Gene Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, since we have the luxury of so many cosponsors, I will be recognizing them in the order of seniority on the committee, Democrat, Republican. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, if a politician breaks his promise, shame on him. If a Nation breaks its promise, shame on all of us. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, another member of this committee who is trying to see to it that our Nation keeps its promise. (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the testimony of the DOD before the House Committee on Armed Services on March 15 of this year, and I am quoting, ``We believe that TRICARE Senior Prime is the key component of keeping health care commitments to our 65-year-old retirees and family Members who have sacrificed so much in the service to their country.'' That is Rudy de Leone, the Under Secretary of Defense. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), another key player on this, a member of the House Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, what is the time that remains?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), another sponsor of this measure and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage my colleagues to vote against this rule. I appreciate the horror that has happened to the Stupak family. I understand the reason that we will be meeting on a short schedule today. It makes perfect sense for as many Members to be with the Stupaks during this horrible moment as possible. It also makes a golden opportunity for the Committee on Rules to meet and to make amendments in order. In fact, they should have been doing that right now. It is a good national defense bill. It actually improves spending for the first time maybe in a decade. It does a lot of good things, but what it does not do is solve the problem of health care for our military retirees. If we think about it, they are the only Americans who were promised health care, the only Americans who were promised health care if they serve their country honorably for 20 years. They have done that. Every recruiter in every custom house for every branch of the service since the 1950s has been telling young 18, 19, 20 years old if you serve your country honorably for 20 years, then when it comes time for you to retire, for you and your spouse, we are going to take care of you at a military facility for the rest of your life. But what they are being told, because of the defense drawdown and because money is tight, is that when they hit 65, I am sorry, Chief; I am sorry, Sergeant; I am sorry, Colonel, yes, we asked you to go to Vietnam. We told you to go to Korea. We sent you to Kosovo. We sent you to Bosnia. We sent you to all these places you did not want to be, where you got shot at, where you were away from your family, but we are not going to keep our end of the bargain. Congress for the past decade has failed to address this issue. I am saying it is time for Congress to address this. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the Committee on Rules. This was the third amendment brought before the Committee on Rules, the third of over 100. They chose not to even vote on it. That is how good, that is how much they care about our Nation's retirees. We have absolutely no guarantee that this amendment will be brought to the floor. We have none. We have asked repeatedly. This amendment has four Republican cosponsors, including three Members of the Committee on Armed Services, one of which is a subcommittee chairman. This is not partisan. This is Republicans and Democrats trying to solve a sincere problem for the folks who deserve it the most. And we cannot even get a vote in the Committee on Rules. I am asking every single Member of this body, if they care about those folks who have served your country honorably, if they think it is time that they keep getting told, well, next year, maybe we will get around to it in a couple of decades. Doggone it, we found time for tax breaks for millionaires. We found time to honor or condemn just about every group under the sun. You do not think we can find time for our military retirees? Vote against this rule, that sends the Committee on Rules back to work. Let us make the Taylor-Hefley-Pickering-Tanner-Abercrombie amendment in order, Democrats and Republicans trying to solve the problem of health care for military retirees, to fulfill our Nation's promise. And doggone it, if we do not make it in order, then I am asking as many of you as possible to shut this place down. We are not going to vote on this bill until we have an up or down vote on whether or not we are going to fulfill our promise to our Nation's military retirees.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his comments. I certainly do not claim to be the inventor of subvention. Someone else is. It might possibly be the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). It is a good idea, though. What I would like to tell the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is that he is right. I am disappointed also that the administration has not been more helpful. But a reading of the Constitution will tell both of us that no money may be drawn from the Treasury except by an appropriation by Congress. Just because the administration did not help enough no way absolves us from doing our job. I am asking for the opportunity for the 435 Members of this body to do their job, to take care of our military retirees. I hope the gentleman will help me in that effort.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by complimenting the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence). I think it is very appropriate that the bill is named after him. He is truly a gentleman who has been a great patriot and a great Congressman. The bill overall does a heck of a lot of good things. The bill, unfortunately, fails to address adequately the problem of dealing with health care fraud and the Nation's military retirees. It is for that reason that eight of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, went to the Committee on Rules and asked for an opportunity to have an up or down vote on the prospect of Medicare subvention for our Nation's military retirees. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules has failed to even vote on that. For the citizens who are watching, we have but one chance a year to change that. Medicare subvention involves Medicare. It involves something going out of the Committee on Commerce, and it involves Armed Services. So we really only have one chance a year to address that, and that is today. Mr. Chairman, and it is for that reason if by 2 p.m., the Committee on Rules has not ruled on this amendment and giving the Members an opportunity to vote on it, I will begin a series of procedural moves to tie up the House of Representatives, because all we are asking for is for the sake of those people who served our Nation so well for 20 years or more in horrible places away from their families, all we are asking for is the opportunity for 435 Members of Congress to decide whether or not we are going to improve their health benefits and give them what they were promised. We just want an up or down vote, and this is the only chance we get all year long to do that. If we do not get it today, we do not get it at all; otherwise, it is a wonderful bill. I am looking forward to the opportunity that once we further address health care needs for military retirees, to support it. But until then, we want an up or down vote of giving to our Nation's military retirees that what was promised to them so many years ago.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. The gentleman yielded his time to me, Mr. Chairman. At that point I made a motion.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and assure him I will go quickly. Usually it is some poor uneducated kid from the Colombian countryside, and I get every indication that they expect American kids to fight in a war they will not fight in and the American taxpayers to pay for a war that they will not pay for. It is with some hesitation that I will vote to help them with America's money and equipment. I will not, however, vote to send America's sons and daughters off to fight a war in Colombia that the sons and daughters of Colombia and their political leaders often will not fight in. This amendment would limit America's troop strength in Colombia to 300 military personnel. In a hearing before the House Committee on Armed Services last week on Colombia, General Charles Wilhelm, the United States Commander in Chief of the Southern Command, was told of my reservations and asked if he would agree to a troop limitation. His response was: Would I be willing, as the Commander in Chief of the United States Southern Command, to subscribe to a properly considered and developed troop cap for Colombia? I certainly would. Categorically, yes. That was 1 week ago today. I am asking my colleagues to put such a cap on American troop strength in Colombia. Should it be the will of the majority of this House to break that cap, then it should be done in a deliberate manner and by a vote of this body, and not something that some president on a whim gets us involved in.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I ask my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, for a few minutes to try to remember what it was like before we all got caught up in which party we are in and which committee chairman is for something and which committee chairman is against it, and try to remember why I think all of us ran for this office. It was to do good things and to keep bad things from happening. It is the second point that I would like to discuss today, because I think that the needless loss of an American service person is quite possibly the worst thing that can happen. The amendment that I am offering today is an effort to keep a bad thing from needlessly happening. Colombia is a dangerous place. The FARC and the ELN, the two primary guerilla groups, now control better than 40 percent of the Colombian countryside. They are well financed, they are well armed, they are well trained. And in increasing instances, they are working in large units to overwhelm Colombian army outposts; and just this week killed about 30 Colombian policemen. In my opinion, they threaten the Nation of Colombia. And yet the political leaders of Colombia in the past year have reduced their defense spending. The political leaders of Colombia in the past couple of months have actually changed their law so that people who hold a high school diploma are no longer eligible for the draft in Colombia. In private conversations with their business leaders, they tell me, yes, there are taxes on the books, but they do not pay them. And I suspect that they are expecting someone else's kid to defend their country.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) for their assistance in this. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for the help of the committee chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, we have been involved in a long debate today about what exactly our Nation should do on the war on drugs. There are some who advocate spending a great deal of money and possibly using the Armed Forces of the United States in the war in Colombia. Mr. Chairman, as we speak we have Americans, since I have been a Member of Congress, who have been sent to the Gulf, to Haiti, to Somalia, to Rwanda, to Bosnia, to Kosovo and there are now about 200 Americans who are stationed, involved in training the Colombians in Colombia. My amendment is straightforward. It would reserve the rights and the duties that are assigned to Congress in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution which is to decide where and when Americans get involved in a war to Congress. It would limit the number of United States personnel in Colombia to 300. It would provide an exception to that, that for 30 days the Armed Forces could break this limitation if need be in order to rescue Americans, be they in the military or not. Mr. Chairman, in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services last week when asked the question, General Wilhelm, our Southern Commander said that he would support a limitation of troop strength in Colombia. I am asking for this country to do this. There is a great deal of fear that there could be unintended consequences. We all know what happens once Americans are under fire, once they are challenged, it will be the response of this country that we will do whatever it takes to win that conflict. I think that question needs to be asked now rather than later. As the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) pointed out, this is indeed one of the most dangerous places on earth. We have Seal teams there, we have Special Forces A teams there, we have had submarines off the coast, we have had people involved in riverine operations. In the course of a year, we have about 3,000 Americans transit through Colombia. Yet this Congress has never decided whether or not we are going to get involved militarily in Colombia. I hear on a daily basis my colleagues lament the fact that time and time again Americans are sent on deployment without congressional approval. This would allow the present situation to continue but would not allow it to grow beyond 300 men without the Armed Forces of the United States coming to Congress and asking for a change in policy. I am told that in the 1950s, then Senator John Stennis, when the Nation of Vietnam was asking for airplane mechanics asked the question of his colleagues, what happens if the mechanics are fired upon, what happens then? Apparently as a Nation we did not do a very good job of deciding for ourselves the answer then. I would hope we do a much better job of deciding that question now. I would ask my colleagues to support this language and to see to it that we do not get further dragged into this war. I would also remind my colleagues that as we seem to be getting dragged further into this war, the Colombian people who have the most to lose seem to be doing less. In the past month or so, they have changed their constitution so that people who have a high school diploma are no longer eligible for the draft. They have changed their laws to decrease the amount of money they are spending on defense. One cannot help but be left with the feeling that the Colombians are expecting the United States of America, brave young Americans to fight their war for them. I want to send them a very strong message that this is not the case. We will help you with materiel, we will help you with training, but we are not going to send young Americans down to Colombia to fight your civil war for you. Point of Order