Gene Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1034, a bill to designate a portion of the James River and Kanawha Canal in Richmond as nonnavigable for purposes of subtitle II of title 46, United States Code. Mr. Speaker, this is a very noncontroversial bill. Its purpose is to allow the city of Richmond to regulate safety on this small body of water instead of the United States Coast Guard. The Kanawha Canal is about 1 mile long and 23 feet wide, with an average depth of 3 feet. As part of an urban renewal project, the city is going to have small boats taking passengers up and down the canal. This legislation will allow the city of Richmond to regulate the safety of the passengers on those vessels. If the Coast Guard finds that the vessels operated on these waters are built, maintained, or operated in a manner that does not protect the public, then the United States Coast Guard can revoke the nonnavigability determination and subject all of the vessels operating on the canal to full Coast Guard inspection and licensing of personnel. Because of the Coast Guard's safety expertise, the city of Richmond has committed to consulting with the Coast Guard before allowing any material changes to the construction, maintenance or operation of these vessels. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill adequately balances the desire to promote tourism in Richmond with the need to ensure the vacationing public a safe boating experience on this canal. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 1034. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues news of two rather unique accolades for the celebrated Mary Mahoney's Old French House Restaurant in Biloxi, Mississippi . Since opening its doors on May 7, 1964 in the refurbished Louis Frasier house that dates from 1737, this venerable establishment has been a Gulf Coast culinary landmark serving friends and travelers from near and far. The late Mary Mahoney and her dedicated family built their business on the tenets of excellent cuisine and service as well as an historically authentic Old South atmosphere, which over time has earned them international acclaim. Among the numerous celebrities whose names grace their guest book are Sam Donaldson, Alexander Haig, Robert Redford, Denzel Washington, Randy Travis, and Dick Clark. During the Reagan Administration, Mary Mahoney catered a ceremony on the White House lawn for President and Mrs. Reagan and their guests. All were impressed, but none left a more impressive gratuity than author John Grisham. In his recent bestseller, The Runaway Jury, Mr. Grisham compliments the restaurant by name and offers the reader a glimpse inside by having the judge in his novel host a fictional lunch for the jurors and court officers at ``Mary Mahoney's''. Through Mr. Grisham's narrative the reader gets to share in the ``crab cakes and grilled snapper, fresh oysters and Mahoney's famous gumbo. * * *'' He goes on to write, ``By the time the jury was seated for the afternoon session, everyone present had heard the story of their splended lunch.'' Now a newly released book celebrates the restaurant's vivacious founder and guiding spirit. It is entitled, A Passion for People: The Story of Mary Mahoney and Her Old French House Restaurant. Written by Mississippi journalist and family friend Edward J. Lepoma, himself a regular in Mary's inner circle of guests, this photo-filled, loving memoir tells of the trials and ultimate triumph of a second generation American with a dream. The dream was that of creating a world class restaurant in Biloxi, Mississippi, where the dining experience would be matched by the warm ambiance that told all who visited, ``Tonight, you are among friends.'' With its quaint art-filled dining rooms, superior wine list, and captivating Southern charm and hospitality, Mary Mahoney's Old French House Restaurant provides a memorable evening for first-time and long- time guests, an excellent backdrop for the novelist, and is a source of civic pride for the citizens of Biloxi and the entire Mississippi Gulf Coast region.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 819, the Federal Maritime Commission Authorization Act of 1999. The Federal Maritime Commission performs a vital role of protecting our international trade from unfair practices by foreign governments and is actively engaged in implementing the new Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. Deregulation of international maritime shipping begins May 1. The ocean carriers and shippers are quickly moving to enter into service contracts in which their competitors will no longer know the rates. A new era in competition in international shipping is about to begin. The Commission has also been actively involved in resolving practices by the governments of China, Japan and Brazil that distort the free market system of international shipping by imposing restrictions on U.S. carriers in these trades. H.R. 819 authorizes $15.6 million for the Federal Maritime Commission for fiscal year 2000 and $16.3 million for fiscal year 2001. The fiscal year 2000 funding level is $385,000 above the amount requested by the President to fund the appointment of the fifth commissioner and his staff. Mr. Chairman, this is a very reasonable budget request. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 819, the Federal Maritime Commission Authorization Act of 1999.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague from Florida (Mr. Goss) for his well thought out, articulate view on this. I want to tell him that I am in total agreement. I urge my colleagues to vote against both the Gejdenson amendment and the Fowler amendment for all the reasons that the gentleman articulated. I think the Gejdenson amendment would have us rush into something that has yet to have been written. The Fowler amendment would have us condemn it. I do not think that is a very adult thing to do. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to give strong consideration to an amendment by the ranking minority member on the House Committee on National Security, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I think it gives us the best of all of these worlds. It says to those of us, including myself, who are reluctant to commit troops, Mr. President, you cannot send troops right now. It gives those of us who would like to see the details of the peace agreement the opportunity to wait until it is written, wait until it is brought before this body, wait until our Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley Clark, can come to Washington and explain our concerns about the safety of the troops, what our mission is, how much it is going to cost, and yes, how long we are going to be there. Then and only then it calls on Congress to vote on it. I applaud my colleagues who say that yes, it is time that Congress finally starts fulfilling our duties as given to us by the Founding Fathers in Article I, Section 8, where it says we must decide where and when young Americans are put in harm's way. We have let both Democratic and Republican Presidents walk all over us. We have failed in our duties. So I applaud those of my colleagues who say, let us do our job. I also want to applaud the people, including the troops who went to Bosnia, who showed me that I was wrong when I opposed our intervention there. It was not a general, it was not an admiral, it was not a bureaucrat, and it was not a State Department official that showed me that I was wrong, it was an 18-year-old kid from Ocean Springs, Mississippi. When I went over there with a notebook looking for kids to tell me why we should not be there and how stupid it was, and a young man by the name of Rhodes who might have been all of a corporal, I said, should we be here? And I was shocked when he said yes. I said, why? Fresh out of high school, he says, Because I am keeping women from getting raped, I am keeping little kids from getting tortured, I am keeping old men from being murdered just because of their religion. That is why I joined the army, to be a good guy. Folks, I was dumbfounded. That mission has never been articulated better by anyone anywhere and to Corporal Rhodes, wherever you are, God bless you for saying it, and to his parents, God bless you for bringing such a kid into this world. Folks, this is the only rational way to go about this. Let us do our job. Mr. President, you have no authority to send troops; therefore, you cannot. Mr. President, bring us a proposal that we can read, take a look at, and then yes, Mr. President, we owe you the respect of at least looking at it and then voting on it. I urge my colleagues to reject the Fowler amendment, I urge my colleagues to reject the Gejdenson amendment, but I rise in very strong support of the very rational position brought to us by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 23, H.R. 171, and No. 24, H.R. 193, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, on February 11, as a result of a hostage crisis that took place in my congressional district which required my direct intercession, I missed the final vote of the day, rollcall vote 21. After several hours of tense negotiations and through the fine work of the local, state and federal law enforcement officials, I am pleased to report that the hostages were all rescued without any loss of life or injury. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 21. In addition, Mr. Speaker, earlier today, February 22, 1999, I missed rollcall votes 22 and 23. Today, I received a briefing from the Vice Commander of United States Southern Command that ran longer than expected. As a result, my departure from the Headquarters of the U.S. Southern Command in Miami was delayed. I unfortunately did not arrive back in Washington in time to vote on the two suspension bills, H.R. 193 and H.R. 171. Had I been present at the time the votes were called, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 22 and ``yea'' on rollcall 23. I would like to request unanimous consent to enter my statement into the Record at the appropriate location.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing about all of the money for defense in this bill. Let me remind my colleagues that less than 2 percent of the $507 billion that goes into this bill is for defense. That is a pretty sorry trade-off. Less than 2 percent of all that is spent. What do we spend more money on? We spend $12.5 billion on foreign aid. We spend $19.4 billion on international financial institutions. There is a $94 million program to buy out the Bering Sea pollock fleet, as if that was of great national importance. There is $100 million for a new visitor's center right out front, and $103 million for our protection, not for our citizens' protection, but for additional protection for Members of Congress. As bad as what we know about the bill is, it is what we do not know that troubles me. Mr. Speaker, 4,000 pages of documents that the average Member of Congress has had less than 3 hours to study. And it is what we do not know that scares me to death. We know it creates new commissions, we know it repeals things like the commercial fishing industry, Vessel Anti-Reflagging Act, but it is the great unknown. I ask the American citizens, would you go to a lawyer and present him a contract for his advice and his guidance and when it comes time for you to sign it he says, but by the way, I did not read it. Would you go to a tax accountant and turn over all your records to him and he fills out your forms but as you are signing it and sending it off to the IRS, he says, but by the way, I never took a look at the information you gave me. Mr. Speaker, we have already given away our constitutionally mandated authority to declare war between nations. More often than not we have given away our constitutionally mandated authority to regulate commerce between nations. The last thing that stands between this body being a body that does something and nothing but a debating society, is our ability to decide where money is spent, and if my colleagues vote for that, they have given that away as well.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many of my colleagues would sign a $100,000 mortgage without reading it. I wonder how many of them would take out a $10,000 business loan without reading the terms. I wonder how many of my colleagues would profess to tell their constituents that they know what is in these 4000 pages. I can tell them there is a $100 million visitors center for here, the Capitol. There is another $104 million for our protection. But I cannot also tell them there is a buyout program for the Pollack industry that I do not know why we need to buy those vessels. That costs us about $50 million. This spends 500 billion of the taxpayers' money, not our money. And no one in this room can tell us everything that is in it. We have been here all year. I think we can wait a few more days to see to it that Members have the opportunity to study this. If we are not given the opportunity to study this, then I think the only businesslike and responsible thing for the Members to do is to vote against it.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Christensen) for his remarks. As a member of the other political party, I would like to join him in really condemning what the leadership on both the minority and majority side are trying to do to the 435 elected representatives of the people. Mr. Speaker, all across our country, people hire tax accountants to help them make sure that they are not violating any laws. You can imagine how aghast they would be if when it came time to submit that form, the accountant told them they had never actually looked at the information that they had given them. People hire lawyers from time to time to help them with contracts, and, again, you can imagine walking into negotiations and at the last minute your lawyer saying well, he has not quite bothered to read it; or having a purchasing agent who works for you who on a daily basis is signing forms for tens of thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars, but who never bothered to see what he was really signing for and spending your money on. Starting Friday at 9:30, the great young people who help me in my Congressional office started calling and asking for copies of this 4,000-page document that is going to spend over one-half of a trillion, that is $500 billion, of the citizens' hard-earned money. They have been calling about every hour since then. As of right now, 20 minutes to 1, a copy of this document is still not available. Yet the Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership are going to tell us to trust them, just go ahead and vote for it. One of the people who is asking us to trust them is now being studied to see if he committed perjury. Another of the people who says ``trust us'' admitted lying to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. That is not a very good place to start. Every Member of this body was elected. Not one of us was given this job. We had to go out and ask for it. Most of us went out and begged for it. We mortgaged our houses, we sold those things we really did not need and put ourselves in financial jeopardy because we wanted to come here and make things better. But now we are being given the option of either taking a half a trillion dollars worth of spending that does some good things, but we do not know what else it does. My friend from Nebraska mentioned the Welfare Reform Act. There is no one that can tell me with great certainty that this bill does not repeal it. We do not know if it establishes all new criteria for gun control. We do not know if it says on a permanent basis that we are going to have troops in Haiti or Bosnia forever. We do not know what kind of trade pacts are buried in there, because, quite frankly, there is not one copy of this bill that 435 Congressmen are being asked to vote on available for any of us to read. Mr. Speaker, I take my job very seriously. I begged for it. When we get through with this, I am going to go back home and beg for it again. I am not going to give my responsibility away. I am going to vote no. Until there is a copy of that bill that is available for the Members to study and have some idea and some certainty as to what we are doing to and for the American people, I am going to continue to vote no.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Again, Mr. McCollum, I want to commend you for the parts of the bill that you did pass. I also want to point out that we had an opportunity, since the gentleman from Ohio mentioned demand, to require drug testing for all Federal employees. If I recall, the gentleman from Ohio did not support that.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 2263, a bill to authorize the President to award the Congressional Medal of Honor to Theodore Roosevelt for his historic charge during the Battle of San Juan Heights. I am pleased to join my colleague, who should have been Secretary of the Navy, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) in cosponsoring this legislation. Teddy Roosevelt's charge up Kettle Hill at San Juan Heights is one of the most inspiring moments in our Nation's history. His bravery and gallantry demonstrates how one man's initiative can change the course of a battle. For his bravery he was nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor. However, it was never bestowed by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Speaker, the Medal of Honor is the highest award our Nation can bestow, and, therefore, we should not confer this honor lightly. However, we must recognize the standards for awarding the medal at that time were not the same as the standards for awarding it now. We need the Department of Defense to examine this case on its merits in light of the others who won the Medal of Honor during that engagement. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel recently held a hearing on the case for awarding the Medal of Honor, the award that Colonel Roosevelt valued so highly and that his superiors so clearly wanted to give him. While I was unable to attend this hearing because of the hurricane that was in south Mississippi last Monday, I understand that witnesses unanimously reaffirmed the case for awarding the medal. I hope this legislation will give the Department the chance to do the same. Mr. Speaker, while I have the chance, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the bill's author, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale). Paul has not been a Member of Congress as long as some others, but he has served this body extremely well. He was asked by the President to serve as the Secretary of the Navy and declined, and was one of a very few people on this side of the aisle who felt that the best thing for our country, regardless of partisan politics, was to ask the same man who offered him the job of Secretary of the Navy to resign. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) is the kind of people that we need more of in Congress. I regret his departure, and I am honored to have cosponsored this bill with him.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 2, I was unavoidably detained because of Hurricane Georges. All flights out of Mobile, New Orleans and Gulfport, Mississippi were cancelled. Had I been here, I would have voted ``no'' on H.R. 3891. I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 4103. I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 4060, and I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 3150.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and myself have agreed to pair tomorrow on the vote on the tax package. I would like for my statement to be included in the Record at that time, but I will not be here tomorrow to do so. Therefore, I am asking if it would be in order to ask at this time that that statement be included in the Record.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement be included in the Record at the appropriate place tomorrow.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding time. I also want to thank the gentleman from Mobile, AL (Mr. Callahan). We have agreed to pair on this. Hurricane Georges will undoubtedly hit either his congressional district or mine. We have reached the decision that the best place for us to be tomorrow with is with our families and with our constituents. The gentleman from Alabama is going to vote for it. I am going to vote against it. Our Nation is $5.5 trillion in debt. We owe the Social Security trust fund $800 million. As a Nation we squander $365 billion a year, that is $1 billion a day, on interest on the national debt. Yet because for the first time in 30 years we are not borrowing money to make ends meet, we are deciding to find all sorts of new ways to give it away. That is wrong. It totally ignores national defense. This year's Republican Congress will spend $30 billion less in real dollars, in 1998 dollars, than they did in 1995 on defense. We are sending kids out in 30-year-old warships, 30-year-old helicopters, 30- year-old warplanes. The consequences of that can be dead young Americans in some future war. If we have any money left over, we need to take care of that. We owe the Social Security trust fund $800 million. That is a pledge that has to be fulfilled. Above all, if you have seen Private Ryan, there is an entire generation of Americans who served this country in the military who were promised free health care for life if they fulfilled their end of the obligation and now when they are too old to do anything about it, we are not fulfilling it. The defense health care is underfunded by $600 million next year. Yet we can find time to give big contributors a tax break but not keep the promises we have already made. For those reasons, I want to be recorded as voting ``no.'' Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, in particular clause 3, says that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. As of today, there are about 55 Members of this Congress who have asked the President to resign. I am one of them. There are a number of others who think there ought to be a formal board of inquiry as far as impeachment brought before the House. My question is how can the same people who are asking the President to resign turn around and give their constitutionally mandated authority to regulate commerce between nations to that same person? I am not going to do that. This is my job. I do not want the President's job. I want him to do his job. But the Founding Fathers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce between nations, and I am not going to vote to give it away. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote against the rule and I encourage them to vote against the bill.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, at 7:00 p.m. on September 25, National Weather Service and civil defense officials indicated that the projected landfall of Hurricane Georges would be somewhere between Baldwin County, Alabama, and Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. Based on this information, Representative Sonny Callahan and I have decided that it would be in the best interest of the constituents we serve to return immediately to our respective congressional districts to make the necessary preparations before this major hurricane strikes. We understand that the House will consider tomorrow H.R. 4579, the Taxpayer Relief Act. Although we do not share the same opinion on H.R. 4579, I oppose it, both Congressman Callahan and I do realize the important nature of the legislation being considered. However, due to overwhelming threat of impending natural disaster, we plan to go home to help our families and constituents prepare for Hurricane Georges. Therefore, we have decided to pair our votes and depart for our congressional districts. Mr. Speaker, had I been present I would have voted against H.R. 4579 for the following reasons: there is no surplus. We are $5.5 trillion in debt. Its the first time in 30 years that we haven't had to borrow money to pay for our annual operating deficit. Its not the time to incur new responsibilities. We still owe $800 billion to the Social Security Trust Fund. When Social Security was started there were 19 contributors for every one recipient. By the year 2025, it is projected that there will be 2 workers for every one Social Security recipient. If we don't repay the debt now, while we can, we never will. People don't feel they get enough from their tax dollars now. They're right. The biggest chunk of their taxes ($365 billion) goes for interest payments on the national debt (approximately $1 billion per day). The amount of money squandered on interest continues to grow every day. Our taxpayers money will be squandered forever unless we retire the debt. This is especially bad for national security. These dollars could be better spent replacing 30 year old warplanes, helicopters, ships, and land weapon systems. National defense spending has shrunk since the Republicans took control of Congress. In Fiscal Year 1995, the first fiscal year under the leadership of the new Republican majority, defense budget outlays in constant dollars amounted to $295.4 billion. The Fiscal Year 1999 level of defense outlays in constant dollars is $265.6 billion. That is a $30 billion reduction in constant dollars under Republican leadership. Now, the GOP is dreaming up ways to give tax breaks to rich contributors, instead of addressing our pressing national security needs. We need to fulfill the promises that have been made. First and foremost, is honoring the promise of a ``lifetime of free medical care'' made to those who served in our nation's armed forces. Just yesterday, the House National Security Committee was informed that the Defense Health Program was underfunded for the next year by $623 million. As you may know, the Defense Health Program provides funding for the treatment of our uniformed service personnel, their families, and military retirees. It also provides funds for the operation of our military medical treatment facilities. It really doesn't surprise me that House Speaker Gingrich, Senate Majority Leader Lott, House Budget Committee Chairman Kasich, and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Domenici do not consider keeping our promises to our nation's military retirees as important. After all, not one of them served one minute in uniform. However, I do think that fully funding our nation's defense and military health care needs is important. This is where we should be spending any surplus that may be left after we've restored the financial integrity and stability of Social Security.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, earlier today we voted to increase the effort on the war on drugs by about $2 billion. We have in different States, including my home State of Mississippi, some of the toughest laws on Earth with regard to drug dealers, a law that with others I helped pass in Mississippi, which says that if one sells 2 ounces of cocaine, 2 ounces of heroin, 100 pills or 10 pounds of marijuana over the course of a year, if one is caught and convicted, one will spend the rest of one's life in prison. I have flown counterdrug missions with the Colombian National Police, the helicopters that go out and fly cover for the crop dusters. We have SEALs and special forces on the ground in Central America right now training their people in counternarcotics operations. We have a riverine school in Iquitos, Peru, using our Marines and our SEALs to train them in drug interdiction. We have had submarines off the coast, P-3s, E-3s, AWACS, just about everything in the American inventory involved in the war against drugs, and it is not working. The reason it is not working is that we have this incredible double standard in America where we say, it is bad to sell drugs, but somehow it is all right to use them. It is not all right to use them. I happened to enlist in the Coast Guard about the time that our armed forces hit rock bottom as far as drug usage. It was fairly common every night for our barracks to smell like the Marrakesh Express. Incidentally, almost every barracks around the world where there were American troops back then smelled like the Marrakesh Express, it was so common for marijuana and other illegal narcotics to be used. By 1973 or so the military got serious about it and they implemented drug testing. First, it was a fairly lenient program that says, if we catch you, we are going to put you through treatment, we are going to give you a second chance, maybe even a third chance. That over the years has gotten tighter now to where if they catch someone using drugs, they are immediately removed from the force. Guess what? The closest thing we have in America to a drug-free society is the American military, because they know that justice is sure and it is swift and if they are caught using drugs, they are going to be removed from the military. Mr. Chairman, I do not think anyone who works for our Nation should be using drugs, illegal drugs, taking their Federal paycheck, paid for by the taxpayers of this country, and buying illegal drugs. I think this is a first step towards sending the message that we are not going to tolerate drug use in America. For this reason I offer this amendment. I think it is just a first step. It would allow the supervisors to, if they have reason to believe one of their employees is using drugs, to demand a drug test. It does not call for them to be fired. But I would hope that the executive branch of the government would follow this up with hard and fast rules calling for treatment, calling for some way of getting people off drugs, and eventually tighten up those rules to where people who are caught using drugs, after adequate warning, are removed from the Federal payroll.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, it can be done at any time as a condition of employment, just as my daughter, the college athlete, is subject to a random drug test and it is on a regular basis a condition of an athlete at the college.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, right now, we have no means of asking someone who shows up at work apparently stoned out of their mind, there is absolutely nothing right now their supervisor can do. I would like to give him the opportunity to say, I think you ought to take a drug test. Let me make this perfectly clear. In order to make it constitutional, since the gentleman did have a question, this is for new hires as a subject of a condition of employment. When someone walks in, from the passage of this bill forward, they know that if they accept a job with the Federal Government, as a condition of employment they are subject to drug testing. That is clearly constitutional, because it is done every day in the private sector as a condition of employment.