Walter Jones

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as the elected representative of North Carolina's Third Congressional District, I have the privilege of representing several fine military bases. As such, I am honored to represent the men and women in uniform at these installations who give their all to make the United States military the greatest fighting force in the world. They carry out their duties daily knowing that at any moment they might be asked to put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms. While I feel this same dedication to all of the military personnel in my district and around the world, I am here today to pay special tribute to two of the bases in my district, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base and Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. On March 23, the Pentagon announced the winners of the Commander in Chief's Award for Installation Excellence. Camp Lejeune was named best of the Marine Corps and Seymour Johnson was honored as being the best of all military bases across the services. Each year, U.S. military installations around the world compete within their branch of service for this award. Five awards are given out to the best of the best of all of the bases. It is quite a distinction. The criterion for qualifying is daunting. So I cannot truly express the pride that I felt to learn that two of the five best bases in the world are in the Third District of North Carolina. These awards are a tribute to commitment to excellence of the men and women who serve at these bases. They are also tributes to the fine leadership at each installations: General Norman Seip at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base and General Ron Richard at Camp Lejeune. I commend all of them for not just the dedication that it takes to win these pivotal awards but to their great service to our Nation. Mr. Speaker, this Friday the five bases that received the Commander in Chief's Award for Installation Excellence will be honored during a ceremony at the Pentagon. While schedule conflicts will unfortunately prevent me from attending the ceremony, I wanted the men and women who serve at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base and the Marine Corps' Camp Lejeune to know I am truly humbled and honored to be their representative in the United States Congress. So I offer my most heartfelt congratulations to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune and the people of Jacksonville, North Carolina, and to Seymour Johnson Air Force Base and the people of Goldsboro, North Carolina, on being recognized for what we in North Carolina have known all along, that they are indeed the best in the world.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, last week I attended a briefing before the House Committee on Armed Services regarding the decision to change the headgear of the United States Army from the traditional green folding cap to a black beret. There have been many hearings and briefings since this decision was announced, and it seems to me, following each one, another bit of information not previously known has come to light. The decision to disregard the history and proud tradition of the Rangers was the first bad decision. The decision to bypass the Berry amendment and purchase the berets from China and other foreign countries, rather than buy them from U.S. suppliers, was the second bad decision. I did not believe that this decision could become any worse, but the longer the situation drags on, the worse it seems to become. The bottom line is that we have troops without adequate ammunition and pilots who cannot fly because of a lack of funds, so why would the Army spend $23 million to change the color of a hat on the whim of one general? It just does not add up. Just like a dead fish, this seems to be rotting from the head down. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many of our retired and active duty Rangers, among them Sgt. Bill Round from my district and Sgt. David Nielsen, who are both veterans. Believe me when I say, contrary to what has been reported, they are not pleased with the decision to change the beret designation to tan. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will testify before the House Committee on Small Business regarding the matter in which the Berry amendment was arbitrarily dismissed. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the Committee on Small Business are to be commended for calling the hearing so that the Committee on Small Business can flesh out how the decision to bypass the Berry amendment was reached. During my testimony, I will be discussing a bill that I have introduced that will prevent an error like this from ever happening again in the future. However, the immediate need needs to be addressed right now. The decision regarding the change from folding green hats to black beret appears to be dying a slow death. Murmurings are circulating about shoddy workmanship, and I am sure that other problems will come to light following the hearing tomorrow. The time to bring an end to this ill-fated decision has come. It is my hope that the Congress and the administration can stop this outrage once and for all and restore the emblem which for so long has been a symbol of excellence in the United States Army, the Rangers wearing the black beret.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor, and I am not on the Committee on the Judiciary, as these fine ladies and gentlemen, to discuss the technical aspects of this bill. What I wanted to do was, Mr. Speaker, back in 1995, when I was sworn in as a United States Congressman, a friend of mine from my district brought to me this reprint of a political editorial from 1878. What it is, Mr. Speaker, the Statue of Liberty is standing with a weight around her neck, and her head is bent forward, and on the weight it says ``income tax.'' It further states at the bottom, ``the slave of liberty.'' I believe sincerely that taxation, excessive taxation, makes the American people slaves to the Federal Government. I think whenever we can bring protection to the American people we should, and that is exactly what H.J. Res. 41 does; it empowers the people through their Representatives here in Washington, D.C. I believe sincerely that today the American people are paying more taxes than they have ever paid before. When I look at how too many times I think those of us in Washington D.C., and I am one of those, obviously, that many times we forget that the people are the government. The power should be with the people. The people should be able to say to their representatives that you must have a supermajority to pass taxes on us, and I think this legislation does that. I compliment the chairman and his committee, because, quite frankly, because every year for the 7 years I have been in the United States Congress, whenever we brought this bill to the floor I have asked for 1 or 2 minutes to come to the floor, because, again, we need to give the power back to the people when we can, and to give the people the opportunity through the process to say whether they want the Congress to have a two-thirds majority to pass taxes. I think again we are doing the right thing, and I compliment the chairman and each and everyone who has worked on this resolution, and hope we will pass it shortly.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of the ``American Wetland Restoration Act.'' This legislation builds upon the wetlands mitigation banking legislation I introduced in the last 3 Congresses and also the 1995 Federal Guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. My Congressional district in eastern North Carolina includes most of the coast and four major river basins. More than 60% of my district could be classified as wetlands. My constituents are directly impacted by wetlands and the countless regulations that protect them. I have been contacted by farmers, business owners, state and local officials, land owners and even the military for advice and guidance in order to reach a balance between protecting these valuable resources while improving water quality but also providing for strong economic development. On almost a daily basis, we are reminded of the critical role wetlands play in our ecosystems, specifically in maintaining water quality. Wetlands mitigation banking is a concept readily embraced by regulators, developers and environmentalists. This balanced approach recognizes the need to protect our wetland resources while ensuring property owners their rights to have reasonable use of their properties. Federal legislation is not only warranted, it is vital. While mitigation banking is occurring, it is limited because the authorizing agencies have little or no statutory guidance. Also, investors and venture capitalists are hesitant to invest the money needed to restore wetlands without legal certainty. One of the great benefits of private mitigation banking is that the monitoring of one large tract of wetland requires fewer resources than monitoring thousands of tiny, unsuccessful mitigation projects. But, before a single credit is ever issued and before a wetlands mitigation banker can ever earn a dime, they must acquire land, develop a comprehensive restoration plan and establish a cash endowment for the long-term maintenance of the bank. This daunting challenge is magnified when you recall that there is no current statutory authority! These mitigation banks give economic value to wetlands, potentially providing billions of dollars to restoring wetlands in sensitive watersheds. Unlike other mitigation projects, mitigation banks are complete ecosystems. So instead of only trying to protect the remaining wetlands, mitigation banking will actually increase wetlands acreage! My legislation sets a simple but lofty goal: No net loss of wetlands. Specifically, the legislation requires (1) That mitigation banks meet rigorous financial standards to assure wetlands are restored and preserved over the long term; (2) That there is an ample opportunity for meaningful public participation; (3) That banks must have a credible long-term operation and maintenance plan; (4) That the banks be inspected by the same regulatory agencies who have assigned the credits and permitted the banks; and, (5) That the banks only receive credits if they prove the continuing ecological success of their project, thus allowing regulators to ensure a 100% success rate of the projects they monitor. Mitigation banking places the responsibility for restoration and preservation of wetlands in the hands of the experts and establishes the financial incentive to make the restoration work. By applying sound environmental engineering to the restoration process, setting up a longterm monitoring and maintenance endowment, and having the regulatory controls in place--these are the assurances my legislation requires of any potential banking project. This free-market approach to environmental conservation and stewardship is hard for some to swallow. But I ask you, many organizations have profited greatly from stringent environmental regulations, yet where has all the money gone that was allegedly spent on protecting the environment? And are our lands and waterways really in better hands when the Federal government is the owner or administrator? I do not believe the interests of the economy and the environment have to be at odds. Wetlands mitigation banking makes conservation good business. It provides the financial and ecological incentives to make restoring, preserving and protecting our environment successful. The end result, protecting and preserving environmentally sensitive lands, is assured with my legislation. The ``American Wetland Restoration Act'' will give wetlands mitigation banking the statutory authority it needs to flourish, and it will begin restoring the wetlands that many thought were lost forever. I hope my colleagues will join me supporting this bill.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation drafted to help preserve the U.S. textile industry. This legislation would seek to clarify the existing ``Buy-America'' provision for the Department of Defense, commonly known as the Berry Amendment. The Berry Amendment currently requires the Department to purchase clothing, specialty steel, textiles, and food that is produced in the United States by U.S. companies. The intent behind the legislation is to guarantee the U.S. military a ready mobilization base of U.S. apparel manufacturers--a critical component for rapid military mobilizations. The language has been a feature of defense procurement for over 50 years. However, as my colleagues may know, the Berry Amendment has recently resurfaced in the media following the decision by the Department of the Army to make the black beret a standard issue item for all Army personnel. The decision was controversial and short-sighted in its own right, but became further troubling when the Defense Logistics Agency decided to waive the Berry Amendment and allow the procurement of the berets from foreign sources--including a substantial number made in Communist China. The decision was not made because of a lack of existing U.S. suppliers to provide the berets. Nor was it made because of a lack of other textile manufacturers who might be willing to tool up to meet the demand. Instead, it was made because the Army wanted all of its personnel to have the berets by its next birthday. A date important to the Army and the Nation as it relates to the founding of that branch of service, but otherwise arbitrary as it relates to the purchase of berets. That decision was not just a slap in the face to the men and women who will be wearing the berets made by a potential enemy, but also to the U.S. textile industry who have long supported our men and women in uniform. This controversial waiver highlighted the need to review the current law and look for ways to improve its effectiveness. The legislation I am introducing today seeks to do just that. Specifically, the bill would add a requirement that for any waiver of the Buy American provision, the Secretary of Defense must notify the House and Senate committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Small Business. The legislation also requires that after Congress is notified, 30 days must pass before the contract can be let. Finally, the legislation clarifies and recodifies the Berry Amendment under the permanent section of U.S. code relating to defense procurement. Although the legislation does not eliminate the possibility of procuring this category of items overseas, it will improve congressional oversight of any Berry Amendment waivers. By raising the visibility of these waiver decisions, it is my hope that the Department of Defense will increase their level of scrutiny and prevent them from making such poor decisions in the future.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to once again bring attention to the issue of the decision by the Army Chief of Staff to issue black berets as standard issue head gear to all Army personnel. Until this decision was made, the black beret had been the outward symbol of the Army Rangers, one of the most elite fighting forces within the United States armed services. While much has been said regarding the decision, I believe that even more needs to be said, particularly regarding the decision to bypass the Barry amendment and purchase the bulk of the berets totaling nearly $35 million from Communist China. Mr. Speaker, at a time when the small businesses of our Nation are struggling for new business, it is a travesty that our own government has chosen to bypass the Buy American Rule in order to meet an arbitrary deadline. While the 225th birthday of the United States Army should be marked with great celebration, I do not believe that the men and women who so faithfully serve in the Army would want the day marked by having to wear a beret that says ``Made in China.'' I recently received a letter written by a small businessman from Sanford, North Carolina, and I will submit this letter for inclusion in the Record. Mr. Brooks Pomeranz is president of Cascade Fibers Company, a small mill that in a matter of a few short months could convert its cutting and sewing operation into a mill that could have produced at least a part of the beret order for the United States Army. He writes, and I quote him: ``With the decline of U.S. textiles and U.S. textile mills closing every month, it is unconscionable that our government is contracting foreign companies to manufacture these berets. With just a portion of this business being contracted to my company would enable us to keep 80 families from losing a vital income for their children. Our quality is outstanding and our service is superior. Eighty families, 80 moms, 80 dads and countless children whose livelihood would continue if this bill were given even a portion of the order for new berets. Instead, those berets will be made by men and women in China who work under the worst possible working conditions for merely pennies per day. The same men and women who are told that they are not allowed to worship as they please and who are told that they cannot have more than one child. And, at the center of all of this is the undeniable fact that United States tax dollars would go to a communistic government to be used for the purpose of weapons from our enemies to threaten and intimidate not only the people of the United States, but also our allies. This should concern all Americans.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the Committee on Small Business on the House side for holding next week's hearings on this issue, and I want to call on the House Committee on Armed Services on which I serve to seek possible remedies to this problem before it is too late. The men and women of the United States Army and small business owners around the country deserve at least that much. Mr. Speaker, the letter I referred to earlier follows: Cascade Fibers Company, Sanford, NC, March 21, 2001. Hon. Walter B. Jones, House of Representatives, Cannon Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Jones: I am the president of Cascade Fibers, a small textile company in Sanford NC employing 80 associates. Cascade Fibers, a cut and sew textile business, makes table linens, table skirting, placemats, napkins, and aprons for the hospitality, rental laundry, and retail markets. Our quality is outstanding, and our service is superior. But with large corporations buying out smaller companies, and with the growth of overseas napery being sold at a much cheaper price, Cascade Fibers is experiencing a very difficult time competing in this market, and our time may soon be running out. I am including articles that I have recently read regarding berets that our military will be wearing that are to be manufactured overseas so that our soldiers will have them for the US Army's 226th birthday on June 14th. With the decline of US textiles and US textiles mills closing every month, it unconscionable that our government is contracting foreign companies to manufacture these berets. With a portion of this business being contracted to Cascade Fibers, would enable us to keep 80 families from losing a vital income for their children. Our quality is outstanding and our service is superior. I am asking for your help ASAP to help me promote my company to the right contacts to be able to receive a portion of this business. Anything that you can do will be greatly appreciated by these American families so they can continue to provide for their children. Sincerely, Brooks Pomeranz, President.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support the Republican Study Committee budget. This budget is good for the American people, and this budget helps to rebuild the military. Mr. Chairman, this is a very unsafe world. I want to make reference to three news articles and read the titles. In February of this past year, 2000, ``China Warns U.S. of Missile Strike.'' The second article I want to make reference to, ``Russia Sends Cruise Missiles to China for New War Ships.'' Mr. Chairman, just today, ``Admiral Warns of Perilous Buildup of Chinese Missiles.'' Mr. Chairman, this budget helps to rebuild the military. Let me further state that China has proposed a 17.7 percent increase in defense spending for this coming year. That is the largest increase in 20 years. In addition, when all the expenditures are added up, it is generally believed that China's defense spending is three or four times the official figure. China figures defense spending as a percentage of their total government expenditure is 8.29 percent in the year 2000. Let me talk a little bit about the American military and why this budget bill is so needed. Today, the U.S. spends less than 3 percent of its GDP on national security. We are near the lowest level of defense spending as a percentage of GDP since before the Korean War. We do not have the luxury of time, Mr. Chairman, to rebuild our Nation's military. Let me say, in closing, this is a great bill for many reasons, but one very important reason is to help rebuild the military of this country. It is time to rebuild our military for the good of the American people.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, last week the Pentagon announced that an agreement had been reached regarding the Army Chief of Staff's decision to issue black berets for all Army personnel. After months of discord caused by what can only be called a gross error in judgment, it was decided that the Rangers would change from the honored black beret which they had been wearing since 1951 to a tan beret and the regular Army personnel would now wear the black beret. Once again the Rangers, among the most elite soldiers that the Army has to offer, took a back seat to political correctness and social engineering within, and I quote, ``the Army of one.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to read for Members some of the letters that I have received from citizens regarding this issue. This letter is from Mr. Harold Westerholm, a World War II Ranger from Oxford, North Carolina: The Rangers fought hard to gain the respect and to be bestowed the honor of wearing a black beret. Merely giving the ordinary soldier the privilege of wearing a black beret will not improve his morale. Morale is gained through respect, respect which is earned through deed. Let me also quote a letter from Mr. James Roe: I strongly disagree with the United States Army ignoring the Made in America Act for the purchase of the black berets. It is unbelievable to me that you would allow our military to purchase the new headgear from China. North Carolina is a major textile-producing State, which has been devastated by low-cost Chinese imports. How did you let this happen? How can our brave men and women be forced to wear Chinese- manufactured berets? My answer to Mr. Roe and to the millions of other Americans who have asked that question is that it happened because the Congress was not consulted or informed of the decision to bypass the Buy American Act. I spoke with a small business owner yesterday who would have gladly bid on the order for the berets if she had only been given the opportunity. What is more, she could have made the berets for almost $3 less than it is costing you and me and every taxpayer to import them from Communist China. Also, I heard from retired Lieutenant Colonel William Luther. Colonel Luther wrote: Those who can act on this matter need to wake up and understand that what they are about to let happen will cost the Army and our country far more than money can ever buy. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the letters that I have received on this issue, but these letters represent the feelings and sentiment of thousands who are sickened by this original decision and by the bogus resolution that the Rangers were forced to agree to. I am still greatly perplexed and extremely disappointed that this decision and the series of bad decisions that followed were allowed to stand. I hope that it is not too late for this Congress to intervene on behalf of the Rangers, small business owners and U.S. manufacturing companies before it is too late. I along with many of my colleagues will not let this matter simply drop. We will continue to encourage the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings so the American people can know the truth once and for all. Mr. Speaker, I close by saying, God bless our men and women in uniform, and God bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I was honored to have two former Army Rangers visit my Washington office. Sergeant David Nielsen was just finishing a grueling 750-mile march from Fort Benning, Georgia, to Washington, D.C. For much of the march, he was accompanied by Sergeant Bill Round, a fellow Ranger, a Vietnam veteran and a constituent of mine. The purpose behind this march was simple. They wanted to protest a recent directive issued by the Army Chief of Staff that makes the black beret, the long-standing symbol of the Rangers, standard issue for all Army soldiers. Mr. Speaker, our Rangers are unique. They volunteer to undergo intense training and endure great sacrifices in the name of freedom. At the end of their training, they are presented with the black beret. The beret has a long history beginning with Rogers Rangers who fought during the French and Indian War. In 1951, Ranger units at Fort Benning, Georgia, began wearing the black beret; and in 1975, the Department of Army officially authorized Rangers, and only Rangers, to wear the black beret. No matter where we have called our Rangers to serve, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Somalia, they have done so with honor and distinction. As we sat in my office, Sergeant Nielsen told me about another Ranger, a silent marcher who also accompanied him on this journey. His name was PFC James Markwell. PFC Markwell and Sergeant Nielsen had just recently completed their Ranger training when our country called upon them to participate in the invasions of Panama. They both answered the call knowing that the mission could cost them their lives, which was, indeed, the case for PFC Markwell. After Markwell was killed in action, it was Sergeant Nielsen who was assigned to recover his body and accompany his fallen comrade home on his final journey. As Sergeant Nielsen marched to Washington, he carried in his cargo pocket the very essence of every Ranger, the black beret of his fallen brother. The black beret is more than a symbol of an elite fighting unit. It is an outward symbol of those who have gone before, those Rangers who fell in combat, and those who have returned to their families. It is also about the commitment of today's Rangers who sacrifice much, who leave the comforts of their families, and place themselves in harm's way when duty calls. On June 14 of the year 2001, by directive of the United States Army Chief of Staff, all U.S. Army soldiers will be issued a black beret as standard issue. The Special Forces will still wear their green berets. Our Airborne troops will still wear their maroon berets. But after a quarter century of being the only soldiers authorized to wear the black beret, the Rangers will be without the beret that has stood as their symbol of pride and tradition. As if all of this were not enough, it has recently come to light that the Pentagon has bypassed the ``Buy American'' law and purchased the bulk of the 3 million berets from Communist China. In my opinion, this only adds insult to injury. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Pentagon wants our soldiers to wear headgear produced in a communist country and at a cost of $35 million. I do not think a potential adversary should be producing a beret that has come to symbolize honor and valor. This is one more example of political correctness gone wrong. Social engineering within the armed forces of the United States is a policy Bill Clinton started. It has been divisive and distracting to the morale of our forces; and it needs to end, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to, again, thank Sergeant Nielsen and Sergeant Round for their efforts to bring attention to this most important issue. They are two men who served our Nation honorably and who do not want to see the black beret sacrificed in the name of political correctness. Mr. Speaker, I close by saying God bless the men and women in uniform and God bless America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 26-27 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Schrock, and the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler. The accident that occurred this past weekend in Georgia was indeed a tragic one. Twenty-one citizen soldiers lost their lives on the way back from their annual 2-week training exercise. One of the National Guardsmen, Master Sergeant Michael Lane, was from Moyock, North Carolina, which I have the privilege to represent. As this resolution indicates, the thoughts and prayers of this Congress and this nation are with the family and friends of the victims. However, it is important to ensure that the tragic deaths of these 21 soldiers, as well as the deaths of the 2 Marine aviators killed in a Harrier crash on February 3, the 6 Army personnel killed in the Blackhawk accident on February 12, and the 2 Navy personnel killed in a T-45 Goshawk crash on February 21, did not happen in vain. These accidents should serve as stark reminders that the freedoms America enjoys are not without cost. Every day, the men and women of our Armed Forces risk their lives in the defense of our national interests. It is a dangerous job whether they are stationed on the DMZ in Korea or as these accidents demonstrate, training here at home. We owe it to these brave souls to support them, honor them, and thank them for everything that they and their predecessors have given us. I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution. Most of all, I urge them to remember the sacrifices made daily by both our men and women in uniform and by their families.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect the Social Security benefits of our senior citizens. With the prospect of Social Security reform looming in the not so distant future, it is important that we assure seniors that their benefits will not be cut to expedite Social Security reform. Seniors have worked too hard for a secure retirement, to see it jeopardized by a short-sighted effort to ensure future Social Security solvency. Under current law, Americans have no property right to their Social Security benefits. Many Americans have paid Social Security taxes over their working lifetimes and are planning for retirement with the expectation that they will receive these Social Security benefits. However, at any time, Congress could eliminate or reduce these benefits in the name of Social Security reform. The Social Security Guarantee Act would eliminate concerns over benefit reduction by seeking to give seniors a property right to their retirement benefits. Specifically, it would require the Secretary of the Treasury to issue to each recipient of Social Security retirement benefits a certificate that includes a written guarantee of a fixed monthly benefit, plus a guaranteed annual cost-of-living increase. By doing so, we hope to eliminate the use of senior scare tactics that have doomed Social Security reform prospects in the past. I believe this is an important first step toward meaningful Social Security reform. We as members of Congress have a duty to our seniors to ensure their retirement security will not be jeopardized. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the overall goal of reforming the Social Security program so that today's workers will have the retirement that they deserve as well. Please join me in supporting this legislation as the beginning of meaningful discourse on Social Security reform.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, upon my election to the House of Representatives in 1994, I opened a district office in Greenville, NC located next door to the local Social Security Administration. Little did I realize at the time how beneficial this location would be in helping the people of the third district. As you can imagine, my district office over the past 6 years has been busy assisting constituents with their Social Security problems. The work my office has performed on these cases has allowed my staff and I to develop a number of wonderful relationships with the employees of the Administration. One of these relationships in particular has proven to be especially valuable--the relationship between my office and Mr. Fred Lilley, district manager in the Social Security office next door. Fred Lilley has always been most helpful to my office. Time and time again he has assisted my staff and I in resolving problems for my constituents and has offered valuable advice and insight. That is why, while happy for Fred, I was somewhat saddened to hear of his upcoming retirement from the Social Security Administration. Upon Fred Lilley's retirement on December 30, 2000, we will be losing a committed and caring public servant--one who has dedicated his career to helping his fellow man. He has given 40 years of service to the citizens of our Nation through his work with the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Army and Army Reserves. Originally from Martin County, NC, Fred began working for the Social Security Administration following graduation from East Carolina College in 1960. During the ensuing years he worked in a number of offices throughout the southeast, including a ten year assignment in Social Security's Atlanta Regional Office before being transferred to Greenville in July of 1979. Since that time he has served as District Manager in Greenville, which includes both the Greenville and Elizabeth City offices. The Greenville District serves eight northeastern North Carolina Counties having over 45,000 beneficiaries receiving over $300 million annually in Social Security benefits. Fred's respect for individual differences, his ability to build on their strengths and compensate for weaknesses, has made him the quality manager with whom we have enjoyed working. Fred Lilley loves his country, is active in local and community events, and lives each day to its fullest. A retired Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, Fred is also a member of the Reserve Officers Association, the Civil Affairs Associations, The Association of the U.S. Army, and is a member and past President of the Greenville Civitan Club. He is a loving husband to his wife, Lenora who is an assistant librarian at a local elementary school and a wonderful father to his daughter Gail, who currently resides in Florida. The service that Fred Lilley has given to the taxpayers for the past forty years has, in my opinion, exemplified what a true public servant should be. His concern about efficiency and always making sure the citizens are given courteous and sincere service will long be remembered as Fred Lilley's legacy.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago, Hurricane Floyd struck the 3rd District of North Carolina, causing billions of dollars of damage and displacing thousands of families. Eastern North Carolina is no stranger to extreme weather conditions and my district always seems to rise to the challenge posed by these natural disasters. But there is something that goes unnoticed by many, goes unreported by the newspapers and broadcast media, goes unappreciated by many who call themselves environmentalists and goes unrecognized by many in Congress. Corporate America and businesses in general are an integral component of our neighborhoods and communities devastated by Hurricane Floyd. Weyerhaueser, one of the world's leading forest products companies, is one company I'd like to recognize as a good neighbor during the worse natural disaster in state's history. I'd like to place in the Record this letter commending Weyerhauesuer and their efforts during this national calamity. Without responsible companies like Weyerhaueser, recovery in Eastern North Carolina would have been impossible. On behalf of Eastern North Carolina, I rise today to thank Weyerhaueser and their heartfelt actions after Hurricane Floyd. North Carolina Flood Puts Weyerhaeuser's Employee Support to the Test By Elizabeth Crossman, vice president of the Weyerhaeuser Company Foundation NEW BERN, NC--In September, 1999, rising floodwaters in the wake of Hurricane Floyd made thousands of eastern North Carolinians homeless, and caused billions of dollars in damage to property, commerce and infrastructure. It was the worst natural disaster in the state's history. For Weyerhaeuser, one of the world's leading forest products companies, the floods posed the ultimate challenge to the company's commitment to its employees. Weyerhaeuser operates 16 facilities or offices across North Carolina--primarily sawmills and pulp and paper manufacturing plants located near its substantial timber holdings in the coastal plain. About two-thirds of Weyerhaeuser's North Carolina workforce of about 3,000 make their homes in that section of North Carolina that bore the brunt of the storm. Of course Weyerhaeuser faced immediate challenges in the aftermath of the floods. Several mills were either flooded themselves, or cut off from employees and raw materials by impassable roads. Communities in which the company operates were in turmoil, with schools closed, utilities disrupted and relief organizations rushing to the area to set up temporary services. While dealing with these concerns, the company's unit managers had to take inventory of who among their employees was affected and to what extent. It took several weeks to get an accurate count, with human resource and corporate affairs managers comparing notes. The impact was substantial. Over ninety active employees or retirees were harmed by the storm, most of them significantly. In fact 35 suffered total losses. Meanwhile, at corporate headquarters in Federal Way, Washington, executives were already understanding the seriousness of the situation in North Carolina, and crafting their first response. The Weyerhaeuser Company Foundation maintains an emergency budget to respond quickly when disasters strike communities where the company operates. This fund, for example, was tapped to support Oklahoma City after the bombing of the federal building in 1996. And, in response to the devastating flooding in eastern North Carolina, the Foundation promptly appropriated $100,000 to support four local American Red Cross chapters who were providing immediate assistance to impacted communities. Within weeks, Weyerhaeuser Chairman and CEO Steve Rogel was on the ground in North Carolina assessing the damage first hand and meeting with impacted employees. He heard the same message repeatedly. ``Our employees told me they needed immediate funds in order to get into temporary housing, and they needed advice and help to deal with the relief agencies and insurance companies. That's where we aimed our support,'' said Rogel. Rogel and his team of corporate and North Carolina advisors crafted an action plan that they put into place within days. Dedicated fund for employees: Working with the United Way chapter of Pitt County in Greenville, NC, the company set up a dedicated account to collect funds for employee flood victims. A corporate gift of $100,000 was eventually more than doubled by individual employee donations from throughout the company. Dedicated advocate: A full-time manager was assigned to set up individual case files for all 93 impacted employees and assist each of them in their dealings with relief agencies, insurance companies, state and county governments, lawyers and others. Counseling for victims: The company offered crisis counseling to its employees and their family members through its Employee and Family Assistance Program (EFAP). Adopt-A-Family program: The Weyerhaeuser Company Foundation organized a program by which facilities and staff groups throughout the company could ``adopt'' a family affected by the floods. The Adopt-A-Family benefactors continue to provide monetary or in-kind contributions as their circumstances allow, and offer personal solace and encouragement for their colleagues in need. All 51 employees or retirees with total or significant losses have been adopted. Coordination of recovery efforts: The corporate-assigned flood victim advocate, working with a team of North Carolina human resource managers, coordinates recovery activities, including distribution of money from the United Way fund to employees, soliciting donations of building materials from Weyerhaeuser manufacturing facilities and scheduling volunteers for clean-up or rebuilding projects. As a result of Weyerhaeuser's prompt and unique approach, employee flood victims have realized many tangible benefits. Over $257,000 has been distributed to employees in need from the dedicated fund administered by Pitt County United Way. All employees or retirees with total or significant losses were placed with facilities or staff groups through Adopt-A- Family. All have received substantial support, including in some cases automobiles, appliances, furniture, personal items and cash. All but four employees made homeless by the flood are in new or rebuilt housing, with everyone expected to be back home by year-end. Katy Taylor, appointed by Weyerhaeuser to fill the advocate's role, has chronicled the events of the flood and the recovery in the year since. She has been moved both by the plight of the affected employees and by the generosity of those responding. ``For someone who has lost just about everything they worked all their lives for, knowing there are people supporting you in your time of need is so important. Weyerhaeuser's corporate support and the Adopt-A-Family program gave our impacted employees somewhere to turn when they thought there was none,'' Taylor said. Her experience has led Weyerhaeuser to conclude some key benefits that other companies could gain by following a similar approach. Taylor defines four key benefits: productivity; pride; citizenship and partnership. Weyerhaeuser's businesses recover productivity more quickly and enjoy a closer working relationship between management and labor. Employee pride in the company is enhanced, both among those receiving support and giving it. The relationship between Weyerhaeuser and its operating communities is strengthened. Partnerships are formed among the company and public and private relief agencies that will remain long after the last employees are back in their homes. ``We will carry forward many positive results that we should not have had reason to expect from such a tragedy,'' Taylor added. No company wants to experience the anguish of employees and turmoil to business operations caused by events like North Carolina's flooding. However, when faced with the situation, Weyerhaeuser listened to its people on the ground, acted decisively and came up with unique approaches to difficult problems. The end result is that employees fared better than they would have otherwise, and Weyerhaeuser has a program it can deploy should disaster strike again.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the manager's amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. This bipartisan piece of legislation is a tribute to the outgoing Chairman Bud Shuster and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar. I want to touch on two components of the legislation that I wholeheartedly support. Representing a district that sits within a 100-year floodplain along Hurricane Alley is often a daunting but fulfilling task. Hurricane Floyd ripped through Eastern North Carolina more than one year ago, causing billions of dollars of damage and displacing thousands of families. While recovery is progressing and people's lives are slowing returning to normal, our rivers and streams remain clogged with debris from that horrific storm. If these streams are not immediately cleared after major disasters, flooding problems will be exacerbated and North Carolina will continue to remain vulnerable to extreme weather conditions. For instance, one country in my district, Onslow County, has almost 600 miles of rivers and streams that remain clogged, a continuing threat to life, property and economic development. Included in the legislation is a demonstration project authorizing the Army Corps of Engineers to remove accumulated snags and debris in Eastern North Carolina rivers and tributaries immediately following major disasters. The accumulated debris in our rivers and streams are a contributing factor in the disastrous floods experienced by eastern North Carolina in the last few years. Without this provision, flood control problems will worsen as urban centers are now being impacted by floodwaters. This emergency authority for the Army Corps of Engineers will help alleviate continued flooding within Eastern North Carolina and supplement other flood control programs. The proposed program will not only aid navigation and safety, but it will also help the flow of the rivers themselves. With this provision, Eastern North Carolina will be better prepared to deal with extreme weather events like Hurricanes Bertha, Fran, Dennis, Floyd and Irene in the future. The second provision I support is an authorization for hurricane and storm damage reduction for Dare County, North Carolina. The authorization affects the towns of Nags Head, Kill Devil Hills, and Kitty Hawk. I am a strong supporter of beach nourishment, not just for the 3 million tourists who visit our shores every year, but also for storm protection for our homes and infrastructure. It is not well remembered, but it is nevertheless a fact, that these communities--indeed most of North Carolina's Outer Banks--have been protected for well over a half a century by a line of dunes constructed by the federal government under the Works Progress Administration. These dunes have been a wise investment of resources. Now, however, these dunes and berms have deteriorated and must be repaired. Erosion along North Carolina's shoreline threatens the future existence of these beaches and shore protection is truly the only option available to ensure coastal areas will be here tomorrow. Nourishment of these beaches will provide the best protection against the devastating effects of storm surges on the dune system, private property, roads and other critical public infrastructure guaranteeing a healthy and fortified coastline. Without beach nourishment these reinforcement measures cannot take place. Unfortunately it takes years for the Army Corps of Engineers and the local communities to actually place sand on the affected beaches. Shore protection projects have become entangled with numerous state and federal environmental regulations. In addition, the projects are even further delayed by the Clinton- Gore Administration's opposition to beach nourishment, under which there have been no new startups of beach nourishment programs. I am hopeful that a new Administration will support such a sound program to protect both our communities and precious natural resources. Rest assured that I will continue to support shore protection and other initiatives along the North Carolina coast. It is essential that we protect the entire coast for the inhabitants and visitors today as well for future generations. I commend the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for bringing this important legislation to the House floor. I hope it will be possible for us to improve this bill today and for the House and the other body to agree on a final version of this critical legislation prior to adjournment. This bill is a victory for Eastern North Carolina, a victory for Congress, and a victory for America.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and conference report. Since I came to Congress almost 6 years ago, the Congress has made rebuilding our military a top priority. Each year we have been able to make great strides towards this goal, and this bill is another critical example of our efforts. This defense bill is a great credit to the outstanding leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) and also the strong leadership of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our ranking member. More importantly, it is a fitting tribute to those who serve our Nation in uniform and to those who have served. This legislation takes concrete steps toward providing the proper resources to equip and train the military of today, as well as making the investments needed to support the military of tomorrow. It provides the proper financial support for our military personnel by providing a 3.7 percent pay raise for those in uniform and by reforming the pay tables for those critical mid-career, noncommissioned and petty officers. This legislation invests heavily in the important quality of life and health care accounts to ensure that we are not only able to recruit the best and brightest men and women in the military but also to keep them. That is extremely important to the defense of this Nation. Finally, by expanding access to TRICARE and by providing a pharmacy benefit to our Medicare-eligible retirees, this Congress is ensuring that a promise made is a promise kept. Despite these great accomplishments, we must also recognize that we still have much work to do. We must continue to address modernization and readiness accounts. We must eliminate the inequity caused by the prohibition against receiving retiree pay and disability pay. We must continue to invest in the most important aspect of our military, our people. I thank the chairman and ranking member. I urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation for our men and women in uniform, past present and the future.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to protest the funding levels for the National Endowment for the Arts. Last week my colleague from Indiana stood in this well to discuss the play called ``Corpus Christi'' a play that depicts all the Apostles as the homosexual lovers of Christ. While the Government did not directly fund the play, the American taxpayer funded the theater through the National Endowment for the Arts. Last year, this theater received two grants, $50,000 apiece. Many of us in this Chamber believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. It is immoral and reprehensible to us that we must fund a theater that would stage this depraved production that some government bureaucrat considered art. In the name of art, many on the other side of the aisle will suggest this issue be about freedom of speech. But, once again the National Endowment for the Arts has shown it has little responsibility or accountability to the taxpayers. Does freedom of speech not come with a modicum of responsibility? Not if you're the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA has developed a pattern, continuing to this day, of throwing dollars to organizations so that they may promote religious bigotry and pornography. Now, I'm not against the arts. I believe there is an important role for arts in society. But let's have a standard for what should be publicly funded. This chamber agreed to a freeze, to cap the funds for the National endowment for the Arts. But again, I see we're increasing funding for this program with little or no accountability to the taxpayer to the tune of $105 million next year. I'm a music lover but this tune sounds flat to me. I am offended that this program allows obscene, pornographic, immoral and blasphemous theaters to be funded with our tax dollars. Let the theater or the production company find the funding for that. From someplace other than the American taxpayer.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address this body on the issue of military readiness. Yesterday, the Committee on Armed Services held a lengthy hearing regarding the state of our Nation's military. During that hearing, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Service Chiefs of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines offered frank testimony regarding the ability of our Nation to meet the security challenges facing us today. As I participated in yesterday's hearing, I could not help but think that an important part of our military was not being heard: The United States Coast Guard. While some might not realize it, the United States Coast Guard is our Nation's fifth military service. In one form or another, the Coast Guard has served our country alongside her sister services in peace and war since 1790. As a recent Presidentially approved study on the roles and missions of the Coast Guard certified, the Coast Guard's special capabilities are as well suited to the national defense mission of the 21st century as they were in 1790. Whether it is drug interdiction or illegal immigrants along our Nation's shores or serving with our naval forces in the Balkans and the gulf, the Coast Guard is a vital part of our overall national security strategy. Unfortunately, with that responsibility has also come many of the same readiness difficulties facing the other branches of the military. They are facing challenges in recruiting and retaining personnel, in keeping up with rising operation and maintenance costs caused by aging equipment and by performing dramatically increased missions with greater decreased manpower. A USA Today article published last May highlighted many of these problems facing the Coast Guard, and I will be providing a copy of the article, Mr. Speaker, for the Record. The writer of this article identified several of the concerns when indicating that despite soaring operational commitments, the Coast Guard, which has 35,000 active duty service members, is the same size as it was in 1967. Enlisted experience has declined from 8.8 years in 1995 to 7.9 years today, and is expected to drop to 7.1 years in the year 2003. The percentages of experienced pilots who leave every year has doubled since 1995, soaring from 20 percent to 40 percent. I further quote the article: ``The Coast Guard has only half of the certified surfmen it needs to operate rescue boats in the most dangerous conditions.'' The author went on to say that equipment is also a problem. ``On any given day, just 60 percent of the HC-130 fleet is fit for duty. Some have been turned into `hangar queens,' cannibalized for spare parts to keep other aircraft flying. The Coast Guard's major cutters are an average of more than 30 years old. Many smaller boats date to the Vietnam War. Such a creaky fleet is no match for drug smugglers.'' From these anecdotes alone it is easy to see the challenges facing the Coast Guard are not minor. The men and women of our fifth armed services are some of the best, the brightest, and the most dedicated military personnel in the world. They serve our Nation with pride, and we owe it to them to ensure that they are properly resourced to perform their missions. Mr. Speaker, when this Congress and the American people debate the issue of military readiness, it is imperative that the Coast Guard be included as part of the debate. That debate is important to ensuring that the Coast Guard will always be able to live up to its motto, Semper Paratus, always ready. Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record the news article referred to above: [From USA Today, May 16, 2000] Readiness Problems Plague Coast Guard (By Andrea Stone) Washington--For 210 years, the Coast Guard has lived its motto, Semper Paratus. Always ready. Yet there are mounting questions today about whether that still holds true. When President Clinton speaks to Coast Guard Academy graduates in New London, Conn., Wednesday, he will face members of a military service whose national security role has expanded in the last three decades even as its ranks have shrunk to 1967 proportions. At a time when drugs, terrorism, pollution and illegal migration pose a bigger threat than foreign armies, the Coast Guard is the federal agency in charge of monitoring them all. And it must do so without skimping on its No. 1 priority: saving lives. Last year, the Coast Guard answered 39,000 calls for help and saved 3,800 people. Yet with an enlisted force that is younger and less experienced every year and a fleet that is older than 38 of 41 navies of similar size and mission, there is evidence that its core mission is being compromised: A shortage of serviceable HC-130 search planes may have contributed to the death last fall of a boater who called for help during a storm off the California coast. Four people drowned in 1997 near Charleston, S.C., during a storm after an inexperienced watchstander failed to pick up the word ``Mayday!'' on a radio distress call. The National Transportation Safety Board later cited ``substandard performance'' by the service. That same year, three Coast Guard crewmembers died when their boat capsized during a rescue attempt off the coast of Washington. An internal report blamed a lack of training and experience, noting that many crews are ``unqualified to fill the billets to which they have been assigned.'' ``They're reaching the edge of their capabilities,'' says Mortimer Downey, deputy secretary of Transportation, which oversees the Coast Guard. ``We're seeing less than optimum performance.'' In what was called a ``cultural shift'' signaling that crews would no longer try to do more with less, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. James Loy ordered in March an unprecedented 10% cut in non-emergency operations. ``The strains caused by having tired people run old equipment beyond human and mechanical limits (degrades) our readiness,'' he said recently. ``Coasties'' will still answer every call for help. But safety inspections and patrols to catch drug smugglers, illegal migrants and foreign vessels illegally fishing in U.S. waters have been scaled back. The Coast Guard commander on Nantucket Island, Mass., has stopped operations for eight months though crews will still respond to search-and- rescue emergencies and oil spills. He said his crews need the time to repair their boats and train. ``The reduction in Coast Guard presence on the high seas will undoubtedly mean more illegal drugs will not (sic) stopped, more illegal migrants will reach our shores, and more foreign fishing vessels will harvest our marine resources,'' retired vice admiral Howard Thorsen wrote in May's issue of Proceedings. Since 1976, when Congress expanded the coastal limit from 12 miles to 200 miles, the Coast Guard has enforced the law in the United States' exclusive economic zone--at 3.4 million square miles the world's largest. During that same period, the service was given the jobs of protecting the marine environment, stopping illegal migrants and interdicting drug smugglers. The last two decades have also seen safety-related duties expand as the number of recreational boats and passenger cruise ships has skyrocketed. Yet the Coast Guard, which has 35,000 active-duty service members, is the same size as in 1967. It joined the other military services in a post-Cold War downsizing that saw 5,000 people leave in the 1990s. And now, like those services, it is struggling to cope with high turnover and tough recruiting in a red-hot economy: Enlisted experience has declined from 8.8 years in 1995 to 7.9 years today and is expected to drop to 7.1 years in 2003. The percentage of experienced pilots who leave every year has doubled since 1995, soaring from 20% to 40%. More than a quarter of enlisted cruise ship and charter boat safety inspectors have not attended entry-level marine safety courses. A third of lieutenant commander safety billets are filled with junior lieutenants. The Coast Guard has half the certified surfmen it needs to operate rescue boats in the most dangerous conditions. Aging equipment adds to problems. On any given day, just 60% of the HC-130 fleet is fit for duty. Some have been turned into ``hangar queens,'' cannibalized for spare parts to keep other aircraft flying. The Coast Guard's major cutters are an average of more than 30 years old. Many smaller boats also date to the Vietnam War. Such a creaky fleet is no match for drug smugglers. Thsi year, at least 400 souped-up speedboats carrying tons of illegal drugs from Colombia will cut through the Caribbean at up to 50 knots per hour. The fastest cutters reach 30 knots. The result is that nine of 10 smugglers get away. In December, a government task force recognized the problems and endorsed replacing the entire fleet with electronically linked high-tech cutters, small boats, fixed- wing aircraft, helicopters and satellites. The so-called Deepwater project, which has bipartisan support, would cost at least $500 million a year for the next 20 years. By Pentagon standards, the project is modest. But then again, the Coast Guard's $4.1 billion budget is tiny compared with the Pentagon's nearly $300 billion budget.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation offered the Chairman and Ranking Members of the Veterans Affairs Committee. I do not have to remind the Members of this body that our Nation would not have the prosperity we enjoy if it had not been for the millions of men and women who signed up to serve in our nation's armed forces. Their willingness to offer their lives in the defense of our Nation is the very reason that we enjoy the freedoms we have today. We owe them a debt of gratitude and the legislation before us today is one more innovative way to ensure that we fulfill that obligation. I support the legislation for several reasons: First, I think the proposal to allow rural veterans access to health through local facilities could dramatically increase access for those veterans who must travel great distances to receive care. Second, this legislation recognizes that we must also ensure that we have the most capable people providing the care that those veterans have earned. Third, the bill has the potential to greatly improve the quality of care our veterans receive by better integrating the providers of that care into the policy making process. As our veterans' population continues to age, we must always look outside the box of existing policies to further improve the care and support we provide. H.R. 5109 meets that goal and is a bill that needs to be signed into law. I urge my colleagues to work with me to improve the quality and access to health care for our Nation's veterans and pass the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Act of 2000.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, last night I was meeting with constituents in North Carolina and unavoidably missed rollcall votes 477 and 478. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 477 and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 478.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Debt Relief Lockbox Reconciliation Act. According to the Department of Treasury, our national debt stands at over $5.6 trillion. Every man, woman, and child owes $21,000 for that debt. Even in these strong economic times, that debt remains an albatross over the prosperity of future generations. This legislation takes steps to correct that problem. It would ensure that the vast majority of the surplus is reserved for two important purposes: (1) to ensure that the Medicare and Social Security are preserved and (2) to reduce the public debt. We have a moral obligation to uphold these principles. Not only are they critical to Americans today, but they will greatly impact American generations of tomorrow. The bill introduced by my friend and colleague from Kentucky would reduce the publicly held debt by an additional $240 billion in FY01 and would protect all of the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. By using 90% of the projected FY01 surplus, we are making a good-faith, common-sense effort to put an end to all publicly held debt by 2012, keeping with the promises made when I was first elected in 1994. Instead of spending this money on more unnecessary federal programs in Washington, we are putting a real downpayment on a better future for America. I urge my colleagues to join me this week in voting that future.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 4892, and I wonder so many times the American people are wondering why America's in such moral decay, and then I look at this legislation, and then I ask myself how in the world can we in Congress even be debating such an outrageous bill such as H.R. 4892, because, Mr. Speaker, in the Scout oath the word ``morally straight,'' what does morally straight mean to the other side that is supporting this legislation? I realize the President of the United States does not understand what morally straight means, but there are many people throughout the district that I represent and throughout this country that understand that we need to be morally straight. We need to look to God, we need to look to the Ten Commandments. That is what the Boy Scouts help the youth of America do. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) for giving me this opportunity, and I want to say to the Democrats who booed the Scouts at the Democratic convention, you should be ashamed of yourselves. There should have been one leader at the Democratic convention to stand up to chastise those who booed the Boy Scouts. God bless America. God bless the Boy Scouts.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time, and also the ranking member. Madam Speaker, I bring a little different perspective, because my father, who is deceased, served in the United States Congress from 1966 to 1992, and he had the pleasure of serving with Jim Broyhill. At the time, I was a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives, a Democrat at that time, and my father and I would talk on the weekends, and many times those conversations would deal with his colleagues in Washington, both the delegation, both Republicans and Democrats. The reason I wanted to come to the floor was because my father told me, he said there was not a finer Member of Congress than Jim Broyhill, because he was a man of quality and a man of integrity. So I think the fact that my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), has offered H.R. 4534 and the committee has brought it to the floor is a special day, not only for Jim Broyhill and his family, but also the citizens of North Carolina, because I think too many times, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) said in his comments, too many times the people do not realize there are more workhorses in the U.S. Congress than show horses, and that is probably the way it needs to be, because we are doing, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) said, the people's business. I just wanted to come to the floor to say to Jim Broyhill, Senator Broyhill, and his wife and his children and their grandchildren, that this is not only a great day for you, but it is a great day for North Carolina, because you have been and still are one of the finest citizens, you and your family, and America is a better place because you served in the United States House and the United States Senate.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today I pay a special tribute to Postmaster Roy C. Bunch who resides in North Carolina's Third Congressional District, which I have the privilege to represent. Next week friends, family, and officials will gather at the Albemarle Plantation in Hertford to recognize Mr. Bunch for 50 years of dedicated service to the federal government. Mr. Bunch began his career in the United States Navy on August 24, 1944 and served our Nation until March 6, 1946. His career as Postmaster of the Belvidere facility began on January 24, 1952 where he has tirelessly served for over 48 years. After fifty years of service to the Federal Government and to the men, women and children of our great Nation, Mr. Bunch is not slowing down. He is in wonderful health and has mentioned no plans of retirement. He currently resides in Belvidere, North Carolina with his wife of 51 years, Clemma Bunch. Together Roy and Clemma have one son and a daughter. He continues to be an exemplary example of an outstanding public servant and for that I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Bunch. All of our federal employees deserve great thanks from this Nation. It is not an overstatement to say that without federal employees our country would not be able to function. They touch every aspect of our lives and provide immeasurable benefits to us all. Without the dedication to service that federal workers such as Mr. Bunch provide, our Nation would not be the great country it is today. Mr. Roy Bunch, ``thank you,'' I salute you.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding time, as I thank the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. This is an important motion to recommit, to make sure that those who serve on the conference understand that the House, as the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services said, almost 100 percent said that we want to make sure that our retirees who are 65 years and older will have adequate health care. I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi, because I know he has been fighting this issue for a couple of years, and I was delighted along with other Members from the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party to be part of his amendment. Mr. Speaker, I have 77,000 retired veterans in my district. I have about 13,000 retired military retirees. I have three military bases: two Marine, Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point Marine Air Station; and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. Since I have been in Congress, for approximately 6 years, I can tell you from day one, the biggest issue has been health care for our veterans and our military retirees. I think we have made some great progress in the last 6 years to speak to this issue, because as has been said by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and by the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) and others, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), those men and women who have served this Nation, whether it be wartime or peacetime, certain promises were made to them, and if you cannot look to your government who made that promise to keep that promise, then there is a big problem; and in the eyes of many of our men and women who have served this Nation, the Government has not kept its promise. I want to thank again the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), because we are keeping that promise now; and this amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) was certainly a great step forward, as it deals with those who are reaching the age of 65. Many of our veterans and retirees are like all of us, with the better quality of life and health care, we are living to be in the seventies and eighties, and these men and women were made a promise, and the promise should be kept. So I strongly support this motion to instruct conferees as it relates to the Taylor amendment, because this issue of Medicare Subvention is with us, and we have to do what is right for those men and women who have served this Nation. Mr. Speaker, as I start closing down on my comments, it is always brought to my attention back home that we seem to find the monies to send our troops to Bosnia, or we seem to find the money to go to Yugoslovia. I think Bosnia and Yugoslovia both have probably cost the American people about 10 or 11 billion, and yet we have got men and women who have served this Nation that do not have adequate health care. That is what this bill is doing and that is what this amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is doing. We are finally saying to those who have served we are not going to make them wait any longer. We are going to start addressing this issue of them having adequate health care and we are going to make sure that they have it. Mr. Speaker, let me quote Abraham Lincoln because he said it better than I could ever say it. He said, ``Let us care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.'' I think that should always be a reminder to those of us in Congress that men and women who have served this Nation in wartime or peacetime, that we made a promise to give them the very best of health care and I want to say to them today that we are taking giant steps to keep that promise. I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for his effort. I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services who has been fighting to help those men and women to have the very best health care possible. I am pleased to support this motion to instruct.