Gene Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland, particularly for giving her thoughts on this measure. In response to what has been said earlier, we are getting ready to have drug testing of teenage drivers just to get a driver's license. We are encouraging private sector employers through this bill, which is the main thrust of this bill, because are encouraging private sector employers to test their employees for drugs. Ladies and gentlemen, we are the largest employer in America. Why on Earth would we tell all the other smaller employers that we think this is a great idea for them if we do not think it is a great idea for us? There is a real war being fought on drugs. I visited a Colombian Lansero, that is their word for Ranger, battalion in February on a Thursday. They went out the following Tuesday. There was 125 of them. By the following Thursday, only 18 of them were still alive or not captured. It is a real war. You read in the paper of American crop dust pilots in training accidents over Colombia. Who is kidding who? They were shot down because there is a bounty on people who fly the crop dusters to eradicate the heroin in the coca fields, $5,000 a plane. If you are a Colombian peasant, $5,000 looks like a heck of a lot of money, and it is certainly worth taking a few potshots at an American pilot for. It is a real war. I do not think it is fair to ask some Americans to put their lives on the line when we are not even going to ask other Americans who worked for this Nation to just be subject to a test to let us know that they are on our side, not on their side, on our side, that they are living within the law. That is what the congressional inquiry into the President is all about: Is the highest elected official living by the law? Yes? No? I think every single Federal employee, Congressman, every one of us ought to live by the law and be subject to testing to make sure that we are living by the law. That is why I offered this amendment. It is not enough to send troops all over Latin America, because when you solve the problem in Peru, it goes to Colombia. When you fix it in Colombia, it is going to go to Belize. A lot of the heroin has come out of southeast Asia. We have tried to go over there and tell them our will. They did not like the idea. I do not think anyone is a proponent of sending more Americans over to Southeast Asia right now. The problem is in America. It is not in Colombia. It is not in Peru. It is not in Belize. It is not in Thailand. It is here in America. I think the way we start solving the problem in America is by telling our employees, the people that work for America, do not use illegal drugs. It is real simple. All the death sentences and drug kingpin laws are not going to do anything because there is so much money to be made; because if you go after this kingpin, he is just going to be replaced by another. The way you solve the problem is one at a time when you start telling Americans we are not going to tolerate drug use. The bill says to the private sector we are going to encourage you, we are going to give you grants, we are going to do all these great things for you if you will ask your employees to quit using drugs. Doggone it, if it is a good idea for them, it is a good idea for us. The bill is clearly constitutional. We have drug testing for any number of reasons in this country. I think everyone who works in our government in some way contributes to our national security. The amendment has been ruled in order by the Parliamentarian, and I will be asking for a vote on it.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, this is a democracy. We are a work in progress. If during the course of the debate of this bill, if during the conference the gentleman thinks it needs to be perfected, I would welcome that. But we have to start somewhere.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point that I made was that most of the Southwest was seized from Mexico and, as the gentleman pointed out, under duress. We were occupying their capital at the time. We did it for what we thought was the best interest. Quite frankly, all of the people in all of those States are better off because we did it. But we seized the whole Southwest, not just this portion of the Southwest. If we start looking back into each of these claims, I think we cause more harm than good. Again, we had make a gentleman's request to look into it. At the time, it seemed to make sense. But the more I have looked into the total repercussions of creating this commission at the cost of $7 million, I have decided to oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a cosponsor.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Very good.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a situation where I will be voting against the bill that I have cosponsored. At this moment, I am not allowed to ask unanimous consent to have my name removed, but I do think it is important that I explain my actions. When I was first asked to cosponsor this, it was to call for a commission. I now see this commission will cost the taxpayer $1 million for up to 7 years, which is up to $7 million. When we look a little bit further into this, originally it was a few families that had been wronged, but as we heard in the debate, the entire States of California, Nevada, and Utah, were basically seized from the Government of Mexico, as well as portions of Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico, portions of Colorado and Wyoming. So we would be basically seeing a situation where just a few people would be compensated. The second part that I think is important to state is, yes, we have to look at this historically. Yes, these people probably had claims given to them by the Government of Mexico, a government that, in effect, took the land from Spain. But who did the King of Spain take it from? He took it from the folks who lived there when the Conquistadors came over. We are basically opening a can of worms and I do not think anyone has any idea where it ends. I think, at the end of 7 years, we will have spent $7 million of the American taxpayers' money and find ourselves in exactly the same situation we have right now. If you want to go a little bit further, why do we not give Panama back to Colombia, because our Nation stole it fair and square from them in the first part of this century so we could build the Panama Canal. Our Nation lately has been pretty good. As recently as Bosnia, we sent some troops over there, not to take their land, not to rape their people, not to take their wealth, but just to keep people from killing each other. It might be the most honorable thing this Nation has ever done. But some years ago, when we had our manifest destiny and decided that we were going to have a Nation that ran from ocean to ocean, we did so, and we did not particularly care who got in our way. In this instance, the Mexican Government got in our way. I do not think we serve the American people by going back and reopening this, causing no telling how many people in all of the States that I have mentioned to have the title to their property called into question in each of these States, including some huge States like California. I think we are best letting the courts make these decisions and not a congressionally appointed commission at the cost of $1 million a year. For those reasons, although I understand the gentleman is trying to redress what he perceives is a wrong, I think the greatest good is served by the defeat of this measure. Mr. Chairman, I ask at this point that my name be removed.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, is that the sole recourse?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry. If it is the understanding of a Member that the people that the Speaker has mentioned would not be in favor of releasing the report, what recourse then would a Member, or hopefully a majority of Members, have in seeking these documents?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, how would a Member of the House who seeks to see these documents go about seeing them?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). I would like to tell my fellow members that this could well be the tale of two Favres. A few years ago, after the Dallas Cowboys defeated the Green Bay Packers in the NFL championship game on a Sunday, the following Friday, I visited a fish fry at St. Paul's Catholic School in Pass Christian, Mississippi. The purpose of the fish fry was to raise money for the elementary school, and it was done in a competition, where the group that raised the most money got to name the king and queen of St. Paul's carnival parade in Pass Christian. One of the contestants was a lovely lady by the name of Bonita Favre. She has the distinction of being the mother of three wonderful children, one of whom is Bret Favre. During the week that transpired between the Packers loss to the Cowboys and this Friday night, Bret was named Most Valuable Player of the NFL. So when I go to the fish fry on Friday night at Pass Christian, you would fully expect the recently appointed Most Valuable Player of the NFL to show up in a limousine, probably a Hollywood starlet on each arm, probably enough jewelry around his neck to retire the national debt. Let us just say that I was very pleasantly surprised as I walked into the school cafeteria and looked over in the corner to see a young man who had just been named the most valuable of the NFL in a T-shirt, wearing a pair of brown khaki pants and some tennis shoes. He is over in the corner, not talking to reporters, but playing rock, paper, and scissors with two local teenagers. I was thinking to myself I have seen all the people that have a lot of fame and idolization, and sometimes it does good things for them, and sometimes it ruins them. The first thought of mine is he is obviously handling this very well. Bret probably could have very easily written a check for his mom to win this contest, but they decided to do it the way everyone else does, with fish fries where the local fisherman donate the fish and the shrimp and the oysters. The local men get together, clean them, and prepare them. Everyone goes through the line at $5 a pop. I just thought it was absolutely remarkable that this young man, the son of two public schoolteachers in rural Mississippi, had done so well in such a short amount of time and handled it so well. Based on that, I wrote the Hancock County Board of Supervisors and said there is going to be a new post office in Kiln, Mississippi, the community nearest to where Bret is from. He is actually from a smaller community called Fenton. Maybe we should name it in honor of him. The board, in their wisdom, came back and really gave me a lesson in life. They said, think about it. This young man has had his photograph on the cover of almost every magazine and newspaper in the world. He has already been the Most Valuable Player. He will undoubtedly in his lifetime, and he since has won a couple of Super Bowls, won a Super Bowl and appeared in another. He gets plenty of idolization. Let us do something in honoring a good person. If you have had the great privilege of seeing the movie ``Saving Private Ryan,'' you know one of the most moving scenes at the end is when Private Ryan, the character who plays Private Ryan is crying at the grave site of one of the people, Captain John Miller, who saves his life. He turns to his wife and says, Am I a good man? Tell me I am a good man. The person that the Hancock County Board of Supervisors chose to honor with this post office was a good man. It marks the fourth good man that I have had the privilege of helping to, working with my colleagues, to name a building after. The first was my immediate predecessor, Congressman Larkin Smith, former sheriff and congressman, very well respected, someone else who worked himself up from his bootstraps and died tragically in a plane crash. Another was an incredibly brave young Mississippian from Eastabuchie, Mississippi, by the name of Roy Wheat who threw himself on a land mine during the Vietnam War to save the lives of three other Marines, who was later awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. A third was probably the most lovable man any city in Mississippi produced, by the name of Johnny Longo, who served for better than 30 years as an elected official in his hometown of Waverly, Mississippi. Being a good man is more than receiving a Medal of Honor. It is more than being a Congressman. It is more than being a lifetime elected official. Being a good man is the greatest compliment that any of us can hope to obtain when it is all said and done about us. Mr. Favre spent his life serving his hometown of Kiln, Mississippi. For 36 years he was their postmaster. He married a local girl in 1945, was the loving father of Rae Ann Normand, Nancy V. Smith and Edward R. Favre. He was very active in his church. But more than anything else, he served the people he loved for 36 years. About 4 years ago a heck of a lot of people were elected to Congress because they said they hated their country; they hated the people who worked for their country. I thought that was wrong then. I still think that is wrong. Mr. Favre loved his country and he loved serving his country. He did not need the limelight, he just wanted to do a good job. So I stand before my colleagues today, number one, to thank the Hancock County Board of Supervisors for honoring a good man, and I ask my fellow Members of Congress to do the same. And let us see to it that this great public servant, who served that community so well for so long, is honored in an appropriate manner.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) for his efforts to encourage others to vote with him. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) are probably right when they say the way he goes about it is flawed. Guess what? We do lots of flawed things around here. We start off every day by waiving the rules that govern this body, every single day, Mr. Chairman, and say we got these rules, but they do not count; let us throw them out. The question is if we are going to do that for everything else, how about just once doing it for the folks who deserve it the most? There is really only one group of Americans who were promised health care, and that is our veterans. Medicare and Medicaid did not come along until the glory years of America in the 1960s when we had more money than sense. We now spend about $260 billion a year on Medicare and Medicaid. We spend about 40 on veterans. Those folks got it just because they exist. Now, veterans earned it. So even if what the gentleman is doing is flawed, that is why we have a conference committee to make it fit within the rules. As my colleagues know, we are talking, some people here in this body, not me, are talking about giving back a hundred billion dollars in tax breaks. But doggone, if we can find the money to give their wealthy contributors a tax break, how about us finding the money to help those people who are now too old to help themselves, who go to the veterans hospital because they are short on cash, who go there because it gives them the chance to relive the greatest days of their lives, the most horrible and the greatest days of their lives all at once? And if my colleagues ever want a reason to do this, I would encourage them to read a one-page article in Newsweek 2 weeks ago, written by Stephen Ambrose, called ``The Kids Who Saved the World.'' They did not question; they did it for 50 bucks a month. It was not for the benefits, it was not for free health care. They did it because it was the right thing to do. We have a chance to do the right thing. We can find a million technical reasons why we should not help our veterans. But, my colleagues, know what? People in this country were not promised cheap home loans. People in this country were not promised free medical care if they served their country. Let us keep the promise that we made and then worry about those other things that are nice if we can afford them.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is a shame Congress does not have a ``truth in advertising'' law, and it is a shame it does not apply to this bill. If we had a truth in advertising law, this bill would be called the Annual $20 Billion Tax Forgiveness for the Most Oppressive Communist Regime in the World. That is what it is all about. When we give them normal trade relations, formerly known as Most Favored Nation, they changed the name because the American public did not like the idea of giving them a $20 billion tax break. So now they are going to try to slide it in again. Why is it wrong? They charge us 40 percent on America products when they are sold in China. This would allow our country to charge them only 2 percent. I am getting a little tired when I go to visit the troops of finding out that we have 12,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines on food stamps, but we cannot find the $100 million to help pay them a little better. I am a little tired when our military retirees are saying they are not getting the health care that they were promised, when we do not have the $2 billion to fulfill that pledge. I am extremely tired every time an American helicopter and an American plane crashes because it is too old to be flying our kids around, and we do not have the money for weapons procurement. But, Mr. Speaker, we just gave the most repressive regime in the world 20 extra billion dollars to modernize their equipment. The Chinese communists in the past 3 years have acquired ports on both ends of the Panama Canal. On the first day of the year 2000, we lose our last base in Panama. We lose, they gain. Chinese communists are getting ready to take over what was an American naval station in California. We lose, they win. So, for those Members who want to give them the $20 billion tax break, I hope they are ready to explain this to the people of their districts.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, 1995 is a part of Speaker Gingrich's Contract With America as Congress passed a bill that was called the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The net result of it was that the only way that a person who intentionally defrauded hard working Americans or retirees of their pension funds can be convicted of doing so would be to walk into a courtroom and say ``I stole from you.'' Just a handful of us voted against it. The President vetoed it. Then a handful of us voted against it again. Some people who care about working people who do not hang out at the Republican National Committee fund-raising headquarters or the Democratic National Committee fund-raising headquarters but actually care about working people have discovered there is still one chance to keep these people from defrauding working people; and that is if we take them to State court. Now they want to take even that away because they do not want to protect them because there is no big money in it. The big money is in defrauding people. Ask Michael Milliken. This is a horrible bill. It hurts people that live in my district. It hurts people that live in your district. They count on us to protect them. They count on us to protect them. They do not have any money. They cannot write us $1,000 checks for our campaign. But they count on us to pass laws that are going to look out for them because they are too busy making a living to do it themselves. So if you want to defraud them of their pension, vote for it. But if you do not, vote against it.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have got to admit that portions of this bill leave me somewhat perplexed, while I agree with most of it. Mr. Speaker, this is the same body that in the past 2 weeks has passed six different pieces of legislation expressing our grave concern as to what the Chinese intentions are towards our Nation. We have a special committee that is looking into whether or not they bribed American officials in order to get hold of American missile technology. The same body that says we will no longer transfer missile technology. But in the most blatant hurt and wrong that is being done to the American people, a $50 billion trade imbalance with the People's Republic of China, where they get $50 billion more of our money each year, where they charge our companies 30 to 40 percent to have access to their markets but we only charge them 2 percent, if we charge them anything, to have access to our markets, that used to be called Most Favored Nation status. Now, because the American people have caught on to that and a majority of Members of Congress can no longer vote for Most Favored Nation status, because the American people have caught on to this scam, the new scam is we are going to change the name of it. It is now going to be called ``normal trading relations.'' Mr. Speaker, I would really hope someone would come to this floor and tell me what is ``normal'' about a $50 billion trade imbalance? What is normal about giving that same money to people we know are using it for weapons modernization? Because if that is normal, we do not deserve to be here. If my colleagues are trying to hide that from the American people, it is not going to take them very long to figure out what is going on.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, would the Speaker like to explain to this Member how the highest legislative body this world has ever known can waive its own rules?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, one of the provisions of this bill is the changing of the term ``Most Favored Nation status'' with regard to China and changing it to ``normal trade relations.'' That legislation never passed this House. To the best of my knowledge, it never passed the United States Senate. My parliamentary inquiry is, can something that has been passed and voted on in neither body be included in this conference report?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, 200 years ago our Nation was founded with the principle that people would be chosen to represent based solely on the quality of their character. Those times have changed, but I think that ideal should remain the same. Obviously, it has not. If you leave the Cannon House office building and take about 110 steps, you will find yourself at the door of an exquisite building with marble floors, beautiful red carpets that I visited on several occasions, and it is the Republican National Committee. If you go a few hundred more steps, you will find a much uglier building that is not near as nice, but it is the Democratic National Committee. But they both exist for the same purpose. They raise money and they pedal influence. I am not here to defend that system. I am here to change it. I think it has gotten to the point where, and I think it can be proven, 95 percent of all congressional elections are won not by the best man but by the person who raises the most money. Even now, as there is an open race in my home State of Mississippi, if people ask me who I think will win, I will tell them the name of the guy, a very nice guy by the name of Ronnie Shallison, and both Democrats and Republicans alike, the very next sentence out of their mouth is, but who is raising the most money. You see, that is what it has become in this town. Not the best person, not the person who wants to make our country, to keep it the greatest Nation on earth, but the guy who can make and raise the most money. Some Members in this room will try to tell you that that is good. I am here to tell you that that stinks. There is another system out there that we keep talking about, but maybe it has not been explained to the American people. It is called soft money. If you as an individual want to contribute to a candidate, you are limited by law to $1,000. If your spouse wants to give $1,000, that is okay. If your kids wants to give $1,000, that is okay. It is all reported. If you belong to a political action committee like the NRA or the National Right to Life, that group can give a candidate $5000. But if a PAC or a wealthy individual or an Arab oil sheik or whoever wants to give $100,000 to a candidate, they can go around that law by giving it to either the Democratic or the Republican Party, and then that party writes a check for $100,000 to the candidate and it is perfectly legal. And some Members tell you in this room that is right. I am going to tell you, that is wrong. There is another process out there called independent expenditures. Once again, you as an individual are limited, but if an organization or, once again, an incredibly wealthy individual who has got a personal axe to grind wants to spend $1 million against a candidate or $10 million against a candidate, he can go straight to the television station and he can go straight to the radio station, he can go straight to the newspaper, he can spend all he wants, he can say anything he wants, and some folks call that free speech. Well, if all you do is cater to the rich folks, yes, it is free speech. But what happens to the average Joe who cannot raise $1 million and who cannot squander that kind of money. See, I visited both of the headquarters. The only average Joes I saw there and the only poor folks I saw there were working there. They do not have much of a voice in this town, and they do not have much of a voice in this town because money talks. So if you think that is right, vote not to change a thing. But if you think that is wrong and that this corrupt system is threatening the very democracy that all of us swore to uphold and defend, then let us have a real debate and let us close some of these loopholes, and let us see that the people can run for Congress and have a fair chance of getting elected, not because they raised the most money but because they are the best person, they have the best character, and they want to do the best things for our Nation.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to recommit. I also rise in opposition to the Republican budget. Mr. Speaker, as my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. John Tanner) pointed out last night, the new Republican majority in 4 years has truly achieved the level of arrogance that it took the Democratic Party 40 years to have in this body. It did not even allow what is the most important vote of the year, the conservative Democratic alternative to be offered. If Members have followed this session, they will know that every Tuesday has been spent commending this or condemning that, resolutions that have no effect whatsoever. One week out of every month we have not even been in session. Yet, we cannot find the time to debate and have an open amendment process for the most important thing, which is the budget of the United States, so those of us who would rather spend money getting soldiers off of food stamps can, say, maybe take it from things we do not think are as important, like foreign aid, like the $3 billion that a relatively wealthy Nation called Israel will get of our money, but we cannot find the money to get soldiers off of food stamps. We will not even be given the opportunity to do so because the budget process, first under the Democrats and now under the Republicans, we cannot even offer an amendment on it. That is wrong. This is still a democracy, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker may do what he wants to keep that from happening, but every one of us represents the same number of people. Every one of us was elected, and every one of us deserves the opportunity to try to set some priorities for this Nation, and not be handed a load of garbage by one side or the other and say vote on it, take it or leave it. So I am going to vote against the Democratic budget, I am going to vote against the Republican budget, and I am going to hope for once that we will stick together and provide for this Nation an American budget. But the only way we can do that is to first vote down the Republican budget, vote down the Democratic budget, vote for the motion to recommit, and let us try to get back to what the Founding Fathers truly had in mind, which is making this body a deliberative body of free expression, where the majority rules and not the lobbyists.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as was pointed out in the recent dialogue with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), there is a war on drugs going on, and our Nation is losing. Mr. Chairman, the point that would I like to make with this amendment and the law that I would like to change with this amendment would allow our Department of Defense to test all of its employees for drugs and, in the future, tell future hires that, as a requirement of working for the Department of Defense, that they will submit to random drug testing. In February, I went to Colombia, went to places like Ibague, went to places likes San Jose, where American pilots are flying crop dusters and being shot at by Colombian guerillas and Colombian narco- traffickers. We have American A-teams on the ground in Colombia training the Colombian Lance Arrows, their word for Ranger. We have American Seals training their navy. We have Americans in Iquitos, Peru, right across the Amazon River, training their riverine operations. It is a real war. It is a real war with real casualties. The week after I left Colombia, the Lance Arrows that I had the privilege of visiting went out, 125 of them. Eighteen of them returned. The remainder were either killed or captured. The point I am trying to make is it does not make much sense to tell our uniformed personnel that work for the Department of Defense that they are subject to drug testing but the civilian who does almost the same job as a mechanic, as a technician who is working right next to him, is not.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to speak out of order.) Tragedy At Thurston High School In Springfield, Oregon

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to use the 5 minutes in opposition.