Gene Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, this is an emergency supplemental bill about Colombia. It is all about the Colombian civil war, whether or not we are going to get further involved in the Colombian civil war. I would remind my colleagues that Colombia is seven times bigger than Vietnam. This bill calls for 62 additional helicopters to be sent to Colombia. At the height of the Vietnam War, there were 2,200 American helicopters in Vietnam. I would ask the Chairman, since he is in many ways deciding whether or not the United States of America is going to get involved in the Colombian civil war, to be extremely lenient in his decision, because this bill is indeed about Colombia. This would place restrictions on the spending of that money in Colombia.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, on a daily basis I hear my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, lament the fact that Americans are deployed all around the world, usually without congressional approval. I asked the Committee on Rules to approve an amendment that would have limited American troop strength in Colombia to 300 personnel. I did that because Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war and only the Senate can involve this country in mutual defense treaties. I did that so that the $1.8 billion that is going to Colombia would not bring American troops with it. Mr. Speaker, as we are getting ready to spend our money there, the Colombians have just changed their law so that if one has a high school diploma, one does not get drafted. They have just cut their spending for defense. My hunch is the Colombians think we are going to fight their war for them. If it is the will of Congress to do so, then I think Congress ought to vote on this. However, far too often, both Republican and Democratic Congresses, by omission and comission, have not done their job and decided where and when young Americans will be called on to fight. I am going to oppose this rule because, once again, the Committee on Rules has seen to it that we will not make that decision.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to provide for the common defense. It goes on to say that no money can be drawn from the Treasury except by appropriation by Congress. For more than a decade, the budget for national defense has decreased. In particular, for the past 6 years, a Democratic President has asked for far too little, and the Republican Congress has achieved almost all of the debt reduction at the expense of our Nation's defense. The result is its shrinking Navy fleet, almost 300 ships, aging weapons systems, the shortchanging of our men and women in uniform, the delay of their paychecks so that it will go on next year's bill instead of this. In human terms, it means people like Harry Schein, a Marine Corps lance corporal has to work two part-time jobs to make ends meet and to take care of his son. It means that people like Lisa Joles, the wife of a United States Marine, has to pick up used furniture on the side of the road to take care of her and other Marine families. But do my colleagues know, it gets worse. Our military retirees who were promised a lifetime of free health care if they served our country honorably for 20 years are being told they cannot come to the base hospital anymore. The Blue Dog budget increases defense spending over the Republican proposal by over $4 billion a year. One billion dollars of that would fulfill the promise of lifetime health care to our military retirees. That proposal has been endorsed by over 24 veterans organizations. The other $3 billion can go to address the pay problems. It can go to address the aging weapons systems. It can go to take care of readiness. The promise that was made to our service members and military retirees are more important than the promises that were made over a steak dinner and cocktails to some big contributor for a tax break. Tonight my colleagues get to decide which they think are more important.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that one of the thoughts I could leave with the American public tonight is that, yes, Congress did balance the budget last year; but there was a lot of trickery in the budget to achieve that goal. One of the tricks that I regret the most about that budget that was done in order to balance it was the fact that the troops have traditionally been paid on the last Friday of the month. As the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) pointed out earlier, we have a lot of troops who are just getting by. It is interesting to note that a higher percentage of people in uniform are married than the general public, about 60 percent of them. Many of those young couples have instant families, two, three, four children within a very short period of time. They tend to be the ones who end up on food stamps because they simply are not getting enough in their pay and in their benefits. So I found it particularly distressing that, in the Republican budget this year, that in order to balance the budget, they delayed the pay raise for the troops from Friday, September 29 to October 1, the following Monday. Now, for a Congressman who is making very good money, over 130,000 a year, delaying our pay for 2 days really is not a big deal. But when one is an E4 or an E3 and one has three kids, probably several of them in diapers, that means a weekend of somebody digging around in the cushions of the couch and rolling pennies so one can have diapers for the babies and formula for the kids, and that is wrong. So to run around and, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) talked about, give away a trillion dollar tax break when one is playing games just to make ends meet is highly irresponsible. Something the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) mentioned, and again I do not think it can be said often enough, yes, it is their money. Yes, it is their country. Yes, it is our debt. Almost all of this debt has occurred in our lifetimes. If you are listening to me tonight, most of that debt has occurred in your lifetime. Between 1776 and 1980, our Nation acquired $1 trillion worth of debt. From 1980 to 1988, the debt doubled, from $1 trillion to $2 trillion. But, sadly, it continues to get worse. From 1988 until now, our Nation is now $5.7 trillion in debt. And just like anyone else who is in debt, not only does it have to be paid off, but it has to be paid off with interest. The biggest shocker for most of the people I encounter is when they find out that the biggest expense of their Nation, the biggest outlay of their tax dollars is interest on that debt; a billion dollars a day. I come from an area that is very pro military. We have a number of shipyards; we have a number of military bases; a lot of kids enlist. I regularly have moms and dads write me saying why is my son flying around in a 30-year old helicopter? Why is he flying around in a 30- year old transport plane? Why is he traveling on a 30-year old ship? Well, the truth of the matter is for what we are squandering in interest, we could be buying a destroyer a day for the United States Navy. A new destroyer a day. Instead, because of a lack of money, we are only going to buy three destroyers this year. For what we are squandering in interest, we could buy 10 B-22s a day, or about, geez, 30 new UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters. The list is endless for what we are squandering on interest. The other thing I really think our citizens need to be aware of is the change in demographics. Because not only do we have to pay off this debt, but the window of opportunity for paying off this debt is rapidly closing. My dad is still living, and my dad was born in the 1920s. Therefore, when my dad was a teenager in the 1930s, when Social Security was just starting, there were 19 working people for every one retiree. Right now, the year 2000, there are three working people for every retiree. If I live to 2030, and I hope I do, there will be only 1.5 working people for every retiree. So not only has this generation run up an incredible debt, but the number of workers available to pay that debt off is shrinking, and it is shrinking on a daily basis. And it will simply be impossible for that young person who is a page today up here, that young person who is in grammar school, or that young person who is in high school, when they reach their peak income earning years it will be physically impossible for them to pay their house note, take care of their kids and retire our national debt if we do not take those steps right now. That is something I would hope Americans would consider. Quite frankly, I am distressed when I hear folks tell me, particularly young folks, I want a strong military, but do not ask me to serve. I want a strong Nation. I want this to be the best Nation on earth. I want the best roads, the best canals, the safest air travel, with the most secure future as far as medicine, the most secure future as far as my retirement but, by the way, I do not want to pay for it. It is the same thing. We do not get to be the best by taking the easy path. And what troubles me the most about my Republican colleagues when they talk about these tax breaks is that they somehow imagine we can spend all kinds of money and not pay for it; that we can somehow have great health care, a great defense, that we can have great roads and great public safety in the air and on the roads, but that we do not have to pay for it. That is not what life is all about. Life is if we want good things we have to earn them. And if our Nation wants to continue to be the best, we have to earn that as well. Demographically, we are going to have, as I mentioned, in 2030, an extremely small percentage of Americans who are eligible to serve age- wise in the military services. That is why we need to modernize our military. In the past few weeks, the Joint Chiefs of Staff came before the House Committee on Armed Services and identified $16 billion worth of unfunded requirements for this budget. And that is why I want to commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and the other people who put together the Blue Dog budget, because the Blue Dog budget would increase the Fed's spending this year and for each of the next 5 years $15 billion over the Republican plan. Better than that, the people who made this Nation great, the greatest generation, the people who got us through World War II, they are reaching that point in their lives where they need some help healthwise, and particularly our veterans. Because, again, I mentioned the travesty of cheating the troops on their pay, but what aggravates me even more is that for 3 of the past 4 years the Republican Congress has flat-lined the VA budget. No increase at all. And only last year, after a group of us got together and said what is more important, taking care of our veterans or tax breaks, did they finally realize that taking care of our veterans was more important. The Blue Dog budget would increase veterans care by $10 billion more than the Republican budget over the next 5 years and fully pay to fulfill the promise of free lifetime health care for our military retirees. The Republican budget does not do that. Great nations keep their words. One of the words that we have to keep are those words to our military retirees that they would be given free health care for themselves and their dependents the remainder of their lives if they served their country honorably for 20 years. The Blue Dog budget, which will be on the floor tomorrow, will do that; and I commend all my colleagues for making that possible.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, on the 29th of September, 1.4 million Americans will go to the mailbox looking for their paycheck. They are the young people who serve in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marines. It will not be there because the same people who claim to be for national defense, the same people who claim that there is this huge surplus out there, have seen to it that they are not going to get paid until two days later, October 1. That is so there can be an accounting gimmick and their pay counts against next year's budget and not this year's budget. Now, if one is a Congressman and they make about $130,000, waiting 2 extra days for their pay is no big deal but if one is an E-4 with a child and a wife waiting that extra weekend to buy the Pampers or the baby formula, it is a big deal. So the same folks who did this are saying we have over $100 billion to give away in tax breaks, 90 percent of which is going to the richest Americans, but we do not have enough for someone if they serve in the Armed Forces, and we are going to delay their pay. That is how much we think of them. It gets even worse. If one served their Nation honorably, they were promised health care for the rest of their life if they served 20 years. Those same people who show up at the base hospitals they are being told, we are sorry, there is not enough money to take care of them; they are to go out and fend for themselves on Medicare; but there is $120 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. It gets even worse. For 3 years the same folks who are saying there is all this money laying around, that is why we have to have these tax breaks, froze the budget for the VA. They froze it. Mr. Speaker, if there is not enough money to take care of those who need it the most, then there is not tax breaks for the least.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, there is a line from a very popular song, ``Harvest for the World.'' It keeps asking the question rhetorically, why do those who pay the price come home with the least? When it came time to balance the budget this year, it was done at the expense of the men and women in uniform. They delayed their pay by 2 days. Again, for a Congressman, no big deal. For a young E-4, a young E-5 trying to take care of his wife and his kid, that is probably a weekend when baby formula does not get bought, or the Pampers do not get bought, and they try to make do as best they can. I listen to Members of this body say we have to give the senior citizens a COLA, and everybody votes for it. We have to give the retirees a COLA. Everybody votes for it. So if we are willing to reward people for what they have done, why are we not willing to reward people for what they are doing in some of the crummiest jobs in America? What this whole amendment is about is 17 cents an hour, the difference between the Republican proposal and the Democratic proposal. We are willing to give them that 17 cents a year sooner. If we want people to value work, then work must have value. I encourage my colleagues to vote for the Traficant amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage my colleagues to vote against this. It is not necessarily that it is an entirely bad bill. But a year ago right now, all of us went around our respective districts and asked for the opportunity to spend the people's money wisely. The problem that I have with this bill is that, for the next 3 weeks, The Washington Post, the Washington Times, the New York Times are going to be running a series of articles every day of what was in this bill, and one is not going to know it was there. But one is going to have to tell one's constituents, well, gosh, I did not know that money for a fleet buyout in Alaska was there or for a wood lot in North Carolina was there or for all the other silly things. I encourage my Republican colleagues to vote against it because many of them ran against Goals 2000. Yet, there is $491 million for Goals 2000 in here. Many of them said they were against the Department of Commerce. Well, it has got a $3.6 billion increase, but they call it emergency because it has got money for the census that apparently no one knew was coming even though the Constitution says we are going to do it every 10 years. But more than everything else, I think my colleagues are playing a shell game with the men and women of the United States military. Everyone was real proud a couple weeks ago when they said we increased the defense budget. Well, today, my colleagues are cutting it back by $1 billion, $1 billion. To make matters worse, those troops who are already underpaid, who got a minuscule pay raise just a few weeks ago, my colleagues are now telling them we are going to delay the time they are paid. Now, for a Congressman, we make pretty good money. Getting paid a day or two later really should not affect us. But when one is an E-1, E-5, O-1, O-2, and one is just barely getting by, to move payday back, in many instances, is the difference between them being able to buy diapers for their kids or one can put food on the table. It is not right. We should not do it. If it takes us waiting a couple more days to do it right, then I encourage us to do so.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2541 would address the boundaries of the Gulf Islands National Seashore to include Cat Island, Mississippi. In 1971, Congress authorized the Gulf Islands National Seashore ``. . . in order to preserve for public use and enjoyment certain areas possessing outstanding natural, historic and recreational values'' (Public Law 91-660). The Gulf Islands National Seashore includes a series of coastal islands stretching from Florida to Mississippi. Cat Island was not a part of the original legislation creating the Gulf Islands National Seashore, although it was considered the most desirable island from an ecological standpoint. At the time, it was not available for sale and it was not included. The primary owners of the island, the Boddie family, have now come forward as willing sellers to offer approximately 2,000 acres of land on Cat Island for inclusion in the Gulf Islands National Seashore. This legislation would give the Department of the Interior the authority to acquire this property. Approximately 156 acres of land on Cat Island would remain in private ownership, and all the land below the mean line of ordinary high tide would remain under the jurisdiction of the State of Mississippi. These tracts of land, waters, and submerged lands would remain outside the boundary of the Gulf Islands National Seashore. Furthermore, the bill makes it absolutely clear that all activities, including fishing and shrimping, would remain regulated by the State of Mississippi. The amendments that are included in this motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2541 make several changes to the bill as reported by the House Committee on Resources. These additional changes addressed all the concerns outlined in the ``Additional Views'' as filed on November 4 of this year. With development booming along the Mississippi Gulf Coast, the threat of development on Cat Island is intense and very real. I wish to thank all of my colleagues, especially the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), ranking member, and the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero- Barcelo) for giving this bill their personal attention. It is essential that we expedite enactment of this legislation as these are willing sellers who have extended this offer for only a limited period of time. Cat Island is a diverse habitat for a wealth of marine life and shore birds and one of the best surf fishing spots on the entire Gulf Coast. More to the point, Mr. Speaker, Cat Island is, in my opinion, one of the last remaining places on the Mississippi Gulf Coast where one can still see the hand of God. And whether it is a beautiful osprey or a mother dolphin or something as strange-looking as an alligator or a horseshoe crab, it is all part of the hand of God and deserves to be protected. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for making this possible.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure. If my colleagues vote for this bill, they are voting to cut the Department of Defense budget by 2.6 billion. Now, a lot has been said that it is 1 percent. That is 2.6 billion. That is the equivalent of three destroyers or two amphibious assault ships. Mr. Speaker, that is enough money to get the 12,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that we know are on food stamps off of food stamps and buy 175 Black Hawk helicopters, replacing 30 year old Hueys that they are flying around in today. Almost all of the cuts come at the expense of the Department of Defense, and we are not talking about something that would have been. It is the law right now. Our colleagues are cutting the budget that went into effect this week when the President signed it. So if my colleagues admit that we have to save some money, then let us set priorities, but do not cut from the one thing that the Nation has to do. The States can do almost everything else, but we have to defend the Nation.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their kind words. I want to thank Stacy Ballow from South Mississippi's congressional office for doing the research and putting this together. Mr. Speaker, Jay Hanna Dean, known by all of us as Dizzy Dean, was elected to the baseball Hall of Fame in 1953. He was possibly the biggest pitching star in the National League in the 1930s. Dean burst onto the major league stage with stunning success, and dominated the league for 5 years. A beloved figure in the history of the St. Louis Cardinals, Dean first appeared in the major leagues in 1930 at the age of 19, pitching a complete-game victory. He went back to the minors in 1931, and then started full-time with the Cardinals in 1932, winning 18 games for a 3.30 ERA and leading the National League in strikeouts. He gained notoriety not just for his clutch pitching, but also for his colorful personality, which earned him the nickname Dizzy. That was just the beginning. Dean won 20 games in 1933, leading the league in strikeouts, again, as well as in games completed. He led the league with 30 victories in 1934, then again with 28 in 1935, adding strikeout championships both times. Dean led the National League in shut-outs in 1932 and 1934, and had an astounding .811 winning percentage in 1934. That is 30 wins and seven losses. He ultimately led the National League for four consecutive years in both complete games and strike-outs. He won the National League most valuable player award in 1934 and, if the Cy Young Award had existed then, he no doubt would have won it at least twice. Dizzy combined with his younger brother, Paul Daffy Dean, to win four games in the 1934 World Series. The Dean brothers won two games apiece. When Daffy pitched the no-hitter in the series, Dizzy said, ``If you had only told me you was going to pitch a no-hitter, I would have pitched one, too.'' Dizzy remained at the top of his form in 1936, winning 24 games with a 3.17 earned run average. Throughout his career, the Cardinals used Dean, not just as a starter, but as a reliever as well. He unofficially led the league with 11 saves in 1936, despite starting 34 games and completing 28. The heavy usage finally caught up with him in 1937. Arm soreness limited him to 25 starts; and though he won 13 games and had a solid 2.69 ERA, it was clear that something was wrong. An injury he suffered in the 1937 All-Star Game complicated matters. His toe was broken by a line drive off the bat of Earl Averill. Dizzy altered his pitching motion to compensate for the broken toe, injuring his throwing arm in the process. Dean left the Cardinals in 1938 and played for a while with the Chicago Cubs. Dizzy retired as a three- time, 20-game winner who finished with 150 career wins and 30 career saves. Dean was active for many years as an announcer for radio and television baseball broadcasts for both CBS and NBC during the 1940s and 1950s. He entertained scores of fans with his country twang and erratic pronunciation. He once said, ``I always just went out there and struck out all the fellas I could. I did not worry about winnin' this number of games or that number, and I ain't woofin' when I say that either.'' He also said, ``Them that ain't been fortunate enough to have a gander at 'ole Diz' in action can look at the records.'' Dean was born in Lucas, Arkansas, in 1911. He married Patricia Nash of Bond, Stone County, Mississippi. The Deans lived in Mrs. Dean's ancestral home there. Jay Hanna Dean died in 1974. Mrs. Dean later donated their home to the Baptist Children's Village, and it is used today as a home for children in the Bond community of Stone County. I want to thank young Seth Bond, a student at Perkinston Elementary School in Stone County for bringing this to the attention of the mayor and the Board of Aldermen in Wiggins that Dizzy Dean deserved a fitting local memorial in recognition of his life, accomplishments, and efforts on behalf of Stone County. Wiggins is the county seat of Stone County, and the city officials and citizens of the county saw fit to take young Seth up on his suggestion. They sent me a resolution requesting that the newly renovated and expanded United States Post Office in Wiggins be named in his memory. I am honored to help out in Seth's request and urge the support of my colleagues of H.R. 2460, a bill to name that facility the Jay Hanna Dizzy Dean Post Office. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) was correct in saying that the entire Mississippi delegation has sponsored this. But I would like to point out that the great gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the most valuable player in the congressional baseball game, was the sixth cosponsor. I want to thank him for that.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am going to encourage my colleagues to vote against this measure. I will agree with the previous speaker that being a Member of Congress is all about setting priorities, and I will agree with him that the priorities start here at home. This is a list from a recent Washington Post article that talked about young people in the United States military living on food stamps and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Turns out that there is about 12,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are eligible for food stamps. Now in the defense authorization bill that was signed today, they got a 4.8 percent increase, but do my colleagues know what? 4.8 percent of nothing is still nothing, and we are not doing enough for them. This young lady is the wife of a United States marine. Same article. She is picking up a used mattress off the side of the road so that other young marines will have someplace to sleep. 4.8 percent of nothing is nothing. This is a young Marine lance corporal. His name is Harry Schein. He works two part-time jobs so that he can live on his salary that he earns as a United States marine. It is all about setting priorities. In this bill is $5 billion for two relatively wealthy countries called Israel and Egypt. I happen to think that taking care of those folks is more important. I hope that a majority of my colleagues will think the same way.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, somewhere in America today, someone who served honorably in the American Armed Forces will be denied care at a Veterans' Administration hospital for lack of funds. Twelve thousand young soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will continue to be eligible for food stamps because of lack of money. Military retirees who served our country honorably for 20 years will be told you can no longer go to the base hospital for lack of money. Yet this Congress today will vote whether or not to give the Communist Chinese a $20 billion tax break so they can continue to enjoy a $60 billion trade surplus with our country which they will use to build the weapons, the technology of which they stole from us over the past decade. That is what it is all about. No one wants to say it. This is a $20 billion tax break for the most repressive government on this earth. A ``yes'' vote says that, ``No, we're going to treat you the way you treat us and charge you what you charge us.'' A ``no'' vote is a $20 billion tax break for the Communists.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman well knows, the armed services have recently conducted a survey for the purpose of identifying which ships should be used as a centerpiece of the 12 Marine amphibious assault groups. A study was done comparing building an additional LHD as opposed to taking an LHD-8 and schlepping it. The study came back very much in favor of taking an LHD and putting turbines in the next version of it as opposed to schlepping it. I notice there were no funds in this bill for that, although the Senate has funded this program. My question to my colleague and I seek his assurance that, at the end of the day, when this bill comes back from conference committee, will there be funds for LHD-8 in the bill.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, my question for my Republican colleagues: Time and again, why is it that those who pay the most to our society come home with the least? I heard my friend from California talk about a woman walking down the aisle. This woman walked down the aisle. She is married to a United States Marine. This is a photograph from the front page of the Washington Post of her picking up used furniture on the side of the road so that other Marines will have some furniture in their house. What do you do for them? After 5 years of Republican defense budgets, what do you do for them? You do nothing. For $100 million, we could get every single soldier, sailor, airman, marine and coast guardsman off of food stamps. You cannot find the money for that. For $1.2 billion, we could fulfill the promise of lifetime health care for every single military retiree. You cannot find the money for that. But you have got $400 billion for the fat cats, the guys who write the $1,000 checks to you and the $10,000 checks to the Republican National Committee and that are delivering cases of champagne right now over to the Capitol Hill Club and the steaks are lined up because they know they are going to get a big tax break, the top 1 percent. But my question is, what do you do for those who pay the price to keep our country free? You do nothing.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, unlike the gentleman from Arizona, and unlike every single Member of the Republican leadership, I served in the armed forces. I enlisted when I was 17. I know what it is like to try to live on an enlisted salary. When we give someone 4.8 percent of nothing, it is still nothing. There are 12,000 enlisted people right now on food stamps. Now, we can fix that for less than $100 million. We can provide for health care for our military retirees for less than $1.2 billion, but the other side wants to give away $400 billion to the fat cats while they do nothing for them.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, let me pose a question to my Republican colleagues. What is it that they are so ashamed of that they have to wait until the middle of the night to tell the American people about? We have been in session for 7 months. They have to wait until the middle of the night in the third week of July to do this. What are they so ashamed of? For 3 years, they have flatlined the Veterans Administration budget. Zero increase. The guys who saved this country in World War II, they get nothing. The defense budget is $30 billion less than it was just 10 years ago, $30 billion less. They have controlled the budget process in both Houses of Congress for 5 years, and what have they done? This is a Marine lance corporal. His name is Harry Sheen. He works two part-time jobs to make ends meet. We have 12,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines on food stamps. What do they get out of this? They get nothing. This is the wife of a United States Marine picking up used furniture on the curb at the Marine base at Quantico because there is not enough money for her friends to buy furniture. What do they do for them? They do nothing. But this $400 billion in this bill is for the fat cats of America, the people who make $800,000 a year or more. These people risk their lives. They risk their lives for $10,000 to $20,000 a year. They are away from their families from anywhere between 120 to 180 days a year away from their family. My colleagues tell them there is not enough to go around. They send them out in 30-year-old helicopters. The newest CH-46s and 47s in the inventory were built in 1972. What have they done for them? Nothing. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify a couple of things, because the folks back home often hear about a surplus. I guess the President started saying it, the Republican leadership tried to one-up him, but I think it is accurate to say that through this month, there really is no budget surplus. For the first months of fiscal year 1999, that is October through May, the Treasury reported a cumulative surplus of $40.7 billion. But it is composed of an off-budget surplus of $78.8 billion. That is things like Social Security taxes that are supposed to be set aside for paying Social Security benefits and nothing else. To spend them in any other way is to steal from the American people. There is an on-budget deficit of $38.1 billion. The Office of Management and Budget estimates a fiscal unified surplus of $98 billion to be composed of $123 billion surplus, but that is off-budget, minus a $24.8 billion on-budget deficit. Folks, Social Security trust funds are a promise between the American Congress and the American people. It is a special line item in your taxes. It is a promise that that money will be collected and set aside for your benefits and your spouse's benefits when that time comes in your life when you need them. For this Nation to spend them on anything, to give someone else a tax break with your Social Security money, is a crime against you. The Federal debt is still growing. At the end of May, the public debt was $5.6 trillion. For someone from Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, that is pretty hard to comprehend. For the first 8 months of this fiscal year, the public debt actually increased by $78 billion. Now, something we may not realize is that your government borrows money, and when your government borrows money to have to pay interest just as you would on your Visa card, on your home loan or on your car loan, the interest on the Nation's debt is the single largest item on the Federal budget. In fiscal year 1998, last fiscal year, $363 billion was spent on interest. That is your money, that is your money that could have gone for education, it could have gone towards the military, it could have gone to build roads. Instead it went to some banker or some lending institution that lent this money to the Nation, and one-third of that money went to foreign lending institutions, because that is who owns one-third of our debt. Through the first 8 months of this fiscal year, the Treasury has already paid out $222.7 billion of your money on interest. Just to let you know, since the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I serve on the Committee on National Security. For the first 8 months of this year, we have spent $50 billion more on interest on the debt than we have on the military, and the year is not over yet. Lastly, the point I want to make is we cannot undo 40 years of deficit spending with a couple of months worth of surpluses. The last time our Nation had an on-budget surplus was in 1960. Since then, the debt has increased by $5.7 trillion at an average of $136 billion each year. For my Republican colleagues to say that there is plenty of money to give the wealthiest Americans a tax break is totally false. The only way they can do it is to take your Social Security Trust Fund, your taxes, and give someone else a tax break with your taxes. That is not why I came here. I came here to try to do the right thing, not the easy thing. They want to do the easy thing. Madam Speaker, that is not the worst of it. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) pointed out the horrible injustice done to our Nation's military retirees, people who spent years in places like Vietnam, in Korea, in Germany, now in Bosnia, Kosovo, people who dedicated the prime of their lives to defending you and me and our families. They were promised, every single one of them was promised free health care for themselves and for their families for the rest of their lives if they served honorably for 20 years. When I enlisted in 1971, the promise was made to me. I did not stick around for 20 years, so I did not earn it. But those who did earned it. It was in the Army's recruiting brochure all the way up until 1991. It was a promise that was made, a promise that has to be kept. How on earth do you keep that promise if you give all the money away in tax breaks? The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) did not mention it by name, but the program that would allow military retirees to continue going to the base hospital, even after they turn 65, is called Medicare Subvention and it is a very simple concept. It would allow that base hospital, be it Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi or a Naval air station or a Marine Air Corps base, to send a bill to Medicare for providing medical care to a veteran who has served our Nation for 20 years, just like they would the private sector doctor who treats that same person. It would cost our Nation $1.2 billion to fulfill that promise of health care to our veterans, to our military retirees. Is it in this bill? No. There is $800 billion worth of goodies for their big contributor friends, but not a penny to take care of our military retirees, not one cent. Those who paid the price come home with the least. Why? Because they do not have lobbyists down the street. They do not have lobbyists at the Capital Grill and the other four and five star hotels and restaurants here in Washington. They can barely get by. They can barely pay for their prescriptions. So in the eyes of my Republican colleagues, they do not count. They will not make a big campaign contribution so they do not get just $1.2 billion to fulfill that promise that has been made by every recruiter in our country for the past 50 years. And they are going to say that this is good for the Nation? That is baloney. It gets worse. It gets worse, because I was talking about retirees. What about the active force right now? What about the typical soldier who is spending 120 days a year away from his family, a typical Marine 150 days, a typical airman about 120 days, a typical sailor, 180 days out of this and every year away from his family; not seeing his kids growing up, not being there for the piano recital, his kid's Little League ball game. He is giving up half his life to defend us. What do they have in it for him? After 5 years of Republican control of Congress, what do they do for them? This is a lady named Lisa Joles. She was on the front page of today's Washington Post. She is the wife of a United States Marine. She is picking up a used mattress off the curb at the Quantico Marine Base on Saturday. She and other spouses do this on a periodic basis to make furniture available for the people serving our country, defending our country, as we speak. What is in this package of $800 billion of goodies for the special interests, the big bucks contributors, that are right now over at the Capitol Hill Club, right now at the Capital Grill, right now at the Mayflower and all the other fancy hotels and restaurants in Washington? What is in it for Lisa and her family? Absolutely nothing, because the truth of the matter is, after 5 years of Republican control, the defense budget is still about $30 billion less than it was just 8 years ago. They said this was the folks they were for. What do my colleagues think Lisa gets out of that bill? My guess is she does not get a doggone thing. That is not the worst of it. Look at this guy, a United States Marine. How hard did he have to work to earn that title? In addition to all the things he went through just to earn that title, he is gone from his family about 150 days a year, defending us, front line of freedom, toughest guys we have out there. This gentleman is in today's Washington Post, and I hope everyone will forgive me if I get his name wrong. He is Lance Corporal Harry Schein. His son's name is Devantre. The reason he is in today's Washington Post is to make the point that he works two part-time jobs so he can live on his Marine salary and take care of his son. That is not the worst of it. The real tragedy is that what I have shown are not exceptions. They are the norm. After 5 years of Republican control, the guys who said they were going to come here and make national defense their first priority, we are seeing what their first priority is tomorrow: $800 billion in tax breaks, mostly geared to the top 1 percent of income earners in America. The top 1 percent get more than half of the money. I do not think there is one person in this room that falls in that category. There is probably not one person watching this on television that falls into that category. They are probably at the Capitol Hill Club. They are probably at the Capital Grill, the Mayflower. They are probably writing some Republican a thousand dollar check because, boy, they are going to get it back with that tax bill; they are going to get it back tenfold. When someone gets, even under their plan, a 10 percent break, the guy who pays $1,000 in taxes gets back $100; but the guy who pays $50,000 in taxes, oh, my goodness, he gets $5,000 back. They say it is fair? I do not think so. I came here to look out for the little guy, and believe me, the rich guys do not need any more representation here in Washington. They are overrepresented. I think the little guys need some representation for a while. Just look at these numbers. These are the people who are defending our country right now. They are in crummy places like Kosovo. They are in crummy places like Bosnia. Heck, some of them are in Colombia; they are in Panama. Some of them are sitting on the tip of Cuba in a place called Guantanamo. They are sitting on the aircraft carriers for 6 months at a time. They are sitting under the sea in submarines for months at a time. Fort Belvoir, an allotment for food stamps for United States active duty military, $66,000. For the women, infants and children's program, active duty military, their families, $138,000. What of that $800 billion is for them? Nothing, because they pay the most, and they do not have lobbyists and they cannot buy dinners at the Capitol Hill Club or the Capital Grill or the Mayflower. So they get nothing. If this bill passes, and $800 billion worth of revenue is taken out of the stream, it never gets fixed, because as I said at the beginning there is no surplus yet. We are getting mighty close to it. I am proud that we are getting close to it, but they do not take care of those folks. They are not only robbing senior citizens' Social Security trust fund, they are depriving those who pay the most of an opportunity to make a little bit more money. What did they do for them in this year's defense bill? A 4.8 percent increase. Now, let me say, everything is relative. Everybody knows Congressmen make good money; 4.8 percent of a Congressman's salary is good money. 4.8 percent of nothing is nothing. And they say this is fair? They say this is good for the country? Who is kidding whom? We have a chance to change that tomorrow. We really have a chance on this House floor to decide whether or not we listen to the American people or we listen to the big bucks lobbyists. Do voices count or do state dinners at the Capitol Hill Club, the Capital Grill, the Mayflower? Do thousand dollar contributions from the few mean more than doing the right thing for the many? Oh, they are going to say, it solves the marriage tax penalty. It does, but these are the guys who are paying the price. These are the guys who are paying the price. It does nothing for them. All it does is ensure there will never be any money to fix those problems. Do not take my word for it. I have served on the Committee on Armed Services for almost 10 years now. Let me quote some of my Republican colleagues. Let me quote a great man, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), himself a veteran, who is the chairman of that committee. This is a publication he put out in February. ``The President's fiscal year 2000 defense budget falls at least $18 billion short of what the Nation's military leaders have identified as unfunded requirements in the coming year, and nearly $70 billion short over the next 6 years.'' I would say to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), I agree, but if they give it all away to the fat cats, where are they going to find the $70 billion to solve that problem? Another Vietnam veteran, great American, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), quote from just last month, ``The war I am concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is the next war, and I am concerned about the stocks of ammunition that are now very low. I am also concerned about those young men and women who have served us so well in the air war that has taken place over the past 78 days. The best way we can serve those men and women in uniform is to see to it that we get a large number of them off of food stamps. I am talking about the 10,000 military families that are currently on food stamps.'' This is the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, House Committee on Armed Services. ``Another way we can serve them is to see to it that we have the spare parts to get our mission capability rates up above 70 percent and to get that crash rate which last year was 55 aircraft crashing resulting in 55 deaths,'' of brave young Americans, ``during peacetime operations down to a lower level, if not an acceptable level. All of that is going to take money.'' I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), he is right; it is going to take money, but if we give it away to the fat cats and defense cuts, that money not only will not be there, it will not be there for the next 20 years because they give away $800 billion in the first 10, and then they give away an additional $2 trillion in the next 10. It goes on. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a leader on this House floor for national missile defense, no one understands the subject better than he. He is sincere when he says these things, and I am going to remind everyone of what he has to say. ``In fact, if we look at the record over the past 7 years, the only major area of the Federal budget that has in fact been cut in real terms is the defense portion of our budget. In fact, it has gone down for 13 consecutive years. In the past 3 years, I have been a Republican and as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, voting consistently against the B-2 bomber, it is not that I do not like the technology. I think the technology is critically important, but I just do not think we can afford the B-2 bomber with the budget limitations we have and with other problems we face as a Nation.'' I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), we will never solve those problems if we give away $800 billion to the fat cats tomorrow and another $2 trillion 10 years after that. Lastly, the Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), April 19, 1999: ``Since the end of the Gulf War, our military has shrunk by 40 percent. Army divisions have dropped from 18 to 10; fighter wings from 24 to 13. The Navy used to have 546 ships. Now it has only 333. At the same time our deployments have increased. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) often points out, we have had 33 Army deployments in the 1990s alone, compared with 10 for the entire period from 1950 to 1989. Funding has been inadequate to meet demands. The result has been lower troop retention, slow recruitment, shortage of spare parts, deficient training. Clearly this Congress must pass on an urgent basis legislation to reverse the decline of our military. Only by doing so will we prevent trouble from breaking out in many parts of the world.'' Again, that is not me. That is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the Republican majority leader. So I call on the names that I just mentioned, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). Tell me how are they going to solve the problems that they have so articulately spelled out and deprive this Nation of first $800 billion and then $2 trillion after that, when we are already running a deficit? The answer is, they cannot. So I mention I serve on the House Committee on Armed Services, and for the first hour of every meeting I hear my Republican colleagues, one after another, talk about the shortfalls in defense spending. They have every right to do so, because they are there and they are real. I also have every right, and I am putting them on notice right now, that should they vote to deprive this Nation's military of $800 billion tomorrow, I will remind them at every meeting, as long as I serve on that committee, that they contributed to the problem. They can vote to help solve it tomorrow. They can vote to help contribute to the problem. I hope they will do as they said when they pointed out our Nation's defense needs.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) to continue his discussion.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Colonel Gilpin R. Fegley as he prepares to culminate his active duty career in the United States Army. Gil is the epitome of an outstanding officer and leader. Colonel Fegley began his career more than 25 years ago when he was commissioned as a second lieutenant, and first served as an Assistant Staff Judge Advocate Trial Counsel in Grafonver, Germany. A graduate of the Dickinson School of Law in Carlisle, Pennsylvania and the Command and General Staff College, Gil Fegley has met the many challenges of military service as an Army Officer, and has faithfully served his country in a variety of command staff assignments in the Continental United States, Hawaii, and Germany. Gil also deployed in support of Operation Desert Storm as the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate. Gil has served in the Army Legislative Liaison Investigation and Legislative Division as the Chief, Legislative Counsel. During his tenure in the Legislative Liaison Office, Gil worked hard to represent the interests of the Army to Members of Congress. He presented a positive and impressive image of the Army during the course of his duties there. He concludes his career as the Special Assistant for Installations and Legal Issues in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. Always thorough and precise in applying his legal skills, Gil was also very generous with colleagues, both senior and subordinate, who sought out his advice on legislative matters. Senior Defense officials depended on Gil for his studious approach to matters and Congressional Members and staff looked to him for his honesty and professional assessment of any given situation. Mr. Speaker, serve and dedication to duty have been the hallmarks of Colonel Fegley's career. He has served our nation and the Army well during his years of service, and we are indebted for his many contributions and sacrifices in the defense of the United States. I am sure that everyone who has worked with Gil joins me in wishing him and his wife, Marion, health, happiness, and success in the years to come.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for yielding to me, and I very much appreciate his previous remarks about the willingness to work with all parties to see to it that the military is adequately funded while we ensure the victory that has been won. As the gentleman knows, we began this debate 2 weeks ago. At that time, American armed forces were at war, as far as I am concerned, with the Yugoslav army and Serbians. Because of the Memorial Day district work period, because of the other delays in getting this vote to the floor, a great many things have happened, all, in my opinion, good for the United States and good for NATO and good for the good guys, the forces of peace in the world. One of the things that was included in the original motion was to have Congress admit that a conflict does, indeed, exist between the United States of America and Yugoslavia. Because of the good news that came out of the Balkans yesterday, that is no longer necessary. A second portion that the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and others might have found offensive was a reminder of Congress' failure to act on this matter before. At the request of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), I am removing those two portions. The first one makes absolute sense because, thank goodness, we are no longer involved in armed conflict with the people of Yugoslavia. The second one, I must admit, was probably done, I felt, to help strengthen the cause of what needed to be done then when we were still in conflict and no longer is necessary. So, therefore, I have agreed to remove it at the request of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me close by thanking the gentleman from California for what he did back in April, which was to force the 435 elected officials, not one of us was appointed, not one of us was annointed, every one of us begged for this job, for forcing us to do what we should have done all along. I also want to thank him for coming to me with what I thought was a very common-sense compromise on this issue. Again, what I had set out to do in the beginning was to help that very high-ranking American officer and let him and all the troops know that the Congress of the United States is behind them in what they are trying to accomplish. We have a chance to do that right now. And lastly, I want to thank the Speaker of the House, who I do believe played a part in seeing to it that that amendment which was originally blocked from consideration 2 weeks ago is being voted on today. I think that is supporting what we are doing today. I think for the sake of the kids who flew the 30,000 sorties and put their lives on the line every time that we protect the peace, that they risked their lives to gain. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).