Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, then the large amounts above and beyond that in blue amount to the actual appropriations that we have been able to get through this subcommittee and through the Congress of the United States for the National Institutes of Health?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I, too, agree, Mr. Chairman, that it is unfortunate that this debate is being used to make political points. NIH and health research has certainly been something that this committee and this subcommittee has approached on a bipartisan basis. And I must say that the gentleman in the well, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is in his last year as subcommittee chairman, is leaving a rich legacy of bipartisanship and also support for real programs for real people, improving their health. Under his leadership, this subcommittee and this committee have shown their support in terms of the dollars indicated there. I would like to ask the chairman though about the chart there. Do I understand that the red figures are the cumulative amounts of money proposed by President Clinton in his budget; is that correct?

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for members of the committee to realize what is going on tonight. It is hard to imagine that the author of the amendment is serious about adding a mere $1,000 to this very important program. But it does give Members on both sides of the aisle an opportunity to get up and talk about a program which both the majority and the minority in this House of Representatives feel very strongly about; that is the Child Care Block Grant. But it also gives the minority party in this committee an opportunity to get up and say that there has been a substantial cut in child care appropriation when, actually, that is the farthest thing from the truth. The truth of the matter is that the Child Care Block Grant under this very bill that we are debating tonight has been increased by $400 million over the expenditure of last year. Now, it is true that the President in his budget came up with an increase of over $800 million requested in his budget, and it is easy to request money in the national budget. But the fact of the matter is that this committee, in a responsible manner, provided a substantial increase to Child Care Block Grants. It is incorrect to come before this body and say that those funds have been cut; $400 million more than last year is an increase. Now, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the previous speaker, also mentioned a very valuable program, Head Start. It is a program that is dear to my heart. It has been supported by Members of both parties. It has been supported by administrations of both parties. But it is inaccurate to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this committee has cut Head Start. Indeed, we did not give the President all of the money he requested. But the fact of the matter is that this bill that we are debating, although it does not touch on this amendment, this bill that we are debating increases Head Start again by $400 million. $400 million more for Head Start in this bill, $400 million more for child care in this bill. That is hardly a cut. I just wish that we could get the facts straight and not be suggesting things that are not part of the bill. I oppose the amendment because I do not believe it is offered seriously, but I hope that no one in this House or no one in this committee will be under the mistaken impression that these two programs have been cut. Indeed, they have received substantial increases thanks to the leadership of this subcommittee.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my subcommittee chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this is really an amendment about four important programs: to add money to title I, grants to LEAS, to Head Start, 21st Century After-School Centers, and child care CCDBG for fiscal year 2001. But as with most of these amendments, from my Democratic colleagues, it turns out to be an opportunity for discussion about Republican tax cuts. And for my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), just a few moments ago, it turned out to be an opportunity to denounce the record of President Ronald Reagan, who did lead this Congress in 1981 to cut taxes on the American people so that they could keep a little more of their money. My friend from Maryland suggests, and I believe I am quoting him correctly, that President Reagan was willing to do without revenues, to cut back on revenues, so that he could cut taxes. Well, I have here in my hand a document entitled Table B-80, Federal Receipts and Outlays. It is for the past 60 past years, 1940 to the year 2000. And it shows very clearly, when we talk about total revenue to the Nation, that, back in 1981, when President Reagan persuaded a Democrat House to go along with the Senate of the United States in cutting taxes, that revenues then were $678.2 billion per year. This document, put out by the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget, and I defy any Member of this House of Representatives to show me that it is incorrect, shows that, under the Reagan years after those tax cuts, revenues went up each and every year after these tax cuts that had been denounced by my friend from Maryland. In 1982, revenues went up from $678 billion to $745 billion dollars. They went up in 1983. They went up in 1984. Until in 1989, the last year of the Reagan administration, revenues, not spending, but revenues to the Federal Government, even after these substantial tax cuts, had virtually doubled to $1.143 trillion. And this is even after the tax cuts that Democrats supported and that Republicans supported in 1981. What it shows, and what it has shown every time is that when we have cut taxes on the people of America, that they have used the money wisely, that the economy has grown. It happened again in 1997. It happened as far back as the 1960s, when President Kennedy cut taxes. Every time we cut taxes, there is an enhancement of economic activity and revenue increases. Now, also, another point that my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), made is that President Reagan had an opportunity to veto the spending that occurred during his term in office. And that is true. But I will tell my colleagues one thing that President Reagan did not have an opportunity to veto is the increase in entitlement spending that went on from fiscal year 1981 to fiscal year 1989. And as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) well knows, that is where the growth in Federal expenditures came, not in appropriation bills that President Reagan could or could not have vetoed, but in entitlement spending. So I will just say to my friends that, while we are hearing tonight and we heard last week, we can and undoubtedly we will hear again tomorrow before this bill is passed and probably we will hear on every appropriation bill, that we are having to cut back on important programs because Republicans want to cut taxes, actually the opposite is true. Every time we have cut taxes under Democrat Presidents, under Republican Presidents and even under this Democrat President, there has been more economic activity, there has been more revenue to spend, and the American people have been the beneficiaries thereof. I defy anyone from the Democratic side of the aisle to dispute the fact that revenues went up during the Reagan administration.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we talked about national defense, and it is an issue on which we can be a little more bipartisan. But, unfortunately, today is a day when we have to put on our partisan hats. My friends from both sides of the aisle have seen this happen already today. Let me just take this time, as a member of the subcommittee, to thank someone, my subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), and also the full authorizing committee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), two people who are retiring this year, for working and trying to work on a bipartisan basis for education and for health care over the last 5 years. We have a good record to show. We have a record of a 46 percent increase over 5 years in education. We will today put on our partisan hats and define the differences in the parties. We have had references to the American dream, and certainly the American dream is embodied in this very fine piece of legislation today. The American dream includes a good education. I mentioned the 46 percent increase that we have had over the last 5 years of Republican governance in this House of Representatives. The American dream means good health care. The American dream means good jobs and good job training. I am proud of everything we have done in that respect. The American dream, Mr. Speaker, also means a sound economy. It means being fiscally responsible and living within our budget, and giving the people of America back just a little bit of their hard-earned income in the form of a tax cut. Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the President's budget being slashed. It is easy for the President of the United States to float a figure out there when he knows that this House of Representatives and this Congress has got to live within a budget, and at the end of the day we are going to live within the bottom line. It is easy to say, yes, the President had a budget and we have cut numbers from the budget, but look what the President did and his party did when they had it all to themselves. This is spending for special education, cumulative growth in funding. Look what happened in 1993, 1994, in fiscal year 1995, when the President and his party had it all to themselves. Then look at the increase in special education, cumulative growth funding since Republicans have been in office and in the majority in this House. We have a record. These are real figures for real people. I am proud of our record in special education growth. With regard to Job Corps funding, again part of the American dream, the figures are right here for us. Look at the increases that the Democrats had when they were in control, when they ran the Committee on Rules, when they had vast majorities in this House of Representatives. These were the small increases in Job Corps training. This is what a Republican Congress has done on the other side of the page. The numbers speak for themselves. Vote for the rule. Vote for fiscal responsibility and vote for a continuation of the American dream.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I would say to my colleagues that there has never been a tax cut that we have discussed on the floor of this body where my friends from the Democratic side of the aisle have not gotten up here and talked about the revenue that we would lose and the parades of horribles that would happen if we cut taxes on the American people. The fact is we cut taxes in 1997, and revenues have increased $200 billion per year each year since then over and above what was projected by the Congressional Budget Office. And I predict that if this goes through, and it eventually will go through, we will see the economic return; and, actually, we will have more revenue. But I am up here to talk, Mr. Speaker, about a friend of mine from Mississippi. He is not a small businessman, he is not a small farmer, he is an agent of the Internal Revenue Service. I had a conversation with him a while back, and he said, ``Congressman, I have been doing this for a long time. You folks ought to go back up to Washington and abolish the death tax.'' He said, ``I have had to be the one to go and enforce the law of the land and tell a small farmer or a small businessman that he has got to come up with this much money to pay the inheritance tax on his parents' farm or his parents' business. And I have seen that farm have to be sold and that small business have to go out of business because of what the estate tax does.'' And he said, ``Congressman, it is wrong, and it does not make us that much money. When you add up all the compliance costs and all the nuisance costs and all of the heartache it causes families and to the economy, it is not worth it.'' And besides that, Mr. Speaker, it is wrong in this country to tax the event of death. I commend the authors of this bill. I urge a vote ``yes'' in favor of the rule and for the underlying bill. Let us abolish the tax on death.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I thank the distinguished subcommittee chair.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the subcommittee chairman's attention the Next Generation Small Loader program included in the bill. The bill cuts funding for the NGSL program by $12.6 million. The United States Air Force estimates the number of loaders for FY 2001 would be reduced by 60 percent. I am concerned that the committee's adjustment was based on information that was outdated and incomplete. Considering that the current materials-handling fleet, which this new loader will supplement, is short by more than 100 units from the authorized number, and considering that more than half of the existing loaders are outdated and ready for retirement, I believe it is imperative that any adjustments made to this program be based on the latest and best information available. Mr. Chairman, would the chairman be willing to review this program again going into conference, and if the facts merit, work to restore funding as appropriate for this important program?

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time. I rise in enthusiastic, even joyful support of this legislation, because it will designate H-130 in the United States Capitol as the G.V. Sonny Montgomery Room. For 30 years, Sonny Montgomery served my State of Mississippi and the Nation with honor and distinction. His legislative accomplishments on behalf of our veterans and in the area of national defense serve as a testament to his effectiveness as a Member of the House of Representatives. Just last week, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs he once chaired held hearings to raise benefits on the Montgomery GI Bill, an education measure which is credited with saving the all-volunteer force. He is still known as ``Mr. Veteran'' on Capitol Hill, and Sonny is beloved in our home State of Mississippi for his tireless work on behalf of our men and women in uniform. But we are not here to talk today simply about legislative accomplishments. We honor Sonny Montgomery today for another role which he takes just as seriously today as he did during his three decades in this Chamber, and I refer to his leadership in the House prayer breakfast group. Each Thursday when the House is in session, Members of Congress meet in H-130 of the Capitol at 8 a.m. to pray, to sing hymns, enjoy food and fellowship and to share their faith. Sonny is the unofficial leader of this weekly gathering. He served as President of this informal group, and for so many years thereafter, he was responsible for reporting on Members, their families, staff and others who were ill or otherwise in need of prayer. He is also known, Mr. Speaker, as a zealous guardian of this one hour per week. Over the years, committee chairmen, House leaders on both sides of the aisle and even Presidents of the United States have heard from Sonny when they would schedule important meetings that conflicted with the House prayer breakfast. He would politely but firmly suggest that perhaps another meeting time would be more appropriate. Sonny has always said that Thursday was the best day of the week for him, because it starts with the House prayer breakfast, and I agree. He was one of the first people to greet me when I joined that group in 1995, and to this day he is still one of the first people to greet me on Thursday mornings when I walk into H-130 for our prayer breakfast. Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a more fitting tribute to our former colleague and friend. I urge unanimous support for this legislation.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, this is the day! March 29, 2000, is the day that, unless something changes, this House of Representatives will decide to become involved in a lengthy and expensive military action in the country of Colombia. There are a lot of questions that we do not know about plan Colombia, but we do know this, that at best it will take us 6 years to do the job, and probably twice that length. It will involve us in supporting a military action against guerillas on the left and narco terrorists on the right. Also, it will cost billions and billions of dollars, all without a full hearing and all without a full national debate. This should not be a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker. Today I will vote for the Obey amendment which will say, at least let's put the brakes on $500 million of this appropriation until we know what we are doing. We ought to be fully informed, and the American people ought to be fully informed, before we embark on a course of action which will last for decades and cost billions of American dollars with doubtful results.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month our Nation lost a man who earned a lasting place in the hearts of all Americans through his efforts on the football field and in his community. This man, who was affectionately known as ``Sweetness,'' distinguished himself as a father, a citizen, and an American sports icon. Walter Payton's road to success started in Columbia, Mississippi, and wound through the collegiate ranks at Jackson State University and the rough and tumble world of the National Football League. After his playing days, he devoted his time and energy to improving the lives of others. It is difficult to turn on a television or radio these days and not hear of another instance where a professional athlete has taken a wrong turn or made a bad decision which disappoints legions of fans. They have made commercials to proclaim that they are not role models. Walter never did. They have shied away from placement on a pedestal which would hold them to a higher standard. Walter embraced it. They have failed to realize their influence on children who cheer for them each time they suit up. Walter understood it. They forgot the communities they once called home. Walter never did. So the next time your kids hear about the latest professional athlete's brush with the law, tell them about Walter Payton. After all, what parent wouldn't want their child to grow up to be like number 34. He was a role model in his public life and as a professional athlete and more importantly in his life off the field as a husband, father, and community leader. Walter, thanks for the memories.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, this morning, a very thoughtful editorial on this subject appeared in my hometown newspaper, the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal. Mr. Speaker, I insert that editorial for the Record as follows: [From the Daily Journal, Nov. 9, 1999] A Peaceful Revolution That Opened the Berlin Wall Must Be Sustained The fortified portion of it was 26 miles long. It stood up to 15 feet high in spots. It was topped with barbed wire and an assortment of other obstacles. Anyone brave or foolish enough to try to scale it had to get by electronic alarms, mines, trenches and, of course, armed guards. One hundred seventy people died trying. The Berlin Wall became the most dramatic symbol of the Cold War, a stark and striking reminder of the tyranny of communism. The government of East Germany had to wall in its own people, so oppressive was the environment on its side of the wall and so compelling were the freedoms enjoyed on the other. Ten years ago today the wall fell, in a figurative sense. Its fortified passages were opened and traffic allowed to flow freely between East and West Berlin. Within a year East and West Germany were unified. By 1992 the wall was physically dismantled. Who can forget that amazing period in Eastern Europe as communist governments one after the other fell, virtually bloodlessly, the victims of a new yearning in their people and an old rottenness in their core. The world drew inspiration from the young protesters defiantly perched on the wall, smashing away pieces of it, mocking its pretense to control over their lives. The fall of the wall and the unification of East and West Germany were events that virtually no one predicted would occur so rapidly and with so little violence. These and corresponding events in Eastern Europe, beginning with the Solidarity movement in Poland in the early 1980s, exposed the great vulnerability of communism or any oppressive system when strong people unite against it. Today communism, while not completely dead, is completely discredited. Even China's leadership has been forced to modify its formerly orthodox communist economy in order to survive, though political repression is still a fact of life in that last communist power. Ten years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and eight years after the complete disintegration of the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc, the world is a safer place. And yet. . . . Lurking beneath the evolving democratic processes in former communist countries are the forces of reaction, remnants of the old guard or those nostalgic for its return. The transition to democratic governments and free markets in Russia and Eastern Europe has hardly been smooth; one crisis after another has marked the effort by formerly communist countries to make up for decades of failed economic, social and political policies. There are those exploiting the inevitable discontent. The United States has a vested interest in seeing that those countries who threw off the shackles of communism and brought a thaw to the nearly half-century of Cold War succeed. We have preached the gospel of free markets and free political systems, and we must maintain our determination to assist them in working through the pains of transition that can seem worse to some than the stability of the old system. The United States probably kept Western Europe from eventually succumbing to communism by rebuilding its cities and economies with the Marshall Plan after World War II. We are not in a position nor is there the need to proceed with a program of that magnitude today. But aid and assistance, government to government and citizen to citizen, from the U.S. to formerly communist countries, as well as active diplomatic efforts to achieve the stability for freedom to flourish, are vital to our national interests. Some would say it's time for the United States to withdraw, to give up its role as a leader of the free world, to worry only about internal concerns. That would be to dishonor the sacrifices already made by Americans: remembered Thursday, Veterans Day and the courage of those who fought to overcome tyranny in their own lands. The Berlin Wall, and all it represented, failed 10 years ago today. What followed must succeed, and we must be willing to help it happen.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I regret that there is not more time to discuss a very important and historical day, the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Like the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), I am a member of that baby boom generation who remembers Khrushchev pounding his shoe, fallout shelters, and all of the images of the Cold War. We wondered if Eastern Europe would ever be free and if international Communism would ever be ended. So I am pleased to take part in this debate today. We have already heard the names of a number of individuals who have participated over time in bringing about the end of European Communism. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) mentioned President Truman and President Reagan. Certainly we should not forget that there were even members of the Reagan administration who, during that time, were worried about President Reagan using terms such as ``evil empire'' or saying, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' They urged him not to do so, but thank goodness President Reagan was strong and was one of those people who enabled us to be having this celebration today. I want to take just a moment to honor the name of another anti- Communist hero, Whittaker Chambers. I have just been reading the book, Witness, the autobiography of this courageous individual who had the fortitude to come forward, to name names, to risk his family, his finances, his future, and even his freedom to say that there were Communists in our own Federal Government and to play a crucial roll in the fight against international Communist tyranny. I think, while we are celebrating the 10th anniversary of the falling of the Wall, we should also remember the name of Whittaker Chambers, and I honor his memory today.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, the Balanced Budget Act included provisions to safeguard the long term solvency of the Medicare system, but for a number of reasons the mandated reductions exceeded estimates and provided a lower level of reimbursement than Congress directed. The Medicare Balanced Budget Refinement Act corrects this problem and restores vital funding to the Medicare program to allow health care providers to meet the needs of their communities. This important legislation will ease the financial crisis which has threatened the quality of health care service for millions of Americans. I am pleased we have been able to work in a bipartisan fashion to bring relief to the small rural community hospitals which provides the foundation for rural America. I am hopeful that in addition to the supporting this legislation, the Health Care Financing Administration will make the needed administrative changes to ensure that small rural hospitals will receive adequate Medicare reimbursement. I look forward to working with HCFA and member of both political parties to restore balance to the Medicare system.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of fellow Mississippian Walter Payton who died earlier this week at the age of 45. Walter Payton was born in Columbia, Mississippi, on July 25, 1954. Following his outstanding career at Jackson State University, he was drafted by the Chicago Bears where he would spend the next 13 years re- writing the NFL record books. Walter Payton's on-field accomplishments, his engaging personality and his off-the-field contributions to community and civic affairs have earned him a lasting place in the hearts of millions of Americans. He proved that a strong work ethic and a commitment to excellence could propel an undersized athlete from a small college in Mississippi to the top of the professional football world. He was praised for bringing positive attention to the abilities of players who come from small colleges. Among his admirers is Jerry Rice, another Mississippian from a small school who became an NFL superstar. ``He paved the way for so many small schools and players, including myself, because he opened a lot of eyes,'' Rice said. Mississippians are proud of this Hall of Fame running back for his success in running over, around and through opposing defenses. We are equally proud of his commitment to family, church, and community. Many people will recall his work to ensure that thousands of children received toys and clothing for Christmas. Among his activities were efforts to help over 9000 churches, schools, and social service agencies raise money to support their missions, and establishing scholarships so that children, who had been wards of the state, might see their dreams of college become a reality. He also created job training and placement programs for the unemployed and worked with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services to find families for orphaned children. And while Walter is no longer with us, the Walter Payton Foundation will continue his great humanitarian legacy for years to come. Mr. Speaker, Walter Payton was a role model in his public life as a professional athlete in his private life as husband, father, and community leader. We will miss him.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President showed how easy it is to pick up a magic marker and write some favorable budget information on a poster. It is quite another thing, as we know, to actually make the tough decisions that have gotten us to a balanced budget. And forgive the partisanship, Mr. and Mrs. America, but we have the Republican Congress to thank for yesterday's favorable budget news. It is easy to forget back in 1993 and 1994, when President Clinton and the Democrats had this town all to themselves and made no progress on balancing the budget. As a matter of fact, the President would not even try. In 1995, he came before this Congress and proposed budget deficits of $300 billion a year as far as the eye could see. Now that we actually have a budget surplus, Republicans want to pay down the debt and give a portion of that surplus back to the taxpayers in the form of tax relief. President Clinton talks about making additional ``investments''. From the person who raised taxes but called them ``contributions'' and ``sacrifices'', additional national investments sounds like a lot of new Federal spending to me.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a little discussion earlier today about so-called ``poison pill'' amendments. Certainly this is not one of those poison pill amendments. The House of Representatives has voted on this issue twice in the past year, each time approving it overwhelmingly. The first time it passed by a vote of 369-43 and the second time, during last year's campaign regulation debate, the House approved this measure by a margin of 282-126. As these votes suggest, this is a common sense reform which has bipartisan support. If you are not a United States citizen, or a United States national, you should not be able to influence the electoral process. It is wrong and dangerous to allow a potential to exist for undue foreign influence in electing Federal officials. That is what the debate on this amendment is about, undue foreign influence in our election process. The American people have witnessed in the last two Clinton-Gore campaigns a breathtaking willingness to solicit money from non- citizens. We have all seen the video of Vice President Gore soliciting money from Buddhist monks who had taken a vow of poverty. The Bereuter-Wicker amendment would address this problem by removing any ambiguity in the law, ambiguities which today allow foreign money to be funneled through U.S. addresses. If a foreign national is dedicated to the ideals of the American democratic system of government, then I encourage him to become a United States citizen. With the adoption of the Bereuter-Wicker amendment, not only could that person then invest their money in a candidate he believes in, but he could actually vote for the candidate he was contributing to. We have heard much today about the importance of money in our political system. We should remove the loophole in the current law which allows for the possibility of foreign money funding our political discourse. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this common sense amendment.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this rule of course, but against final passage of Shays-Meehan. Let me make one thing clear at the outset of this debate. There is no public clamor for this legislation. I have been in almost every corner of my 24-county district during the last month, and not once did a single citizen bring up the issue of our campaign finance laws. No, the hue and cry for this bill is occurring inside the Beltway of Washington D.C. largely by those who would receive a special advantage by this proposed tilting of the playing field. Mr. Speaker, I am proudest of this House when it works in a bipartisan manner, but this is not what we will have today. There may be high-sounding tones in the media about the winds of reform, but for its liberal advocates this bill is really about party politics, and here is why. The big labor bosses use the forced dues of their union members to further their political goals, and that usually means support only for Democrats. This bill would do nothing to stop that practice. Shays-Meehan takes no action to limit another of the most significant abuses of the liberal labor bosses, and that is the in-kind, unreported use of union employees for get-out-the-vote, organization efforts, and other political activities. These actions benefit one party exclusively and, frankly, are beyond the scope of anything we can do as a Congress. Mr. Speaker, this debate should be about freedom of speech, freedom of expression, the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Look at this diagram, Mr. Speaker. We should shudder to contemplate the arcane, complex, Rube Goldberg limitations on American expression which are contained in this bill. This is the convoluted process that the courts and the FEC, candidates and citizens will have to go through in order to make sure their advocacy is permissible under Shays-Meehan. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have friends on both sides of the aisle who legitimately believe that there is too much money in campaigns today, and I will admit that there is a certain nostalgia for the one-on-one campaigns of yesteryear; but this bill, Shays-Meehan, does not get us there. When I was a youth growing up in Mississippi, there was always a huge crowd around the court square on a Saturday morning. A candidate could come into town with a loud speaker on top of his station wagon and get his point across to a large percentage of the voters. But those days are over. We live in the days of malls and cable TV with 99 channels, the Internet, not to mention radio, direct mail and the print media. Those are the methods we use in the United States of America to convey information today, and it costs money to buy that form of advertising. Freedom of speech is worthless if no one can hear it. The truth is that it takes funds to amplify our political discourse to a level which reaches the public. Mr. Speaker, there are solutions out there to rectify the most unpleasant aspects of campaigning and raising funds to do so, but that will not occur today. It will not occur as long as one political party believes it can achieve a significant and unfair advantage under the guise of reform. I urge passage of the rule and defeat of Shays-Meehan.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Military Construction Subcommittee, I rise in support of this bill. Over the past months, the subcommittee has heard from many members of our Nation's armed forces and has traveled to bases at home and abroad to see first-hand the needs of our men and women in uniform. Their primary concern has been the continued deterioration of the infrastructure which supports our defense mission here and around the world. The President's budget request for Fiscal Year 2000 did little to alleviate these concerns. In response to his inadequate request, the Subcommittee added $3 billion more than the President, an increase of 56%. Our efforts are aimed at providing our armed forces with the best facilities, training, and equipment possible. Military construction accounts for $4.9 billion or 49 percent of this bill. These funds will be used for barracks, child development centers, medical facilities, and other projects to strengthen and support critical missions. National Guard and Reserve components will receive nearly $500 million. We have worked hard to address quality of life issues as well. This bill sends a clear message that we will take care of our country's military and their families. Family housing projects account for $3.6 billion or 43 percent of the bill. Within the family housing section, $2.8 billion will go for operation and maintenance of existing units, and $747 million will be used for the construction of new housing. Mr. Chairman, this bill is fiscally responsible. At the same time, it helps rebuild our military infrastructure and addresses quality of life issues which are so important to maintaining a strong and motivated military. I urge my colleagues to support the hard work of the Committee and vote for this Military Construction bill.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago there were reports that Jack Lew, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, intended to slam Republicans for making unrealistic cuts in spending programs. But these same reports also stated that Mr. Lew would insist that the GOP resist the temptation to raise the budget caps. An administration official said, the message is to the GOP, it is your budget, live with it. Our budget? Mr. Speaker, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act was passed by a bipartisan majority in both House and Senate and signed by the Democratic President of the United States. The problem is that while the minority leadership and the White House are talking fiscal restraint, many of their Democratic colleagues are pushing for spending well above the approved levels. The leaders and their rank and file and the OMB should get on the same page on this issue. There is time to deliberate and craft spending bills to maintain the fiscal discipline which has produced our budget surplus, but only if it is done on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Democratic colleagues to join us in the pursuit of this goal.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam Speaker, Vice President Al Gore announced his Presidential candidacy yesterday, and in the speech he said, and I quote, ``I will make sure that Medicare is never weakened, never looted, never taken away.'' How ironic to hear Mr. Gore speak those words at a time when this administration is refusing to spend the funds authorized by Congress to ensure the solvency of the Medicare program. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 provided the money to safeguard the health care needs of our Nation's seniors well into the 21st century. Yet, the Clinton-Gore administration is shortchanging Medicare by $20 billion. Let me repeat that. This administration is shortchanging Medicare by $20 billion. This underfunding is creating serious problems in the delivery of health services to the nearly 40 million elderly and disabled Americans who depend on Medicare. The Vice President could make good on his campaign rhetoric and avert a major health care crisis by persuading the bureaucracy at President Clinton's Health Care Financing Administration to quit shortchanging Medicare and restore the funding to the levels authorized by Congress.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and congratulate him on a very measured and reasonable amendment, which I certainly support. Let me tell a story that actually happened in my home State. Four students were caught passing a gun among themselves at a school- sponsored event. Three of these students were expelled. The student who actually brought the gun to the school-sponsored event was not expelled. Why was he not expelled? Because he was identified as a special needs child under the IDEA program and was only put in an alternative program. This actually happened and is happening across the United States of America. Unfair, unequal justice and I think we should all agree, Mr. Chairman, that even juvenile justice should be equal and consistent. When I go back home to my district and talk about education, it is not just the parents who want safety in schools. Talk to the teachers, talk to the administrators and they tell me, Congressman, if you want to do something about education, to help us at the local level, give us the flexibility and authority to impose fair discipline and equal discipline in our schools. Actually, Mr. Chairman, they wish we would go farther and extend this not only to weapons but to other forms of school safety. Yesterday I voted against an amendment that sounded good. It sounded like we would have zero tolerance on drugs in our schools, but it imposed a new Federal mandate on local government and local school districts. This Norwood amendment takes a different approach. It gives school districts and local governments more flexibility. It provides more flexibility to educators and allows local school boards and administrators to impose fair, equal and consistent discipline across the board.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, the long-awaited Cox Report on Chinese espionage becomes public today, and we already know many of the stunning details about the loss of our most sensitive nuclear secrets. The President's press secretary says this goes back 20 years and there is no Democrat or Republican face on it. He is using the ``everybody does it'' defense. The Energy Secretary has cautioned us not to overreact. But how should we react to the worst spy case in American history? It is clear that Clinton-Gore administration did not react at all after this was discovered in 1995. Why wasn't the President briefed on this in 1995, in 1996, 1997, 1998 or 1999? If he was, why was nothing done? Attorney General Janet Reno is being set up to be the scapegoat in this scandal, but there are a lot more questions which the Clinton administration must answer about who knew it and when they knew it.