Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. The handshake was about the type of proposal that we voted on yesterday, the commission, which the majority of folks on the other side of the aisle somehow lost interest in when it was finally presented to the floor. But if I could reclaim my time now, I just would simply say, I do not apologize for taking this issue to the American people and pointing out that this goes to the heart of the first amendment. If Members are for Shays-Meehan, and they think every bit of it is constitutional, then they have nothing to fear voting for this nonseverability amendment. If, however, as I do, if they believe that there are unconstitutional provisions to this amendment, then they also ought to vote for the nonseverability, so everybody, regardless of what side of the issue they are on, ought to vote for the nonseverability.

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me just respond to the gentlewoman from California who complained that we have now passed a rule that is going to take a lot of time here. First of all, the leadership has given its commitment that we will vote on this issue in August, and I believe they will honor that commitment. Now, beyond that, when a proposal such as this, which I believe fervently strikes at the heart of free expression and the first amendment, comes forward, then I do not apologize for wanting to take the time to fully explore all the issues and to explore the ramifications and to look at alternatives. I do not apologize for that. I think it is going to take some time, but it is worth it if we can get the point across to the American people that this is going to the heart of freedom of speech.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the unprecedented limitations on freedom of expression in this proposal before us tonight. It costs $62,000 a page in the New York Times to buy a full-page ad, $62,000. I want to show my colleagues today $82,000. What I want to show them today is $164,000 worth of expression, the editorial page of the New York Times. The New York Times Corporation can purchase, can put out this much expression every single day of the year. It costs $75,000 a page to buy an advertisement in USA Today. What I have here before us today is 2 pages, USA Today. The Gannett Corporation puts out $150,000 worth of expression each day, and there is no government agency coming in with a microscope saying what kind of speech is this? Is this issue advocacy? Is this express advocacy? If they print a voting record, the FEC does not come in and say, ``Well, now did they write the right kind of comments down at the bottom of that voting record?'' And that is as it should be. I applaud that. That is freedom of speech, that is freedom of expression, and that is America. But under the proposals that we are going to be debating tonight and the rest of this process X Y Z Corporation wants to take out an $82,000 ad in the New York Times or a $75,000, or Right to Life wants to spend $75,000 of its contribution money to take out an ad in the Gannett newspaper. Then the strong arm of the Federal Government comes along with a magnifying glass and says, ``Did you say it right? Is it during the right period of time? Is it during the 60 day period right before the election?'' And there is a huge government agency coming in with even more bureaucracy then we have now. This is an unconstitutional invasion of the right of individuals, of corporations, of public interest groups to purchase time, to purchase space in a newspaper and freely advocate as American citizens. It is unconstitutional. I think that is the very reason we need the nonseverability clause. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment and the defeat of the Shays-Meehan substitute.

Mr. WICKER. Really, Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have time to yield.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) just a few moments ago and to agree that when we have a proposal of this magnitude, it deserves a lot of discussion. When we have a bill that has such chilling potential limits on free speech and free expression that even the ACLU is horrified by its prospects, then the American people need to have a full and open debate about this issue; and that is what this rule provides. Several weeks ago, the Committee on Rules passed a rule which outlined the debate for this proposal. It provided for 11 substitutes to the freshman bill. These substitutes include ideas offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), and others. Today, this rule provides for even further important amendments which we believe will improve the proposals. But some of my friends on the other side of the aisle want to quash this debate. The minority leader has said that he will raise Holy Ned in order to defeat this rule. This should not be about grandstanding. This is about passing a meaningful campaign finance proposal that provides for full and open disclosure. Let's always come back to that--full and open disclosure. Let's let the sunshine in and let the American people decide. Day after day, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle complain about what they perceive as a stifling of their free speech rights when the Committee on Rules brings anything less than an open rule. What do we hear today? We hear complaints about too much debate. Either they want a free and open dialogue or they want to drive these unconstitutional proposals through this body with little debate. They cannot have it both ways. The same free speech I am trying to protect today allows Members of the House to come before the people and debate subjects free from government restriction. I look forward to this discourse and believe the American people will not drive a hole through the First Amendment.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for the time. I rise in enthusiastic support of this legislation today. The Religious Freedom Amendment would not change the First Amendment to the Constitution, nor has the First Amendment failed this Nation, as some of my colleagues have said today. It is a narrow majority of the United States Supreme Court that has inaccurately interpreted the First Amendment. That is why we are here today. The fact is that we do have emblazoned on the wall behind me the words ``In God We Trust''. We do have a picture of Moses, one of the great religious leaders of all times. We do begin each session of this Congress with prayer. Oftentimes I might not agree with that prayer, and oftentimes I might not agree with the religion represented, but even so, that in itself is enlightening to me and I am glad for it. But in auditoriums, gymnasiums and other public buildings around this Nation, people are deprived of that same freedom of religious expression, and that is not what the Founding Fathers intended. Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that this debate is not about government-imposed prayer. It is about voluntary prayer. One of my colleagues said he did not want the government writing a prayer for his children. Go back and read this legislation. Nothing in this amendment would allow a school to require prayer or to write a certain prayer for a child. There is no coercion here. But here is what our children need to know, Mr. Speaker, and this message ought to be sent out from this Congress today: that faith and religious beliefs have always been at the center of this Nation's conscience; that faith-based convictions are an integral part of our Nation today; and that there is no place in America for court-imposed, government-sanctioned hostility to religious expression.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I appreciate the gentlewoman from California telling us what the motion to recommit with instructions will be about. I think Members on both sides of the aisle are smiling about my friends on the left and their new-found dedication to States' rights and local decision-making. The fact is, this is Federal money. This Congress has a stewardship over the use of funds paid into the Federal Treasury by the taxpayers, and we have a right to make sure they are not used for a counterproductive purpose. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire about the time remaining?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), not only a leader in the fight against drugs but also a leader in the effort to fund research for the disease of diabetes.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a gentleman who is not only a leader on the Committee on Appropriations but one of the great leaders in the drug task force.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) who has been a leader in the fight against drugs. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the leader of the Speaker's Task Force For a Drug-Free America.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me first take this opportunity to commend and thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for the legislation which is before us today. Although my colleague still has several more months remaining in this Congress and a lot more work to do, let me be among the many to express my gratitude to him for his service to his community, to the military, to this institution, and to his State and Nation. I also at this point want to note the leadership and tireless efforts of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) in leading the war on drugs and the significant contribution of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), chairman of the Task Force for a Drug-Free America, who is working with Members of Congress and communities across the country in an effort to stem the tide of illegal drug use. I rise today in strong support of this legislation, which has at its center a very simple premise: The Federal Government should not be in the business of supplying IV needles or syringes to drug addicts. Let me point to this graphic. Mr. Speaker, this photograph very vividly points out the sad, regrettable, dangerous, and even deadly issue that we are talking about today. Under a needle exchange program, an individual such as the one depicted here uses a hypodermic needle to inject an illegal and harmful and deadly drug, such as cocaine or heroin, then hands over that contaminated needle at a facility in exchange for a clean needle which can then be used in further illegal activity. In many cases, the illegal drug user will be given a permission slip which would authorize him or her to carry the otherwise illegal drug paraphernalia. A needle exchange program facilitates an act which is in fact illegal, which is in fact a felony in most of the United States of America. The festering disease of illegal drugs is eating away at our society. We have witnessed a dramatic rise in drug use during the last several years, particularly among our young people. The failure of our country to have a coherent drug policy which emphasizes education, prevention and a strong anti-use theme is having a disastrous effect. This very day, more than 8,000 young people across America will use an illegal drug for the first time. Illegal drug use is tearing at our social fabric, ripping apart families and corrupting our children. Fifty-four percent of high school children have used illegal drugs. The use of heroin, a drug which is almost exclusively injected intravenously, has quadrupled, has increased fourfold, just since 1994. According to a University of California study last year, the social cost of drug abuse amounts to $67 billion per year. Clearly we must act. It is our duty, our obligation to society and to our children to act promptly, to act responsibly and to eliminate the scourge of illegal drugs. The government does indeed have an important role in winning the war on drugs in America. But using tax dollars to hand out free needles to drug addicts is not the right way to go about addressing the crisis of drugs in our communities. In fact, it is exactly the wrong way. To begin winning the war on drugs, we should instead be emphasizing an approach which gets tough on the supply side of illegal drugs by dramatically stepping up interdiction. Then on the demand side we must concentrate our efforts on education and prevention to fight the devastating effects illegal drugs have on our society. Unfortunately, last week, President Clinton announced to the American people that his administration endorses the use of needle exchange programs for drug users. But he stopped short of funding such programs. In effect, the President tried to have it both ways. This headline is devastating: ``Clinton Supports Needle Exchanges But Not Funding.'' That is the message which the President of the United States, the highest elected official in our land, sent out across this land to the young people, that needle exchange programs are a good thing. Mr. Speaker, the President could hardly have sent a more destructive and harmful and confusing message to the American people. The President argues forcefully that we must protect our children from tobacco, and I agree. But in his next breath, he endorses needle exchange programs, the exchange of one piece of illegal drug paraphernalia for the other. Thankfully the administration's own national drug policy adviser, General Barry McCaffrey, courageously took the opposite view and stated just last week, and I quote General McCaffrey, ``Needle exchange programs are magnets for social ills, pulling in crime, violence, addicts, prostitution, dealers and gangs and driving out hope and opportunity.'' If the President will not listen to his own drug czar, who will he listen to? Perhaps he will listen to this body. It is time for this body once again to stand up for what is right. We have debated this issue on the floor before. Last September a bipartisan majority of this House said ``No'' to Federal funding for needle exchanges during the Labor-HHS appropriation bill for FY 1998. The moratorium which banned funding for these programs has now expired and it is time for us to put into place a permanent ban on funding for needle exchanges. Mr. Speaker, the underlying assumption of a needle exchange program is that we can somehow encourage ``responsible drug users.'' That is an oxymoron if ever I have heard one. Advocates of needle exchange programs hope that drug users will not share their needles with other drug users. But let's consider the kind of clientele that we are hoping will act ``responsibly.'' We are talking about drug addicts who often commit violent crime to support their habits, who often sell their own bodies just to get high or to sustain their drug habits. Do we really believe that individuals engaged in this type of harmful, illegal and even deadly activity are going to be worried about whether their needles are clean? On the floor today we will hear, as we have already heard, proponents of needle exchanges talk about the alleged benefits of these programs in reducing the spread of HIV and AIDS. But there are no reliable scientific studies to back up that charge. In fact, the opposite is true. The 1996 Montreal Study demonstrated that intravenous drug addicts who used needle exchange programs were more than twice as likely to become infected with HIV as addicts who did not take part in exchange programs. Needle exchange programs are simply based on a flawed theory, and they will not work to solve the problem of AIDS. I wish we could find a cure for AIDS. I hope that we will. This Congress is funding research to do just that. But I am opposed to spending more taxpayer dollars on programs that do not work and which send the wrong message to the children of America. H.R. 3717 will prevent the administration from moving ahead on a risky program of handing out free needles. This bill is brief and goes straight to the point by amending title II of the Public Health Service Act to prevent any funds from being expended, either directly or indirectly, to carry out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this straightforward bill to ban Federal funding for needle exchange programs. In so doing, we will be sending the right message to America's young people, that the Federal Government does not condone and will not be a party to illegal drug use in any form. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 409, I call up the bill (H.R. 3717) to prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds for the distribution of needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection of illegal drugs, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a physician in his own right and a passionate advocate on behalf of drug control.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), one of the most tireless warriors in the fight against drugs.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), the Speaker of the House, will lead what I hope is a bipartisan delegation of Members of this body to announce a renewed war against illegal drugs in this country, and I am pleased at this point to yield him the balance of our time in opposition to the motion to recommit.