Gene Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I would say to the gentleman, the reason I do this, and I do it in good faith, is that I have met with several members of the staff that helped you draft this, and came up with several different interpretations of what would really happen under these scenarios. These are intelligent people. I have got to believe that intelligent lawyers would be the same way and intelligent jurors would be the same way. That generally means that given that uncertainty, the liability to the American taxpayer would be phenomenal, and we need to prevent that.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me ask the gentleman this: Is it fair market value if the 1 dollar an acre that the man bought it for during the Depression, is it fair market value for the $5,000 an acre that the man from the Midwest and does not know what a coastal marsh is worth, or he in good faith paid $5,000, or is it $50,000 an acre that it would be worth if he could build the shopping center? I would ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], with a rule of law, why are we so afraid to define something and why do not we define it in this bill?

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

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Reclaiming my time and addressing the author of this measure, the sponsor of this measure, would you accept that as the definition of fair market value? The fair market value at the time that it was purchased?

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Please tell me how we are going to keep people from abusing this bill?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I would ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] where is fair market value defined in this bill?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. But for the sake of getting this on the record, it is not the gentleman's intention through this legislation to ask the people of Iowa, the people of Kentucky, all those people who live in areas that do not flood, to subsidize people for building houses at sea level, knowing that every time there is a heavy rain, every time there is a high tide, they are going to be going in changing all the carpets and sheet rock and everything?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I thank the gentleman for yielding. In a way, I understand what you are saying. But we are indeed dealing with human lives. There was a crash in the Midwest of a commuter airline this winter. It came to the public's attention very graphically that the guidelines for safety for commuter lines are much, much lower than they are for the major carriers. Maybe that crash could have been prevented, and maybe those people would still be alive if the regulations that Secretary Pena is looking at right now implementing were put in place a little bit sooner. But they need to be put in place. Maybe that crash could have been prevented. But it was a great eye- opener for the American people to find out that there are two different levels of safety, one that basically has not changed since the 1960's and one that is updated every day. If I owned a regional airline and a new set of regulations came down or was proposed, I would say, ``This is not more money. That has nothing to do with safety.'' We know they are going to argue that, because they are a business. They want to maximize their profits and I do not blame them for that. Since we have a problem, that people just die, I really do not think it is much to ask that that in particular be addressed in this bill. The chairman just yesterday said he was willing to do it on a technical basis. What is wrong with doing it formally so that this does not get held up in court, so that we can hopefully save some lives and that everybody is held to the same high level of safety that ought to be required? Because we are dealing with people's lives. I will not get on a regional airline, because I know there is a difference. Do you not think the rest of the people in America ought to know that?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I would like to enter into a similar colloquy with the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger]. Mr. Chairman, a recent tragedy in the Midwest, involving a regional airline brought to the public's attention that 2 different sets of safety standards exist for the airlines, one for the major airlines and one for the regional airlines. It is my understanding Secretary Pena is looking into that and is expected in a short period of time to be releasing a new set of regulations bringing the regionals up to a par with the major airlines. That is something that is long overdue, since more and more cities are being served by regional airlines and fewer and fewer cities are having full jet service. I hope it is the intention of the Chair to allow, within the discretion that he has for technical adjustments, when this bill is put into its final stage would somehow include some language so that it is very clear that when these terms of this bill.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, while we have the interested parties here, could I address the ranking minority member and ask if she would be in agreement to allow during the technical revisions at the end of the bill to allow the chairman, if need be, to include that language? It is a lot quicker than offering an amendment. Again, we all know regulations are coming that would otherwise be necessary. I would hate to see anyone hurt because this Congress failed to do its job.

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

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, can I count on the Speaker to enforce the rule?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is with regard to section 749 of the House rules, and in particular clause 1 of rule XIV, in which Members are prohibited from addressing anyone but the Speaker, and in particular the practice that has apparently taken place today of Members wearing badges to relay a message rather than addressing their message through the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I realize this has happened in the past in the House, but I practice, which I find does not reflect very well on the House of Representatives, would be addressed.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I happened to hear the comments of the gentleman before me, about all the things that the new Republican majority has done for the people of America. Last night they had an opportunity to do one of the greatest things they could have done for the people of America, and they did not. They did not give the people of America the same protection that every Member of Congress has, should we decided to leave Congress, or should the voters decide for us that we should leave. Mr. Speaker, if a Member of Congress wishes to leave or gets fired by the American people, he can buy back into the House insurance by paying the full cost of the premium. Unfortunately for most Americans, if they lose their job, for whatever reason, should the plant close, or should the plant just downscale and they lose their job, they cannot buy insurance. They are protected for about 18 months, but then they are on their own. Even worse than that, Mr. Speaker, if in the course of normal business a person should just develop or a family member should develop cancer, leukemia, or any other horrible disease, they are then locked to their job for life, because when they go to apply to a new employer for a better job, that employer is going to find out that they have cancer, they have leukemia, or a family member has it, and they will either be told they cannot take the job, or they cannot get insurance at any price. Mr. Speaker, last night this body, this Contract With America, had the opportunity to change that for 4 million American people; nothing special, just give them the same breaks that you and I have, Mr. Speaker, you and I who have families, you and I who have kids that can get sick. The same good deal for a Congressman ought to be a good deal for the rest of the people of America, but it was not included in the Contract With America. We did not even give 4 million people the opportunity to just buy their own insurance policy through their former employer. That is wrong. So for all the talk of accountability, for all the talk of putting people first, the bottom line is that only 4 Members of the majority party voted for the motion to recommit, but 222 of the majority party thumbed their noses at the people of America. I would really like to hear of any Member of this body on either side of the aisle explain why it is OK for them to have permanent coverage under health insurance, to be able to buy into this policy, pay 100 percent of the cost when you leave, but it is not OK for the people we represent to have that same privilege. Last night, 220 Members of the majority party, almost all of them, said that is not right, they would not do it. That is not fair, that is not accountable, and that is not putting Congress under the same laws as the American people. This is going to be a long session. We should be here at least until Thanksgiving. I want to encourage especially the newer Members of the majority party, who are most likely to want to change things, to take a second look at this. Let us try to be as fair to the American people as Congress is to itself.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], my distinguished colleague. remembering congressman chet holifield

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Vermont, the only independent Member of this body, and the gentleman who has introduced legislation to make this fund subject to an annual appropriation process like every other dollar that is in the Treasury.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for being here today, and I want to again remind everyone that this was never brought before Congress. The reason it was not brought before Congress is because both sides, the Democrats and the Republicans, knew that had it been brought before Congress, Congress would have voted it down, and that is the greatest outrage of all, that the will of the majority as expressed through their elected representatives was never heard. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] is trying to correct that. It is a shame that a little-known provision of a law had to be used to thwart the will of the majority. But I really do want to thank the gentleman for trying to correct that.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I say to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], it has really become apparent to me in phone calls I have had, letters, faxes from around the country that the American people feel powerless against Wall Street. They feel powerless against the people who benefited from this. You pointed out very well that is not the Mexican people. It is Wall Street. It is the people who reaped tremendous profits down there last year, because they took risky investments. When those risky investments went sour, then they called upon the taxpayers to bail them out, and that is wrong, that is not free enterprise.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her help. I would like to encourage those who are listening to get in touch with their elected Representatives. I think a few questions are fair to ask: Who agreed to the bailout? What were the names of the congressional leaders who met with the President and agreed to the bailout? When did they know? Who did they tell prior to the bailout so that people could call and buy millions of pesos and get a 20-percent return on their investment with your money that they get the profits? And above all, what can we do as a Nation to keep this from happening again? And I hope that the American people will not let this slide. There are still $15 billion in that account that could be spent, and we have already seen the President use it once. It should not be used again. But until we can pass legislation which is going to take awhile and will only take place if the people of America demand it, then they have to be held accountable by the voice of the American people. I again want to thank the approximately 80 House employees that we have kept late. It is almost 5 o'clock, Friday afternoon. I would like to let them go home. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] very much.