Jim Turner

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to engage the gentleman in a discussion regarding an issue that is often overlooked in the discussion on what we should do with the projected 10-year estimated, or guesstimated, surplus. I am told by sources that know a lot more about how the economy works than I do that the current surplus estimate of $2.9 trillion over the next 10 years, $1.9 of which is in Social Security, which I think we have all agreed on both sides of the aisle we should not touch, but that other $1 trillion that we are arguing over as to what is the best use of it, is really a figure that is quite tenuous. In fact, I am told that if we take four of the assumptions that were used by the Congressional Budget Office to come up with that estimate of $2.9 trillion and we adjust those four assumptions only very slightly, the surplus would change from $2.9 billion over 10 years to a deficit once again. Those four factors that were mentioned are: if, instead of assuming the employment rate that the CBO assumed, if employment simply ends up being 1 percent less than they estimate, in other words, if the unemployment rate is 1 percent greater than the CBO estimates, it has a significant impact on the surplus. If spending goes up over the next 10 years, Federal spending, with inflation, rather than being down at the levels that we are struggling to maintain that were set in the balanced budget act of 1997, then part of that surplus will disappear.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). I come from east Texas. The area that I represent is still operating off the old economy. The new economy had not made it there yet. And the old economy is not doing so well in rural America and inner city America. That is why I feel so strongly, as my colleague does, about Congress making the right choices with regard to how we handle our Federal spending, our tax cuts. As Democrats, we believe in tax cuts and we believe in tax cuts that are aimed at the people that really need them. I think it is important for us in trying to engage in this dialogue with the American people for them to understand that we want to see taxes go down just as much as anyone else in this body. But we want it to happen in a way that is good for the sustained, long-term growth of this country; and paying down the debt is a part of that, and we need to make that a priority. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) for leading in this hour. It has been very informative to hear an individual with his background in accounting and finance talk about the details of the tax proposals that have been before this House in the last 10 days. I commend him for his leadership on these issues. I know the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) joins me as we all try to move forward together and try to accomplish things that will bring us a better future for all of our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax cutting message is: ``You can't trust the Congress,'' which the last time I checked, they were in the majority and controlled. Today they propose an irresponsible tax cut scheme that dedicates all of the on-budget surplus to a massive tax cut rather than doing the responsible thing and reducing the national debt, saving Social Security and Medicare. Where have all the fiscal conservatives gone in the Republican party? I am shocked to hear some members of the Republican delegation here today say that they reduce the national debt more than Democrats. We just voted last week on a bill on the floor of this House where the Democrats said we are going to devote all of the Social Security surplus to Social Security and we are going to devote half of the on- budget surplus to debt reduction, 25 percent to reasonable tax cuts aimed at middle-income Americans and the other 25 percent for further tax reduction and to save Medicare and Social Security. That is the responsible thing to do. The Republican tax proposal simply gives only modest tax breaks to middle-income taxpayers. We propose a responsible tax cut that will benefit all Americans.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have really shown their hand in their late-night amendment to their blockbuster tax bill. They put a provision in that says that part of the tax cut will not take effect unless the debt goes down. The truth of the matter is the Republicans are not interested in reducing the national debt. Their amendment simply says if the national debt starts going up, we will not have that big blockbuster tax bill. We have a $5.6 trillion national debt. It is time to start paying it down. The Democratic substitute, the Blue Dog motion to recommit, will allow for paying down that national debt. The Republicans want to continue along the path of big budget deficits. We need to pay off that national debt. The party of fiscal responsibility in this debate is the Democratic Party. We want to pay off that national debt, and it is time that we realized that only by being fiscally conservative will we ever have a chance to do it.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax bill is wrong for America for three reasons. First, it spends money we do not have. The Republican theme is return it, but we cannot return what we do not have. Mr. Speaker, the $2.9 trillion surplus is an estimate of future revenues not yet seen, not yet collected, not yet in the bank. The Federal Government has run up an annual deficit for 30 years. Only next year will we see a true, on-budget surplus. Do we not think we could wait for at least one real actual surplus before we spend one not here yet, only in the forecast estimated surplus. Secondly, the best tax cut we can give the American people is lower interest rates for all Americans. Eliminating the debt would mean that no longer would we spend more on interest than we spend on national defense. Finally, the Republican tax bill puts our economic security, our economic health, and our retirement at risk. The Republican tax bill gives it back, all right, and more. On- budget, zero for Social Security, zero for Medicare, zero for national defense, zero for veterans, zero for reducing the national debt. Do we not think it is time to be fiscally conservative? The Republican tax reduction bill is wrong for the American people for 3 reasons: First, it spends money we don't have. The Republican theme is ``Return it.'' But you can't return what you don't yet have. The 2.9 trillion dollar surplus is an estimate of future revenues not yet seen, not yet collected, and not yet in the bank. In addition, the assumptions and economic predictions on which the surplus number is based may not turn out to be true. What if federal spending merely increases with inflation (even at today's low rate) rather than going down 8% over the next three years as projected in the surplus estimate? What if Medicare spending grows just 1% faster than projected? What if our nation's productivity grows at 1.1% annually the average rate since 1993, rather than at 1.8%, the projected rate in the surplus estimate? What if the unemployment rate is just one quarter of 1% more than the projected rate? If all 4 ``what ifs'' occur--there is no surplus. In fact, there would be a deficit over the next 10 years, not a surplus. If we spend our projected surplus on an 800 billion dollar budget-busting tax cut and the surplus never shows up, we will generate an even bigger national debt for our children, and we will have bankrupted Social Security just when the bulk of the baby boomers begin to be entitled to their benefits. The federal government has run up an annual deficit for 30 years. Only next year will we see a true on-budget surplus. Don't we think we could wait to see at least one real, actual surplus before we spend a not-here-yet, only-in-the-forecast, estimated 10-year surplus. Secondly, this budget-busting tax cut is not the best use of any surplus for working families. The best use of any surplus is to pay down the 5.6 trillion dollar national debt rather than to pass this debt on to our children. The best tax cut we can give all Americans is paying down the 5.6 trillion national debt. Less debt means lower interest rates for working families, lower mortgage payments, lower car payments, lower student loan payments. Each percentage point decrease in interest rates means over $200 billion in lower debt payments over 10 years for working families. Eliminating the debt would mean that no longer will we spend 25% of all individual federal income taxes collected just to pay the annual interest on the federal debt and no longer would we spend more on interest payments than the combined total of all spending on national defense. Finally, the Republican tax reduction bill puts our economic security, our health security, and our retirement security at risk. Our generation has a historic opportunity to put America on a stable economic path by continuing down the road of fiscally conservative, pro-growth economics by paying down our debt rather than passing it on to our children, by keeping interest rates down, by protecting Social Security and preparing for the demands of the baby boomers' retirements that begin in earnest in 2014, and by restoring our Medicare system to future solvency, building a strong national defense and keeping our commitments to our veterans. The Republican tax bill gives it all back alright and more. On-budget: Zero for Social Security. Zero for Medicare. Zero for national defense. Zero for veterans. Zero for reducing the national debt. Where have all the fiscal conservatives gone? Fiscal conservatives don't spend money they don't have. Fiscal conservatives don't return it until they earn it. Vote no on the Republican tax bill and yes for the future of America's children.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and appreciate his having this hour for us to talk about perhaps the most important issue that this Congress will face in this session. The proposal to reduce taxes at a time when we are just now beginning to see a balanced budget is indeed an issue that we must all confront with a great deal of concern. The chart to my left shows the history of Washington spending more money than it has taken in. In fact, we have gone for 29 years in Washington spending more money than was taken in. This chart shows the history by presidential administration. My colleagues will notice that President Johnson was the last president to have a balanced budget. Through the years of President Nixon we had budget deficits. They got larger through President Ford. They got larger through the administrations of President Carter. They got much larger through the administrations of Ronald Reagan. They got even larger during the administration of George Bush. And it has only been during the Clinton administration that we have begun to see reductions in the annual Federal debt. In fact, this past year was the first time that the annual deficit was not there. In fact, we had a surplus in the overall Federal budget. And it will be only next year that we will actually have a true surplus based on the projections when we look just at the general operating fund of the Federal Government and do not look at the surplus in Social Security. The next chart reveals what has happened through all those years of accumulating annual deficits, spending more money every year than we took in. We can see we have accumulated an increasingly large national debt, until today we owe over $5.6 trillion. When we look at where money is spent in the Federal Government, and these are figures from fiscal year 1998, we see that interest on the Federal debt is now the second largest category of Federal spending. In fact, in the blue we see that in 1998 we spent $364 billion just to cover the interest on this $5.5 trillion national debt. Only Social Security was an area where we spent in the Federal Government more money. If we look at the green, we can see that national defense, the third largest area of expenditure, was only $268 billion, falling beneath the amount that we spend every year just to cover the interest on the national debt. We also know that defense spending has gone down since 1962. Defense spending back in 1962 constituted one-half of the Federal budget. Today, it only constitutes 16 percent. When we hear all this talk about the surplus, we need to understand that the surplus is just an estimate of what the Congressional Budget Office thinks we might see in the years ahead. And, in fact, it is based on some assumptions and some projections that may not turn out to be true. In fact, we may not really have a $2.9 billion surplus. If any of these four things were to happen at one time, we would have no surplus. For example, if Federal spending increases, instead of going down, as is projected under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, just kept up with inflation for the next 10 years, 18 percent of that surplus would disappear. If Medicare spending grows at just 1 percent faster than is projected, 12 percent of the surplus disappears. If productivity grows at the rate of 1.1 percent per year, the average since 1973, instead of the number the Congressional Budget Office used of 1.8, then 53 percent of the surplus disappears. And if the unemployment rate just goes up one quarter of 1 percent, 17 percent disappears and there is no surplus.

Mr. TURNER. In summary, Madam Speaker, if each of those four assumptions turn out to not be true, we will find out there is, in fact, no surplus. When we have needs in Social Security, needs in Medicare, needs in national defense, all of these require us to have additional funds. And if we want to pay down the national debt and not pass on that burden to our children and grandchildren, we need to reject this blockbuster $864 billion tax cut that will be before the House this week.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, most of us who are members of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog coalition support tax cuts, but I was just discussing with my friend from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) the tax cut bill that was on the floor of the House just a year ago, a tax cut that I voted for. In fact, I have voted for each of the two tax cut measures that have been before this Congress since I have been a Member. Last year's tax cut bill was in the neighborhood of $150 billion over 10 years. It was an $80 billion over 5-year tax cut. That bill passed the House by a small margin, died in the Senate, never became law. Here we are a year later, almost less than a year later, voting on a tax cut 5\1/2\ times as large as the one this House voted on less than a year ago. Now you cannot tell me that the budget forecasts and the surplus estimates have changed that much in 1 year. Common sense would tell us that what we are talking about in this tax cut is fiscally irresponsible, and I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) for bringing this issue before the floor tonight and for his leadership as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding to me, and I appreciate very much the presentation that the gentleman has made. Each of us here tonight feel very strongly that we must, in order to be fair to our children and our grandchildren, we must take a fiscally conservative and responsible course of action with regard to the projected surplus. Those of us here tonight, Mr. Speaker, feel that we should, instead of devoting the vast majority of the projected surplus to tax cuts, we must devote the vast majority of the projected surplus to paying down that horrendous $5.6 trillion national debt, which is taking interest every year in every annual budget to the tune of about 15 percent of all Federal spending. In fact, I am told that just to cover the interest on that national debt we spend about 25 percent of the total revenue from the Federal income tax just to pay that interest on that debt every year. Mr. Speaker, we know that really paying the national debt down can give average working families more than any of these pie-in-the-sky tax-reduction schemes, that are mostly designed to benefit the wealthy. Because we know that paying down the debt, according to every economist we know, would result in even lower interest rates than we have today. And lower interest rates means for the American people lower house payments, lower car payments, or lower payments on those student loans they have taken out to send their children to college. In fact, every 1 percent decrease in interest rates saves the American people between $200 and $250 billion in mortgage costs. Paying down the national debt is the smart way to help average working men and women and their families have more in their pocket. We also know, as the gentleman from Tennessee pointed out, it is the morally correct thing to do. Why should we, now that we have good economic times, continue to jeopardize the future economic stability of this Nation and cause the preschoolers of today to be the ones that have to deal with the $5.6 trillion national debt that was accumulated over all those years, as was pointed out on the chart, that shows all those successive Democrat and Republican administrations that incurred those annual deficits that have resulted in our $5.6 trillion national debt? There is one question I want to address here tonight that even is a more fundamental question than the issue of what should we do with this projected surplus; should we cut taxes or should we pay down the debt? Let us look at the projected surplus itself. Because if the truth be known, we may not even have a surplus over the next 10 years. If we look at the numbers of the Congressional Budget Office projections, what we see is that they have estimated annual numbers over 10 years cumulatively totaling a $2.9 trillion surplus. That starts off in this year with a projected $120 billion surplus for fiscal year 1999. Those numbers go up steadily all the way up to the year 2009, where the projected surplus is about $413 billion. All those numbers together total the projected $2.9 surplus over 10 years. But let us just look at the last year, 2009, that $413 billion projected surplus. Those numbers are based on current law. Current law has in place some budget caps that we are now struggling to live within that were put in place in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. What if we fail as a Congress to meet those budget caps? Those budget caps, in fact, will require us to reduce spending over the next 3 years by 8 percent. Can we do that? I am not sure. If we cannot do that, we know that these numbers are totally unrealistic in terms of the projected surplus. Let us just suppose that the caps that we have in place are reached, and that discretionary spending, instead of staying within those caps and going down 8 percent over the next 3 years, ends up going up with inflation over the next decade. That would not be an unreasonable expectation; that is for government programs and costs to go up with inflation. That $413 billion surplus in the year 2009 would immediately shrink to $331 billion. And, in fact, discretionary spending could rise faster than that. Sooner or later it is likely to grow again at least as fast as the population or the real economy. Let us leave all that aside and let us see what would happen if, for example, the projected surplus for 2009 did not only shrink to $331 billion because of inflation, but let us just say it stayed at the same level as the percentage of the gross domestic product that it stayed at for several years since 1970. We would then have only $151 billion in actual surplus in 2009. Today's surplus projections also assume that the growth in the health benefit costs will be relatively slow over the next decade. Every one of us know that hospitals in this country are under a great deal of pressure. Some of the cuts in Medicare have put great strain on our hospitals and other health care providers, and the CBO estimate says that health care spending, Medicare spending, will rise at 4.2 percent. That is a full percentage point below its long-term average since 1970. So what happens if health care costs continue to go up, as they have since 1970 every year? This would mean that the projected surplus for the year 2009 would only be $95 billion. Beyond those cost estimates that may be incorrect in the CBO estimate, consider productivity in our Nation, which has grown at 1.1 percent since 1973. The CBO estimates of the surplus says productivity will grow at an average of 1.8 percent over the next decade. Let us say it does not quite make 1.8. Say it is only half that. So it is somewhat closer to the 1.1 percent that we have had since 1973. That would mean that the projected surplus for the year 2009 becomes only $27 billion instead of the $413 billion that we started out with in the original estimate. Further, what if the number of workers grows just one quarter of a percent, one quarter of a percent slower than the CBO projections estimate, due perhaps to a combination of fewer people seeking jobs and maybe fewer people finding them? In that case the deficit would grow to $102 billion. So, Mr. Speaker, looking at only five assumptions in the CBO estimate, we can see there may not even be a surplus over the next 10 years. Fiscal conservatism requires that we recognize that the projections upon which the surplus is made by the Congressional Budget Office may not be worth the paper they are written on. We do not even have to talk about, as many people often do, whether the stock market may crash, because all the things I referred to are very minor changes in the direction of the economy that completely erases the surplus of $2.9 billion that we are using to base a major tax cut on, which could result in our children and grandchildren having an even greater national debt to pay off than they already have today.

Mr. TURNER. I think it is interesting to note what the Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan said when he testified before the Committee on Ways and Means that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) serves on. He was addressing the subject of reducing the debt. He said it is much better to use the surplus for debt reduction than tax cuts, and he said it this way and I am quoting him. He said, ``The advantages that I perceive that would accrue to this economy from a significant decline in the outstanding debt to the public and its virtuous cycle on the total budget process is a value which I think far exceeds anything else we could do with the money.'' I think that this debate that we are having this week in the Congress has redefined the party of fiscal conservatism, because just as the gentleman said a minute ago, all of these projections of the surplus that our friends in the other party want to base a huge blockbuster tax cut on are merely projections. What would be the conservative approach to take if it was at your house or mine? To do what is being proposed with this major tax cut that takes up 87 percent of the projected surplus is like a fellow sitting at his kitchen table with his wife and they are talking over their budget situation and somebody walks in and sits down over the kitchen table with them and says, ``Oh, by the way, you're going to get raises over the next 15 years and every year, we know you're going to be making more money.'' He says, ``Well, I guess I will. That sounds pretty good. I believe I'll buy me a new boat right now, I believe I'll go out and buy some new camping gear and I believe I'll go out and see if I can't find us a new house right now.'' Right then he would be making the wrong decision. He would be spending money that he does not even have, because somebody told him they think he is going to get a raise every year for the next 10 years. This is the same thing that has happened in this Congress. We do not need to be the Congress of fiscal irresponsibility. We do not need to be the Congress that took away the chance that we have today to pay down a $5.6 trillion national debt. We do not need to be the Congress that passes on that debt to our children and our grandchildren. We need to be the party of fiscal conservatism, the Congress of fiscal conservatism. I am glad to know that as a member of the Blue Dog Democrat Coalition, we are standing up this week in this Congress for fiscal conservatism and for the children and grandchildren that we want to have a prosperous economy in the years ahead.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wu amendment, because this amendment could have a very significant adverse effect on my district and the districts of many of us who have national forests within their boundaries. This amendment has a noble purpose in that it proposes to increase funding for wildlife and fishery habitat. But it also offsets that increase against the Timber Sales Management Program that is very vital to the activity of the national forest that harvests timber and does it in a wise and sound and environmentally correct way. This particular amendment would take away a level funding by reducing by 10 percent the amount in this bill for the Timber Sales Management Program. Not only is the funding already questionable, but a further 10 percent cut could be devastating to this program. This cut has several unintended consequences. First of all, it jeopardizes the jobs of many of those who are representative of national forest areas because it threatens the ability of the Forest Service to carry out their timber sales program. Secondly, the Wu amendment would reduce funds that are available for our school districts and our counties, because, as we all know, half of the proceeds from timber sales, from the national forests, are rebated back to our counties and our school districts. In my district alone, national forest sales has meant $5.6 million to our counties and school districts. This money means quality education and services to those in those counties. Thirdly, cutting support for the Timber Sales Management Program will have an adverse effect on the health of our forest, one of the objectives that the proponents of the amendment would advocate. There are over 40 million acres of national forest that are threatened by catastrophic fires, a great risk that has occurred because of accumulation of dead and dying trees. There is an additional 26 million acres of national forest threatened by insect and disease. We all know dead timber is a catalyst for forest fires. We know that the proper removal and the thinning of our national forest is one of the tools used to efficiently and economically and environmentally correct management of our national forests. From time to time, it has been suggested that we are overharvesting our national forest. But as has been pointed out by several speakers here tonight, our tree growth in our national forest exceeds our current harvest by over 600 percent. Forest Service estimates that 23 billion board feet of wood are grown every year in the national forest. Six billion board feet die due to insects, disease, and fire. Less than 3 billion are actually harvested each year. The Forest Service Timber Management Program is an essential tool in the proper management of our national forest. I know the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) believes very strongly in safeguarding our environment and also could appreciate that shortchanging this management program could have a detrimental impact upon the very objective that the amendment seeks to achieve. Finally, in response to reports that timber sales and the Timber Sales Program in the national forest is losing money, I think it is important for us to understand that we need to look at the total picture, because the total impact upon our Federal, State, and local governments is very positive in economic terms. The facts are that, in fiscal year 1997, the harvest of timber in our national forest created 55,000 jobs in this country, provided regional income of over $2 billion, and resulted in $309 million in Federal taxes. So there is a positive economic impact from the harvesting of the timber in the national forest. Timber Sales Program returned $220 million directly to the school districts and the counties where we have national forests. These dollars are needed for our school children, and they are an offset against the loss that all of our counties and school districts have due to the fact that we cannot tax under the property tax in our local jurisdiction those Federal lands. The bottom line is the Wu amendment threatens the health of our national forest, it adversely impacts the quality of public education in our school districts with Federal land, and it puts further strains upon our county government. I urge this House to reject the Wu amendment.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great American, a wonderful patriot and fellow Texan, Colonel M.B. Etheredge, who after more than 80 years of dedicated service to his community, to the State of Texas and to this entire Nation, will be honored by his friends and family members at the Family Faith Church in Huntsville, TX, on Sunday, July 4, 1999. Born in Weldon, TX, Mr. Etheredge graduated from Huntsville High School in 1933. Four years later, he received a bachelor of Arts Degree from Sam Houston Teacher's College, where he was an active member of the Student Council, Captain of the Track Team and President of his Senior Class. Following graduation from Sam Houston, he taught in Sugar Land from 1937 to 1941 and then went on to serve as Brazoria County's Superintendent of Schools. In the summer of 1942, Mr. Etheredge enlisted in the United States Army and spent the next four years in Africa, Italy and France. Amazingly, but not surprising to those who knew him, he earned two battlefield promotions and was advanced in rank from second lieutenant to captain in only 6 days. For his dedication and commitment, he has been awarded three Silver Star medals for gallantry in action, two Bronze Star medals for heroism and two Purple Heart medals, making him one of the most decorated heroes of World War II. He was mustered out of the Army with the highest efficiency index of any officer in the Fourth Army Area and now carries the high honor of colonel (Retired) of the United States Army. After world War II, Mr. Etheredge completed his Master of Arts Degree at Sam Houston Teachers College in 1947. He received a Peabody Scholarship and did postgraduate work at the University of Texas in Austin. Lieutenant Colonel Etheredge was elected to three terms in the Texas House of Representatives, where he served as Chairman of the Education Committee. He also served two terms as a board member of the Huntsville Chamber of Commerce, is a past President of the Huntsville Rotary Club, taught at Sam Houston State University as a Associate Professor of Education, and chartered the American Bank of Huntsville and the Lake Area Bank of Trinity, where he served as Chairman of the Board. Mr. Etheredge has made a positive impact on the lives of many Americans and personifies the definition of a true and loyal American who sets the standard for all citizens to live by. He is an outstanding example to his family and friends, and has been an asset to the many communities, states and nations that he has touched over the years. Mr. Speaker, it is with sincere gratitude and the utmost respect that I rise today to ask that you join me and our colleagues in recognizing the selfless service of Colonel M.B. Etheredge and in saluting the honor and dedication of all American servicemen and women on July 4th, the birthday of our Nation.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of three extraordinary East Texans: Robert Spencer, Dorothy Tigner and Eddie Upshaw, all elected law officials in Nacogdoches County which I represent as part of Texas' Second Congressional District. In an age where community action and politics are often, unfortunately, viewed with an indifferent or cynical eye, it is both uplifting and inspiring to encounter instances where public servants, through their professional efforts in and for the community, earn for themselves the gratitude and high regard of their fellow citizens. This is certainly true in the case of these three public officials who were recently awarded recognition by their peers and colleagues in the Commissioners' Court of Nacogdoches County. County citizens are fortunate to have working on their behalf individuals such as Mr. Robert Spencer, who as the first African- American Justice of the Peace in Nacogdoches County, has played an integral role in educating the community's children on the dangers of drug use and school truancy. Prior to his election to this post, Mr. Spencer also served as a Deputy Sheriff in Nacogdoches County. His colleagues in the community have duly recognized his valuable work to establish and facilitate improved communication between the court system and law enforcement centers in the area. Nacogdoches County organizations and boards truly have a friend in Dorothy Tigner, who was elected last year to serve as Justice of the Peace. As such she is the first woman to serve in this post. Prior to this, Ms. Tigner served for 5 years as the Administrative Court Assistant for the 145th Judicial District Court. In what must be limited free time, Dorothy Tigner plays an active role in the community, serving in several public service organizations including the Nacogdoches County Child Welfare Board and the Nacogdoches County Community Justice Counsel. A graduate of the East Texas Police Academy, Mr. Eddie Upshaw plays an integral role in the daily law enforcement activities of Nacogdoches County. Following 9 years spent with the Nacogdoches Police Department, Mr. Upshaw went on to work for the Nacogdoches County Sheriff's Department. In 1992, voters made evident their support of his efforts by electing Eddie Upshaw to the post of County Constable. He is the first African- American to serve in this post and continues in his important work to reduce truancy in County schools. In addition, Mr. Upshaw's numerous articles regarding the civil aspect of law enforcement have been published in local newspapers. I'm sure my Texas colleagues join me in paying tribute to these three individuals. Their past experience and continuing accomplishments in the public service realm are a credit to the community in which they serve, and we wish them well in the journey and challenges which surely lie on the path ahead.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 51, I was absent because of my participation in a congressional delegation trip to Russia with members of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Research and Development for the purpose of discussing with the Russian Duma pending anti-missile defense legislation. Had I been present, I would have voted ```yes'' on H.R. 774

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 52, I was absent because of my participation in a congressional delegation trip to Russia with members of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Research and Development for the purpose of discussing with the Russian Duma pending anti-missile defense legislation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on H. Con. Res. 24.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 50, I was absent because of my participation in a congressional delegation trip to Russia with members of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Research and Development for the purpose of discussing with the Russian Duma pending anti-missile defense Legislation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 819.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, the House will decide today not whether or not we will pursue the war, because the war is over and the settlement has been signed and the United States and NATO have prevailed. The question before the House today is whether, after winning the war, will we lose the peace? In this bill there is language that would cut off all funding for the peacekeeping operations 3\1/2\ months from now. It is my view that we must send a very clear signal to the world community and to President Milosevic that we intend to keep the peace; that when the world community stood united, when our NATO allies stood united, when our forces prevailed in the 78 days of the bombing campaign, that this House of Representatives also will stand united in supporting those troops and supporting that peacekeeping effort. There is no question that we all believe in a strong military and we all believe that the supplemental appropriation, the emergency appropriation that we passed, was important to funding adequately the military. But to hide behind that smokescreen and say that we will oppose the Skelton amendment and keep the language in the bill that cuts off funding 3\1/2\ months from now, just because we want to try to get another emergency appropriations bill passed sometime in the future, is, in my judgment, a wrong approach to a very serious issue. It is my hope that this House will support the Skelton amendment, to tell the world community that we intend to do our part, and reject the Fowler amendment, which was the subject of legislation we debated back on March 11 before the conflict began, when this House agreed to authorize forces of the United States to participate in a NATO peacekeeping operation. In that debate I offered the amendment that would restrict our participation to 15 percent. We need to continue on that course today, and we need to adopt the Skelton amendment.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I came to the floor 2 weeks ago when this bill was first offered to this House, thanking the Republican leadership for striking language in the Committee on Rules that would have prohibited any funds from this bill being used in operations in Yugoslavia. I am very disappointed today to note that when this bill comes back to the floor, it once again includes that objectionable language. Here we are at a critical point in time in the peacekeeping operations, the peacekeeping negotiations, and we find that our Republican leadership desires to cut off funding for all operations in Yugoslavia on September 30. This House passed on March 11 a resolution authorizing the use of ground troops for a peacekeeping operation. I offered at that time an amendment to that bill which provided that the troops of the United States would be limited to 15 percent of the total force. This House, by agreement in an amendment crafted at the conclusion of that debate, accepted that language along with other reporting requirements. That was a sound and reasonable thing to do. I am advised by Mr. Berger this morning that the negotiations now regarding peacekeeping would limit the U.S. troop participation again to 15 percent of the total force. It is totally irresponsible for this House to be considering legislation that would ban the use of any funds, as of September 30, for peacekeeping operations in the Republic of Yugoslavia. We have come a long way in this battle of trying to save a million and a half refugees who have been left homeless by this conflict. It is my hope that this House will stand together in its resolve and with the international community that has said no to Milosevic, that has said no to genocide, that has said no to murder and rape, and has said yes to peace. It is my hope that the House will adopt the Skelton amendment, which will strike this objectionable language from the bill, the only provision, by the way, that I have heard the White House say would cause a veto of this legislation. Now is the time to stand for peace. Now is the time to stand with the international community that has stood with us in the NATO effort to end the bloodshed and the slaughter and the genocide in Yugoslavia. At the end of the 20th century, we must send a clear message to the world that the United States and its allies will stand for peace and stand against the kind of campaign that President Milosevic has waged against his own people. For 78 days, our bombing campaign has continued. We must see it through to a successful conclusion. I urge my colleagues to accept the Skelton amendment when it is brought to the floor.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, this bill came out of the Committee on Armed Services with a provision that would have prohibited the use of any of the funds in the bill for operations in the Republic of Yugoslavia, whether it be for the current operations or peacekeeping operations. I was pleased that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking Democrat, offered an amendment to try to strike that irresponsible language. Joined by all of the Democratic Members of the committee and a few Republicans, we still came up short, but I am pleased to see that the Committee on Rules has recognized the irresponsible language and has stricken it from the bill. This language is irresponsible because on September 30 all funds would have been cut off for our military operations in Yugoslavia, and it would have endangered the lives of our men and women serving in the armed forces. We would have airmen in the air on a night when we would be telling our Defense Department they could no longer expend funds for their safety or their operations. The language also sent a very terrible signal to President Milosevic at a very critical time in the negotiation process. The fate of the 1.5 million ethnic Albanians hangs in the balance and the moral imperative for involvement is undeniable. The NATO alliance which was formed out of the ashes of World War II has protected the peace and security of Europe for 50 years. It stood against the Communist threat until Western ideals of freedom and democracy prevailed. President Milosevic is the last remaining vestige of the old order in Eastern Europe. The International War Crimes Tribunal has correctly indicted him for war crimes. His totalitarian rule, his repression of basic human rights, his manipulation of the media, and his incomprehensible genocidal campaign of rape and murder has no place in civilized society. The strength of our resolve against him will define our American national character for the 21st century, and will have great bearing upon the safety and security of the world that we pass on to our children and grandchildren.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4. I was pleased to be a cosponsor of the original legislation sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the Committee on Armed Services that I serve on. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for his leadership, as well as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for their work. This bill recognizes the reality of the world in which we live today, a world that is a much more dangerous place, a world in which we face threats from rogue nations like Iran and Iraq and North Korea. The threat of unauthorized, or intentional or unintentional ballistic missile attack is a very real one. This bill addresses that threat that we face. The people of our country do not realize that we are defenseless against a nuclear missile attack. They do not realize that a missile launched from North Korea would take a mere 23 minutes to reach the continental United States. In fact, it would take only 32 minutes for that missile to reach my home district in Texas. These figures are startling, but it does reinforce the fact that we must take steps today to defend ourselves against this threat. I join with the many colleagues in this House who are supporting this legislation today, because we believe that our country has no choice but to make this investment in our defense. This bill requires that the system be deployed only after it is determined to be technologically possible to implement such a system. That is the right way to proceed, and I am very confident that our military and the scientists of our country will have the ability to put such a system in place. We stand here today united in an effort to defend our country against threats that we have to face in today's world. I am confident that this bill will do the job, and I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting H.R. 4.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, this resolution has a noble purpose in that it attempts to assert the role of the Congress in any decision to commit American forces to a ground war in Kosovo. It does so, however, in the wrong way and at the wrong time. It prohibits deployment of ground elements unless Congress specifically authorizes deployment by law. I represent one of the soldiers who is held captive today in Yugoslavia, Stephen Gonzalez, of Huntsville. If this resolution had been the law on March 31 when those three were captured, this resolution would have prevented our forces from pursuing the captors of those three American soldiers. Mr. Speaker, line 24, page 2 of the bill makes it very clear, the only exception is to recover someone who is a member of an air crew. Mr. Speaker, this bill also approaches this issue not only in the wrong way, but at the wrong time. It prohibits deployment of ground elements in a way that sends a very bad signal to President Milosevic. The threat of the use of ground troops should be on the table, because it sends a message of NATO resolve to Milosevic, a message that he must hear. Contrary to promoting the congressional interest in bringing a just, diplomatic settlement to the Yugoslavian conflict, this resolution makes diplomatic settlement more difficult and strengthens the hand of President Milosevic. It increases the likelihood of the campaign of ethnic cleansing and suffering being waged against innocent people for a prolonged period of time. Mr. Speaker, the President said today that he will seek the support of this Congress if he makes the decision to send ground troops into a major deployment in Kosovo. I believe that we need to take him at his word and we need to reject this resolution, which could do harm both to American troops and to our national interests.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, tonight this House, Democrats and Republicans, unite in support of the men and women of our armed forces and those of our NATO allies who are now engaged in one of the most challenging and dangerous missions of recent times. The dangers of this action are indeed great. But the dangers of inaction are even greater. The decision to act was perhaps the most difficult foreign policy decision our President has confronted. The moral leadership in the free world that we have exhibited through the years is being indeed tested by President Milosevic. With thousands of people fleeing Kosovo and with thousands of lives hanging in the balance, the United States has chosen to stand up against aggression and genocide. Our action is consistent with our moral responsibility, it is consistent with our commitment to our NATO allies, and it is consistent with our efforts to secure the peace and stability of Europe where two world wars have begun. May our prayers tonight be for the safety of our soldiers, our sailors and our airmen, and may God bless America.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of this legislation, and I want to say at the outset that I commend my chairman the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) of the Committee on Military Research and Development for his leadership in this area. I was very pleased that this legislation passed the Committee on National Security by a vote of 50-to-3. This legislation is one that received a boost and a wakeup call this last August when North Korea launched a missile containing a third stage. We know from the reports of the intelligence community that North Korea is working on a missile that has the capability and will have the capability of reaching the continental United States. In July, the Commission to assess the ballistic missile threat to the United States, the Rumsfeld Commission, concluded that rogue nations like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are moving much faster than we had previously known in the development of intercontinental ballistic missile capability. The risk of inaction is unacceptable. One thing that we have always done as Americans is stood strong in terms of making America the strongest nation in the world. It is unacceptable to know that within a short period of years, the Second Congressional District of Texas could be 32 minutes away from the delivery of an intercontinental ballistic missile from North Korea. The time for action is now. The development of a missile system, a defensive missile system will take many years. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has wisely in this bill simply stated, ``It shall be the policy of the United States to deploy a missile defense system.'' The timing, the technology, the cost is left yet to be determined. Now is the time for action. The price of peace and security is high, but the cost of inaction and the cost of vulnerability is much higher. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their leadership in this legislation.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to offer this amendment which I think embodies the intent of many Members of this body. This amendment very clearly states that if a just and fair interim agreement is not reached we will not deploy troops. The President made that very clear as his position on February 4 in a speech made here in Washington at the Baldridge Quality Awards Ceremony. No troops unless there is first an agreement. We believe this amendment should be adopted to make that clear. Secondly, we believe that there is a limited involvement that the United States should have and that that involvement should be limited to 15 percent of the total troop force assembled by the NATO forces for this mission Amendment Offered By Mrs. Fowler to Amendment No. 5 Offered By Mr. Gejdenson