Gene Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Again, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. TAYLOR. I want to thank the distinguished chairman, and quite possibly the best committee chairman we've had on the House Armed Services Committee in my 20 years, Chairman Ike Skelton. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2009. The bill before the House today represents the strong bipartisan effort of the House Armed Services Committee under the leadership of our very capable chairman, Ike Skelton. For Navy and Marine Corps programs, this bill recommends several initiatives not in the administration's budget request that we believe will enhance the ability of the sea services to protect our Nation. These initiatives include: Full funding for the eight ships in the President's request, with authorization to build an additional four. The funds for $1.8 billion to fully fund a 10th LPD class amphibious assault ship, a vessel that is the number one priority of the Commandant of the Marine Corps. We would pause the DDG 1000 program to allow the Chief of Naval Operations the flexibility to restore the production of the DDG-51 class destroyers, or continue the 1000 program. Advanced procurement funding for long lead components to accelerate the production of Virginia class submarines to two per year beginning in fiscal year 2010 instead of fiscal year 2011. Authorization for the final two vessels in the Lewis and Clark T-AKE dry cargo ammunition ship class. $14.6 billion for the procurement of 206 aircraft, including eight Joint Strike Fighters, 45 F/A-18 series aircraft, 30 Marine Corps MV- 22s, 49 MH-60 series helicopters, 44 T-6 JPATS training aircraft, and two KC 130J cargo aircraft. We would include $247 million for the continued funding of the Joint Strike Fighter competitive engine program; $448 million for emergent aircraft wing repairs to the P-3C fleet of reconnaissance aircraft. We also include important legislative proposals that would direct the Secretary of the Navy to design and construct the next class of amphibious warships with an integrated nuclear power system. Mr. Chairman, today the price of oil went to approximately $130 a barrel. Less than half of the oil that our Nation uses is produced within the United States of America. It makes no sense at all, you have aircraft carriers that could go 30 years without refueling, if those ships that support our aircraft carriers have to refuel every 3 to 5 days. We would authorize the commencement of the complex refueling overhaul of the USS Roosevelt. We would authorize economic inflation adjustments to the statutory cost cap of the Littoral combat ship based on the realities of cost escalations in the materials to build those ships. We would require accountability of obligations in the National Defense Sealift Fund. I want to thank one of our new Members, Admiral Sestak, for helping to make that happen. For the committee's oversight of the activities of the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation, we authorize the request for funding the Maritime Security Program, the Vessel Disposal Program, and the operations and maintenance included in the Merchant Marine Academy. We would authorize $30 million for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program, commonly referred to as title XI loans. We would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to increase student initiative payments at the various State maritime academies. And we would prohibit the transfer of government-owned vessels for the purpose of scrapping or dismantling in foreign shipyards. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank my good friend and ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland, the Honorable Roscoe Bartlett. I have been honored to have him as my working business partner. He has been a great partner in helping to rebuild our Nation's fleet. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in support of this bill. I now recognize the gentleman from Maine for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. TAYLOR. I appreciate the gentleman's questions. I would remind the gentleman, and all Members of this body, that from the earlier days of our Republic we have had at least six major naval shipyards. In the early days, there was concern that maybe the British or the French may come back and reoccupy our country. In the case of the Washington Navy Yard, they did. It made sense then, it made sense now. I am committed to the industrial base of those yards that build our surface combatants, both in Maine and on the gulf coast. The DDG-51 has been a phenomenal platform.

Mr. TAYLOR. The 51 has been a proven platform; we've had over 50 of those ships constructed. It has turned out to be a bargain for the taxpayer. I do have concerns about the DDG 1000 program and some possible cost overruns associated with it. That is why for the stability of the fleet and for the purposes of trying to get the fleet up to 313 ships, we are going to give the Chief of Naval Operations the option of either pursuing the third DDG 1000, or DDG-51s, keeping in mind that the Navy can buy two DDG-51s for the price of every 1000.

Mr. TAYLOR. That's correct. And I would also remind the gentleman that we are working with the Chief of Naval Operations. He has come to us with a proposal. To extend the life of one of our oldest carriers, he would have to spend approximately $2 billion to get an additional 6 months out of that carrier. We are working with the Chief of Naval Operations to give him the option of, instead of spending $2 billion to get an additional 6 months, of taking that $2 billion and applying that money towards an additional surface combatant. And that would certainly help the fleet, and I think it would certainly help Bath Shipyard.

Mr. TAYLOR. I want to thank the chairman. And I want to encourage all the Members of this body to support the House authorization.

Mr. TAYLOR. I thank the chairman. I was very much in the wrong for failing to mention the great work of your committee staff, headed by Ms. Conaton, and in particular Captain Will Ebbs of the Seapower Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity for correcting my mistake. I do want to very much compliment the men and women of the House Armed Services Committee staff who have helped put this package together.

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Mississippi, the Honorable Travis Childers, be permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, as dean of the Mississippi congressional delegation, I am very, very happy to introduce to the House today the House's newest Member, Travis Childers. Travis went to work when he was 16 years old following the death of his father. He worked in a local convenience store to help put himself through school and take care of his family. He attended Northeast Mississippi Junior College and graduated from the University of Mississippi. He is a successful realtor, and has served as the Chancery Clerk of Prentiss County for 16 years. He is married to the former Tami Gibson, and the couple has two children, Dustin, a first-year law student at Mississippi College, and Lauren, a freshman at Ole Miss. Travis has been elected four times in the span of 63 days. He follows in the footsteps of the longest serving Member of Congress, Mr. Jamie Whitten, who used to sit right there, and, most recently, Mississippi's newest Senator, Roger Wicker. On behalf of the people of Mississippi, on behalf of this Congress, we welcome Mississippi's newest Representative, Travis Childers.

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking our chairman, Ike Skelton, for the phenomenal job he's done for looking out for the men and women in uniform this year. I want to thank my ranking member, Roscoe Bartlett, for his incredible cooperation, and I want to thank all the members of the Seapower Subcommittee. I also want to thank the other committee chairmen who, to a man or a woman, transferred funds from their jurisdiction to try to help in our efforts to rebuild America's fleet. Of all the services, I think it is fair to say that the Bush administration has been the least favorable to the United States Navy. It has shrunk by about 50 ships on George Bush's watch. We're trying to turn that around. With this year's bill, we're very proud of several things we've done. We've funded one Virginia class submarine and advanced funding for a second. We've funded one Littoral combat ship, one amphibious assault ship, a dry cargo vessel, a high speed vessel. We've completed funding for two Arleigh Burke destroyers, one amphibious assault ship, and we have started the full funding of an additional carrier. We have long lead funding for three TAKE cargo ships, and Mr. Speaker, again with the great help of Roscoe Bartlett, we have in here language that says the next generation of warships, surface combatants, will be nuclear-powered to lessen our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. I would encourage every American to read a great book on the New York Times best sellers list called ``Halseys Typhoon,'' and it talks about the Christmas typhoon that hit the fleet off of the Philippines in 1944, the needless loss of vessels. But the event that triggered the fleet's sailing into that typhoon was the need for the fleet to refuel their destroyers when the destroyers were caught low on fuel. The destroyers got caught in this storm. Three of them foundered needlessly, and had those vessels been nuclear-powered with a 30-year supply of fuel on board, that never would have happened. To this day, we have only five oilers in the Pacific. Any clever, future foe of the United States, the first thing they're going to do is try to sink those oilers. And the Department of Defense strategy of wishful thinking that this isn't going to happen isn't good enough. So because of future combat needs, things like rail guns, the growth in power, demand for things like electronics, and above all, to have the ships that guard our carriers to have the capacity to stay with the carriers for 30 years, as far as their fuel needs, we're very, very proud of that. We're very happy that the Guard Empowerment Act will become law, and I want to thank my colleague Tom Davis for encouraging me to sponsor that, and I want to thank him for cosponsoring it. It will raise the chief of the National Guard bureau to four stars. It will see to it that either the commander or the deputy commander of the northern command will be either a Guardsman or Reservist. And I can tell you, having worked with General Steven Blom in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I cannot think of a finer human being to be the first person as a National Guardsman to wear four stars. I want to thank the subcommittee for their work on the fielding of mine resistant ambush protected vehicles. A year ago right now, the administration had only asked for 400 of those vehicles. Because of the work of the subcommittee, because of the case that was made to the American people, there will now be 15,000 of them built, and it will from the day it's fielded save lives and save limbs. There are young people in Mississippi graveyards who would be alive today if we had fielded them sooner, but at least it's getting done now. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the great work you've done. I want to thank my fellow subcommittee chairman. And above all, I want to encourage the House to support this very important measure.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent to thank Captain Will Ebbs and Ms. Jenness Simler for the outstanding job they did in helping the Seapower Subcommittee this year and have them reflected in the Record.

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR. The Lee family is from Quitman, Mississippi. The dad is a State Trooper. The mom is a public school teacher. I want to thank you for doing this. I regret that the request was not made of my office. But it just once again proves what a decent Joe you are, Walter. Thank you for doing that

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. I thank the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman. Madam Speaker, one of the things we ought to do in a democracy is when the other guy has a good idea, no matter what political party he's in, is to say that's a good idea. I would remind the gentleman that it was the Bush administration that classified the number of jammers in Iraq under a failed policy by Donald Rumsfeld that basically didn't want the moms and dads of Americans to know how few we had. It was this Congress that insisted that we have a jammer on every vehicle in Iraq to keep the improvised explosive devices from being remotely detonated. So, of course, I don't want those funds cut because I, along with others, worked to put those funds in the bill. Along that same policy of ``war by wishful thinking'' from the Rumsfeld crowd was that we didn't need mine-resistant vehicles over there. The Bush administration only asked for 4,000. We were going to build over 15,000 because this Congress realized the importance of them, and that there are kids in Walter Reed today who would still have their limbs if we had built them sooner. There are kids in Mississippi graveyards who would still be alive if we had built them sooner. So of course we want those funds in the bill. I fully support the gentleman's efforts. We have a lot of very good things in this bill, and it deserves to be funded, and the troops in Iraq need to know that we are going to fund the jammers they need to save their lives both over there and here because one of the problems with having too few jammers is that our troops in the United States that are training to go to Iraq still aren't seeing a jammer until they get to theater. And this is the device that is going to save their lives. This is the device that is going to save their limbs. And they need to be training with those things here in America so that the first time they don't see this device that's going to save their life is when they are traveling from Kuwait into Iraq. That is the situation that still exists today that we are trying to fix. The Bush administration asked for too few of these. Congress, in an earmark, said no, we are going to build them because they are going to save lives. The Bush administration asked for too few mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles. Congress, in an earmark, said no, we are going to build them because it is going to keep kids from losing their legs, and it is going to keep kids from losing their lives. So of course I am going to support this bill, I am going to support the gentleman's efforts, and I thank the chairman for putting together what I think is an excellent Armed Services defense authorization bill that is going to lead to fewer deaths in Iraq, fewer deaths in Afghanistan, and a stronger, and hopefully in the future, more peaceful world.

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I guess of all the Members, I have been the closest to this situation with what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. As you know, Katrina struck during the August recess, and shortly after the recess one of the first votes that was scheduled was the GO Zone legislation which was a very substantial piece of legislation on the part of our Nation to help the affected area. Given the severity of what happened in Mississippi, I made a conscious decision to stay in my district. I felt like that was the best thing to do. This body overwhelmingly passed the GO Zone legislation without me. To the gentleman's point, I have not had one complaint about staying in Mississippi, and I think your colleagues that you are concerned about will not get one complaint about missing a vote on something that is going to pass anyway. I did not ask to shut down the Congress because I needed to be in Mississippi; and, quite frankly, I don't think our California colleagues are really asking to shut down the Congress because they needed to be there. Their constituents will understand, just as my constituents understood.

Mr. TAYLOR

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to remind the gentleman from Georgia that what this is all about is getting the companies to live by their contract. Thousands of my constituents, including one of the most powerful Members of the United States Senate and a Federal judge, had to hire lawyers and engineers to get fairness from their insurance companies. If they're going to do that to a powerful Senator or if they're going to do that to a Federal judge, what kind of chance does a schoolteacher, a chief petty officer, a high school football coach have? The fact of the matter is they have not lived up to their responsibilities. That's what brings this bill to the floor today.

Mr. TAYLOR. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. TAYLOR. Sure. No more than I challenge the question as to whether or not this is a boondoggle. We have recognized a problem; we are addressing it in a means that pays for itself. On the other hand, when the Republican majority controlled this House, they brought a prescription drug benefit to the floor.

Mr. TAYLOR. Which increased the liability of the taxpayers for over $1 trillion and had no funding mechanism. And then they held the vote open for 3 hours to twist arms to pass it. So, sir, that is it.

Mr. TAYLOR. Since you were in the business, you know that if you have a federally backed mortgage and you live in a floodplain, you have to buy flood insurance. The wind policy will be totally voluntary. It is an option to those people who wish to purchase. There is nothing in the law to require people to buy the wind policy.

Mr. TAYLOR. I want to thank Chairman Frank, Chairwoman Waters, Chairman Mel Watt, the Democratic members of the Financial Services Committee for bringing this incredibly important bill to the floor. Mr. Chairman, a little over 2 years ago, the Nation's worst disaster hit a number of places, including the district I have the privilege of representing. An unprecedented number of homes were destroyed, including my own. As the crow flies between my house and Senator Lott's house is 40 miles. As inconceivable as it may be, in that 40 miles between our houses, only a handful of houses within several blocks of the Gulf of Mexico remained. A number of things occurred after that storm, most of them good. People in south Mississippi pulled together. They did what they could to take care of themselves. People from all over America came to our assistance. Congressman Gilchrest's district raised something in the neighborhood of $40,000 to $50,000 for the people of my district, as well as the people of St. Mary's County. There are so many of these things, that I can't enumerate them all. The people of St. Mary's County sent down three truckloads of Christmas presents to kids who lost everything. To this day, there are still young volunteers and not-so-young volunteers from all over the country who come down there trying to help people rebuild their lives. About the only group that didn't try to help the people of south Mississippi is the insurance industry. You see, within days of the storm, the insurance industry issued a memo to their employees that said whenever wind and water occur concurrently, blame it all on the water. Mr. Chairman, the United States Navy has modeled what happened that day in Mississippi, and the United States Navy tells us that for 4 to 5 hours in south Mississippi we had hurricane force winds before the water ever got there. Under the National Write Your Own program, we count on the private sector for two things: we count on them to sell the policy, and that way our Nation does not have the administrative expense of having a sales force. But we also count on them to adjudicate the claim fairly. Those things that are wind, say the wind did it, and they have to pay. Those things that are attributed to water, you can blame it on the flood insurance, and the Nation pays. Within days of the storm, State Farm and other companies had issued the following e-mails to their employees: Where wind acts concurrently with flooding to cause damage to the insured property, coverage for the loss exists only under flood coverage. So, on one hand, they have a contract with the Nation that says we are going to pay if it's wind damage, the Nation is going to pay if it's flood damage. They get to adjust the claim. We don't have a Federal employee following them around. The total discretion to make this claim is with the private sector. Put yourself in the position of that 25-year-old claims adjuster. You're looking for your Christmas bonus; you're hoping for a promotion. You can walk on that property and say what is fair, that, yeah, there was wind and there was water, or you can be a company man and you can follow the memo from company headquarters and blame it all on the water and stick the taxpayer with the bill. That is not fair to the taxpayer right off the bat, and it's not fair to the citizens. Let me further clarify this, and I have kind of become an expert at it the hard way. Every homeowner's policy has something in it called ``Cost of Living Expenses,'' and that is if your home burns down tonight, and you have got a homeowners policy, they will pay to put you up until they fix your house. But if they deny the claim, they don't put you up. The President came down shortly after the storm and said, you know what, if you have lost your house, or if your house is substantially damaged, we are going to get you a trailer to live in. They assigned, just in south Mississippi, 42,000 trailers; one for every family of five, $16,000 per trailer. Then they gave another contract to an outfit called Bechtel to haul those trailers the last 70 miles, from a place called Purvis, Mississippi, down to the site where a home was, hook it up to a garden hose, plug it in, hook it up to the sewer tap. It worked out where that company got another $16,000 just for doing the very simple thing that grandmoms and grandpops and moms and dads do every weekend, which is called hooking up a travel trailer. We are now up to $32,000 per trailer, times 42,000 times, because they decided they weren't going to pay on their homeowners claims, that the Nation would pay. Now, you can come to this floor and defend that, but I don't think you can. So the individual who had a homeowners policy, because if you live in hurricane country, and this has happened three times in my lifetime, it's the only time I lost my house, but three times in my lifetime I have seen terrible storms. You don't know if it's going to be more wind than water or more water than wind. So you buy both policies, with the idea if I get flooded, I've got a flood policy. If it's wind tearing my roof off, I've got a wind policy. You have both. As the chairman pointed out, our Nation spends a fortune to have hurricane hunters fly into these storms. Our Nation spends a fortune to put satellites that track storms into space. Why do they do that? To give people warning so that they don't die in the storm. Our sheriffs departments and police chiefs did a wonderful job: get the heck out of here, this is going to be a bad storm. So the logical people and the people who weren't hard-headed got the heck out of there. We lost a rocket scientist. I am certainly not going to say that man was dumb, but he built what he thought was a hurricane-proof house. He died in that hurricane-proof house. The point is that the few folks who stayed behind almost all died, but the few folks who stayed behind had their claims paid because they could sign an affidavit and say I saw my roof fly off before the water got there, I saw my windows fly in. And, by the way, I was 10 miles inland that day and the windows in my brother's house flew in. The insurance companies paid wind claims in all 82 counties of Mississippi, all the way to Memphis, Tennessee; but they are somehow trying to convince this Congress that the wind somehow miraculously leap-frogged over the coast and they shouldn't have had to pay where it hit first. Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do with this is tell the people of America, the 52 percent of the people that live in coastal America, that if you build the house the way you should, if you pay your premiums, if you buy this additional coverage, if your house is destroyed in the course of a hurricane or substantially damaged in the course of a hurricane, you don't have to be there with a video camera to record whether it's wind or whether it's water. You paid your premium, you built it right, you are going to get paid. One of the gentlemen mentioned that the insurance companies have settled 90-something percent of the claims. Let me address that. I was pretty busy, as you might guess, after the storm. I put off meeting with my adjuster for 2 weeks. By the time I met with my adjuster, I had heard dozens, if not hundreds, of my constituents as I am going around passing out MREs, told me, ``They already told me they are not going to pay me. I had a homeowners policy. They are not going to pay me.'' So by the time they came to my house, I asked my agent, Please don't say a word. Each one of my steps is about 3 feet. Let's just count the steps until we find my roof. We paced off about 150 of them, 450 feet. I showed them my roof and pointed out it was tin. I reminded them that tin doesn't float. I showed them the holes where it had been ripped through the bolts. I said, This is my roof. I am the only guy in this neighborhood that has this style roof. This is my roof, and it is 450 feet from where my house used to be. Now let's walk back to where my house used to be. Miss, what do you have to say? This to the claims adjuster. The first words out of her mouth, I see no evidence of wind damage. We are, however, prepared to pay your flood claim. To which I reminded her that was very sweet of State Farm. That is not their money; that is the Nation's money. What about the claim for that roof that flew over there? What we are trying to do with this is prevent the need for my constituents, your constituents, anyone who lives in coastal America, to have to stay behind with a video camera to record the destruction and possibly die with these claims. If you build it right, if you pay your premiums, then you get paid. Pretty simple. Under the PAYGO rules of this House, it will pay for itself. It has to. It is written in the law. Lastly, we quit putting the insurance companies in a position where they can bilk the taxpayers for billions of dollars. What some of you may not know, something I will be entirely grateful for, is because so many homeowners claims weren't paid in south Mississippi of people who lived outside the floodplain, who had homeowners insurance but didn't get paid, in one of the appropriations bills after Katrina, $4 billion in taxpayer dollars was included to pay those people's insurance claims. The taxpayers paid for what State Farm, Nationwide, and Allstate should have paid. So when people say this is some sort of raid on the Treasury, I see it as just the opposite. This is creating a program where the Nation won't have to ride to the rescue next time because people will have bought insurance ahead of time, in a program that pays for itself, in a program that says if you built it right, if you pay your premiums, an act of God destroys your house, you are going to get paid. I can't think of anything that is more fiscally responsible. I can't think of anything that is more right for the citizens. And I would remind my colleagues that the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Realtors, and the National Association of Bankers, when given the opportunity to look at this bill in its totality, have endorsed this bill as it is written, including the wind versus water language to allow people to buy all-perils insurance. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this. No one can say they have been blindsided on this issue. The hearings on this issue began in January. The debate on this issue started the week after the storm. There has been ample opportunity for people to weigh in on this issue. I very much thank again the chairman, Ms. Waters, Mr. Mel Watt, for the opportunity to bring this to the floor and the opportunity to right an egregious wrong against the American people. Lastly, I would like to remind people that even with Katrina, the insurance industry made $42 billion in profits the year of Katrina. So while they are simultaneously telling their employees, don't pay the individual, while they are sticking the bill to the citizen, if you have any doubt in your mind why flood insurance lost so much money, it is because they made so much money that year. We are trying to correct that. I hope you will help us.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for allowing this amendment to be considered and hopefully for his help on it. Mr. Chairman, anyone who has traveled to south Mississippi or south Louisiana after the wakes of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina know we have an incredible housing shortage. Today, 19,000 Mississippi families are still living in FEMA trailers. They are grateful for the trailers. They would rather be someplace else. Part of that problem is, in particular, for renters. In addition to homes being destroyed, a heck of a lot of rental properties were destroyed. Prior to this amendment, if you are a condo owner or building a condo, you can build a condo with as many number of units as you would like, and each one of those units can be insured up to the value of the Federal flood insurance program. If it is 100 units, each one of them can be insured up to $250,000. On the other hand, if you are considering building rental property, you have two strikes against you. Number one, in the wakes of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, this private sector that so many people are saying are being so good to us have now said that just for wind insurance it is going to be $300 per unit per month even for a modest apartment. Secondly, if you are considering building a building, you can insure that building for only $500,000. Whether it is one unit or 1,000 units, you can only get $500,000 worth of coverage for that entire building. It is a disincentive for the private sector to rebuild and to build the sort of housing that we need. This amendment is all about parity. If we, as a Nation, can insure condominiums for folks who can afford to buy them, then we, as a Nation, ought to be making available insurance for folks who can't afford a condo but who need to rent a place to live. Like every amendment that I have offered and every amendment that has been made in order, it has been judged by the Congressional Budget Office that this amendment will pay for itself. It has no impact on the Treasury. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.