Gene Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, what is the proper mechanism to question the ruling of the Chair and to make that available to the Members to make that decision?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the Committee on Ways and Means has an opportunity every year to consider this measure and measures just like it. They choose not to. I am appealing to the House because I have heard on too many occasions from too many Members of this body that we are not given the chance to do what is right. At every town meeting we attend, when people ask, how do these unfair things continue to happen, do Members know what we have to say? We have to say, it is the committee system, the Speaker, the Committee on Ways and Means committee. They will not let us do that. They do not understand that. They cannot find in the Constitution of the United States where it somehow makes some Members of Congress better than other Members of Congress; where just a few Members of Congress can decide whether or not 435 Members, who were each elected by over half a million American citizens, that they cannot even decide on basic questions of right and wrong when it comes to trade issues. I am asking the Members of this body to step up to the plate. I am asking them to do tonight what they tell their constituents at their town meetings. That is, do what is right, regardless of what the Committee on Ways and Means wants, regardless of what the Speaker wants, regardless of what the Democratic leadership wants or the Republican leadership wants. For once, let us do what America wants. Tonight is the Members' chance. I am asking for that opportunity. I hope Members will vote against tabling this motion. I hope we will bring it to the floor. I hope we will vote as a Nation to tell the people of China we are sick and tired of being their chumps.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, my two previous colleagues stressed the importance of consistency in statesmanship. I am going to agree. For the past 6 years folks on this side of the aisle in particular have been saying that Bill Clinton could not be trusted, on a daily and almost hourly basis. Well, if they really feel that way, I hope they will stick to their guns, because within the next week we will be called upon as Congressmen to give away our constitutionally mandated duty, given to us in article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution, to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Fast track will take that authority from Congress and give it to a President that they say cannot be trusted. If Members really think he cannot be trusted, then do not give him our responsibilities. Under no circumstances should Congress be giving away our constitutionally-mandated duties. This is the highest law of the land. I would encourage all of us to live by it.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. Earlier this year a majority of the Members of this body, in a recorded vote, voted to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. We knew what the vote was on. A majority of us said, ``No more money. You have misused what you had, and it simply does not make sense to tell our 13,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are on food stamps that we do not have enough money for them to get them off of food stamps, but we have money for the National Endowment for the Arts; to tell those military retirees who are not getting the health care that they were promised that we do not have enough money for them, but we have $100 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.'' We spoke on this subject. I want to remind my colleagues that it has made its way back into this bill and if they were serious about the vote earlier in the year, then vote against this bill today.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the subcommittee chairman. How much money is included in this bill for the National Endowment for the Arts?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, again, this is our responsibility. We are not talking about a school district in Mississippi, we are not talking about a school district in your hometown, we are talking about those schools where over half of the students are the children of the people in our Nation's military. It is our responsibility to see to it they are treated fairly. So it is not bureaucracy versus schools. It is simply setting priorities. Should we not be responsible for those children and should we not treat them properly? I have got to admit I am a little disappointed when I see Democrat after Democrat come up here and lambast the motives. That is my motive. I think those kids deserve a decent school. I regret as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Personnel, I could not find the money to get those 13,000 people off of food stamps. But do you know what? Maybe I can give some of their kids a little bit better school to go to. All we are asking is that we as a Nation set some priorities within the funds that we have, since we are trying to balance our budget. One of those priorities will be to shift some money out of the city of Washington, DC, and spend it on the people who serve our country, to see to it that their kids can go to a decent school.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I regret that a lot of good people in this debate have chosen to question other people's motives. I am not going to do that. I will ask some people that I know to have good hearts to think for a second and let us try to set some priorities and let us try to set some priorities involving our Nation's children. For those Members who do not have a military base in their district and therefore may not be familiar with Impact Aid, it is a program designed to help pay the cost of children whose parents either live on a base, work on a base or do both. In my hometown of Bay St. Louis, about 60 percent of my property taxes go toward paying for the schools, building the schools and paying the administrators. About half of the sales tax, which is the majority of State taxes that are collected in Mississippi, go to paying classroom teachers. But if a person is in the military, if they serve at Keesler Air Force Base or the Navy construction battalion and they happen to live on that base, well, then they do not pay property tax. They are serving their country, but they do not pay property tax. Therefore, they are not contributing directly toward the building of those schools in Gulfport and in Biloxi. If they shop on the base, and many of them do because they are underpaid, so we provide base commissaries for them to shop and save some money, at that base commissary they do not pay sales tax. Therefore, they are not paying toward the cost of that classroom teacher, $26,000 in the State of Mississippi alone. So a very good program was started and defended over the years that says since we are placing a burden on these local communities when we send the children from these bases to the local schools, we will help subsidize the local school district. But even that falls horribly short. Nationwide, we spend about $5,500 to educate a child between the age of kindergarten and 12th grade. Impact Aid contributes only about $1,500 to those local school districts where the parent lives on the base, works on the base or does both. So even with the great progress made this year, and I do want to commend the committee for doing so, we are still way below the cost of educating these children. We are a long way from where we should be. What the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] and I want to do, though, is there is a separate circumstance, those circumstances where over half of the young students are the children whose parents live on a base, work on a base or they happen to be on an Indian reservation. These are the most remote areas of America where we do our military training so we do not bother the neighbors, so we do not hurt innocent bystanders. And so the base is the community. If the base is the community, then there is no local school district to subsidize. So the base has to build a school. With the defense drawdown, and there has been a drawdown, the defense budget has gone from $300 billion in 1990 to about $270 billion this year. It has been cut $30 billion in real money, and if we throw inflation on that, it has probably been cut by $50 billion. What the gentleman from Arizona and hopefully a number of my other colleagues are saying is, do you not think those kids deserve a good school? If their parents are in the Navy, they are away from them 180 days a year. I will say that again. If their mom or dad is in the Navy, in all likelihood, they are gone from their children 180 days a year. If they are in the Army in all likelihood, mom or dad is away from those children 150 days a year; if they are in the Air Force, 120 days a year. We cannot make up for these things in money. We are taking their time away from them, the most valuable thing they have, especially when they are little. God knows we do not pay them enough, because we have 13,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines on food stamps. Where I come from, that is an embarrassment. I do not think the people who serve our country ought to be embarrassed like that. So all we are trying to say is if we cannot pay them enough, and they have got to be gone all the time, and because Congress will not take a stand on whether or not to let the President send people all over the world, to let him do what we will not do with the War Powers Act, and we are sending parents away to Bosnia, and we are sending parents to the desert, and we sent parents to Panama and all over the world, why do we not try to make up for it in some small way, to see to it that the kids go to a decent school on base?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the rule. There is a crisis of faith in this country. People every 2 years run for office and ask for the privilege to serve in Congress. They say they are going to do things, and when the time comes to do those things, they find a reason to see to it that they do not. All across the country people ran for Congress and said, we are going to restore the promise of lifetime health benefits to those people who served in our military honorably for 20, 25, 30 or more years. There are 181 people who cosponsored a bill to do just that, including the chairman of the Committee on Rules: the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis], and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings]. Yet, yesterday when the opportunity came before them to bring this measure to the House floor so we could restore that, so we could give the only people in America who were promised free health care for life, to fulfill that promise for them, those people voted against it. They will not give the majority the chance to vote for it, to take care of our military retirees, the same people who went to Korea, the people who went to Vietnam, the people who went to the desert, the people who are in Colombia today. They said, these people do not count. We ought to defeat this rule. We ought to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and we ought to allow the Hefley bill, which is cosponsored by 181 Members of Congress, to fulfill the promise of lifetime health care to our military retirees, to be voted on up-or-down, so we can see whether those people who went back home and said they were for our military retirees really are, or whether it was just another empty promise. Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis of faith in this country because people are not doing what they said they would do. We have a chance to correct that today, we really do.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow in Congress Democrats and Republicans alike will vote for a tax reduction. They are going to give the wealthiest contributors a big tax break. They are going to give the smaller contributors a smaller tax break. But when it comes to those who in my opinion contributed the most to our country, not with their wallets, but with their lives and with their blood, they are going to get nothing at all. I am talking about our Nation's veterans and in particular, our Nation's military retirees. Mr. Speaker, today, your Congress had the opportunity to fulfill the promise of free health care for life for our Nation's military retirees, a promise that has been broken, a promise that remains broken every day. Mr. Speaker, out of this entire year-long legislative session, today was the only day, according to the Parliamentarian, that legislation to restore to our Nation's military retirees the health care benefits that they were promised could be brought to the floor for a vote, and today I tried to do just that. I am pleased to tell my colleagues that every single Democratic Member of Congress voted to help our Nation's military retirees, every single one. I regret to inform my colleagues that every single Republican Member of Congress, let me repeat this; every single Republican Member of Congress voted against helping our Nation's military retirees, even though the bill that would have helped them was introduced by a Republican, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley]. I am a cosponsor of that bill and I am very proud to do so, because after all, if it is good for America, it really should not matter whether it is a Democratic or Republican idea. I am proud to say that every single Democratic Member of Congress took the same patriotic approach to Medicare subvention. They supported bringing Medicare subvention to the floor for a vote, even though the bill's sponsor is a Republican. Why then, I ask the people on this side of the room, did every single Republican vote against it? Why did the 98 Republicans who cosponsored Medicare subvention vote against bringing it to the floor for a vote, despite a plea from the Retired Officers Association? I will read a letter sent to me by the Retired Officers Association: Dear Representative Taylor: Based on discussions with you, we understand that you intend to make a motion to defeat the previous question, and if successful, to offer an amendment to H.R. 2015, the Budget Reconciliation Act, to allow Medicare to reimburse the Department of Defense for care provided to Medicare-eligible service beneficiaries in the Military Health Services System, a concept we refer to as Medicare subvention. The Retired Officers Association strongly supports this initiative. Medicare subvention is critical to help honor the lifetime health care commitment. Servicemembers were promised lifetime health care in return for the extraordinary sacrifices of a 20- to 30-year career in uniform. Now, after several rounds of base closures, massive personnel reductions, and the advent of Tricare Prime, most Medicare-eligible service beneficiaries have lost access to military facilities. Servicemembers did not equivocate when called upon to serve this Nation during years of armed conflict. This Nation should not equivocate on its commitment to provide them lifetime access to military facilities. This is the list, and I want to submit it for the Record, of the 98 Members, Republican Members of Congress, who cosponsored this measure, who will go home and tell their constituents they are for this, they want to help the military retirees, but when the chance comes, the once-in-a-year chance comes to put it into action, voted against it: Hefley, Watts, Norwood, Ensign, Bonilla, Bartlett of Maryland, Ramstad, Goodlatte, Lewis of Kentucky, Ballenger, Bereuter, Cunningham, Herger, Stearns, Dan Schaefer of Colorado, Morella, Young of Alaska, Davis of Virginia, McHugh, Sensenbrenner, Regula, Jones, Skeen, Scarborough, Riggs, Stump, McCollum, Christensen, Hayworth, Wolf, McKeon, Hunter, Baker, Saxton, Petri, Sam Johnson of Texas, Shaw, Kim, Calvert, Bateman, Solomon, who voted against it in Committee on Rules and on the floor; Shadegg, McCrery, Tiahrt, Foley, Porter, Bilbray, Pryce of Ohio, who voted against it in the Committee on Rules and on the floor; Riley, Pombo, Graham, Bono, Canady, Weldon of Florida, Parker, Metcalf, Wamp. Mr. Speaker, I will submit the remainder for the Record. Campbell, Kelly, Hastings, WA, Smith, NJ, Smith, TX, Wicker, Callahan, Kolbe, Barton, TX, Linda Smith, WA, Granger, LaHood, Collins, Paxon, Doolittle, Hansen, Linder, Hutchinson, Rohrabacher, Hostettler, Emerson, Nethercutt, Diaz-Balart, Everett, Weller, Ney, Combest, Packard, Talent, McInnis, Taylor, NC, Bob Schaffer, CO, Gallegly, Shimkus, Horn, Chambliss, Chenoweth, Fox, PA, and Gibbons. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind people that this is the only chance we are going to get to vote on Medicare subvention. Do not go home for the Fourth of July parades and tell the veterans you are with them because they now know, and the Congressional Record will reflect, that when given the opportunity to do something for them, or do something for Newt Gingrich, you voted for Newt Gingrich and against our veterans. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the material referred to earlier during my special order. The Retired Officers Association, Alexandria, VA, June 25, 1997. Hon. Gene Taylor, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Taylor: Based on discussions with you, we understand that you intend to make a motion to defeat the previous question, and if successful, to offer an amendment to HR 2015, the Budget Reconciliation Act, to allow Medicare to reimburse the Department of Defense for care provided to Medicare-eligible service beneficiaries in the Military Health Services System--a concept we refer to as Medicare subvention. The Retired Officers Association strongly supports this initiative. Medicare subvention is critical to help honor the lifetime health care commitment. Servicemembers were promised lifetime health care in return for the extraordinary sacrifices of a 20- to 30-year career in uniform. Now, after several rounds of base closures, massive personnel reductions, and the advent of Tricare Prime, most Medicare-eligible service beneficiaries have lost access to military facilities. Servicemembers did not equivocate when called upon to serve this Nation during years of armed conflict. This Nation should not equivocate on its commitment to provide them lifetime access to military facilities. Medicare subvention will help honor that commitment while saving money--a ``win-win'' proposition for Medicare, for taxpayers and for those who served. Sincerely, Michael A. Nelson, President.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am going to oppose this rule for a number of reasons. But first and foremost, this is supposed to be a democracy. This is supposed to be the place where the Members who were sent here by about 550,000 people, citizens of this country, have the opportunity to make things better. Unfortunately the Committee on Rules in many instances decided that those people do not count, that we cannot make things better, that we do not even have the chance to make things better. One of the things that I would have very much liked to addressed and asked the Committee on Rules yesterday to address involves the war on drugs. Our Nation spends about $12 billion on the war on drugs. As I speak we have AWAC's flying over Central and South America. We have what is called E-3's and P-3's flying over Central and South America. We have troops on the ground in Colombia in at least 3 different locations. At one of those locations about 80 miles away, the Colombia guerrillas overran a Colombian army base and either killed or captured everyone there in the month of February. It is a real war, with real deaths. Just a few years ago in Peru, one of our C-130's on a reconnaissance patrol was shot up by Peruvian aircraft. We do not know whether he did it by mistake or on purpose. We do know that an American airman fell 11,000 feet to his death. It is a real war, with real money, and real American lives being lost. One amendment that I wanted to offer that the Committee on Rules cowardly did not even vote on would have said we need to test those civilians who work for the Department of Defense to see whether or not they are on drugs, particularly those involved in the counternarcotics effort. What good does it do to spend all of this money and put people's lives on the line if the people who are manning the aircraft, who are making them work, people who know where the missions are going to go, are on drugs? What if they are in cahoots with the drug dealers? The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] did not even think it was worth voting on. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] did not think it was worth voting on. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] did not think it was worth voting on. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder], the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis], the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings] and the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] did not even think it was worth voting on. Are they going to tell me in those States there is not a drug problem, that we do not need to know whether or not the guys who are supposed to be on our side being paid by our country are on drugs? Ronald Reagan back in 1986 when he was the President of the United States called for a drug testing policy, but it was not mandatory. I think we need to know if the people who work for you and me are on drugs. It is a shame that the Committee on Rules does not feel the same way. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my subcommittee chairman for making this possible. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Harman amendment. That is not what our Nation should be about, and for those of of my colleagues who come to the floor on an annual basis, and this seems to be the only thing in the military that one can speak on, I would encourage my colleagues, if they really want to help the troops, why do you not try to help us find the funds so that we can get those 13,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are on food stamps, and two-thirds of whom have families of their own and children of their own, at least pay them enough so they are not eligible for food stamps? Where I come from there is a stigma to being on food stamps, and no one who serves our country should have to live with that kind of a stigma.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage my fellow Members to support this measure. As many other people have pointed out, it does not do everything that we would like to do. But in a budget environment where, unfortunately, the only committee in Congress that has had its budget reduced in real dollars is the Department of Defense, I do believe that we have done as much good as we could with what we have. There are certain disappointments that I would like to articulate, things that I hope that we can address during this session. I will start by talking about health care for military retirees. Since most of those people have spent at least 20 years serving their country in the military, I think they, better than most, understand the chain of command, who is responsible for what. Unfortunately, this was not a decision that could be made alone by the Committee on Armed Services. Unfortunately, the funding for the program that they have told me they had the most interest in, which is Medicare subvention, flows through the Committee on Ways and Means, because the funding for that will have to come out of the Medicare budget. I am sorry that as of today that committee has chosen not to act upon this. What I mean by ``acting upon this'' is to create a program that would allow military retirees over 65 years of age to continue going to the base hospitals, and then have the base hospital bill Medicare for that service. We will get a chance this year. I want to assure the retirees that when the Medicare portion of reconciliation reaches the House floor, this will be an effort that I will be a part of to see to it that Medicare subvention becomes the law of the land. I would hope the leadership would allow a straight up-or-down vote on this, it is that important. Because quite honestly, they were the only people in America who were promised health care, and they are the only people in America in that age group who are not getting it. That is simply not fair. One of the other disappointments of this session, but something I hope we can address in future years, is the inequity of the way pay raises are granted. For about the past 25 years pay raises have been granted on a percentage basis, which, if you are a general or a colonel or an admiral is not so bad, because after all, 2.8 percent of a general or an admiral or colonel's pay is pretty good pay. If you happen to be an E-1, an E-2, an E-3, an E-4, and in particular one with a family, then 2.8 percent of your pay, even as a raise, amounts to only about $20 or $30 a month. That is not much money, and as a matter of fact, it would barely buy one box of Pampers for one of your children each month. Mr. Chairman, I would hope in the future that we will, as a committee, seriously study an alternative to give those people at the lower ranks who occupy better than one-half of the U.S. Marine Corps a flat rate on the lower scale, to allow them to make a little bit more money and make a life in the military, a career in the military, a more attractive option. Something I am very proud of, we were able to balance the budget this year in the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, and it was a bipartisan effort and could not even have been done without the help of many of my Republican colleagues, was the passage and retention of a very good program, in fact, the opportunity to expand a program, called Youth Challenge. It is a program where at-risk youth, high school dropouts, people between the ages of 16 and 18 who have dropped out of school, and in many if not most instances have gotten into some trouble with the law, but have not yet been convicted of anything, where they are given the opportunity to get drug-free. They go through a boot camp type environment for 22 weeks. It is run, I believe, in 15 States, and it has a 96-percent success ratio. That means that 96 percent of the over 8,000 young people who participated in this program have gotten their GED and have gone on to go to work, further their education, or have joined the military. Some of them are doing all three by joining the National Guard, continuing their education, and getting a part-time job to help with their expenses. Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of another program in the United States of America that has a 96-percent success ratio. We have funded this program at $50 million this year. We have called for an increased participation on the part of the States, with the understanding that this allows the Federal dollars to go further, and it is my hope that every single State in the Union will participate in this great program. I want to compliment our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], for taking some steps to lessen the financial blow to people who are on active duty who are sent away from their families for training. There have been a number of measures included in this bill that will lessen the financial blow that they have when they are separated from their families, because the last thing we want people to do is actually lose money while they are away from their families. Mr. Chairman, I would close by saying I would encourage every Member to support this bill. I think it is the best we can do with the resources available.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, in about 45 minutes I will be going back to the Committee on National Security, where we will be putting together the personnel portion of the national defense bill for next year. I will hear the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], the chairman of the committee, say that we cannot fulfill the pledge to our military retirees that they will be given health care for life, a pledge that was made to them on the day they enlisted and a pledge that was actually in Army recruiting brochures all the way into 1993, because we do not have enough money. My colleague from Indiana will say that we cannot fund the youth challenge program run by the National Guard that takes high school dropouts, who in all probability would have ended up in the prison system, runs them through a 20-week boot camp-like environment in a number of States across the Nation, and has a 99-percent success ratio of taking these kids who would have gone to prison and getting them in school, getting them a GED, getting them a job, and in many instances they join the Armed Forces. Some of them do all three: Become a reservist, go to school, and get a job upon graduation. A 99-percent success ratio. That will be cut by $30 million because my Republican colleague will say we do not have enough money. There will be 13,000 U.S. marines, airmen, soldiers, and sailors who this year will be able to apply for and receive food stamps because they do not make enough money from the pay that we give them, and yet they will only get a 2.8-percent increase. Now, if one is a Congressman or a President, 2.8 percent of one's salary is a lot of money. But if you are an E-1 or an E-2 or an E-3 or an E-4, and over half of all of the United States marines are E-4 or below, 2.8-percent of the very small salary you have is a minuscule pay raise. It is about $20 or $30 a month. This is an additional box of Pampers for one of your children. Mr. Chairman, we are going to be told we cannot help our own, but we can spend $10 million to broadcast a signal that is jammed, going into a country that has daily trade relations with Mexico, the same folks who a couple of years ago my colleagues on the other side said we should open our borders to through NAFTA, the same folks my colleagues on the other side said we ought to send our factories to through NAFTA. If I recall, just about 2 years ago right now on this same House floor we heard people denounce great programs like ``Sesame Street,'' great programs like ``Mr. Rogers,'' about the only thing on television that is worthwhile for a child to watch, saying that the Government should not be in the business of educating children through television. Well, heck, if we are not about educating American kids through television, what on Earth are we doing trying to broadcast a signal to another country that has free relations with Mexico to the south of us, with Canada to the north of us, that is jammed, at the expense of $10 million a year. If my colleagues do not know what to do with that $10 million, I have a bunch of high school dropouts that I can keep out of prison and make good soldiers out of. I have a bunch of military retirees that we can fulfill the promise of lifelong health care with that money. And I have about 13,000 U.S. marines, U.S. airmen, U.S. Navy personnel, U.S. Army personnel, that we could pay them a slightly better wage with that money, rather than the pittance and the food stamp-eligible wages they are getting now. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] is merely saying that in a time when we are trying to reduce Federal spending, should we not prioritize what we have left on Americans? When my Republican colleagues say that there are some things that Government should not do because the private sector could do it better, well, maybe this is one of them, because obviously what we are doing as a nation is not working. And $10 million is a heck of a lot of money, could help a heck of a lot of young people stay out of prison, help a heck of a lot of military retirees get the health care that they deserve, or pay those fine young sailors who are at sea 180 days a year, fine young airmen who are away from their families a minimum of 120 days a year, or fine young soldiers who are away from their families a minimum of 160 days a year. Support the Skaggs amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and the Democratic handlers of this bill for including an amendment. It was brought to my attention when traveling the streets of Bay St. Louis with one of our police officers, Officer Ernest Taylor, the great frustration that he had come to witness, and that is that in the publicly owned, publicly operated housing areas of the city, they were able to, in a contract with those people who moved in, get their permission to search the common grounds of those publicly owned public housing areas at any time. Through that they had virtually eliminated crime in that part of town. Unfortunately, it had shifted the crime, in particular, drug sales, to those things that were privately owned but publicly leased housing areas because similar contracts were not available under section 8 housing. This amendment would allow for the consensual agreement between a landlord and a tenant, and this would require a consensual agreement between a landlord and a tenant that those privately owned but publicly leased properties, the common areas of them such as parking lots, courtyards, grounds, streets that run through a development, picnic facilities, the resident centers, basketball grounds, would be available so that with probable cause the police could search those people for any violation of the law and, in particular, drug sales. The amendment that I am offering and the manager has been nice enough to accept would make owner consent a condition of participation in the section 8 program for property owners who are either entering a new contract or renewing an expiring contract. The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that 1.8 million section 8 contracts assisting a total of 4.4 million low-income persons are set to expire this year. Currently law enforcement officials are allowed access to common areas of public housing units. However, the police must be invited on to section 8 housing projects by either the property owner or tenants in order to respond to a complaint. This problem was pointed out to me by Officer Taylor of the Bay St. Louis Police Department. I recently accompanied him on his beat as a civilian participating in a ride-along program, and Officer Taylor is one example, also, of how the Cops Program works. Officer Taylor explained to me that he and his colleagues have been able to eradicate nearly all the drugs and drug-related crimes in the city's publicly owned housing units through the success of the Cops Programs and HUD's Drug Elimination Grant Program. Unfortunately, because of the increased police presence in the public housing common areas, many of the city's criminals have moved their drug trade and related criminal activities to the city's section 8 housing. This is just not right. They are both publicly paid for. They are both a privilege for those people who live there. And it just makes common sense that people should be willing to give up a little bit in order to get subsidized housing and in order to eradicate crime from that part of town. This amendment would provide local law enforcement with the flexibility they need to protect residents of section 8 housing programs from those who sell drugs and perpetrate violent crimes, the sort of crimes that the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] was talking about. In addition, the amendment is mindful of property owners' rights because the amendment does not apply to existing contracts, only those that are either new or those that are being renewed after expiring. It is also mindful of the rights of citizens who live in public assisted housing, in that the police must have probable cause of a criminal activity taking place before they are allowed to venture into section 8 properties. I want to thank Officer Taylor for bringing this problem to my attention. I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and the other managers of this bill for being willing to address it. I encourage my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to sit this one out, but a previous speaker, the gentleman from Georgia, asked where is the outrage. I think after 90 days of session it is high time some of us expressed our outrage. See, for 40 years a group of people much like the previous District of Columbia City Council said, if we could just govern, give us a chance, we will fix it. But they have discovered, much like the D.C. City Council, that either they do not want to or they cannot. Now, 90 days into the session, I would like you to tell me what you have done about any of America's major problems. What have you done about the drug problem? The answer is absolutely nothing. What have you done about our Nation's $5.7 trillion debt, $222 billion annual operating deficit on your budget, $360 billion interest payment on that debt for your budget? You come down here and you cry crocodile tears and say we need a tax break. We need to give the wealthiest Americans a big tax break so they can turn around and instead of paying taxes, they can lend more money to the Government at 8 percent and 9 percent, so the average Joes who live in States like Mississippi will get less in return, because the biggest expense of the Government is not those bureaucrats they blast, it is not welfare, it is not food stamps, it is not defense or health care, it is interest on the national debt, and it is getting worse by the day, and you are doing nothing about it. What have you done to improve our Nation's defense? Defense spending is down about 10 percent since George Bush left office. Yet you all run the Congress. There are 30-year old helicopters right now flying around. Which one is going to crash next? You have not done anything on defense. You have not done anything on the deficit. You have not done anything on drugs. When given the opportunity to set a good precedent on funding, you secretly sneak through an 8 percent increase on funding for congressional committees. You do not even tell us you are doing it. A reporter has to tell Congress after it is done that you have increased that budget by 8 percent. The outrage is that now we are trying to take one step in looking at some of the wrongs that are happening. I would like to know how NAFTA passed. Do Members remember the approximately $15 million the Mexican Government spent in Washington promoting the passage of NAFTA? Where did it go, I would ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]? Do Members not think we ought to know that as well? The gentleman has made some very legitimate concerns. I agree with the gentleman on every single one of those concerns. Please, you are being rude, Mr. Dreier. What about the money the Mexican Government spent passing NAFTA in this town? If we are concerned about what foreigners are doing to influence our Congress, to influence our administration, should we not know that? Should not the folks who used to work at those five garment plants just in one 435th of the country that happens to be the Fifth Congressional District of Mississippi, who lost their jobs as a result of NAFTA, do they not deserve to know? Do Members not think the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] ought to look into that? We are asking for just one thing today. You will not do anything about the deficit, you will not do anything about the debt, you will not do anything about drugs. Let us make a little step. Let us look at campaign finance reform so maybe in the future there will not be another Congress that makes such a blatant mistake like NAFTA, where we went from a trade surplus to a trade deficit; where the only thing we are exporting to Mexico are jobs. That is why we need campaign finance reform. These folks are totally in the right. Give them a break for a change.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss the ethics charges facing Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives. The House Ethics Committee voted 7-1 to reprimand and assess a penalty of $300,000 for Speaker Gingrich. In recommending a sanction and a $300,000 fine, the committee stated on page 94 of its report the following: ``* * * the violation does not represent only a single instance of reckless conduct. Rather, over a number of years and in a number of situations, Mr. Gingrich showed a disregard and lack of respect for the standards of conduct that applied to his activities.'' Based on this, I find it inconceivable that the Ethics Committee would recommend a resolution to this body which would not specifically prohibit the Speaker from paying his fine from campaign funds. Mr. Gingrich's campaign organization can raise these funds in a matter of minutes. During the Speaker's most recent general election campaign, he spent $5.4 million to defeat his challenger. At the end of November, Federal Election Commission reports indicate that he has over $1 million remaining in his campaign fund. The Speaker used funds from tax-exempt organizations to promote his political agenda. If a Member violates the rules of the House, the Member, not their campaign, should be held responsible for whatever fine is levied. Mr. Speaker, I therefore voted against approving the resolution recommended by the committee.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, in the very brief time I have, I regret that this package of rule changes has come down to debate on just one of those changes. Overall it is a pretty good rules change, but there is one that is grossly inadequate. As we meet right now on the floor of the House of Representatives, the Transportation Committee, of which I am a member, is meeting in the Rayburn Building. I cannot be in two places at once. We should have a House rule that prohibits the committees meeting while the House is in session. Instead, you are offering a rules change that would remove the last prohibition against the committees meeting while the House is in session. That is a gross mistake. And because we have a mistake, I will vote against your package. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] would be good enough to allow the Members to vote on some of these changes individually, because overall it is a good package and I would like to help pass your package. But I cannot let the terrible wrong of one change make up for some of the good of the others.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Rules Committee for bringing this bill forward today. One of my friends spoke a little earlier and said that Congress cannot determine wealth or it cannot set wages. Yet every year for the 7 years that we have both been here, Congress has given our senior citizens a COLA, cost of living increase, on their Social Security check. For each of those 7 years, we have given retired Federal employees a cost of living adjustment on their check. For each of those 7 years, we have given our military retirees a cost of living adjustment on their check, not for what they are doing but for what they have done. And no one stood up and said we should not do this, because everyone realized that the cost of living has gone up. This week speaker after speaker came to the podium and said that people should value work, and I agree. But if people should value work, then work must have value. And so, yes, the least fortunate in our society, those who by and large have the toughest jobs, they deserve a wage increase. I want to compliment the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and I want to compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] for bringing this bill to the floor today. It is long overdue. Let us help those people out.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise in serious opposition to some remarks that the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] made. In fact, walking on the floor, I thought I was back in the Mississippi legislature when they were debating not whether or not to increase but whether or not there would even be mandatory education in the schools. Mr. Chairman, Mississippi tried that. We went for almost 30 years without mandatory education, I say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]. That is probably why our State ranks last in so many categories. It does not work. It costs to educate kids, and it costs more to educate kids with disabilities. There was a time when they were given a couple pots and pans and told to play in the backyard. Now we try to educate them and, yes; we spend a disproportionately high amount of money trying to educate those kids. But it is for the purpose of making them self-sufficient so that we do not have to pay welfare for them. It costs money to educate children. My State tried the alternative. My State tried going without education and it is suffering for it. So I rise in complete argument with everything that the gentleman said and also want to remind you that the Republican Congress is increasing the annual operating deficit, not reducing it.