Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, this headline from the New York Times says it all: China Stole Nuclear Secrets for Bombs. Although the bipartisan Cox report on Chinese espionage will not be officially released until tomorrow, we already know enough that all Americans should be outraged. According to Chairman Cox, the threat to our security from this major intelligence catastrophe will not be years into the future but within the next few months. Look to the Chinese Communist government to begin testing nuclear ICBMs within a few months, using United States nuclear secrets. While our law enforcement officials were asleep, our national security was compromised. It is not just Attorney General Janet Reno. The entire Clinton-Gore administration owes the United States public an explanation for this outrage.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, the message is beginning to get through that the Clinton-Gore administration is shortchanging Medicare. Ill-advised regulations are threatening the quality of health care for our Nation's retired citizens by cutting Medicare $20 billion below the level set by Congress in the Balanced Budget Act. In a letter this month to HHS Secretary Shalala, 20 Democratic Senators joined 21 Republican Senators in urging this administration to reverse its decision, warning that harm could come to elderly patients. This bipartisan letter warns that if regulations are not revised, we may see closings of facilities, layoffs of dedicated caregivers, reductions in access to skilled nursing services and erosion of quality of care. I say to our President, your cuts in Medicare are unacceptable and they are not in compliance with the Balanced Budget Act. It is time for this administration to provide the resources our senior citizens require.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, why is the Clinton administration shortchanging Medicare? Under the Clinton-Gore leadership, the executive branch's Health Care Financing Administration is refusing to spend money which is desperately needed by our Nation's elderly population and which has been authorized under the Balanced Budget Act. This amounts to an astonishing $20 billion this administration is withholding from the most deserving members of our society: retired Americans who are suffering from illness. There is a lot of discussion in this town about abiding by the caps of the Balanced Budget Act, and I support the idea of requiring our appropriation bills to follow the budget. But when the Congress and the President enact a statute that says funds are needed to ensure the health of our country's greatest generation, HCFA has an obligation to abide by the law. It is a scandal that the Clinton-Gore administration is refusing to provide adequate health care for our senior citizens.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we have an obligation to report that the United States is vulnerable to a missile attack. That is right. Some of the world's most dangerous and unstable dictatorships are developing weapons which could reach the United States mainland. The bipartisan Rumsfeld Commission has said we could soon face a missile strike with little or no warning. Yet, our President is still reluctant to act on this important issue. The North Korean missile tests last summer forced administration officials to admit grudgingly that this threat is real. But the President's response has been weak. It includes support for only a limited ground-based system with questionable value. The administration also worries that a defense shield might violate the ABM Treaty, the same pact the Soviets violated for years. Mr. Speaker, each day we delay, the threat of a missile attack increases. Congress is taking action to deploy an effective missile defense system. I urge the President to join us in addressing this critical matter of national security.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook amendment and in support of this very important supplemental defense bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Emergency Defense Appropriations bill. Approving this measure sends a strong message to our men and women in uniform and to our adversaries around the globe that we are united in providing the resources necessary to ensure national readiness. The bill also includes much-needed funding for a military force with serious readiness shortfalls. Our Armed Forces are being dispatched to more places around the world today than at any time in history. They are being asked to perform more missions with fewer personnel. This operations pace has produced a critical shortage of the spare parts, weapons, and support services necessary to be successful. As a member of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, I have seen first-hand the poor condition of many of our military facilities in Europe. This bill contains money to make much-needed upgrades including combat communications, radar approach sites, crash and rescue stations, and other facilities where U.S. troops are stationed in support of this mission in Yugoslavia. These improvements will boost morale, as will funding for pay raises and benefits. I was disappointed to hear members of the Democratic leadership last week accusing Republicans of partisanship in voting against a resolution supporting the air campaign in Yugoslavia. The fact is that 26 Democrats also opposed that resolution. We are told that somehow it was a matter of conscience for Democrats to vote ``no'' and a matter of politics for Republicans to do the same thing. But last week's vote was on a sense of the Congress resolution with no force of law. The key vote on supporting the troops is on this Appropriations bill. This goes beyond the rhetoric to actually provide for the safety of our troops, and give them the equipment and material necessary to carry out their mission. Mr. Chairman, I suggest it is some of my colleagues on the other side who are sending the wrong signals by opposing this measure. They seem to be willing to commit American troops to missions around the world, but they are reluctant to provide the resources to equip, train, and house them adequately. Last week's votes in the House indicate Members of Congress in both parties have concerns about our policy in the Balkans. There should be no disagreement, however, on the strong level of support we show our Armed Forces while they are engaged in this operation. We want them to succeed. This funding is critical to their efforts. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to set aside the Yugoslavia policy debate and join in a bipartisan effort to ensure our military personnel have the resources necessary to perform the duties assigned to them.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a moment this afternoon to praise a truly outstanding public servant of the Federal Government, someone who has contributed to healthier lives for literally millions of Americans. I speak of Dr. Phillip Gorden, who is stepping down this year after 13 years as head of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. As a member of the appropriations subcommittee which funds the National Institutes of Health, I have had the opportunity to work with Dr. Gorden for the past 5 years. He is one of the Nation's preeminent health care professionals, and I am proud to say he is a fellow Mississippian. Dr. Gorden's hometown of Baldwin, Mississippi, is in my congressional district, and I know he maintains close ties to his Mississippi roots. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, he and I are among the few people in Washington, D.C. who subscribe to the Baldwin News, a small but very informative weekly newspaper in North Mississippi. After earning an undergraduate degree from Vanderbilt University and then graduating from the Vanderbilt School of Medicine, Dr. Gorden completed residency and a fellowship at Yale University before joining the NIH back in 1966. He began his career as a senior investigator in the clinical endocrinology branch at the NIDDK and later became its clinical director. He assumed the position of NIDDK director in 1986. I share the strong interest Dr. Gorden has in supporting the NIH's mission to acquire new knowledge to prevent and treat disease and disability. I have seen firsthand the results of his commitment to this important mission. Dr. Gorden's effective leadership has led the institute to great advances in fighting some of the most chronic and debilitating diseases which afflict the American people. On his watch, Dr. Gorden has seen the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grow to become the fifth largest NIH institute, with a budget expected to top $1 billion when NIDDK celebrates its 50th anniversary next year. The institute's research efforts have brought breakthrough discoveries in the prevention and treatment of diabetes, digestive ailments, nutritional disorders, diseases of the kidney, urological tract and blood. In his final testimony before our subcommittee this year, Dr. Gorden expressed great optimism about the prospects for the NIDDK as it prepares for the 21st Century. He said we are on the brink of enormous clinical progress and pointed to extraordinary research momentum propelling us toward major medical advances. His leadership has been a key factor in making these advances possible. Though he will soon leave as head of the institute, Dr. Gorden has charted an ambitious and steady course for the NIDDK as it begins both a new century and its second 50 years of service to the Nation. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate for us to recognize outstanding public servants for a job well done. Our thanks today go to Dr. Phillip Gorden for his lifetime commitment to improving the quality of life for his fellow citizens. Millions of Americans are living healthier lives as a result of the research Dr. Gorden and his colleagues have done and continue to do at NIH.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 52, on House Congressional Resolution 24, Expressing Congressional Opposition to the Unilateral Declaration of a Palestinian State, I was unavailable to vote because I was returning from a bipartisan Congressional Delegation trip to Russia. The objectives of this four-day trip included meetings with the Russian Duma and other governmental officials concerning the missile defense threat as outlined in the report of the Rumsfeld Commission. Our delegation was joined in Moscow by former Secretary Don Rumsfeld and two members of his commission, Mr. Jim Woolsey and Mr. William Schneider, Jr. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 50, on House Congressional Resolution 819, Federal Maritime Commission Authorization Act of 1999, I was unavailable to vote because I was returning from a bipartisan Congressional Delegation trip to Russia. The objectives of this four- day trip included meetings with the Russian Duma and other governmental officials concerning the missile defense threat as outlined in the report of the Rumsfeld Commission. Our delegation was joined in Moscow by former Secretary Don Rumsfeld and two members of his commission, Mr. Jim Woolsey and Mr. William Schneider, Jr. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 51, on House Congressional Resolution 774, Women's Business Center Amendments Act of 1999, I was unavailable to vote because I was returning from a bipartisan Congressional Delegation trip to Russia. The objectives of this four- day trip included meetings with the Russian Duma and other governmental officials concerning the missile defense threat as outlined in the report of the Rumsfeld Commission. Our delegation was joined in Moscow by former Secretary Don Rumsfeld and two members of his commission, Mr. Jim Woolsey and Mr. William Schneider, Jr. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona has begun a discussion which I think will continue for months and even years in this Congress and in this Nation concerning the ABM Treaty. I think he has made a very logical point in that the Soviet Union no longer exists. Other very learned scholars who have looked at the issue have concluded that the deployment of our missile defense program in the United States would not violate the ABM Treaty. That is to be decided later. We do need to point out for the sake of our colleagues that will be voting tomorrow that there is nothing in the legislation tomorrow that has anything to do with the ABM Treaty at all. Indeed, it does not discuss the ABM Treaty, yes or no. It simply says, very, very simply, in a very short piece of legislation, that it is the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense system. I think it is also important for us to point out that, despite the niceties of the ABM Treaty, we are going to take steps in this Congress to protect our people, to protect the citizens and cities and communities of the United States and provide for the common defense. If the ABM Treaty eventually has to be renegotiated, if there has to be further diplomatic conversations between these signatory parties or between new states that have sprung up in place of those signatory parties, we will do that. But our first and foremost responsibility, Mr. Speaker, is to realize the threat, as the Rumsfeld Commission is going to point out to us in our session tomorrow and as we will be learning in the debate and, having realized that threat, to do our duty, our duty to provide for the defense. The gentleman from Arizona mentioned the Middle East and the very real conflict that we have seen there in recent years. Certainly we know we wish it were not so. But we know that Saddam Hussein is the sworn enemy of the United States. Here is what Mr. Saddam Hussein had to say about the United States of America, ``Our missiles cannot reach Washington. If they could reach Washington, we would strike if the need arose.'' Saddam Hussein, 1990. Listen to this quote from Abul Abbas, head of the Palestinian Liberation Front: ``Revenge takes 40 years. If not my son, then the son of my son will kill you. Someday, we will have missiles that can reach New York.'' Mr. Speaker, this House, this Congress, and I hope this administration is going to take the necessary steps to answer these threats, to answer the very real facts which will be presented to us tomorrow, and to make sure that our people can live as safely as possible in this very dangerous world.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I will not be able to participate during the whole hour but I do want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), for entering into this special order. We are going to be joined by my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) in a few moments and perhaps others. My friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) has made a number of very important points. We are going to have an important debate tomorrow afternoon in this House of Representatives on a real threat against the United States and against the citizens of our country, and I think the American people will be watching us in this debate. I want everyone in this body to understand how important it is. Also, as the gentleman says, we have an opportunity as House Members, tomorrow morning at 9:30 eastern time, to have a very important briefing. It is a closed briefing, but I would say to my colleagues that are within the sound of my voice we may have constituents coming in, we may have subcommittee hearings, and I know that we will be pulled at from many, many areas, but there is no more important place that my colleagues could be tomorrow morning at 9:30 than to hear former Secretary Rumsfeld and the members of his bipartisan commission about the very real threat that we have from incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles where our United States cities, our United States citizens, now have absolutely no protection. Hear me. We now have absolutely no protection from these incoming missiles. We now have a threat that has changed, the world situation has changed, and the briefing that we will have from Secretary Rumsfeld will be very important tomorrow. As the gentleman from Colorado mentioned, he and I just returned last night from a long weekend trip to Russia, where we met with members of the Russian Government, members of the Russian parliament, the Duma, to brief them on the unclassified portions of this Rumsfeld report. We were joined on this trip by former Secretary Rumsfeld and two other members of his commission, former Director of Central Intelligence, the former director of the CIA under this administration, under the Clinton administration, Jim Woolsey, and former Under Secretary of State Bill Schneider, who served in the Reagan and Bush administrations. This is a bipartisan delegation that represented the Rumsfeld Commission in Moscow just this past weekend, and the entire Rumsfeld Commission, consisting of 9 members, was bipartisan, patriotic Democrats and Republicans, who were unanimous, Mr. Speaker, unanimous in their bipartisan conclusions that the United States faces an imminent threat from missiles coming in principally from rogue nations. Nations like North Korea which has already shown us that they can launch a multi-stage missile. They have shown us in recent tests. Countries like Iraq and Iran whose stated policies are hostile to the United States of America. So we do not need to be alarmists in this Congress, but we need to tell the American people the facts, and I think the American people who listen to our debate and the Members of Congress tomorrow afternoon who listen to our debate will conclude that this bipartisan commission of people who have been there, who know what they are talking about, who have been on the frontline in Republican administrations and Democratic administrations, protecting our Nation against foreign threats, these people are telling the truth. The threat is very real; it could come within 5 years, where cities are subject not only to intentional attacks from rogue nations, but accidental missile launches or unauthorized attacks. So I am pleased to join the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) in this discussion. As I say, I will probably not be able to be here for the entire hour, but I believe we have a message that perhaps has not sunk in with the American people. But there is a threat, and this Congress will act tomorrow to begin to answer this very real threat.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is saying that 70 percent of the population of Russia is now protected by a missile defense system and not one American city or citizen is protected by a similar system.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman from Arizona has made a number of absolutely correct statements about the missile threat, both from the former Soviet Union, now the Federation of Russia, as well as the rogue States. But it is important for our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and for all Americans to understand that the missile technology, the intercontinental ballistic missiles previously owned by the Soviet Union and aimed at us have not been utterly destroyed. I think a lot of people perhaps even listing to the President of the United States in his speech from this very room might misunderstand the situation. Those missiles are still there, and they can be reprogrammed as the Democratic Senator, responding to the President of the United States, correctly pointed out. So that threat is still there. Now, we have every reason to be optimistic about our new relationship with the Soviet Union. We have some joint initiatives with them on housing, hopefully which will constitute a win/win situation with the United States investment community, the Russian people, and stability worldwide. We are involved in some joint efforts with Russia on space technology, and I applaud that. But the missiles are still there, and elections are going to be held in Russia in December of 1999 for the Duma, the Russian parliament. We hope that people who support our continued openness and steps toward friendship will be elected in December of this year, but we do not know that. Presidential elections will be held in the federation of Russia early in the year 2000. We do not know the result of that election. So we are still in a very dangerous world and the Russian missiles are there. But it is not because of the Russian missiles that the Rumsfeld Commission has come forward. And we were there, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and I, and a bipartisan delegation from this body, we were there to point out the true facts to our colleagues from the Russian parliament, that the United States is threatened by rogue nations and perhaps by an unauthorized or accidental launch. We also pointed out, Mr. Speaker, to our colleagues in the Russian Duma that we are asking for the very type of missile shield which Russia presently has around its capital city of Moscow. Russia presently has the technology that we are asking for to protect our cities, and it is only fair and only right, and it is actually our constitutional duty, as the gentleman has already pointed out, to take the necessary steps under the changed world situation to protect Americans from whatever threats as they arise.

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I am glad we keep coming back to the rule of law question. I think standing for the rule of law includes the following: that the Nation's chief law enforcement officer cannot commit perjury and remain in office. The rule of law means that the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces should not be held to a lower standard than are his subordinates. The rule of law means that even the most ordinary and humble citizens are entitled to their day in court, and they are entitled to expect sworn testimony in that court to be truthful, even testimony from the President of the United States. The rule of law means recognizing that felonious criminal conduct by the President of the United States cannot be tolerated. The rule of law is more important than the tenure in office of any elected official. During John Adams' second night in the White House he wrote these words: ``I pray heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this House and on all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule this roof.'' Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I conclude the current occupant of the White House has utterly failed to live up to this standard. I cast my vote for impeachment to protect the long-term national interest of the United States, to affirm the importance of truth and honesty, and to uphold the rule of law in our Nation.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, impeachment is a profound and complex process. In recent weeks, we have heard constitutional experts and historians testify at length about the standard for an impeachable offense. Debate has ranged from the finest points of law to the loftiest intentions of our founding fathers. For decades and even centuries to come, learned scholars will pore over every word of these proceedings to discern their meaning and to analyse the precedents and implications of our actions today. For me, However, it comes down to one simple principle--this Nation must uphold the rule of law. Standing for the rule of law includes recognizing: That the Nation's chief law enforcement officer cannot commit perjury and remain in office. That the commander-in-chief of our armed forces should not be held to a lower standard than are his subordinates. That even the most ordinary and humble citizens are entitled to their day in court, and they are entitled to expect sworn testimony in that court to be truthful--even testimony from the President of the United States. That felonious criminal conduct by the President of the United States cannot be tolerated. The rule of law is more important than the tenure in office of any elected official. The facts in this case are not really in dispute. Even some of his most vocal defenders do not deny that this President repeatedly lied under oath. He also obstructed justice and abused his office. He has violated his solemn oath and squandered the trust the American people placed in him. During John Adams' second night in the White House, he wrote, ``I pray heaven to bestow the best blessings on this House and on all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule this roof.'' Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I conclude the current occupant of the White House has utterly failed to live up to this standard and that his Commission of felony crimes constitutes grounds for impeachment. I reach this conclusion with no malice toward the President, but with resolve and confidence that this action preserves the principles which are the foundation of our constitution. I cast my vote for impeachment to protect the long-term National interest (United States) to affirm the importance of truth and honesty, and to uphold the rule of law.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999 makes available significant funding for economic development grant assistance as part of the Community Development Block Grant program. The Conference Report to accompany this legislation, House Report 105-769, on page 248, provides $750,000 to the City of Sardis, Mississippi, for the City's planned Water Resources Infrastructure Program, a portion of which includes construction of wastewater treatment facilities, as noted in the Conference Report. I would like to take this opportunity to describe in specific detail how the City will use the FY 1999 CDBG economic development grant of $750,000. The water and wastewater supply facilities in the project area are inadequate to support planned developments. Although the distribution of potable water and the collection of wastewater within such developments are expected to be funded and constructed as components of the private developments, these systems will rely upon public infrastructure for water supply, storage and transmission, and wastewater transportation and treatment. For Phase I water supply, the Master Plan recommends construction of a 500,000 gallon elevated water storage tank and its accompanying water well and 3.5 miles of 12-inch transmission pipelines, at a cost of approximately $1.7 million. These facilities will provide up to 1.0 million gallons per day of water supply for the conference facility, hotel, and marina. Wastewater service for the Phase I development will consist of the necessary sewer pump stations and their related transmission force mains to carry the wastewater to the western extremity of the Sardis Lake grounds, and gravity sewer main from there westerly to the City's existing wastewater treatment lagoon facility. The wastewater facilities will include 2 pumping stations with capacities of 1,000 gpm each, approximately 4.5 miles of 12-inch forcemain, 2.5 miles of 24- inch gravity sewer main, and an expansion of the City's existing wastewater treatment facility. The probable cost of the wastewater improvements is approximately $2.5 million. The FY 1999 CDBG grant assistance of $750,000 will be applied to planning, engineering, environmental, land acquisition, and construction activities related to the Phase I elements of the Program outlined above. The City intends that funds remaining from the grant following completion of planning, engineering and environmental work will be applied for Phase I construction activities until the funds are exhausted. I look forward to watching the City of Sardis continue its exciting development and I trust these remarks will provide sufficient guidance to the Department of Housing and Urban Development as to the legislative intent for the grant assistance provided to the City of Sardis in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and in support of EDA and ARC and thanking the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for their leadership. I take the floor today to express my strong support for S. 2364, the Economic Development Partnership Act. Dollar for dollar, the Appalachian Regional Commission and the Economic Development Agency are two of the best bargains in government. These agencies spend only a small fraction of their funds on administration while the return on their investments are immense. Most of EDA's funds go toward important grants and low cost loans. When the Canadian-owned Norbord company invested $88 million in a new Mississippi plant inn 1995, it was an EDA grant of $750,000 for a water supply system that made that new plant possible. Now that water system is helping keep more than 250 workers employed in good jobs, who generate tax revenues and contribute to the local economy. All over the country, EDA helps economically distressed communities build a solid base on which sustainable economic development can be established and maintained. Similarly, ARC has a long track record of success. Just last year, the ARC, along with the City of New Albany and Union County, Mississippi, worked together to begin construction on a new 500,000 gallon water storage tank. ARC provided less than 50% of the funds for this storage tank which was necessary for the city to receive a commitment from Wal-Mart to build a new Distribution Center. This center has helped spur the economy of the region by creating approximately 525 new jobs in 3 separate businesses. It is also important to note that the ARC approval process is a model of local, state, and federal cooperation. Under ARC, projects originate from the local level and are selected by each state's governor. This is a bottom up program, not a Washington solution for local problems. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar for bringing this important legislation before the House today. This legislation represents an efficient and effective use of taxpayer dollars, and I look forward to hearing about more success stories in the future.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I agree with everything that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis) has said. I serve on the drug task force with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis). It is a very important undertaking, and we have done well by the drug courts in our appropriations. I think this is an amendment not about drug courts but about taking $25 million away from the Economic Development Administration. It has been said the economy is doing well. That we do not need to plus up EDA. Let me say in response to that two things. The economy is doing well because this Congress has shown that we can balance the budget and we are funding an additional $25 million for EDA within the framework of a balanced budget. I am proud of that. But there are also some communities in this Nation, there are some communities in every congressional district that are not doing so well. That is the beauty of the Economic Development Administration.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it is my understanding that this appropriation is in connection with an authorization bill that is going forward. There is always room for saving money on overhead. But let me say what this money goes to. It is one of the tools, I can say this, it is one of the tools that is used efficiently in my State, along with all of the other job creating programs that we have talked about, to create jobs in the private sector, and that is what we ought to be doing. That is a good use of Federal funds. I support the EDA. I think that is what this amendment is about. I urge defeat of the amendment.

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam Speaker, later today Members will be given the opportunity to support a commonsense reform amendment to the Shays- Meehan campaign finance proposal. In far too many States and districts across this country, ineligible persons are voting. People are going to the polls without identification, and it turns out they are not eligible to vote. Despite the resources and technology available to our government, cases of voter fraud continue to be brought to our attention year after year. My amendment simply permits States to require a valid photo identification before receiving a ballot; nothing more, nothing less. This is not a mandate. It grants permission to the States in the true sense of Federalism. Madam Speaker, it is our duty as elected officials to preserve the integrity of the electoral process. Requiring proper ID is one step we can take to ensure valid elections.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding. I thank him for a good bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill and certainly urge defeat of the Obey motion to recommit with instructions. In the 1970s, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a regulation concerning children's sleepwear, and in this 1970s regulation, the CPSC required that baby's sleepwear be coated with a chemical known as tris, T-R-I-S. Thereafter, the regulation went out and all of the baby sleepwear in America was coated with this chemical. It turns out that this chemical caused cancer. It was a pesticide. It had to be recalled at enormous expense to the American people, at enormous danger to American consumers, and it continues to be a black mark on the history of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This is what then Congressman Al Gore had to say about the tris disaster with the Consumer Product Safety Commission: Quote, ``The magnitude of this nightmare is difficult to fathom. Here we take all of the sleepwear for children of this country and soak it in what is basically a pesticide, a mutagenic, and then we wrap up American children in these garments.'' I unquote then Congressman Al Gore. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you believe this is the only mistake that the Consumer Product Safety Commission will ever make, then perhaps you need to vote for the motion to recommit by my friend from Wisconsin. If my colleagues believe that Federal regulatory agencies are always right and never make a mistake and never need an outside scientist looking at what they propose, then maybe my colleagues should vote for the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). What are we talking about here? We are talking about a proposed regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission that says every bit of upholstered furniture in the United States of America will be coated with flame-retardant chemicals. My colleagues might ask, what is wrong with this? Let us just coat furniture with a flame-retardant chemical. Well, here is the problem. EPA, our own Federal Government, says that these chemicals are harmful. Let me just list three of them, if I can pronounce them: Decabromodiphenyl oxide. EPA says it is a class C carcinogen. It causes cancer. Ammonium nitrate. Do my colleagues know what EPA says about this flame retardant chemical that would go on furniture? It says it causes adverse affects across whole ecosystems. Antimony trioxide, a B2 carcinogen. It causes tumors. That is what the Consumer Product Safety Commission is proposing that we put on furniture in the United States of America. Now, if it does not bother my colleagues to have thousands and tens of thousands of Americans exposed to what the EPA says is a toxic chemical, then maybe my colleagues should vote for this motion. Mr. Speaker, I think the scientists raise serious questions. We are all for saving lives. Every Member of this Congress wants to prevent fire-related deaths, and we have done that working through the subcommittee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and working with voluntary and mandatory programs with industries. But we need to ask ourselves the question: Are we preventing one kind of harm while allowing all sorts of other dangers to come about? How do we resolve questions like this? We do not make the decisions ourselves. We are elected officials. We turn it over to science. And in this Federal Government, we have procedures for reasonable scientific peer review; and, despite the hyperbole, that is exactly what this well-crafted bill and well-crafted compromise by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) does. It turns the issue over to scientists within the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It turns it over to scientists within the National Institutes of Health, an agency that we are plussing up the funding for. So I say when my colleagues vote in just a moment, vote against taking unwarranted risks with American industrial workers and consumers. Vote for sound science. Vote for the bill and against the Obey motion to recommit.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if Detective John Gibson or Officer Jacob Chestnut ever met anyone from the 1st congressional district of Mississippi in the performances of their duties. But my constituents feel a kinship with these two slain heroes today. They realize that these brave men gave their lives, not simply to defend hundreds of innocent people during last Friday's shootout but to protect and preserve 222 years of history and freedom symbolized by this majestic Capitol building. The gunshots which rang out in these hallowed halls last week were heard around the Nation. E-mails and messages from my North Mississippi district reflect the same sorrow and shock other Members of Congress heard from the people they represent all across our great country this weekend. This was not simply a shooting incident on a piece of fed property, it was an attack on the People's House, an attack on us all. This e- mail from constituents in Olive Branch, Mississippi is one example. It reads, and I quote: Congressman Wicker, please express the heartfelt condolences of the people of Mississippi to the families and friends of the two slain Capitol policemen. They served and died honorably and in the best traditions of all those who placed their lives on the line for the citizens of this country. We trust they will be given the finest remembrance available in accord with the wishes of their families. The American people join us today in honoring Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. We lift them up as the role models and dedicated servants they were, professionals who took seriously their obligation to defend and protect the foundation of our democracy. It is fitting that we honor these two men as heroes and that we make sure their sacrifice is never forgotten. Beyond the words we utter on the House floor and in memorial services, a more lasting tribute to them is to ensure that we carry on the orderly functions of government inside this building that they died to preserve. It is important that we send a message to all those who would tear at the fabric of our democracy that we will not be deterred from keeping open this historic building which stands as the most visible symbol of freedom in the world. I share the sentiment echoed in this chamber that we stand united in reassuring our citizens that our free and open government represented so powerfully by all that goes on in the U.S. Capitol will not be disrupted by the actions of one disturbed individual. Never again will we take for granted the job our law enforcement officers do in and around the Capitol. They come to work each day prepared to give their lives in service to our country. Last week, for the first time in history, two of these brave officers made the ultimate sacrifice. They saved lives in the process. We share the grief their families feel because they were part of all of our families, and they will remain so. Mr. Speaker, the people of the 1st congressional district of Mississippi join me in saluting the bravery and courage of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague for his remarks. And one final word, Mr. Speaker. This outstanding group of performers from the University of Mississippi has earned an honor reserved for a select few. They have earned the right to be called the best in the world, and they have made all Americans proud. I salute them today.