Mark Foley

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, due to a scheduling conflict last night, I was unable to join my colleagues in a salute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), so today I join my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), in saluting this wonderful advocate for the people of the great State of Florida. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) came from Jacksonville to not only be an integral part of this august body but she came to represent what is the best in America: She took care to make certain our military was well equipped, she made certain her home of Jacksonville was looked after, and she rose to the top ranks of this Congress as a member of the leadership team. So as we prepare to adjourn the 106th Congress, I salute the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), I salute her husband and family for allowing her to serve this great institution and our great State, and I know while her career may end in this House as we adjourn, hopefully this week, her sacrifice and her help for this Nation will continue long after this Congress adjourns. We all join Floridians everywhere in saluting her.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me first commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for his sacrifices in trying to work through the difficult details of the bill. If my colleagues listened to the last several speakers who came before us, claiming this is a do-nothing Congress, as if all of this slow-down of bill passage is our fault, well, if my colleagues listened to the other side of the aisle, this Chamber and this government would be financially insolvent if they had their way. No rhyme or reason, no restrictions on spending. Our projects, our way or the highway. I voted for Patients' Bill of Rights. I have voted for hate crimes. I voted for a number of issues that are not considered traditional Republican issues, but I have yet to see my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle want to come to conclusion on any of those bills. Minimum wage, let us not pass it, let us just use it for campaign issue; and then they come down to the floor here today, and assume some way, we, as the Republican majority, are holding up the will of the people. Mr. Speaker, I personally believe we are exemplifying the will of the people by trying to bring some restraint and establish priorities and focus Federal resources. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said, despite the stump speeches, domestic spending has risen at the behest of the Republican leadership. Amen to that. We are finally putting our money in domestic accounts for the people of the United States who are the taxpayers. No longer are we willing to waste away money on international expeditions, finding ways to send money to every nation that never votes with us at the U.N. treaties or any other instances. Again, I hope that the Members of this Congress will applaud and appreciate the hard work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and I hope they will come together and end the rhetoric. Yes, it is almost election day; and we know we are all tense and ready to leave, but our government is better for the debate and the negotiations that have occurred. If the President is willing to negotiate with us on some of these final outstanding issues, we will be gone. Do not look to us and blame us for all of this slow-down. I think a lot of it is occurring on the other side of the aisle, and they should take equal credit.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate certainly the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), serving our west coast and working so consistently on protecting our great natural treasure and national treasure, the Everglades. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan legislation and urge all of my colleagues to support it. The Everglades, as I just said, is a national treasure of benefit to the entire country, and I applaud the leadership for scheduling this important bill for consideration. The legislation before us today represents a historic partnership reached between all stakeholders in this debate. Agricultural interests, the administration, utilities, environmentalists, the State of Florida, our Native American Indian tribes came together in an unprecedented show of cooperation to work out the agreement before us today. It truly represents a balanced approach reached with equal input from all these stakeholders in the public and one that we can all support. The Everglades ecosystem has been in steady decline over the past 50 years. In fact, back in the 1930s people ran for public office saying, if you elect me governor, we will drain that swamp and make room for development. How wrong they were, and how right we are to start anew to correct the problems. The population in south Florida has grown rapidly, and with the growth come problems of water supply, flood control, and species and habitat protection. This agreement will allow the Army Corps to help provide for water needs of this population while protecting and preserving the needs of the ecosystem. Congress must pass this legislation this year. The Senate has acted. It is now our turn in the House to send this bill speedily to the President for signature. The Water Resource Development Acts of 1992 and 1996 gave the Army Corps of Engineers the authority to review the problems within the Everglades and to recommend solutions from which evolve the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, or CERP. Those recommendations form the basis for this legislation and will incorporate a number of restoration projects already under way. The legislation before us today calls for a series of water system improvements over 30 years, the cost of which will be shared equally between the Federal Government and the State of Florida. We have today a great opportunity to save a national treasure, protect the environment, and ensure water quality and safety for the residents of Florida. I urge my colleagues to join together in this historic opportunity and thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), thank former Governor Chiles, Governor Jeb Bush, Senator Connie Mack, Senator Bob Graham, and all the Members of the Florida delegation who have put aside partisanship at this rare and unique opportunity to join together to commit the Federal Government in a partnership with the State government in restoring the Everglades to the pristine wilderness and wonderment that it is and hope at the end of the week that we will all, again, join together at the White House for signature of this very, very important environmental restoration effort. Again, I want to single out the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), as was mentioned by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). He, as chairman from the delegation, has remained persistent, vigilant to see that this is accomplished.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a distinguished broadcaster and American, Mr. Lowell ``Bud'' Paxson. Mr. Paxson has been involved in the broadcasting industry for over 40 years, providing wholesome and family-friendly programming to millions of people nationwide. PAX TV, founded by Paxson and headquartered near my West Palm Beach home, provides safe programming that the whole family can enjoy. This network has been welcomed by American parents seeking an alternative to much of the violent and sexually suggestive programming currently being marketed to America's children. As a result, the popularity of PAX TV has made it the seventh largest television network in the country. Bud Paxson is a good friend and an upstanding civic leader. Last year, he received the ``Entrepreneur of the Year'' award by Florida Atlantic University. This year, he received an honorary Doctor of Laws degree by Barry University. This honor is given to individuals who have been recognized for outstanding achievements in their profession, communities, and the world. Today I want to honor Bud for his excellent corporate example as well as thank him for his friendship and selflessness.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 514, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 514, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her leadership in bringing this rule to the floor. I suggest to the gentleman from New York, when he makes statements like ``this is a foolish bill,'' Aimee's Law, I would ask him to read the text of the bill, because I guess if your family or friends or someone close to you had been murdered, raped or molested, you would not think this was such a foolish exercise. In fact, these are some of the crimes that have the highest degree of recidivism, and in fact in Florida we have suffered from people being released from prison and then coming to perpetrate the same murder and rape on innocent people in our State. So I commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for his introduction of Aimee's Law, and I commend my colleagues for its passage, because I think it will help tighten, if you will, laws that affect people's lives, those who have been raped, some who have been murdered, children who have been molested. They need the full protection of the law, not protecting those who committed the crime. I commend also the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) for his 21st Amendment Enforcement, and I am glad if is part of this bill. Hopefully it will lead to less drinking by underage people who may have found through the Internet chances to purchase alcohol. I think this is a very, very important provision. Justice for victims of terrorism, that is extremely important in this bill. The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), obviously with Violence Against Women, another subject that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has been very involved in, is an essential bill to our society. There is far too much prevalence of violence against women, domestic disputes; and we have to strengthen the law. We have to provide and strengthen services for victims. We have to do more to combat violence in families that can lead to the destruction, not only of a person's individual life, but the destruction of the children that are forced to watch this kind of parental misdeed, if you will. Also on the first, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, it is again a very important provision of the bill. I think if people read through the bill, they would not use words like ``foolish'' or ``political sound bites,'' but recognize these are indeed very, very important issues. In fact, in Florida we had a professor at a university that had brought a child into this country, lured from his parents, brought here strictly for sexual services. He was underage. He was paid money. The parents were paid money under the assumption that the child was going to be given a better life in America. Regrettably, it was not for a better life, it was for sexual exploitation, right in my own community of Palm Beach County. Fortunately, the man is in jail. The law has dealt with this person. But, regrettably, there is not enough internationally being done in other countries to make certain that they are enforcing the laws as well. So this goes to the heart of both domestic combatting of these issues, as well as working with our foreign colleagues, foreign governments, in order to meet a higher standard, an international standard for elimination of the trafficking of individuals. So I commend my colleagues to vote for the entirety of this report. I think it is a solid bill. Again, I commend the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for her leadership on this, and I urge my colleagues to support it and its passage.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 515, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Madam Speaker, have you ever noticed that when you borrow money from your savings account with good intentions, it never seems to find its way back to the account? Well, that is what we are doing with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account. We are announcing today that in order to help oil prices, that we are going to release 30-plus million barrels of oil from that strategic reserve. The question is, when do you replace it, and how much is the cost when it is replaced? The campaign of the Vice President is quickly running out of gas itself, so, in order to make themselves also more popular with voters, they have succumbed to a ploy that I think is reckless and dangerous. Every editorial board around the country has condemned it as a bad idea and not appropriate. Madam Speaker, this administration sued Microsoft. They should have sued OPEC. We have got a lot of problems with price collusion. Maybe the American taxpayer would not be worrying about future energy prices or supplies if they had acted more aggressively. Here are our friends that we bailed out of the Kuwait invasion now turning against us by raising oil prices daily.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, if this campaign for President goes on much longer, it may be capable of being admitted into ``Ripley's Believe It or Not''. In fact, I am speaking specifically of our candidate on the Democratic side, the Vice President of the United States. Many people will remember some of the claims that he has made in recent years, including ``I invented the Internet,'' ``I discovered Love Canal,'' ``I was the feature for Love Story,'' and then recently he imagined his dog and mother-in-law were taking the same medicine for arthritis in which to compare pricing and scare seniors in my home State of Florida to reality check, if you will, that neither one apparently is taking the medicine, or at least the analysis was incorrect and flawed at best. More recently he is going to crack down on Hollywood and then goes out there and raises buckets of money and says to them, ``Do not worry, I am only here to nudge you.'' Now he wants to tap into the Strategic Reserve because he sponsored the legislation that created it and authorized the first funds to purchase the fuel, even though that was created 2 years before he came to Congress. He continues to accuse the Bush campaign of being beholden to big oil, yet continues to refuse to fully explain his ties and financial dealings with Armand Hammer, the late chairman of Occidental Petroleum, and a long favorite of the Russian Government. More recently now as we talk about the Strategic Reserve, many in this Congress claim on both sides of the aisle that the intervention of the White House on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has caused the market on energy and fuel prices to plummet because of their outstanding leadership on this issue. Let me read to my colleagues from today's USA Today in the Money section, Thursday September 28: ``Forget oil. The price of natural gas is skyrocketing. All but unnoticed in the recent furor over crude oil and heating oil, the price of natural gas,'' and let me underscore this point, ``which heats more than five times as many homes as heating oil has soared to record heights with hardly a pause since July. The natural gas future prices hit 531 per million British thermal units Wednesday on the New York Mercantile Exchange, more than double its load this year of $2.17 on January 5 and up about 62 cents over last month.'' Then the claim is that the tapping of the Strategic Reserve is not about politics. That one may top all other whoppers committed by the campaign to date. The Strategic Reserve was established to make certain that America would never become dependent on foreign fuels during a crisis. During a crisis, like the Persian Gulf, we were able to last tap into that reserve to make certain our country handled that crisis calmly and that there was no interruption in domestic life. But now because of the campaign, the concerns when soccer moms are complaining about the high price of gas, we have an administration that is quickly willing to tap into that very viable and vital supply that is there for all Americans to use. Now, think about it in one's own life. Many people, I am certain, think about buying a new car, maybe going on vacation. They make the analogy that I will borrow from my savings account and I will pay it back because this is really important. Of course most of us realize we never quite get around to paying it back or, if we do, it is usually late or not at all. Now, look at the analogy here of 30-plus million barrels of oil. When and how do we pay it back, and at what price? Saddam Hussein and others must be cheerfully mocking America today and thinking, let us get them to continue, in the art of politics, to draw down their reserves, and then we in OPEC will spike prices so that when they have to replace it for the purpose of the strategic reserve, they will not be paying $30 or $32, they may be paying $40 or $45. But then the election will be over and no one will really have to explain the financial gimmickry we went for in order to do a temporary fix at the pumps. We have not had a consistent energy policy the past 8 years. We have not embarked on enough wind energy and solar power and other alternative fuel sources. We have become too dependent, too consistently obligated to foreign sources. Yet this administration, in response to a domestic enterprise, sues Microsoft. They should have been suing OPEC, possibly for collusion on price. When Americans fill up their cars over the next few weeks, the one question most important to them should be, are we better off than we were 8 years ago? I would say they are not better off than they were even 1 or 2 years ago. During this administration prices have risen to the highest level we have had over the last 10 years; the last time being during a conflict in the Persian Gulf. So I urge my colleagues to look at the record, reflect on it, and, hopefully, urge the administration not to tap into our Strategic Petroleum Reserve by playing politics with petroleum.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, as we enter the final stretch of legislative business for this Congress and as we prepare to engage in the campaigns back home, as a member of Florida and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means of Congress, I wanted to assure residents in Florida that, in fact, Republicans have initiated prescription drug coverage for seniors in our community. Back in 1994, then Governor Lawton Chiles was running for reelection to the governorship and was being challenged by Jeb Bush. Governor Chiles ran negative ads saying, if Jeb Bush was elected the governor, he would take away Social Security. Now, everyone knows the governor of a State does not control Social Security. But the scam worked and, in fact, Jeb lost. The governor went on later to apologize after a thorough investigation found that the campaign did, in fact, make those spurious claims that were false and misleading. Now we are being told that if we do not elect a majority to the other side of the aisle that we will not see prescription drug coverage for senior citizens. Let us put people before politics; and let us make certain that, at the end of the day, we come together in a bipartisan fashion to bring about prescription coverage for our seniors. In town hall meetings in Florida, I meet with seniors all the time of every political stripe, not just Republicans, but Democrats and Independents. Their first thought to me is, we do not want something free, but we certainly do not want to be forced into a government-run HMO-style system that makes everyone in the same system one size fits all. They would like access to prescription drugs. Yes, they would like lower pricing of prescription drugs. In this House, we are trying do that. We recognize the cost is becoming a big burden on many seniors in our community. But we want to make certain that we only cover the poorest and the sickest. When the President's drug plan first came to our Committee on Ways and Means, there was no provision for catastrophic coverage. We are most concerned in our bill of finding a way for the sickest Americans who may have diabetes, who may have hypertension, who may have suffered from cancer, who may have to depend daily on a multiple dose of medications that they, in fact, have some safeguard against financial ruin. Our bill does that. But our bill also provides a voluntary system in which they can decide whether they want to enroll in a new drug plan. Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts stated that two-thirds of Americans currently have prescription drug coverage who are 65 and older. So it begs the question, why are we going to upturn, if you will, or turn over the entire prescription drug benefit to those two- thirds when it is really the one-third we should be seeking to remedy. Those may again be the poorest. And we can help through our plan to provide for prescription drug coverage both through the States and the Medicaid system and through our innovative care. Again, people before politics. We want to put families back in charge of the decisions they make relative to their prescription coverage and their health care and what policies they may or may not want to join, not a forced plan by the Federal Government. But we also have to recognize some of the other things that we have to consider, long-term care insurance, another serious issue facing Americans. We should not just be talking, Mr. Speaker, about prescription drugs. We have to face reality that our community and our country is growing older and that the need for long-term health care insurance or coverage will become even more profound in the years ahead. Now, fortunately this Congress is on its way to paying down with surplus dollars, 90 percent of that surplus, to pay down the Federal debt. When we first came to Congress, many of us prescribed a bill that would in fact use any anticipated surplus for paying down debt, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, and providing some tax relief for our citizens. I think we are on the threshold of greatness in being able to announce to the people that, yes, both sides of the aisle can take credit, because $356-some billion of the debt has been retired in the last 3 years of this Congress's existence. Now, that is a monumental achievement in as much as now the interest that was going to be paid on that $356 billion can now be used to fund and strengthen Social Security, fund and strengthen Medicare and, yes, provide prescription drugs. So before people who are listening to our voices get scared by TV ads suggesting that some party is going to do more for them than the other, at least listen to the facts at hand and recognize that I believe so many people in Congress on both sides of the aisle are in fact striving to provide the coverage to make certain our seniors have the drugs they need that they may not be able to afford; but thankfully for the pharmaceutical industry, which has brought some miraculous drugs to the forefront, we will provide a way to provide them cheaper, more affordably and more accessibly.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, this past week the administration announced that we were releasing fuel from our Strategic Reserve, and it had nothing to do with politics or the upcoming election. And I thought, April Fools Day only came once a year. This administration has proven that it has no energy policy, unless that means stealing secrets from Los Alamos, then they are quite inept. The administration goes after Microsoft, a domestic company with great entrepreneurs, and leaves OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum States, untouched. We need in this country to create a national policy on energy. We need to look for alternative fuel sources and not be so reliant and so dependent on outside influences to take care of our oil. The recent announcement that we would release 30 million barrels of oil, as Tim Russert said on Meet the Press this week, will only last America 36 hours. Mr. Speaker, we need a policy, not politics. We need help for American families, not quick sound bite solutions. We need new direction and new leadership, not the old standby rhetoric of saving America by using our most precious reserves for a political play rather than for helping American consumers.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. I thank the Speaker. I just suggest that the candidates for office use facts, not fiction; that they tell the voters the truth and not make up stories about imaginary drugs being taken by their dog or mother-in-law. I think the senior citizens of America deserve the truth and, regrettably, they do not get it, because they have to get made-up stories about drugs being taken by Fido, the dog, and the mother-in- law. I think the mother-in-law must be embarrassed today because her drug formulary has now been released to the public, despite the Vice President's insistence that we have privacy in medical records. My colleagues, it is serious. People need prescription drugs. They need it in Florida; they need it now. But they certainly do not need conjured-up stories by the candidates for office proclaiming to know the facts about their own medical histories and lying to the American public.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, in 1992, then Governor Lawton Childs ran some negative ads about Jed Bush, saying that if elected governor, a Republican candidate would take away Social Security. It was a lie, but it was meant to scare people. Recently, in Tallahassee, Florida, the Vice President went on to say that his mother-in-law and dog took the same drug and the dog was getting a better break. He lied. He made a story up, trying to confuse the voters. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak before the Congress today and the American people, and I would like to obviously go back to a subject of importance, but before I do I think it was very important the comments of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) about prescription drugs. It is timely. It is important. I would remind all those listening, though, that we have been here, at least with this administration, for almost 7\3/4\ years and just in the last several months have we seen conversation relative to prescription drugs. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) quoted some statistics showing the increase in inflation and cost of drugs year in and year out, and she is correct. They have been going up year in and year out, but only in an election year did they finally come forward with a plan that would provide some degree of prescription drug coverage, but one has to read the plan to see exactly what it entails and make certain they are not getting trapped in another big government program. I would remind the listeners that the Vice President in Florida made some comparisons about his mother-in-law and his dog taking a certain drug. Obviously those statistics and facts are not true. They were not true. They did not apply, but that did not keep him from saying them. So I, again, in day two of veracity watch, will call attention to another claim made by the Vice President regarding Mr. Bush's tax plan. However, as many know now, the information was misleading, incorrect or not even relative. In Washington, a tax research group questioned the manner in which Mr. Gore is using its numbers to attack Mr. Bush. The Vice President says the average working American would save just 62 cents a day under his opponent's tax plan but Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, said the Democratic Presidential candidate is not representing his information correctly. It is a stretch I would not make, and that is a labor-financed group that made the calculations. Even that group suggests that the governor of Texas's plan would bring $1.24 in savings to the average worker. Now the other day, in fact in this morning's paper, the Vice President says he will fix the oil crisis if elected. Well, as far as I could tell he is elected Vice President today and has been for the last 8 years and today we are experiencing the highest prices of fuel oil, home heating oil in 10 years. So I would ask all those soccer moms who participated in the last election to look at your gas statements, look at your credit card receipts and see how much they are paying for gas today as they did in 1996, and see if in fact the plan offered by the Vice President will be coming much too late for changing their family's budget. He will make specific policy announcements to deal with the crisis, right here, right now, said his spokesperson. Well, the problem has been going on for some time, in fact a couple of years. We have had hearings, we have had testimony. We brought Mr. Richardson before the Congress, but to no avail. We are still seeing high oil prices and no resolution to this crisis. Now, Mr. Lehane, who is Mr. Gore's spokesman, boy, if you elect the other team they will transform the Oval Office into the big oil office. I do not think that is going to happen, but maybe if it does we will start seeing a reduction in prices for fuel oil and maybe the American consumers can see some relief. The point is today, I want to make certain that people are at least using facts and statistics correctly, because I come from Florida where senior citizens do not need to be frightened and do not need to be scared. Back in 1992, then Governor Lawton Chiles, Democrat running for reelection, his campaign launched a series of telephone ads or at least telephone solicitations to voters urging them not to vote for then candidate Jeb Bush, because they said, in fact, if you elect Jeb Bush he is going to take away your Social Security. That is absolutely, patently false. The governor of the State of Florida does not have anything to do with Social Security, but the claim was made and it was done by the campaign. After the campaign, Governor Chiles apologized for the misinformation, dissemination of unfactual material but, once again, now we have the Vice President going to Florida, quoting statistics about a dog and his mother-in-law and I think it is reprehensible because it is all designed to scare seniors, make them nervous, make them feel like nobody is looking out for them. My grandmother came from Poland. She died with $10,000 in the bank. She desperately needed Medicare. She desperately needed Social Security. She went to her grave with a measly $10,000 in life savings having worked as hard as she could as a maid in a Travel Lodge Motel. It is for people like my grandmother I am concerned about because I do not want them to die in poverty. I do not want them to have to be worried about prescription drugs. I do not want them to have to worry about Social Security. I did not get elected as a Republican to come here and destroy those very important programs. But it is troubling to me that a person running for office can make up stories, create characters, fictitious ideas, fictitious people, using them as examples of the problems that are maybe facing America.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, the Vice President last week in my home State in Tallahassee decided that he needed to make an example of the high cost of prescription drugs. The Vice President used statistics compiled by the Democratic National Committee relative to cost for either human consumption or animal consumption. But the Vice President did not just stop there. He decided to embellish the story. It has been in all the major papers. He decided to create a story about his mother-in-law and his pet. He went on to describe how they are taking arthritis medication for their conditions and how the disparity of price between what the dog takes and what the mother-in-law takes was so startling and so outrageous. Now, of course, in Florida we have a lot of seniors. In fact, I am probably the seventh oldest Medicare district in America. So when it comes to prescription drugs, a subject I know something about that we have been working on in the Committee on Ways and Means, I take strong offense to the fact that he would not only create false statements and mislead the public, not only embellish the story, but create it out of sheer nonsense. And so my seniors, who are waiting for some relief from the high cost of prescription drugs, scratched their heads and wondered why somebody who has been in office so long would not just stick to the facts. Why would they have to create stories involving their own family? During the same week, the Vice President was saying that we need medical privacy; that the United States Congress should strive to make certain that every person's medical record is protected; that they cannot be exposed to public scrutiny; that they cannot be used against them. But we might want to ask him a little more about that privacy issue before we release any of our details to the government, because he seems to relate a lot of private medical information for the sheer sake of politics. His mother-in-law now has all her neighbors knowing what medications she takes. She may or may not have agreed to that release; we just do not know. We do not even know if she takes the medication to this date. They have not been forthcoming with the facts. I think the Vice President owes the American public an explanation. Does his dog take the medication? Do the Federal taxpayers pay for his dog's medication? Does Mrs. Gore or the Vice President drive to the veterinarian and get the prescription or is its supplied by somebody there at the Naval Observatory? We have also heard over the recent weeks about his condemnation of Hollywood and the movie industry. Yet just last night he is there saying to everybody, ``Don't worry, I am only making statements. I don't want to alarm you. I still want your campaign contributions. I still want to be your friend, but I am going to blast you in public and make sinners of all of you.'' He takes the money; throws darts. Takes the money; makes accusations. ``I created the Internet.'' That was a statement he made a few weeks ago, or a few months ago. He discovered Love Canal; he was the subject of Love Story. Yet today he is virtually absent when we are talking about high energy prices. We talked about the soccer moms in the 1996 election and how important they are. And I hope they will all reflect when they fill up their Chrysler minivans or SUVs that the cost of fuel is now about $1.75, the highest it has been in 10 years, and certainly the highest it has been during this administration. So filling up the minivan is now a costly chore for mothers and fathers as they proceed to work and take their kids to soccer practice. But there is no one there taking credit for the oil policy of this administration. Today, the stock market is down 200 points, largely because of energy prices; and I do not hear anybody taking credit for that. The administration has the Energy Department. One would think they would figure out a response. Yet they can only accuse the other side of the aisle and our presidential nominee, that they are tied to big oil. Maybe they should stand up and say at least we can figure out an energy policy that will be good for America; that may bring down the cost of fuel for the consumers of America. This robust economy that we understand that they have taken full credit for for the last 8 years may in fact be in a decline because of energy prices. It is insidious. It affects transportation; it affects heating bills. Wait until this winter, when we talk about the political dynamics of choosing food and medicine. We now have to choose between food, medicine and fuel, heating oil for our homes. So I would just like it, if we are going to start embellishing rhetoric, creating facts, making up names, inserting foot in mouth, that at least somebody come to this floor and address the voters and taxpayers of this Nation as to where we are going with our energy policy. It is getting very difficult because those who are making the energy policy do not fill up their own tanks, so they do not feel the pain. They do not feel the pain when we reach into our wallets each week and pull out those precious dollars in order to keep our lives going forward and filling our vehicles with gasoline. So, today, as we proceed to continue discussing appropriations items and the future of this Congress and the direction of our Nation, I do again urge the Vice President to please at least stick to the script and stick to the straight facts. I would hope he would not create and embellish names and drugs that are being taken by his family, which may or may not be true. The American public deserves the truth. They deserve to know the facts. They need to know exactly where we are going on a prescription drug policy. We do not need to bring in Fido and the rest of the family to make a point. It was fraudulent, it was false, it was demeaning, it was misleading, and it was done in Florida, in a State where seniors are looking for honesty and decisions rather than fraudulent statements.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, this past summer marked the end of long and distinguished career for a leader of Florida's agriculture and business industries. Our dear friend, Mr. J. Nelson Fairbanks retired from his post with the U.S. Sugar Corporation. In 1966, the charm and beauty of inviting Clewiston, Florida lured Nelson from the family farm in Louisiana. Twelve years later, he would join U.S. Sugar as vice president of corporate development. Since those first days, Nelson later took over the helm as CEO and for more than a decade guided the company and its employees through unprecedented change and growth. By molding U.S. Sugar, Nelson also shaped the industry and his community as well. In today's quick-fix, high-tech, ``dot-com'' world, Nelson and the people of U.S. Sugar truly understand the meaning of a hard day's work. They are the wholesome hospitable people that take a deep pride in laboring hard to feed America's families. The community will indeed miss Nelson's leadership and vision. Yet, we are comforted in the knowledge that regardless where retirement takes Nelson, love for the people of Clewiston and U.S. Sugar runs thick in his veins like molasses.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I thank the chairman for his leadership, and my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), for his strong leadership in enactment of this bill. I urge every one of my colleagues to override this veto. At a time when every Member of Congress is going around the country, particularly the candidates for president, and saying they are family-friendly, it is unbelievable to me that any Member could turn around and vote against ending a tax penalizing married individuals. Some Members here have already turned their backs on working families, small businesses, farmers. When we tried to protect their families from the legacy destroyed by death taxes, we were unsuccessful. We will debate and discuss that. But I urge them not to do that today to married individuals. As a society and as a civilization, we cannot afford a government that punishes marriages. I ask every one of my colleagues to search their hearts and souls and think about this upcoming weekend as they return to their communities, their churches, and their friends by standing up for the institution of marriage, standing up for families, giving them the relief they deserve, and overriding the President's political veto of this bill.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on H.R. 4865, the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act. This bill repeals the unfair and punitive tax increase on America's Social Security recipients. This tax increase was included in the Clinton/Gore 1993 Budget Bill, a bill I am happy to say did not receive a single Republican vote in either the House or Senate. The federal government this year is expected to run a $233 billion surplus. There is absolutely no reason to continue punishing our senior citizens by confiscating their hard earned Social Security benefits. The 1993 tax increase raised the portion of Social Security benefits subject to income tax from 50 percent to 85 percent for millions of American retirees. Taxing any portion of Social Security benefits is unfair and immoral. Taxpayers not only pay Social Security taxes from their wages but also are obligated to count as income for tax purposes the wages they never see that have been paid into Social Security. In other words, their wages earned over lifetime and paid into Social Security are taxed twice. This is unconscionable. The other side is going to tell you that this proposal will destroy the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is true that these taxes are directed to the Medicare Part A Trust Fund. However, this bill will transfer funds from the general fund to the trust fund to make up for any shortfall from repealing this onerous tax. Mr. Speaker, let's repeal this unfair tax. It never should have been instituted and its demise is long overdue.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Chairwoman Fowler) for her leadership on this bill, as well as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). Let me give my colleagues a little relation to disaster when it occurs, how difficult it is for communities, and while I make no comparison between terrorism and hurricanes, I was in the Florida Senate when Hurricane Andrew struck; and I was asked to chair a committee that would dole out the necessary resources to communities to dig ourselves out, if you will, of Hurricane Andrew. The one thing that struck me was the lack of preparedness on behalf of all agencies. Everyone was scrambling, everyone was trying to provide and do good things, but everybody seemed to be in each other's way, because nobody had a template as to how to do it. When we look at the sheer fright and disaster that would accompany a domestic terrorism incident, we recognize firsthand this is so important, proactive legislation, in order to avoid the chaos that ensued after Hurricane Andrew. We went through Oklahoma. We have seen other instances where potentially the United States could be a target of terrorist activities, the Hamas, other groups. Hizbollah we know are reportedly organizing and raising funds in America. We know Osama bin Laden has perpetrated tremendous acts of violence against citizens in our embassies in countries. Now we recognize we have an opportunity here with this great bill, a bipartisan bill, to make America the leader both of hopefully preventing terrorism, because one thing I realize about Washington, people say why did we do that, one reason we do it is to be proactive, to put in place the necessary structure in order to not only signal to terrorists that we are serious, we are investigating your activities and we are going to thwart and stop your activities, but God forbid they occur, that at least we have a proper coordinated response in order to assist our citizens in bringing about some semblance of order to the communities. I pray because of the proactivity of both Members of Congress and the committee, we will not only send a message to every terrorist worldwide, we are not only watching you, we are prepared to respond to you, and we will stop you before your deathly deeds are done.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Madam Speaker, on July 21, 2000, the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee found that Florida has the largest backlog of veterans' benefits claims in the country. In fact, Florida has over 20,000 such claims pending, more than any other state. Florida veterans wait an average 213 days to have their claims processed whereas the VA target is 74 days. While this might have been news to the committee, it wasn't news to me. Every time I visit my district in Florida, I hear from veterans who have been waiting sometimes months to even get a call returned from the VA. We have a serious problem in this country when our Nation's veterans, who have sacrificed so much for this country, must wait months to even get a telephone call returned. The Veterans' Claims Assistance Act would take a step toward alleviating this problem by directing the VA to assist claimants in obtaining the necessary documentation to establish their entitlement to benefits. This, in turn, should speed the process and allow our veterans to receive the benefits that are rightfully theirs.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for their excellent work on this legislation that is important to all Americans. Relative to the substitute retirement savings account, let me make certain people understand this is a new proposal. This has not been vetted yet. In fact, we first saw this proposal during markup and it has since been modified so we are still trying to grapple with the underlying assumptions that are made in the request. The first we heard about it was the President's State of the Union address and budget proposal. So we have a lot to work out before we accept the substitute. Let me again answer another claim that was made during debate relative to IRAs. Low- and middle-income Americans use IRAs to save for retirement. This is an absolute certainty. In fact, the median income of new IRA contributors dropped from $41,277 in 1982 to $28,677 in 1986. The vast majority of taxpayers making IRA contributions are lower- and middle-income Americans. The inflation rate would have brought it to $5,000 today had it been adjusted, but it has had one increase, one increase alone from $1,500 to $2,000. This very bill encapsulates an option to bring it up to $5,000, which I think is significantly important. One of the greatest fears most Americans have is will they have enough savings and money to retire comfortably to take care of their health care needs, purchase prescription drugs, do the things that are required as one ages. This bill, a bipartisan bill, provides that kind of opportunity. Let me also underscore that there are 106 Republican co-sponsors and 94 Democrats, for a total of 200 Members of the House of Representatives, that support this initiative. I am delighted today to at least hear positive things about a bill in Congress coming out of the Committee on Ways and Means. Oftentimes these bills we introduce are derided as reckless and risky. Today, we are hearing a celebration of bipartisanship on this floor talking about legislation that will advance the opportunities of all Americans, and I celebrated that. I am thrilled and delighted that this House finally has the common voice in supporting legislation authorized and issued by the committee, and I congratulate again the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for his fine work on this proposal.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, first my congratulations to the chairman on a good discussion here today, and particularly the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) from the Democratic side who has taken a lot of extra efforts to make certain that this is a balanced approach to trade. He has taken some significant pressure back home from constituents. He understands some of the concerns raised by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and wants to make certain human rights are protected, religious expressions allowed. I have visited China twice and can say from a personal observation that there is an emerging thought in China amongst the young people, amongst the average citizens, that suggests that they may in fact be able to change the way Mainland China thinks; they may be able to influence their leaders in the future. But the one thing became apparent to me, having visited there, is that we have to be there in order to facilitate that dialogue. I think clearly the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has been very, very admirable in listening to all sides of the debate and taking into consideration the concerns the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has raised. I know he does not just make these characterizations without some background and some deep thought. I know he cares deeply about this debate and about the people of Taiwan and the Dalai Lama and others, and I do not criticize that strong voice that he brings to the floor today, but my various points of view that I have been able to study and look at suggest that there is progress on some of those fronts, maybe not as much as we would all like and, yes, there are some threats to average citizens, but I sense that if the American country, the people of our country, our corporate participants that provide jobs and provide opportunity, are not engaged in China, then we will not be able to impact or change the dynamic of the Communist government; we will not be able to provide incentives for young people that recognize that entrepreneurial nationalism as it is in America is something to strive for; freedom of expression is something to be proud of. It takes time to change people's ways of thinking. So I again urge a negative vote on the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) but urge that we continue to have this kind of spirited debate so we can resolve some of the underlying issues we bring to the floor today.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for his phenomenal leadership on this very important issue. We have heard a lot of debate today about saving Social Security and Medicare and prescription drug coverage; and it is interesting if you think for a moment, the President and Vice President have been in office for 8 years, and now in the last 3 months or 5 months of their term in office, they come up with all these plans to rescue Medicare, Social Security, add prescription drug coverage. Those are important issues, and the Republicans take them seriously. We on the Committee on Ways and Means have been working on these very, very important issues. Regrettably, when you talk bipartisan legislation, or at least when they claim it from the other side of the aisle, it is only bipartisan if it is their idea and their way. But the remarkable thing about this process on this floor is that after all of the baying at the moon about what a lousy idea this marriage tax penalty elimination is, we will be joined by numerous Democrats who recognize that the marriage penalty is in fact a penalty on marriage. Like estate tax relief, when we talked about it, we were derided for hour on hour on hour, and ultimately we had 95 brave soldiers join us in passing this very important piece of legislation. Taxing two hard-working Americans who are married is a shame. It is abomination. Now, they use those words in their press conferences, but I do not hear them uttering them on the floor today. Now, I just ask Americans who are watching today, hearing this debate and wondering what it is all about, there is a lot of rancor from one side and a lot of boasting on our side about the great importance of this bill; and I think at the end of the day, we win the debate. But more importantly, stay tuned, because the President will join us and support us and probably sell out his side of the aisle in order to make a deal on his legacy. And the Vice President, against tax cuts at the beginning of the year, now embraces $500 million of tax cuts. So I just suggest to everybody, wait around for a little while and sooner or the later the parade follows leadership on issues important to the American taxpayer. Now, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is not bankrupting the system with this bill. We will have money for prescription drug coverage. We will have money for Social Security reform. In fact, we lockbox Social Security and protect it for now and into the future, instead of, as they were for 40 years, borrowing out of the money and using it to pay their bills, or actually not even paying their bills, putting us in deeper debt and deeper deficit. We are in a financial quagmire because of their leadership. Now we have been in charge for 6 years, and finally advancing bills that are helping the American family. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and go to church this Sunday and explain your actions to your fellow parishioners, why you voted to continue to tax the sanctity of marriage. I am single, so I am not going to have a big argument from what I will save in my tax bill. But to those of you who feel compelled, go to church next Sunday and stand up in the choir and praise the Lord first, and secondly say but I voted against you who are married, because I think you should have an added burden. Not only are you trying to raise children, pay the mortgage, buy a new washer and dryer, but the Government thinks because you are married, we should take a few more bucks out of your pocket and then spend it in Washington, because you know Washington knows best. Save marriage, end the penalty, let Americans prosper. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much. Reclaiming my time, the Government, once again, did build a highway; and it is $14 billion, probably about $8 billion overspending. All I can say is listen to the amendment; look at what is occurring. Defeat the amendment. I support the gentleman as he reserves his point of order against the amendment.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the sugar price, as the gentleman well knows, it is 125,000 metric tons, so nobody runs out to the Publix and buys 125,000 tons. In addition to that, it is left-over excess capacity. It is not first-run sugar; it is floating around there looking for a buyer. It is like the end-of-the-year car sales when people are trying to get the cars off their lots. This is sugar that is sitting, waiting, looking for a purchaser; it is not first-run sugar. So they misrepresent.