Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, in the minute or two that I have remaining, I just want to remind my colleagues of why we are here this evening. For this Congress and for America, the historic Contract With America was a positive agenda to restore commonsense Government. The contract, in its intents and in its substance, has been distorted and criticized in recent months as a failure and for somehow being extreme. Tonight we have documented that the contract has largely been a success, with almost two-thirds of its legislative items passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. Further, we have shown that the contract was anything but extreme, with widespread public support, over 60 percent of the American people support all 10 items of the Contract With America. Much of the contract passed the House with significant bipartisan support, as I said, 58 percent of House Democrats voting for the Contract With America. My colleagues have repeatedly shown tonight that the contract's legislation will have a real and positive effect on the lives of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, at this point I want to thank my colleagues for participating in this special order.

Mr. WICKER. Before I yield to the gentlewoman from California, you have mentioned taxes and tax cuts. Let us remind ourselves, I think it is important to remind ourselves that President Clinton campaigned in 1992 on a middle class tax cut. Instead, he raised taxes on the American people the very next year. And the minority leader of this House got up before the Democrat convention in Chicago just a few weeks ago and said about that tax hike that the Democrats passed without a single Republican vote, what we did was right and our President did what was right, and I would do it again tomorrow and so would Bill Clinton. When it comes to taxes, I am afraid that is the truth. They think tax increases are good and they would do it again tomorrow if they get a chance.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam Speaker, drug use is up, and the response from the White House is a plea not to make an issue out of it. Our children are getting hooked earlier and at rates never before seen in the history of this Nation. Overall drug use among 12- to 17-year-olds is up 78 percent since 1992. But look at these figures. In just 1 year, 1994 to 1995, marijuana use in the same age group is up 37 percent; LSD use, again in just 1 year, up 105 percent; cocaine use, 12- to 17-year-olds, from 1994 to 1995 is up 166 percent. This is a tragedy, a national tragedy. We are losing a generation of children right before our very eyes. Drugs destroy families and they destroy lives. Madam Speaker, this is no time to run and hide. We need to make sure that children can grow up in an environment where cocaine, LSD, and pot-smoking are not part of their daily surroundings.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for her leadership and for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Savings in Construction Act, which I am pleased to have cosponsored along with my friend from California. This bill is consistent with bringing back common sense to regulations regarding metric design and labeling of products used in new Federal construction. The fundamental issue here involves whether to require soft metric conversion where inches are converted to millimeters or centimeters on existing products or to require hard metric conversion where products must be redesigned to arrive at rounded metric dimensions. Under current GSA regulations, manufacturers of a few products, such as concrete blocks and lighting fixtures, must produce their products in hard metric dimensions for Federal construction. To illustrate, a typical fluorescent lighting fixture is 4 feet by 2 feet. Tens of millions of these fixtures are used throughout the United States in these dimensions. Soft metric conversion would mean relabeling these lighting fixtures as 609.6 millimeters by 304.8 millimeters, a simple and inexpensive approach. Instead, this industry is being required--as a condition of doing business with the Government--to completely retool their operations to produce fixtures in hard metric, measuring 600 by 300 millimeters, and only for products used in Federal construction projects. The products are not any better, but they just sound better to the Federal regulators. Mr. Speaker, Congress has already seen fit to provide exceptions in the amended Metric Conversion Act to this hard metric requirement when production costs for hard metric conversion were too high. This bill simply puts teeth into these exceptions by providing a mechanism by which soft metric standards can be substituted. Without this legislation, bids on all Federal projects for these products will be left to only a very few of the largest manufacturers, leaving a very in competitive marketplace. In other words, this corrections day bill is good for competition and will save money for the taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, it is commonsense legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. My friend from Colorado said this program is pork for our districts. That is not accurate. This program is jobs and infrastructure and economic development for our districts. Most of EDA's funds go toward important grants and low-cost loans. Let me give my colleagues one success story. When the Canadian-owned Norbord Company invested $88 million in a new Mississippi plant last year, it was an EDA grant for a water supply system that made that new plant possible. Now that water system is helping to keep more than 250 workers employed in good jobs, generating tax revenues and contributing to the local and national economies. EDA helps economically distressed communities build a solid base on which sustainable economic development can be established and maintained. I urge my colleagues to support this valuable government program and defeat the amendment.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Hawaii, Mr. abercrombie, for yielding me this time, and I shall not take much time, but I am pleased to speak in support of H.R. 3249 and to thank the gentleman for his leadership in working with me on this legislation which will continue a valuable marine minerals resource program. Since its inception in 1988 this program has had as its primary goal the environmentally responsible exploration and development of mineral resource found within our Nation's exclusive economic zone. For a relatively small input of Federal money a strong relationship has been forged between Federal, academic, and industry teams to address problems in marine resources and the environment. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the reauthorization of this exceptional program. I thank the leadership of the committee in this regard. Today, I am pleased to speak in support of H.R. 3249, legislation to continue a valuable, marine minerals resource program. Since its inception in 1988, this program has had as its primary goal the environmentally responsible exploration and development of mineral resources found within our Nation's Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ]. This region covers more area than the United States proper and contains a resource base estimated in the trillions of dollars. By successfully merging the skills of academia and the talents of industry, this program is working to place the United States well above its international competitors in underwater technology development. At the same time, this program invests in the future by providing graduate students with firsthand training in marine mineral development. At present, the United States is in danger of being surpassed by other nations that are aggressively pursuing the development of environmentally friendly ocean mining technology. Japan, the United Kingdom, France, and China, in particular, have devoted considerable time and money toward developing such technologies and promoting industry support. This program directs successful applied research efforts with numerous concrete accomplishments. To meet future challenges, researchers are working to develop surveying and sampling systems for use in locating important mineral deposits. The systems can be used for locating sand resources for coastline stabilization and beach replenishment. In addition, they are essential in assessing and monitoring pollutants in river and oceanic sediments. Researchers are also working to develop an acoustical filter system to control dredging turbidity and to process industry waste. For a relatively small input of Federal money, a strong relationship has been forged between Federal, academic, and industry teams to address problems in marine resources and the environment. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the reauthorization of this exceptional program.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Maryland for yielding me the time. I certainly intend to support the amendment of the gentleman from Washington. I simply rise for the purpose of echoing what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] said earlier, that it is a shame that the Federal judges must be linked to the cost of living proposal with regard to Members of this Congress. Members of Congress are responsible for legislation dealing with the Federal debt. The same can be said for the President and the Vice President. We are all in this battle. The deficit has nothing to do with Federal judges. So we have a situation where their salaries are held hostage to our salaries. I think the vast majority of Americans agree with the comments made by my colleague from Washington and my colleague from Minnesota. I think the vast majority of House Members will vote with them, as I will. I would simply just submit that it is a shame that under the rule we cannot divide the question, go ahead and give a raise to Federal judges. We have districts where the U.S. attorney makes more than the judge, the public defender makes more than the judge, the clerk makes more than the judge. It is just a shame that we cannot raise their salaries because they deserve it.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, following up on the point that the gentleman from Pennsylvania made, is it possible under the rule to separate the issue and allow the Federal judges to have a raise while denying the COLA to Members of the Congress?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of my subcommittee for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a budget-busting amendment, make no mistake about it. During general debate last night, I attempted to point out what an important and integral part of the balanced budget question this entire legislation is. We need to ask ourselves with regard to this amendment, are we going to be able to make the tough decisions to actually reduce the deficit and stay on a glide path toward a balanced budget by 2002? To adopt the amendment that is before us would be to add another $1.3 million in spending that we cannot afford and that we cannot expend and stay on that path. A second question that is a legitimate concern for Members of this body is, can we adequately fund education in the context of the bill that has been reported by the Committee on Appropriations? I would simply point out to my colleagues, the chart that I have before me, student aid increases under this bill. As my colleagues can see, Mr. Chairman, the maximum Pell grant will go up from $2,470 to $2,500 under this bill. Overall student aid will be increased under this bill between 1996 and 1997. An increase for the TRIO Program. An increase for the work study program. With regard to Head Start funding, as my colleagues can see, this legislation in the context of a balanced budget provides a modest increase for Head Start. According to this chart in the last 7 years, Head Start funding has increased by 132 percent. That is a substantial commitment that this Congress has correctly made to this important program. As a matter of fact, since fiscal year 1989, the appropriation for Head Start has grown by 200 percent, reflecting the commitment of this Congress to Head Start funding. That amount will increase by some $31 million under the bill that we have before us. Another point that my colleagues have made, particularly my friend from Maryland, is that we are trying to balance the budget and give tax relief to middle-class Americans at the same time. My colleague from Maryland says we cannot do that. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we can do that. In the budget plan that we have adopted that a majority of this body has voted for, we can do that. I want to provide tax relief for that middle-class family. I want to provide an opportunity for that family making $25,000 to $30,000 a year to have an extra $1,000 or $1,500 in their take-home pay. If we can do that and still provide an increase for Head Start and for the other programs that I have already outlined, then I think that is a bargain that we ought to take. That is an opportunity we ought to grab. I think the American people support that. One last chart, and the chairman of the full committee has already alluded to this, this is a chart of President Clinton's budget for education, training, employment and social services out through 2002. As my colleagues can see, the President and his party have proposed dramatic increases in spending in these areas until 2000. That would be the end of the text presidential term. And then the President of the United States says, ``After 2000, we will make dramatic cuts in these programs.'' How are we going to do it? It has not quite been explained. I say that if we were to take this approach and adopt this sort of dramatic upswing and then hope for a cut in the out years that we will never balance that budget and I think every Member of this body on either side of the aisle knows that. It is the same with this amendment. This amendment says, Let's spend in fiscal year 1997 another $1.3 billion, and we're not going to get it out of another program, we're not going to take it out of some other line item, we're just going to borrow it from next year. Next year. We'll worry about it then.'' Is that not the problem that we have had that has led to the deficit that we are currently faced with? Is that not the problem that has led to a $5 trillion debt or has contributed at least to a $5 trillion debt in this country? I urge my colleagues to say no to robbing from people tomorrow so that we can spend more money today. I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget-busting amendment.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding time, and I rise in opposition to the Lowey amendment and in support of the language adopted by the Committee on Appropriations and reported to this floor by a bipartisan vote. The language that is in the legislation right now, Mr. Chairman, is current law. It was adopted last year by the House of Representatives. It was passed by the Senate. It was signed by President Clinton. We have no threat of a veto if we keep this current language in the bill. Let me try to frame this issue further by saying what this issue is not about. This issue has nothing to do with the so-called woman's right to choose. It has nothing to do with that aspect of the abortion debate. It has nothing to do with fetal tissue research. That is a separate issue entirely. This issue also has nothing to do with making anything illegal. The language that is in the committee bill would not make anything illegal. It would permit private research which is ongoing to continue. Private embryo research is legal now, and it would continue to be legal. Further, the language that is in the bill now would not do anything to the present status of in vitro fertilization or the private research that is going on in that regard. What the Lowey amendment would do, however, is cause our Government to embark into an area of research which we have never, never before been willing to do as a government. As the chairman of the subcommittee stated, this is a very sensitive issue. It is also a very important issue for millions of Americans. As a matter of fact, 76 percent of Americans oppose funding for the type of research that the Lowey amendment would sanction. This goes to the very profound questions of human life and to very sensitive questions of bioethics. Proponents of the Lowey amendment say there is a distinction between spare embryos and embryos created for research purposes. But the leading experts say there is no distinction. Let me quote Dr. Robert Jansen of the National Health and Medical Research Council. He says, It is a fallacy to distinguish between surplus embryos and specially created embryos in terms of embryo research. The reason I say this is that any intelligent administrator of an in vitro program can, by minor changes in his ordinary clinical way of doing things, change the number of embryos that are fertilized. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would begin this Government down a very slippery slope. The Federal Government has never funded this research. Let us leave it to the private sector, and let us respond to the 76 percent of Americans who say do not use tax dollars to fund embryo research.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although it is well intended. The legislative subcommittee has already done its work. The gentleman from Oklahoma held up two pennies and said, ``We are just asking for about a 2-percent cut.'' Mr. Chairman, we have made that 2 percent cut. As a matter of fact, this bill represents a 2.2-percent cut from last year's level as the gentleman from California pointed out, that is not a cut in the rate of increase or a cut in the percentage in which we are spending extra money, that is a real cut, $37.4 million in reductions. The gentleman who offers this amendment does so because the budget allocation was higher across the board than he wanted. I would simply point out to the gentleman that in our subcommittee, we have reduced the budget outlay by 20 percent below the budget allocation for this bill. This Congress is leading by example. We have done the work. We have saved the money. I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important debate. This bill is a very important part of our effort to balance the budget for this Nation. If the President of the United States had his way with this appropriation, we would spend an extra 12 percent on this bill. We would spend an extra $7.8 billion in 1 year alone if the President had his way on this bill. On the other hand, the bill that we have before us is level-funded from last year's appropriation. So the first question we have to ask ourselves is: Do we level-fund for the next fiscal year in the context of a balanced budget, or do we spend an extra $7.8 billion? I come down on the side of balancing the budget. The second question we ask ourselves tonight is: Are we making an adequate investment in these very important programs, and in particular I would ask, are we making an adequate investment in education? I would submit to my colleagues that under this bill we are making substantial additional expenditures in education. Mr. Chairman, this first chart I have gives a history of Head Start funding. It shows that under this appropriation bill we will appropriate an additional $31 million for Head Start in fiscal year 1997. It also shows that in the last 7 years alone Head Start expenditures have increased by 132 percent. This is at a time when enrollment in this program has not increased by nearly that percent. Now, the second chart I have is simply an account of Pell grant maximum awards, and my colleagues can see that the maximum award for 1996 is $2,470. Under this bill it will go up to $2,500. Other increases in this bill are the Job Corps program, a $45 million increase; the work-study program, an increase of $68 million; impact aid, an increase of $68 million. We have also level-funded important programs such as job training, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools State grants, and Title I funding for the disadvantaged. It is very, very easy to be for a balanced budget back in our districts in an election year, but it is hard work to actually get to a balanced budget. It is hard to actually plug in those numbers that will reduce the deficit, when we consider them item by item by item. I would respond briefly to the comments of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], my dear friend. His quarrel is with the overall budget plan which includes tax relief. There are many colleagues on the other side of the aisle who object to the budget allocation. They said, ``We did not vote for these tax cuts and we should not be bound by the budget plan.'' Mr. Chairman, we have to make judgment calls, and if I have to make a judgment call on the side of the hard working taxpayer, I will do that. If I can put another $1,000 in the take-home pay of a young family making $25,000 or $30,000 and still level-fund these very important programs, I will do that. This is a choice of another $7.8 billion in spending or a balanced budget. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to choose a balanced budget and vote for the bill.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, more than 15,000 seventh- and eighthgrade students around the country participated in this year's RespecTeen Speak for Yourself social studies curriculum program, which teaches young people about the political process. The program is part of the Lutheran Brotherhood's philanthropic initiative in support of our Nation's youth. One of the final lessons in the program included having students write their Members of Congress to express their views or offer solutions to issues of interest. The letters were judged by a panel of educators and one winner was chosen in each congressional district. A seventh-grade student from North Pontotoc Attendance Center was selected as the winner from Mississippi's First Congressional District. Her name is Abigail Hamilton. Abigail wrote to me regarding prayer in our public schools. I wanted to share Abigail's letter with my colleagues and congratulate her for participating in this program. Speak for Yourself, Ecru, MS, January 30, 1996. Hon. Roger Wicker, U.S. Representative, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Wicker: How would you feel if one day someone suddenly said you could no longer continue a tradition? Devastated? Grieved? This scenario describes what had been done to students, teachers, and the community of North Pontotoc. A tradition of student-initiated, student- led, prayer was taken from us. For approximately 20 years, we had this type prayer in our school. On December 20, 1994, Mrs. Lisa Herdahl with the ACLU and People for the American Way filed a lawsuit against Pontotoc County Schools for having student-led, student-initiated prayer over the school's intercom. A court injunction last spring stopped prayer over the intercom. The court date deciding whether to continue student-initiated prayer is March 4, 1996 at federal court in Oxford, Mississippi. George Washington warned: ``reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.'' Research proves the accuracy of his warning. Birth rates for teenagers and cases of sexually transmitted diseases have risen since 1962. Also, SAT test scores have plummeted for 18 consecutive years since that year. What happened in 1962? The Supreme Court took prayer out of public school with the Engel case. I support you co-authoring the school prayer amendment with Congressman Istook from Oklahoma. Please participate in the meeting to force this amendment to the House floor, and do not allow compromises that would defeat the purpose of this amendment. I wouldn't want a government written prayer or mandatory participation in devotion. I trust you are influencing other congressmen to be co-signers of this amendment. Our Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech and religion. However, should one person be allowed to dictate the beliefs of a community? Thomas Jefferson said: ``The will of the majority, the natural law of every society, is the only sure guardian of the rights of man.'' Sincerely, Abigail Hamilton, 7th grader NPAC.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding me the time. I am addressing the House today, Mr. Speaker, from the Democrat side of the aisle, which is unusual, but I do so for a purpose. That purpose is to recall that, when I was appointed a page in 1967, I received that appointment from a Democrat, the Honorable Jamie Whitten, who served as my predecessor for some 53 years in this House of Representatives. No sooner had I arrived than I was assigned to the Republican page desk. Who knows, Mr. Speaker, that may have made all the difference. I want to congratulate these pages, to tell them, Mr. Speaker, how much we appreciate them and how much we realize that they contributed with their hard work. They have been part of a very, very proud tradition in this House of Representatives, and I congratulate them on their accomplishments and wish them well. They will take with them many valuable memories. I look back on my time here in 1967 and I recall some of the people who I regarded as giants in this House, leaders like Jamie Whitten; Gerald Ford, then the minority leader; John Rhodes; Mel Laird; John McCormick who served as Speaker, a Democrat, during my time here as a page. Who knows what names this group will take with them. Certainly Gephardt and Gingrich. But it might be that they look back on the giants of Kolbe and Davis and Rohrabacher. Who knows who they will look back on years from now? I hope they will take other memories with them as well, including addresses by Presidents and Prime Ministers. They were here, Mr. Speaker, on the day that Bob Dole announced his resignation from the U.S. Senate. They were here during poignant times to hear the announcements of the death of a Cabinet member, the death of a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They will recall fiery debates, all-night sessions, Government shutdowns. I also hope, Mr. Speaker, that they will take with them the memory of times of comity and civility and bipartisanship and good will, because there were also those times during their service here in the U.S. Congress. I hope they will remember that they worked with able men and women of goodwill from all across the country, of both political parties, doing their best to represent their constituencies. And that we are doing our best as Members of this Congress to make sure that their generation, and their children, will be able to enjoy a brighter future. I salute these pages, and I wish them the very, very best.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Furse amendment. At first blush, it might seem that a vote in favor of the amendment would be politically correct. After all, this project is not in anyone's district. There is not a single Member of this body who is going to be able to go home and brag about bringing home pork to his district. This expenditure simply provides for the needs of our servicemen who have signed on to support our national interests and have been assigned to Europe. Also, we might get a plus from the Citizens Against Government Waste. And I agree with the gentleman from North Carolina. I am against government waste and I hate to receive a bad mark from a public interest group such as Citizens Against Government Waste. But if we pass the Furse amendment, we will do so at the expense of the quality of life of our servicemen who have agreed to serve our country and who are in desperate need of improved barracks right now. Now, one thing that needs to be pointed out, Mr. Chairman, is that this project has been recommended by the U.S. Army. The subcommittee asked for a list of priorities, and the Army told us that these barracks were priorities. So let's make sure that we get that straight. The point has been made that they are not in the long-range plan. The question becomes why are they not in the long-range plan and why is this not in DOD's budget. As the gentleman from Hawaii pointed out earlier, the administrations have historically depended upon this Congress to take care of quality-of-life needs. They know that we are going to do right by our troops and that we will have to add certain funds if we are going to take care of our troops, particularly these single enlisted troops who depend on these barracks in Germany. So, I would urge that we defeat the Furse amendment that we take this little step toward quality of life for our troops. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the members of the committee that I, too, want to commend and congratulate the Chair of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], and to personally thank her for the assistance she has given to this freshman Congressman as a member of her subcommittee. I also want to commend the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] for the bipartisan approach that he and the members of the minority have taken with regard to this particular legislation. I rise, of course, in strong support of the bill. During our subcommittee's hearings over these past few weeks, the predominant concern expressed was the continued deterioration of quality-of-life and infrastructure needs which support our military men and women. We all want to give our Armed Forces the best weapons systems, training, and equipment we can afford. Unfortunately, one area of the military that has not received as much attention in recent years has been this issue of brick and mortar. In November 1994, the Department of Defense created a task force on the quality of life to assess the problems associated with military housing. On February 28 of this year, the chairman of this task force, former Secretary of the Army John Marsh, reported the findings of the year-long study. The findings of the task force were disturbing. With regard to military family housing, 64 percent of these homes were classified as unsuitable. With regard to barracks for our single troops, 62 percent of these barracks were considered substandard due to overcrowding and poor conditions. One-half of all military barracks were built 30 or more years ago, and one-fourth require continuous upkeep to deal with such problems as asbestos, corroded pipes, and inadequate ventilation. The Department of Defense also faces a 160,000-unit shortfall in barracks space. It would take 40 years, according to current estimates, and $8.5 billion to correct all of the deficiencies. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, whatever we are able to do today will fall far short of what we need to do to correct this situation. The bill sends a clear message that we are going to take care of our military personnel. Family housing projects account for 43 percent of the bill. In addition, this bill provides $2.5 billion for one-time costs associated with base realignment and closing. Furthermore, in an effort to meet the child care needs of military facilities, this bill sets aside $34 million for child development centers. Finally, like most of my colleagues, I am concerned about the budget deficit, the increasing national debt, which now exceeds $5 trillion. This bill is fiscally responsible, Mr. Chairman. It is within our 602 allocations, and at the same time it addresses important quality-of- life and military issues. I commend the work of the subcommittee, I commend the work of our Chair and our ranking minority member, and I strongly urge the adoption of this military construction bill.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the balance of my time, I would simply point out that, even though this bill is $900 million more than the President's request, it does represent a budget savings and a substantial savings of 10 percent over the amount appropriated by this Congress last year.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to rise at this point and voice my support for the rule and, as a member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, also for the bill as it has been reported by the committee on a bipartisan basis. This has certainly been an area in which Republicans and Democrats have worked together in a bipartisan fashion. We are talking today about quality of life for our service members, an area which arguably some years ago was neglected while the military budget was increased. Those quality-of-life issues were perhaps not addressed as fully as they should have been. As a result, last year the Congress increased the military construction budget by some 28 percent over the 1995 appropriation. This year, from that higher appropriation level of 1996, we have cut it back some 10 percent, but still that is much more, almost a billion dollars more, than the administration has requested. We are dealing in this bill with such quality-of-life issues as family housing, as barracks for our single enlisted troops, military medical facilities and child care. Seventy four percent of this bill comes in that area of quality of life. Because of that fact, I would hope that we would adopt the rule and also that we would leave the bill as it is, as it has been reported by the subcommittee. Now I also want to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to alert my colleagues that there may be an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] which I will oppose and which I hope the Members of this body will oppose because, in an attempt to get into the burden sharing issue which is not really a part of this bill, it would attempt to cut some $17 million from two barracks in Manneheim, Germany. These are barracks that are run down, they are overcrowded, they are very, very old; frankly, they smell bad, Mr. Speaker, and these barracks represent a quality-of-life issue for our troops in Germany. They do not need to wait until some time in 1997 for us to start talking about replacing those barracks. We need to do it now. Mr. Speaker, I would simply suggest to my colleagues, vote for the rule, vote for the bill, and resist the Furse amendment if the gentlewoman offers it. Let us not take this $17 million out of the quality-of-life funding for our troops in Europe.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to join my colleague from Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie, in support of H.R. 3249, legislation to continue a valuable marine minerals resource program. Since its inception in 1988, this program has had as its primary goal the environmentally responsible exploration and development of mineral resources found within our Nation's Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ]. This region covers more area than the United States proper and contains a resource base estimated in the trillions of dollars. By successfully merging the skills of academia and the talents of industry, this program is working to place the United States well above its international competitors in underwater technology development. At the same time, this program invests in the future by providing graduate students with first-hand training in marine mineral development. At present, the United States is in danger of being surpassed by other nations that are aggressively pursuing the development of environmentally friendly ocean mining technology. Japan, the United Kingdom, France, and China, in particular, have devoted considerable time and money toward developing such technologies and promoting industry support. This program directs successful applied research efforts with numerous concrete accomplishments. To meet future challenges, researchers are working to develop surveying and sampling systems for use in locating important mineral deposits. The systems can be used for locating sand resources for coastline stabilization and beach replenishment. In addition, they are essential in assessing and monitoring pollutants in river and oceanic sediments. Researchers are also working to develop an acoustical filter system to control dredging turbidity and to process industrial waste. For a relatively small input of Federal money, a strong relationship has been forged between Federal, academic, and industry teams to address problems in marine resources and the environment. I ask my colleagues to join us in supporting this exceptional program.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. If the gentleman would yield on that point, I think the gentleman would agree that four out of the last five tax increases would not have been enacted had that provision been part of the Constitution when they were voted on.

Mr. WICKER. I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding. I certainly also want to commend my friend from Kansas for the remarks which he just made. I certainly hope that he will leave those books there on the desk. They are a graphic example of the increase in the complexity of our Tax Code over the past number of years. They translate into something very, very practical, and, that is, the fact that too much money is being taken out of household budgets and brought to Washington, DC, and that is just a very graphic example there. Yesterday was tax day all across the United States of America, which was another reminder to American families and American working men and women of the bite that the Federal Government takes out of household incomes. But there is another date that is also very, very significant, and that is May 7, to be exact, May 7, 1996. That is Tax Freedom Day in the United States of America. That means that the average American has had to work until May 7 just to pay his obligation for all Federal, State, and local taxes. Not until May 8, 1996, will the average American begin working for himself. This is the latest time during a calendar year that Tax Freedom Day has occurred. What that means is that the tax burden on Americans is heavier than it has ever been in the United States of America. I want to commend our party, the Republican Party, for proposing a solution to that and proposing to change the direction. Sometimes I go back home and people say, ``Well, Roger, there's too much partisan rhetoric on the floor of the House of Representatives,'' and certainly I applaud any effort at bipartisanship, and I also applaud the efforts of those who have put forward the civility code. I think we need more of that. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a reason for the very pitched partisan debate about the tax issue. And that is this. That there are two very, very fundamentally different approaches to taxation represented here in this Capitol building. There is the Democrat approach of 40 years of increased taxation, increased overreaching into the pocketbooks of American workers, and we are here now as a Republican majority for the first time in 40 years to reverse that trend. The differences at the national level are certainly heightened, I think, by none other than the President of the United States. Candidate Clinton ran in 1992 promising a middle-class tax cut. The American people responded to that plank in then Governor Clinton's platform and he was elected. Once elected, President Clinton not only abandoned his pledge for a middle-class tax cut but he gave us the largest tax increase in history. I note that one of my colleagues yesterday came onto the House floor and disputed that, saying that actually maybe it was the largest tax increase in peacetime history. Regardless of how you do your figures there, it was a whopping increase of nearly $260 billion, which meant a 4.3 cent per gallon tax on gasoline which affected farmers, truckers, and people certainly living in the rural areas of my district in north Mississippi. The Clinton tax increase involved a 70-percent increase in the amount of Social Security benefits that can be taxed. I certainly am proud to stand as one of the Members of this House of Representatives who voted to reverse that tax and repeal that tax and certainly regret the fact that President Clinton has stymied us and not allowed that repeal of that tax to go through. Also small businesses were hit hard. Don't take my word for it. The National Federation of Independent Business called the Clinton tax plan about as anti-small business as you could ever see. So I would simply point out to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that there are fundamental differences in our approach to this very, very significant issue. The Republicans in the House of Representatives and in the Senate stand for lower taxes, tax cuts which not only benefit families but also which will encourage job creation. And so I thank my colleague from Ohio for putting together this special order and I look forward to participating in it this afternoon.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly rise today in support of H.R. 1350, the Maritime Security Act of 1995, and strongly encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort. I would like to commend the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] as well as my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], for their leadership, and also the committee for unanimously reporting this legislation. Mr. Chairman, it is the most sweeping maritime reform in 6 decades, and it will provide for a modern, cost-competitive American maritime fleet while reducing Federal spending by one-half. The legislation will also reduce or eliminate regulations that prevent American ship- operating companies from competing on an equal basis with foreign-flag operators. Today, Federal regulations determine where our U.S. flagship can operate. These regulations mandate equipment and rules that penalize vessels which fly our flag. They discourage investment in modern, efficient vessels. H.R. 1350 will eliminate regulations that make no sense, that cost American jobs, and that tie the hands of American companies. Most importantly, H.R. 1350 will give America a commercial private- sector sealift fleet to serve our economic and military objectives and promote a strong national defense that is unquestioned by friend and foe alike. Supporters of the fleet have included former President Reagan and Gen. Colin Powell, who referred to the program as the ``workhorse'' of our operations in missions such as Desert Shield and Desert Storm. The U.S. Constitution lays out only one specific responsibility for the Federal Government, and that is to provide for a national defense of our country. We must work to provide the best and most cost- effective defense America can afford. H.R. 1350 will cut redtape, strengthen our Nation's maritime force, and solidify our Nation's defense at a bargain to the taxpayers. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Maritime Security Act of 1995.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, this is the Thanksgiving season, and certainly we have a lot to be thankful for today, particularly. We can be thankful that 800,000 furloughed Federal employees are returning to work. We can be thankful that there is a glimmer of bipartisanship here in this Congress. We can be thankful that today this House will vote on a bipartisan agreement, not only to end the Federal shutdown, but to balance the budget in 7 years with honest numbers. No back doors and no gimmicks. I believe this balanced budget will be the greatest legacy of this Congress. This Congress is committed to working with the administration to do what Congresses should do every year, and that is balance the Federal budget. Now, the next step on the road to fiscal sanity is just as important, and that is agreeing to a Balanced Budget Act of 1995. We need to balance the budget by agreeing to spend an additional $3 trillion over the next 7 years, rather than the projected $4 trillion we are on course to spend. As my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Kasich, has said, the debate is not about cuts. It is about whether we can forgo that fourth trillion. I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I am a bit confused today about the President's statement last night, as compared to the specific language of the continuing resolution which he says he will sign. Now, the continuing resolution, which the President has said he will sign tonight, agrees to protect future generations and to protect Medicare, education, Medicaid, agriculture, national defense, and the environment. But it says specifically, and I quote, ``The President and the Congress shall enact,''--shall enact--legislation in the first session of the 104th Congress to achieve a balanced budget, not later than the fiscal year 2002, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office,'' a very flat commitment to balancing the budget within 7 years, according to CBO scoring. However, in his statement last night, the President said, and I quote, ``And [[Page H 13354]] you know I have expressed strong doubts that the budget can be balanced in 7 years, if we use the current Republican congressional budget assumptions. But I am nevertheless committed to working in the coming weeks to see if we can reach common ground on balancing the budget. The key is that nothing will be agreed to unless all elements are agreed to.'' Unquote. I must confess that I am concerned about that statement. The agreement, the specific language which we will vote on today, is not an agreement simply to see if we do it. So I call upon the President not to run from the language, from the specific language, that he has agreed to sign, even before he signs it. The majority of this House of Representatives has shown that we can balance the budget within 7 years using CBO scoring. Coalition Democrats have come forward and given their version of the balanced budget, within 7 years, using CBO scoring. I now call on my friends from the other side of the aisle to get with the President and to make sure that he comes forward with an honest budget using CBO scoring, and to tell the American people how he proposes to balance the budget within 7 years using the honest CBO figures that he has agreed to. The President so far has had it both ways. He has had the best of both worlds. On one hand, he has been for a balanced budget, and on the other hand, he has not wanted to make the difficult decisions to get us there. THe American people have told us that our days of having our cake and eating it too are over. I look forward to seeing where the President would reduce the growth of Government spending. Then we can reach a balanced budget in 7 years, show the American people that a promise made is a promise kept, and give our children the future they deserve.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a momentous day for this House of Representatives. For the first time in 26 years we are going to do what Congress should have done every year--pass a balanced budget. I know the debate is going to focus on some shared sacrifice, and certainly Americans have always been willing to do their part. But I also hope during the 2 hours of general debate we will talk about the benefits to every American of balancing the Federal budget. The Federal Reserve Chairman has made it clear that interest rates will drop significantly if we will just come to grips with the budget deficit. That means lower house payments, lower car payments, and reduced tuition loan costs for families all across America. That translates into more disposable incomes in the pocketbooks of every American. Mr. Speaker, I believe in bipartisanship, and I am thankful for the 72 Democrats who earlier this year voted for a balanced budget amendment. I thank heaven for the 48 Democrats who voted for a balanced budget using CBO scoring on the continuing resolution. I call on my colleagues to debate this bill today as Americans. Let's do it for the future of our country. Let's do it for every child in America. Let's balance the budget.