John Sweeney

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we speak very clearly and distinctly to ensure that we protect stability and peace throughout the world, and that is why I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. The Republic of China has proven itself to be a strong, independent democracy, in stark contrast from Mainland China's campaign of military and psychological intimidation. We can take great comfort in our present state of affairs. However, we must realize that peace is difficult to achieve and its maintenance is fragile; and one of the greatest threats to that that exists anywhere in the world is no more so in the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan is a country that deserves our continuing support, especially during these critical times. In 1979 the United States made an obligation to this nation to provide defensive arms ``in such a quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.'' That was a direct quote and what should be a continuing commitment. The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act continues to strengthen this commitment. As China continues its drive for military modernization and intensifies its efforts to procure weapons of mass destruction, cross- straight stability is at direct risk. It is a known fact that China is using U.S. satellite and space technology to enhance its national defense economy and national prestige and thus poses a tremendous threat to Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to do something positive to counter such aggression. The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act is an excellent vehicle through which the United States can begin to rectify this growing imbalance. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, China, Asia, and the rest of the world is watching to see our resolve in standing up for democracy in Taiwan. Our commitments today will have enormous implication on the future leadership role in Asia. China is counting on a reduced military presence in Asia while they are continuing their improvements. I urge all my colleagues to support this act.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for House Resolution 409, honoring the contributions of Catholic Schools. Over two and a half million students are currently enrolled at 8,217 Catholic schools across the country. This week, as ``Catholic Schools Week'', provides us an important opportunity to recognize the outstanding performance of Catholic schools in the education of America's youth. I believe their successes truly hold some of the keys to improving our education system nationwide. Catholic elementary and secondary school students consistently display superior results on national and science academic achievement tests. Catholic schools maintain a phenomenal graduation rate of 95%, compared to 66% for public schools. More importantly, Catholic schools provide their students with a strong sense of their faith, family and community. They provide a rich, intellectually stimulating environment in which today's youth learn the skills required to be tomorrow's leaders. These schools teach the value of self discipline, tolerance and respect for one another. Catholic schools open their classrooms to economically and culturally diverse students, giving young people of all backgrounds the opportunity to succeed. I also salute the Catholic school teachers who dedicate themselves to the teaching profession and take great pride in the success of their students. Mr. Speaker, I commend the sponsors of this resolution, and appreciate the opportunity to honor the Catholic schools of our nation. I believe these schools are a model for success in the education of our youth. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to address a most important issue for our nation's dairy farmers. The federal milk marketing order program is the life-blood of dairy farmers throughout the nation and is a program that has long enjoyed strong, bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I have been at the forefront of this dairy effort since the first day I came to this Congress and have worked hard with our bipartisan coalition from across the country to address this critical issue to the agricultural economy. I want to explain that we are here today advancing dairy legislation because our dairy industry is in a crisis. The Secretary of Agriculture calls the Administration's dairy reforms fair, yet it imposes hundreds of millions of dollars in losses in 45 states. This cannot be considered fair and I commend our leaders for responding to this crisis with a common sense compromise. Dairy reform was not meant to be dairy income reduction. This package today restores what has been taken out of the pockets of dairy farmers throughout the country. Do not forget that 285 members of this body, Republicans and Democrats, voted for the bulk of this dairy legislation--H.R. 1402--in September of this year. The agreement also extends the life of the current New England Compact, which has proven over the past few years to be an effective model for providing much-needed stability to the dairy farmers. This agreement affirms the idea that we should be supporting our states in their efforts to assist their agricultural economies. Contrary to some of the rhetoric we've heard, this dairy package does not turn dairy reform on its head and nor does it bring the end to the dairy industry in the Upper Midwest, or anywhere else for that matter. Keep in mind that the Upper Midwest receives some of the highest on- farm milk prices in the entire country. With this legislation, dairy reforms will be implemented as intended in the Farm Bill--the number of marketing orders are consolidated and much-needed reforms are being made to the basic formula price and other pricing issues are improved. However, today's legislation will ensure that regions are treated fairly and that farm income is not slashed as a result of the reforms. Mr. Speaker, our agencies must be responsive to Congress and our constituents in implementing our federal policies. The Clinton Administration has failed on both counts in its pursuit of dairy reforms. I again want to thank our leaders in the House and the Senate and our strong, bipartisan coalition that has remained determined to see that this issue is addressed before the end of this Congress. This is fair legislation that takes into account the best interests of the dairy industry in all regions.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) for introducing this resolution condemning the assassination of Vazgen Sarksian. I, being one of only two Members of the House and Senate of Armenian descent, feel compelled to come to the floor today and voice my support very strongly for this resolution. There has been a lot of comment and discussion about this resolution and about the horror of this unprecedented attack. Let me just say this: knowing the Armenian spirit as I do, I believe Armenia is going to continue to move forward, will not be deterred towards establishing itself as a strong democracy and a strong ally of our great country. I say this primarily because and out of recognition of my own grandfather's history and his past. My grandfather came to this country, Mr. Speaker, before World War I and returned to his homeland to fight against tyranny and fascism, earning two Russian medals of honor. He came back to this country and made a life for his family and for us. I know the Armenian spirit is strong; and I know that, with our proper support, as this resolution will provide, Armenia will prevail. And I like most others demand that the men who committed these vile acts be brought to justice. I was appalled to see this horror take place in my own grandfather's homeland. The assassination of Prime Minister Vazgen Sarksian, as well as several other duly-elected officials is a tragedy beyond words. As Armenia moves forward with its strong commitment to the ideals of democracy, after a history filled with so much tragedy, these incomprehensible acts of terror might seem to make it more difficult to move toward self rule but I currently believe that it will not deter the Armenian spirit. Armenia has shown itself to be a valued ally of the United States, and of the world. Further, this tragic loss comes at a time when we should be praising Armenia's strength and determination in working toward democracy, the rule of law, and a viable free market economy since obtaining its freedom from Soviet rule in 1991. Not only would I like to express my most deep and heartfelt sympathies to the people of Armenia, but I would like to commend them for continuing the drive toward democracy, even in the face of great adversity. I am proud to share a common heritage with the Armenian people. My own grandfather was a native Armenian, raised in a land ravaged by hate, and a witness to the genocide of his people. The experiences of his childhood fueled his desire for freedom for his homeland in the First World War, so he returned there, where he was awarded two Russian Medals of Honor for his bravery in the fight against fascism. Mr. Speaker, my grandfather is a singular example of the esprit de corps that lies deep in the heart of every Armenian. This determination to be free continues today and was clearly shown through the life's work of the late Prime Minister Sarksian. I share in the Armenian people's loss of a great leader, but take comfort in knowing that they shall overcome this loss and move toward greater things, as they have so many times before.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for yielding me this time. I congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), my colleague and friend, for this important piece of legislation which I rise today in strong support of as a member of the House Diabetes Caucus. Mr. Speaker, the statistics, we have heard them from a number of folks, but I would like to focus those from my district on the relevant information existing out there. There are more than 30,000 people in my district who combat this disease every day. In fact, every day 36 children are diagnosed with diabetes. Despite the fact that both children and adults are diagnosed, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) pointed out very accurately that over one-third of Americans go undiagnosed. This is why I think it is of particular importance that we here in Congress take this up as a national issue, an issue of great priority, and move forward to try to find a cure. Insulin, as has been pointed out by the gentleman from Florida, is indeed not a cure. The National Institutes of Health recently estimated that diabetes is the single most expensive disease in the United States in terms of direct costs. Like those who preceded me today, I support this resolution for people like 4-year-old Ivy Cerro from Moreau, New York, in my district whose mother worries every night that if she does not check her daughter's blood count again before she and her husband go off to bed that little Ivy will not make it through the night. Mr. Speaker, I support H. Res. 325 for people like 41-year-old Tambrie Alden from Glens Falls, New York, a good friend of mine, who walks a blood sugar tightrope, staying just above the minimum level, because having high blood sugar can lead to serious problems in the long term. But by keeping her blood sugar down, Tambrie is often balancing on the brink of a diabetic coma. Mr. Speaker, I will have the honor of addressing the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation Ball in Saratoga Springs this weekend celebrating the courage of Tambrie, Ivy, and thousands of others in my district who battle this disease every day. I am proud to have the opportunity this weekend to share with my constituents that Congress is fighting for the people with diabetes by passing House Resolution 325. As I said, I think it is an important piece of legislation; and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to address this important issue for people with disabilities. I rise in strong support of the Work Incentives Improvement Act. This legislation gives Americans with disabilities the freedom to achieve self-sufficiency through employment. As Labor commissioner in New York State I worked to ensure that individuals with disabilities were given ample opportunity to return to work thus freeing themselves from the despair of dependency. In doing this they are able to experience the dignity of self sufficiency. Currently, people with disabilities are actually given incentives to stay unemployed because they often can not obtain adequate health care if they receive outside income. In 1998, the National Organization on Disability found that 72 percent of unemployed Americans with disabilities want to go to work. However, only 1 in 500 people receiving Social Security Disability Insurance ever returns to work. Mr. John T. Svingala from Hudson, New York is one of the 72 percent of unemployed Americans with disabilities who, in his words, ``can't wait to become a tax payer instead of a recipient.'' Mr. Svingala is a 42-year-old diabetic, kidney transplant recipient. Mr. Svingala is an educated man who was a dedicated physical education teacher in Hudson and Catskill, New York until he was not longer able to work because of his illness. Unfortunately, if Ms. Svingala were to return to work, he would lose all of his unearned income and half his wages in order to access personal assistance coverage under Medicaid. To remedy such circumstances, H.R. 1180 provides states with incentive grants to set up their own affordable Medicaid buy-in programs when Mr. Svingala and thousands like him go to work. Individuals with disabilities represent a major untapped resource in the workplace of the 21st century. Now is the time to remove barriers and enable people like Mr. Svingala to work. Congress has an obligation to help people with disabilities achieve their American Dream. I strongly urge my colleague to vote in favor of the Work Incentives Improvement Act.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Ghent Band on their 100th anniversary in entertaining the communities of Columbia County, located in the heart of the 22nd Congressional District, which I proudly represent. Founded in 1899 by 15 members, the Ghent Band continues to make history while other bands in New York have become history. Inspired by nationally touring bands like John Philip Sousa, the original 15 members gathered old, second hand instruments and began rehearsing weekly at the Old Ghent School House. To this day, the band plays on, serving as Columbia County's only full-fledged village band. Mr. Speaker, for a full century the Ghent Band's music has filled the hearts of the young and old, creating lasting memories at the many parades and concerts at which they play. The Ghent Band holds a special place in my own heart as they were present at the inauguration celebrating my swearing in to the House of Representatives. Given the diversity of age and background of the band's members, as well as their strong ties to the local community, I have no doubt that the Ghent Band will continue on for an additional 100 years. Mr. Speaker, the Ghent Band is America at its best, representing all that is good in this nation. I wish its members and their families the best as they celebrate 100 years of serving and entertaining the Village of Ghent.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Ghent Band on their 100th Anniversary in entertaining the communities of Columbia County, located in the heart of the 22nd Congressional District, which I proudly represent. Founded in 1899 by 15 members, the Ghent Band continues to make history while other bands in New York have become history. Inspired by nationally touring bands like John Philip Sousa, the original 15 members gathered old, second hand instruments and began rehearsing weekly at the Old Ghent School House. To this day, the bank plays on, serving as Columbia County's only full-fledged village band. Mr. Speaker, for a full century the Ghent Band's music has filled the hearts of the young and old, creating lasting memories at the many parades and concerts at which they play. The Ghent Band holds a special place in my own heart as they were present at the inauguration celebrating my swearing in to the House of Representatives. Given the diversity of age and background of the band's members, as well as their strong ties to the local community, I have no doubt that the Ghent Band will continue on for an additional 100 years. Mr. Speaker, the Ghent Band is America at its best, representing all that is good in this nation. I wish its members and their families the best as they celebrate 100 years of serving and entertaining the Village of Ghent.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, my good friend and class president. Mr. Speaker, let me start and say I introduced this resolution at an important time in our Nation's history. We have, as we all know, violence pervasive throughout all sorts of elements in our society. We are in a period of great moral turmoil in many respects. Those who argue against the proposition that I propose today say that this is censorship, and they liken it to what Hitler did in Nazi Germany. We say that is nonsense. It is nonsense because we are talking about some fundamental questions centering around the role of the Federal Government in funding of works of art, or so-called works of art, that attack real core beliefs of the American people, many Americans, and beliefs that we hold near and dear to our hearts. The questions I asked in this resolution are simple: Should the American taxpayer be required to send their hard-earned tax dollars to a museum, or other institution, that exhibits works of art, the likes of which feature a portrait of the Virgin Mary desecrated with elephant dung? Should taxpayers' dollars be used to glorify a convicted child murderer? Should Americans that work 40, 50, 60 hours a week, be forced to turn over a portion of their paychecks so that individuals can express themselves in a manner that so offends so many? Mr. Speaker, the resolution that I introduce today answers a resounding ``no'' to those questions. Just this past Saturday, the Brooklyn Museum of Art opened that art show featuring the aforementioned exhibits; and, as a result, the museum has come under fire from many sources, many individuals, who share, as I do, the belief that this is just wrong. The venerable Cardinal O'Connor of New York City called the Exhibit ``an attack on religion itself, and, in a special way, on the Catholic church.'' Coinciding with the exhibit's opening, hundreds of people, with no other vehicle to express their frustration, took to the steps of the museum to say that public funding of such exhibits that promote hate, bigotry, and Catholic bashing is wrong. I wholeheartedly agree with them. That is why we have gone forward with this resolution. Since 1997, the Brooklyn Museum of Art has received nearly $1 million through the National Endowment of the Arts and the National/Endowment for Humanities. When taxpayers decide to support the arts, I doubt these are the kinds of exhibits they have in mind. Our resolution gives a voice to millions of Americans who are disgusted because they are being forced to fund this offensive exhibit. Furthermore, I believe that most of my constituents would join me in saying that this exhibit goes too far and is devoid of culturally redeeming value, by any standard. Mr. Speaker, as I said, the proposition before us is quite simple. However, there is a vocal minority that wants to confuse the debate by suggesting our resolution is an attack on the First Amendment. The ``Sensation'' exhibit, as it is titled, does not belong in a publicly supported institution. That is the simple premise at work here. This is not to say it does not belong anywhere. If there is an audience for this type of exhibit, and I would suspect there is a substantial audience in some quarters for this, let them find a private outlet for which to express that sense. While these so-called artists have a right to create their art and galleries have a right to display it, the First Amendment does not guarantee that the American people must subsidize it. In the words of David A. Strauss, a specialist in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, ``it is clear the government is entitled to make some decisions on what it will fund and what it will not fund.'' Not only are we entitled to do so, my constituents demand that I do so here today. I agree with Jonathan Yardley in today's edition of the Washington Post when he writes, ``the museum has a right to present such works as it cares to, but has a weighty responsibility, the handmaiden of public funding, to exercise that right with sobriety and care. The support of taxpayers is not license to thumb one's nose at taxpayers. The religious and moral sensibilities of ordinary people are not frivolous; they deserve, and should command, the respect and consideration of those who slop at the public trough.'' Mr. Speaker, we know that Congress is not a body of art critics. However, ``Sensation'' is clearly an example of going too far. It does not take a Ph.D. in art history to know that a portrait of the Virgin Mary being desecrated upon is offensive to Catholics. Mr. Speaker, our Federal tax dollars should not be spent on images that glorify sacrilegious, immoral, and criminal behavior. They should be used to defend, not offend. Further, if we subsidize the expression of art, let that expression carry a message of education, not desecration. Last week, the Senate adopted a similar measure overwhelmingly, and I urge my colleagues in this body to follow the Senate's lead. Tell your constituents you will account for their tax dollars.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution along with Mr. Fossella, that calls for an elimination of federal funds for the Brooklyn Museum of Art if it proceeds with an exhibit that desecrates religion. The Museum, which has come under fire for using taxpayer money to host an exhibit featuring a portrait of the Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung, has received more than $700,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities over the past three years. John Cardinal O'Connor, in published new accounts, called the exhibit ``an attack on religion itself and, in a special way, on the Catholic Church.'' In fact, it is an is an affront to the more than one billion Catholics worldwide! In addition to the Virgin Mary painting, the art show titled, ``Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection,'' also features a portrait of a convicted child murderer fashioned from small hand prints. Do we really want to glorify convicted murderers?! I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague, Mr. Fossella, who describes the exhibit as ``little more than publicly-funded bigotry.'' He was correct in saying that ``the American people have a right to know that their tax dollars are not being used to desecrate religion and promote bigotry.'' When taxpayers decide to support the arts, I doubt these are the kinds of exhibits they have in mind. Our resolution will give a voice to the millions of Americans who are disgusted that they are being forced to fund this offensive exhibit. Furthermore, I believe that most of my constituents would join me in saying that this exhibit goes too far and is devoid of culturally redeeming value, by any standard. Our federal tax dollars should not be spent on images that glorify immoral and criminal behavior. They should be used to defend not offend. Further, if we are to subsidize the expression of art, let that expression carry a message of education, not defecation. We have no obligation to call it art and the American people don't have to subsidize it. While these so-called artists have a right to create their ``art,'' and galleries have a right to display it, the First Amendment does not guarantee that the American people must subsidize it. The City of New York has threatened to pull the museum's funding, and so too should the federal government. Again, I urge my colleagues to continue to cosponsor this important resolution.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, I simply want to say this: I have spent the last several weeks working with the committee and working with the members of the committee to impress upon them the needs of the dairy farmers of the northeastern part of our State. To my colleagues who will come to this floor to vote on this bill, I want to make this very clear: because we have been threatened by a veto and because we have followed a misguided path set for us by the Secretary of Agriculture on option 1-A and because we have decided to ignore the fact that the Northeast Dairy Compact, which provides for minimum supports for farmers in the Northeast so that they can maintain their process, we have decided to put forward a bill today that promotes the worst kind of regional divisions in this body. We have decided to put forth a bill today that promotes and benefits singular Members, singular states, at the expense of others. So, with that, I would urge all of my colleagues to strongly oppose this bill and let us make sure we come back and do the right thing for all of our farmers.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and in this short time I have, Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of comment on what support there is and what expert evidence there is and support for Option 1-A. I just want to point out four simple facts, and they are this: That since the passage of the 1996 farm bill, the Secretary of Agriculture has ignored all of the experts, and has been on a biased march to debunk the dairy marketing process in the United States. Consider that USDA took public comments on many proposals it put forth; and, in the final analysis, comments filed by the dairy industry and dairy experts ran better than 8 to 1 in favor of Option 1-A. The Department empowered a price structure committee composed of many industry experts to make recommendations to the Secretary. This committee recommended Option 1-A. They were ignored. The Department's own internal dairy division experts recommended Option 1-A. They were overruled. Option 1-B was then advanced. Three hundred Members of the House and Senate sent a letter, concerned about the path USDA was pursuing, wrote to the Secretary and told him that they supported Option 1-A. They were ignored as well. Experts in the industry and out of the industry know that Option 1-A is the fair and equitable way.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I find the arguments of the sponsors of this amendment to be a little suspect. These gentleman, I believe, have every good intention, but they will also speak today on behalf of the Boehner amendment, an amendment which the dairy farmers have voted on. The dairy farmers overwhelmingly, 90 percent of them, in August rejected that proposal which would gut the milk marketing order; so, I am very skeptical of their position on this. But let me say this: At a time when we should be empowering farmers to work together through cooperatives to get better prices, this amendment directly undercuts cooperative bargaining. This amendment would implement Option 1-B while another referendum is conducted by the Department of Agriculture. Farmers join cooperatives to increase the size and effectiveness of their voice, and block voting on the part of cooperatives is representative democracy at its best. In a time of agricultural crisis, we should not be advocating ways to limit the ability of cooperatives to speak for its members, whether it be in the marketplace or in the regulatory impacts. This amendment would be a bad precedent, and I urge a ``no'' vote on Green-Ryan.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, we all are interested in ensuring that the agriculture industry grows and becomes healthy. But granting veto authority to our trade representative in domestic policy issues is a terrible precedent that relinquishes our congressional role in oversight of trade agreements. This amendment would essentially put our dairy programs on the trading block. That is not good for our family farmers. That cannot be good for our family farmers. As my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) pointed out, we always should question the wisdom of delegating veto authority to Federal agencies. That is what we are elected to do here. Agriculture has been compromised too many times already by our trade representatives, and all agricultural sectors have been effected by the shortcomings of those agreements. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on what is another amendment intended to bust 1402, a strong bipartisan measure.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, we have been here all day debating this issue, and we have heard arguments on both sides and recurring arguments on both sides. A minute ago I heard a colleague mention that what this amendment proposed by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will do is reaffirm a commitment made in 1996 by this Congress that would allow for the Department of Agriculture to modestly adjust the milk marketing orders and reflect more readily the marketplace. We refuted that a couple of hours ago when we pointed out that it is not a modest adjustment when we are going to cost dairy farmers in excess of $2 million to $400 million annually. We have seen evidence presented throughout the last several years to the United States Department of Agriculture and input from all experts within the dairy community that said very clearly that Option 1-A was the option that we ought to pursue. Yet here we are with our final amendment before what I hope is final passage, and the Boehner-Obey amendment really operates under the premise that the milk marketing order system is an outdated system that does not reflect the marketplace at all, and we know that simply is not true as well. To establish the prices that are used, the Department of Agriculture surveys the wholesale market prices of milk and milk products such as cheese and translates those prices into a fair market-based price for raw milk sold at the farm level. We have heard throughout the day the discussions about why we need to do this with milk and why it is important, and I find it ironic that many of the same Members who are going to stand and speak and indeed vote for this amendment are the same folks who earlier today were trumpeting the results of the August daily referendum, were 95 percent of dairy farmers said they supported this system. I urge my colleagues to support this safety net. I urge my colleagues one more time in the next vote to defeat an amendment that is intended to gut 1402.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and, Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this fair rule, and I rise in strong support of 1402. Over the past 3 years, the Department of Agriculture has undertaken a biased march toward implementing a new program which will slash upwards of $300 million per year in on-farm revenue to dairy farmers nationally. It is $30 million to the dairy farmers in New York State. In 1996, during the farm bill debate, a battle was waged over dairy policy, and in that debate efforts to scale back and eliminate the federal milk marketing order program were convincingly defeated on this floor in favor of the preservation of the milk marketing order program. Yet today, here we are again listening to some of those same arguments, as if that debate never took place. H.R. 1402 is an effort on the part of a bipartisan majority of this House to reaffirm the intent of Congress in the 1996 farm bill to preserve dairy farm income and to hold the Department of Agriculture accountable for ignoring the will of Congress and the best interest of nearly all of the many dairy producing regions in this country, 45 out of the 50 States, as my colleague, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), pointed out. This debate is very simple. Do you support a balanced program that is responsive to all regions of the country, or do you seek to pull the rug out from under the farmers in those 45 States? Let me repeat, 45 States lose money under the USDA plan. The federal dairy program is a reasonable industry-funded safety net that ensures fair treatment of farmers throughout the country, even in the upper Midwest. That is why farmers, by over 90 percent, voted in support of the system. We have an obligation to ensure that it is preserved. The dairy program may be complex, and many Members will claim they do not understand it; but my colleagues should know that their farmers understand very well the impacts these policies have on their livelihoods. They know without passage of 1402 the dairy industry will become a monopolized disaster, unfair to consumers and farmers. I urge strong support for this rule and support for 1402.

Mr. SWEENEY

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

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I offer this amendment today to strengthen the Nation's election law and bring a higher level of accountability into the campaign process. I believe there are, among other things, two important goals of Federal election law. First, election laws level the playing field for candidates running for office, offering access to the process to all Americans. The amendment I am offering today attempts to open up the process so that all candidates have a chance to get the job despite disadvantages in campaign resources. We want the best, the brightest, the most qualified, to have a shot at winning a seat, not only those with access to either money or resources. Second, the reforms we are discussing today attempt to further distinguish the political campaign activities from official duties. One of the issues we are addressing today is the perception among many Americans that the line between official duties and campaigning has been blurred. Americans deserve not to have policy decisions so colored by political motives, especially when their tax dollars are involved. Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses both of these objectives by leveling the playing field and separating political campaign activities from official duties. The proposal is simple and reasonable. If you are seeking elected office and you use government-owned property for campaign travel purposes, you must fully reimburse the American taxpayer. This will ensure that no candidate is given an unfair advantage over another. Few people have access to government-owned vehicles, particularly military aircraft. Those that do should be responsible for paying the full and actual cost of travel when campaign activities are involved. This amendment will not only make the candidate more accountable to the taxpayer, but it also removes the unfair advantage that any individual may hold over candidates without access to government transportation. This amendment also strengthens the separation between campaign activities and official duties. Candidates who use government-financed transportation, while defending the practice, often split hairs over what constitutes campaigning versus official business. We have an obligation to make these activities separate and distinct. The American public deserves to know that every candidate using any government vehicle will not violate the public trust by traveling at taxpayer expense. We are free to run for office, but as we all know here today, running for office is not free. Neither are we free to spend the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars unless, of course, your campaign headquarters is some military jet. Freedom has its cost, running for office has its cost, but let us not confuse the two. One we gain at birth, the other we must earn. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am confused by my colleague and friend from New York and her position. First I am confused because I do not recall at any point in my opening remarks mentioning the First Lady and her bid for the Senate seat in New York State. Although I will say that on recess and throughout all of the travels that I have had in my district, a number of my constituents, in fact many of my constituents, have raised concerns about the inequity that exists with an individual who may or may not be a candidate using the resources of Air Force One or a military jet to conduct what may or may not be a campaign. But let me address and respond to some of the positions that my good friend has taken. First, let me point out that the loophole that exists in the current proposal, in the underlying bill, would be a loophole that would allow a candidate who is not defined as a public officer, which the First Lady certainly fits under, to use the resources for transporting back and forth to conduct campaign activities. If we pass the underlying legislation, the President, the Vice President, other Federal officials, including myself, would not be able to use those resources, not that I have that available to me at this point in time, anyway, but they would not be able to do that. And the loophole that would exist would be one that would allow for a continuation of that kind of use by a candidate who does not fall under that public officer definition. Let me also talk about the issue of security and abandoning security and you talk about red herrings being thrown out there. At no point and no time do any of us advocate that security concerns as it relates to the First Family or any other Federal official who duly needs that kind of security be taken away from them. In fact, we all recall that it was just several years ago that Saddam Hussein and other Mideast terrorists threatened the life of former President Bush. It was because we had strong security around former President Bush that we were able to thwart that attempt. I in no way intend to hinder the security today or in the future of the First Family, and I suspect and I propose that because we require a full reimbursement for the use of military jets we are not diminishing in any capacity. In fact, we are not diminishing the opportunity for the First Lady or anyone else who has access to those vehicles to use them. That is a choice that they will make, a choice that they will make in conjunction with the security interests that they will have as well.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), for bringing up this legislation, and also thanking the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) of the Committee on Rules, the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the ranking member, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), and my friends on the other side for their assistance here. This legislation, as has been said, Mr. Speaker, would allow the Greene County Historical Society to remain as owners and operators of the Thomas Cole House while establishing the site as an affiliated area of the national park system. Essentially what this legislation does, it allows for the historical society to develop interpretive programs related to the facility. It also requires an annual general management plan by the historical society. Both of these things I think are very important to the continued health and welfare of the Thomas Cole House. I am a strong supporter of preserving our national historical sites generally, and specifically here as it relates to the Thomas Cole House. The circumstances of the Thomas Cole House make this an important piece of legislation, given its age. It is a true national treasure in the heart of one of the most scenic areas of the Nation, New York's Hudson River Valley. As has been stated, Thomas Cole was one of the country's preeminent landscape painters in the earlier 19th century. His work inspired generations of artists, including Frederick Church and Thomas Moran, to chronicle the growth of the young United States and help to generate interest in our country's natural beauty. Today the paintings provide insight and reflect the growth of what is the uniquely American spirit. In passing this legislation, we will preserve this school of art and the very residence Thomas Cole worked from within in creating many of his paintings, as well as the landscapes these artists painted of the beautiful Hudson River Valley. Last year the legislation passed the House. It was not passed by the Senate point. That was because there was some language in the bill that the Senate objected to regarding the purchase by the Secretary of the Interior of the paintings and artwork. We have revised that and made amendments to make that language more palatable. I am confident that the Senate will pass it this year. In conclusion, I would like to thank the committee and the National Park Service for their assistance, as well as the local organizations in my district who worked strenuously to see this bill passed, and who worked as a partnership to ensure the continuation of the Thomas Cole House. I look forward to seeing the Thomas Cole site become an important addition to the National Park Service.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one brief point. As a New Yorker who, like many Americans, is outraged at the actions taken here, and really quite confounded by my colleagues on the other side for their statements, what people are outraged about, what my constituents care about, is what appears to be the total disregard for the depth of the issues involved here, the rashness with which the President acted for what appears to be purely political purposes. Members talk about people raising this issue for a political practice. It was the President who practiced it. We are outraged by it. It threatens the security of all of us. Mr. Speaker, I, like so many Americans, am outraged that the President has risked undermining the security of the people, in order to score political points with New York's Latin community. There is no way to excuse the release of eleven convicted terrorists. None, whatsoever. This nation has the most effective system of criminal justice system in the world, because, as a people, we insist on holding criminals accountable for their actions. The American people understand this, they have seen through the ruse that the President has tried to pull on them. As a former campaign director on many high profile, high stakes elections, and as a candidate myself, I understand the passion involved in wanting to win. But, I also know there are some lines that you just don't cross. The latest action by the President to offer clemency to these terrorists clearly crosses this line. Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the leaders of New York's Latin community, especially our colleague from New York, Mr. Serrano, for putting politics aside and sticking to their beliefs. They could have sat in quiet support of their political ally, the First Lady, but they didn't and I commend them for their honesty. The political campaign process is intended to strengthen our system of government. But, what the Clinton-Gore campaign machine has done, undermines our judicial system. When the President, the chief enforcer of our laws, weakens this structure by releasing convicted criminals for cheap, political purposes, there is a serious problem. It denigrates American Democracy. Support the Fosella Resolution!

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me the time and for his support. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) for his support. Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the subcommittee chair, for his support. I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 1104, the legislation I introduced to transfer administrative jurisdiction from the National Park Service to the National Archives for the construction of a visitor center at the Franklin R. Roosevelt National Historic Site. The much anticipated visitor center will serve three area National Historic Sites and will be a great addition to the rich history of the Nation's Roosevelt era and that of New York's Hudson Valley. The 105th Congress provided $8.2 million to the National Archives for construction of the much-needed new facility on a one-acre parcel within the historic site. However, construction is stalled due to a legal snag; and this legislation corrects that snag. In short, jurisdiction over this site for the visitor center must be transferred from the National Park Service to the National Archives and Records Administration before we can begin construction on this long- awaited visitor center. Mr. Speaker, Franklin D. Roosevelt, our Nation's 32nd President, lived at his home in Hyde Park, New York, commonly referred to as ``Springwood,'' for most of his young life. While Governor of New York and as President, Mr. Roosevelt frequented Springwood often and entertained many dignitaries, including Winston Churchill and King George VI. Franklin D. Roosevelt was involved in the planning and construction of the Presidential library at the site. The F.D.R. Library is the only Presidential library that was used by a sitting President for official duty. F.D.R. was intent on preserving his papers and mementos for future generations to cherish and study. Included in his collection are 44,000 books, photographs, Roosevelt's White House desk and chair, and his collection of naval prints, models, and many paintings. The F.D.R. Library became the site of the broadcast of Mr. Roosevelt's popular fireside chats, and President Roosevelt would regularly hold conferences with world leaders in his personal study. This legislation enjoys widespread support of the National Park Service, the National Archives and Records Administration, the town of Hyde Park, the Eleanor Roosevelt Site at Val-Kill, the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute, Historic Hudson, and the Hudson River Valley Greenway. All of these organizations and communities have dedicated their time and expertise to ensure that this visitor center becomes a reality, and I thank them all for their support. I look forward to seeing many Americans and all of those who would travel and venture to Hyde Park, New York, to seeing the visitor center finally become a reality at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Historic Site.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. Madam Chairman, I joined the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and my desire is to help spur economic growth in my congressional district in upstate New York. In my mind, today is a historic step in that direction. I am very proud to fully support H.R. 10, because financial services provide the basis for private investment in new business that creates jobs. We here in Congress have the responsibility to ensure that our financial services law reflects and therefore does not stifle the level of innovation and service in the financial services marketplace. We have a responsibility to ensure that all participants in the marketplace, from security brokers to community banks to independent insurance agents, are given the opportunity to compete and thereby provide the best service to our constituents. So I urge support for this bill, H.R. 10, and confirm this House's commitment to that responsibility. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 10 and commend the hard work of its sponsors. I joined the Banking Committee based on my desire to spur economic growth in my Congressional district in Upstate, NY--by providing businesses and entrepreneurs with the access to capital to create new jobs. Therefore, I am pleased to speak in support of this important legislation. Financial services provide the basis for private investment in new business that create jobs, for the protection of people's hard-earned assets from catastrophic loss, and for the ability of Americans to save and effectively plan for their retirements. Given the importance of financial services as the base for our economy, Congress has many responsibilities to ensure that our laws are responsive to the everyday function of these essential markets. We have a responsibility to ensure that our laws reflect, and therefore do not stifle, the level of innovation and service in the financial services marketplace. We, as a Congress, have a responsibility to oversee those laws to ensure that consumers are treated fairly in the marketplace, protected from fraud and other potential abuses. We have a responsibility to ensure that all participants in the marketplace--from securities brokers, to the community banks, to independent insurance agents--are given the opportunity to compete and thereby provide the best possible service in the world. H.R. 10 confirms this House's commitment to these responsibilities. I commend the work of the Chairmen and the Ranking Members. I urge your support of the bill.