a nation whose friendship we need and whose friendship we have enjoyed. This appropriation issue is a matter of this House exercising its discretion and prerogative. We have the power of the purse. We can make this decision as a Congress. The Constitution gives us that right, but it also gives us the responsibility, I believe, to listen to the best minds on Earth on this issue. The Secretary of Defense yesterday told Congress that appropriating this money is in the national interest. That has also been the message of Secretary of State Powell, National Security Advisor Rice, and most importantly the President of the United States. I urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Reclaiming my time, I would concede this, that President Reagan raised taxes and the very next year he was up here proposing deficits as far as the eye could see. When we cut taxes, as President Reagan did, the economy grows. These are simply the facts. Revenues to the government grew because people had jobs and they were working. I urge a defeat of this Democrat proposal, and a ``yes'' vote on final passage.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding me the time, and I want to agree with my friend from New Jersey, the previous speaker. This debate is about where our priorities are, and a budget is about where our priorities are in government, and we just have a disagreement on the floor of the House of Representatives. We have it year after year after year. Clearly, my friends on the Democrat side of the aisle are willing to accept higher taxes so that Federal spending can increase at a faster and faster rate. That is their viewpoint. We, on the other hand, believe that tax restraint brings about economic growth and jobs, and that is a lot of what this debate is about tonight. I have heard debate on this bill throughout the afternoon and evening, and I have heard things like the Republican budget slashes spending, we are taking hot meals away from schoolchildren, we are taking needed benefits away from our citizens, we are denying health care. Someone just said we are leaving people out in the cold. These are the very same arguments that we have heard year after year after year, debate after debate, on the budget resolution. I would submit to my colleagues that hot meals have not been taken away from school children, benefits have not been taken away from our citizens, we have not denied health care or left people out in the cold. With regard to slashing spending, I would like Members to look at chart number 26 which shows spending trends. Since I became a Member of this Congress in 1995, spending has gone up at a quite remarkable rate. All we are asking with regard to discretionary spending from the year 2003 to the year 2004 is just a very, very modest breather. After that discretionary spending continues to increase at a pace which probably would embarrass some of our conservatives. But this is the definition of slashing spending for some of our colleagues. So we need to decide if that is exactly what this is. Moving to the next chart, a statement was made about the Clinton tax increase, and I hope Members can see this. I have a different view and I have a different recollection about the Clinton tax increase and the result of it. When I got to Congress in the winter of 1995, President Clinton, who had just presided over a very large tax increase, came before the Congress and proposed his budget. I did not see a balanced budget at the end of that rainbow. I saw deficits as indicated on this line as far as the eye could see. As a matter of fact, under the Clinton budget after tax increases, the deficit would have gone up to $288 billion per year. Now Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate felt we could do a better job, and part of that solution was tax reductions. Indeed, we did reduce taxes. And guess what, we said we will balance the budget by restraining spending, by making some of those tough decisions which other people criticized as slashing and leaving people out in the cold. Lo and behold, in a shorter time than we even predicted, we had a balanced budget. Looking at the last chart, we seek tax reduction for one reason and one reason only, to grow this economy. I want to remind Members of a time when we were spending a larger percentage of the gross domestic product on national defense than we are today, a larger percentage of the economy than we are having to do in this Iraq situation, and that was in 1981 and 1982 when President Reagan ushered in a very meaningful tax cut for the American people. Did we have to slash programs? As a matter of fact, revenue grew almost every year after the Reagan tax cuts because the economy grew. That is what we are trying to do with our tax policy here.

Mr. WICKER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am a member of the Budget Committee. It is my first year on this committee and my ninth year on the Appropriations Committee. Certainly I am pleased with the progress that we have made during my 8 years of service in the Congress in terms of what we have been able to do on the budget. In 1995, a Democrat President came before this Congress and proposed deficits as far as the eye could see: the first decade, deficits of $200 billion a year; then $300 billion a year every year after that. We Republicans said that we could do it differently. We said we could make the tough choices, and we enacted a budget resolution in 1995 to say that we would balance the budget in 7 years. We had a little good luck with the economy, I think in large part because of our tax cuts that we gave to the American people, and we were able to balance the budget in half that time. Now, this day, in 2003, we are facing deficits. So what happened between those successful days of surpluses and the budget deficit that we are facing right now? The main thing that happened to our budget to put us back into deficits is, frankly, the terrorist attack of 9-11, 2001. That one event, Mr. Speaker, cost us $80 billion in additional expenditures in one fiscal year alone, and an additional $200 billion, approximately, in lost revenue. So it is no wonder that that hit to our economy has cost us the surplus, and that we are back into deficits. Of course, we are experiencing a recession now, and we have to address that, also. It has been another part of this deficit. But this debate today, as provided for under the rule, Mr. Speaker, will be very instructive. I just want to point out to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that everyone today will want to come down to the floor and decry deficit spending. We will not hear one single Member of this House of Representatives come to the floor today and advocate deficits or say they like deficits. The big difference in the debate, as provided for under this rule, is how we propose to tackle the problem. Today--this budget debate--is one of the best opportunities to see the differences between the two political parties on this issue. My friend, the gentleman from Georgia who spoke just a few moments ago, is exactly correct on this. It is very instructive because it represents two very different philosophies of spending. With all due respect, my Democrat friends will present proposals today that say they want to attack the deficit problem by enacting higher taxes and higher spending. I say that with all due respect. It is their political philosophy and it is simply a fact. On the other hand, the House Republican budget that I support today, presents a plan to balance the Federal budget in 9 years. How do we do that? We do that the way we always try to do it, by keeping the pressure on to hold down Federal expenditures and the rate of growth of Federal spending, and by boosting the economy by reducing the tax burden on hardworking Americans. Some people have said that our budget is too austere, that it does not spend enough money. We will have that debate today. But I would like for my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to look at this chart about where spending has been under the 8 years of Republican majorities and where it will go under the budget resolution. This spending trend of non- Social Security mandatory outlays in billions of dollars shows that this very austere budget will still amount to quite an increase in Federal expenditures. Mr. Speaker, let's not let anyone tell us that we are actually cutting Federal spending in anything we do today. The question is simply, What is the rate of growth and who will grow it at a larger rate? Our budget grows the total Federal budget at a rate of 3.1 percent for next year. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is an adequate figure, considering the fact that we are going to have to spend more money on national defense and that we are in a recession and we need to give the American taxpayer more of their money back in the form of tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), on this budget. I thank him for working with me as a new member of the Committee, and certainly I intend to support this budget resolution. I ask each of my colleagues to join in a ``yes'' vote on the rule and also on the Republican budget proposal.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to an individual whose dedication and contributions to my home state of Mississippi are exceptional. Dr. A. Wallace Conerly has devoted his career to public service. A native of Tylertown, Mississippi, Dr. Conerly graduated from Millsaps College in 1957, and went on to receive his M.D. from Tulane University in 1960. He served six years in the United States Air Force until his honorable discharge with the rank of Major. Since 1973, Wally has dedicated his time to the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi. He held the title of Assistant Vice Chancellor for 13 years until obtaining the title of Chief Executive Officer in 1994. As the CEO of the state's only academic health sciences center, he leads an institution of 7200 employees with an annual budget of more than $610,000,000. Dr. Conerly has directed a $335 million building program, the largest in the history of higher education in Mississippi, including a new children's hospital, a new women and infant's hospital, a new 256 bed adult hospital and a critical care hospital, along with a host of new facilities for the School of Nursing, the School of Health Related Professions and the Medical Center complex. He created a campus-wide Office of Research in 1998 to further enhance the Medical Center's research mission. Since that time, grant and contracts awarded to the Medical Center have more than tripled-- from approximately $12 million to more than $40 Million annually. He spearheaded the Medical Center's efforts to get national Heart, Lung and Blood Institute funding for the Jackson Heat Study, the project that will follow cardiovascular risk factors in African-Americans for decades. Wally Conerly has worked hard to make the Medical Center a more diverse environment. He has expanded the institution's efforts to recruit and retain minority students. He was successful in securing funding for 12 full scholarships designated for African-American students in the School of Medicine. The scholarships, worth approximately S25,000 annually to the student, also have helped keep these promising young students in Mississippi--where they are now more likely to practice. Wally also has worked to increase the Medical Center's number of minority employees at the professional level through aggressive recruitment efforts. Currently, 35 percent of UMC's employees in that category are minorities; approximately 45 percent of the Medical Center's total work force is minority. In 2001, Minority Access, Inc. recognized the Medical Center as a ``National Role Model Institution'' for these achievements. Dr Conerly has enriched the lives of Mississippians and enhanced the national prominence of the Medical Center resulting in better health care for our citizens. In August 2002, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson appointed Dr. Conerly to a four-year term on the Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine. He is the first Mississippi an to serve on the prestigious body. Dr. Conerly has served on the Board of Directors of the American Red Cross, Mississippi Chapter and the Capital Area United Way. He is past president of the Rotary Club of Jackson and past chairman of the Board of Governors of the University Club. He is on the boards of the Metro Jackson Chamber of Commerce, Junior Achievement, the Jackson Medical Education District, the Community Bank and it's a member of the Community Advisory Council of the Junior League of Jackson. In 2001, the Mississippi Division of the Multiple Sclerosis Society honored Dr. Conerly with the Hope Award. He also received Millsaps College's ``Alumnus of the Year'' award in 2002, and he and his wife Frances Bryan Conerly were recognized as the 2002 People of Vision by Preserve Sight Mississippi. Wally and Frances are the proud parents of two sons, Al and Charlie. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend this extraordinary man and my dear friend for his superior service and thank him for his strong commitment to helping the citizens of Mississippi.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution because it provides an opportunity for peace through diplomacy while preserving the President's flexibility to engage the full force of our military to protect national security. The resolution before us does not preordain a path for our President to choose. Rather, this resolution provides the President with all possible options. Enacting the resolution does not mean that an attack is imminent. It does mean that an escalation of our current military conflict with Iraq is a real possibility. Enacting this resolution does not mean that the President will stop pursuing diplomatic and peaceful means to a solution. It does mean that there can be consequences to continued inaction by the Iraqi regime. Enacting this resolution will show the world, our traditional allies, our potential allies, the Iraqi people, and most importantly Saddam Hussein, that the United States speaks with one voice in our determination to bring peace and stability to the world. The resolution references the continuing threat posed by Iraq. Make no mistake, this threat is real and it is growing. It is not just that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Speaker. He has used them. He used them against Iran. He used chemical weapons against his country's own people, the Kurds of northern Iraq. And we have to ask ourselves this question, Mr. Speaker: Since Saddam Hussein has no greater opponent than the United States and our people and since he continues to develop more and more weapons, where will he use them next? In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, countless voices asked this question: Did we do everything we could do to prevent this tragedy? To answer that question in the world that exists today, in a world in which an enemy can inflict damage with an army of one, we must be willing to change fundamentally our security strategy by accepting that intervention is a necessary part of protecting our safety. With the passage of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein will be able to choose his destiny. Either Saddam Hussein's regime must change the way it acts or the regime itself must change.