Gene Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I am really confused on this. I thought I heard the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] yesterday ask you if the $500 tax break was actually in this bill. I thought I heard you say it is not. Now I am asking for a clarification. Is it or is it not?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I spent the weekend visiting American troops in what was Yugoslavia and those troops who are on the ground today in Italy preparing to go into what was Yugoslavia. Mr. Speaker, we are doing a lot of important things in this body. I do not think anything we do is silly. But there is nothing more important than deciding the fate of those young American men and women who have given their word to defend our country. If this Congress does nothing, 25,000 young American men and women will be sent into a situation where they know many of them will die. This Congress will have shirked its responsibility. Mr. Speaker, we can bring that bill to the floor. We deserve a vote. Every Member of this body should decide whether or not those young men and women should be called upon, many of them to die, and a peace accord that will not bring peace to that part of the world. Tito could not do it in 50 years. The United States of America cannot do it in 1. We have to vote on this issue.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying I just returned from that part of the world this weekend. I had a chance to meet with all of our top NATO officials and to go to observation posts on the Serbian border. I am not going to disagree with anything the gentleman said. What I would say as a member of the minority party talking to a member of the majority party is I would ask that the gentleman ask the Speaker of the House that we be allowed to vote on this. It is our constitutional duty. Everything the gentleman said I agree with. Congress ought to vote on it. The gentleman and I and the other 400 Members ought to decide this issue, not the President of the United States.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to ask my colleagues to vote against this rule. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying shame on the Republican leadership who control the Committee on Rules for not allowing the coalition to offer their $170 billion plan to save Medicaid; and dollar-for-dollar plan that would save Medicaid, as their trustees asked us to do; would allow military retirees to take their Medicaid money to military hospitals and have the much needed care. Mr. Speaker, I also want to say shame on the Democratic leadership for not allowing the coalition to offer their plan as the Democratic alternative in the motion to recommit. This body is about finding fairness for the American people. It is not about catering to the Republicans' special interests or the Democrats; special interests. It is doing what is right for the American people. The Republicans promised open rules, and yet they are depriving us of the opportunity to offer a very good plan that was put together. They claim to be for fairness, and yet the fairest plan of all, one that would solve the problem, will not see the light of day because they do not want a better alternative to come to the floor, because both groups are afraid it would pass. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that several members of the Committee on Rules that voted to deny the coalition the plan to bring Medicare subvention to the floor, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder], the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], are all cosponsors of the bill to fix Medicare subvention. Yet those seven Members, a majority of the Committee on Rules, would not let this important measure as a part of the coalition budget, come to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I say to these colleagues, ``Shame on all of you all.''

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Does your bill require, or, well, let us back up a little bit, I think you made a statement about what percentage of the shrimp that is consumed in America comes from overseas. What percentage is that?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Let me begin my complimenting my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], for his amendment. It is the right thing to do. But as my colleague, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], pointed out, we will be counting on the Department of Commerce to enforce it. History has shown for all of the reasons that he has named, in addition to political treaties, in addition to bases in different places, in addition to mutual alliances, it probably will not be enforced. So what the net effect will be is that we will have put another unfunded mandate on the American fishermen that his foreign competitors will not have to have. I am going to vote for the Hayes amendment. I am going to pray that the Department of Commerce will enforce it. But I can tell Members this, they are not. Therefore, I am going to vote against this whole bill, because it is just one more example of Washington not being fair to our folks. One of the reasons for the big change last November is the people got sick and tired of us not being fair to them. So I will encourage Members to vote for the Hayes amendment. I will encourage the Secretary of Commerce for once to stand up for the American people, the people who pay his salary. I also encourage Members to vote against the bill because it is not being fair to the American shrimper.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman raises an excellent question. I say to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse], you are speaking fairness, and you are asking for universal implementation of the law. But the truth of the matter is, the only people who would have to implement this law will be Americans. Foreign competitors will not implement this law. The foreign competitors have not implemented the TED law. The American shrimpers have suffered as a result of that. This is yet another good idea that has not been perfected, much like the TED's where the Federal Government spent $4 million trying to perfect a turtle excluder device which to this day does not work properly. Now we are putting one more mandate on these fishermen. Getting back to what was said, it is simply not fair to ask the American fisherman to do this, if his foreign competitor will not.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. It is very much my NAFTA argument all over again. We are putting rules on Americans that we are not willing to put on our trading partners.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I say to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] there is such a law. As we both know, the Commerce Department, for political reasons, not wanting to offend our friends and allies we have bases with overseas, does not enforce it. I can assure you it is not being enforced in Panama.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to, and I will not, question the motives of people who are in favor of this amendment. I am sure they are well- intended. But I do not think they have taken the time to think out what they are doing. As I mentioned to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], something in the nature between 80 and 90 percent of all the shrimp that are eaten in this country are imported anyway. So what you are doing is putting another mandate on the American fisherman who has seen his percentage of the shrimp sales in this country shrink from about 90 percent just 15 years ago down to 10 percent right now. They are at the mercy of the shrimp that are dumped on the market by the Red Chinese, the Indians, the Ecuadorans, the Mexicans, and other places. They are already at the mercy of them as far as price, because 10 percent of the market does not dictate the market price. Ninety percent of the market does. They already are the only nation in the world that has to pull the turtle excluder device. I have visited several other countries as a result of my work on the Committee on National Security. It almost always takes me out over the water. Invariably, I get a chance to look at other people's fishing vessels. In Panama, I have never seen a TED. In Colombia, I have never seen a TED. Other places I have visited around the world, not one TED. Yet our Nation allows these shrimp to come into our country and gives those people an advantage over our fishermen who are living by the rules. I also think I have a little advantage over some of the proponents of this bill. I have been on shrimp boats. I own a shrimp trawl, and I can tell, those of you who are in favor of marine mammals ought to know most of these fish that are caught that are tossed overboard that are dying are eaten by porpoises. What the porpoises do not eat, the sea gulls eat. They are not wasted. A lot are kept for bait by commercial crabbers. The science behind this, they would have you believe, the statement of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] would have you believe they are literally dumped overboard like garbage. They become an important part of the Marine ecosystem. Thousands upon thousands of sea gulls flock to the Mississippi Gulf Coast in time for shrimp season every year. What happens if you no longer allow this? They are going to die. So for those of you concerned about messing up the ecosystem, you are the ones who are going to mess up the ecosystem by passing this ill-advised piece of legislation. But lastly, I just want to make a point of fairness. It is really fair to put one more mandate on the American fisherman, who is already barely surviving, who does not dictate the price for his product, that comes from Red China, comes from India, Ecuador? Is it really fair to make him do one more thing that you will not ask our foreign competitors to do? My answer to that is ``No,'' it is not fair.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. We are directing this amendment at the gulf fishing fleet. I would like to remind this body well over 80, and probably closer to 90, percent of all shrimp eaten in America is imported now. Much of it comes from communist China. What you are asking this body to do is put yet one more mandate on the [[Page H 10239]] American fleet that is only about now 15 percent of the total that is consumed here, while not putting a similar mandate on the Chinese, on the Mexicans, on the Koreans.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming what time I have left, there has been a tradition, there has been a tendency of Presidents in both parties to commit American forces and then, once those young men are in harm's way, then come to Congress and ask for the money. My colleagues know the position that puts us in. Then we are voting against the troops in the field and we know we cannot do that. That is why I think it is so important. That this body speak today and speak now on this issue that this is a congressional decision that we will not run away from. That we want to make this decision before the first American is put in harm's way in the former Yugoslavia.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, first, let me applaud anyone who wants to save money in this body. But there are bigger issues at stake on this measure. Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Committee on National Security and today Secretary of State Christopher came before the committee and said it was his opinion that he could commit 25,000 American troops to the most dangerous place in the world without congressional approval. If my colleagues happen to have read the Constitution, article I, section 8 gives that responsibility to send young Americans off to war solely to the Congress. And this is a war. They would be sent in, allegedly, as peacekeepers to a part of the world where the best-armed people consider us to be their enemies, because we have bombed them repeatedly in the last month or so. This body, led by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] with the help of the entire body, passed a measure that would prohibit the President from spending funds on ground forces in that portion of the world without congressional authority. That is our job. We cannot run away from it. One of the reasons that the majority defeated the defense appropriations bill conference report was because that language had been removed after the House voted for it unanimously. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] is the chairman of that subcommittee. I would like to know what the gentleman's feelings are going to be entering this conference as far as trying to put that language back into the bill, because as the gentleman knows, under the rules of the House there will be very few avenues for a Member of the House to vote on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I think the House has spoken on this, and I think it is very important that we stick to the efforts of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], and the many others who passed that amendment unanimously.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, let us start by finding those things we agree on, and I think every Member in this body, every Member of the other body, wants to get rid of Fidel Castro. He is a thug, he got there by force, he has stayed in power by force. But the present plan is not working. The first embargo was put on Castro by Eisenhower. He was still there when President Kennedy put an embargo on him. He was still there when President Johnson put an embargo on him. He was still there when President Nixon put an embargo on him, still there when President Ford continued the embargo, President Carter continued the embargo, President Reagan continued the embargo, President Bush continued the embargo, and now, under the Clinton administration, we still have an embargo. Embargo is not working. So let us try something different. I am going to say something good about President Reagan, and one of the beauties of what President Reagan did in the military buildup against the Soviet Union was at the same time he said, ``Let's trade with them. Let's show them what the worst could be, and let's show them what the best can be, with a free market, how a free market helps feed people, how a free market provides opportunities.'' I think we ought to do the same thing with the Cubans. I think we ought to lift the embargo. It is not working. I think the sooner the Cuban people can interface with the Americans, the sooner we give them, we show them, what our life is like, what our opportunities are like, in so many ways we give them the kind of hope, and I guarantee, if we were to lift the embargo within 2 years, Castro is gone, but he is gone in a peaceful manner rather than in the chaos that I think some people want to see happen. Mr. Chairman, my biggest concerns are to balance the budget and to provide for the common defense, and right now Cuba is a threat, the chaos down [[Page H 9392]] in Cuba is a threat, in a couple of ways. First, it is only 90 miles from the continental United States. If Castro were to get hold of a missile from the former Soviet Union, then we have got a problem. It is also an expensive proposition right now where our Nation is spending about $30 million a month to take care of the Cuban boat people down at our base in Guantanamo, and that comes out of our defense budget, a defense budget that is already too small, a defense budget that is not building enough ships and taking good enough care of our people. So I asked the chairman of the Atlantic Command, a four-star Marine general by the name of Sheehan, if he thought it was in our Nation's best interests to continue the embargo or to open diplomatic relations with the Cubans, and I want to quote him from what he said before the Committee on Armed Services. Gen. Sheehan. I think it will be extraordinarily helpful to start some type of dialogue with the process of the Cubans. That is going on to the intersection in Havana. We have almost on a daily basis, requirements to deal with the frontier border guard and the Cubans, either because there are Cuban migrants who are frustrated by the process, who are actually walking through mine fields to return to Cuba and in some cases they have maimed themselves. We are risking American lives who go into the mine fields and pull them out. We have Cubans on a weekly basis go into the water to swim back to Cuba. As a result, we need to have some kind of mechanism just from a sheer safety standpoint to make sure that these Cubans do not permanently maim or kill themselves in the process. Castro holds all of the cards on the migrant issue. He can put 100,000 Cubans in rafts tomorrow morning in a heartbeat. We cannot absorb 100,000 at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. It seems to me that it would be in our best interest to manage the change that is going to occur in Cuba. It is going to happen. Mr. Chairman, this is not Gene Taylor of Mississippi speaking. This is a four-star Marine general who is in charge of the Atlantic Command for the United States of America.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, one of my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], just made the statement that we have somehow led the Bosnian Serbs to believe that the cavalry is on the way. Well, I might feel a little bit better about the outcome of this vote if I knew that the cavalry was going to be led by the likes of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], and some other people who are very anxious to get America involved in a war where we do not belong. Mr. Chairman, our national interests are not at stake. NATO is not under attack. Yes, people are dying. People are dying all over the world as we speak. I do not think it is America's business to be the world's policeman. People say, if we just lift the embargo, somehow the war will go away. Who is kidding who? That is like pouring gasoline on a fire. According to Collin Powell when he spoke before the Committee on Armed Services back when he still was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he said there was a 10-year supply of weapons in the former Yugoslavia. You see, Tito was paranoid. He didn't know whether it was a Warsaw Pact or NATO that was going to attack him, so he prepared for either. Folks, this fight has been going on at least since the 1200's. It has been a blood feud, and to sum up Canadian General McKenzie who was in charge of the general command just a few years ago when he came before the Committee on Armed Services, he summed up his remarks by saying, we have three serial killers. One has killed 15, one has killed 10, and one has killed 5, and he does not see the rationale of jumping in on the side of the one who has only killed 5. Mr. Chairman, if you lift the embargo, who do we sell to? Are we going to sell to the Serbs? Are we going to sell to the Croatians? No you want to sell to the Moslems. You want to pick sides. When you pick sides, that means you have to train people, and when they invariably lose, that means the decision will have to be made in this body, do we go rush to the rescue, as Mr. Bonior said? Not with my kids. Not with kids from south Mississippi, not with kids named Widener and Nickase and Bond who have no reason to die in what was Yugoslavia. People, we are wasting 8 days on hearings on something that took place over 2 years ago in Waco, TX. You are not even willing to give a half a day's consideration to sending American kids to die in a part of the country most people could not point to on the map. Please, for God's sakes, think about what you are doing before we have hearings 4 years from now wondering what went wrong in Bosnia. Please oppose this resolution.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, earlier this evening, July 17, 1995, I was unvoidably detained because of circumstances beyond my control. Due to a malfunction with the air traffic control system at the Cincinnati airport, my connecting flight to Washington was postponed. Unfortunately, having arrived here just moments ago, I was informed that I missed two roll call votes to the Fiscal Year 1996 Interior Appropriations Bill (H.R. 1977). Had I been present at the time the votes were called, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 512 and ``yea'' on rollcall 513. amendment no. 31 offered by mr. kleczka

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, one of the first measures to pass the body this year was a bill doing away with unfunded Federal mandates. If we are going to require local school districts like Biloxi, MS, to educate children on these bases as we do, and we are going to cut the funds we give to communities like Biloxi, MS, to educate these children, does this not then become an unfunded Federal mandate?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correctly, one of the very first measures to pass this body----

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, did that bill become law?