Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, in support of the bill, and particularly in support of the Outer Continental Shelf deep-water incentives legislation; and I will be asking my colleagues later on to vote against the Miller motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I think this legislation is a good idea; and particularly, Mr. Speaker, I believe the OCS deep-water incentives provisions are good for business, they are good for job growth and, most importantly, they are good for the taxpayers. Let us look at the facts. Right now, restrictive royalties have effectively shut down deep-water drilling. Only 6 percent of the deep- water leases are in production. That is compared to 50 percent of leases which are in production in shallow waters. My colleagues should not be fooled by the opponents of this measure. I believe their goal is to shutdown deep-water drilling with restrictive taxes. While Americans have continually rejected this approach to governing for the nonsense that it is, opponents have decided to change their approach to the charge of corporate welfare. So let us look again at this charge of corporate welfare. The Congressional Budget Office, the office that we rely on for our estimates, has determined that this bill will generate $100 million over 5 years in tax revenues. Is that corporate welfare? The Congressional Budget Office says that this bill will reduce our national deficit. Is that corporate welfare? This bill will create jobs. That is not corporate welfare, Mr. Speaker. This bill makes sense for the taxpayers, for the Federal budget and for our national security. What our friends who oppose this bill are not saying is the fact that the taxpayer benefits only if deep-water oil and gas production occurs. If they do not drill, they do not pay taxes. The taxpayer and producers are business partners. They both benefit from deep-water drilling. So who is being taken advantage of by this provision? It is not the offshore workers who sit idle by the drills. It is not the taxpayer who stands to make $100 million over the next 5 years. The only people being taken advantage of in this bill are those who fall for the basic theory of corporate welfare by the opponents of the bill today. This bill will expand domestic energy resources, enhance our energy security, create jobs and reduce the national deficit. Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule, this is good legislation, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam Speaker, I rise today as an advocate for the taxpayer whose hard-earned dollars are going to subsidize Washington lobbyists. The lobbyists I speak of directly benefit from the Federal grant system, designed to help people and charities, not line the pockets of inside-the-beltway lobbyists. When I tell my constituents that the Federal Government gives away over $39 billion per year in grant money with little or no strings attached, they tell me to stop this business-as-usual attitude in Washington. If these groups were not spending money on political and partisan activities, they would have much more money for the services they are intended to perform and they would not have to take as much--or any-- money from hard-working Americans. The Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich amendment to the Treasury-Postal conference report would require Federal grantees to open their books and be accountable to the taxpayers who fund them. Sunshine, Madam Speaker. Let us show the taxpayers how their money is being spent. It is only fair and the right thing to do. As President of the freshman class, I can tell you that this is the kind of reform we promised the American people last November--let us deliver in the 104th Congress.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to share with my colleagues the following remarks from October 23, 1995 by R. Bruce Josten, Senior Vice President for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Washington, DC, October 23, 1995 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: In the next few days, you will be voting on H.R. 2491, the ``Seven-Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995,'' this year's omnibus balanced budget reconciliation bill. This historic measure will lead to a balanced federal budget within the next seven years, cut taxes for American families and businesses, streamline welfare systems and provide for stronger economic growth. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce--the world's largest business federation, representing 215,000 businesses, 3,000 state and local Chambers of Commerce, 1,200 trade and professional associations, and 73 American Chambers of Commerce abroad--urges you to vote YES on the reconciliation bill. H.R. 2491 offers us the chance to switch tracks, from the usual tax-and-spend mentality to an emphasis on less government, lower taxes, and increased economic growth. Eliminating the deficit in seven years will lower interest rates, boost savings and investment, increase productivity growth, and lead to more and better jobs and a higher standard of living. The reconciliation bill also takes a courageous step in addressing runaway entitlement spending while ensuring more effective services to those in need. The tax cuts contained in the reconciliation bill provide incentives for job creation and return some of the taxpayer's earnings to where they rightfully belong--the taxpayers's pocket. As part of a comprehensive balanced budget package, the tax cuts make the process of eliminating the deficit easier on the economy at the same time they make achievement of the goal more likely. The reconciliation bill before you deserves your support. The business community will be closely following the outcome of this vote, which the U.S. Chamber will count as a key vote in its annual ``How They Voted'' tabulation. Passage of the reconciliation bill is crucial to re-establishing the historic trust between the government and the governed. The U.S. Chamber membership urges you to vote YES on H.R. 2491. Sincerely, R. Bruce Josten. balancing the federal budget--the nation's greatest priority With all the hoopla over Medicare, Medicaid, welfare reform, and tax cuts it is easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Therefore, it is important now to reiterate and reemphasize where we are headed. The single overarching goal of this legislation is to put the economy on a new track by balancing the budget through spending restraint, reducing taxes, and getting the government out of the everyday lives of its citizens. The message is simple: Balance the Budget Now!!! Why is it so important to balance the budget? Balancing the budget is the single most important act that congress can take to boost savings in this country. This in turn will lead to lower interest rates, higher investment, greater productivity growth, and a higher standard of living. Achieving this balance will also increase our competitiveness in international markets. In a June 1995 U.S. Chamber survey, more than 96 percent of those responding would like to have the federal budget balanced in seven years There is no doubt that balancing the budget is a clear winner for the economy--but it is more than an economic issue; it is an issue of generational fairness. Deficits not only burden future generations with higher taxes required to service the debt but also deny future generations the basic right to make their own decisions and choose their own destiny. While it is true that balancing the budget involves some short-run pain, the long-run cost of failure to balance the budget is the virtual impoverishment of America's future. Unless we make some tough decisions to reduce spending and eliminate the deficit, we will soon find ourselves in a position of bankruptcy, and totally ill-equipped to provide for the retirement needs of the baby-boom generation. Without immediate program changes, by 2012 entitlement spending and interest payments on the debt will consume all tax revenue. If unreformed, Medicare will be insolvent in seven years. The balanced budget reconciliation package also includes a tax cut for America's households and businesses. By improving the incentives for individuals to work and businesses to create new jobs, the proposed tax cuts will spur economic growth. These beneficial effects not only will mitigate the short-run fiscal drag from the spending restraint but also will generate tax receipts to help offset the revenue loss from the tax cuts themselves. Eliminating the deficit and balancing the budget is sound public policy. It will benefit individuals of all ages and socio-economics groups, it will encourage savings and investments and foster job growth, and ultimately will place America in a sound financial position to deal with the complexities of its aging population. Failure to do so is simply irresponsible. balanced budget reconciliation bill--Myths vs. Facts Myth: Balancing the budget is going to harm the economy. Fact: The congressional Budget Office has estimated that balancing the budget within five to ten years provides enough time for the economy to adjust without providing undue stress to economic growth. By producing a plan that splits the difference--balancing the budget in seven years--the Republicans place the economy on as gentle a transition path as possible that still preserves the plan's credibility. That's important because a vote of no confidence in the financial markets would send interest rates up, which could unravel the entire plan by slowing the economy and forcing the government to spend more on its debt service. Myth: The Republicans are slashing programs for the poor and the elderly. Fact: Actually, total government spending over the next seven years under the Republican plan would continue to grow, averaging 3.0% per year. Social Security spending is slated to rise about 5% per year, and Medicare growth will average 6.4%. Myth: It's irresponsible to cut taxes at the same time we're trying to balance the federal budget. Fact: The tax-cut package will help achieve a balanced budget by improving the incentives for Americans to work, save and invest. These activities will generate private- sector growth that will offset the economic drag caused by reduced government spending. Myth: The Republicans are slashing Medicare. Fact: The Republican plan for Medicare calls for program expenditures to rise an average of 6.4% per year for the next seven years--more than twice the rate of inflation. Medicare spending over the past five years has grown at the unsustainable average annual rate of 10.4% over the past five years. Critics of the Republican plan usually fail to note that expenditures per beneficiary are projected to climb from $4,800 today to $6,700 by 2002 under the Republican proposal. Myth: The Republican tax cuts are for the wealthy. Fact: Most of the tax relief goes to the American family as the child tax credit. Under the Senate Finance Committee tax cut bill, 62 percent of tax reduction is accounted for by the child tax credit, which has income limits (the full amount is available to single filers earning $75,000 or less and to married joint filers earning $110,000 or less). Only about one-sixth of the tax package's $245 billion in tax relief goes for reductions in capital gains tax. Myth: The cuts in Medicare spending are funding the tax cut. Fact: These are two separate issues. Tax cuts or not, balanced budget or not--the Medicare trust fund will be bankrupt by 2002, according to the best estimates of the Medicare Trustees (four of the six trustees are Clinton appointees). Action on Medicare is required now. The problem can only truly be solved by addressing the explosive growth of Medicare, which has averaged 10.5 percent per year over the past five years. Moreover, because any changes to Medicare Part A will accrue directly to the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, the savings cannot be used to provide for tax cuts. Myth: President Clinton's plan to balance the budget in ten years offers a preferred path to fiscal balance. Fact: Actually, the president's path doesn't lead anywhere. According to the CBO, the federal deficits under the Administration's June 1995 proposal remain lodged around the $200 billion level for the next decade. The Administrations rosier underlying economic assumptions play a big role in getting the deficit to zero, but when the CBO figures are used instead, the deficit shows little improvement. CBO's scoring of the Republican plan, on the other hand, shows balance. Which numbers should be used? The president answered this question himself, when in February 1993 he argued that lawmakers should stick to one set of economic assumptions-- CBO's--so that ``the American people will think we're shooting straight with them.'' medicare reform--the right solution Medicare reform is at the crux of the balanced budget battle. Medicare--the national health insurance program for seniors--will run out of money in seven years, according to The Board of Trustees. Spending on Medicare and other entitlements threatens to crowd out all other budget priorities and increase the budget deficit. Previous approaches to Medicare reform have failed to slow Medicare's growth. Worse, these approaches have increased the burden on businesses and their employees through higher payroll taxes and higher insurance premiums. Since 1970, Congress has raised payroll taxes over 20 times and the Medicare Trustees 1995 Report pointed out that payroll taxes would have to be raised by another 1.3 to 3.5 percentage points to bring the system into balance. When you consider that many small-and medium-sized businesses already pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes and that payroll taxes must be paid regardless of economic conditions, it becomes clear why Medicare requires solutions other than tax increases. The House and Senate Majority has proposed market-oriented alternatives to traditional Medicare reform, an approach that modernizes the 30-year-old Medicare program by increasing competition while restraining the growth in spending. Key elements include: New choices for Medicare beneficiaries. Beneficiaries will have the right to choose traditional Medicare, as well as the right to choose from a range of private health plan options including managed care and medical savings accounts. These options will provide beneficiaries access to expanded benefits--such as prescription drugs, preventative care, vision and hearing care. Restrained growth in Medicare spending. Increases in Medicare spending are inevitable, given the growing Medicare population and the advance of medical technology. However, controlling the rate at which Medicare spending increases is as important to our nation's future financial health as Medicare itself is to seniors' health care. Introducing competition to Medicare through beneficiary choice of health plans will help control costs and allocate resources more fairly and efficiently than Washington bureaucrats. Accountability. The Republican plan allows seniors to take responsibility for making their own health care decisions. Instead of relying on a bureaucratic, one-size-fits-all approach, seniors will decide which health plans are best for them. Doctors and hospitals are also held accountable. The bill rewards beneficiaries who report incidences of waste, fraud and abuse, and strengthens penalties for anyone who defrauds Medicare. By passing this legislation Congress will have taken timely, critical action that will avert the program's bankruptcy and preserve and protect it for current recipients and future generations. medicare reform--myths vs. facts Myth: The House and Senate Republican Medicare reform plans will cut $270 billion from Medicare in order to finance a tax cut for the wealthy. Fact: The Medicare Trustees' 1995 Annual Report urged Congress to take ``prompt and decisive action'' to address the solvency of the Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) Trust Fund and the continued growth of Medicare Part B (supplemental medical insurance). The House and Senate Majority has proposed market-oriented alternatives to traditional Medicare reform, an approach that modernizes the 30-year-old Medicare program by increasing competition while restraining the growth in spending. Under the Republican plan, spending per beneficiary will still increase 40% by 2002 ($4,800 to $6,700). Tax cuts provided for in the budget resolution were considered and passed independent of Medicare. Whether or not taxes are cut, Medicare will still go broke in 2002. Myth: It's not fair for Congress to take away benefits from seniors who have faithfully paid into the system. Fact: The average Medicare beneficiaries receive far more than they put in. The average two-earner couple receives $117,200 more in benefits than it contributes to the program. The average singe-earner couple receives $126,700 more. By encouraging competition among private health plans based on quality and innovation, the Republican plan may lead to increased benefits. Myth: The business community is a latecomer to the Medicare debate. Fact: Medicare's influence is felt throughout the business community--from payroll taxes paid to finance the system to insurance premiums inflated by consistent shortfalls in Medicare reimbursements to providers who in turn shift the cost to private health plans. Myth: Medicare is in trouble because doctors and hospitals charge too much. The Republican plan fails to address this problem. Fact: Solving the Medicare crisis will require the participation of all--doctors, hospitals, seniors and other taxpayers--particularly the business community. Just as no one factor led to the Medicare crisis, a single-minded focus on providers won't get us out. Further, cost controls have failed miserably whenever they have been tried--particulary in the context of health care. welfare reform--a call for action Efforts to reform the nation's welfare system continue to gain momentum and could be included in the budget bill. Other legislation supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been passed by both the House and Senate. A final compromise will be sent to President Clinton for his signature once differences between the bills are resolved by a House-Senate conference committee. Overhaul of the welfare program is critical to control spending costs and provide effective, streamlined services to those who truly warrant such assistance. To achieve this end, the bills eliminate the federal guarantee of benefits for all eligible Americans by turning responsibility for welfare programs to the states in the form of block grants. A substantial reduction in federal spending is anticipated-- from $65 to $100 billion over seven years. There is much commonality between the House and Senate proposals: Both bills replace federal welfare programs with lump-sum payments to the states for cash assistance to the poor (AFDC) and child care. (The House bill also includes family nutrition, Supplemental Security Income, and school lunches.) Block grants to the states are capped; no state match is required. The legislation places a limit of five years on the duration of time that individuals may receive welfare benefits. States have the option of lowering the limit to two years. States must move half of all welfare recipients into work by either 2003 (House bill) or 2000 (Senate bill). Both bills repeal the JOBS program. But key differences with respect to illegitimacy, ``family caps,'' and aid to immigrants remain. The House bill prohibits states from providing benefits to women who have additional children while on welfare, teenagers who have babies of out of wedlock, and most non-U.S. citizens. The Senate bill does not contain these prohibitions. Business has a strong stake in the welfare reform issue. If people are to exit the welfare rolls, they must be prepared and able to find and keep a job. In response, many welfare reformers look to the private sector as the primary source of job creation. Chamber members understand the need to be centrally involved in the welfare reform debate. In a survey to construct the 1995-1996 National Business Agenda, welfare reform was ranked as the second highest priority (behind unfunded mandates). The June, 1995 ``Where I Stand'' Nation's Business questionnaire on welfare generated 6,319 responses, the fourth-highest return ever. In November, 1994, the Chamber became the first business organization to adopt policy on welfare reform. The Chamber supports immediate and intensive job placement services for welfare recipients; a time limit on welfare benefits; work requirements; and incentives for businesses to hire welfare recipients. Above all, it is imperative that former welfare recipients possess the knowledge and skills to succeed in the modern workplace. welfare reform--myths vs. facts Myth: Business will not hire welfare recipients. Fact: Private companies will hire welfare recipients, but practical incentives need to be offered. Examples include flexible wage scales, relief from certain labor law requirements, and/or tax incentives. Equally important is ensuring that recipients possess the skills and attitudes to succeed in today's workplace. Myth: The legislation recklessly endangers the well-being of the poorest children and families. Fact: America's welfare system eats up billions of dollars of taxpayers' money annually. Without incentives like time limits and work requirements, many persons will continue to make an easy living off welfare. Reliance on public assistance must to an end. Myth: Moving to a block grant system will cripple state budgets and lead to a ``mish-mash'' of state welfare programs. The federal government needs to maintain authority. Fact: Block grants deserve strong consideration; they will help maximize state and local flexibility and allow states to design welfare programs that best reflect their public assistance needs. Moreover, block grants will put an end to unfunded mandates and burdensome regulations associated with federal welfare programs. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is the only way to ensure that welfare mothers can live on entry-level earnings. Otherwise, the work requirement will never be effective. Fact: Quite the contrary. An increase in the minimum wage would cost many Americans their jobs and deter employers from hiring welfare recipients. The key to increased job opportunities is an abolishment of the minimum wage and allowing the marketplace to work. A Congressional Budget Office study has shown that 70 percent of workers who entered the workforce at $5 an hour or less were still employed after one year. Forty-five had received wage increases of 20 percent or more.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, America laid to rest one of our finest statesmen. Jamie Whitten, a dear friend and colleague to many Members of this House, was remembered in funeral services in Charleston, MS. Congressman Jamie Whitten served a record 53 years and 2 months in this body, rising to become the long-time dean of the House, and chairman of the Appropriations Committee. However, he never forgot his roots in rural America, serving ably as the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and becoming what many referred to as the permanent Secretary of Agriculture. I knew Jamie Whitten for 28 years, since I served as his page in 1967. Mr. Whitten quietly earned the reputation for always being a gentleman during an era when many public figures gained attention by being flamboyant and divisive. Winston Churchill said that singleness of purpose and simplicity of conduct are powerful attributes of public servants. These were the qualities of Mr. Whitten. Mr. Whitten was never concerned with seeking the recognition he deserved. Perhaps there will be no monuments erected in his name, but today, across America, there are many quiet legacies he leaves behind. As one Mississippi newspaper stated yesterday, Jamie Whitten started his public service career when some Mississippians still had eye-witness memories of the Civil War and only dreamed of one day having electricity in their homes. Today, farms across America are the breadbasket for the world and schoolchildren in rural America can routinely communicate from their homes via computers with people halfway around the world. These are the silent monuments to a man who dedicated his life to this House and to this country. For that, his beloved State of Mississippi and his country will be forever grateful.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kasich amendment, and I want to respond to some of the arguments that have been made. The statement has been made that we are cutting everything else except defense. Well, I think the American people want us to find budget savings. I think they want us to balance the budget. We spend a lot of money on worthwhile projects in this Federal Government, but not all of them are absolutely essential to our survival as a nation. National defense, on the other hand, is a constitutional responsibility that only the Federal Government has. Providing for the common defense is right there in the preamble to the Constitution, and if the U.S. Congress does not provide those funds, they will not be provided by anyone else. When 7 former Secretaries of Defense write to the President of the U.S. and say that the B-2 bomber is central to meeting the challenge to U.S. security over the next decades, then we as a Congress ought to sit up and take notice of that. I urge Members to defeat the Kasich amendment.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for yielding me the time. I certainly rise in support of the Solomon amendment. When Mr. Solomon began his remarks, I believe I heard him say that you would hear some hysteria tonight from the opponents of this amendment and I think now we know exactly what the gentleman from New York was referring to. I have not been here long, but I have learned that when you are opposed to an amendment or to a concept here in the House of Representatives, you get up and say it is a ``gag rule.'' You throw out terms like ``dangerous'' and ``chilling.'' You say it is an attack on the First Amendment and on free speech. Nothing could be further from the truth in this case. It is also important that we actually read the amendment and correct some of the misstatements that have been made tonight. Student governments are excepted from this amendment. Student newspapers are not affected by this amendment. Officials and faculties are specifically, by the wording of the amendment, not subject to the language of the amendment. Now, back several years ago when I was in college, I was a campus activist. You might find that surprising, but I was involved in campus politics. I believe political discourse should flourish at colleges and universities, but I think what organizations ought to actually do is set up a table during registration and collect dues. What this amendment does is go farther than that. It says these campus groups can have a positive check-off. The crux of the amendment is this: Should we compel students to contribute money to an organization they do not believe in? Should we compel students to contribute [[Page H 8402]] money to a point of view they do not support? I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Members of this House, such practices are wrong. That is what this amendment is about. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Solomon amendment.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Skaggs amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the McIntosh-Istook-Ehrlich provision in H.R. 2127, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996, and to oppose the Skaggs amendment to strike. As a member of the Appropriations Committee who serves on the Labor, HHS and Education Subcommittee, I was pleased to support the inclusion of this important amendment when Mr. Istook offered it at the full committee markup. The Appropriations Committee debated this measure fully and sent it on to the full House following a recorded vote of 28 to 20. Mr. Speaker, the McIntosh-Istook-Ehrlich amendment provides that any nonprofit or charity which receives Federal grants certify at year's end that it has not spent more than 5 percent of its entire budget on political advocacy or lobbying. The Office of Management and Budget is directed to produce a single form which will be acceptable for all grantees to submit to the General Accounting Office [GAO] and to the grant making agency or department once a year. There is no reason for any charity to spend a large percentage of its annual budget on lobbying if the charity receives Federal taxpayer funding in the form of grants. I urge you to oppose the Skaggs amendment, and support the retention of the McIntosh-Istook-Ehrlich language in this Labor, HHS appropriations bill before us today.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I came to Washington with 72 other freshmen Republicans to change the way Washington does business. This has included a number of important reforms ranging from requiring Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else to ensuring that the young men and women in our Armed Forces will never again serve under foreign generals. I am proud to be a part of this freshman class which I believe has forever changed the way Washington works. But, Mr. Chairman, while we have taken many steps to restore the American people's belief in Congress, I believe the most important step is our commitment to balance the budget, and this Labor HHS, Education appropriation bill is an important part of that commitment. Over the last 40 years our Government in Washington has grown out of control. Today the national debt is $4.8 trillion, and the President will soon ask the Congress to raise the ceiling to enable us to borrow even more money; that is, more money to pay for a spiraling bureaucracy today that will be paid for by our children tomorrow, by the very children that are shown in this photograph that I have with me today. At the current rate of Federal spending the national debt for these children will rise to $6\1/2\ trillion in 5 short years. Now, these figures are incomprehensible. In more digestible terms, a child born today will pay over $187,000 in his lifetime in principal and interest on the national debt. Is there a parent or grandparent in America today who would knowingly hand one of these children a bill for $187,000 to pay for our own excesses? I think it is fair to ask, Mr. Chairman, are our children really getting their money's worth? Let us look at the Federal Department of Education, for example. Since its creation the Department of Education has more than doubled its budget, from $15 billion to over $31 billion. More than 240 programs exist within the Department today, nearly doubling in size since 1980. Yet the uncontrolled growth of the Department of Education has not increased our children's test scores. Sadly, we have seen a steady decline in student performance as parents and local communities have less control over the children's education. No doubt, Mr. Chairman, when we get to the title of the bill dealing with education spending, we will see opponents of this bill parading with charts and perhaps dressed in Save the Children neckties claiming to be advocates on behalf of children. The truth is that many will hide behind the children to make their case for Federal bureaucrats who are in danger of losing their jobs. I would submit to my colleagues that those of us who are interested in balancing the budget and reducing the national debt on these children are the real advocates of children in today's current debate. Mr. Chairman, it is also important to point out that we can balance the budget by the year 2002 by slowing the rate of growth of Federal spending. While people talk about cuts, the truth is that we will spend $1.8 trillion more over the next 7 years than we are spending today, $1.8 trillion more than we are spending today. This bill is a prime example of the fact that we can balance the budget by funding programs that work and by cutting redundant, wasteful programs. This bill takes a myriad of duplicative and intertwining programs and reshapes them into a leaner and smarter Government. For example, the Federal Government now funds 163 job training programs, over 15 departments and agencies, with 40 inter-departmental offices. Each of these programs has its own bureaucracy swallowing tax dollars which never make it outside the Beltway. Equally astounding is the fact that of these 163 Federal programs to train workers to find jobs, less than half can tell us whether or not their participants receive jobs, and 40 percent cannot even tell us how many people they are training. Mr. Chairman, we must ask ourselves is it morally right for these children to pay for a Federal Government: which currently funds 119 housing programs across 10 different departments and agencies; which currently funds 86 federal teacher training programs across 9 departments and agencies; which currently funds 266 programs to help youth at risk across 8 departments and agencies; which currently funds over 80 Federal welfare programs; and which currently funds 340 programs for families and children across 11 departments and agencies to the tune of $60 billion annually. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the time. The question before us tonight is clear. Should we let the title X program, which has been a failure by any objective measure, simply continue to exist? Or should we attempt to reprogram these scarce Federal tax dollars where they might provide a better service and value to our Nation? The title X program was created with the best of intentions, but it has proven to be a dismal failure. It was supposed to reduce unplanned pregnancies among teenagers, but teenage pregnancy has risen dramatically. It was supposed to educate teenagers to prevent the number of abortions, but teenage abortion has doubled since the inception of the title X program. Now, it is hard for some Members to admit that one of their social engineering schemes may be a failure, but title X is a failure. It is time we admitted that fact. It is also important for us to stress that title X funds will be transferred under the Livingston amendment to block grants for the States. They will be used by individual States who will be able to set priorities for the use of these funds to benefit their citizens. No longer will these funds be a Washington setaside for Planned Parenthood and like-minded groups. Planned Parenthood itself received approximately $35 million in 1995, approximately 19 percent of the entire program services budget for title X programs. All the ills designed to be addressed by the title X program have increased. We have a national epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion. It is time to let the States attempt to devise their own solutions. For all of these reasons, I urge a yes vote on the Livingston substitute and a no vote on the Greenwood amendment.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. That the ayes had it?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection reluctantly.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, how did the Chair announce that vote on the voice vote?

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for yielding this time to me. I certainly rise in opposition to this amendment, and I rise in support of the Economic Development Administration. I want to associate myself with the remarks made by many of my colleagues here this afternoon. My colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], spoke eloquently on behalf of the EDA, and I want to take issue with only one thing he said. He said that EDA is the only agency he knows of that actually makes money for the Government at the end of the day by drawing down so much money from other levels of Government and from the private sector. Actually, there are other such agencies, and I would suggest to you that this is the very argument that carried the day on behalf of the Appalachian Regional Commission a couple of weeks ago, when, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, this House rejected an amendment to defeat the Appalachian Regional Commission and rejected an amendment to eliminate the economic development portion of the Tennessee Valley Authority. The same arguments that carried the day 2 weeks ago on TVA and ARC are true today, with the exception of the fact that EDA helps needy counties in every section of the United States of America, not just in a localized area, as the Appalachian Regional Commission and TVA do. It would be the height of inconsistency for this House of Representatives to save the ARC and TVA while at the same time killing EDA. Now, there are differences in the programs, but the main factors still remain. I would suggest to you that the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], was correct when he spoke earlier about the need for changes in the funding formula. I do have a bill in the subcommittee that has authorizing jurisdiction, and that subcommittee is working on changing the funding formulas. I think, quite frankly, that EDA could have more of a bottom- up approach and more participation by the Governors than they presently have. But the arguments still basically are the same. We are talking about an agency that provides jobs and an agency that is working. It provides for needy countries, for example, fire protection to attract jobs and industry into a community and create taxpayers out of people. It helps communities build industrial parks. It helps communities build access roads to job locations. This is money well spent. There is Federal money that basically takes a dollar out of somebody's pocket who is working and gives it to somebody else who is not working. I think Americans have the right to question that type of Federal spending, and we are doing that. We are balancing the budget in this House of Representatives and in this Congress. But, when we can take Federal dollars and provide the opportunity for private sector employers to create jobs in the private sector and make taxpayers out of individuals in the counties which need it most and the locations which need it most, to me that is so much better than a transfer payment because it creates long-term jobs. EDA, just like TVA and ARC, is a good investment in jobs in the private sector. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and support for the EDA.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is easy to get up here and toss around the words ``pork'' and ``boondoggle.'' This is a program that is working. It is working to create jobs in the global marketplace; 24,000 alone in my home State of Mississippi, over 1 million jobs nationwide. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Schumer amendment.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I think it might also be interesting to point out, in addition to what the gentleman from Alabama just said, that a lot of other solid conservative Governors who are in favor of cutting wasteful spending have given wholehearted support to the Appalachian Regional Commission. Governor George Pataki of New York, Governor George Allen of Virginia, Governor Don Sundquist of Tennessee, Kirk Fordice of Mississippi, have all given the ARC their ringing public endorsements, because they realize that ARC is an example of a proven program which works, and works well. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in sharp opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug]. I hope that my fellow Members of the freshman class are paying close attention. Several weeks ago I had occasion to hear an address by the Speaker of the House. In those remarks the Speaker talked about the need for dramatic decentralization of government where, and I quote, ``local folks are solving local problems with local strategies.'' Now, Mr. Chairman, I know of only one Federal program which is qualified to serve as a model for this approach, and that is the Appalachian Regional Commission. Mr. Chairman, dollar for dollar the ARC is one of the best bargains we get in Congress each year. Now, as the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Pennsylvania related, the ARC is a model for local, State, and Federal cooperation. Under this model, local officials suggest options and refer them to their Governor. The Governor then prioritizes a list and sends it to the national office, which works in conjunction with the Governors to select applications for approval. Most of these projects are then administered locally by local planning and development districts located in the community selected. The Federal dollars used under ARC serve to leverage many more times that amount in State and local matches. In many cases the ratio of local and State funds to Federal dollars is as much as five to one, as the gentleman from Maryland pointed out. This is a bottom-up program, not a Washington solution for local problems. It is important for us to understand where the money goes. There is $142 million in this bill for ARC. Of that amount 58 percent will go to the ARC highway program. The highway portion of ARC was authorized by Congress in 1965. It is nearing 75-percent completion. By act of Congress these highways have been brought under the national highway system. These roads are every bit as legitimate as the highways in other sections of the country that have been paved with Federal dollars under the interstate system. And I can tell my colleagues from personal experience that, when ARC money assists in building four-lane highways, it means greater business growth, increased access, expanded markets, and more taxpayers for the entire United States of America. I should also point out, Mr. Chairman, that ARC is not the kind of bloated Federal bureaucracy that we hear about a lot. This little agency has only about 50 employees nationwide. Most of the overhead is paid for by the States. In addition, it cannot be stressed too much that ARC has been cut in half in this bill. It was funded at $282 million in fiscal year 1995. Under this bill, it is reduced by 50 percent, and, Mr. Chairman, that is real budget progress and real budget savings. Actually the energy and water appropriation bill recommendation of $142 million is less than the amount adopted by this House in the budget resolution conference report last month. I am firmly committed to cutting the budget and cutting programs which do not work, but ARC does work, it is a program that has proven itself. It is not a Federal handout where we take money out of somebody's pocket and write somebody else a check. It develops infrastructure to create private jobs in the private sector. It is working for economic development, and, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Klug amendment and support the ARC program.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself with the remarks of the previous speaker from California and to say that I oppose the Nadler amendment and that I hope my colleagues will join in supporting the hard work of the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], and her subcommittee. Their decision with regard to this airstrip was based on the facts, and the facts are that the National Training Center is a major contributor to the national defense mission. The transport of our service men and women in and out of there is a very important component of their mission, and, if the Nadler amendment is adopted, instead of a convenient airstrip 37 miles away, however, far the distance, it will be a much farther distance that they will have to be transported. So I will say the facts are with the committee on this decision. I hope that the Members of this body will support the chairwoman, support the committee, and vote no on the Nadler amendment.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the military construction appropriation bill, and I want to take special note of the fact that every single dollar contained in the bill is for authorized projects. In addition, the budget resolution set a funding goal for this appropriation and the bill meets that goal. I hasten to add that this appropriation bill is part of an overall spending plan that gives us a balanced budget by the year 2002. The bill provides funding for military housing, airfield construction, infrastructure, for NATO, and base realignment and closure. Our bill provides $4.3 billion for family housing, an area where, sadly, Congress has proven to be far shortsighted over the past few years. We intend to make up for that oversight today. The men and women to serve in our Armed Forces, Mr. Chairman, have truly earned the right to a decent place to sleep and eat and their husbands, wives, and children who are left behind when they are called away at a moment's notice also have earned the right to expect better treatment from their Government. Further, it is true that our appropriation exceeds President Clinton's request by $208 billion. Mr. Chairman, we do not have to be ashamed that we are demonstrating a greater commitment than the President has to the quality of life of those who serve in our Armed Forces. The committee simply put a higher priority on military quality of life than the President did. That is nothing to back down from. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say this is a good bill. We have based it on sound principles. And I remind my colleagues again that every single dollar appropriated has been authorized. The committee has prioritized the needs of our Defense Department and those who serve in uniform and their families. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote aye on final passage.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, the freshmen Republicans sent President Clinton a letter 1 month ago encouraging him to submit a balanced budget. Up until now President Clinton had sided with his pollsters and spin-masters and made a conscious decision not to submit a balanced budget. Welcome to the arena, Mr. President. We hope your decision is a permanent one and that you do not change your mind and fall back when the going gets tough. But if you noticed, the President was not very specific about how to accomplish his stated goal. Where are the details, Mr. President? Where are the specifics on how to achieve your balanced budget? Republicans accepted Mr. Clinton's challenge back in January to be specific about our plan. Mr. President, give us your specifics. I will be glad to make copies and distribute them to the rest of my colleagues.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. This debate has nothing to do with family planning. It has everything to do with coerced family planning. The Smith amendment has everything to do with funding of forced abortions and everything to do the use of American taxpayer dollars to support organizations which perform abortions overseas and which lobby for pro-abortion policies. As my colleague from Texas just pointed out, the Smith amendment reenacts, simply reenacts, a policy which was in effect during the Reagan and Bush years. I hope my colleagues can agree that the United States should not be spending American taxpayer dollars promoting abortion anywhere or promoting China's forced abortion policy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Morella amendment and to vote ``yes'' on the Smith amendment.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and pleasure to pay tribute to the life and service of Senator John C. Stennis, who passed away April 23, 1995. Senator Stennis' life is the story of 20th century America. In 1901, he was born the son of farmers in the red clay hills of east Mississippi. He graduated from Mississippi A&M College, and received a law degree from the University of Virginia, earning the honor of Phi Betta Kappa. He kept the promise of his youth and moved back to his hometown of DeKalb, MS, where he began an extraordinary 62-year career in public service which was unblemished by scandal, untainted by personal gain, and unquestioned in statesmanship. He served as a district attorney, State representative, and circuit judge. [[Page E1044]] Then, in 1947, he ran for the U.S. Senate to fill the unexpired term of Theodore Bilbo. In today's era of contracts and 100 and 500 day timetables, I often think of John Stennis' campaign promise from his first Senate campaign. He pledged to ``plow a straight furrow right down to the end of my row.'' Senator Stennis kept that simple promise with the people of Mississippi and plowed a straight furrow in the U.S. Senate for 42 years. He served during a time when many politicians grabbed headlines by fanning the flames of prejudice and preying on the fears of the vulnerable. However, Senator Stennis always took the high road with integrity and courage. He was the first Senate Democrat to stand up to the fear of McCarthyism and was crucial in bridging our country's racial divide in the 1960's. He began his service in the Senate by working each day until the Senate recessed and then studying at the Library of Congress until it closed. He rose to serve as chairman of the Armed Services Committee for 12 years, becoming one of the most influential voices in our Nation's military affairs during the Vietnam war and for much of the cold war. Every weapons system used in the 1991 Desert Storm offensive was authorized and appropriated under the leadership of Senator Stennis. He also served as chairman of the Appropriations Committee as well as the first chairman of the Senate's Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. Widely respected for his integrity, diligence, and judgment he was called upon time and again to investigate sensitive political matters. It became routine to refer to him as the ``Conscience of the Senate.'' To illustrate the bipartisan respect he engendered, President Nixon looked to John Stennis' reputation and integrity during the height of Watergate. When President Nixon refused to turn over Watergate tapes to a special prosecutor, he offered to have Senator Stennis listen to their content and verify President Nixon's summary. Mississippians knew they had no greater friend in Washington. Senator Stennis brought economic development to my home of north Mississippi through the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. In south Mississippi, he secured the State's largest employer, Ingall's shipyard, and brought about NASA's testing facility for rocket motors, the John C. Stennis Space Center. Senator Stennis retired from the Senate in 1989, having served eight Presidents from President Truman to Reagan in a career in which he would rise to President pro tempore of the body he so revered. Upon his retirement, President Reagan announced that the Nation's newest nuclear powered aircraft carrier would be named the U.S.S. John C. Stennis. The U.S.S. John C. Stennis will join the ranks in December of the U.S.S. Nimitz, Vinson, Eisenhower, Washington, Roosevelt, and Lincoln. After his retirement, Senator Stennis moved to the Mississippi State University campus from which he graduated in Starkville, the home of the John C. Stennis Institute of Government and the John C. Stennis Center of Public Service, created by Congress to train young leaders. When asked in the twilight of his career how he would like to be remembered, with his characteristic humility he responded, ``I haven't thought about that a whole lot. You couldn't give me a finer compliment than just to say `He did his best.''' Senator Stennis' unyielding devotion to principle, character, and humility produced one of the greatest statesman of the 20th century. Senator Stennis did his best and for that my State of Mississippi and America will always be grateful.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to add my comments of commendation to the pages who are leaving this Chamber. I have only been here some 3 weeks with this crop of pages, but you are part of a proud tradition that dates back--it is hard to believe, Mr. Speaker, that it was some 27\1/2\ years ago that I was here as a page. Lyndon Johnson was President of the United States, there were giants who walked the floor of this Chamber, such as Gerald Ford, John McCormack. There were people who fought partisan fights very vigorously, but they were patriots and loved this country above all. I know that you will look back on your experience with the same memories that I have. Some of you will come back to this body as Representatives of the people. Most of you will go on to other careers, perhaps medicine, the military, some of you in public service in other areas, in education perhaps. But whatever you do, this time that you have had will be an invaluable moment in your lives and you will always look back on it with treasured memories. If I could, I would like to echo the remarks of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] and my colleague from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] that it is a very historic moment that you have witnessed in these past few months. You saw only yesterday a balanced budget amendment enacted in a bipartisan vote that has been before this body for some 15 years. You saw the fruition of that just yesterday. This is about the orderly transfer of power, and it only happened 40 years ago prior to this. It is truly historic and truly profound when you have an opportunity to see the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] pass the gavel to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] and the troops were not called in, air raids were not required. But the solemn act of the voters across this country made that decision. It was accepted by the most powerful leaders of the land. So you have been here, I would say to each and every one of you, at a very historic time and you have performed a very valuable service to your Nation and to this Congress, and I commend you and thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, in the last election people gave this Congress a specific mandate: they want a smaller, more efficient and less costly government. This week Members of this body will have the opportunity to begin fulfilling that mandate by voting ``yes'' on a balanced budget amendment. I believe most Members would agree that this Government is too intrusive in our lives. By forcing ourselves to balance the budget, we can begin downsizing the Federal Government. The choice is clear, and the American people know it. If you want smaller, more efficient, and less costly government, then you will vote for the balanced budget amendment with tax limitation provision. But if you want to maintain the status quo of intrusive, big-government solutions, then you will vote against this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote with the American people and for the balanced budget amendment.