Mark Foley

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to join the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] in this effort. I also commend the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] on their leadership on this issue. The American public is telling us to quit spending their money, quit wasting their dollars. This is a mechanism by which we can start locking up some of those savings and putting them towards deficit reduction. Simply put, I cut a project the other day $25 million. I found out hours later that that money, that $25 million, was swept off the table and spent somewhere else. It frustrated this Floridian to know that all of that effort was in vain because somebody else spent the dollars. Let me tell my colleagues, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] spoke eloquently on the freshman class. I want to read you from the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel an editorial, ``Applaud House Foley, for `revolt''': Congress has played the old shell-and-pea game with the appropriations process for years, shifting federal money from shell to shell with so much speed and dexterity that the befuddled taxpayer soon loses track of the pea. Foley and many of his colleagues in the Class of 1994 were sent to Congress partly because they pledged to get serious about reducing the deficit. In this instance at least, they seem determined to make good on their pledge. Foley's prominent role on this important issue may not endear him to the House leadership, but it should earn him some deserved points with the people he was elected to serve. My colleagues, we were sent here from districts across America to serve the taxpayers, not the leadership of this Congress.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] in offering this amendment to end peacetime draft registration. Mr. Chairman, it pains me to oppose my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] on this issue as I consider the gentleman one of the most patriotic Members of this Congress. Mr. Chairman, the VA-HUD appropriations bill includes $23 million for Selective Service. The Selective Service, as we know it today, was created by President Carter to respond to fears that regional conflicts of the Soviet Union would grow and lead to a superpower showdown. The national defense structure at that time had been gutted and allowed the volunteer Armed Forces to fall to dangerously low levels. No wonder we created a peacetime draft. We could not get Americans to volunteer for service. Mr. Chairman, that is not the case today. This Congress has made a commitment to a strong national defense. We intend to keep military personnel equipped and ready to fight. We have over 1 million active duty troops. We have over 1 million trained Select Reservists, and we have almost 800,000 Standby Reservists. We have 3 million volunteers, young men and women ready to give their lives in defense of America's freedom. In almost 10 years of the Vietnam war, just under 2.5 million Americans were sent to the combat area; one of every four of those young Americans were drafted. In 10 years we did not send the number of volunteers that can be deployed from our shores today. Mr. Chairman, I use this example to show that the amendment will not leave the U.S. defense vulnerable. We have 3 million volunteers ready to fight. By cutting $17 million, this amendment leaves $6 million to keep an on-the-shelf system that would in a short period of time be able to augment the volunteer Armed Forces. The $17 million will be transferred to add to the veterans' medical care. Mr. Chairman, let me sum this up. This amendment is prodefense because [[Page H 7906]] instead of feeding a useless bureaucracy, it adds funding to care for the men and women who have defended our liberty. I ask, which is better, to create a strong fighting force or a bloated Federal bureaucracy? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Nation's veterans, vote yes on this amendment.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] to privatize the NOAA fleet. The U.S. Government through NOAA owns a number of research and mapping watercraft. These boats are falling apart. Currently in this bill NOAA gets $8 million to fix the boats in this bill. This $8 million would be the first drop in the bucket in spending money. I say let us privatize the fleet. Let us get the Government out of owning these watercraft; that is, let the private sector do it and save millions of dollars for the American taxpayer.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as cosponsor of H.R. 359.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to join the gentleman from Wisconsin on this very important issue. Every time the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] finds an item that we can privatize, I am ready to join with him in that effort because we came to Congress to make a difference and reduce the size of the Federal Government. This clearly is an amendment that will allow for that slow elimination of the NOAA Corps, which are costing the taxpayers significant dollars. So I associate myself with the words of the gentleman from Wisconsin, urge my colleagues to vote favorably on this amendment to continue our mission to downsize the Federal Government.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 355, I was tied up in rush hour traffic and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] for his fine work on this document dealing with agriculture. I would like to thank our colleagues for their colloquy earlier on the sugar and peanut program. Mr. Chairman, let me suggest to all Americans listening and to Members of Congress, when we talk about America's food supply we have one of the finest, safest, most affordable food supplies in the world. I think it important when we talk about these programs that we put them in the context that they deserve; that we are feeding America's families. We are doing it efficiently, we are doing it safely, and we are supplying the world's food needs. So when we talk about farm bills and we talk about in the abstract of eliminating programs, let us look at the consumers that would be affected by our actions. Let us remember that when we order ice tea in the restaurant, they give you sugar. When we are riding on the airplanes, they give you peanuts. There is a reason for that; because they are inexpensive, because they are abundant, and because they are available. So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] tonight to give us the opportunity in September to fully debate the farm bill in the appropriate forum, in the farm bill where it belongs. I thank the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the chairman, for his efforts to bring this bill to the floor ultimately when we can discuss it, debate it in the full context of making certain that America continues to be the leader in food production, not only for ourselves and our citizens, but for occupants around the globe.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for hearing us on this issue. The lockbox is critical to this freshman and to many like myself who came to Congress. I have heard the discussion from others that suggest that this is merely an attempt to stall and to delay. I have to have some faith in this process and for the Members I serve with in order for this House to work. I have met with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. I have met with the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the House. I have met with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader, on this issue. They have looked me in the eye and assured me that the lockbox will be coming to the floor before the August recess. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Rules Committee, has guaranteed us a Thursday hearing on the full bill. He has been a vocal proponent of the lockbox and has gone with us to every meeting so that we would not be on that proverbial branch hanging out by ourselves. For those of my colleagues who are unaware of what the lockbox is, it is a simple accounting mechanism to ensure that spending reductions made in the House on appropriations bills are applied toward deficit reduction and not inserted as additional spending later in the appropriations process. My friend, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], knows the frustration of saving money in the process, to have it swept away by another appropriator or another Member of this Congress to help them in their districts. Mr. Speaker, we were elected to represent the entirety of the United States of America. It is time that each Member of Congress stopped looking at their district as the only thing they have to be concerned about. If we are to save this Nation, it is going to take 435 dedicated men and women preserving this democracy and the fiscal freedom that this Nation deserves for itself and future generations. With the assurance from the chairman, I rise in support of the rule. The newspapers carry stories we were going to oppose the Treasury- Postal rule on the floor today. But I am going to give them this opportunity to prove me right, that the truth and the word of a Member is a bond to another Member. It is the one thing I learned when I first got elected to the House of Representatives in the State of Florida. A Member's word was his bond. You had to trust it like the proverbial handshake amongst business associates. We are going to give it this one opportunity. I trust the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, I do trust the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] is going to give us this vote next week, I say to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman]. I urge my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to give us this one chance to prove them right. If they are not, we will join together in the next attempt to prove us willing to move this House in the direction of taking savings and making those savings accrue to the benefit of the American taxpayer. tribute to lenore donnelly

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. This is phony.

Mr. FOLEY. I think it is appropriate at this point to talk about leadership of this Chamber. You know, past Congresses, many freshman Members came to Congress with the idea of reform, and they were told by the leadership, ``Listen, sit in the back row, be quiet, you will get a chance to participate, wait 4, 5, 6 years, you, too, may be vice [[Page H 6828]] chairman of a committee. Don't rock the boat.'' What I found in the leadership here with the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], is the fact they said, ``Listen, you were sent here by your constituents. You are equal to us. We are not any higher than you are in the electoral process. We are all Members of the House of Representatives. We each have constituents to answer for. Give it your best shot.'' I have never once been called down to the office, as happened in the past, for a scolding or a lecture or being told, ``You know, Mark, you are going out on a limb. You are embarrassing the Congress,'' or, you know, ``That is not appropriate, you are a freshman, let a senior Member lead.'' I have got to tell you, I am gratified in this process that I have been able, as a freshman, a new Member coming here from the very first day to speak on the floor, I have been given the opportunity to be in the chair, as I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] has, and I believe the others have, that is a unique opportunity to participate fully in this democracy. So I have to tip my hat to our leadership for giving us the chance to participate fully.

Mr. FOLEY. You would be very cautious about charging on that account.

Mr. FOLEY. It is important you mention that. But you have to think of your families. The wonderful wife of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Judy, is home in Pennsylvania talking to the constituents that sent her husband here. She has to explain the work he is doing while we are in session. We come to Washington. We get caught up in that beltway mentality; this charge card, this card we vote with, is the largest credit card in the world, unlimited expenditures. We have got to be able to once and for all explain to our constituents we are serious about saving their money. I suggested the other day on a radio show maybe some Members of Congress need to go on Oprah Winfrey, have a therapist there, and talk about working it out. They are so hungry and hell bent on spending money that does not belong to them. If this was my Master Card or your Visa----

Mr. FOLEY. A greater tragedy was the other day in the Science Committee I saved $25 million on one project. I did not commit it to anything else. I said that money should be saved. The next day, a colleague on the other side of the aisle found that $25 million, fully committed it to another program. So after my efforts to save $25 million, they were all in vain. Today, you had that excellent amendment on the foreign operations budget. That money represents savings for the American public for the first time if [[Page H 6827]] we, in fact, have a lockbox, and Linda Smith can say to her constituents, ``I saved millions of dollars, and it is tucked away, no longer available for pork projects.''

Mr. FOLEY. Absolutely; absolutely.

Mr. FOLEY. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. You have been a leader of the freshmen, and I really enjoy working with you. The thing that is so exciting, as the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] and the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith] and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] mentioned, is the fact that the new Congress is about change. It is about proving to the American public we did not come to Washington to be a part of a system. We came from the communities. We love our communities. We want to go back to our communities. More importantly, we want to go back to our communities with the respect that we asked them to send us here in Washington. The lockbox will provide us the opportunity for monies we save in the budget; if members of the freshman class or Members of Congress in general find $5 million or $10 million, the concept basically is to put that money in a reserve account, a lockbox, to pay off the Federal debt and deficit of this country. For too long, if somebody found a savings, if somebody found $10 million, and around here that is small money, I am sad to say to the American public, and $10 million to me is a fortune, so much money I cannot even envision, but up here they talk about billions as if it is, Do not worry about it, America, that is not a lot of money. The lockbox provides us an opportunity to put that money aside, take it away from the hands of the politicians and say you cannot have access to that $25 million, $50 million, $100 million, $1 billion. It is in a lockbox for deficit reduction. Now, we testified before the Committee on Rules, because they are finally getting serious about it. For the longest time, the Committee on Rules said, no, we cannot use a lockbox; that takes away the power of the appropriators, that really ruins the system of Congress being able to negotiate, you know, you hear all the terms around here, negotiate, satisfy, placate, work it out, conference. The American public did not send us here for happy games, Here, you take care of me this week, I will take care of you next week.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Let me quote the Bangor Daily News in their editorial calling it a nuclear turkey: ``What's tougher than the hide on a M-1 tank, more resilient than the hungriest garden pest and harder to shake than a bad reputation? Time's up. The answer is: a nuclear turkey. ``Most taxpayers remember the mohair subsidies that annually clipped them for millions before Congress recently found the courage to pull the plug. ``Today the target is the gas turbine modular helium reactor, a nuclear turkey that deserves to be carved from the federal budget.'' Taxpayers have been paying $900 million for this technology. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] made some nice points. He suggested that, if the nuclear and electric companies are so supportive of this, send a check. Send a check to support this technology. Do not just send a letter. The American public who is paying for this technology is paying over and over and over again for a system that clearly does not work. You read all the documentation. I can read you editorial after editorial, the Oregonian, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Atlanta Constitution. All have weighed in on this subject. All have looked at the expert testimony. All have read the reports from the National Academy of Sciences. All have read the documentation. Now, the gentleman from California, Mr. Brown, suggested that it was only new Members of Congress that wanted to eliminate this technology. Let me correct the record, because three subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Science voted to end this project: the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], the gentleman form Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner]; all subcommittee chairmen stood up and voted against this appropriation. This is not an antinuclear amendment. I recognize and support the important role of nuclear technology in the Nation's energy needs. In my home State, nearly one-third of the electricity is provided by nuclear facilities. But what I am interested in is cutting funding for things that simply are never going to occur in my lifetime. Now, the chairman of the Committee on Science suggests that we cannot cut this today because it is going to cost us 20 million more dollars to terminate the program. Let me give you a letter from the Department of Energy that suggests it will require an additional 1 billion of expenditures to bring this project to fruition. I will take that bet. I will spend $20 million to get out of this boondoggle before I will spend $1 billion to find out if it works. Let me say to you in the hallways of this Congress, those listening on their TV sets around our Nation, as a freshman Republican, I came here to make a difference. I came here to cut things that are wasteful spending. If we are to meet the priorities of this Nation, we are going to have to start looking at things like this and saying no to projects like this. I ask those private utilities again if they like this technology so much, send a check. Bring a check for us. Let me also suggest to the committee, we had a vote. It may have been 23 to 15, but in my book of politics, 23 to 15 wins; 23 to 15 wins. When I ran for office, I was telling people every vote counts. People have won offices by one vote. So I think 23 to 15 is a fairly significant victory in the committee, the authorizing committee, for this project. The appropriation is unauthorized. We won in committee, and we are here on the floor to ask the appropriations process of this Chamber to agree with us. We know the Senate will agree with us because they voted on killing this project before. We know the President's budget. The last three Presidents, as has been mentioned, have not authorized this. Again, the vast majority of my colleagues on the Committee on Science supported the efforts of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and myself to terminate this project. Times have changed. Today we see a new coalition of Members on both sides of the aisle. These coalitions are taking the will of the American people into consideration on every single spending bill. This amendment will keep the taxpayers from having to continue being high risk financiers for private corporations. If this program holds the potential that its proponents claim, then let the private sector fund it. Stop ripping dollars out of the constituents hard-earned taxpayer monies for wasteful pork. I urge every Member that comes to this floor to vote to do what is right for the American people and kill this boondoggle once and for all.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the employees of this House of Representatives who endured hours and hours of debate while this House went into 24-hour session the other evening: The cloakroom staff, the individual staff of the Members of Congress, the Clerk's office, the stenographers that had to take down every word, the pages that have come from around our Nation that have helped the Members, the whip teams and everyone else. It was quite a spectacle. It was sad for me as a freshman Member of Congress to watch the delay after delay, the motions to rise, the various tactics in order to stall the progress of this House. I came here to make a difference, to make change. And I know at times there are disagreements and I am certain at times the Republicans did it last time to a Democratic-controlled Congress, but I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stop this nonsense. The American public is watching and they are sick and tired of watching Congress go into the night, go into the early morning hours, go 24 hours a day, spending taxpayers' dollars while these fine employees of the House of Representatives have to be away from their homes, while the young pages 16 and 17 years old are up all night long. That is wrong. So the Democrats and Republicans have to become more responsible in this process and they have got to stop the nonsense and start doing the people's business. Start working on legislation that will change America's problems. I mean we must have had seven motions to rise the other day, which takes over 17 minutes per vote to do that work. So we spent hours of wasted time coming back and forth to the Chamber. People think it is funny in the Chamber. They laugh. How long can this go on? Let us take to the mattresses. The American public who are watching on C-SPAN or reading in the newspapers of Congress' action are embarrassed. I am embarrassed as a Member of Congress for the actions we took the other day. Let me talk about another problem that is confronting America and we have got to deal with it, and that is child abuse. The other day we may have read in the national newspapers about a young child named Wolfie whose parents abandoned him at a mall. A husband and wife abandoned their 3-year-old child and left him wandering in a mall thousands of miles away from their home. In South Carolina a woman allows two young children to be driven into a lake and drowned. In Florida two parents killed their 7-year-old daughter and left her in a closet for 4 days. To those out there that have that type of mental illness, put your child up for adoption. Do not take that child's life. You know, children are being taken advantage of. Sexual abuse of our children, this has got to stop. Members of Congress cannot legislate the protection of children, but neighbors have to be careful and watch out for those around them, the vulnerable children of our society that are falling prey to the sick individuals that would take their lives. Reading the story of young Wolfie, I can only imagine the terror in his mind when his parents leave him in a mall and drive off in a car and they are found in a park in Maryland 3,000 miles away. Left in California, a 3-year-old child in a mall. Many of you may have remembered the story of Adam Walsh, who was kidnaped from a mall in Florida, who was beheaded. They still do not have the killer. I understand they are pursuing somebody who may have been involved. I think it is important that America wake up. The children are our future. When we talk about balanced budgets, we keep talking about children, saving the children's future, taking away the debt that is being piled on our children's future. Madam Speaker and Members of this Congress, it is time to stop talking about the children in abstract and start talking about protecting their very precious lives, start talking about protecting children from the sick individuals that would destroy their futures and destroy their opportunities. I ask God to bless the parents of children and, again I say to them, if you are not happy with your child, if you are not happy being parents, put your child up for adoption and let somebody love your child the way that they need to be loved to become responsible citizens. Again, my hats are off to the dedicated employees of the House of Representatives who have endured many, many hours of debate and their willingness to put in that time to make America the great and strong Nation that it is.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to talk about an issue of feeding the hungry in our Nation's Capital. I would like to thank my colleagues for the overwhelming response to our Dear Colleague letter, for the donations of sweet potatoes that were distributed to their office. I would like to especially thank the gentlemen from Louisiana, Cleo Fields and Richard Baker, for their work with the Sweet Potato Council of the United States, who gave each Member of Congress two cans of whole sweet potatoes. Mr. Fields and Mr. Baker generously donated three cases of sweet potatoes for the hungry. The sweet potatoes will be given to D.C. Central Kitchens, a local not-for-profit organization that provides 2,500 meals a day to men, women and children in area shelters and feeding programs. Over 100 offices of the Members of Congress have donated so far. It has been so successful that we hope to repeat this again. Several offices have donated additional items. Every item is much appreciated. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my staffer, Jennifer DelVecchio, [[Page H 6260]] who came up with this idea. Many times people come by our offices and bring us small tokens or some products from back home. When we get such abundant products, some of which sit on our shelves and go to waste, she thought it only appropriate that we reach out and help those in our Nation's Capital, that the food really go to use for those who truly need our help. Again, I would like to congratulate my colleagues in Congress for supporting this very, very worthwhile project. Mr. Speaker, let me speak for a moment on something that I think really needs reform in the United States Congress. Yesterday in the Committee on Science I had the good fortune of striking what I considered wasteful spending in Congress. Twenty-five thousand dollars was allocated to gas-cooled nuclear technology, which has been underway for over 30 years. The Department of Science, the Department of Energy, all conclude that this proposal is going nowhere, that commercial application of this gas-cooled technology is going nowhere. The President's budget for three times has consistently voted against it. The Senate turned it down in 1993. However, somehow the $25 million has shown up in House appropriations. I won an amendment 25 to 15 to strike this $25 million from the budget. Today in the committee, however, Mr. Speaker, one of the Members decided $25 million is too much to pass up, and offered an amendment which was successful, to transfer that $25 million to another program. There is a problem here in Washington, and the problem is people in Congress cannot get their hands out of the wallet, out of the checkbook of our Nation's taxpayers; that every dollar that is on the table, any dollar that is missed by an appropriator, any dollar that is offered up as sacrifice for deficit reduction, is instantly claimed as found money, so they say ``Let us get every cent of that $25 million and find something else to spend it on.'' Mr. Speaker, I can only reach in my pocket so deeply to find the very few dollars that are in it. Every dollar I come out with is my dollar. However, in this institution, the dollars are somebody else's. The card that we vote with is the world's most expensive credit card. We stick this in the machine and we can spend billions of dollars without any consequence. Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat appalled when this Congress cannot come up with a mechanism that when a Member offers a deficit reducing formula to save the taxpayers money, that saves money from wasteful spending, that we cannot take that money and earmark it and lockbox it away to bring down the Nation's deficit. It is clearly one of our greatest problems. It clearly is driving up the cost of credit for consumers. Clearly, the cost of credit for buying a home today, a 30-year mortgage, 7\1/2\ to 8 percent, would be brought down over 2 points if we get the Federal Government's appetite for credit to be minimized, and the private sector would then see relief for the average consumer. However, no, not in this body. I see money, I spend money. I see money they do not want, I will spend it over here. Mr. Speaker, I say to the Members who are listening to this, they need to clearly reflect on what our priorities are. I think we should be in a race to see who can save the most money. The prior speaker suggested that the Republicans are only interested in voting for bombers and missiles and are not concerned with AIDS and other issues. This Member of Congress voted against the B-2 bomber. This Member of Congress does indeed support increased funding for AIDS research, because I think the cost to the taxpayers will be exacerbated by the cost of AIDS in our community. Mr. Speaker, it is not fair to characterize all Republicans as mean- spirited, only interested in defense and not interested in social services.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1854. We hear from our colleagues that. Government is bad, and none of us have made that statement here as Republicans. We are not saying that Government is bad, but we are trying to evaluate the need for the expansiveness of this Government. No father likes to tell his children that we cannot go on vacation this year. No parent wants to tell their child they cannot go to college because we cannot afford it. But in Government we seem to print money and make excuses that everything is essential. Everything that we do in this body is essential. The American businessman has to make decisions that are critical to the salvation of his or her company, and they make those decisions based on the need for productivity. I want to particularly single out something that this committee has done regarding the code books that I have discussed on this floor in past sessions. And I want to thank you for including language in the bill prohibiting Members' personal subscriptions to the United States Code book to be paid for by the Clerk's budget. Many may recall I brought this issue to light earlier this year following a salesman's visit to my office peddling the $2,500 set of gold-embossed books as being free. But as anybody who has spent any time in Washington knows, there is no such thing as free in Congress. As I have advocated, this bill states that for Members who require an office copy, the code can be purchased from the Members' official expense allowance. Alternatively, the code is available in the House library, at the Library of Congress, on line, and on CD-ROM. By eliminating this entitlement to newly elected Members of Congress, we can bring some accountability to this system and eliminate some of the waste and abuse associated with the current system. No longer will newly elected Members be able to simply sign away 2,500 hard-earned taxpayer dollars, but they will be accountable for this purchase in their office accounts. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for his attention to this issue and bring closure to the issue of free sets of the United States Code to Members of Congress. But, I want to urge both sides to participate in meaningful debate of making certain that what government is doing today is what is important for the taxpayers, not for those that reside in Congress.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, Representative Tim Johnson of South Dakota and I want to send a wake-up call to our colleagues about the No. 1 killer of infants during their first year of life: Sudden infant death syndrome, otherwise known as SIDS or crib death. SIDS is defined as the ``Sudden death of an infant under 1 year of age which remains unexplained after a thorough case investigation, including performance of a complete autopsy, examination of the death scene, and review of the clinical history.'' The tragic and unexpected loss of a newborn is devastating to parents. What makes this disheartening experience even more agonizing is when doctors have no medical explanation for the infant's death. SIDS is the leading cause of death among infants between the ages of 1 week and 1 year and strikes infants of all countries and cultures--in the United States alone, there are between 6,000 to 7,500 infants who unexpectedly die of SIDS each year. As a new Member of the 104th Congress, I remain committed to increasing national public awareness about SIDS and educating parents about steps they can take to reduce the risks of SIDS. In 1994, a national ``Back to Sleep'' public education campaign was launched by Federal and private entities. The goal of this campaign is to encourage parents to place healthy babies on their backs or sides to sleep which research has shown to reduce the risk of SIDS. Representative Johnson and I have sent important information to each office about the ``Back to Sleep'' campaign and SIDS public service announcements. We encourage our colleagues to send this vital message about SIDS prevention home to your constituents.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely congratulate the President on accepting the need for a balanced budget. In fact, I will resolve for this day to forget any differences I may have had with the President in the past. I will not talk about the fact that the President has constantly fought Republican proposals to downsize the Federal Government. I will not focus on how the President has consistently bad-mouthed Republican plans to save the Medicare system--which we all agree is going broke. And finally, I will not even think about how the President has repeatedly bemoaned Republican proposals to cut taxes for working Americans. No, I am going to forget those things today. Because, I know that just as the President has accepted the need for a balanced budget, someday the President will change his mind and accept the need for a smaller Government, a revitalized Medicare system, and lower taxes.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to alleviate the dislocation of a specific sector of the Florida economy due to the devaluation of the peso. While this legislation is designed only to relieve the problems experienced by the winter tomato industry in south Florida, it is my belief that the underlying intent of the legislation should be considered to be applied to all areas of trade within the North American Free-Trade Agreement [NAFTA]. Let me outline some ideas about NAFTA preamble of the agreement--the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico resolved to: First, create an expanded and secure market for the goods and services produced in their territories; second, reduce distortions to trade; third, ensure a predictable commercial framework for business planning and investment; and fourth, promote sustainable development. And finally, the second objective of NAFTA is to: ``Promote conditions of fair competition in the free trade area.'' When the Mexican peso underwent the devaluation beginning in December 1994--these objectives were tossed out the window. The administration's only response was a multi-billion-dollar bailout of the Mexican currency with American taxpayer dollars. However what the administration failed to address was the impact of this devaluation of the peso on our vitally important domestic industries. Nobody knows for certain about the overall effect, but let me outline the effect on an industry that is important to my home State of Florida. Florida's tomato industry generates an estimated $650 million in economic activity, and employs more than 2,000 workers. However, over the past 2 years, Mexico's share of the United States winter tomato market has nearly doubled. A devaluation of the Mexican currency has caused a massive export of Mexican tomatoes to the United States markets where a stronger, more stable currency is the real objective. During the winter season, Florida produces about 95 percent of the fresh market tomatoes grown in the United States, with the only competition coming from Mexico. As the attached chart shows, the volume of Mexican tomato imports has dramatically increased over the past year due to the devaluation of the peso. How has this affected the bottom line of tomato producers in Florida? They have seen the prices for their tomatoes decline from $15 for a 25 pound carton to only $5 from the period of January 30 to February 15 of this year. This steady decline in prices can clearly be attributable for the search for stable U.S. dollars. Mr. Speaker, it is my believe that the recent peso devaluation undermines the bases for the establishment of tariffs and more than eclipses the tariffs negotiated to help transition the Florida tomato industry into a free trade agreement during the 10-year phase out period for tomatoes. Therefore, today I am introducing legislation to link the tariff of tomatoes to the devaluation of the Mexican peso. This is a simple solution that would multiply the tariff on tomatoes by an equal percentage of the peso devaluation thereby establishing a fair and stable climate for trade between Mexico and the United States. Furthermore, this legislation directs the Secretary of Agriculture to determine the nature and extent of harm done to the domestic industry and take actions to remedy such harm. Mr. Speaker, in 1990, there were 230 tomato growers in Florida, today, there are less than 100 with the threat of dumping from Mexico occurring every year. Finally, this legislation takes steps to ensure that Mexican tomatoes entering the United States meet the same standards established by the United States Department of Agriculture for domestic tomatoes. The Department has been far too lax in allowing in Mexican tomatoes which do not meet the same United States standards. While some may argue that this legislation will violate the NAFTA, I dispute this most vehemently. NAFTA was to establish clear and stable rules of trade between the United States and Mexico. This legislation would ensure that to be the case by reducing any distortions to trade due to the devaluation of the peso. I urge my colleagues to carefully examine the impact of the devaluation of the peso on all industries around the country and determine if this would be a workable solution for other sectors of the economy. FLORIDA VEGETABLE REPORT FEDERAL-STATE MARKET NEWS USDA AND FDACS TOMATO

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, how proud the people of Pennsylvania must be of their favorite son as he assumes the chair of this distinguished Chamber this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment and certainly dedicate my 5 minutes to my sister, Elizabeth, who gave birth to a new nephew of mine, Adam Edward. I am very, very proud of her. I would like to also take a moment to read what I will call Mark Foley's mailbag, the letters we get. A lot of people assume we come to Congress and just come up with ideas of the back room of the legislative chambers without a lot of debate and deliberation. I will read you a few of the letters that I receive, to reflect on the considerations we make when we design legislation. From John MacPhail of Sebring, FL: Dear Representative Foley: I am a life-long Republican, and I believe we have a great opportunity to help this country at this time if we don't blow it. My principal concern is that my children and grandchildren will not have to pay for my present comfort. Although I am a veteran of World War II, I do not believe this country owes me anything. It paid for my education-- that's enough. About the budget: Yes, I support PBS and NPR, but I do not think the Government needs to support it any longer. Those of us who enjoy it should pay for it. Yes, I'm on Medicare, and it is necessary to cover my major medical expenses, but I can afford higher premiums or a bigger deductible. Yes, I pay taxes, lots of them, but I would not object to paying more if the IRS would submit a tax form I could complete myself in an hour's time. Am I wealthy? No. I just think that all of us who are able should begin to sacrifice for the sake of those coming after us. Please do your job: save this country. From Mrs. Easton in Stewart, FL: Dear Congressman Foley: I think the freshman class in the House is doing a fine job, and many of the items in your contract are good. But there is one that troubles me. I think this is not the time to cut taxes. Congress' first priority should be coping with the deficit, and I hope that AARP and other pressure groups will not be able to divert Congress' determination from this goal. That is a senior citizen writing. Dean Balkema from Port St. Lucie, FL: Dear Representative Foley: Unfortunately, the balanced budget amendment was defeated. On top of this sad result, Representative Archer is now suggesting a tax cut. In view of our incredibly increasing serious Federal deficit, talk of a tax cut is ridiculous. I hope you will not support any tax cuts. A letter to the Charleston Post and Courier, from my friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina's sister's husband, on food stamps. Recently Florida Congressman Mark Foley was quoted as saying that ``It was wrong for the Federal Government to subsidize people's appetites for popcorn, potato chips, ice cream, Coca-Cola, and Gatorade. I could not agree with him more. I have no objection to my tax dollars supporting the needs of poor people to have food they need to put a decent meal on their table. However, I recently stood in line in a supermarket behind . . . somebody in the grocery store who had food stamps and bought dozens of bottles of soda. I resent this. And I think it illustrates the absolute need for the use of food stamps to put food on the table and not to buy what most of the working poor would consider luxuries. The food stamp program should not be abandoned, but it must be put on track so that it helps those who truly need help. This from the parents of one of our Democratic pages, Joshua Stello, who wrote to me this week. Dear Mr. Foley: My wife and I would like to thank you for the special attention you have shown our son. We also think he is very special. We both have tried very hard to give him the tools to make a future for himself and others. Both of us wish to tell you how much we feel a little support and recognition helps us keep that path worthwhile. With so many distractions in the world for our young people, parents need all the support and positive reinforcement they can get from others. This gesture by you goes a long way for us parents, and especially for our son. I'm sure Josh has told you we have a daughter, Brianna, who is also someone you would like to meet, and we are very proud of. This support lets her know she can also reach for the positive. I hope that Members of Congress realize how much weight they carry for the impressions of young people. I hope this new wave continues to try and work for a future--a positive example and a future for our young--they need and deserve it, from Robert, Jennifer, and Brianna Stello. I read a disturbing thing in the paper today in the New York Times. Michael Kauffman: ``Man's Best Friend, Fiercest Foe.'' As the boys explained, the fights begin when owners sic their dogs on each other in a preliminary round. For less than a minute as the dogs lunge and bite, odds are set and bets are placed. The boys said that as much as $500 is bet, and people can lose thousands of dollars within minutes. Then there is a break, they said, which is when some owners set out bound cats to further arouse blood lust in their dogs. This illustrates, folks, the problem in America is not necessarily what we can do in this Chamber to devise laws that will protect us, but when we start rewarding people like Tanya Harding, who has injured another person, in giving her a movie role; when we start rewarding people who have created vandalist crimes in Singapore, by offering them money to expose their behind where they have been caned; where we tell our young generation that in order to be rich in society, they have to commit some devious crime and a devious act to make people pay attention to you, so you can get in People Magazine or on Oprah Winfrey, there is something seriously wrong in America. Each and every one of us has a responsibility when we receive letters from our constituents about the direction of this country, but we will not be responsible on this floor unless we debate the real problems that face us out in our communities. Those problems are many. Those problems are what I am illustrating in the New York Times when people allow live animals to be sicced upon each other, to fight each other in a gruesome display of competition, and reward each other with financial gain by watching this barbaric action. Our children need a future. They need a better future. There are things we can do as Democrats and Republicans to make Congress work for the people of the United States of America. The yelling and shouting that has gone on here in the last 95 days is sad, because at times both sides have good arguments, legitimate arguments. Let us continue to work after the 100 days to make America the strong and proud place it is, and give it a chance to survive. I know it will, because both parties need it to.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] brought that prop of a crown because I truly believe that represents what went on in this Congress last night when we rejected term limits. We crowned ourselves that we are here for life, that we disregard the peoples' wishes and we have made ourselves potentates in a body of the people and for the people. I came here as a grandson of Polish and Irish immigrants. My parents both worked for a living. My father was a football coach, my mother worked for an eye doctor. They instilled in me the values of hard work and citizenship. I hear repeatedly from the other side that we are taking away the safety net from the people. The net that we must provide is for the people like Kelly Largent, the 10-year-old who is on the House floor today, son of the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. Largent], who wants to survive in America because this is the greatest place on Earth. They do not need government handouts, they need freedom, the ability, the way to work and respect for this Nation. That is the only way we are going to get ourselves out of our deficit. That is the only way we are going to grow our way out of the poverty level, not by continued handouts.