Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to close the debate on this legislation today.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. We have heard some strong verbiage today from our friends on the other side of this issue. We have heard just now ``the politics of fear.'' We heard earlier discussion about ``narrow-mindedness.'' I would remind my colleagues that when they use terminology such as that they are speaking about people like General Barry McCaffrey, the administration's own drug czar, the man tasked with fighting drugs in this Nation. He has looked at the science, do not think he has not, but he has also looked at the big picture, and he has said needle exchange programs are wrong. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) a very distinguished leader in some programs to fight drug abuse that are actually working.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, every so often we notice that the President cannot manage to keep his liberal demons away. In the early days, it was gays in the military and socialized medicine. Now the President has decided it is a good idea to provide free IV needles to illegal drug users, free IV needles to illegal drug users. I am just wondering what polling the President has been doing lately, because the moms and dads I talk to are very worried about illegal drugs. Most Americans do not have a Ph.D. in psychology, but they do have a lot of common sense. Many of them know what happens to an addict surrounded by enablers. Now we have the mother of all enablers, the Federal Government, encouraging the use of needles to drug abusers so that they might continue abusing drugs ``safely.'' Maybe that is what passes for common sense in this administration.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents for his long and distinguished career in the Mississippi Army National Guard. First Sergeant Charles Parker of Calhoun City, Mississippi, is the full-time Non-Commissioned Officer in charge of Company B, 223rd Combat Engineer Battalion in Calhoun City. He is retiring this spring after 33 years of honorable service to his state and nation. His steady leadership and hard work earned First Sergeant Parker the respect of his peers and his subordinates throughout the Mississippi National Guard. He is credited with raising the strength level of his unit by more than 50 percent after it was reorganized. His technical, administrative, and leadership skills have been key factors in the company's consistently high performance ratings over the years. First Sergeant Parker has also led by example. In each of the last 14 Army physical fitness tests, he has scored more than 300 point maximum. His commanding officer said there is no better soldier anywhere in the Mississippi National Guard, citing his positive attitude and willingness to go beyond the call of duty in support of his fellow Guardsmen and their mission. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues join me in saluting First Sergeant Charles Parker for a job well done.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, that is right. They are over there in the name of the United States of America, and the least we can do as Members and as fellow citizens is to make sure that they and their families realize how much we appreciate them. The gentleman from Minnesota mentioned the doubts that a number of us had at the beginning of our involvement in 1995 and earlier in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the fact that there had been fighting there and ethnic animosity for centuries. That is certainly true, and I hope to get to the point about the importance of Central Europe in just a moment. But it is also true that Serbs, Croats, Muslims and also Jews and other small ethnic groups had lived side-by-side in that country as neighbors and as good neighbors for generations. I can remember, as I am sure the gentleman from Minnesota can remember, going that day into Tuzla, which is up near the north part of the Bosnian federation, it is actually on the border between the Serb federation and the Bosnian federation, to Camp McGovern, and then taking those helicopters on in to Brcko, which is a very, very critical area and a flash point if this conflict breaks out again, and flying over neighborhoods where there would be one burned-out house and one left standing and one burned-out house and one left standing, based on the fact that one house might have been a Bosnian Croat house. Another might have been a Bosnian/Serb house. And the armies came through and chose to burn down a house based on what ethnic group that family was in, even though the families themselves had been living together in harmony and had nothing whatever against each other. Major General Larry Ellis, who is a very fine representative of the United States in theater there, was pointing that fact out to us. It certainly occurs to me and I think to other Members of the delegation that the people of Bosnia of the various ethnic groups were not well- served by their leadership during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia by the ultranationalist leadership of Croatia, of Serbia, and of Bosnia and Herzegovina itself and that, actually, these good neighbors were drawn into a conflict that was not of their design and not of their choosing, because of some forces of ultranationalism there that we hope are on the wane. So I think there is hope that these people who lived once side-by- side can return to that if we can hold our resolve and continue to be a force for stability in that area.

Mr. WICKER. I thank the gentleman for his contribution to this special order. I know that the other four members of the delegation had intended to participate in this, and perhaps in the few moments remaining, we will still get their participation. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota mentioned that he had actually changed his mind fundamentally on the issue of whether our troops should be there. I think when Americans remember that instability in this area, instability in Europe and particularly in Central Europe, has drawn our Nation into two world wars in this century, then we need to be very, very cautious about any action that we might take at this point to cause hostilities to resume there. We know that in another area of the former Yugoslavia, the Kosovo region, there is a very dangerous situation going on there. Anything that we might do now in a precipitate way I think might bring our allies into a widened conflict, and then the question would be, what does the United States do now that NATO allies are fighting? The gentleman from Minnesota mentioned a couple of things that I want to follow up on before I get to our final two observations and conclusions. First of all, he mentioned mistakes that the administration had made, and certainly no one is perfect. But I would certainly concur that the administration has not adequately made the case to the American people about why we are doing what we are doing in the Balkans. I think it was a mistake, Mr. Speaker, for the administration to set artificial timetables. The President may have felt that he had to do this in order to prevent public opinion from stopping the deployment of these troops in late 1995, but I think the establishment of artificial timetables, a year and then we will be out, that sort of talk only gave encouragement to the forces over there who wanted to resume the conflict, who want to resume the ultranationalism that led to this horrible war. So I think that was a mistake. I am glad that the administration is being more realistic about that now and saying, we want our troops to come home, certainly we want the Bosnian people and people in the Balkans to handle this situation, but we do not believe a timetable is the right way to go. We think specific goals and benchmarks of achievement are better. It is also regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that the administration has refused to budget honestly for the Bosnian deployment. We have had our troops there since 1995. It has been very expensive, as we mentioned, $2 billion to $3 billion. The administration fully intends to keep troops there, and I support keeping the troops there, during the entirety of the remainder of this fiscal year and through fiscal year 1999. But the administration has refused to budget for this Bosnian operation. I do not believe that is honesty in budgeting. I think the administration should admit what they expect we will spend, because certainly it will be expensive, and the administration should submit a budget in the regular budget process so we can adequately plan our budget. Certainly I want to reiterate the feeling that we should not be taking this peacekeeping money from the other very important national defense needs that we have, separate and apart from our being in there with the stabilization force. Mr. Speaker, in the few moments that I have remaining, let me simply mention the last two items of our observations and conclusions. That would be items 6 and 7. Item 6, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) spoke about this, the importance of the September, 1998, elections. ``The September, 1998, Bosnian elections will be a watershed in determining whether Bosnia moves forward or backward. Until then, we believe the United States should actively continue to support the process of Dayton implementation. Given the effort already expended, it would be foolish to change our political, diplomatic, or military policy in Bosnia before the September elections have taken place. ``However, we do not believe that the United States' commitment can be open-ended. We do not believe it can be open-ended. Stabilization forces will provide important support to the Office of the High Representative in its efforts to create a climate for a fair election. Notwithstanding our observations of the role in peace being played by U.S. troops, we are concerned about the annual exercise of funding our peacekeeping operations in Bosnia by means of supplemental appropriations.'' This is what I was alluding to earlier, Mr. Speaker. ``We encourage the administration to pursue means by which such contingencies can, at least to some degree, be funded, other than at the cost of other important national priorities.'' Finally, conclusion and observation number 7, ``We are convinced that the United States has a vital interest in the stability of Central Europe.'' I might interject here, Mr. Speaker, that Sarajevo in Bosnia was the flashpoint for the start of World War I with the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1940. As a matter of fact, when we were meeting in Sarajevo with Lieutenant General David Benton, he pointed out that we were meeting in the very room, Mr. Speaker, where the Archduke slept his last night. Also, in World War II, it was in Bosnia where we saw the first instance of the most heinous forms of ethnic cleansing. The subsequent disintegration and division among ethnic groups was in part a source of the Communist influence which later came into that region. I continue with conclusion number 7, Mr. Speaker. I quote: The United States is the undisputed leader of the free world. This role carries with it responsibilities, and among these is participating in efforts to ensure Europe's stability. However, it is our desire that the future of Bosnia ultimately be determined by the Bosnian people themselves. This statement is signed by the gentleman from Mississippi (Roger Wicker), the gentleman from Georgia (Saxby Chambliss), the gentleman from South Carolina (Lindsey Graham), the gentleman from Minnesota (Gil Gutknecht), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ron Kind), and the gentleman from Ohio (Dennis Kucinich), persons that I am delighted to have gone to Bosnia with on this congressional delegation trip, and to have been associated with. I think all five of these gentlemen that I went to Bosnia with represented the Congress in an able fashion and represented the United States, and came back with some valuable, valuable information. In conclusion, let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that our visit to the Balkans, to Bosnia, to the troops there, and to the American personnel on the ground, made me proud to be an American, proud of the role that the United States of America is playing in preventing another world war, perhaps, or at the very least, another deadly conflict. I am proud of our military. I am proud of the fact that our friends in Europe, in spite of the many differences we may have on certain issues, turned to the United States for help in stabilizing this region, and preventing a resumption of hostility. I would say that the six of us all concluded that no matter what we initially thought about the United States' deployment in this area, we feel that we cannot in good conscience turn our back on the effort that we have already expended, and I commend the report to the reading of our fellow Members of Congress, Mr. Speaker. They will be receiving it in the form of a Dear Colleague letter in the next day or two.

Mr. WICKER. If I could interject, Mr. Speaker, we are there at the request of Europe. We were certainly a reluctant participant, and I know that there are Members in this body, the gentleman from Minnesota and me included, who were very, very reluctant to participate. So we are not over there insinuating ourselves into a situation where we are not welcome. We are told by our international friends that we are the glue holding the peace together at this particular time, and it would not work there without our presence.

Mr. WICKER. I think my colleague will agree that many Americans, and many Members of the Congress, both the House and the Senate, perhaps are not aware of the complexity of the Dayton agreement. But under the Dayton agreement, Bosnia and Herzegovina was divided basically into two federations, one the Croat Muslim Federation, and then the predominantly Serb area, which is referred to commonly as the Republic of Srpska. Our third conclusion is that prior to the elections in December of 1997, which brought to power more moderate leadership within the Republic of Srpska, hard-line Bosnian Serbs in power demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the terms of the Dayton agreement. As a result, the overwhelming bulk of Western economic aid has flowed to the Muslim Croat-dominated federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The recently elected moderate government within the Republic of Srpska lacks the financial resources to function effectively, raising concerns about the government's political viability. We were advised by our military and diplomatic leadership that $5 million in U.S. assistance to the new Republic of Srpska Government is essential as part of a $20 million to $30 million international assistance package to demonstrate our commitment to the long-term viability of the new government until it begins generating sufficient revenues on its own. We strongly support appropriation of this $5 million in assistance. Compared to the $2 billion to $3 billion invested annually in support of the military operation, $2 billion to $3 billion invested annually, $5 million on a one-time basis is a relatively small price to pay to ensure the stability of the new reform-minded Republic of Srpska government. However, we do not believe that any U.S. assistance of this nature should be taken from the Department of Defense accounts. Number 4. Among the more pressing needs within Bosnia is the establishment of an economic infrastructure that will give the Bosnian people a sense of hope and the prospect of a brighter economic future. Without a productive economy, we believe there is little chance for a lasting peace. Number 5. The need for continued American troop presence on the ground in Bosnia was stressed by U.S. military commanders, political officials, diplomats and the Bosnian people with whom we met. There is a widespread conviction that U.S. troops are essential to preventing the resumption of a war. Having seen the situation in Bosnia firsthand, it is clear to us that the presence of American forces are necessary. I might interject here before I read the final two points that the devastation of this war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the magnitude of it is really not well known in the United States; 200,000 people dead, over half of them civilians. Of the over 2.5 million people in the country of Bosnia, roughly half of them have now been displaced and are no longer at their home. So the devastation there over this 3-year period has been enormous. The entire delegation that was over there and saw this concluded that we simply cannot afford to withdraw our troops at this point and see the resumption of hostilities on this scale. At this point, I yield to my colleague for a comment about that conclusion. I think it is central to the observations that we came away with.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, four weeks ago today I had the opportunity to lead a bipartisan group of Members of Congress on a five-day trip to Bosnia and Herzegovina. This trip was taken at the suggestion of the Secretary of Defense and the Speaker of the House. And I was joined on this congressional delegation trip by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). During our trip, this delegation of first- and second-term Members of Congress had the opportunity to meet with senior officers of the U.S. Command, as well as enlisted personnel, both in the European theater and on the ground in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We met with U.S. diplomatic staff and also the people most affected by the ravages of war, the ordinary people of the Bosnian region, the Croats, the Serbs and the Muslim Bosniaas, who are all living together in this war-torn region. We went to Bosnia, Mr. Speaker, to begin a better understanding of the current political and military situation in the region, to understand the stresses that a continued U.S. military deployment will place on our armed forces, the impact on training and readiness of the United States Army both in theater and elsewhere in the world, the conditions necessary to allow for a withdrawal of U.S. forces and when those conditions might be obtained. Mr. Speaker, I will say at the outset that our 6-Member delegation has had a bit of a tough time scheduling this particular special order. We had thought that we might be able to bring these remarks during the evening hour yesterday. Because of the lateness of legislative and House business, we were unable to do so. The other members of the delegation may join me in a few moments, but I am told they are in various hearings and important meetings, and so I may or may not be joined by the other members of the delegation. However, I do want to let my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, the unanimous, and I emphasize unanimous, observations and conclusions which were reached by the entire delegation. These are people from both sides of the aisle. These are Members who came to the congressional delegation trip from different perspectives. Some Members had supported the Bosnian operation from the outset. Others had been very much opposed to the concept of our troops being in country there in Bosnia. Based on our observations, based on the conversations with generals, enlisted personnel, with the very fine United States diplomatic men and women that we have in Bosnia and in the region, as well as NATO and United Nations forces, we did come to these unanimous conclusions, seven items in total which I will share with Members today, Mr. Speaker, and which I will also be sending by way of a Dear Colleague letter. The number one observation and conclusion, the delegation wishes to acknowledge the impressive professionalism and dedication of U.S. service personnel serving on the ground in Bosnia and supporting Operation Joint Guard from deployment sites in Hungary and Italy. Indeed we met with not only our troops there on the ground in Bosnia, but also from the various staging areas in Hungary and in Vincenza, Italy. We also met with a number of important military leaders in Stuttgart, Germany before going into Bosnia. I continue to read from the report. It was clear that U.S. military forces are performing their mission in an exemplary fashion. They are being asked to do more with less and are responding admirably. The American people can be proud of the way their Armed Forces, Active Duty, Reserve and National Guard components, have risen to the challenge of ensuring a peaceful, secure and stable environment in Bosnia. All Americans owe these soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines a debt of gratitude. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, our delegation was quite impressed with the military and diplomatic leadership that we have over there. We received an in-depth briefing from General Wesley Clark, the Commander in Chief, U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. I would just mention that General Clark is not only a 4-star general with a distinguished record of service to our country, he is a West Point graduate, holds master's degrees from Oxford University and is a Rhodes scholar. We also met with other very fine military leaders, such as Air Force General James Jamerson, also a 4-star general, and Army Lieutenant General David Benton, a 3-star general, Chief of Staff for the U.S. European Command. I also had an opportunity to visit with enlisted and officer personnel from my own State of Mississippi. Again, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we can be proud of the effort that these men and women are making. I concluded that they believe in the mission, and they are proud of what they have been doing. Our conclusion number two is that we have been informed that the U.S. force levels in Bosnia are likely to be reduced from the current 8,500 to 6,900. We are concerned that a lower troop level may lead to increased risk, given the potential for violence directed against or involving U.S. troops as they execute their missions. We believe that an appropriate level of forces in Bosnia must be based on sound military assessment of the risks and not on any political considerations. Force protection must be a top priority. Increasing the risk to U.S. forces is not an acceptable option. At a minimum, we recommend unanimously, Mr. Speaker, that U.S. force levels not be reduced until after the September 1998 elections are held and a review of the security situation is conducted. We feel that progress in Bosnia should be judged by the achievement of specific milestones and that any troop reduction should be tied to the achievement of these milestones. Mr. Speaker, I am joined at this point by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht). Of course, he has never been one to be a shrinking violet. He should feel free, Mr. Speaker, to jump in and ask me to yield at any point, or I will proceed with the discussion of the upcoming election in Bosnia, particularly as it relates to the Republic of Srpska.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, if I could give the gentleman an example. A middle-income family, for example the Wilsons in the First District of Mississippi, might have 3 children under the ages of 17. That entitles the Wilsons in 1998 to claim a tax credit of $400 times 3, or $1,200, or a tax credit of $100 per month. Now that is not a tax deduction. It is better than a tax deduction. It is actually an additional $100 per month added to their take-home pay. So a wage earner in that family would simply need to go to the personnel office wherever he or she works and fill out a form saying do not wait until 1999, adjust my withholding right now, and that family can begin to see here in 1998 the benefits of our tax cut from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked me a moment ago if I wanted some time on his special order and I declined. But having remained in the Chamber and listened, I do want to add a couple things. First of all, I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann), Mr. Speaker, for his dogged determination to get us to the point where we are in the budget today. As a member of the Committee on the Budget, and I remember being in on the discussion back in 1995 which led to the gentleman being added to the Committee on the Budget, also he is a very fine member of the Committee on Appropriations, and it is people like the gentleman from Wisconsin and others like him who have gotten us to the point where we are. We certainly are not everywhere we need to be in terms of tax relief, in terms of shrinking the size of the Federal Government. But I did want to take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin and to say that I believe, Mr. Speaker, he has quite a few more years of effective service for the taxpayers of the United States of America, not just of his own State of Wisconsin. The gentleman mentioned tax relief and the $400-per-child tax credit. A lot of Americans do not realize that they do not have to wait until the filing time of 1999. As a matter of fact, if a family wants to, they can go down and file with their personnel office at the place of their employment and begin having their withholding changed right now and enjoy the benefits of this $400-per-child tax credit even now. The other point that I was going to make, the gentleman mentioned the Roth IRA, and accountants back home in my district and in my State tell me that this has become one of the most effective tools already for encouraging savings and formation of capital. So I just commend the gentleman for his efforts in this regard and for the special order that he has entered into today.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. He is put in a very difficult position today. He has a tough job, Mr. Speaker. He is put in the position of presenting a rule to this body on a bill that he is vigorously, vigorously opposed to. So I have always respected him for the hard job he has, but even more so today because of the position that he has found himself in. I also have the greatest respect for some of the proponents of this legislation. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Resources, is a very effective leader in the House of Representatives. He believes fervently in this issue, and he is entitled to his beliefs and his opinions and has worked very effectively for the legislation, and I have great respect for his viewpoint. However, I do oppose the bill and oppose the rule, Mr. Speaker, because I do not believe the American people have enough facts about this issue. I do not believe the American people are prepared to have their national legislature move on a decision concerning Puerto Rican statehood. Now, there are people who have risen on the floor today and previously, who said this is not a statehood bill, but I would submit to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that this is very much a statehood bill. And this is the reason--as the chairman has previously stated, Puerto Rico has voted previously, very recently, on the issue of statehood, and they rejected the idea of statehood; 1993, I believe, was the latest plebiscite. This bill, if passed by the House of Representatives, and if enacted by the Senate and signed by the President, would say to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, ``Vote again, you did not get it right last time.'' If Puerto Rico votes for statehood with 50 percent plus 1, a bare majority, then the Congress of the United States will have to decide the issue to decide. We must vote on a bill to decide whether to grant the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico their statehood. However, in this referendum that is proposed by this bill, if Puerto Ricans vote once again for commonwealth status, this bill says, ``Wait a minute, you didn't get it right. We will let that decision stand, but just for a little while. And after 10 years you must vote again and you must vote again and you must vote again until you get it right. And the right decision is statehood.'' So I would say that the bill is designed to eventually get a decision by the Puerto Rican people for statehood. And because of that, I say that enactment of the bill would inevitably put us down the path to admitting Puerto Rico as the 51st State, and that is a serious, serious decision. This is a major decision. Adding a star to the United States flag is a major decision for Americans to make. It is a serious matter which Congress and the American people need to have a full understanding about. I do not think the American people know this issue is out there. When I went home to my constituents, they had no idea that Congress was about to vote on a bill which will inevitably lead to statehood. So for that reason, I oppose the rule. I respect the chairman for bringing it forward, but I think that if we as a body want to take the position today that, having had this debate this morning, this issue is not ripe for a decision and we need to go back and have a further national conversation about this, I think the correct decision is to vote ``no'' on the rule. And that will be my vote, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to know there is bipartisan opposition to H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, which we will be asked to vote on tomorrow. Over the past few weeks, I have received a lot of conflicting information regarding Puerto Rican statehood. Some say statehood will cost the taxpayers $3.5 billion. Others say it will result in a $2.5 billion benefit. Which is true? I cannot be sure, and the American people do not know the truth yet either. When I was home this weekend, I asked several folks what they thought of Puerto Rico becoming the 51st State. Most of my constituents did not even realize Congress was considering such a vote. We should not vote on such an important bill when our voters are not fully informed. During my time in Congress, I have generally been supportive of my leadership. But I say to the Republican leadership today that they are making a grave mistake. I believe they have misjudged the will and understanding of the American people. They do not know enough about this legislation, they do not know it is coming. Americans are going to wake up Thursday morning with Puerto Rico well on its way to becoming the 51st star in the flag and they are going to say, why were we not consulted? I urge my leadership to pull this measure and give the American people an opportunity to make an informed decision.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to prove the Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Compact. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], the ranking member, for acting on this resolution and for allowing it to come before the House so quickly. I also want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant], and the majority leader for their help. Mr. Speaker, this may seem like a simple and straightforward bill, and it is, but the Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Compact is a very important local initiative between Marshall County, Mississippi, and Fayette County, Tennessee. According to statistics, Marshall County, Mississippi, is economically disadvantaged, without the resources and infrastructure necessary to compete and to attract business and industry. But the people of Marshall County have viewed their present circumstances as a challenge and an opportunity. They put their heads together and came up with a long-term economic development plan to attract jobs and ensure a bright future for the next generation. Included in this vision for the future has been the development of a large industrial park in northern Marshall County, adjacent to the Tennessee line. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, in an effort to improve the regional economy in Tennessee, the Memphis Area Chamber of Commerce organized the Mid South Common Market, which includes the States of Tennessee and Mississippi and numerous counties around the city of Memphis. As a result of cooperation and consultation between economic development leaders in these two States, the idea of a regional industrial park was born. The innovative project would be a 4,000- to 5,000-acre industrial park located in both Marshall County, Mississippi, and Fayette County, Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I am excited about this project because it will enhance the economy of our region and improve the lives of my constituents who live in Marshall County and the surrounding area. I urge its adoption. I think it is an example of the American can-do attitude.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding the time. I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee as well as the ranking member of this subcommittee for the hard work and negotiation and the lengthy time that they put into this very important legislation. I support it. I hope we have strong support from both sides of the aisle for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is not the type of bill that I would have written had I been writing it in a vacuum. It might not be a better bill if I wrote it, but it would be a different bill. But just think about this, Mr. Speaker, this is the first conference report on Labor HHS appropriation that we have had in 3 years, and I think it is better for this House and for the Senate and for the process to work its will rather than to go with continuing resolutions and resolve the issues that way. I think the leadership is to be commended for pushing this through and for us finally getting to this stage for the first time in 3 years of actually being able to have a conference committee report a bill and for us to vote on it. I commend the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and Mr. Livingston spoke about the things that were achieved for conservatives. I think members of my party should realize that Mr. Livingston is himself a conservative, and he has worked hard for those issues that are important on our side of the aisle. It has already been mentioned that this bill before us today contains the Goodling language that stops national testing. It contains an expansion of the Hyde amendment; a moratorium for the first 6 months of this fiscal year on needle exchange programs funded by taxpayer funds, which will allow the Congress to work its will on an authorizing piece of legislation next year; a prohibition on the use of human embryos for federally-funded research, again a very important issue to conservatives around this Nation. The bill also contains important modifications in the law with regard to OSHA to make sure that we protect American jobs at the same time that we are protecting and looking out for workers' health and safety, and in addition a freeze on funding for the National Labor Relations Board and a host of other issues that are important to conservatives. This is a contentious bill. Any time we talk about the Department of Labor, the subgroups there, NLRB, OSHA, and then throw in HHS with needle exchanges and the entire issues of Federal education policy, we are going to have a contentious bill. But I commend the leadership for moving us in the right direction. I commend the bill to conservatives, and I hope on my side of the aisle we will have a tremendous vote in favor of the bill. And then let us not lose sight of the fact that we are doing important things to prevent disease and to protect the health of Americans in this legislation.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in the strongest possible opposition to the Mollohan amendment and to the concept of census sampling. This vote goes to the heart of the question: Will our Nation carry out an honest, accurate and complete census in the year 2000? And, beyond that, to the question: Will the United States have a fair congressional reapportionment in the year 2002? As my other colleagues have said, my opposition to sampling is based on a variety of reasons. The guessing scheme is unconstitutional, it is contrary to statutory law, it is unreliable, and it is subject to abuse. The Constitution calls for ``actual enumeration,'' and actual enumeration means actual counting. It says count the ``whole number'' in the 14th amendment. The United States Code specifically precludes the use of sampling for determining congressional reapportionment. The chairman of the subcommittee is right. This may be one of the most significant and far-reaching votes of this entire Congress. The Constitution requires an actual count. Vote ``no'' on the Mollohan amendment.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hostettler amendment, which should be relatively noncontroversial. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of this amendment which would update the jurisdictional threshold of the National Labor Relations Board. While the NLRB has attracted quite a bit of attention during the past 2 years, I believe that the least controversial of the issues surrounding the NLRB is this one. When the NLRB was created in 1959, it had jurisdiction over nonretail businesses whose gross receipts were greater than $50,000 per year, and retail businesses with receipts over $500,000 per year. This level was developed so that the labor disputes involving small businesses would remain under the jurisdiction of State courts. Because these levels have not been increased to keep pace with the rate of inflation, small business has come under the regulatory hand of the NLRB. Congress intended that small business be regulated by the States. I believe that these thresholds should be updated for the same reason that we increase Social Security recipients paychecks with an annual COLA: Because the value of the dollar is not the same in 1997 as it was in 1959. I urge my colleagues to support small businesses and support commonsense Government by voting for the Hostettler amendment.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I want to certainly rise in support of the amendment, which would prohibit taxpayer dollars--taxpayer dollars-- from being spent to distribute needles to intravenous drug abusers. And I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] for his leadership on this issue, not only on the floor, but also before his subcommittee. I also want to thank the distinguished chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], for indicating his support for this very important amendment to the appropriation bill. I very much appreciate the gentleman from Illinois for supporting this. At the outset, I think it is important that we define what we are talking about when we say needle exchanges. How does a needle exchange program work? Under a needle exchange program, an intravenous drug user comes to a facility with a dirty needle that has been used to perpetrate a felony, to inject either heroin or cocaine or another form of illegal drug, and they exchange it for a new needle. They simply hand over the needle that was used in the illegal drug act and receive, in return, a clean needle. In many cases, the illegal drug user will be given a permission slip which would authorize him to carry the otherwise illegal drug paraphernalia. So, in reality, the activity that we are talking about, that we are talking about using Federal funds for today, is to facilitate an act which is in fact illegal, which is in fact a felony in almost all of the United States of America. Now, where are we under the current law, under the current law and the current appropriation bill that we are trying to amend? For the past few years we have given the discretion to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to allow for needle exchanges if she determined that that should be done. And I believe the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] has read the appropriate language about determinations she must make. I think this current law was a mistake. I think that this is a decision that is so important and rises to such a level that it should be made by the elected representatives of the people. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] says this issue raises very serious moral questions, and I agree. Those questions ought to be answered by the representatives of the people. We have had two distinguished physicians who have spoken on different sides of the issue already this very afternoon. This demonstrates that there are serious policy determinations that surround this issue, and they should be made by the Congress of the United States, not by an appointed official in the executive branch. I do not think Congress should have punted this decision to the Secretary. I think this is a decision that should be made by Congress. And the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] is correct. If we make this decision as a Congress, then we should change the drug laws, but that decision ought to be made with our eyes open. We ought to make that decision after full debate and after acknowledging this: that IV drug use is now illegal; that it is now a felony; that in 45 States, possession of needles, syringes, and other drug paraphernalia is illegal; and that in providing for needle exchanges by the Secretary of HHS we would not only be preempting laws against illegal IV drugs, but also we would be going a step further in overruling these State laws, against possession of needles, and we would be taking taxpayer funds to provide for the illegal activity. I say, vote against preemption of State and Federal laws against IV drug use; vote against preemption of State laws which make possession of drug paraphernalia illegal. Let us regain congressional discretion over this major policy decision and vote for the Hastert-Wicker amendment.

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, my point is the very activity that the gentleman would authorize is illegal.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Second District of Mississippi and I have the sad duty this morning to report the death of one of our former House Members from Mississippi, Frank Ellis Smith, who served capably for 6 terms in the House of Representatives and died on August 2 in Jackson, MS, at the age of 79. After fighting in the European Theater during World War II, Frank Smith returned to his hometown of Greenwood to become managing editor of the Greenwood Morning Star. Two years later in 1947 he was elected to the Mississippi Senate, and shortly afterward he came to Washington to serve on the staff of Senator John C. Stennis. He was elected to Congress in 1950 and served until 1962. During that time he was a leader in efforts to bring economic development to the South, serving as president of the Lower Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association. From 1955 to 1962, he was a member of the North American Treaty Organization Parliamentary Committee. In retirement, Representative Smith served as a visiting professor of public policy at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and was later special assistant to Mississippi Governor William Winter from 1980 to 1983. He was the only Mississippian ever to serve on the board of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Representative Smith was the author of six books and edited other publications. He operated a well-known bookstore in Jackson for many years. He is survived by his wife Helen, a son, a daughter, and 3 grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, during his exemplary career Frank Smith made his mark on the Mississippi political scene as a legislator who took care of his constituents, voted his convictions, and worked to improve economic opportunities for his State and Nation.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Although I have not heard Reverend Bowen preach a revival in Mississippi, I have had the opportunity to visit Downtown Baptist Church and to hear the sermons of Rev. Don Bowen on numerous occasions when I found myself in Alexandria. I would observe that it takes good oratory and skills of persuasion to be a successful preacher. But there is something even more special about the people skills and spiritual gifts necessary to lead a congregation and to become a great pastor. Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that Rev. Don Bowen during his 30 years at Downtown Baptist Church in Alexandria has exhibited all of these qualities. I could congratulate Don Bowen on 30 years of service, and I wish him Godspeed upon his retirement.