Mark Foley

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for bringing this rule forward, and I urge all Members to support the rule and particularly several amendments, one being the Cox-Dicks amendment, the Spence amendment. Both have suggestions on dealing with the nuclear labs and the theft of nuclear properties from the United States. We had an expression in the restaurant business, too many cooks and not enough bottlewashers. Well, in pre-1974, we had the Atomic Energy Commission; in 1974, we then initiated the Energy Reorg Act; and in 1977, President Carter had the idea to create the Department of Energy and we transferred the functions of the Energy Research Development Administration into the lab. And we know now from the testimony of the Cox report that that was the period in time in which the nuclear secrets were starting to be stolen. So I would suggest to my colleagues the best remedy is what is suggested by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and that requires the Secretary of Defense to establish a plan to transfer from the DOE the national security functions. In the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) they ask the President to review and come back to Congress and potentially recommend a similar type scenario. My colleagues, over the next several weeks we will hear a lot of bellyaching from this body about blaming the Chinese. Let us get even. Let us blame them for stealing our secrets. But my colleagues, the United States Congress, the United States Government, invited them into our labs. Shame on us. Shame on us for having lax security, shame on us for not protecting, shame on us for not having things like the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) recommends today, counterintelligence clarifications, security practices, polygraph tests to make sure people are not walking home with their briefcases full of our own technology. So in the next several weeks, rather than pointing fingers at the Chinese Government, let us look inwardly at the problems we have created ourselves. Let us also focus on some underlying amendments such as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) recommends on Haiti and removal of troops. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and myself have an amendment on troop removal and troop reduction in Europe. We cannot be everywhere for everyone, and the American taxpayers cannot afford it. So I urge support of the rule and urge support of the bill.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, today we will release the Cox report on Chinese spying activities and the impact on national security. But I say today, rather than blame the Chinese, we should reflect on our own lax standards and security. Do the initials ``CIA'' ring a bell? We spend billions on similar activities around the world, but we should be more concerned with protecting our own vital national security. If I were the White House today reading some of the headlines, ``China Stole Nuclear Secrets for Bombs, White House Seeks to Minimize that Type of Problem,'' then I would want to change the subject, too. I would want to talk about campaign finance reform. I would want to talk about gun control in America. I would want to do anything to change the tone and tenor of what has occurred in the United States under this administration. We have given up valuable secrets, valuable technology, right under our noses. We were informed about it. Yet, the President denied anybody even told him anything relative to these secrets being stolen. Wake up, America. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for his hard work on this vitally important bill and on the series of amendments we have been debating today. Clearly, we want to make certain that people pay their debts. Having been a commercial realtor and involved in the business of real estate and restaurants and different things, certainly I understand when people have trouble in society. The one provision sponsored by the gentleman from North Carolina that would make a tax return subject to the presentation of one of the parties interested in asking for it I think strikes at what we should be trying to accomplish in the bill. Having a tax form as a requirement of a bankruptcy petition will, in fact, give the courts and all interested parties a chance to review the assets of the individual, at least the income of the individual, and whether in fact they can make due their debts to society. I think it is an important and fundamental thing that occur at the very, very beginning of a bankruptcy hearing. I think the court should be able to review in fact that they have income to satisfy their debts. It seems time and time again I am reading about somebody who struck it rich and won the lottery, but somehow, because of the foolish management of their own money, they leave a lot of creditors out in the lurch. I would like to see some of those tax returns, and I would like to see the income from those lottery proceeds, and I think the court is entitled to them. I think then to go and require one of the aggrieved parties to step forward and say, judge, I would like to petition to have a tax return submitted for the record so we can at least look to see if the income is there to satisfy the debts, is only going to encumber the process. It will drag it out. The debtor may say, well, I do not know where my copies are; well, let me see if I can get them; well, I may have to acquire them through the IRS to get copies back to make a presentation to the court, simply looking to delay and obfuscate the problem. I want to speak for a moment on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) on the job requirements.

Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. FOLEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think that is a mountain of paperwork we desperately need to see. We need to see the facts. We need to see the proof in the pudding of what the income of the gentleman or gentlewoman was as they are making their claims to the courts. I think absent that information the courts have very little to base whether in fact this is a viable bankruptcy petition filed. These are the types of things that will strengthen the law; so that all things that are material are filed accurately in the court and we are not waiting until we have delay after delay after delay. So I again strongly urge the Congress to reject the amendment and proceed to support the underlying bill to bring some semblance of reasonableness to the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland. It is my distinct pleasure to now introduce a gentleman who knows a great deal about travel and tourism, who in fact represents probably one of Florida's most dynamic cities, Orlando, which is the home to a number of large entities who have created, if you will, great opportunities for families to enjoy Florida's great opportunities, Disney, Universal and others, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) who is from Orlando, chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, and has been a leading proponent of tourism for Floridians and for all of our American citizens.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Utah for his strong and dedicated work on funding our national parks, because that in fact is a real magnet, if you will, for people coming to America. As he clearly stated in his time allocated, that people desperately love to come to see the natural resources that we have to offer. Many of them in their own countries have not prioritized preservation of public lands in order to enhance not only this generation but future generations to come. The gentleman from Utah has not only been a good steward of those resources but has appropriately given credit to President Teddy Roosevelt for establishing them. I think that is lost on a lot of people. But it took foresight, dedication and, I am sure, perseverance when there were other demands for dollars to be spent to preserve what are then great heritage sites for us that become something that is synonymous with America and represents, I think, the great fabric of our society. I want to commend the gentleman from Utah for that leadership. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) who is also another strong advocate of tourism and probably can tell us a number of great sites that are located within the wonderful State of Maryland.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, one thing I think is important to note, the family value of the gentlewoman from Nevada's destination. I understand a lot of families now have great activities in Las Vegas and in Nevada that they can enjoy.

Mr. FOLEY. I think that is why it is important today for Members to come out and describe their districts and describe some of the value that the tourism and travel industry plays in their hometown communities because, as the gentlewoman is suggesting, years ago it was known as a destination primarily for gaming, but now it is the site of international conventions dealing with some of the most important issues. It has become very family-friendly and is a great resource for all residents of Nevada who enjoy employment, enjoy economic growth and opportunity and activity. So it is very appropriate that we signal and salute the variety of sectors of the Nation, if my colleague will, and the 435 districts that make up the great United States of America.

Mr. FOLEY. Well, I am indeed tempted to, and I will also tell my colleague she gained national prominence with the opening of the Beloagio, which has probably one of the great art collections that I understand being displayed for the benefit of art lovers as well.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining us today on our special order highlighting Travel and Tourism Week, which is May 2 through the 8. Now I would like to present to my colleagues the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), a new Member of Congress. Welcome.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague today. I know how proud his mother must be as he ascends in the chair of the United States Congress in his first term. I am sure the people of Wisconsin are indeed fortunate and proud to have him representing them. And I salute him as he leads this Chamber today during our Special Orders. Our Special Order today is designed to highlight Travel and Tourism Week, May 2 through May 8. Wednesday, May 5, is Tourist Appreciation Day; and in honor of this day there is a reception being held in the Longworth cafeteria from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. Why are we focusing on travel and tourism today? Well, my colleagues, it is vitally important to the economic mission, if you will, of all Floridians and all Americans. We have a lot to boast about when we think of the great resources around our country that people from all over the world come to each and every day. And some of us take those, frankly, for granted. So I wanted to illuminate some of the things that are occurring in Florida's 16th District, talk about some of the revenues derived from tourism, and talk also as well about some of the significant sites in my district. Florida's 16th Congressional District has over $1 billion in travel expenditures annually. Over 16,000 people are employed in the travel business in the 16th District, earning a total of $236 million. Restaurants, one of which I started, in 1980 I started the Lettuce Patch Restaurant, a small family restaurant, with my parents, and we began to develop a network of friends and customers. Well, 1999 has been designated the Year of the Restaurant by the Commerce Department. Nationwide, international travelers spend more than $97 billion dining out in restaurants around America. Restaurants are the leading source of travel industry jobs in the United States. 47.8 million foreign travelers visited the United States in 1997, 47.8 million foreign visitors, a tremendous impact on both employment, economic opportunity, and job development. In fact, the restaurants have been leading the way in providing substantial jobs for those that are moving from welfare to work. In fact, my first job in life was in a restaurant. I was a dishwasher in a small restaurant in Lake Worth, Florida. I obviously had to attend that job on a regular schedule basis. I learned the value of hard work, and I realized how hard it was to manage a small business. I learned what the impact of regulation was on taxes, on, if you will, customer preference. So I got a huge experience at the age of 14 in my first job as a dishwasher, which then led me to start my own business, started the restaurant, as I said. And I said earlier it was 1980. It was actually 1975. But it taught me an entrepreneurial spirit. So the restaurant industry is, of course, alive and well and thriving throughout America's cities. Projections for 1999. Travel and tourism contributes a total of $70 billion in Federal, State, and local tax revenue. $70 billion in Federal, State, and local tax revenue. Travel and tourism will represent 12 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States. The United States' travel and tourism will have a trade surplus of $24.7 billion. Travel and tourism will support more than 7 million people in direct jobs and nearly $128 billion in payroll each year. Let me repeat that. Travel and tourism will support more than 7 million people in direct jobs and nearly 128 billion in payroll dollars each year. Travel and tourism was the United States' leading service export and third largest export overall. Now, when we talk about travel and tourism, we do not just talk about restaurants, we talk about transportation. In 1997, airline passenger traffic increased 4.6 percent to top 605 million passenger miles. Amtrak passenger traffic grew to reach 5.2 billion passenger miles. Now, one of the things I like to boast about and why I am proud of the 16th District is the vast array of assets that we have to entice people to come to Florida. One is significant because it is a national park. It is the Everglades National Park, managed by our National Park Service. The Everglades National Park is the largest remaining subtropical wilderness in the continental United States, and has extensive fresh and salt water areas, open everglades prairies and mangrove forests. It has abundant wildlife, includes rare and colorful birds. And this is the only place in the world where alligators and crocodiles exist side- by-side. The park is 1,506,539 acres or 606,688 hectares in size. It is a World Heritage site, an international biosphere reserve, and a wetland of international significance. Now, obviously, people come from around the world to see Everglades National Park. But it also has a dual purpose. It not only is a national park, it is also the reservoir for water to supply South Floridians with the vital need of fresh, clean, clear drinking water. The park acts as an ecosystem. It is a natural refuge, as I mentioned, for birds and animals, but also for the sustenance of life in South Florida. Now, program activities include ranger-led walks and talks, the boat tours, tram tours. But, most significantly, it is the educational programs that are arranged. The Everglades National Park sponsors on- site curriculum-based education programs for local fourth, fifth, and sixth graders. Participation in these programs is by advance reservation, and teachers are required to attend training workshops before their classes are allowed to be admitted to the park. So it serves vital resources, tourist education and, obviously, clean and clear and abundant water. The main park is 38 miles of road winding from the entrance to Flamingo. U.S. 41 leads to the Shark Valley entrance, and U.S. 29 leads to the Gulf Coast Visitor Center. Parking is available for buses at all visitor centers. Now, this is a national park in which we are all vitally interested. In fact, this Congress has appropriated more money than any Congress in the past in order to provide and make certain that the Everglades National Park remains a vital, important national treasure. I know every Member of Congress can talk about travel and tourism in their district, as well. I would like to show, in fact, a picture painted by my mother of the Jupiter Lighthouse. This is in my district. This, of course, is a rendering of one of the most historic sites in Palm Beach County. And of course Jupiter, in the northern part of my district, is clearly proud of its lighthouse and, obviously, its history. But this is one I am proudly displaying in my office. In fact, many people comment as they come from our community how impressed they are with the painting. And I am thankful to my mother, clearly, for doing it for me. But most importantly, it represents something that most people when they come to our Nation's Capital can look at and admire and reflect on the fact that they just recently arrived from Florida, and they can see something that relates back to my district that they can enjoy and talk about. The Jupiter Lighthouse was constructed in 1853 under the administration of President Franklin Pierce, and he appropriated at that time the sum of $25,000 for the building of the lighthouse at Jupiter Inlet. It was designed by Lieutenant George Gordon Meade, who later gained fame as the general in command of the victorious Union forces at the battle of Gettysburg. The site was selected and the materials brought in in 1854. And of course it served as clearly an indication for navigational traffic, to make certain that they would arrive safely into the Jupiter Inlet at the time. And so this was one of our first vitally important public works projects by the Nation, but now is the oldest structure in Palm Beach County, and it is listed on the Natural Register of Historic Places. The lighthouse is maintained by the Florida History Center and Museum in cooperation with the United States Coast Guard. So those are just a few of the places that exist in Florida that are, of course, vitally important, and we have many, many others. Mr. Speaker, I see a friend approaching who would certainly like to speak, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman; and I would be delighted to yield to the chairman to talk about travel and tourism in his State.

Mr. FOLEY. Well, Mr. Speaker, virtually every face you come in contact with in Florida has something to do with travel and tourism, whether you are arriving at Orlando International Airport where you will see the porter or the reservation clerk or the taxicab driver or the bus operator, or as you leave that facility, you encounter somebody at the fuel station, or you get to your hotel and check in. I think that is the dynamic that is missed on a lot of people, is the sheer job generation, and it is not necessarily that they just work in travel and tourism, but the off shoots from that; as you mentioned, high tech, the things that are occurring. Because of a transportation system that was originally designed for the tourist industry, the large expansion of the airport which has been very, very successful, it is highly regarded and probably one of the most efficient airports. But that now has spurred, if you will, the high tech side of it because now business executives can fly from around the country right to your hub airport.

Mr. FOLEY. I thank the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for joining us today in this special order, and I do want to in conclusion thank a variety of groups that have helped supply some of the critical data that we have shared today. I want to go over it real quickly again so people understand the, if my colleague will, great economic import of the industries we talk about today: The travel industry supports 7 million jobs contributing 127.8 billion in payroll expenditures. The restaurant industry is the leading source of travel industry jobs in the United States. Employment growth in the travel industry continues to outpace job growth in the overall economy. During 1997 the industry produced more than 200,000 new tourism jobs. The travel industry generates more than $70 billion in Federal, State and local tax revenue. 47.8 million foreign travelers visited the United States in 1997, spending $94.2 billion. Last year visits from international travelers fell 1 percent. This drop represented 627,000 less travelers, 950 million in lost spending and 121 million in lost tax to Federal, State and local governments. The reason I bring that up is the fact that the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a Member of Congress who represents the areas of Pebble Beach, and I decided that as former, if my colleague will, employees of the travel and tourism sector, we felt it vitally important to make certain that we remain competitive, that we try and see how we can continue to grow the industry, if my colleague will, again for the sake of providing jobs and opportunity for Americans and for Floridians, as I represent Florida. The National Restaurant Association and the Travel Industry Association of America and the Travel Business Round Table and other groups have contributed mightily to the presentation, if my colleague will, today, of the statistical data. In fact, it was the Travel Industry Association of America that worked in conjunction with the White House, the 1995 national strategy at the White House Conference on Travel and Tourism, in order to determine exactly what the statistics are, because we want to be able to document for the record the significance of which travel and tourism relates to people's home districts. And again we have enjoyed being able to present these facts for people as we once again celebrate Travel and Tourism Week, May 2 through the 8, and again I would remind the staff of Members of Congress that on Wednesday, May 5, it is Tourist Appreciation Day, and we will again have a reception in the Longworth cafeteria from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. And again I want to thank specifically the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who has been a leading proponent and advocate of travel and tourism in his district. We are a bipartisan committee. We are an advocate for the travel and tourism industry. We are equally represented by Democrats and Republicans because we recognize that the growth of opportunity and the growth of jobs and the growth of a strong community depends on the many components and parts that make up this unique and great industry.

Mr. FOLEY. Let me share a personal aside with the gentleman from Florida. When I was in China with Speaker Gingrich a couple of years ago when we were talking about a variety of issues relating to trade and what have you, I kept trying to explain to them where West Palm Beach, Florida was. It became very difficult. I said West Palm Beach. They were not sure where it was. Finally I decided, I am an hour and a half, two hours south of Disney; they would immediately say, ``Disney World, I know that.'' So it really is well known worldwide. I think the other thing, if you would comment briefly, was the high- tech side of the business. When you look at the motion picture industry and some of the other things that are going on in your district, I think that speaks to technology, it speaks to enhanced job opportunities for our youth, if the gentleman would take a moment on that.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, as we approach May 3, the 208th anniversary of the adoption of the first Polish constitution, I rise today to pay tribute to Polish people around the world. This is an important anniversary to note because few people realize that the Polish constitution of 1791 was the first liberal constitution in Europe. Although the constitution was in effect for less than two years, its principles, such as individual and religious freedom, remained embedded in the national consciousness through two centuries of foreign occupation and intimidation. As a result, after years of forced totalitarianism the people of Poland have miraculously transformed their country into a modern, progressive State in less than a decade. I am glad that Poland is now a full partner in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--NATO. As the Polish people know full-well, freedom isn't free. It is heartening to know that those who suffered so long under oppression are now willing to share in the burden of preserving freedom. So Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the people of Poland and their descendants around the world on this historic anniversary.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. As a representative of a Florida coastal district, I rise today to applaud my colleague, the gentleman from California, (Mr. Bilbray) of San Diego for bringing this legislation to the Floor today. In addition to being some of the nicest in this country, the beaches in my district are already clean and safe, and I am proud of that fact. I am a supporter of the BEACH bill because rather than taking a command and control approach to protecting our Nation's beaches, it utilizes a far more powerful approach, the power of information. The BEACH bill establishes mechanisms that will let the public know where and when beaches are safe. If coastal communities choose to risk the quality of their water, they will risk losing valuable tourist dollars. Floridians know this firsthand. When we improved the health of the local environment, we also improved the health of the local economy. Tourists are smart. Armed with information, they will spend their money where they know the beaches are clean and safe.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Madam Speaker, when I look at my young nephews, I see the innocence and joy that only childhood can bring. This is the time of their lives that should be treasured and preserved. It saddens me to know that so many children are robbed of this innocence, or even worse, lose their lives at the hands of abuse. Even while our overall crime statistics have declined dramatically, child abuse continues to rise. According to the Child Welfare League of America, five children and infants die each day from abuse and neglect. This is five children too many. Last year I sponsored the Volunteers For Children Act, a bill that was signed into law by President Clinton. Volunteers For Children will help to protect children in after-school activities from being in the care of people with dangerous criminal records. This is an important step, but it is not enough. We must attack child abuse at every opportunity, by investigating reported abuse thoroughly, by ensuring that children are not returned to abusive environments that they have been taken out of, and penalties for convicted abusers need to become much tougher. Furthermore, we must ensure that children have safe places to go whenever they are in danger. Madam Speaker, as my colleagues all probably know, April is Child Abuse Prevention Month, and today has been designated Children's Memorial Day, a day to remember children who have been killed and to resolve anew to stop violence against children. I would hope that the spirit of this day and this month will carry on, and that we can increase our efforts to prevent these terrible and violent acts against innocent and defenseless young people.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, while the gentleman brings up the subject of my father, I am the proud son of an educator, a public school teacher and a public school principal. So I have grown up in a home where education came first, and dealing in the public setting, public education was vitally important. So I suggest, as we look at the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, capably brought to this floor by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling), we see an issue now that can give local schools, local officials, the tools they need to educate our students. We know the Federal Government contributes less than 7 percent to our overall budget for schools, but it is our responsibility here in this Chamber to ensure that this funding has the greatest possible impact, and Ed-Flex, this bill, does just that. By handing control back to local educators, Ed-Flex gives schools the flexibility to navigate the mire of federally imposed and often conflicting program requirements. Our good friend, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), traveled to Florida on his own time this past month to visit with educators, to visit with school board members, to visit with parents and students in a panel we set up, and there was over 3 hours of discussion and debate. One of the things that became most clear from each of those who contributed to the dialogue was please unleash us from the shackles of mandates from the Federal Government. We want to teach. We want to be face-to-face with students. We want to make a difference. We want to seek alternatives. We want to do things that will enable us to bring children up in the 21st Century with the tools they need to be successful. Regrettably, in Washington, everybody here in this city thinks they have got a better idea of how to mandate just a little opportunity for the kids back home. My father is a principal and a Marine and a person who loves this country. He was often spending hours at his desk just trying to read the books that they were sending from the DOE down to the Department of Education in Tallahassee. He would read all these volumes of books, and he was conflicted about what to do, how to teach, how to give guidance to teachers in his school. So I rise in very strong support of this measure. I know it will result in efficiencies, in greater improvement in the school system, in higher academic achievements, because we will unleash the potential of teachers who best know how to solve the academic dilemmas of their students.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, so as not to be not patriotic, I will not wave the Constitution in the air, I will simply read from it. Section 9 of the original Constitution, which has been referred to numerous times today, by the Founding Fathers, prohibited taxation. It was an amendment to the Constitution that allowed this Nation to tax its people. Yesterday we heard in the debate about the Census language, ignore the Constitution, it suggests enumeration, but in order to help the minorities we would forget the writing of the Constitution and we will now do a statistical sampling. Madam Speaker, the Constitution is very clear. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) has raised many times the tax vote in 1993, and that one Member from Pennsylvania, whose arm was twisted and was launched down to the Floor to change her vote in the last seconds of the vote that day, Ms. Mezvinsky from Pennsylvania, changed her vote from a nay to a yea and passed the tax bill. She was defeated by her constituents for raising taxes. I remember the comment by the President of the United States, I believe I raised your taxes too much. It was a little late for Ms. Mezvinsky, who could not apologize. She had lost her office. By one vote they were able to achieve a tax increase that then this president has denounced as maybe it was a bit too ambitious. Let us talk about some of the States that are apparently so backward they cannot figure things out. The birthplace of our President, Arkansas, passed in 1934 a three-quarters majority to raise all taxes. California, the site of so much new technology, I have heard repeatedly on the Floor from Members of California, then I would ask the delegation from California, in 1978 they passed a two-thirds requirement of all taxes. What say those people in California? Are they backwards? Then Delaware, 1980, a three-fifths majority to raise taxes; Florida, 1971, three-fifths; Louisiana, two-thirds in 1966; hardly trailblazers here, Madam Speaker. They were listening to their constituents. I believe we have a fundamental problem in America, but I have also heard that we have to give more voice to the minority so they can participate in our system of government. I also heard today on this Floor that by initiating this two-thirds, we would give more power to the minority, so that should be welcome news in this Chamber, so people through simple majority cannot run ramrod over the constituents of this Nation. We are talking about debate on social security reform, Medicare reform, and all these are important topics for the American public. But I also think it is a clear recognition when we have these kinds of surplus dollars, before we start raising taxes, we ought to look at the more prudent way of managing the resources we have been given. I am such an advocate for this because I heard our Vice President suggest the other day he created the Internet. I know one thing he did create, it was a tax on the Internet. We were not able to vote on it, but it was initiated in our phone bills. Now I have to get mail from my constituents every day about this tax on their phone bills that I did not get to vote on. I want a chance to have a two-thirds majority. I want a chance to debate the issues, because I believe in this Chamber. Democracy flourishes when all people can participate. If it is such a good idea, it will be easy to get a two-thirds majority, it will be easy to talk about what is necessary in America, it will be easy to do in States like Florida when we have had to step up to the challenge of dealing with education, of dealing with welfare, of dealing with issues that confront the American public, we are able to do it and able to get a majority, not on a partisan basis, but on a bipartisan basis that increases the opportunity of Floridians. So I join with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) and others in supporting this amendment on this very serious day, April 15, where Americans are called forward to pay their taxes their government asks of them, not always willingly, but they certainly pay them.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, last week a man was forced to mourn the loss of his wife, not once, but twice in one week. After believing that he had buried his wife Michaelle--who was one of the victims of the ill-fated boat of Haitian refugees that sunk off the coast of Florida March 5--Mr. Edner Doirin was informed that the morgue originally gave him the wrong body. So he had to endure a second burial to lay his wife to rest. This is tragic in itself. But what makes it intolerable is that Mr. Doirin's wife should never have had to be buried at all. She should be alive and well. Instead, she is one of the many victims of an illegal smuggling operation that treats human beings like cargo. The March 5 disaster that left as many as 40 people dead is one of the most historically deadly smuggling incidents ever off of our South Florida shores. And it came on the heels of a similar tragedy in mid-December, when as many as 13 people drowned in another illegal smuggling attempt. Mr. Speaker, the United States is clearly on the brink--again--of an illegal immigration crisis. In the short period between January 1 and March 10, there have been a total of 45 illegal landings, 31 interdictions and 34 identified smuggling activities, resulting in over 400 illegal alien entrants by sea. These are part of an effort by smugglers to take advantage of desperate, innocent people living in rapidly deteriorating conditions in Haiti, Cuba, and other impoverished or politically repressive countries. We have heard the Clinton Administration say that it is ``doing everything it can'' to address this situation and that--even after this recent tragedy--there is no need to change its policies or to target additional resources. I strongly, strongly disagree. I do not believe that this Administration has truly committed itself and the resources that Congress has given it to adequately addressing the problem of illegal immigration and alien smuggling. President Clinton has reportedly ignored his own immigration officials. He also has ignored the 1996 law that we passed in Congress that both provided funding and required that 1,000 new Border Patrol agents be hired each year from 1997 to 2001. They call this decision to intentionally ignore the law a decision to--quote--``take a breather.'' Recently, INS Commissioner Doris Meissner testified before a Senate subcommittee that the Administration decided to ``take a breather''-- and say no--when she and Attorney General Reno both requested funding for the 1,000 new agents. And while the Administration is ``taking a breather,'' people are drowning off the coast of Florida. What angers me even more is to see my own state of Florida becoming the weak link and the focal point of current illegal smuggling efforts. While the number of immigration control agents has more than doubled during the past five years--to over 8,000--Florida hasn't seen an increase of agents in 10 years. In Florida, 52 Border Patrol agents are trying to stop an estimated 12,000 illegals who come into Florida by sea each year. Because of their few numbers, the Border Patrol and Coast Guard together are only able to catch a mere 10% of them. Not only are there huge gaps in our Border Patrol, but the mechanisms designed to nab the illegal aliens that slip in are also failing. The INS has now decided to change their enforcement tactics and has suspended most surprise workplace inspections that would identify illegal workers and the employers who hire them. These once-successful tactics are not only being eliminated in Florida, but across the country. And the switch sends a clear message to illegal aliens and smugglers that they're OK unless they get caught committing a crime. I think it's unbelievable that our enforcement standards are going down just when illegal immigration is on the rise. Florida Governor Jeb Bush wrote to Attorney General Reno following our most recent tragedy requesting additional efforts. I would like to call upon the Clinton administration to honor his requests: He is asking--and I am asking--for: More effective intelligence operations to detect immigrant smuggling--The recent tragedy was detected by commercial ship, not U.S. intelligence. Greater interdiction efforts along the U.S. coast. More deaths could be prevented if boats of illegal immigrants were stopped at sea. Increased federal resources to make the prevention of immigrant smuggling a top priority, with an increased focus on South Florida. Expanded holding capacity for the Krome detention facility located in Miami-Dade county so that officials will be able to detain larger numbers of illegal aliens after raids. The creation of a federal task force to focus on smuggling. An aggressive public information campaign directed at smugglers. Mr. Speaker, people are dying--dying just short of Florida's shores, of America's shores. The responsibility for preventing these tragedies lies solely with the Administration, who has been given the way by Congress to act--but apparently not the will. I strongly urge President Clinton to mount an aggressive, relentless effort to put a stop to the insidious problem of illegal immigrant smuggling once and for all . . . before more lives are lost.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and I want to underscore once again the United States Senate, in a vote of 98-to-1, passed the exact same resolution, the exact same resolution word for word. We oppose the PLO's unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, despite the First Lady's claim that there should be one. Many in the PLO leadership seem to think that the final word on a Palestinian state will come from the PLO and no one else. Well that assumption cannot be more wrong. I will remind Mr. Arafat that unilateral action violates the basic provisions of the Oslo peace process. I will also remind Mr. Arafat that since the Oslo peace agreement was signed in 1993, the U.S. has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian Authority for maintaining its commitment to bring peace to the Middle East. I have always been skeptical of that commitment, and if the PLO moves toward unilateral declaration of statehood it will prove to the world what I have always suspected, the PLO is committed to rhetoric, not peace. Mr. Arafat, the U.S. Congress is putting you on notice, declare statehood on May 4 and we will declare your financial support from the U.S. null and void.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler). Obviously, she does not come to this issue as a casual observer. In fact, she represents Mayport Naval Station, which is often the first to deploy forces in times of conflict. I join her in opposition to sending American ground forces to the wartorn province of Kosovo. I would remind my colleagues that four years ago the President sent thousands of American troops to Bosnia for what he assured us would be a 1-year mission. I underscore the comments of the gentleman from Nebraska who was quite concerned that while we were negotiating a peace agreement at that time of the Dayton Accords, American troops were deployed in Bosnia. There was no way to recall them because we were told by the Administration to support the troops because they are already over there. We are again falling into the same trap. Four years have passed and our troops are still over there. It has become a mission with no end in sight. If we send troops to Kosovo, I fear the same thing will happen again, an open-ended commitment of thousands of young American soldiers to yet another bloody conflict in the Balkans. The President wants to send 4,000 American troops to Kosovo if a peace plan is agreed to by the two warring factions. Of course, we were all sickened by atrocities that have been committed by both sides in this war. However, we cannot put our troops in the middle of a conflict where the rules of engagement are ambiguous. If American forces go to Kosovo, they will very likely end up in combat situations. I think we should remember 1993, the disaster in Somalia where 18 U.S. Army rangers were killed tracking down a Somalian warlord. These lives were lost because the Administration placed those forces under international command and refused to provide the heavy armor and air support that would have given our forces the upper hand in combat. Mr. Chairman, too many questions exist as to how our troops will be deployed. There are too many questions about the rules of engagement and too many questions about a successful exit strategy. Mr. Chairman, our Armed Forces are stretched very thin across the globe in a multitude of deployments. We should be very, very careful before we commit to another one. This past weekend, 44 Haitians drowned at sea in an attempt to come to Florida, to the United States of America. Once again, we have problems in Haiti but nobody is addressing it. Cuba shot down two Brothers to the Rescue aircraft, and now we are sending a baseball team to promote peace and prosperity in Cuba. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) spoke on this floor and these two gentlemen, Members of Congress, have the right to speak about the deployment of our troops in conflict because they themselves have represented this great Nation in combat. They speak with authority and I respect their views. The December bombing of Iraq occurred and the Administration told us it had to be done because Ramadan, the Muslim holy month, was fast approaching. They said we must attack now because if we don't, it would create an international incident. What about Hanukkah, which was being celebrated at the time of our bombing in Iraq? So I would suggest to the Congress that we carefully consider the amendment of the gentlewoman from Jacksonville, Florida (Mrs. Fowler) and that we support it before we become engaged, before we are drawn into another conflict with no end in sight.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I want to inject a little bit of reality, I hope, into the ongoing budget debate on the surplus that we continually hear around this Capitol. I know my home State has Disney World, and I know we have Universal Theme Park, and I know a lot of those expectations in those things are about not reality but about enjoying yourself. It seems with this apparent flush of revenues for years to come, fiscal responsibility in Washington, D.C. has become a thing of the past. Indeed, the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget seems to promise a new government program for just about anybody you can think of. To be fair to the President, he does not propose using future surplus dollars for these new programs, but the assumption seems to be that with a healthy U.S. economy and a balanced budget in the black for the first time in decades, the government, the Federal Government, can afford to grow again. We take out of account any potential downfalls in the economy. In fact, everybody in this Capitol is now so rosy and so full of optimistic projections they do not assume that there is going to be a hiccup in the road at any time. I have to challenge this assumption. I have to bring some clarity to the debate. First, the fact that the U.S. economy is the envy of the world is due in large part to the fact that U.S. consumers are, indeed, confident, and armed with that confidence, they are spending in record numbers. That simply cannot last forever. The other thing we have to look at is why and how are they spending money: dead instruments, credit cards, second mortgages, refinanced first mortgages, or a gain in stock values in the sale of equities yielding capital gains to themselves. Today's editorial in the USA Today makes something very clear. I will include the entire editorial for consumption by those who would read the Journal. Mr. Speaker, the problem is, Americans are not saving enough to support their spending. Household saving rates last year were the lowest since the Great Depression, and Americans are relying on the stock market to maintain their living standards. Many analysts, including Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, maintained that stock values may be too high, and the bubble can burst at any time in the near future. What happens then? Consumer spending will take a nosedive. We all know what will happen after that. The U.S. economy will go into a recession, government revenues will dry up, and all of a sudden, that rosy picture of the healthy economy and multiyear budget surpluses vanish. It vanishes. Again, that is where fantasy ends and reality picks up. We have to understand that this is not a static economy; that things change. If we look at Asia, look at Brazil, look at Latin America, look at Mexico, look at Canada, look at the economies of all our major trading partners, we see deficiencies growing, problems with currencies growing. So the United States cannot be the savior of the entire world. My point is this. While President Clinton may be able to make a case that the Federal Government can afford all of his new initiatives in the fiscal year 2000 budget, and I am skeptical of that, he certainly cannot guarantee that the U.S. taxpayers can afford them in the future. We need to act responsibly in the good times to ensure that they last for future generations. We need to save social security now so we can afford to boost the national savings rate to maintain our strong economy. If we do the right thing we can do both at the same time, and the projected surpluses will in fact materialize. There are two approaches that can accomplish this goal. I would personally prefer that all future surpluses be dedicated to retiring the debt to shore up social security. In the surplus years we should guarantee social security recipients their full benefits, and at the same time we should create personal retirement accounts for future generations. These accounts will not only offset the long-term costs of social security, but they will also provide much- needed capital to keep the U.S. economy healthy. Barring this approach, however, Congress should provide tax relief, and I understand tax relief. This is what Chairman Greenspan said to our Committee on Ways and Means last week in a hearing: ``If we have to get rid of the surpluses, I would prefer reducing taxes rather than spending it. Indeed, I don't think it's a close call.'' That question was posed to him because there was a notion somehow that all of the money should go to surplus to retire the debt. Mr. Greenspan clearly agreed with that premise. But then as he looked at the budget unfolding as produced by President Clinton that we are now reviewing, we see that all surpluses are going out the window. All programs are expanding. All are growing past the rate of inflation. All are looking at solving the world's and our national crises by infusing more dollars here in Washington, rather than sending it home. Mr. Greenspan took strong exception, saying if there are surpluses and they are not to be used or will not be used for deficit reduction, then clearly they should go for tax reduction. I stand on the side of Mr. Greenspan. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article previously mentioned. The article referred to is as follows: Spending Budget Surpluses: Wait Until They're Real President Clinton's proposed $1.77 trillion budget released Monday, with its projections of $2.4 trillion surpluses over the next 10 years, has both parties ready prematurely to abandon fiscal prudence in exchange for votes in the year 2000 election. Even the GOP's last holdout against huge tax cuts, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, has joined the parade. While he condemned Clinton's budget as a return to an ``era of really big government,'' the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee has signed on to across-the-board tax cuts pushed by party leaders. But just as stock market seers warn that market catastrophe usually follows the coaxing of the last pessimist to buy in, so may today's golden surpluses turn to lead. There's ample reason for caution, as the surpluses everyone is counting on aren't yet real. the phony surplus While both Clinton and Republicans pretended Monday that there is a surplus now, the general fund budget isn't predicted to be in balance until 2001. Until then, the only surplus the government will be running is in Social Security. It's an old trick. Government has for years covered up huge deficits by borrowing billions from excess payroll taxes paid into Social Security for baby boomer retirements and using them for daily operations. The only difference over the next 10 years is that the $1.8 trillion in Social Security surpluses will make government's anticipated overall surpluses appear larger. That's how Clinton's budget achieves most of the supposed $2.4 trillion surplus. The bottom line of the equation, though, is the same. Any spending increases or tax cuts will be paid by borrowing from Social Security, increasing the burden on future taxpayers when baby boomers retire. Real general fund surpluses will be put off for years, and that's if forecasts are correct, unlikely considering past performance. The Reagan administration, for instance, in its first budget in 1981 forecast a $29 billion surplus by 1986. A deep recession and fiscal irresponsibility by the administration and Congress produced a $221 billion deficit instead. Since 1980, budget-surplus or deficit predictions have been off by an average $54 billion a year, or nearly 5%. Five-year predictions are even more iffy, being off an average 13%. Counting on surpluses that haven't arrived thus amounts to a big gamble, especially in current economic conditions. a bubble economy? Last month, the economy set a peacetime record for an expansion, eclipsing the mark set in the 1980s. But there are signs of bumpy times ahead. The rest of the globe continues to suffer from slow or falling growth. Asia remains in crisis, with Japan in recession. And teetering on the brink of another fiscal chasm is Brazil, key customer to Latin American economies to which U.S. exporters look for $240 billion in annual sales. As a result, U.S. exports, which had been the key to U.S. growth through much of the 1990s, aren't likely to grow much. And as in the past two years, the U.S. and world economies will continue to depend on U.S. consumers buying more and more. The problem: Americans aren't saving much to support their spending. Household savings rates last year were the lowest since the Great Depression. People are relying on stock market gains to maintain living standards. Many market analysts, though, worry that current stock values, up threefold since 1993, aren't sustainable. And if the bubble bursts, consumer spending may head south. For the budget, that could spell disaster. Capital gains tax receipts on stocks have jumped 130% since 1994, contributing heavily to a 50% increase in personal income taxes. Future surpluses rely on stock market gains leading to big, taxable pension payouts. A fall in the market, a decline in consumer demand and a resulting recession would leave the government depending on Social Security to cover up its own deficits once again. A year from now, with the world crisis eased or worsened, the picture will be clearer. But that doesn't fit the political calendar, which remains focused on the 2000 elections. budget bloat The push to use up the surplus also would ease pressure on government to spend its money more efficiently. Business leaders who looked into Defense operations, for example, found $30 billion in annual savings that would improve performance. But the reforms face tough sledding in the Defense bureaucracy and Congress if Clinton and Congress ease spending caps. Similarly, the General Accounting Office of Congress has pinpointed billions in savings in agencies handling everything from food inspections to housing to transportation. They may not see the light of day if Clinton and Congress no longer have to pay for new programs by achieving savings in old ones. The possibility of huge budget surpluses is not a reason to return to old spendthrift ways that built up the $5.6 trillion national debt. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said last week, the best thing government can do with any extra money is pay down that debt. The proposed budget, though, continues to fund the debt with Social Security surpluses, not eliminate it as celebrants suggest. To really pay it down, the government needs to run a real surplus. And that simply hasn't happened yet.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Let me take strong umbrage to a comment by the gentleman from California, who suggested if we question the motives of the President, somehow we are aiding and giving comfort to the enemy; followed by the gentleman from Texas, who said on this floor that he was among 86 who signed a resolution supporting President Bush. What does he say about the rest of Congress at that time, they were unpatriotic? Mr. Speaker, we are debating about the lives of men and women in the field, and I ask that this House conduct themselves appropriately, and discuss that very essential and vital task they have in front of them. I want to strongly thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Speaker-elect Livingston) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Floyd Spence) for calling together Congress last night to hear our defense leaders discuss the grave dangers our men and women would face and the importance of this mission, because at a time like this, we must rally ourselves for those same people. I rise in support today of the resolution commending our troops in the Persian Gulf. With everything else going on here and the world over, too often as a Nation we neglect to note the sacrifices performed by our men and women in uniform. As we are reminded last night with the sobering images of antiaircraft fire in Baghdad, our brave service men and women put their lives on the line to preserve peace and democracy in this world. Whatever any of us think of the effectiveness of our U.S. foreign policy in the Persian Gulf, no one can question the performance of our armed forces in carrying out their duty in the Gulf. Time and time again our troops have mobilized in response to Saddam Hussein's provocations, and each time their professionalism, dedication, and courage have inspired fear in the enemy, awe in our allies, and pride in our country. Let us never forget, when we take to the floor of the House Chamber, that it is our men and women in uniform who preserve our right to debate what is best for our Nation. In expressing my gratitude to those noble men and women, I also want to thank their families, many of whom are in my district, and want them to know that our thoughts and prayers are with them at this perilous time.