Mark Foley

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We go through this debate every year, and sugar becomes the culprit for all that is bad and all that is evil. We hear about the world's sugar price being so much less everywhere else. It is interesting that when we travel abroad, candy is very, very expensive. Maybe they access the world market, but their prices are the same. Sugar is the lowest it has been in years; candy bars are higher than ever. Some Members say it is for the big sugar lobby. Well, what about the big candy lobby? Only the bad actors are on the other side of the amendments. Yesterday, it was the big pharmaceutical lobby when we talked about prescription drugs. Today, it is the big sugar lobby. Nobody comes down to Clewiston and sees the small family farmers. And yes, there are some big farmers; we acknowledge that. Like everywhere else in America, there are small farmers and big farmers. But once again, we kick farmers when they are down. Some of the most difficult times we are experiencing in this Nation in farming are occurring today, and people always complain about programs done by the Department of Agriculture, and then they rush off out of this Chamber and have a big meal; and they eat a lot of food, and they fill up their bellies and think how wonderful it is that I had this delectable meal. Then they rush right back, full, their appetites satiated; and they immediately begin to attack farmers and the farm programs and the Agricultural Department and this runaway program that is being sponsored by Congress. I say, if we complain about farmers, do not do so with our mouths full. This program has been reformed; it has been changed.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Massachusetts made a big thing about the free market system. Well, I think we are spending about $14 billion on the big dig in Massachusetts for a tunnel. So all I will say to the gentleman is that we are spending money on projects throughout the country, and we are trying to help the farmers in America. We are trying to keep domestic production, and I think it is vitally important.

Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank both the gentleman from New Mexico and the gentleman from Florida who serve on the subcommittee, and commend them both for their bipartisan support for this project. I am especially grateful for the leadership that the chairman of the subcommittee provides on agricultural issues facing the Congress.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, however, now, despite the strong support of the House, and by reference the conference committee, the Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture has ignored the intent of Congress and refused to fund the Harbor Branch-FSU aquaculture project. In fact, it is my understanding that the agency rejected the congressional language as ``nonbinding'' and made fundamental errors in analyzing the proposal that was submitted to the Department for funding. Mr. Chairman, was it the intent of the committee and the Congress that the proposed Harbor Branch-Florida State University project be fully funded by the Rural Utilities Service in fiscal 2000?

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) yielding me this time for the purposes of a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd). Mr. Chairman, last year, the House Committee on Appropriations and the final conference committee on the Agricultural Appropriations bill approved language giving special consideration for funding for a joint aquaculture distance learning/education and research project through Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution in my district and Florida State University in Tallahassee. The original request for the project called for $470,000 for the work to be carried out in fiscal year 2000.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, maybe people should switch to decaf around here. A little excited. A little tense. I know they want to leave the Capitol, but they should remain and discuss the issue. It is so complicated, our Medicare prescription drug coverage. It is so hard to understand. And yet every Member of Congress is entitled to it. I do not hear any of them turning in their cards because it is difficult to get prescription drug coverage. They can go to the pharmacy. They can order from Merck-Medco. They can go to any place in America and get covered under their policy here, provided by the taxpayers, at the House of Representatives. But today, Mr. Speaker, a similar plan is being offered for our seniors and is this abomination? Now, we can have disagreements on policy; we can certainly have disagreement on how we arrive. But I would suggest this is a good plan. And if we wait 48 hours, Al Gore will endorse it; and the President will support it. He did not like marriage penalty elimination. It was too expensive. Give him a month; he will support it and trade us drugs. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for a very good, responsible policy and give the seniors drugs they need.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the personal observation of the gentleman from Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I first want to salute the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who just made some very, very important statements. I think it is important for America to note the strongest Nation on Earth, the one everyone comes to for aid and assistance, is on bended knee at OPEC headquarters pleading for lower fuel prices. The United States of America, who when asked to defend other nations is the first to respond, sends its emissaries to plead with the oil emirates to please bring down our prices, our voters are upset. This amendment goes a long way to rectifying not only the pleadings but, hopefully, the passage of a new era in seeking alternative fuels that will not degrade the environment, that will be available, and will create opportunities and jobs. So I applaud the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for their leadership on this initiative. I do think it is important. Mr. Chairman, we flick on switches and electricity immediately comes on. We start our cars; we drive. We immediately have access to virtually anything we want in this country. Yet at the end of the day we are indeed dependent on other people to supply the basic resources of this country to run our operations. Let us not continue to find ourselves at this place at this time. Let us support this amendment, let us move forward, let us strive in the 21st century to bring about technologies that will improve the quality of life, that will improve the quality of the atmosphere and make our lives less dependent on outside and external forces.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) for his hard work on this legislation before us today. I am proud of the work he has done to help preserve our water resources, particularly in the Everglades in Florida. This is probably one the most important bills Members deal with relative to their legislative responsibilities because it clearly works within the districts and the multitude of projects that make America the great Nation it is. I join my colleague today the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). He is unavoidably detained or he would be here today at this moment to argue with us the importance of this amendment. But I think we can do more to preserve those truly important resources while ending some of the wasteful spending and corporate welfare in so many of the programs brought before this Congress. The amendment I am offering today would shift funding from the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, or NERI, to renewable energy research, which is truly a clean renewable source of energy. After pouring more than $47 billion into the nuclear power industry over the last 50 years, this industry is still attempting to have the taxpayers fund its research and industry improvement efforts. Included in the fiscal year 2001 funding for the Department of Energy, the nuclear power industry will still get another $22.5 million in Nuclear Energy Research Initiative subsidies. I think this is wrong, Mr. Chairman. The money goes to such corporate giants as Westinghouse and General Electric. Why does this mature industry need the help of the American taxpayers to develop and design the next generation nuclear reactors? I would ask my colleagues, are any planned in their hometown or community? Probably not. But we are still spending money on research. Six of the nine largest investor-owned utilities by revenue were nuclear energy in 1998. They made profits of nearly $200 billion last year. Yet, the American people must continue to fund them. Westinghouse and General Electric have been in the business for more than 40 years, and it is their turn to lead and to use their huge profits to advance their own industry. The American taxpayers have over the last 50 years put $47 billion, again, $47 billion into nuclear subsidies. They should not have to subsidize this giant of an industry any longer. Again, the amendment I am offering today with my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), would ensure this money is used to support clean renewable energy. We would further help this emerging industry reinforce their infrastructure and keep it a reliable source for the future. It is projected that voting for this amendment could save the American people at least $95 million over the next 5 years. I urge my colleagues to adopt this common sense initiative. We would move out of the $22.5 requested in the cut, $13 million to wind energy and $6 million to Electric Energy Systems account, with the remaining $3.5 million to be returned to the Treasury for debt reduction. I believe this is a good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, this Friday, June 30, 2000, the ashes of Anne Sperry Rule will be laid to rest with her late husband, Col. Richard Rule, in a ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. Anne was an overly dedicated, respected and well loved member of her community. Anne would not want us to be sad or to suffer from her loss. Rather, she would want us to cherish our memories of her and celebrate her life. Anne's daughter, Cathi, will read the following poem on Friday which serves as a message for us all. To Those I Love and Those Who Loved Me When I am gone, release me, let me go-- I have so many things to see and do. You mustn't tie yourself to me with tears. Be happy that we had so many years. I gave you my love, you can only guess How much you gave to me in happiness. I thank you for the love you each have shown, But now it's time I traveled on alone. So grieve a while for me if grieve you must, Then let your grief be comforted by trust. It's only for a while that we must part. So bless the memories within your heart. I won't be far away, for life goes on. So if you need me, call and I will come. Though you can't see or touch me, I'll be near-- And if you listen with your heart, you'll hear All of my love around you soft and clear. And then, when you must come this way alone, I'll greet you with a smile and ``Welcome Home.''

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the option to discuss with the House this morning an issue that does cause me quite a bit of concern. It really revolves around the missing nuclear secrets from the Los Alamos lab. We have spent about $16 billion a year on the Department of Energy; 15,000 plus employees, 125,000 contract employees and over $16 billion of spending of the taxpayers' money. On their own website, they have the following two mission statements: To provide affordable and available fuel now and in the future, and the security of our nuclear weapons stockpile. It would seem to me based on those two statements, those two mission statements by the Department and the amount of money the American taxpayers have put into the fund in order to run the agency, you would have assumed with those types of numbers you would have gotten at least a modicum of success in protecting either the nuclear secrets or providing affordable energy for Americans now and in the future. I am sure some of you recently have had the pleasure and joy of filling up your car at the gas station and witnessed prices escalating almost at every week, an increase in prices of fuel. In some areas in my community, prices for regular unleaded are about $1.65 and in some places in the country, including the Midwest, we see prices upwards of $2.25. Is that affordable? Yes, it is available but is it affordable? And how much does that take out of the American family's budget weekly, money that they could spend on clothes for their kids, textbooks for school, health care or purchasing prescription drugs? It is a lot of money. Filling up a 20-gallon tank costs somewhere between 4 and 8 additional dollars a week now due to the price of energy. Now, that is the administration that is doing America a favor by spending $16 billion on the Department of Energy. We have heard recently that, of course, we do not think there was espionage involved. We do not know obviously because we are not certain where the disk drives were and who had them. But we are comforted by the fact that we are being told by the administration, at least by the Secretary of Energy, that we do not suspect espionage. Initially it was reported that there was a 4-week breach of time between the reporting of the missing hard drives and the notification to the FBI. Then we heard erroneous or maybe possibly accurate reports that it was upwards of 6 months when the hard drives were missing. Then on Meet the Press, Secretary Richardson said, ``Oh, no, it wasn't that long, it was only possibly March 28.'' Talk about the gang that could not shoot straight, nobody can give us definitive answers where the hard drives were, how they were stored, how long they had been missing, and who checks in and out of this secret vault. Just last week testifying before the Senate, the Secretary said, we are going to institute technology like bar coding and putting bar codes onto the devices. I mean, we bar code lettuce in the grocery store. You cannot leave a record store without paying for the CD. Otherwise, the security devices at the door will make an alarm so that the detectives or guards there can try and stop a shoplifter. But the nuclear secrets of America, the most sensitive of all data stored by our government, is wandering around with nobody watching, nobody monitoring, nobody taking the blame. Mr. Speaker, we have got a serious issue on our hands. I think rather than politicize it, we need to get to the bottom of it. If this incident occurred to a corporation, the CEO's head would roll. If this announcement of this problem was a stock market activity, the stock would collapse. If this was a student in school, they would fail. Somebody has to take account for the pilferage or the potential misuse or even the missing hard drives. General Gordon with this House attempted to set up a separate nuclear agency, if you will, to run the very sensitive lab. We were rebuffed oftentimes by both the administration, the Secretary of Energy and others. I think we need a full and fair explanation of what happened. America deserves it. Our security depends on it. We urge the administration to come forward with an explanation reasonable to the taxpayers.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, my mother makes a great carrot cake. For generations the recipe has been a guarded secret. In fact, the recipe to our family's carrot cake is probably more secure than this country's nuclear secrets. However, based on the lack of concern from the Vice President, you would not think our national security was a major issue. The Vice President has had no problem taking credit for discovering Love Canal, inspiring the novel ``Love Story,'' inventing the Internet, and just last week he took credit for the strength of our economy. But when this administration has repeated security lapses, putting our citizens at risk, he is nowhere to be found. The Vice President and the other side of the aisle have spent most of their time and energy on this floor worried about political attacks when instead we should be concerned about defending this Nation from nuclear attacks.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I call my colleagues' attention to an editorial in The Washington Post entitled Nuclear Nightmare: ``Guarding the nation's nuclear secrets is about the most basic duty of an administration. The danger of nuclear proliferation is so serious that the United States bombs Iraq, sanctions India and Pakistan and kowtows to North Korea, all in an attempt to prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the wrong hands. That unidentified hands could have quietly removed, at Los Alamos, two computer drives with information on dismantling nuclear bombs is shocking. That it should happen so soon after the investigation of other security labs makes it even more credible. That is from the Washington Post. Now, today we are witnessing the other side of the aisle having everybody sign up because they are worried about political attack ads. Is anybody demanding the information on potential nuclear attacks? Now, over the last couple months, the Vice President has condemned everything our nominee has said as reckless and risky. Where is his voice on this particular issue affecting America's safety and security? Yes, I agree we have to reform politics. Yes, I agree a Buddhist temple is not the right place to have a fund-raiser. But let us look at our nuclear secrets and find out and demand answers from Secretary Richardson, President Clinton, and the Vice President of the United States.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Chair's approval of the Journal.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to condemn the actions of Iran in accusing and now trying 13 Jews for allegedly spying for Israel and the United States. All 13 have been jailed and isolated for more than a year without being formally charged with anything. They are now being formally tried, again without formal charges having been brought. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a group of people aged 17 to 48 who are among the least likely to ever be involved in espionage. We are talking about a rabbi, a student, three Hebrew teachers, a shoe store clerk, and a kosher butcher. They are now confronting a judge who has it in his power to execute them on grounds that are unsupported and without evidence. All 13 were arrested by the authorities of the Islamic Republic on the eve of Passover in 1999. They have had little access since then to either family or legal counsel. Mr. Speaker, I think this Congress should rise as one voice repeatedly and repeatedly to condemn this trial and to demand that Iran release these people back to their families and to freedom. This trial is a sham, and it should be treated as one by the world.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish I was in Bill Gates's class. I would be planning my estate taxes and issues like that, because obviously, he has done very well. It is not just about wealth; it is about this country. I hope I can get through this, because this is a sad day. We watched the kids come here, excited, exuberant, happy about serving their country; and we see them leave as mature young people who are ready to carry out life's dreams. In this class we had several Andrews and several Adams and multiple Christophers, several Lindseys. Some came with dyed hair, Christopher; some have used the Nation's supply of gel; Spike, as I call him. Some of you have changed outfits and changed looks, but the thing that I think unites us all is that you are outstanding young people. Oftentimes, you read the newspaper and you look at the TV news and you hear about the bad kids in life. Happily for America, that is only about one-half of 1 percent. Regrettably, we do not read about the good kids, the kids that are here today that are sacrificing being away from their friends and family back home, the time that they could spend in high school, the favorite years of your life in your hometown, in your home community, with your boyfriends and girlfriends and family. But instead you chose to venture to our Nation's Capital, the seat of government, the center of the world. You have served, and I know at times you have been frustrated. I have seen some of you dragging in at 10:30 at night while some of us continue to talk to the cameras above, talking to our residents back home on C-SPAN, and you say, are they ever going to stop? Will they cut special orders sometime soon? And yet you get up the next day full of exuberance. As I am running in the morning, in fact, I run on Thursdays with Kay Bailey Hutchison, I said, Kay, you better watch your job, because Parker Payne may be running for Senator some day in this class. He is already threatening, so I think you and I should keep running and keep working to make sure that you are the Senator from Texas. But you will have elected officials in this class. You will have entrepreneurs; you will have doctors and lawyers and scientists. But the one thing that is sure, as was mentioned, you will have lifelong friends. You will have bonded together; and 10, 15, 20 years from now you will look back and think of that special time you had when you were sharing dormitory space and thinking about how your senior year would be and how the prom would be. Tonight we will send you off back to your families and back to your parents, many of whom I have met; and I know that they are proud today and that they have helped raise you. And I think you have to recognize how proud you are of them, for thinking of you and to recognize your maturity to allow you to leave home. Your fathers were ready to get rid of you when your mothers were probably weeping daily as the time approached to head to Washington. But in all sincerity, I am going to stop soon, because I see some of you crying already; and I will start too, because I am sad. But knowing you are going off a better person makes me all the more happy. In conclusion, let us make sure that we thank some people here that have also made your experience both memorable and wonderful, and I am sure Jim is going to do that; but Ms. Sampson, Harroun and all the staff, for their stewardship, guidance and leadership of this class, we should salute them as well. God bless you, kids. You are great, you are fabulous, and I love you. Thank you.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. First let me pay back the compliment you have just given me and ask the pages to salute him for his dedication to the page program.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the House today for considering this very important initiative. In the late 1950s, many Hispanic- Americans came to this country. Cuban-born fleeing Cuba because of the tyranny of Fidel Castro. He stole their property. He stole their fortune, and they left their homeland penniless and came often to south Florida. They worked hard against daunting odds, new to a country with no family roots in this Nation. They succeeded oftentimes because of hard work and a lot of the American freedom and spirit and integrity. Lo and behold those same, now Americans born in Cuba, are suffering because estate taxes are depriving their heirs of their heritage. They left Communism to come to freedom and find our own policies here in America confiscatory. Now, a lot of people keep talking about the rich, oh, the rich in America. The rich know how to figure it out. They have the dollars in their pocket to buy high-dollar denomination insurance policies or they leave their money to trust. Ted Turner, Bill Gates, look at the billions they have given away, and they will deplete the accounts before the U.S. government will get their hands on it. They are smart. They are sophisticated. They made it their own way. I started a little business when I was 21. My mother and I and my family invested a lot of money to build a small business. This debate is not about my parent. They do not have a large estate, nor is it about me. I do not either. But never did the U.S. government or the local government help me with my business. It was always a regulation of rule, a fee, a permit, a tax, a license, a this, a that and the other. And we spent, spent money to keep up with government's plans for us. Never did they be a partner with me, but lo and behold when I die, they sure join in the parade. Let me pull money out of your pocket to spend on all kinds of programs. So, folks, let us get serious. Let us help all Americans and repeal the death tax.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I want to celebrate today's victory on behalf of the taxpayers. That is the outstanding vote produced by this bipartisan Congress, 279 to 136. Sixty-five Democrats joined the Republican majority in signalling to America and to taxpayers everywhere that we think it is punitive when a person dies after working all their life to increase wealth, to increase opportunities for their family, that the government now becomes their partner; the government becomes, if you will, the primary recipient of all that person's hard work. Growing up in this country, my parents told me, work hard, strive for the greatest heights, and you will be richly rewarded for your efforts. America, home of entrepreneurs and opportunity everywhere, signals to people, come one, come all, from around the world to this great Nation. We are in fact a home of opportunity. Many people agreed with us today, and thankfully many people, everyone from the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), joined. The list is endless of people from virtually every State who joined in recognizing the egregious nature of the estate tax or death tax, as we call it. The calls on the House floor, today, though would indicate otherwise. In fact, the minority portrayed this as simply a Republican bill rammed through this process with no debate and no consideration. Death taxes have been on the books since 1913, so I do not think we got to this point in time quickly. In fact, I think we have been waiting for this a long time. I think the voters of the minority Democrat party in fact enjoyed the bill today and supported the bill today, and in fact, we are just within the threshold of a veto-proof number in this Chamber. While we are on the subject of bipartisanship, I think it is important to not only compliment those, and the numbers and names can be found probably in many newspapers around the country, the 65 brave hearts that stood up and recognized the estate tax is patently unfair. But let us talk about the tactics being used by the minority party this week in fact as it relates to getting bills passed on behalf of the citizens of the country. The front page of the Roll Call newspaper on the Hill said, ``Wyden Lands in Hot Water.'' That is Senator Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon. ``Bipartisanship may cost the Oregonian a finance panel seat.'' It goes on to say that, ``Senator Ron Wyden may have won plaudits from the New York Times editorial page for trying to reach across party lines to craft a Medicare prescription drug reform plan, but the move infuriated many of his Democratic colleagues. Several Democrat sources says Wyden has now dashed any hope of landing one of the three coveted seats opening at the end of the year on the powerful Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over entitlement and tax policy.'' That is amazing, that in a day when we have had dialogue about a lack of bipartisanship, we read that headline, that one of their own reached out to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means, to try and craft a proposal that would actually pass, that would actually ensure prescription drug coverage for our seniors, prescription drug coverage that is vitally necessary for our seniors throughout America. A brave soul, a Democratic Senator, decided it was more important to start to reach out to help our constituents, rather than score political points. It goes on to talk about how he gave Republicans ground to stand on, and what have you. Let me just suggest, Mr. Speaker, the problems we are facing in this country are great. The problems we are facing as it relates to policy are important. I applaud Senator Wyden, and I know I am probably stretching by referring to people by name, but I want to thank him for at least reaching out to try and find some common ground. We have a lot of issues. The Patients' Bill of Rights, I will alert many of my colleagues as a Republican, I am a proud sponsor and supporter of that bill. That does not bring my party any great happiness, because they don't like when some of us are off the reservation, but nevertheless, I support it. Campaign finance reform is another issue I take a great deal of pride in supporting. I think there are a number of issues we can resolve on this floor, in this Chamber, relative to the needs of Americans. But I do think it is good that this is a time when bipartisanship is finally starting to reach through the cacaphony, right now, again, 65 Democratic yea votes on the bill today to eliminate death taxes, and that now maybe we can move on to other important aspects of public policy. Let us go ahead and try to bring the Patients' Bill of Rights to fruition. Let us try and bring prescription drug coverage to fruition. Let us meet on the educational needs of our children around America, rather than just talk about it for campaign purposes. Let us make certain that every American is benefited by the debate and the dialogue here on the floor, that ultimately it is not about who runs this place. God forbid we have that kind of fight. Let us not worry about who is in charge next year. Let us do something on behalf of the people. We have a chance. We can do it.