Gene Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland, for articulating so perfectly what needs to be done. I want to commend him for his efforts. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1775, the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000. Estuaries and coastal environments are precious natural resources that need to be restored and protected. They provide important habitat for numerous fish and wildlife, as well as recreational areas, transportation linkages, and sources of residential and industrial water supplies. It has been estimated that coastal and estuarine waters are worth billions of dollars to this country. Yet, despite the inherent value of these areas, for too long we have viewed our Nation's oceans, bays, and rivers as convenient dumping grounds for waste associated with human life and development. However, as we have fortunately learned, these earlier practices were a mistake, a mistake which we will correct. H.R. 1775 will further assist in this effort, providing assistance to restore habitat and biological health to the Nation's estuaries. I want to commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), from my family's ancestral home, for his efforts in sponsoring this legislation. I support its passage.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I also want to rise in opposition to this effort by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). She is a Member of Congress, elected by the people of her Congressional District, and has every right, as has every Member, to introduce any piece of legislation that she wants. She has every right to demand a vote on it. My colleagues have every right to speak. I think it is a bit unfair to say ``every Democrat.'' I was not watching the convention, I was not there at the convention, I do not know what might or might not have happened. So the characterization of all Democrats as being against the Boy Scouts I do not think would hold water and is a cheap shot. I will make this observation: I do not know how many cosponsors the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) has on her bill. I do know my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows), has over 300 cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats, trying to restore the promise of health care for our Nation's military retirees. That bill has never had a hearing, it has never had an opportunity for one vote. If you are going to find the time as the majority to bring a bill to the floor that will probably get less than 10 votes tomorrow, that is fine. It is great that you are giving every Member that opportunity. I would ask for that same opportunity for the 300 of us, and I bet you a bunch of people on this floor are cosponsors of the Shows bill, to demand the same opportunity and privileges as Members of the House if over 300 of us have sponsored that bill. If over 300 of us think restoring the promise of health care for our Nation's military retirees, regardless of the cost, is a priority, then over 300 of us ought to have a chance to vote on it.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the legislation under consideration today is an attempt to stem the ongoing flows of untreated and partially treated sewage that have impacted the communities and beaches of Southern California for almost 70 years. The U.S.-Mexican border region has experienced rapid growth over the past few decades. The cities of San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, though on opposite sides of the border, have grown closer together, both physically and economically, the fates of the two cities. What happens in one city has had an impact on the other. This is especially true in the case of sewage treatment needs in the border region. Unfortunately, the wastewater treatment systems of the City of Tijuana, Mexico, have not kept pace with the city's growing population. Untreated sewage flowing from Mexico through the Tijuana River and into the Pacific Ocean has adversely impacted the South Bay communities of San Diego County, the river valley and estuary, and the coastal waters of the United States. These flows continue to pose serious threat to public health, economy and environment in the region. For decades, the U.S. and Mexican governments have been working to develop a solution to the San Diego-Mexican sewage problem. Numerous alternatives have been considered and an international wastewater treatment plant located in the United States was selected as the best alternative. As a result the U.S. and Mexican governments formally agreed, in Treaty Minute 283, to construct the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant, located in San Diego, to treat and dispose of the sewage flows. In order to comply with international obligations and to achieve some level of treatment as quickly as possible, the South Bay treatment facility was constructed in stages. The first stage, which included the advanced primary treatment of sewage flows, became operational in 1998. However, over the past few years, numerous significant circumstances have presented themselves, including predictions of future population growth in the region justifying a review of the best means of permanently addressing the sewage treatment needs in the border region. In response to these needs, the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner), and the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Bilbray), introduced H.R. 3378, to expeditiously resolve the problem of migrating sewage. I commend these gentleman for their hard work and diligence to resolve this problem that has affected the health and safety of their constituents for decades. H.R. 3378 would direct the Secretary of State to give the highest priority to initiate negotiations on a new or revised treaty with Mexico for the secondary treatment of sewage generated in the Tijuana River Valley region. Subject to the negotiation and execution of a new treaty, and the availability of adequate appropriations, this legislation would authorize the United States, acting through the U.S. section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, to enter into a long-term contract with a private company for the construction and operation of a secondary treatment facility in Mexico. The bill would authorize the construction of a facility with the capacity of treating 50 million gallons of sewage per day to secondary levels, with the possibility of expanding the facility by an additional 25 million gallons should such levels be found necessary for the long- term treatment needs of the region. In addition, to address the contracting concerns that have been raised with this bill, the legislation includes provisions requiring, to the extent practicable, the use of competitive procedures by the owner of the Mexican facility in the procurement of property or services for the engineering, construction and operation and maintenance of the facility, as well as the commission's review and approval of contractors selected to carry out these functions. Also, the bill requires the Inspector General of the Department of State to monitor the implementation of the legislation, to evaluate the extent to which the owner has met the terms called for in the bill, and to report to Congress on its findings. Mr. Speaker, another benefit of this legislation is that it provides for the reuse of treated waters in Mexico and, if available, in the United States. By authorizing the construction of facilities capable of treating waste waters to potable water, we will help alleviate some of the pressure in finding new sources of drinkable waters at a time when the communities in Mexico and Southwestern United States are facing serious water shortages. Again, I commend the gentlemen from California (Mr. Filner) and (Mr. Bilbray) for their work on this bill. It is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, one of the best-kept secrets in America is no longer a well-kept secret. The Mississippi coast, with the advent of legalized gaming, has gone from a relatively quiet back-water community to one of the most popular destination resorts in the United States of America. The Gulfport airport that traditionally handled over 200,000 people will board over a million people this year. All that being said, there are a heck of a lot more people using the Mississippi Sound than ever before, a heck of a lot more people living in the vicinity of it. In all of the estuarine area in the Mississippi gulf coast, which is so similar to the Chesapeake Bay in characteristics with the bays and coastal marshes, is facing the same sort of stress that the Chesapeake Bay and other estuarine areas around the country have faced. Although we still have record oyster harvest, we are having a phenomenal shrimp season this year, the bottom line is that, much as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) mentioned, our losses of coastal marshes are not taking place in hundreds of acres or thousands of acres, but truly an acre at a time, just as he mentioned it. Although 1,200 acres were permitted to be filled by the Corps of Engineers last year, this is not a police state. I think it is fair to say, if 1,200 acres were permitted, probably 5,000 acres were truly lost. What we are trying to do is restore some of the mistakes that man has made along the Mississippi Gulf Coast using the resources available. We would like to be a pilot project in the United States of America for the beneficial use of dredge material when the Federal Government dredges and maintains its channels. Rather than taking that offshore and dumping it, we want to use that material to rebuild and restore our coastal marshes, to rebuild our barrier islands. We want to take the riprap that is created from Federal projects and start rebuilding some of the reefs that were unnecessarily destroyed in the 1950s and 1960s to provide aggregate material for building roads. We have a lot of opportunities. What we need more than anything else is a game plan entailing the entire three coastal counties and our partners in Louisiana, since we were part of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin as well, to work together to take this jewel that God created and make it as pristine as possible. I know the hour is late. I do not think it needs any further explanation. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his help. I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for his great assistance in getting this on the calendar tonight. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member, one of the gentlemen who was so helpful in bringing this to the floor tonight.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the substitute amendment offered to S. 835. The Estuary Habitat and Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act amendment substitutes the text of S. 835, the Estuary Habitat and Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act that was approved by unanimous consent in the Senate in March with the text of the recently-passed estuary restoration program sponsored by our colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). In addition, the substitute amendment includes a collection of other Clean Water Act related bills that have been approved by the House during the 106th Congress. These are H.R. 3039, the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act, sponsored by our late colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman), and I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) very much for mentioning the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman). H.R. 1237, a bill to reauthorize the EPA's national estuary program sponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton); H.R. 673, the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Act sponsored by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch); H.R. 3313, the Long Island Sound Restoration Act sponsored by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson); H.R. 2957, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act sponsored by my neighbor and colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter); H.R. 1106, the Alternative Sources Water Act, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman); H.R. 2328, a bill to reauthorize EPA's Clean Lakes program; H.R. 4104 and H.R. 3378 which we just recently approved. I support the substitute amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of its passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). You know, I represent a district that is very, very heavily promilitary, overly blessed in military bases. We have about 14,000 military retirees and a much higher percentage of overall citizens who have served in the Armed Forces than we think the typical congressional district has. I guess because of that, I take particular offense at the thought that for 2 years of the past 3 years, the Veterans Administration budget was frozen, not one penny increase. Despite the fact that we have now about 1,300 World War II veterans a day dying, they are getting to that point in their lives where they need help the most. For a typical American, 90 percent of all health care costs that any of us will incur will occur in the last 6 weeks of our lives. So the last 6 weeks of their lives is very sadly coming due for many of our World War II veterans and the VA budget for the past 2 years was frozen because the majority party said there is not any money to give to them. This month, this month on September 29, the troops would normally have been paid, there are over a million people who serve in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines who are out there in dangerous places like Korea in Kosovo right now or in places like Colombia right now who are flying planes right now, under the sea right now, normally they would get paid on September 29, that is not going to happen this year. They are going to get paid on October 1. The reason for that is so that pay period of over a billion dollars will not be reflected on this fiscal year, it will be shifted to next fiscal year. For a Congressman like myself or a high-ranking government official who makes good money, that is no big deal, delaying our pay for a couple of days. As a matter of fact, though, our pay is not going to get paid. All the congressional staffers will get paid at the end of September. In fact, the only people in the entire United States Government whose pay is going to be delayed are the guys who earn it and deserve it the most. And so for a young enlistee on fixed income who is counting on that paycheck on Friday to buy Pampers and formula for his kids, he is not going to get paid until Monday, because it is one of the gimmicks once again from the folks who say we needed that money. The last year the Democrats ran the House was 1994. In 1994, there were 404 ships in the United States Navy. Today as I speak, there are 315 ships in the United States Navy. That is a drop of 89 ships since the Republicans, who pledged for a strong national defense took over, because they will not give them the money to build the ships or maintain the fleet, again, they say, because we do not have the money. The fleet is now the smallest it has been since 1933 when it was 311 ships. They say because we do not have the money, so you can imagine my surprise and a great many American's surprise when lo and behold they are suddenly saying we have this huge surplus, after telling the veterans wait your turn, after telling the active duty military wait your turn, after telling the United States Navy wait your turn, we have a big budget surplus, and to keep the guys in Washington, whoever they are, since they are in the majority, from spending it, we have to give it away in tax breaks and let us start with the wealthiest 2 percent of all Americans, the ones who do pay the estate taxes. There is one small problem with the allegedly budget surplus. It does not exist. As a matter of fact, it you take the time to read these numbers, you will realize about the only two things accurate in the words ``budget surplus'' are the letters ``BS.'' Those of you who have home computers, I would encourage you to take a look at 3 p.m. eastern time on the fourth workday of every month on www.publicdebt.treas.gov. This is a publishing of the public debt. One of the things our colleagues will tell you is not only do we have this great big surplus, but we are paying down the debt. If that were true, it would be wonderful. Unfortunately, it is not. The total debt outstanding as of June 30, 1 year ago, was $5 trillion, and a trillion is a thousand billion, 638 billion, and a billion is a thousand million, 780 million. One year later, on June 30 of the Year 2000, it has grown by over $40 billion, to $5,685,938,000,000. It has grown. It has grown by $40 billion. So despite the talk that they can afford to give away the $50 billion a year that the estate tax repeal would cost the Treasury of the United States, there is no surplus. The debt is not shrinking, it is growing. Who owns that debt? Let us remember that a third of all the national debt is owned by foreign lending institutions. So if the Japanese or German lending institutions that own our debt demand that it be paid off, think about the economic chaos in America. One of the things that I would hope the American people would take the time to look at is that there is a surplus in what is called the trust funds. The trust funds are taxes that are collected for a specific purpose and are supposed to be set aside just for that purpose. If you look on your pay stub, there is something called FICA. That is just Social Security taxes. It is collected from you, it is collected from your employer, and it is supposed to be set aside to pay your Social Security benefits when that time comes. There is a Medicare Trust Fund, taxes collected from you, set aside to help with your health care costs when that time comes. If you served in the military, there is a military retiree trust fund to pay your benefits when you retire. There is a trust fund for the Highway Department. Again, taxes when you buy your gasoline, those taxes are supposed to be set aside and used for nothing but paying the trust fund. Unfortunately, if you take the time to look at the report that I just told you about, you will see that ending in the month of June, the Nation in that fiscal year had already taken $11 billion out of the trust funds just to meet annual operating expenses. That number grew to $12.967 billion in the month of July. So my question to my colleagues who say that we can afford to lose $50 billion a year in revenue on the estate tax is whose trust fund are you going to steal it from? And they have yet to answer that question. If they are not going to borrow it, then they have got to steal it from a trust fund in order to pay that bill. Are they going to steal it from the Social Security trust fund? Are they going to steal it from Medicare part A, which pays the hospital costs of senior citizens? Are they going to steal it from Medicare part B, which pays the physicians' costs? Are they going to pay it from the Social Security disability fund, for people who through some tragic accident can no longer work and need a little help until they reach the age of 65? Or are they going to steal it from the military retiree trust fund, people who have given their whole lives to defending our country, who have set aside a portion of their paychecks so they can count on that check for the rest of their lives? Who are they going to steal it from? As I told you, the debt is growing, and the best analogy that I can use as far as those folks who say we have this big surplus, not only is the debt growing, but it has grown enormously in our lifetimes. Most Americans think that maybe this generation did our per capita share of the total debt. Wrong. In 1980, this Nation was less than $1 trillion in debt. Right now it is $5.7 trillion in debt. Almost all of the debt has occurred in our lifetimes. So I ask my colleagues who are adamant about huge spending increases or adamant about huge tax decreases, why would you as a Nation burden your children with that debt? Can you name one single responsible individual who says I am going to go buy a whole bunch of stuff, I am going to have a whole lot of fun, and I am going to stick my kids with that bill? And, by the way, I am going to deplete the military while I am at it, I am not going to build any ships to defend us, I am going to shortchange the guys in uniform, and by the way, we might even take a little money out of the militarily trust fund. That is their solution for America. I think their solution is wrong. I had an opportunity to give this talk to someone who really would benefit from this. He happens to be a banker in Mississippi. He happens to be the majority stockholder of the biggest bank in Mississippi. He had written me saying, you know, I worked on all of my life, I scrimped and saved, and I know the man and know it to be true, and I would like to leave as much of this as I can to my kids. I do not want to pay an estate tax. I explained to him that our Nation is squandering $1 billion a day on interest on the national debt, we did it yesterday, we did it the day before, we will do it tomorrow and do it every day for the rest of our lives until we pay off the national debt. He is a banker. He understands interest. At the end of our conversation, he said, ``Gene, you did the right thing.'' I would hope that other Americans will take the time to look at these reports, because, unfortunately, the Washington Post will not tell you, the New York Times will not tell you. I have actually seen economists in nationwide publications saying there is so much money they are going to pay off the debt in 2 years. None of them have bothered to read the only reports that count, and that is the reports from the U.S. Public Debt, the reports from the U.S. Treasury, and they will show convincingly there is no surplus. So if we care about our country as much as we say we do, if we care enough to let our kids serve in the military, if we care enough to reward those veterans who served us so well in places like World War II, in Vietnam and Korea, if you think the sacrifices that they made are worth preserving, then why would we bankrupt our country now? And not for the least fortunate Americans, but for the sake of the most fortunate Americans? It makes no sense whatsoever. So I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for this opportunity, and again I want to encourage every American to look up this site, www.publicdebt.treas.gov. If you have any doubt whatsoever as to the accuracy of these figures, you may get them for yourself. I encourage every American who has a computer to take the time and look, because it is frightening; and we as a Nation are truly in the position of a guy who cannot pay his debts, who for 200 years has not paid his debt, and is now going to the banker and saying, Can I just pay some interest? That is what we are doing as a Nation. There is no surplus. It is time to pay off the debt and quit sticking our kids with our bills.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the Majority Whip, asked the question do we spend the surplus or do we send it back? I would remind the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that, when he first came to Congress, our Nation was about $1 trillion in debt. It is now $5.7 trillion in debt. See, contrary to what some folks would have us think, the debt is not only disappearing, it is growing and it is growing by the month. These figures are all available in the monthly Treasury statements. I encourage every American to look it up on the World Wide Web. See if you do so, you will discover that just in the past year, the debt of this Nation has increased by $40 billion, $40 billion. That is 40,000 million dollars that we are more in debt than we were a year ago. They do talk about a surplus, and there is a surplus. But the only surplus is in the trust funds, things like the Social Security Trust Fund, things like the Medicare Trust Fund, things like the Military Retiree Trust Fund. See, if we remove the trust funds, then we spend $13 billion more than we have collected in taxes. So when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and others say let us give 2 percent of the American people a tax break, I ask them, and please answer me, whose trust fund are they going to steal it from?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I will not be able to support either of them, because I think this generation ought to pay its bills.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague from Florida, the attorney. He said a couple of things that I think are noteworthy. Number one is when the facts are not on your side, talk about everything but the facts. My colleague from Florida, the facts are not on your side. I am not a lawyer, but I can read the Treasury report. The Treasury report that came out on June 30 of this year has some extremely interesting facts. Number one, there is still no surplus, other than the trust funds, and the trust funds raised about $170 billion. Yet we have a cumulative surplus of only about $176. Why is that? Because they stole $11 billion from somebody's trust fund to pay the bills. The second thing is I have heard over and over we are paying down the debt. Again, according to the Treasury's own figures, the debt has grown by $42 billion of public debt this year. This year we have spent, as of today, $300 billion of the taxpayers' dollars down a rat hole called interest on the national debt. It is not taking care of old folks, it is not educating kids, and we are going to keep throwing money down that rat hole until we pay down the debt, and you do not pay down the debt unless you balance your budget. Again, this is coming from the Bureau of Public Debt. This is June 30, 1999. The publicly held debt was $5.636 trillion. One year later, June 30, 27 days ago, the public debt is $5.685 trillion, an increase of over $40 billion. Again, I would say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), I am not a lawyer, but I can read. To the point: Where did they steal the $11 billion? Did it come out of Social Security? Did it come out of Medicare? Did it come out of the approximately $10 billion of the Military Retiree Trust Fund? Because they certainly stole $11 billion from somebody's trust fund under this charade of a balanced budget. I urge Members to reject the Republican proposal. I urge this generation of Americans that has run up $5 trillion of the $5.7 trillion worth of debt which has been incurred in our lifetimes, let us pay our bills and not stick our kids with them.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, one of the lessons I had to teach myself was that almost every Member of Congress represents about 600,000 people. Even those people I disagree with, everybody in this floor was elected by a majority of the voters and I am going to respect their ability to say what they want to say. I would like to remind the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) that the matter at hand is health care for our Nation's military retirees. This is a motion to instruct the conferees to stick to the House-passed provisions of the bill, provisions that I think greatly improve health care for our Nation's military retirees; a much better package than the other body. At this moment we are instructing our conferees to stick to what I think is the better language of the two. It really has nothing to do with missile defense. Mr. Speaker, again, it is always to be a position to be envied when one has their chairman and ranking member with them and most of their subcommittee chairmen with them. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his assistance on this. As the gentleman pointed out during the previous debate, he was truly one of the founding fathers of the idea of subvention. And I do not claim to have invented it; I just think it is a heck of a good idea. For the public who may not quite understand what we are trying to do, we are trying to fulfill the promise of lifetime health care to our Nation's military retirees, a promise made to them. We are trying to do it in a way they are comfortable with. They have been going to military treatment facilities for most of their lives, and they are justifiably angry that upon hitting the age of 65 they are being turned away from those treatment facilities, when they have been promised they could use that facility, they and their spouse, for the rest of their lives. It is also something that we did not point out in the first debate, but if you look on the pay stub of the people who serve in our Nation, on their tax form they pay into the Medicare Trust Fund, just like every other American. So the question is, should not they be allowed to take that Medicare that they have contributed to and use it in the hospital that they wish to go to? That is the hospital on a military installation. Let us give them the choice that every other American has been having, to go to the private sector. Let us let them go to the hospital that they want to go to. We know that we can save money. The Treasury report that came out just a couple of days ago showed that the Nation, despite the talk of unprecedented surpluses, really had to borrow $11 billion from other trust funds thus far this year. There is not a lot of money laying around. But we know that with Medicare Subvention, that we can treat these same people for 95 cents on the dollar of what we would have paid a private sector doctor for the exact same treatment. So we are going to let them go to the hospital they want to go to. They have not only paid into the system with their taxes, but paid into the system with at least 20 years of dedicated service to their Nation. They deserve it. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the last point I would like to make is that since the passage of this amendment I have had the opportunity to visit with the surgeon general of the United States Air Force, and I had some concerns that quite possibly the services, if they were not in favor of this idea, could administratively poison it. I asked him, I said if we can find the money for this will he make it work? I am not smart enough to remember his exact words, but his sentiments were that he was extremely excited about the idea of being compensated for taking care of 65 and older retirees, something that he has been doing basically out of hide. The second thing that he was extremely excited about is the variety of health care cases that his doctors will now be able to see and be compensated for because, as he said, and I will never say it as well as he did, cardiologists do not stay very busy when all they are taking care of is 18- and 19- and 20-year-olds; but in order to have them well trained for mobilization, it is important that some of the older retirees are included in this mix so that those people can hone their skills that they are going to need in the event of a national emergency. So for so many reasons, I think this is a good idea for our Nation. Number one, it is the right thing to do. We are going to keep our promise to those people who kept their promise to us. Number two, we are going to do it in a fiscally responsible manner. I think, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I am most pleased that in the history of this committee we have tried to do things in a bipartisan manner. I am most pleased that we are going to keep that promise in a bipartisan manner. I very much welcome the remarks of the chairman of the committee. I very much welcome the remarks of gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I certainly welcome the support of the gentleman from South Carolina, a person who has served our country all the way from a paratrooper to the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. Speaker, in the bipartisan spirit in which we passed this amendment and hope to keep this amendment in the bill in the final form, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct conferees would instruct the House conferees to retain the House-passed provisions of the bill that make Medicare subvention for our Nation's military retirees permanent and nationwide. I think in May when the House voted on this we finally took a historic step in fulfilling a promise that has been made by recruiters across our country for decades, those recruiters were wearing the uniforms of the United States of America; they were in Federal buildings. They promised young, unsuspecting 17-year-olds, 18-year- olds, and 19-year-olds that if they enlisted in our country, if they served their country honorably for 20 years, they would be given lifetime health care in a military installation. Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Defense drawdown and as a result of shrinking Defense budgets, the Department of Defense was unfortunately left with no other choice but to start asking military retirees who have attained the age of 65 to go out and see a private sector doctor and have Medicare pay the bill. After going to the same hospital since they were 18 years old or 19 years old, you can imagine how angry they were, because they had kept their promise to our Nation, and our Nation did not keep its promise to them. It is said when a politician breaks his word, shame on him; but when a Nation breaks its word, shame on all of us. In May, the House took what I thought was the unprecedented step of making lifetime health care for military retirees, for the first time it will be treated the same as Medicare and Medicaid and that that money will be there every year and not subject to an annual appropriation. Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to have a number of people helping on that, Democrats and Republicans from all parts of our country, in an united effort that just passed the House by 400 votes. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), one of the Members that helped make this possible.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the many anecdotes of the wonderful job the Guard and Reserve did when called up for Desert Shield and Desert Storm, I think there are two facts that history will eventually bear out. Number one was the very personal relationship of then Congressman Sonny Montgomery with then President George Bush. Before there was a National Guard and Reserve Caucus of many, there was a National Guard and Reserve Caucus of one, that was Sonny Montgomery. Sonny and President Bush had come to Congress as freshmen together. George Bush went on to become the President of the United States, and it was that friendship that allowed then ranking member, the then senior member of the Committee on Armed Services, to call the President to tell him of the importance of bringing up the Guard and Reserve for all the military needs of our country. Although the families of the Reservists, and I was a Congressman then, and I can tell my colleagues that the families of the Reservists were hesitant to send their loved ones away, the remarkable transformation that they brought to our Nation should never go unnoticed, because when the Guardsmen and Reservists were called up, unlike the Vietnam War, which is way too often thought of as that poor draftees war, that kid-from-across-the-town war, somebody else's war, when the Guardsmen and Reservists were called to active duty, it suddenly became my brother's war, my father's war, my uncle's war, my sister's war, my cousin's war. It suddenly became everybody's war. I would hope that that lesson is never lost on this Nation that in addition to the great job that they did militarily, the C-141 outfit out of Jackson, Mississippi, I being told by the commanding officer at McGuire Air Force Base at midnight, long after the war was over, who came to meet me just to brag on that unit; the 3 hours that then General Calvano spent with me on July 4, I believe of 1991 telling me what a great job the Guardsmen and Reservists had done on the tarmac at the Dharhan Air Force Base in Saudi Arabia. In addition to everything else, they brought the heart and soul of America to that conflict, and the heart and soul of America said make it quick, make it decisive, and bring our people home. We should never forget that lesson. There should never ever be another conflict involving the United States of America where the Guardsmen and the Reservists are not involved, because they are the ones that saw to it that it was every American's war, and that is the only way for America to get involved. Either it is all of our war or none of our war.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, since I believe the previous speaker made at least one reference towards me, I would like to point out that the Constitution of the United States says that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury except by an appropriation by Congress. The Presidents cannot spend money that we do not allow them to. If this Congress truly believes in reducing the debt, then we can put a line in the budget saying x number of dollars will go towards reducing the American debt. That is what I am for. I hope Members will join me.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am not as much troubled by what I hear today, as by what I do not hear. What I do not hear is any of the participants reminding the American people that because of actions that Congress has taken during our lifetimes, our Nation is $5 trillion deeper in debt than the day that any of us were born; that we are the beneficiaries of those expenditures; that our Nation won the Cold War; that it built the interstate highway system; that it built the intercostal canal system; that it did a lot of good things for all us. And now it is time, when we have the opportunity because of some small surpluses to pay the bills, we seem intent on doing those things not to pay them. In a search to give some Americans a break, we are going to see to it that all Americans continue to have $1 billion a day of their tax money squandered on paying interest on that debt; $1 billion a day. I hear my colleagues talking about this enormous surplus, as if somehow this building is awash in cash. Well, if it exists, why are you delaying the pay of the people who serve our Nation in crummy places like Bosnia and Korea, people who are at sea right now, under the sea, on the sea on aircraft carriers for 6 months at a time, why are you delaying their pay from September 29 of this year to October 1, making them go an extra weekend when they cannot buy baby formula or diapers? Do you know why? Because you are trying to disguise the true nature of the debt. You took that $2.5 billion pay period and you shifted it to the next fiscal year so it would look like the surplus is bigger than it really is. Mr. Speaker, why are we not as intent on paying down the debt that was incurred in our lifetime as we are in trying to score political advantage against each other come November 2? The Nation that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) fought for, the Nation that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) fought for and so many Members of this body fought for is worth saving. If we do not pay our bills while we have this brief opportunity, the first time in 30 years that we actually have a surplus, then we never will.