Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Appalachian Regional Commission and against the amendment offered by my friend from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug]. The gentleman from Kentucky is correct. A similar companion amendment was offered in 1995 at the beginning of this Republican Congress, and it was rejected overwhelmingly on a bipartisan vote, and it was rejected and the Appalachian Regional Commission was endorsed by this body because we were able to demonstrate on the basis of the facts that this program is a successful program, a program which has worked. It has provided jobs for over 108,000 people in the Appalachian region, it has helped to retain another 80,000 additional jobs, and highways are an important part of the mix. The highways are 75 percent complete, but we need to finish the rest of them. Since the ARC with the highway program has been in place, the poverty rate in the Appalachian region has been cut in half, infant mortality has been cut by two-thirds, and out-migration has slowed. Also, Mr. Chairman, I would state to you that this is a program which is still very much needed. In our region, per capita income is 16 percent below the national average. The poverty rate in the region is 16 percent higher than the national average. And I want to address this issue of double dipping. Some of my friends have said well, Appalachia, through the highway portion of it, gets an extra dip into the Federal Treasury. That is not true at all. In the Appalachian region we receive 11 percent less in total per capita Federal spending than the national average. So please do not accuse us of getting more than our fair share. If anything, we get less than the national average. Mr. Chairman, this is level funding from the last fiscal year, it is within our budget allocation, it continues us on a path which will put us within the guidelines and bring us into a balanced budget by the year 2002. And let us say this: My friends have talked about welfare spending. This is not welfare spending at all. This is spending to create infrastructure, to create jobs in the private sector and to turn people away from welfare and into taxpayers. It is government at its best, it is money well spent, and I am sure the Members of this body will reject the amendment just as they did in 1995.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the market access program and against the Chabot amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to eliminate funding for USDA's Market Access Program. The Market Access Program, or MAP, has been a tremendous success in maintaining and expanding U.S. agriculture exports, competing with foreign subsidized agriculture, and protecting American jobs. This is true across the country as well as in my home state of Mississippi. With the help of MAP, Mississippi agriculture exports-- including cotton, soybeans, poultry, rice, livestock, and animal products--reached nearly a billion dollars last year. It helped provide nearly 14,000 jobs statewide. This not only strengthened farm income, it provided a significant economic boost to many local communities. The program helped promote record U.S. agricultural exports of nearly $60 billion last year, contributing to a record trade surplus of almost $30 billion, and providing jobs for over one million Americans. Every billion dollars in exports helps create as many as 17,000 new jobs. MAP is a cost-share program. Participants are required to contribute as much as 50 percent of their own resources to be eligible for the program. In addition, the program remains a key part of the 1996 farm bill and its 7-year commitment to our farmers and ranchers. The program remains critical to our effort to open up foreign markets and to combat subsidized foreign competition. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, more than 46 countries continue to use trade barriers which limit or restrict U.S. agriculture exports. For example, the European Union spent nearly $10 billion on export subsidies last year, while the U.S. spent less than $150 million. Eliminating MAP would hurt our farmers and ranchers, as well as American workers whose jobs depend on agricultural exports. The choice is simple. We can either export our products or we can export our jobs. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly echo the sentiments of other speakers who already talked tonight in commendation of our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], as well as the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], the ranking member, for the bipartisan nature in which they have approached this issue, taking care of quality-of-life and readiness issues, all within our budget allocation. Mr. Chairman, I think it might surprise many American people to hear that over 25 percent of our military barracks are in substandard condition at the present time and over 66 percent of onbase housing is considered substandard. And that is what this bill is principally about. I was glad to see my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], talk about quality of life as it affects readiness. It would take 32 years and $30 billion in order to correct all of the problems presently associated with our military housing. Forty-two percent of this bill goes toward family housing needs, $1 billion toward new family housing, and another $3 billion toward operation and maintenance of existing facilities. There are also many other needs that are met by the bill: $28 million for child development centers, $146 million for hospital and medical facilities, $752 million for barracks facilities. So I just want to echo the comments of other speakers already and congratulate the chairman and the ranking member. Because of the rule, we will have a recorded vote; and I certainly would expect an overwhelming vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a letter from Dr. Lester Spell, commissioner of agriculture and commerce for the State of Mississippi. Dr. Spell is a statewide elected official elected on the Democratic ticket, and he asks that Congress provide relief from the capital gains tax and reduce the death tax. Commissioner Spell has this to say about capital gains taxes: ``This tax has a negative and unfair effect on agricultural families and nonagricultural families.'' About the estate tax, Commissioner Spell says: ``This tax destroys the hope and enthusiasm of free enterprise and entrepreneurship.'' He goes on to say: ``This year Independence Day would be much more meaningful to all Americans if Congress would reduce capital gains taxes and move to eliminate the death tax.'' Mr. Speaker, the House-passed tax cut is good for average Americans. Over 75 percent of the tax relief goes to families between $20,000 and $75,000 in annual income. I am glad capital gains and estate tax relief are part of this package, and I commend Commissioner Lester Spell for pointing out the bipartisan support for these provisions.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the University of Mississippi Concert Singers who won their fourth international choral title in May in competition in Varna, Bulgaria. The Ole Miss Concert Singers were the only group representing the United States in the competition, which included 21 choirs from 11 countries. In addition to winning the grand prize, a panel of international judges also gave the group a first place prize in the chamber choir category, first place in the mixed choir category, and a special award for the most innovative music interpretations. Taking the top award in this event also qualified the group to participate in the European Grand Prize competition to be held in Italy in July 1998. Mr. Speaker, the young men and women in this extraordinary group an their director, Dr. Jerry Jordan, deserve high praise for their accomplishments. I am placing in the Record a press release from the University of Mississippi which details the recent success this group has had in international competition. Ole Miss Concert Singers Wow Judges, Capture International Competition University MS.--The University of Mississippi Concert Singers have done it again. The choir won its fourth international choral title, this time in Varna, Bulgaria, at the International May Choir Competition. The Ole Miss choir, the only group representing the United States, wowed judges as they sang music in seven languages from a number of musical periods and competed against 21 choirs from 11 countries, including Italy, Portugal, Russia and the Ukraine. The competition was the conclusion to the 48-member choir's two-week, five-country tour. A panel of international judges awarded the singers three awards in addition to the Grand Prize. The choir placed first in the chamber choir category, first in the mixed choir category (men and women) and was awarded a special prize given by the judges for the first time for the most innovative musical interpretations. ``I am measurably proud of our students and for the University that we won one of the top six choral competitions in the world,'' said Dr. Jerry Jordan, director of the Concert Singers and director of Choral Programs at Ole Miss. ``We may come from the poorest state in the Union, but it is tremendously gratifying to have the world's top authorities in choral music judge our Southern guys and gals as the best choral singers in world competition. We hope to continue to keep the strong choral tradition going here at Ole Miss.'' The Varna win qualifies Concert Singers to compete in the European Grand Prize in Gorizia, Italy, in July 1998. The Grand Prize, the world's most prestigious choral competition for nonprofessionals, is widely recognized as the litmus test for the best singers in the world. Concert Singers competed for the Grand Prize in 1995 as one of the winners of the six top international competitions and tied for top honors with the Japanese choir. The competition was held in Arezzo, Italy. Concert Singer Delilah Martineau of Louisville said the competition in Varna was a test of the group's talents, skills and stamina. ``I came to win and no less,'' she said. ``However, to win we had to reach down deeper inside than we ever had and experience the music. ``We had to live through each note. It was one of the most awesome musical experiences I have ever had.'' Martineau's feelings were shared by a number of the singers. Chalis Pomeroy of Dickinson, ND, said singing on an international level was a rewarding experience. ``Being able to perform music at a quality level fit for the international stage is a fantastic feeling. Winning with that music is even better,'' she said. But the trip was not just about winning, said singer Shannon Quon of Moorhead. He said the best part about the competition and the trip in general was ``seeing that no matter what nationality we are, what language we speak or how wealthy or poor we are we can all come together and enjoy good music. It is amazing to see how we can touch so many people through our music.'' The trip had a particular sentimental attachment for Jordan, who met Istvan Parkai, a specialist in Hungarian music whose choral direction Jordan has admired for 25 years. ``Twenty five years ago I bought some recordings of Hungarian choirs and they have been my favorites,'' Jordan said. ``He was the person I was most honored to meet on this trip because I found that he was the director for some of those recordings I had admired for so long.'' Parkai was one of the judges at the competition and cried during the Concert Singers' rendition of a Hungarian piece. Following the performance Parkai said he was touched by the choir's expression during the song. ``It was as if they were understanding not just each phrase, but every word. I have rarely heard it sung with such expression and detail from even a Hungarian choir,'' he said. The cultural experiences during the 14-day trip brought to life many of the differences between European and North American life. Brian Wells of Vicksburg said, ``The Europeans' love for music is one of a kind. ``We did not have to wait for the competition to be around people who appreciated music,'' he said. ``The Europeans loved and respected us on the streets, in the airports, in the hotels, churches and anywhere we sang.'' The choir is no stranger to success. In 1994, the Ole Miss Concert Singers captured the top five awards in Tours, France, where they competed against 30 choirs from 17 countries to win the judge's choice for best overall choir and the audience's top choice, among other awards. Choir members also garnered the audience's award at the same competition in 1989, and they won the Chester Music Festival in Chester, England, in 1984. Other performances have included those at the Vatican, Lincoln Center and Carnegie Hall. Jordan has played a significant role in the choir's success and was named one of the 10 most highly recommended choral clinicians in the United States in a national survey conducted by the American Choral Directors Association. He has directed the choir for the past 17 years and made his New York City debut in Lincoln Center with the American Symphony Orchestra in 1988. Jordan is regularly featured as a guest conductor at Carnegie Hall.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for bringing up this point. I think it is very important. We have had an appropriation bill before us, and we had legislative language on it. But I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle have not been suggesting today that we are the first people in the history of the Congress to put riders on appropriation bills. For 40 years during Republican and Democrat administrations, the Democrats, when they were in the majority, used this as a legitimate exercise of the power of the purse. I think my friend from North Carolina will agree that we were fighting about some very, very important things on this spending bill.

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that we have gone ahead and passed the supplemental bill today. I supported it, and there can be no question now as to our commitment to supporting the flood victims and the other needs that were contained in the bill. My party and my political philosophy were forced to make a tactical retreat today. We abandoned two very key portions of this supplemental bill, and I want to address those in the time that I have today, Mr. Speaker. First of all, we were trying in this bill to fashion a way to prevent another Government shutdown. The shutdowns of late 1995 and early 1996 were regrettable. The American people told us that they did not want that again. And in the legislation that passed earlier, we had a provision saying that if Congress and the President at the end of the fiscal year are unable to come to a resolution, then automatically the appropriation bills would be funded at 100 percent of the previous year until something could be worked out on a permanent basis. I feel that that was reasonable. I am sorry we had to abandon that because of the President's veto. But I state to my colleagues and to the American people, Mr. Speaker, that it was a worthwhile goal. It was important and it had everything to do with the bill that we were discussing this week. The second major issue was the issue of the census. The American people might ask us, Mr. Speaker, what does the census have to do with an emergency spending bill? It has everything to do with the future of our country. It has everything to do with abiding by the Constitution. There are people in the administration, people in the Commerce Department, in the Bureau of the Census, who want to count about 90 percent of the people in the year 2000, and then guess at the other 10 percent. We are told by congressional studies that those guesses could be off by as much as 35 percent. In other words, a group of 100 people might be counted at 65. They might be counted at 135. The Constitution of the United States, Mr. Speaker, says that there shall be an actual enumeration, an actual enumeration. That is what the Constitution says. That is what the Founding Fathers said when they fashioned the Constitution. I do not apologize for standing up for the Constitution, for standing up for an issue which is central to the franchise of voters. Then one more point I want to make to the response to some of the accusations that were made by my friends on the other side of the aisle. They say we do not need to put riders on appropriation bills. We do not need to appropriate money and then hold a gun to the President's head with these extraneous legislative riders. For 40 years my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle utilized this tactic. It is a legitimate exercise of the constitutional power of the purse. It is within the prerogative of the House of Representatives to initiate spending bills and to put requirements on those spending bills to make sure the money is spent according to the will of the American people and according to the will of this House. It is part of our responsibility. As long as that power of the purse is here in this body, whether Democrats are in the majority, as they were for 40 years, or whether Republicans are in the majority, there will continue to be legislative riders. I want to point that out. We were fighting for important things, important principles that affect the future of this country. I will be happy to yield to my friend from Florida.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and also thank the gentleman from Arizona for his excellent idea of bringing these young people forward. Let me add my comments to those very eloquent remarks that have been made this evening on behalf of the pages and to thank you for your time of service here. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] mentioned that he was a page for 4 years in the United States Senate. I was a page for only 1 month, and that was in 1967, in October of 1967, and it is hard for me to believe that it has been almost 30 years since I came here to serve as a congressional page for the honorable Jamie Whitten, who later on became chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and served 53 years in the United States House. But this is a very excellent group of young people, Mr. Speaker. They are a particularly good looking group, too. And they worked mighty hard for us and they performed good service for their country and for the United States House of Representatives. They have seen us on the floor in debate, they have seen us also in a more human sense walking up and down the back aisles there and in the cloakrooms. And I simply would say to these young people, I hope you will go back as goodwill ambassadors for this House of Representatives and for our system of government; the greatest system of government ever known to the mind of man, the oldest Constitution existing on the planet today. You have seen a great deal of history. You saw the second inauguration of President Clinton, you saw the reelection of a Republican majority for the first time since the 1920's, therefore you saw divided government and all of the challenges that that brought for us, a President of one party and a Congress of the other party having to come together. And today you saw the fruition of that, rising to the occasion to pass on a bipartisan basis a balanced budget which will bring us to the first balanced budget since I was in high school. Some of you today had the opportunity to see Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Others may have had to see that on closed circuit. But you really saw a remarkable little piece of history there with Mother Teresa. And to see this distinguished lady receive the Medal of Honor from Congress, a woman slight of stature, with very little personal wealth, and to think of the impact that that one individual has had across the face of the globe. I am certainly glad that you had that opportunity. Mother Teresa wished for us today and for our children joy, peace and love, and she expressed the prayer that we would persevere in the time to come, and that is my wish and my prayer for you as you leave this job. Godspeed to you and thank you very much.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I certainly rise this afternoon in favor of the conference report. I would like to address one of the three objections mentioned by the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, and that deals with the issue of census sampling. The distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin says that he agrees with the language of the conference report on sampling but he simply does not believe it is appropriate in this particular piece of legislation. What are we talking about? There are people in the administration and in the Census Bureau who are proposing essentially to count approximately 90 percent of the people of our country and then to guess at the other 10 percent based on a computer sampling. That is the issue we are talking about. Mr. Speaker, we need an accurate count of every American. Constitutional principles dictate that we count every American. I am constantly amazed by the wisdom and foresight of our Founding Fathers. The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, section 2, calls for ``an actual enumeration'' of the people. Not a sample, not a guess. Further, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution calls for apportionment based on ``counting the whole number of persons in each State,'' not just some of them and not guessing at the others. Each and every one of our constituents needs to be counted. This ``Census Guessing Scheme 2000,'' as I call it, is not only unconstitutional but it is also inaccurate. According to independent studies from Congress, the proposal has a margin of error of up to 35 percent. We do not need to have an estimate where there are 100 people and it could be 65 or it could be 135. That is not the way it should be done. We will provide the money to count each and every American. This issue is essential. It goes to the franchise of our citizens. It rises to constitutional dimensions, and it needs to be settled right now. I cannot for the life of me understand why the President of the United States would veto this essential bill on this particular issue.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, May is National Physical Fitness and Sports Month, conducted by the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. This observance is important because it focuses attention on the health benefits of physical activity in the daily lives of all Americans. The 1996 Surgeon General's Report on Physical Activity and Health revealed that more than 60 percent of adults do not achieve the recommended amount of physical activity. The report brought together, for the first time, what has been learned about physical activity and health. The report found that people who are usually inactive can improve their health by becoming even moderately active on a regular basis. In addition, the report shows that physical activity does not have to be strenuous to achieve health benefits. In March, voluntary health organizations and State health groups briefed Members of Congress and their staff members on the importance of physical activity and health. I attended this briefing and heard from one of my fellow Mississippians, Dr. Ed Thompson. He noted that even slight increases in daily exercise would greatly reduce the number of premature deaths due to heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. Dr. Thompson urged Mississippians, as well as all Americans, to follow the recommendations of the Surgeon General's report and to get physically active. One organization dedicated to helping motivate more Americans to be physically active is the National Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity. This organization represents over 100 groups which have identified physical activity and health as their primary mission. The NCPPA will use its nationwide network to provide leadership to State and Federal policymakers as they work to increase the understanding, communication, and promotion of physical activity and health. I encourage all Americans to look for ways to incorporate physical activity into their daily routine by taking the stairs, working in the garden, walking the dog, or biking to work. It takes only 30 minutes of physical activity per day to make a difference. I encourage all Americans to paricipate in the Physical Fitness and Sports Month by developing a daily physical activity routine.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, let's see if I have this straight. We are supposed to be impressed that the Government is not going to spend more money than it has. We are supposed to rejoice that Government is not going to make our $5 trillion national debt any worse. I am supposed to brag to my constituents that Washington is finally going to balance the budget. Well, Mr. Speaker, by Washington standards, a balanced budget is a cause for celebration. Balancing the budget should not be a big deal, it should not be treated as some great achievement, but I must say after 30 years of an ever-expanding welfare state, balancing the budget is no mean feat. Balancing the budget, which to millions of Americans is nothing but common sense, is extraordinary in a town that has seen budget deficits since 1969. This new balanced budget agreement is proof of two things. First, the new Republican Congress is serious about its pledge to make Government live within its means; and second, deficit spending does not have to be a way of life. That is a cause for celebration.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues an article that appeared in the Sunday, September 22 edition of the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal in my hometown of Tupelo, MS. Claudia Hopkins is a fifth grade teacher at King Intermediate School in Tupelo. She was recently asked to talk about her career as a teacher before the Tupelo Rotary and Kiwanis Clubs. Her comments reaffirm my long-held feelings that classroom teachers are the most important part of education. A Veteran Instructor Shares Her Experiences in the Classroom (By Claudia Hopkins) I never planned to teach. I didn't want to. My mother was a career teacher, my father had been a teacher at different times in my life, my aunts were teachers, and I just wasn't interested. I didn't like teachers! They were always so intrusive! I think I was like Winston Churchill who said, ``Personally, I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like to be taught.'' I wanted to be a writer, and that's the employment I was seeking as a new college graduate 27 years ago in Nashville. I was scheduled for my second interview for a copywriter's position when I came home for the Labor Day weekend to find that the principal of a little school outside of Nashville had called saying he needed a fourth grade teacher. There was only one drawback, he said. My room would be on the stage. Well, those of you who know me can appreciate the irony in that! And, sure enough, without really knowing why, I canceled my copywriting interview, took that teaching job and with the exception of seven years, have been ``on the stage'' ever since! Often I've felt just like Dolly Levi with a business card and a solution for every problem! A teacher makes so many decisions for so many people in one day--our profession ranks second in the number of immediate decisions that must be made every day. Air traffic controllers are first! They also have the highest suicide rate, but I don't want to dwell on that! ii. ``getting to know you.'' It didn't take me very long that first year to realize that if I wanted my students to be successful, I couldn't teach them as if they were all round pegs to fit into round holes, Some of them are square pegs, some are diamond-shaped--all are unique. I began to read and study and observe. Somewhere along the way, I read what a student had written, and the words had a profound effect on my teaching: ``Can't nobody teach me who don't know me and won't learn me.'' Let me repeat that: ``Can't nobody teach me who don't know me and won't learn me.'' Wow, what a powerful statement! I began to try to get to know each one of my students--to search out the learning style unique to each one--to find just the right way to help each child experience success. It's a hard task--often an exhausting one and one I'm still trying to master. I guess the most outstanding example of tailoring education to fit the child was Fred. Fred was an older boy who'd been held back several years. By the time he was in the fourth grade, he was so mature that he wasn't just noticing the girls but the teachers, too! I found him in the sixth grade hall one day getting a drink of water, and as I passed, I patted him on his back and told him that he needed to return to his classroom. He never raised up--I just heard him utter, ``Umm, umm, umm!'' Well, at the end of that fourth grade year, the principal decided to bypass fifth grade and put Fred in my sixth grade class because he was, quote, ``getting too old to stay in elementary school'' and ``it didn't matter where he was anyway; he couldn't learn.'' Boy, don't ever give me a challenge like that! I discovered right away that Fred could learn--in fact, he could learn fast. I showed him how to annex the zero in multiplication in one day. He called that zero the ``naked zero. I don't know why. But it worked for him. He was like that--you could see the light come on in his eyes, and whatever connection he made that year, I supported. He couldn't read very well and we weren't really successful in overcoming that, but he'd found his own system of deciphering the printed word enough to keep up in science and social studies. In getting to know him, I discovered that he got up before sunrise every day to help his uncle on their farm and that he drove a tractor sometimes late into the night. Yet, he always had his homework that year. His lower elementary teachers couldn't understand the change. I didn't understand it. But Fred did. He understood a lot of things for the very first time, and it felt good to him. Years later I was back in that little community for a visit, and I attended the very first graduation ceremony in their new high school. Can you imagine how I felt when the principal called his name and there he was in a cap and gown getting his diploma? That's why I teach. III. Have children changed? I'm often asked, ``Don't you think children have changed? '' I've even said it myself, but I really don't think it's the children who have changed. They haven't been here long enough! The world has changed, values have changed, communication has changed, delivery of instruction has changed, I have changed. But, I think the children are basically the same in 1996 as they were in 1969. 1. They love to be read to. I know that sentence ended with a preposition, but as long as I know it, it's OK. Isn't it? The beauty of the language is as appealing to children today as it ever was. I try to read to my students every day. I choose all kinds of literature, and they are just spellbound. For many, it's the only time of the day that they're completely quiet and focused on what's being said. That never changes. One of the perks of my job is hearing them say, ``The book is better than the movie'' 2. The approval of their peers is as important today as it was when I first started teaching. On Friday, one of my students was having a hard time getting anyone to work with him. He said to me, ``Nobody likes me,'' and then he walked off with slumped shoulders. That's what the feeling does to children--to us all--it defeats us. I couldn't stand for him to feel that way, so he and I had a silent conversation while everyone else was working. Have you ever had a silent conversation? It's where you and someone else write your thoughts and questions and comments instead of speaking them. It's a wonderful way to communicate. You're more focused on what you're feeling, you're using more than one or two of your seven intelligences and it's really hard to whine on paper! Try it in your business. Try it at home with hour families! Anyway, I suggested that perhaps he was so busy distracting others and being loud that they weren't able to see the real him--the one that was so smart and capable. He didn't write a response--he just looked up at me, grinned and nodded, and said aloud, ``This was fun'' as he joined a group to finish his work. 3. Children today love to be creative, to perform, to improvise. But here's the great paradox in education. Even though studies show that children who are stimulated creatively through the arts perform better in school and on standardized tests, the arts budgets and the strictness of scheduling often cut out the very experiences that children need. Go figure! We're fortunate at King to have the time, thanks to Dr. Cother, and the materials, thanks to AEE, to be able to set up an art museum simulation this year and perform several musicals that extend our social studies, science and literature curricula and meet the creative needs of each child. 4. Children love to see you in a tense, uncomfortable situation and then they go in for the kill. That hasn't changed. I'll never forget the first time my superior came into my classroom to observe me. Of course, it was unexpected, but I felt pretty good about the lesson for the day. I'd spent a lot of time cutting out pictures from magazines to reinforce my lesson on writing descriptions. Each student had taken one, written a description, and then I was to read them and let them see if they could guess what the picture was from the description. Well, my supervisor eased in just as I was reading the description of an elephant. ``It has fat legs and big hips.'' One hand went up. I nervously asked, ``Yes, honey, who or what do you think it is?'' ``Sounds a lot like my sister to me!'' Well, I handled the laughter as well as I could and said something inadequate like, ``No, sweetie, it's not your sister,'' and went on reading. ``It has a little tail.'' I see you're ahead of me. And of course that same little voice piped up, ``Nope, it sure ain't my sister if it's got a little tail. Hers is as big as the Grand Canyon.'' Well, you'd think that was the end of it, wouldn't you? Oh, no! Just as I reclaimed control of the class, another student raised his hand, and like a fool, I called on him. ``What's that mark on your top?'' You know, tact is not a child's long suit. Well, that morning I'd let the iron stay a bit too long on that spot and had a perfect print of an iron right on the front of my top, but I'd convinced myself that it wasn't noticeable. I explained, my humiliation almost complete. As we walked out of the classroom, one of the students said, ``You need some new shoes, too.'' My supervisor never said a word, in fact, she never came back. 5. Brace yourselves, parents. Children tell us what you say about us. I really think there ought to be a contract signed every year between parents and teachers stating: We won't believe everything they say about you if you won't believe everything they say about us! I taught sex education one year--don't laugh--to sixth grade girls. I had looked through my teachers' edition of my science book and noticed that chapter 10 was about reproduction. The principal and I planned for months. We had filmstrips and videos, guest speakers lined up, and our lessons all prepared. We'd sent the science books home with instructions for the parents to read chapter 10, sign the permission notes and be in partnership with us as we went through the unit. On the first day, I opened with, ``Girls, I know you all have read chapter 10 and your parents have read chapter 10. What are your thoughts as we begin this unit?'' There was just this long silence, so I tried another approach. ``Did your parents discuss this with you?'' Mary was the only one to raise her hand. ``Yes, Mary?'' ``Well, my mother said it was just like an old maid to get in a stew over this. She said she didn't know what all the fuss was about.'' I began to respond with something like, ``Mary, some parents think this is a very delicate subject,'' and Mary said, ``What's delicate about plants?'' Friends, I had read the alternate chapter in my teacher's edition. The students textbooks were all about cross pollination of pea pods--not sexual reproduction. If those parents had said to me what they'd said about me, we could have saved ourselves a lot of stress! 6. Children today are as hungry for an adult's approval as they ever were. Several years ago my students were asked to write in their journals at the beginning of every class period. It was one of those days when the silence was broken several times with the question, ``What's today?'' I'd answered that question over and over and finally, I jumped up, ran to the middle of the room and sang, ``Da, da, da, da, da, da! Today's the 29th! Now, everybody knows what today is.'' On my way back to my seat, I heard one of the boys say to his neighbor, ``Everybody but James--he's too dumb to know what today is.'' Before I could respond, I heard James say, just as quietly, ``Uh huh. Da, da, da, da, da, da! Today's the 29th!'' I just fell out and said, ``James, I love you!'' At the end of the week, I took up their journals and there in James' poor spelling and painfully childish writing were these words: ``Miss Hockin love me. She say so.'' Some things never change. iv. what, then, has changed? Am I saying that children are still attending school in Mayberry with Miss Crump? Goodness, no! There ARE differences in our classrooms today. Because of advances in technology, the world can be brought to our doors. We can access research data almost as soon as new discoveries are made. We can communicate with students in other places from our classrooms. We have more materials, more comfortable classrooms, more up-to-date textbooks, more resources. But, because of drug abuse we have students who are severely altered in academic ability and in behavioral skills. Because of the changes in the home, we have students who are withdrawn or threatening. Because of neglect, we have students who seek attention in any way they can get it. Because they've been given too much too soon, we have students who are hopeless and jaded. The dead eyes alarm me more than anything. Today's differences create more challenges for teachers. What are the greatest challenges I face today? Probably the same ones I faced in the early `70s--how to individualize instruction; how to provide a classroom climate where motivation can take place; how to manage behavior; how to communicate effectively with students, parents and other educators; how to meet the needs of every student whether the need be academic, emotional or physical; how to relinquish ``teaching'' time to laugh, to enjoy the spontaneous moment, to really look at a child, to really listen, to discover, to explore, to appreciate, to grow; and the continuing challenge of how to give a flawless performance on this education ``stage'' I've chosen, because . . . . . . a doctor's mistake is buried . . . a lawyer's mistake is imprisoned . . . a plumber's mistake is stopped . . . an accountant's mistake is written off . . . a printer's mistake is reprinted . . . But, a teacher's mistake is never erased.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Reclaiming my time for just a moment. As my colleagues can see, the gentleman from Nevada being on the Committee on Ways and Means is on a committee that has a wide range of jurisdiction, from all the tax measures that he mentioned on to welfare reform. I am sure some of my colleagues will want to join in this debate on tax relief, because a great part of the Republican Contract With America is tax relief. But what the gentleman from Nevada has just outlined in the items that passed dealing with tax relief, the item on small business, we know that most jobs created in the United States today are created by small businesses, so that tax relief package is a job creation package. It is going to create jobs for people where they live out in the 50 States. The gentleman mentioned the spousal IRA, which is very important to many, many women around this country. A tremendous achievement. Tax issues dealing with health, dealing with senior citizens, allowing them to retain more of their earnings, and then certainly the adoption tax credit. I know the President mentioned on television how delighted the First Lady was when we passed the adoption tax credit and sent it to the President for his signature. And I am sure there are other people that want to talk about the issue of tax relief for the American people. And I would be happy to yield at this point to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. WICKER. It is a yellow tie with very small elephants on it.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply call on my colleagues to add anything they might want to in the way of closing remarks for this special order.

Mr. WICKER. The gentlewoman is absolutely correct. I think it is fair to say to my colleagues and for us to say to the American people that we need to remind ourselves that there was another party in control of this body for 40 straight years, a body that refused to bring up these items, these 10 commonsense items of the Contract With America. Frankly, they are not too anxious to balance the budget. They are not too anxious to have tax cuts for the American people. And for 40 years, under their rule, Government got bigger, taxes got higher. And Government got more and more intrusive. We had less and less personal freedom, less and less local responsibility. Quite frankly, they want their majority back and they are willing to say things that are not accurate about what we have been doing. I have an example just from this morning's Congress Daily where Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle contended during a press briefing that despite the passage of welfare reform, health care, minimum wage, telecommunications, safe drinking water, farm and other legislation, ``by and large this has not been a very productive Congress.'' Senator Daschle went on to say, I believe this session is far short of what we have done in past Congresses. He added, because we spent almost all of our time stopping Senate Republicans from doing extreme things, I think extreme has been their favorite word for these last several months although as we have shown tonight, 58 percent of House Democrats voted for the Contract With America. The article goes on to say, when reporters pressed him afterward to name another Congress that had passed major legislation and yet could be judged similarly unproductive, however, Daschle could not name one. I know there have to be several. I will get back to you on that, he said. It is that sort of disinformation that we freshmen, we Republicans have had to come back for the duration of this Congress.

Mr. WICKER. That fact is supported by the chart in the well there.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, this Friday marks a very significant day for me and many of my colleagues and, most importantly, for millions of Americans. This Friday, September 27, is the 2-year, is the 2-year anniversary of the signing of the Contract With America. When more than 300 Republicans gathered on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in 1994 to sign the Contract With America, it was not some kind of campaign gimmick. It was a commitment that we made, a signed contract with the people of the United States. At this point the pages are bringing a copy of that contract to the well to place by my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht]. We promised if we were elected to the majority 10 broad legislative proposals would be debated, discussed and voted on by the full House of Representatives. For years, many of these issues had been bottled up in committee, never making it to the floor, never seeing the light day, the positions of our elected officials never examined by public scrutiny. We set out to change that by making a solemn promise to the people of America, not an empty promise. The American people deserve much more than that. That is why we put our promise in the form of a signed contract. All too frequently in today's political arena, promises are made and then not kept. Representative government, our government, Mr. Speaker, is not well served when our elected officials say one thing at home on the campaign trail, but then take office and come up here to Washington and do something other than that which they promised. This dishonest practice undermines the very fabric of our government's integrity and further promotes the negative cynicism with which Americans view Congress. The Contract With America was the first step in changing that negative perception of Congress. We put forth a positive agenda, an agenda that sought to help make this great country an even better place to live, work and raise our children. Mr. Speaker, we campaigned on a positive agenda, and we were elected to a majority on that agenda. We changed the direction of debate in Washington through that agenda. No longer are people talking about a larger Federal role. The discussion and debate now in Washington, DC, is how we can make government more efficient, how we can make the Federal role small, and emphasize individual responsibility and State and local control. And, best of all, we kept our word to the American people. At this point, I want to quote a story written by columnist David Broder, dated April 9, 1995. True words then and just as true today. David Broder said this: ``It is healthy for our politics and politicians, regardless of affiliation, when the public sees elected officials doing what they promised.'' Mr. Broder goes on to say, ``The greatest threat to our system of government is rampant cynicism. The best cure for cynicism is to demonstrate that campaigns and elections really matter,'' and Mr. Broder then says, ``The House Republicans have provided such a demonstration.'' For over 40 years, one party held the majority in this House of Representatives. As a result, we have high taxes. Almost 40 percent of a family's income goes to pay for government. We have mountains of bureaucratic regulations, bigger government, but we also have lower student test scores and a skyrocketing crime rate. In 1994, Republicans summoned the courage to finally throw down the gauntlet and offer the people what they said they wanted and what they deserved, a balanced budget amendment, tax relief for families, safe neighborhoods for themselves and their children, an end to the lifelong dependency on welfare, a Congress which will be accountable to those people they serve. But in the history of American politics, there have been few occasions where something has been so misrepresented and so maligned as the Contract With America. Our colleagues from the other side of the aisle have spent literally hundreds of hours on the floor attempting to destroy and to distort what the Contract With America means and what we stand for. Just to provide you some examples, Mr. Speaker, a colleague of mine from the other side of the aisle took the floor the other day and said the Contract With America would have cut Medicare, a completely false statement. There is nothing whatsoever in the Contract With America about Medicare, much less cutting Medicare. That it would have cut environmental protection, cut education, all to give tax cuts to the wealthy. Four completely erroneous statements in the space of one sentence. It is enough to take your breath away, Mr. Speaker. Another quote from the Boston Globe: ``Republicans' Contract With America failed to capture the hearts and minds of the average American family, especially that new breed, the Reagan Democrats.'' And then the would-be Speaker, our current minority leader, said earlier this year, ``This was supposed to be the Congress of the Republican contract and somewhere along the line we've got a lost contract there.'' I will tell you where the contract is, to my distinguished colleague from Missouri, the contract is 65 percent signed into law right now. Sixty-five percent of the items that we voted on in the Contract With America have not only been passed by this body, but have been passed by the U.S. Senate and signed into law by the Democrat President of the United States. Under the Contract With America, the 104th Congress took the first steps toward transforming government, not only to provide a smaller, more efficient government but a better government. We passed legislation as part of the contract that moves power, money and authority from inside the Beltway to the States, communities and families. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I am joined by several of my freshman colleagues from all across the Nation, north, south, east and west, and we are here tonight to set the record straight. First, contrary to the inflamed rhetoric of my Democratic colleagues and much of the news media, the Contract With America was largely successful. I know that my friend from Minnesota is chomping at the bit to get in his two cents' worth, and I at this point yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht]. Certainly I know that he shares my frustration when we have 65 percent of the contract passed, 74 of the separate pieces of legislation were offered, and 48 of these are part of the law of the land.

Mr. WICKER. If I could simply add to that point made by my friend from North Carolina, it might seem to some Americans that perhaps those first day reforms were inside the Beltway, inside Congress reforms, but actually everything we have done with the Contract With America, everything we have stood for with the Contract With America has been to help the lives of individuals out there running their businesses, getting their kids off to school, and even those first day reforms affect the lives of local citizens all across the 50 States. When Congress agrees finally for the first time in the history of this Republic to abide by the laws that it has foisted off on the rest of the American public, I think everyone agrees that we are going to see better laws passed, that we are going to see more responsible regulations. When we as Congressmen now know that when a regulation is passed on that plumber in Tupelo, MS, that we have to abide by that same wage and hour law ourselves. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. WICKER. The gentlewoman from California is not only one of the most principled and determined Members of our freshman class, but also, as you can see, she is one of the most articulate advocates for a common sense conservative point of view with the Contract With America. We are joined by my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Ehrlich. Welcome to this conversation.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 525, the following bills are expected to be considered under suspension of the rules on Thursday, September 26: H. Con. Res. 180, Commending Americans in Cold War; H.R. 3874, Civil Rights Commission; H.R. 2977, Administrative Dispute Resolution Conference Report; H. Con. Res. 145, Re: Removal of Russian Forces from Moldova; H. Con. Res. 189, Re: U.S. Membership in South Pacific; H. Con. Res. 51, Removal of Russian Troops; H.R. 2579, Establish Tourism Board; H.R. 3841, Civil Service Reform Act; H.R. 3973, Alaska Natives; H.R. 3752, American Land Sovereignty Protection; H.R. 3068, Prairie Island; H.R. 2505, Alaska native Claim Settlement Act Amendments; H.R. 4168, Dealing with the sale of Helium; H.R. 2660, Tensas River National Wildlife; S. 1802, Wyoming Fish Conveyance; H.R. 3804, Agua Caliente; H.R. 4011, Congressional Pension Forfeiture Act; S. 1970, National Museum of American Indian; H.R. 3700, Internet Election; S. 640, Water Resources Development Act Conference Report; H.R. 3159, NTSB; and H.R. 4138, Hydrogen Research & Development.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.