Mark Foley

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) for bringing this bill to the floor. It is an important bill in our efforts to eliminate child molestation and sexual abuse. Mr. Chairman, I also deeply appreciate the support of my amendment. The amendment is based on the Volunteers for Children Act that I introduced last year to give volunteer organizations access, if they want it, to FBI national fingerprint checks so that they can make sure they are not inadvertently hiring sexual predators to tend their young charges. Mr. Chairman, organizations like the Boys and Girls Clubs have been asking for this access, because fingerprint checks are virtually the only way they can know whether a person who shows up in the community to volunteer around children has a criminal background in another State. In fact, last year a report by the General Accounting Office put it this way: ``National fingerprint-based background checks may be the only effective way to readily identify the potentially worst abusers of children; that is, the pedophiles who change their names and move from State to State to continue their sexually perversive patterns of behavior.'' I deeply appreciate the strong support that has been given to the Volunteers for Children's amendment by the chairman and members of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his hard work. Obviously I stand in opposition to the Nadler substitute. I hear a lot of discussion on the floor today. I just heard women's groups are against this. I have heard an impression made on the floor that somehow our bill does not allow for the enforcement of child support or set a priority on child support. In fact, it does. The bill prioritizes child support as one of the real priorities in the bill. For anyone questioning the need for this bill we are discussing today, the statistics spell it out. Personal bankruptcies have hit a high record number for each of the past 3 years, and again in the first quarter of this year. Many will offer a variety of reasons for that alarming statistic, but the simple fact is that current law makes it too easy for individuals to walk away from their financial obligations, even if they have the means to meet those obligations. It happens too often in Florida. I have heard in the last several days around this Capitol that somehow it is the credit card companies that are inducing commonsense, average Americans to run up phenomenal bills and so we must blame the credit card companies for their debt and discharge the debtor from their responsibilities. I just heard an analogy of the risk of lending, and somehow, someway we are supposed to now stand in front of the borrower and protect them with a shield. I think that is wrong, I think it is irresponsible, and that it should no longer be sanctioned by the Federal Government. Some will argue that H.R. 3150 hurts low-income individuals facing financial disaster through no fault of their own. This is simply not true. H.R. 3150 merely codifies into law what is common sense to every American. Those who can afford their bills should not stick others with their tab. This much needed reform bill imposes a means test to allow those who are facing financial disaster to wipe away most of their debts. However, those who have the ability to repay their debts will have to abide by a repayment schedule. If this sounds like a sensible proposition, it is because it is a sensible proposition. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating something vitally important. We do want to care for families, we do want to care for average Americans, hard-working individuals. But there is a notion that when you incur debt, you should make every attempt to repay that debt. Society today is transferring debt to others. Those who pay their bills, who keep an outstanding credit record, are in fact having to pay higher interest rates because a lot of people are shirking their responsibility. In Florida, we have had a number of cases that just are outrageous in the way the courts have been used in order for creditors to have no payment rendered to them. Again, I urge my colleagues to reject the Nadler substitute. I urge them to support the work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) in passing H.R. 3150 today so the House will ensure that the irresponsible and the well off in our society will no longer be able to pass the buck to those who struggle daily to meet their financial obligations.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Leach) for introducing this important legislation. I would also like to thank him for his skillful grace and intellect in holding the hearings that could have been highly charged and obviously deeply emotional. Chairman Leach maintained decorum, a sense of calm, and a sense of purpose to resolve these critical issues. Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here today with H.R. 3662, legislation that will help locate and eventually return assets confiscated by the Nazis. I especially want to thank the gentleman for accepting an amendment I offered in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services concerning what is perhaps the most important Holocaust asset issue: confiscated insurance policies. At the end of World War II, many death camp survivors or their heirs attempted to collect on the insurance policies that were due. But because many of the policies had been paid out to the Nazis or because of the companies' unwillingness to honor the claims, there was no money for the rightful heirs. Over the years as information about the war came to light, the insurance companies' collusion with the Nazis became evident. Some companies, namely Allianz and Generali, attempted a small amount of restitution, but the vast amount of money owed the Holocaust survivors has never been paid. Today, many survivors and surviving heirs are still struggling to regain property that is rightfully theirs. Whether the property is in a Swiss bank or a life insurance policy, restitution must be made by the responsible parties and Congress must see that restitution takes place. The amendment I offered in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services will ensure that at least we will begin to get to the bottom of the unpaid insurance claims. Specifically, my amendment will direct the U.S. Holocaust Assets Commission to work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to list all insurance companies, both domestic and foreign, doing business in the United States at any time after January 30, 1933, that issued policies to any victim of the Holocaust. Included in the list will be the following information: The number of policies issued by each listed company; The value of the policies at the time of issue; The total number of policies and the dollar amount that have been paid out; and The present-day value of each listed company's United States assets. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Leach) for introducing the U.S. Holocaust Assets Commission Act, a bill that will help bring justice to the victims of the Holocaust. There is, however, another dynamic out of the jurisdiction of the legislation we are considering today that is also important to bring a full resolution to the problem of unpaid insurance claims. While private insurers must be held morally and financially accountable to their obligations to Holocaust survivors and their heirs, so must the former Eastern Bloc Communist countries who control a substantial amount of the financial assets we are discussing today. Following World War II, the Communists expropriated and nationalized insurance companies and their assets; countries whose governments, to this day, have not made an attempt to accept their responsibility in this situation. Consequently, I have introduced a House Resolution to ask the U.S. State Department to raise the issue of insurance monies held by the Governments of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic which rightfully belong to the Holocaust survivors. Mr. Speaker, that is not a subject of today's debate. So I want to urge and ask my colleagues to strongly support H.R. 3662, and again thank the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member, for their hard work and efforts on this vital, important legislation on the floor today.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from Florida and had my usual town hall meeting where we have a chance to discuss issues of the day with our constituents, and one of the things I find myself frequently talking about is health care, the cost of health care, the spiraling cost of health care and its impact on the human spirit and the human condition. Regrettably, in society, we are spending a lot of time finding ways to spend money after disease onsets the human body. We talk about prostate cancer after the fact rather than PSA tests that could quickly arrest prostate cancer in the early beginning. I found myself this morning reading a magazine on my flight from Florida, Men's Health, and I see a new nationwide survey reveals that men are not only avoiding important health checks, they are significantly behind women in the awareness of the importance of preventive health care. A nationwide survey conducted for Men's Health Magazine and CNN by Opinion Research Corporation finds that 1 in 10 or approximately 7 million men have avoided getting regular health exams for more than a decade. Over all, slightly more than 15 million men have not had a basic health check in over 15 years. Let us talk about some of the statistics affecting men's health. An estimated 184,500 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed in 1998. At least an estimated 2.5 million men, or one-third of all men with diabetes, do not even know they have the disease. Despite advances in medical technology and research, the life expectancy of men continues to be an average of 7 years less than women. Nearly 120,000 men aged 25 to 64 died from heart disease or stroke in 1995. The death rate of men from prostate cancer has increased by 23 percent since 1973. Twenty-seven percent of men will die within one year after having a heart attack. In 1997, the bulk of government funding for breast cancer research was approximately $332 million; for prostate cancer, $82.3 million. An estimated 39,200 men will die of prostate cancer in 1998. It is the second leading cause of cancer death in men. Women visit doctors 30 percent more than men do. In 1995, nearly three-fourths of heart transplant patients in the United States were male and over 30 percent of men in the United States are overweight. Why do I reveal these statistics? Because it is vitally important that America get healthy. One simple change would be encouraging men to take an active role, as women do, in regularly visiting their physician for basic treatment and examinations. The rate of male mortality could significantly be reduced if we would encourage men to seek treatment before symptoms have reached a critical stage. For example, a good friend of mine, Senator Bob Dole, is alive today because he sought early care for prostate cancer. Others, such as Muppet creator, Jim Henson, and Time-Warner Chair, Steve Ross, waited far too long for medical advice. Now, in 1994, Congress inaugurated National Men's Health Week, which begins this year on June 15 and culminates on Father's Day, June 21. Why is it vitally important that men become more aware of their health care needs? First and foremost for their longevity. Secondly, for the quality of life. Thirdly, as we look at the Federal budget and the growth of funding in Medicare and other programs, it is vitally important to rein in the costs of spending. It is much better in society for us to take preventive measures, to look at the healthy aspect of life, to look at ways to prevent the onslaught of disease by doing several things: One, exercise; one, controlling fat intake; one, obviously eliminating smoking as part of one's lifestyle; minimizing drinking. All of these things can be accomplished. In addition for this week, nongender-specific issues such as heart disease, cholesterol count, blood pressure; specific health issues that deal with men such as stroke, colon cancer, prostate cancer, suicide, alcoholism, and men's fear of doctors, among others, should be focused on. What will a week's difference make in the scheme of things? What will the difference in June 15 to June 21 yield? Well, when the problems of women's breast cancer and its rising rates became apparent over the past several years, the designation of October as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month enabled a broad collation of health organizations, associations, individual groups and the media to focus on the vital role simple steps such as breast exams can play in preventing this deadly disease. As a result, more women than ever before are taking steps to detect and treat breast cancer in its earlier stages, thereby sustaining their life and preventing the onslaught of a ravaging disease. By developing an entire week on the broad range of health issues affecting men and ultimately their families, National Men's Health Week attempts to achieve the same positive behavioral changes among men that is already being undertaken by women. So I urge men to follow the advice, read up on publications, try and exercise in order to preserve their health and, obviously, their family's.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Traficant amendment. I think everyone here, particularly those Members from border states such as my State of Florida, recognize the simple truth. We are losing our war against drugs, and we are nowhere near winning our battle against illegal immigration. I have a great deal of respect for efforts of the border patrol, the INS, the DEA and others who have been waging these wars for years. They have been valiant in their attempts, and they deserve our thanks and credit. But given the ease in which smugglers seem to be importing illegal drugs into our country and the steady stream of illegal aliens that keep crossing our borders, we obviously have not been able to equip them with the resources and tools they need to really stop these activities. And both these activities threaten our Nation by aiding and abetting crime and by weakening the fabric of our society. The Traficant amendment is not radical. It simply allows those who are fighting these wars against illegal drugs and aliens to ask the military for help. It is not mandatory. It is not required. It simply allows the Pentagon to lend its resources where needed and when available. I do not know about my colleagues, but I am growing tired of the term and hearing it ``the war on drugs.'' I want to end the war. I want to win the war. But we cannot do that as long as the resources of our drug lords outstrip those who we have asked to fight. I would hope that all my colleagues who have talked tough about fighting drugs and talked tough about terrorism and talked tough about illegal immigration will put their votes where their rhetoric have been and support the Traficant amendment as offered today.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me strongly support the efforts of the Majority Whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), to pass this legislation. We supported it as an amendment to the Judicial Reform Act, and I would hope my colleagues will overwhelmingly support it as a free-standing measure. This bill goes right to the heart of a horrible situation we in Florida have faced. In 1993, the Florida Department of Corrections reported that between January 1, 1987, and October 10, 1991, some 127,486 prisoners were released early from Florida prisons. Within a few years of their early release, they committed over 15,000 violent and property crimes, including 346 murders and 185 sex offenses. Now, Florida tried to stop the early release program last year, the ``gain time'' provision, which was a tool used by the legislature back in the 1980s to avert overcrowding, but the judge said, no, cannot do it. It is part of their sentence now. Even though it was not applied at the beginning of their sentence, the ``gain time'' provision now acts as a part of their sentence and reduces the amount of time that the prisoner is held in custody. Now, let me ask all in America who are listening to think about this for a minute. Who is paying for the kind of policy that we are trying to prevent? One involves a 21-year-old convicted burglar who got out of prison last October on early release. A month later, he was charged with kidnapping and murdering a 78-year-old woman in Avon Park near my district. He abducted her from her home, forced her into the trunk of her car, and killed her in an orange grove about 20 miles away. Then there is the 30-year-old man jailed in 1989 on grand theft and armed burglary charges who was released early in 1992 because of prison overcrowding. Four years later, he was charged with murdering the owner of a convenience store in West Palm Beach, Florida. Now, Mr. Speaker, last month a 30-year-old drifter jailed in 1986 for kidnapping and brutally beating a British tourist in Hollywood, Florida, was released early in 1986, was charged with first degree murder of a teenager after her partially mutilated corpse was found in a bathtub in Miami Beach. In 1991, and it is sad that I have to continue to report these statistics, but it goes to the heart of the argument that I just heard a moment ago. In St. Lucie County, which I represent, a Fort Pierce police officer, Danny Parrish, was murdered by an ex-convict who had been released after serving less than a third of a prison term for auto burglary. Officer Parrish stopped him for driving the wrong way on a one-way street. The ex-convict, who admitted later he did not want to go back to prison for violating probation, disarmed Officer Parrish and killed him with his own gun. When are we going to wake up in America to the problems that are occurring in our community because of this type of behavior? The gentleman who argues against the bill suggests the problems that are in prison today, and suggests rape in prison, dirty conditions; they suggest a lot of things. But what happens when they are out on the streets? Who speaks for the victims? Who speaks for the families? I often think at times maybe we should encourage a judge who has provided an early release waiver for a prisoner who ultimately causes a family member to be killed, maybe the judge should come to the funeral and give condolences to the family, to recognize what is going on. Time and time again I hear in our prison systems that a judge has intervened and allows cigarette smoking, video machines, weight lifting, because we have to coddle and provide for the criminal. What about the victim? Is it not a prison, after all? Is it not a prison sentence? Is it not serving time for bad behavior? But somehow, through this debate, it is all about the prisoner. It is all about somebody who has devastated another family, another life, who has raped another individual. So we tell our society and we tell our children, do not worry about it, because if you are sentenced to 10 years, with early release and gained time, you will be out in 2. There is no crime you will ever pay for. There is no serious consequence for your behavior. There is no serious consequences for your action. Some person's loved one has to die, and the person who commits the crime is out shortly thereafter. A friend of mine in Lakewood, Florida, their daughter was killed by an illegal immigrant who was sentenced to 7 years for murder, which is regrettable that we only have 7 years prison time for a murder of another human being, and was released in 2\1/2\ years. Immigration says we cannot deport him. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about doing what is right for society. It is about doing what is right for the American public. It is about maintaining order in our streets, and about making certain that prisoners who are in fact sentenced, who are the criminals, who are the bad guys, people who actually commit the crimes are treated like the prisoners they are; no happy time, no gained time, no judge intervening. When the court rules and issues a sentence, the sentence should be fulfilled. It should be carried out. If it takes political courage to build the additional jail cells, then I say, talk to the politicians and get them to do that, but do not let one life be in jeopardy. Do not let one life be in jeopardy because of the continued persistence of judicial activists who insist that somehow these people have extraordinary rights, and those of the victims are often neglected. So I again urge my colleagues, as they have in the past, by an overwhelming vote, to support H.R. 3718, the bill offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay) limiting Federal court jurisdictions over Federal prison release orders, and urge its passage today. It is the most important piece of legislation we will see in the House this week, and possibly this year.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, May 18, 1998, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 19, for morning hour debates.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to a remarkable Floridian who spent literally a century doing good on this Earth before passing away today. Restoration of the Florida Everglades, one of the largest functioning ecosystems in the world, is a massive undertaking, and success will depend upon a united effort between the Federal Government, the State of Florida, and all local, regional, and tribal interests. While the job of restoring the Everglades ecosystem is by no means complete, much has already been accomplished in the 50 years since President Truman designated the Everglades as a national park. These accomplishments, Mr. Speaker, are in no small part due to the efforts of Marjory Stoneman Douglas. And for that reason, I was saddened to hear the news of her death this morning at the age of 108 years old. While there are many different points of view about how to best clean up the Everglades, we all agree that it does in fact need to be restored. This was not always the case, though, in Florida. In fact, during campaigns in the 1930s, people would run for office and say, ``If you will elect me governor of this State, I will drain that swamp and create growth and development opportunities.'' But it was through the efforts of Mrs. Douglas that Floridians began to view the Everglades as a national treasure that needs to be preserved rather than a simple swamp that needed to be transformed. I read today from the Washington Post. ``Environmentalist Marjory Stoneman Douglas, the fiesty, tireless grande dame of the Florida Everglades who led the fight to preserve her river of grass, died today. She was 108.'' Let me give a few quotes from people who worked with her closely on the preservation of one of our most significant national treasures. ``For many, Mrs. Douglas was more than an environmentalist. Joe Podgor, executive director of the 5,000-member Friends of the Everglades, which she helped found, once called her `the giant on whose shoulders we all stand.' Clay Henderson, president of the Florida Audubon Society, said her campaign was `certainly the turning point for the Everglades.' '' He also stated, ``The good thing is that she lived long enough to see the restoration of the Everglades rise to the top of the national agenda. And so we've come too far now to be able to turn back.'' ``She was considered the authority on the delicate ecosystem, which is home to plants and animals found nowhere else. ``In 1947, she helped lead the successful push to have nearly 1.6 million acres designated as the Everglades National Park. That same year, she published her book, `The Everglades: River of Grass,' the first attempt to put the history of the Everglades into one volume.'' Until then, the Everglades was considered a wasteland to be conquered and used for farming, and State policies encouraging drainage and development. The book's title referred to the fact that the Everglades is really a wide river of shallow water flowing slowly southward across a low grassy plain. The book combines scientific findings and traditional lore and reads nothing like a textbook. I give you a quote: ``The clear burning light of the sun pours day long into the saw grass and is lost there, soaked up, never given back,'' she wrote. ``Only the water flashes in glints. The grass yields nothing.'' Long past an age when most people slow down, she continued to speak out on behalf of the imperiled south Florida region damaged by rapid development. Among other honors, a special conservation award named for her, an act of the legislature in her name, and several Marjory Stoneman Douglas parks and schools. The high-rise gold glass building in Tallahassee that houses the State Department of Natural Resources is named for her. In 1993, when she was 103 years old, President Clinton awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Even when others insisted the battle over the Everglades was lost, Mrs. Douglas refused to give up. She said, ``It is not too late, or we would not be working. We simply cannot let everything be destroyed. We cannot do that, not if we want water. We have got to take care of what we have,'' Mrs. Douglas said in her 1990 interview. She led us in a valiant fight to preserve the Everglades. I am proud of the work. Speaker Gingrich, Senator Dole, and others have helped, and Senator Connie Mack, in helping us achieve the largest Federal effort ever to preserve and protect the Everglades. I was able to offer a $300 million effort on behalf of our colleagues and all Floridians to preserve our most vital natural resource in Florida, which is water, and our Everglades National Park, which is a treasure for generations to come. But it is obviously today more the work of Marjory Stoneman Douglas that has brought us here today, both to honor her life, celebrate her presence, eulogize a tribute to her, the preservation of something so vitally important to over 14 million Floridians and actually the entire United States, the preservation, the lifeblood of Florida, the Everglades National Park.

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 ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House until Monday, May 18, 1998, the Speaker, majority leader, and minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the gentleman there will be a fair and open debate on the question. There are negotiations ongoing. I think if the gentleman will give us some time, we will release the details of the scheduling for that particular matter.

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

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have just been informed, obviously we did not have a rollcall, and the leaders have been off campus, and we will be publishing next week's schedule in the Record.

Mr. FOLEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the Members that have the amendments to, apparently, the reference of the freshman bill.

Mr. FOLEY. That is all I know. That is all the information I have at this time.

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

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise first to take a moment to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan). Shawn Gallagher, my legislative assistant, and I in working on our amendment yesterday that we offered to H.R. 6 thanked a number of people that were extremely helpful and valuable in this process. We neglected to mention the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan). I wanted to take a moment to thank him for his work on the Accuracy in Crime Reporting Act and particularly an amendment that I offered and we successfully passed that dealt with the releasing or potential releasing of names of those who commit violent offenses on campuses. At times in this process, we in politics all think we have created and have this original, unique idea that is so vitally important to the Nation's interest that we forget to share some of the credit. I wanted to do that in a public way, because this is a collaborative process. We are all in this business of helping and serving the public together. You hate to let time go by and not pay a special moment of thanks to those that have helped you achieve a significant victory. I would like to talk just a moment about the amendment because it is very, very important. It has to deal with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act that was passed in 1974 that basically has allowed universities, Federal universities, to withhold the release of names of students found by disciplinary proceedings to have committed crimes of violence. I believe there should be a balance between one student's right of privacy to another student's right to know about a serious crime in his or her college community. The Foley amendment to the Higher Education Amendments Act of 1998 provides a well-balanced solution to the problem. It would remove the Federal protection that disciplinary records enjoy and make reporting subject to the State laws that apply. Campus law enforcement records, Mr. Speaker, are not included as part of a student's educational record and therefore are open to public scrutiny. But many colleges and universities have learned to circumvent crime reporting requirements by channeling felonies and misdemeanors into their confidential disciplinary committees which continue to be protected by FERPA. According to a number of college newspapers, like the Daily Tar Heel in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, colleges have been expanding the jurisdiction of these secret courts to shield violent crime. While the amendment that I offered would not require campus disciplinary hearings to be open to the public, it would remove FERPA protection of disciplinary records which contain information that personally identifies a student or students who have committed or admitted to or been found to have committed any violent act which is a crime or a violation of institutional policy. Why is this important? Because I think parents and community leaders and others deserve to know the statistical problems that are being experienced on our Nation's campuses. Whether it is date rape, whether it is sexual assault or physical violence, these types of incidents should not be held under seal. They should be open to the public so that parents can make decisions appropriate for their children. As they head off to college, which is supposed to be a learning environment, they should not be feeling threatened, they should not have to be scared being on campuses, and many newspapers around the country have in fact editorialized in support of our amendment. It did pass yesterday. We hope the Senate will consider the amendment. We hope it will be included in the conference report, because I think it is vitally important in this day and age that we have all the facts about student behavior on campus, that we do our best to try and minimize and change the dangers that are involved in campuses and that by illuminating some of the statistics and problems we may, in fact, be able to change behavior on campuses. As I say, colleges by and far the most part have complied and been very cooperative in these efforts, but there are some that have chosen to seal the records in order not to have a black eye in the community, not to have enrollment drop off or not lose alumni support. But again in this era of openness and accountability, I think it is important that we make certain that all families and other members of society have access to this information and then to make appropriate judgments accordingly. Again I would like to thank my staffer Shawn Gallagher and I would like to thank the committee and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and, of course, as I mentioned, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. FOLEY

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

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Washington making those notations, and I think it is important to note when college fraternities and sororities have taken it upon themselves to change some of the behaviors among their peers, and I think it is laudable that we signal that there is a change on campuses now in that direction. And I also wanted to, if I could, intrude on your time just to thank a school board member from Palm Beach County, Diane Heinz, Security on Campus, Howard and Connie Cleary, and my own staffer, Shawn Gallagher, who have worked very, very tirelessly on bringing this amendment to the floor and including it in the bill.

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

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, H.R. 6, and want to commend the fine work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for his efforts and labor of love on this important issue facing Americans, and that is higher education. This legislation will certainly go a long way to ensure that higher education remains an affordable option for our Nation's families. I also want to commend the members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for including in H.R. 6 important provisions of a bill that I cosponsored, the Accuracy in Crime Reporting Act. These provisions in H.R. 6 will improve the accuracy of information that parents and students receive about the dangers that exist on many of our college campuses. I would like to take a moment to read from my hometown newspaper's editorial, the Sun-Sentinel, which appeared April 10, 1998. The editorial is titled Demand Accurate Crime Statistics From Colleges in Return for Funds. College campuses are supposed to be sanctuaries of vigorous inquiry and quiet contemplation where truth and knowledge can be pursued in an atmosphere of security, dignity and mutual respect. But that academic ideal has become the exception rather than the rule at far too many contemporary colleges and universities, where the current epidemic of drug abuse, underage drinking, illegal gambling, sexual assault and violent crime have been one of the best-kept secrets in American society. Statistics compiled by Security on Campus, Inc., a nonprofit organization dedicated to making institutions of higher learning more accountable to the public, indicate that nationwide, 65 percent of fraternity members and 55 percent of sorority sisters can be characterized as binge drinkers, 15 percent to 20 percent of all students are recent users of illegal drugs and student- on-student offenses account for 80 percent of campus crime. Many, if not most, of these crimes never make it onto the police blotter or into the news media because of college officials' overly expansive definition of student privacy and law enforcement authorities' reluctance to infringe on the tradition of academic freedom. Increasingly, however, campus violence is reaching a point where it cannot easily be ignored or swept under the rug by the colleges' internal disciplinary systems. Students are dying of drug abuse, overdose and alcohol poisoning at an alarming rate. Rapes and murders on campuses are growing national problems. However, by providing this amendment, I do want to clarify certain provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, known as FERPA. By preventing postsecondary institutions from disclosing education records to the public without the consent of students, FERPA guarantees that student academic and financial information remains confidential. This important protection should continue. However, the Department of Education has wrongly concluded that FERPA prevents universities from releasing to the public the results of campus disciplinary actions or proceedings. Under this interpretation of FERPA, student criminal activities like aggravated assault and rape are protected along with legitimately protected grade and financial aid information. This interpretation is wrong. Escalating violence on college campuses across the Nation require that Congress clarify the intent of FERPA. I fully believe, Mr. Chairman, that every student has the right to privacy. But when a university finds through its own disciplinary proceedings that a student has committed an act of violence, such as sexual assault, the university community has a right to know about it. While I believe that campus disciplinary proceedings should be open to the public, I can appreciate the concerns many have raised against such a course of action. Therefore, the amendment I am offering today simply removes the FERPA protection of disciplinary records that personally identifies a student who has either admitted to or been found to have committed any act of violence either as a violation of law or specific institutional policy. My amendment does not require any new obligation to disclose these records. On the contrary, it deregulates the issue from Federal purview and allows State public record law and common sense to take over. When violence occurs on campuses, the university community needs to know about it. Only then will students be able to take appropriate precautions. I appreciate the leadership's willingness to work with us on this issue. I offer the amendment in the spirit of allowing parents, children and students to have access to this very vital and important information.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for bringing this resolution to the floor today. I am deeply pleased to be an original cosponsor of it. As policymakers and politicians, we often talk about how Israel is our most important ally in the Middle East, a cherished friend and a democratic society that we must continue to support for the sake of stability and peace. And that is indeed true. But, as a person, I also know that the State of Israel, which is so physically tiny, appears so very large because of its history and its heart and the heart of its people. Israel has been both a battlefield and a sanctuary, and this year we celebrate its 50th anniversary as a state. I know that it became that state because of the incredible courage and determination of a people who had faced more evil than a thousand generations could conceive and have survived to reflect both dignity and strength. I join my colleagues today in this strong celebration and congratulations, recognizing the historic significance of the 50th anniversary of the reestablishment of the sovereign and independent modern State of Israel. We commend the people of Israel for their remarkable achievement in building a new state and pluralistic democratic society in the Middle East in the face of terrorism, hostility and belligerence by many of her neighbors; and we strongly today reaffirm the bonds of friendship and cooperation which have existed between the United States and Israel. I think of all of the things that America has suffered and has witnessed and has been a part of in our history, the friendship with Israel remains our strongest and most formidable. It is more important than ever for this Congress not only to support this resolution on its 50th anniversary but through the commitment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) that we go about securing this celebration each and every day we are here in this Congress; that we let everyone know, friend and foe alike, that we will always stand side-by-side with Israel; that we will not back down from a challenge and that we will indeed protect and defend them at all possible costs. They would do the same for us and have shown that determination for our abilities in the past. Again, I just want to strongly echo my support and my sentiments and my pride in our chairman of the committee on H.J. Resolution 102, the 50th Anniversary of the State of Israel.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, last month a 30-year-old drifter, jailed in 1986 for kidnapping and brutally beating a British tourist in Hollywood, Florida, but released early in 1986, was charged with first degree murder of a teenager after her partially mutilated corpse was found in his bathtub in Miami Beach. In 1991, in St. Lucie County, which I represent, a Fort Pierce police officer, Danny Parrish, was murdered by an ex-convict who had been released after serving less than a third of his prison term for auto burglary. Officer Parrish stopped him for driving the wrong way on a one-way street. The ex-convict, who admitted later he did not want to go back to prison for violating probation, disarmed Officer Parrish and killed him with his own gun. Now, when are we in America going to wake up and recognize the rights of victims? I have heard constantly about judges stepping in and allowing prisoners to smoke in prison, prisoners being allowed video machines so they can watch TV, prisoners being given weight rooms so they can exercise and feel comfortable and good about themselves. And the same judges then say because it is a little crowded, we should let these people out early. So then ultimately, after serving only a third of the time they have been sentenced to, they maim, murder, kill our families and our children, and society pays greatly for these acts. Society pays more for the violence on our street because of early release than we could ever pay for the proper construction of prison facilities. So I urge my colleagues to look very seriously at this amendment. It is not defeating the judges' power; it is not usurping judicial power. It is asserting, first and foremost, that victims and their families should be given their rights first, not the criminal; that when you are sentenced to prison, it should mean something. When you are given 10 years, it should be 10 years, not 2 years. When our young people look at the fact that people are being sentenced for 10 years, they should know it is serious. But when you commit a murder and are let out after 3 years of a 10-year sentence; when you are convicted of a crime, and told ``don't worry about it, it is only a year;'' in a recent case where a young girl killed her child, I understand she may get 2\1/2\ years in prison. What a punishment. What does it say to society, the value we place on life. What does it say about the law of the land? What does it say to the law-abiding citizen? You can go ahead and get away with it, because a judge is going to be worried about your comfort in prison; that he will let you out on the street to maim, murder and kill once again? I know judges do not do this because they do not care about our communities, but Congress has to step into the debate, protect the communities we represent, all 435 of them, and do our best to suggest that if a prisoner commits a crime, if a person victimizes another human being, if a person violates a human being, if a person murders someone else, that that person should fulfill the full terms of the sentence meted out by the courts, should not be granted special benefits, should not be given game time, and should be treated like the criminals that they are. I urge the support of the fine amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore