Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the gentleman from Maryland as to the amount of speakers he has remaining.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 25 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I am a veteran of the United States Air Force. I have worn the uniform of my country, and I still serve in the United States Air Force Reserve. And I would tell my friend from New Jersey that every member of the United States military is prohibited by law from making political contributions. When I was on active duty, I could not make political contributions. I was just as good a citizen then as I am now; but because of the very nature of my activity, I could not make such contributions, and I was no less of a citizen.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. It closes a loophole in our current campaign finance system which allows foreign interests to influence United States elections. It requires that contributions to Federal candidates be made by either United States citizens or American nationals. When discussing this amendment with many of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, they have asked me, ``Isn't that already the current law?'' Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, it is not the current law. And so this amendment is being offered and designed to combat foreign influence in our elections and in our Federal Government. The Shays-Meehan campaign regulations bill permits contributions from permanent resident aliens. The problem is this, Mr. Chairman: The Federal Election Commission has interpreted this exemption to the point where all a foreign citizen, a foreign citizen, needs is an address in the United States to be permitted to make a contribution. This alien loophole makes it easier for foreign interests to funnel money to United States political campaigns. Hours ago on this floor of the House, my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) mentioned that it might take more than one scandal to bring a bill to the floor. He mentioned several, but one of the scandals he mentioned was the contribution of foreign nationals to our Federal election in 1996. He mentioned that as one of the scandals that we had had in the United States of America, and indeed it was. The American people witnessed in the Clinton-Gore campaign a breathtaking willingness to solicit campaign money from noncitizens. It is this abuse which my amendment is designed to address. The video of Al Gore soliciting money from Buddhist monks who had taken a vow of poverty is an example of the type of campaign finance abuses this amendment addresses. This is a serious matter. The fact that it is simple in nature does not take away from the seriousness of it. We are talking about protecting our process from campaign contributions from China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, wherever, into our system. This amendment, has already passed this House of Representatives on three occasions: once under suspension as a freestanding bill and twice as amendments to the Shays-Meehan legislation. In the 105th Congress, it received a vote of 282-126; in the 106th Congress, a margin of 242- 181. On both of those occasions, the amendment was adopted, the Shays- Meehan bill came to final passage, and the Shays-Meehan bill was adopted overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives. So I challenge those of my colleagues who have been saying throughout the afternoon that this amendment is a poison pill amendment. We have adopted three amendments already today which I think have improved this legislation. This amendment is one that has widespread bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to adopt it as they have the other three amendments. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, who is my friend, for the tone of his remarks, and I would assure him that when I was a member of the United States Air Force, it may have been by statute, it may have been by regulation, but members of the service were prohibited from making contributions, and we were still good citizens. Mr. Chairman, I regret the tone that this debate has taken tonight. I am looking out at the faces of my colleagues. I know them, they know me. I would hope they would not impugn a racist motive to an amendment that I have offered on several occasions in this body and has been adopted overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. This is an issue of foreign campaign influence, and I regret that tonight there have been attempts to turn it into a minority issue or a racial issue, or an immigration issue, because it most certainly is not. It is about the fact that really and truly, abuses have occurred, and this legislation has been adopted by this body three times already to address those abuses. It simply makes the statement and would make the statement in the form of the Shays-Meehan bill that the election of Federal officials is the duty of United States citizens, and that is all the amendment does. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would go ahead with his one speaker, then I will conclude our portion of the debate.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join my chairman and my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), in supporting this bill and to urge my colleagues to adopt the conference report overwhelmingly. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that typically many people in the United States would just as soon we forget about. There are a lot of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, who would go back to their town meetings and proudly tell some of their constituents that they never voted for any foreign assistance. Yet, Mr. Speaker, those same people, when September 11 occurred and when we realized that the United States would have to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan, that we would have to be engaged in that region, those very same Members who proudly said they never voted for a dime in foreign aid are glad that we have a friend or two in that region. They are proud and thankful that the United States has some influence there. If by spending just a little money on international military education, de-mining activities, Peace Corps activities, UNICEF, child survival, HIV/AIDS, we have obtained a little influence in those regions, then I proudly say that that is money spent not only for doing good across the world, but also money spent in our national interest. It has already been pointed out that this bill today, even with the small increase that we have, amounts to less than 1 percent of all of the money that the United States will spend for all purposes during this fiscal year. And while some people around the country would not spend anything on this bill at all, I think most Americans, when informed that it is less than 1 percent, say that that is a good price to pay to extend our influence and our friendship around the world. We are providing assistance in many good ways, Mr. Speaker. And make no mistake about it, we intend to do good with this bill and we are providing help to other nations. But the main reason we pass this bill today and the main reason that I vote for it as a fiscal conservative is that it is absolutely in the national interest of the United States of America for us to extend our influence around the globe. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for their hard work.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me, and I thank him for his kind words. I, too, want to commend the staff. I am glad that the ranking member, as well as our two chairmen, have gone on at length about this. While most Americans were at Christmas parties and then in the wee hours nestled all snug in our beds with visions of Christmas, these staff members have been up two nights in a row without sleep at all. I just hope that my colleagues, when they come to the floor and vote on final passage overwhelmingly for this bill, will go to both the minority and majority members of the staff and give them a hearty Christmas handshake and a word of thanks. This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. It is a bipartisan bill, as both sides have mentioned. It makes important strides in the areas of health and education. While we are providing the largest increase ever for Federal education programs, I am pleased that we are doing it in the right way. We are focusing on block grants. We are focusing on funding programs that reserve most education decisions for State and local officials. I am also pleased, Mr. Speaker, that we have found a better way to fund Title I programs. The new formulas that we are adopting will make sure that Federal education funds are going to the poorest school districts and are reserved for the neediest children. This bill also provides an increase of $1.2 billion over last year for State grants for special education. I am pleased that Congress has resisted the effort to make this important program an entitlement. That would have hindered our efforts to make needed reforms next year, and I look forward to working with the authorizing committee next year on the reauthorization of the IDEA program. Finally, Mr. Speaker, with regard to health, this bill continues the bipartisan commitment to substantially increasing funding for the National Institutes of Health. We provide an additional $3 billion for NIH and have also dramatically increased funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including important state-based chronic disease prevention and immunization programs, as my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland, has already mentioned. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, it is an excellent bipartisan work product, and I believe it will receive bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, ever since the events of September 11, people in communities large and small have looked for ways to show their support for the victims of terrorism and to express the pride they have in this great country. I rise today to share the story of an inspiring, patriotic project undertaken in a community in Mississippi's First Congressional District. The students and residents of Jumpertown, in Prentiss County, Mississippi, chose a unique way to share their words of support and patriotism by including them in a quilt. I was honored to be asked to deliver it to President Bush. Mrs. Nancy Johnson, a teacher at the school, conceived the idea, which quickly became more than a school project. It was enthusiastically embraced by the entire community. Mrs. Betty Sue Geno started the process by cutting cloth squares, which were then distributed to each class, kindergarten through 12th grade, in the 365-member student body at Jumpertown School. The office staff and lunchroom ladies also participated. Each group was given the opportunity to create and decorate the individual squares. When all pieces were completed, Mrs. Penny Padgett designed and sewed the quilt top. Then the squares were turned over to a group of ladies in the community who met at the Barksdale Parents Center for an old- fashioned quilting bee. The ladies who put it all together were Mrs. Ruby Smart, Mrs. Sue Nell Searcy, Mrs. Mary Odle, and Mrs. Louise Robinson. They were assisted by teachers and staff members from Jumpertown School, including Lisa Cousar, Eleshia Jumper, and Martha Mitchell. Mr. Speaker, I was proud to be part of a patriotic ceremony on November 12, the day after Veterans Day, to present the quilt officially. The entire school assembled in the gymnasium, along with many people from the community, to pay tribute to Prentiss County veterans and to celebrate this very special project. Prentiss County superintendent of education Judy Perrigo and Jumpertown principal Kenneth Chisholm took part in the program. It included patriotic musical selections from students Kayla Robinson and Megan Downs and teacher Norma Jo Jones. Sixth-grader Channing Durham also read a poem he had written. In her remarks, Mrs. Johnson said, ``Much as our Nation has come together, our community has pulled together on this quilt. We are sending this to the President with the hope that he knows that in Jumpertown our prayers, our thoughts, and our support are with him and the country.'' This project in Jumpertown, Mississippi, Mr. Speaker, is a reflection of the American spirit which has sustained our Nation during these difficult times. I proudly accepted this quilt on behalf of the entire United States Congress, and I look forward to taking it to President Bush at the White House.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I certainly shall not object as the sponsor of this legislation. I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and also the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for their hard work and cooperation on this issue, along with expressing my thanks to the ranking members, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), as well as to my principal cosponsor, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson). Mr. Speaker, let me just briefly say that this legislation left this House with a unanimous vote and 310 cosponsors, and it will authorize the Centers of Excellence at the National Institutes of Health as well as an epidemiological survey at the CDC for Duchenne muscular dystrophy and other forms of childhood muscular dystrophy. I have to say that I cannot think of a better Christmas present during this time between Thanksgiving and Christmas for the tens of thousands of parents whose children suffer from this lethal disease. Duchenne muscular dystrophy, as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) knows, is the most common and most lethal form of childhood genetic disease. By the passage of this legislation tonight, we are giving honest, real hope to the parents of these children and to the entire American people who want to fight this disease. My appreciation goes to everyone. I have been a strong supporter of NIH and all of the scientists and dedicated professionals at the National Institutes of Health. I want to thank them for their cooperation for helping us write a better bill than I had originally offered. I am grateful to everyone, and my hat is off to the Duchenne muscular dystrophy parents who have actually made this possible. With those words of thanks and appreciation, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana under my reservation.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time under my reservation, I thank my chairman. I will simply conclude by saying it is not often that we are surprised with this legislative business, but I think the speed with which this legislation swept through the House of Representatives and also the other body has taken my breath away. My hat is off to the leadership of the House and to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for those kind remarks. I rise in strong support of this bill. It is a pleasure to be on this subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, I want to make three points about this legislation which, of course, will pass overwhelmingly in just a few moments. First of all, the chairman and the ranking member mentioned the Corps of Engineers construction account. My chairman mentioned that the administration's request was, frankly, inadequate when it came to us. Certainly there may be reasons for that, the lack of time the administration had in being able to put the budget together. My friend from Indiana, the ranking member, called on Members to speak to the administration about the fact that, frankly, the request was unrealistic, and perhaps we can do a better job of communicating with the administration in the future about this. But this has happened year in and year out, Mr. Speaker. It is not just the Bush administration, and it was not just the Clinton administration. Year in and year out, Democrat and Republican administrations have cut needed funds from the Corps' budget request, knowing full well that this House of Representatives and the other body would have to restore those funds in order to meet the needs. There is a simple principle that applies to everyone's home, or if you are in a business it applies to the businesses, and it is so simple it almost goes without saying. That principle, Mr. Speaker, is that oftentimes you can spend a little money today in order to save the expense of a whole lot of money tomorrow. If there is a problem with the seal around your front door, if you just spend a little money and it keeps the water from coming in, you are saving yourself from having to replace a whole bunch of carpet and a whole bunch of things inside the building later on. If you own a business and that roof needs to be repaired, I think all of my colleagues would agree you better go ahead and spend the little money now to repair the roof, rather than to spend all the money that it will take to correct the situation once it gets out of hand. That is why we needed the plus-up; and that is why I commend the leadership of the committee, both in the House and in the Senate, for putting the adequate money in there and addressing the need, so we could save money tomorrow. Now, let me just also mention a second point. Waterways are national issues. Our Nation's waterways do not recognize State lines. For example, over 40 percent of our Nation's water flows by the borders of my home State of Mississippi. So flood control and maintaining navigable waterways is a national issue, and I am pleased that this subcommittee and this bill makes the needed infrastructure investments for those activities. Finally, I would join the rest of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, in commending the leadership of this committee, my chairman and my ranking member, for working on a bipartisan basis. This is a bipartisan effort, and this is the sort of way in which our House of Representatives should conduct itself. I urge overwhelming support for this legislation.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say there has been no greater advocate for the LIHEAP program than my friend from New York, and I appreciate his efforts and I appreciate his remarks. His compliments were directed toward the chairman of the subcommittee; but I think also it is fair to say that the ranking member and the chairman have worked closely together, and I appreciate his acknowledgment of the generosity of the bill as it is with regard to LIHEAP. I would reiterate that the bill includes the highest funding level ever provided for the LIHEAP program at $2 billion. So I thank the gentleman for his efforts. I am sure he will persevere in the particular idea which he had for us today.

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by my good friend, Mr. Pickering. The United States Catfish industry is currently subjected to unfair trade competition which threatens the future success of many catfish producers and the communities they support. Frozen fish fillets of an entirely different family of fish are imported and unlawfully passed off to customers as ``catfish''. This is happening in such large and increasing volumes that the true ``North American Catfish'' market is being flooded by a lesser quality product at a much cheaper price. American consumers are defrauded into believing that they are receiving farm raised U.S. catfish instead of another species of fish raised along the Mekong River in Vietnam. Most of the Vietnamese fish are raised in floating cages and ponds along the Mekong River Delta, feeding on whatever floats down the river. Yet the importers are fraudulently marketing them as farm-raised grain-fed catfish. Since the Vietnamese do not place a high value on cultivating the fish in a controlled environment, their cost of production is much lower. Importers of the Vietnam fish, searching for new markets, were allowed by the FDA to use the term ``catfish'' in combination with previously approved names. This has resulted in imports entering the U.S. in skyrocketing quantities. The amendment offered today will correct this mistake and help assure that consumers are receiving the quality product that they so desire. It is unlawful to pass a cheaper fish species off as another species. There is evidence of widespread illegal packaging and labeling of the Vietnamese fish which violates numerous existing laws, including the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, the Trade-Mark Act of 1946, the Customs origin marking requirements, and the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. Since 1997, the total import volume of Vietnamese catfish has risen from less than 500 thousand pounds to over 7 million pounds in 2000. According to the most recent data, imports are reaching levels of 2 million pounds per month and are on target to reach over 20 million pounds this year. As of May this year, Vietnamese fish imports have captured an estimated 20% of the U.S. catfish fillet market. There are over 189,000 acres of land in catfish production, of which 110,000 are in my home state of Mississippi. U.S. catfish farmers produce 600 million pounds of farm-raised catfish annually and require 1.8 billion pounds of feed. This supports over 90,000 acres of corn, 500,000 acres of soybeans, and cotton seed from over 230,000 acres of cotton. This very young industry has created a catfish market where none had previously existed. They have done this by investing substantial capital to producing a quality product which the consumer considers to be reliable, safe, and healthy. We cannot allow unfair competition to destroy the livelihood of farmers, processors, employees and communities which depend on the American catfish industry. I urge my colleagues to help protect the American catfish industry and ensure that consumers are receiving the quality product they expect by supporting the amendment offered by Mr. Pickering.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that it is indeed encouraging to see this House of Representatives coming together in support of H.R. 717, legislation which, as the gentleman from Florida said, is designed to increase the Federal research commitment to combat muscular dystrophy. I want to thank the leadership of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), for their efforts in moving this bill through their committee and to the floor. I also want to thank my friend from Ohio for his kind comments about this legislation. And I want to thank the 310 cosponsors of this legislation who have demonstrated the broad bipartisan support that this bill enjoys. In addition, I want to thank the parents of the young boys who suffer from Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Make no mistake about it, the parents and families of Duchenne boys have been the driving force in moving this bill and calling attention to this dreadful disease, people like Darlene Oliver of Tupelo, Mississippi, who has been tireless in her efforts. These parents, who are sitting around the country today on pins and needles as we debate this legislation, through their letters and visits to Members of Congress, have been instrumental in getting this bill to the House floor today. I have received a flood of letters, e-mails, and calls from parents of DMD children from all over the country, often accompanied by pictures of their little boys. Even those who have already experienced the sorrow of losing a child have written to express their gratitude for this bill. A few days ago, I received a card from a woman in Raleigh, North Carolina. In part she writes, and I quote, ``You can't possibly know how much your support means to us, Andrew's family. Our son will not benefit from your largesse, but countless children will. You have given hope to so many.'' Mr. Speaker, through the work of NIH and CDC, the Federal Government has given hope to millions of Americans who suffer from a wide variety of diseases, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and arthritis. The research done at NIH and sponsored by NIH at universities across America is on the cutting edge of modern science. This is an arena where the Government must play an important role to ensure that the cures of tomorrow are available to all. Along with many of my colleagues, I have been proud to support the increases which are necessary to double the funding of NIH over a period of 5 years. However, not all who suffer from disease have been able to realize the promise of NIH research. Duchenne muscular dystrophy, as the chairman pointed out, is the most common and most lethal childhood genetic disorder. Yet less than one one-thousandth of the NIH budget is focused on research linked to muscular dystrophy. Although the dystrophin gene which causes DMD was successfully identified and isolated by medical researchers in 1987, Federal research has been minimal. Many family physicians and health care professionals lack the knowledge and resources to detect and properly diagnose the disease as early as possible, allowing the disease to progress unchecked in cases that are undetected or misdiagnosed. Mr. Speaker, during the August recess, while I was traveling across my district like so many of my colleagues, I met Walter and Inez Ewing of Prairie, Mississippi, who have lost five of their eight children to this disease. Each of these boys died at a young age, devastating the family and friends in Monroe County, Mississippi. It is my hope that through the enactment of this legislation and with continued increased appropriations for the NIH and CDC, we can make great strides against this killer of our children and we can give more hope to the children and their parents who suffer from its effects. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, a dark cloak of terrorism fell across the United States with the brutal and heinous attacks on our country. The Nation watched in horror as events unfolded and Americans faced the harsh reality of terror right on our own doorstep. In the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, thousands of people lie in the rubble. In the still smouldering center of our national defense headquarters, many are still unaccounted for. Our hearts and prayers go out to those victims and their families. The surest consolation for those left behind, and indeed for all of us, can be found in the confident knowledge that the blessings of this Nation, life, liberty, and freedom, will endure. One of our most treasured symbols of freedom is the Statue of Liberty. Inscribed in the pedestal are these words of hope, written in a different era, but which are appropriate today. They are taken from President Franklin Roosevelt's State of the Union message less than 1 month after the bombing of Pearl Harbor: ``Liberty is the air America breathes. In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear.'' Mr. Speaker, Americans today yearn to be free of fear, to believe these terrorist attacks were an isolated incident which will not happen again. Yet we have no such guarantee. Americans should know that the forces of evil which perpetrated these acts may make further attempts on our soil. These forces are not readily identifiable. As the President said this morning, ``The American people need to know that this is a different enemy than we have ever faced.'' Mr. Speaker, that is why the United States must candidly acknowledge that more resources must be devoted to our intelligence and defense operations to defend against this new type of warfare. America will respond swiftly, decisively, and with force to these acts of war on our homeland; but we must also, to the best of our ability, make the necessary preparations to protect our country from the threat of this new warfare in the future. We stand united as a Congress and as a country to defeat our enemies and to preserve our freedom, now and forever. May God grant us the resolve, the courage, and the national determination to overcome this tragedy.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to this resolution. While I have always been a strong supporter of free trade, I can not support expanding trade with Vietnam until the administration addresses a serious conflict between Vietnam and the United States catfish industry. Frozen fish fillets of an entirely different family of fish are imported and unlawfully passed off to customers as ``catfish`` in such large and increasing volumes that it threatens the future success of the American catfish industry. American consumers are being defrauded into believing that they are receiving farm raised U.S. catfish instead of another species of fish raised along the Mekong River in Vietnam. Most of the Vietnamese fish are raised in floating cages and ponds along the Mekong River Delta, feeding on whatever floats down the river. Yet they are fraudulently marketing them as farm-raised grain-fed catfish. Since the Vietnamese do not place a high value on cultivating the fish in a controlled environment, their cost of production is much lower. Importing interests of the Vietnam fish, searching for new markets, were allowed by the FDA to use the term ``catfish'' in combination with previously approved names. This has resulted in imports entering the U.S. in skyrocketing quantities and being fraudulently passed off to American consumers as ``catfish.'' It is unlawful to pass a cheaper fish species off as another species. There is evidence of widespread illegal packaging and labeling of the Vietnamese fish which violates numerous existing laws, including the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, the Trade-Mark Act of 1946, the Customs origin marking requirements, and the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. I understand that the bilateral agreement includes some trademark protection, but until importers are required to comply with current law, I do not think we can expect these protections to be enforced. Since 1997, the total import volume of Vietnamese catfish has risen from less than 500 thousand pounds to over 7 million pounds in 2000. According to this year's recorded import numbers, imports are reaching levels of 2 million pounds per month and on target to reach over 20 million pounds in this year alone. As of May this year, Vietnamese imports of frozen fish fillets were equivalent to 20 percent of the sales of the United States farm-raised frozen fillets. There are over 189,000 acres of land in catfish production, of which 110,000 are in my home state of Mississippi. U.S. catfish farmers produce 600 million pounds of farm-raised catfish annually and require 1.8 billion pounds of feed. This supports over 90,000 acres of corn, 500,000 acres of soybeans, and cotton seed from over 230,000 acres of cotton. This very young industry has created a catfish market where none had previously existed. They have done this by investing substantial capital to producing a quality product which the consumer considers to be reliable, safe, and healthy. We can not allow unfair competition to destroy the livelihood of farmers, processors, employees, and communities which depend on the American catfish industry. Before we expand trade relations with Vietnam, our two governments must resolve this issue in a way that ensures the quality and safety of Vietnamese imported fish products. The Administration must also enforce current law so that our American catfish producers are not unfairly put out of business. I am hopeful this issue can be resolved so that all Americans can enjoy the benefits of free and fair trade with Vietnam.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, until such time as the administration can reach a fair agreement with Vietnam on the catfish issue. Well, my suggestion is that they are going to continue stealing our software in Vietnam, just as in China, now that we have liberalized trade with them. It has not changed their practices one iota at all. So let us understand that when we make agreements with these types of regimes, these criminal regimes around the world, surprise, surprise, we are not going to be treated as if we are dealing with an honest democratically elected government that keeps its word. Instead, we are dealing with gangsters who pirate, and not only pirate but repress their own people, even commit murder. I mean, they murder their opponents in these regimes, and that means Vietnam, and yet we expect them to abide by some nice trade agreement with us? No. The agreements that they make with us will only be followed to the point that they are beneficial to the Vietnamese Government and the clique that runs that country. Let us take a look. We have heard about the catfish industry. I am very happy that the catfish industry was brought up today because we do not know whether or not the catfish industry in Vietnam was established with the help of a taxpayer loan or subsidy from the U.S. taxpayers, but we do know that we have several Congressmen from a variety of States here worried about their constituents being put out of work because catfish from Vietnam are flooding into our market. We do not know whether or not that catfish industry was set up with a taxpayer subsidized loan; but we do know that there is slave labor in Vietnam, that there are none of the environmental health standards in Vietnam, and there are none of the other types of protections in Vietnam that would be required of them if they were raising those catfish in the United States. And by the way, those same requirements might be put on Vietnam if they had a democratic government. If they had a democratic government, maybe they would be forced to pay their people more, or perhaps the people of Vietnam would demand higher health standards. But they do not have a democratic government. They have a gangster clique that runs the country and they are going to manipulate the catfish industry for their benefit. I would bet some of this clique in Hanoi are making money off the catfish industry by putting our people out of work. By making this agreement today, we will just do for the rest of American industry, step by step, what was done to the catfish industry, and we will be doing it with subsidies from the American taxpayers and loan guarantees from the American taxpayer. It makes no sense. Let us talk a little bit about the issue of human rights. And I will just say to my colleagues that suggest that if we would just open up these economic ties, there will be more respect. In fact, we have heard some people claim there has already been progress. There has been no progress. There has been retrogression in China, and there has been no progress about opening up that system democratically in Vietnam whatsoever. There are more five-star hotels around so that there our big businessmen with guaranteed loans in their pockets from the American taxpayers can go over there and invest and set up factories over there to use slave labor. Oh, yes, there are some five-star hotels, but that is not progress. That is not progress at all. What we still have are no opposition parties, no independent courts at all. There is no rule of law in that country, no freedom of the press, so nobody can criticize the corruption there. And that is why people do not invest unless they have government guarantees and loans or subsidies, because it is too risky a proposition. Why are we setting up the rules of the game and doing trade with a country like that when instead we should be seeking to encourage people to invest in democratic countries like the Philippines or in our own country to protect people with our own jobs? Last but not least, the POW issue. I have spent so much time on this issue over my 13 years in Congress. I cannot say it is more than any other Member, but I know that I have spent considerable time on it. I have been to Vietnam numerous occasions and Southeast Asia numerous occasions on this issue. I have studied it and I, without hesitation, can tell my colleagues that I do not believe this government has cooperated in good faith with the United States in trying to have an accounting for those Americans who were seen alive in captivity before the return. There were over 200 of those Americans who were in captivity; we knew they were, yet they were not returned at the end of the war. We want to find out what happened to those people. We do not want to have this obfuscation. We do not want this issue sugar-coated or candy-coated. They show pictures of this issue, of our people there digging for bones. Yes, digging for some of those bones will bring closure to some people, but we want truth. We want to establish the truth. If they kept those people and they murdered them later on, let us hear about it, and we can close this chapter of the book. But let us not let them get away with the same falsehood they have been using on their own people. I would ask for my colleagues to join me in opposition to this trade deal. It is contrary to America's interests. It is a bad deal. It is contrary to our values and will not bring a close to the Vietnam era. It will just leave this corrupt dictatorship thinking they put one over on us. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4. The most important action the Federal Government can take to stabilize energy prices for the American consumer is to develop and implement a coordinated, long-range national energy policy. H.R. 4 is the result of the hard work of five congressional Committees, who have incorporated conservation, environmental regulations, alternative energy sources, tax relief, and increased production to produce a comprehensive national energy plan. In the foreseeable future, domestic exploration, and production of oil and natural gas will have a critical impact on our country's economy, stability, and international relationships. During the last 30 years, we have watched OPEC coalesce, fractionalize, and coalesce again. I do not think we will ever have more than a superficial influence over many of the OPEC nations. Libya, Algeria, Iran, Nigeria, and Iraq are not what I would call our allies. Why then should we place such heavy reliance on them to meet our energy needs? The answer for the United States to the supply manipulations by the OPEC cartel is sufficient access to the best oil and natural gas fields here at home. That's why I strongly support the lease sale of area 181, and other tracts in the eastern gulf, and why I believe now is the time to open up area 1002 in the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska. While we may never be completely self-reliant for oil supply, we can make a dramatic difference by developing the resources domestically in a reasonable and responsible fashion. Though domestic production is an essential part of the national energy policy, H.R. 4 addresses other variables that are vital to the full implementation of a coherent national energy plan. While most experts acknowledge that natural gas represents an abundant energy resource for the future, we must ensure there will be sufficient transmission capacity for this uniquely North American product 10 years from now. The regulatory obstacles to operating pipelines--much less constructing new lines--are too numerous to count. H.R. 4 recognizes these obstacles and includes incentives for companies to construct new lines and add capacity that will increase the reliability of America's utility infrastructure H.R. 4 creates a favorable tax climate that encourages increased production while also providing tax incentives for individuals and businesses to increase their conservation efforts. H.R. 4 is a well balanced piece of legislation that draws upon conservation efforts, increased domestic production, and tax incentives to develop the beginnings of a national energy policy that will help decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources and help stabilize energy prices for the American consumer.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to debate national energy policy, a solar-powered car race which concluded yesterday calls attention to the uses of alternative energy sources. The Winston Solar Challenge is an educational competition among high school teams from across our Nation. The winner will compete in the world competition this November in Australia. This 8-day race covered a 1,400 mile course from Texas to Indiana. The competition concluded late yesterday with the winning team finishing more than 271 miles in front of their closest competitor. I am immensely proud that the winner of this race is from the city of Houston, Mississippi, located in my district. Under the guidance of advisers Danny Lantrip and Keith Reese, the team includes Captains Trey Ellison, Andy Goode, and members Daniel Black, Clay Bishop, Adam Duncan, Marshall Faulkner, Chris Free, Jason Mallone, Josh Moore, Casey Smith, Nikkie Smith, Bryan White, Jimmy Jones, and Jeannie Moore. Congratulations to the Houston Solar Race Team on an extraordinary performance and a job well done. The city of Houston, Chickasaw County, the entire State of Mississippi, and now the United States of America are proud of you.