Mark Foley

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for their leadership on this very, very important resolution today. I come here today to also honor our good friend, Zachary Fisher. Everything has been said that probably can be said about his wonderful dedication to our veterans. Without question, there was no greater hero in the eyes of veterans, of current active-duty personnel, of all the military apparatus than Zachary Fisher. He not only led the fight, he put his money where his mouth was. He dedicated so much financial resources to American sailors and infantrymen that it is just beyond belief. But another side of Zachary Fisher I wanted to articulate was the love he had for his friends and his family. His wife Elizabeth, many have spoken about today, was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Many people in his financial position would be able to afford around-the- clock nurses, which he did, and would have been able to keep his wife in a quiet, private place. But Zachary insisted at every function that Elizabeth accompany him to get whatever joy of life remained for that wonderful woman. Whether we were at La Cirque in New York or the Manalapan Club in Palm Beach, he always insisted that Elizabeth be there at his side, at his table. He would always at any event, whenever they were showering love and affection on Zachary, would stop and say, had it not been for Elizabeth, I could not have done all I have done. He honored and loved his wife and dedicated so much resources to the fight for a cure for Alzheimer's, again a true credit to him. Billy White is his chief of staff. I know he was like a son to Zachary, and he made Zachary's last years on this Earth exceedingly comfortable. He took care of every arrangement, every detail, and made certain that Zachary wanted for nothing. I know he left this world appreciative of the fact that Billy White served him so capably as chief of staff for his permanent office as well as the chief cheerleader for the Intrepid. We mentioned the Intrepid, which has seen many great, great extravaganzas on behalf of charities throughout New York, led to the revitalization of the waterfront and the Westside Highway, a phenomenal achievement by one man, one individual to honor the great ship Intrepid. Mike Stern was mentioned, again a wonderful ally, close advisor, trusted friend who worked tirelessly to make certain Zachary's wishes on every project that he undertook were completed to great success and to great satisfaction. So as we pay tribute to this veteran, more than anything else than we just speak the name Zachary Fisher, let us hope it instills in the young people of America that freedom is not free, that men and women have fought for the right for us to debate on this House floor, for us to be considered the greatest Nation on Earth because we have the strength and military superiority, came because of people like Zack Fisher who all, while they could not serve personally, dedicated themselves financially to make certain those that did were rewarded, not only in spirit, but in deed. I know others join me today in saluting this veteran, Zachary Fisher, as we honor and confer on him this status. He has deserved every mention today in the Congressional Record, and we salute him in heaven and thank him for his work here on Earth.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) for his leadership on this very important issue that affects seniors and affects all Floridians and all Americans. Sadie Stern Ott, age 76, of Seminole, Florida said that for years she has bought merchandise from sweepstakes companies, even though she knew that she did not have to buy anything to enter the contest. She says, ``They send so many envelopes that say `Return this certificate, saying what would you like to buy, and your merchandise will be delivered when we visit your home to bring you your prize.' '' Ott said she waited at home for the prize patrol several times, especially after the time she got a letter telling her the contest was down to her and another person. But she never won anything. She said, ``I kind of felt that I had been played for a fool.'' Ott said she spent several hundred dollars on magazines and knickknacks. Some seniors have spent thousands of dollars. This is exactly the way the sweepstakes companies cheat seniors out of their modest incomes. Using bright, shiny envelopes and promises of winning millions of dollars, these companies get seniors to buy products that they do not need in hopes of winning large cash prizes. In reality, these people have little, if any, chance of winning. At a time when many seniors struggle to pay for rent, food, and prescription medication, this cruel scam is inhumane and ethically indefensible. My own State of Florida has filed suit against Publisher's Clearinghouse for exactly this activity. The Attorney General has charged the company with unfair trade practices and unlawful game promotions. In addition, Florida, along with three other States, has already won a $4 million settlement against another sweepstakes company, American Family Publishers. Even though law enforcement officials and consumer protection groups send out notices warning against these mail scams, many people are still drawn into their game. These fraudulent practices by sweepstakes companies could almost be compared to a criminal coming into someone's home and stealing from them. I would like to give a special word of thanks to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) for their work on this bill to establish consumer protections and to prevent sweepstakes companies from swindling people, especially seniors, out of their hard-earned money.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend this House on a vote of 218 to 211. We put ourselves in a position of saving Social Security. We have said to all agencies that we can and do expect them to find ways to make savings so that we can sacrifice today to save Social Security for tomorrow for this generation and for future generations. I commend my colleagues to stay tuned as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) will deliver a special order. We will go more into detail on the very significant plans we have voted on today and I believe we can achieve. I would also like to remark on a comment made by the Vice President last night in the debate with Senator Bradley. The debate was centered on bureaucracy, and the Vice President basically said that we should not allow a faceless, nameless bureaucrat to stand in the way of health care of Americans, basically saying we do not need a bureaucracy in order to deliver health care. Well, I say to the President and the Vice President today that maybe we should use that same strategy when we talk about education. Because I think we have created a lot of bureaucracies, and the gentleman from Texas is going to talk about some of the ways we believe we can save the American taxpayers some money. But I want to discuss another situation today, an outrageous situation. In fact, my district office sent up the clippings from the newspaper. And Diane, who works for me in Port St. Lucie, puts ``today's outrage'' on things she thinks bears specific note on where we might have gone astray. This week the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced they are planning to extend anti-discrimination rights to working illegal immigrants. This policy would include remedies such as potential back pay, punitive damages, and even reinstatement to their jobs. Reinstatement to their jobs? I am sorry, I must not understand the term illegal immigrant. Perhaps the EEOC can start providing free towing for car thieves or free checking for bank robbers. It just baffles my mind. I clearly do not want things to happen to any worker, no matter how they are in this country, but if the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is really concerned with equal employment opportunity, as their title would indicate, they should be ensuring that legal residents and citizens have fair and equal access to earn a living. This does not include protecting illegal immigrants who are working illegally for an employer who hired them illegally. This is all illegal. We are talking about the rule of law. We must make a concerted effort to track down employers who are hiring illegal immigrants and charge them not with worker discrimination, but with hiring illegal workers. Working illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans. They hurt the U.S. work force and they damage the economy. This is just another misguided attempt by this administration to-- well, I will be quite honest, I have no idea what they are trying to do. I hope my colleagues will join me in sending a message to the administration that coddling illegal aliens is not what our policies are all about. I cannot underscore this enough. None of us should sit willingly by while workers' rights are being abused, but we also have to recognize first and foremost that there are laws on the books that have to do with hiring illegal aliens, hiring illegal workers, and we should enforce this policy. But this policy, announced by the EEOC today, just once again extends the reach of government into an area where they should be concentrating and working clearly to track down illegals and return them to their native countries. Mr. Speaker, I will be submitting a bill, in fact, it is here at the desk, and I will be submitting it to the committee for consideration, because I believe we should tell strongly the EEOC, yes, protect workers rights; yes, stand for equal employment for all Americans; yes, make certain that employers are treating workers fairly, but, in a case like this, where they are not permitted to work based on their status, we should not provide protection under the law for those who choose to work or those who choose to hire illegal immigrants.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend this legislation. I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting the Work Incentive Improvement Act on the House floor here today. It has been almost 10 years since the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law. This law was intended to remove barriers that prevent disabled individuals from enjoying a full life. It is ironic that many of the doors that were supposed to be opened by the ADA are still firmly closed because people who choose to work risk losing the health care benefits they desperately need. It is like giving someone a driver's license and telling them they are capable of driving a car, but charging them $50,000 a year for insurance. They would not be able to drive unless they were rich. For too long, many individuals with disabilities have not had the freedom that the rest of us have to pursue their goals and dreams. They live in fear of losing the health care that is essential to their functioning independently. They have lived with the frustration of trying to enter a job market that is becoming increasingly technical and competitive. They cannot earn enough to buy a home on their own or to build up a savings account. I hope that this Ticket to Work Act will ease some of this fear and frustration and restore a sense of freedom. We all know the barriers in discrimination still exist with the disabled as with other groups in society; but if we could pass this bill, it will have another significant step toward removing these barriers. A disability should not be a hindrance to achieving the American dream.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time reserved for my special order today. I am on the list for today.

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 when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to take a moment. The other night I was quite alarmed because I saw on ABC News 20 20 a piece done by John Stossel regarding the impact of celebrity endorsements and the spending on diseases, and one of the things that came out of that seemed to be a bit of a negative perception of the money we are committing to AIDS funding and how some groups are starting to feel cheated by the Federal funding of their various programs, and I wanted to kind of address that issue because I am quite concerned about it, and I have actually heard about it from some of the groups coming before me to lobby for increases in their various diseases, and I want to suggest to all of the charities and all of the people listening and ask Mr. Stossel to look at his story once again and talk about the need to stay together on issues affecting public health, stay together on increasing funding at the National Institutes for Health for all diseases. Madam Speaker, let us not single one out and make one a more important disease than the other. Let us not start bemoaning the fact that one may, in fact, have increased spending while others may have not had as much of an increase. Let us talk about AIDS and HIV for the moment because we see an alarming increase in the rate of both transmission among heterosexuals and amongst minorities. So we clearly know that the AIDS virus and the epidemic is a significant problem, and it is the one disease that can be transmitted. There are others, of course. It is not the only one, but HIV can be transmitted through blood transfusion, through sexual contact, through drug use and through needle exchange. So we recognize that the public is much more vulnerable to HIV and AIDS and the alarming spread and the increased cost to all taxpayers will, in fact, be exacerbated if we do not deploy the revenue to put forward the research to do what we can to bring a halt or at least to minimize the alarming spread of AIDS. But I do want to say, as somebody who strongly stands on the floor to find funding for lupus, for Alzheimer's, for breast cancer, prostate cancer, Parkinson's disease, autism, Lou Gehrig's disease, American cancer, American heart and the other things that we all have to fight together, I will continue that fight, but I ask those charities to not dismiss or diminish others who are working hard to find a cure for AIDS. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and I are both on a bill that deals with trying to limit and minimize, if you will, the waiting time on Medicare for those that are stricken by diseases like Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's. We want to increase that opportunity for those stricken by disease to be able to maintain a quality of life, to be able to get on Medicare earlier, to be able to get access to the proven drugs and the things that may enhance their quality of life and make them healthy and as productive as we possibly can. But I do not want to start down the road as Mr. Stossel did on ABC News 20 20 by suggesting somehow we should turn our backs on HIV and AIDS and somehow try and re-prioritize. First, let me make correction of the assumption that was laid out in the piece that somehow we in Congress, Members of Congress, sit here and dictate to NIH where they will spend the money. That is not the case. NIH does their own screening empaneled, does their own determination. It is not influenced by politics. That is very important. I am certain some of us would love to call up and say I would like some more money for Lou Gehrig's disease, but we cannot do that. That is why it is structured the way it is, so it is not influenced by those of us that may, in fact, be able to make a call. So again, in all sincerity to all the charities, please, please, please do not come to our offices suggesting somehow that somebody is getting a bigger slice of the pie and that is not fair. Come to our offices and suggest we should all grow the pie to a larger number so we all can pursue meaningful research. One of the things I am most happy about, if you will, is the fact that we are on the cutting edge of finding the causation of a number of diseases, Alzheimer's and others I have mentioned. We are on the cutting edge of new drug therapies that may, in fact, bring about a healthier quality of life for all Americans, and we are on the cutting edge, as we have noticed, protease inhibitors and others, working miraculously for people suffering from HIV infection. Madam Speaker, these things are taking hold, they are taking place, and research is bringing us to a point hopefully in the near term, in the very, very short few years away, that we will start seeing some progress on these diseases. We will see an enhanced quality of life for all Americans, but we cannot do it by climbing on the backs of one another. Again, let us remember to advocate for all, making certain that nobody is left out of the loop, making certain we are looking carefully at all the diseases, making certain we are doing all we can to enhance AIDS funding, and I know a number of my colleagues are joining us in that effort. We have all asked the appropriators to increase NIH, to help the Department of Defense in their work on breast cancer research, so nobody is being left out of the loop. So again I urge people to disregard some of the stories they see on those issues and continue to work for all Americans who are suffering with us today.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to get up for a moment and talk about some of the events of the past couple of weeks and some of the acrimony that exists in this Chamber and some of the dialogue that takes place. We had a very difficult and interesting vote on foreign aid the other day and foreign operations. It caused me to think, as I looked at some editorial comments. It was interesting, and I want to quote from Charley Reese from the Port St. Lucie Tribune, ``Real Help For North Carolina Heading Overseas''. He says ``Think this through: People who have lost everything in eastern North Carolina to the floods can get help from the U.S. Government in the form of loans at interest. ``I dare say many of those who lost their homes had not paid off their mortgages. The obligation to pay the morality remains even if the house is gone and rendered unlivable. So in essence, the federal assistance consists of an offer to most folks to make two mortgage payments instead of one.'' So we look at our own real-life circumstances in this city and in this country, and we say to ourselves, yes, we have a responsibility for foreign aid. We have a responsibility to help other nations. But when do we start focusing on the American public and the American taxpayer? The President suggested the other day he would like to wipe out $5.7 billion worth of foreign aid that have been given over the past years in the form of loans. To some of that, I give credit. Some of the countries cannot repay the money. But let us think of our experience over the last couple of decades of American foreign policy. Let us think of the billions of dollars that have been swept out of the taxpayers' wallets in the United States and are now residing in Zurich, Switzerland in the form of secret bank accounts by people like Duvalier, people like the Marcoses, people that have plundered the United States foreign aid not to help the countrymen that they were supposedly elected to serve, but to put it in their own bank accounts, and to run off with our cash. Now, we are going to wipe out debt, and we are going to just erase the balance sheet and say they do not have to pay us back. Yet, in North Carolina, if one's home is destroyed by an earthquake or a hurricane or some other devastation, one is told to come to the line and borrow from the U.S. government, and one can make two payments at once. We also hear that we cannot give any kind of tax break for individuals. We cannot eliminate the marriage penalty. We cannot give debt relief on the estate tax relief. We cannot do anything to reduce the cost of insurance by giving credits to small business owners or self-employed, because we cannot afford a tax cut. It is selfish. It is stingy. It is not proper. It will explode the deficit. We have to use the surplus for other things that we think are good for the American public. We should spend our resources, our surplus on things that we think are good for people rather than people voicing their opinion. Then I started to think of the real overriding question, which is: Surplus? What are we all talking about? A surplus? There is $5.7 trillion worth of debt. There is no surplus. There may be an excess cash to expenditures. But, clearly, there is no surplus. But if we keep doing these things and paying money in all kinds of different accounts and different proposals, we will never balance the budget, and no American taxpayer will get any relief. We sent money to Russia recently, I can remember, through the IMF, and nobody can account for the hundreds of millions of dollars that are residing in the bank accounts all over the world. The Russians never got helped by our cash. It went into the pockets of people who purloined the money and took it for their own use. We keep saying to ourselves, well, we will do better next time. We will put some oversight panels together. We will look at the money and the expenditures. Yet, each time, we fall into the trap once again of saying we better add some more money to the appropriations bill because we have got to help out another one of our neighbors in trouble, a neighbor overseas. Then I think when I ride around at night, how many homeless Vietnam veterans are probably on the streets of our Nation's capital, homeless Vietnam veterans who are going without health care, medical care of any kind because we cannot help them. They fought the good fight, but we have got too many other things on our plate. We cannot sacrifice individual appropriations bills, because we are all trying to protect our reelections. We cannot make our government more fiscally sound because we are too interested in racking up totals that are mind boggling on their face. Our interest payments are like $247 billion a year on the debt we have now at $5.7 trillion. So we will never get ahead if we continue this. But what about giving or, as the headline says, forgiving our debts. What about forgiving some of the debts that the American public has every day that they work and pay their taxes to help support this government, and we seem tone deaf to be able to turn our responsibilities directed towards them. I say, pay down the debt. But I also say let us not start attacking the majority party here for being cheap as I heard last week. We did not recognize our responsibilities. So let us focus a little bit more on the American public, the American taxpayer, helping our own citizens, our community before we start giving money away abroad.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I would like to associate myself with the words of the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for her leadership on this issue. Let me say directly to the American public, this is desperately needed legislation. We have in our climate today too much anti- Semitism, too much racial hatred, too much homophobia, and people who are singled out based on those parameters are targeted by those that hate others because of who they are, because of their gender or orientation or color of skin. This should not be permissive in this society of ours as we enter the 21st century, and we have to deal with this and we have to confront it and we have to educate our children because these crimes are devastating. We had a boy killed in our community recently in West Palm for the same motivation, because he was gay. We have heard crime after crime similar to these Matthew Shepard cases that are wrenching the heart and soul out of our country. So I applaud the gentlewoman for her leadership. I join my colleague in urging the Congress to adopt hate crime legislation to federalize these crimes. Because, again, these are not singular acts. These are acts by despicable people who seek out people based on race, gender, sexual orientation. They are mean-spirited and they must be dealt with with the full effect of the law so, hopefully, we can turn the tide on these crimes and get people to recognize that the punishment will be severe, it will be swift, and maybe they will think twice before they inflict their hatred on others.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this package, and I will say some of the conversation from the other side of the aisle is suggesting if it is not my idea, it is not a good idea. I happen to be a cosponsor of Norwood-Dingell, and I support this package. I have worked with the great Governor Lawton Chiles in Florida, and we came up with similar proposals when I was in the legislature. We talked about expanding access. There is a problem of uninsurability, there is a problem with fewer people becoming enrolled, and there is a crisis of cost shifting. Hospitals, uninsured, all these programs are helping to raise premiums because fewer are insured. My colleagues, we can do both today. We can pass good health care legislation as prescribed by Norwood-Dingell, but we can also talk realistically about some tax cuts to make insurance more affordable. Now the President goes out and campaigns on giving tax deductions for elder care, and from the other side of the aisle we hear applause. But if it is a Republican idea, it is stupid, it is bankrupting the system, it is too expensive. My colleagues, let us stop the rhetoric. Let us help average Americans. Let us get out of this chamber, this echo chamber of hostility, and pass some real legislation. We do have a chance to do both today. Do not shirk from the responsibility and the opportunity.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the gentleman from Florida for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, childhood is the time of life that should be treasured and protected. The truth is, many children are robbed of their innocence or even worse at the hands of abuse. Even while our overall national crime statistics have declined dramatically, child abuse continues to rise. The U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect reports that 2000 children die each year as a result of abuse and neglect. In the State of Florida alone, a child is reported abused or neglected every 3 minutes. With these statistics, it is clear our Nation needs to do more to protect our children from abuse. We need to do everything we can to prevent it from happening in the first place. Child abuse and prevention not only help protect the child, it also helps protect society in the long run, since statistics show that abused children are more likely to commit future acts of child abuse and domestic violence. Last year the Volunteers for Children Act, a bill that I sponsored, was signed into law by the President. Volunteers for children will help 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 certainly 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 they have been taken out of, and by making penalties for convicted abusers much tougher. Furthermore, we must ensure that children have safe places to go whenever they are in danger. As such, we need to continue empowering those on the State and local level in their efforts to prevent child abuse and treat victims. That is what the CAPE Act is designed to do, to give local and State officials the flexibility to use law enforcement grants for child abuse prevention. It would increase the earmark, currently $10 million for child abuse victims, out of the Crime Victims Fund. This funding can be used by the States for important things such as training child protective service workers; training court-appointed special advocates; and child advocacy centers, which are one-stop child-friendly places where all parts of an abused child examination and treatment are brought together under one roof. Among others, the CAPE Act is supported by the National Child Abuse Coalition, which includes the Children's Defense Fund and the Child Welfare League, Prevent Child Abuse America, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I urge my colleagues to join these groups in supporting the bill. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), and I thank again the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), for being part of this great legislation. I urge adoption by the Members.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the debate in my office, and I was compelled to come to the floor because I heard the gentleman outline some priorities we as a nation should adhere to, and the first priority should be domestic spending. Now I have heard a lot of talk today about our responsibility around the world, and I agree we have a severe and awesome responsibility. But at the end of the day some of us who have voted to help Head Start, National Endowment for the Arts on this side of the aisle, that have participated in AIDS funding and things vitally important to our Nation, and I have to hear the demagoguery coming from the other side that we are being cheap? Let us find out how cheap we have been over these decades. Let us think about the money that went out of our taxpayers' wallets to Duvalier and the Marcoses and all these other regimes that pocketed our money and sent them to Swiss bank accounts. And let us talk about fiscal stewardship. We are in this Congress trying to save Social Security, and I keep hearing this constant refrain from the other side: we are being cheap. Well, Mr. Speaker, right outside the capitol door there are Vietnam veterans living homeless. We are doing nothing about them. But somehow today in foreign ops we have got to sit here, criticize the leadership, criticize the Republicans, call it a stacked deck. Somehow we are not caring for our overseas commitments. Has anybody asked where the money is from the IMF that went to the Russian drug lords? Has anybody asked where that cash is? The taxpayers of the United States of America are home right now paying the bills, and they pay them every April 15, and they pay them every day, and they pay our salaries, and we have to sit here and listen to this nonsense about our commitment and our responsibility. And I accept the notion we have that, and I respect the President. He has done wonderfully on the Wye accord, he has done wonderfully in Northern Ireland. My God, he has been everywhere in the world, saving the world, helping Africa. God bless America and God bless him. But at the end of the day we have to save our own people's Social Security, we have to provide and protect Medicare, we have to help our children in education. We have to do for our own people at times and sacrifice some of the spending in foreign operations. And I applaud the gentleman for his leadership; I applaud the gentleman from Florida who has done a masterful job on the appropriation.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the House did not get an opportunity earlier this week to discuss the Senate's resolution condemning the President's decision to grant clemencies to members of the FALN. I draw Members' attention to the USA Today's headline, ``FALN Brought Bloody Battle Into America's Streets.'' Let me read part of this newspaper article. The Puerto Rican separatist group FALN exploded into public view on January 24, 1975, by attacking an icon of American history. It quickly became the most feared domestic terrorist group operating on U.S. soil. The 1975 bombing of the Fraunces Tavern in New York City, where General George Washington bid farewell to his troops in 1783, left four dead and 54 wounded. It was the deadliest of more than 130 attacks linked to this group from 1974 to 1987, when most members were jailed. Some Members here feel we are wasting our time talking about an issue that is already a fait accompli because the President has in fact signed the clemency and they are out of jail. They say we should be discussing social issues important to the American people. Let me tell the Members, that is exactly what we are doing here in discussing the clemencies for FALN Members. We are talking about whether we should be a society that tolerates violence or a society that condemns it. It seems to me the people who propose more gun control measures, and some of it was discussed here today, as a solution to prevent future tragic acts of violence are the same ones who preach forgiveness and understanding for past acts of violence. Following this twisted logic, we should create new gun control laws and then offer clemency to the people convicted of violating those laws. It sounds like a bizarre scenario to me. But anyone who supports the President's decision to offer clemency to Members of the FALN is not serious about locking up those who violate our Nation's existing gun laws. Of the 16 terrorists offered clemency by the President, 12 were convicted of the following violations of Federal firearm laws: Possession of an ``unregistered firearm,'' a machine gun or sawed-off rifle or shotgun. Twelve were convicted of those crimes. Nine were carrying a firearm during the commission of a seditious conspiracy and interference with interstate commerce by violence. Nine were arrested and convicted for interstate transportation of firearms with the intent to commit seditious conspiracy and interference with interstate commerce by violence; Three, conspiracy to make a ``destructive device'', such as a pipe bomb; Two, possession of a firearm without a serial number. These are people we let out of jail last week. For anyone who thinks that these terrorists will now be model citizens, let me share with them the 1997 statistics from the Bureau of Justice. Of the 108,580 persons released from prisons in 11 States in 1983, representing more than half of all released State prisoners that year, an estimated 62.5 percent were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46 percent were reconvicted, 41 percent returned to jail. A high recidivism rate, I would assume. Maybe those same people we let out last week will have a chance to display their good citizenship, as they did when they maimed, injured, and killed others. I do not care if those offered clemency actually pulled the trigger, detonated the bomb, or drove the get-away car. The fact is they were active members of a terrorist organization dedicated to violence. Now they are free by an act of this president. That is more than a shame, it is tragic. Let me also read, because people say that it is time for healing, time to get along, time to accept their apologies, time to recognize they have said they are sorry. Let us let them out of jail. Jailhouse statements of FALN Members given clemency contrast with their recently stated claims to have renounced violence. In October, 1995, for example, Luis Rosa, Alicia Rodriguez, and Carlos Torres told the Chicago Tribune that they have nothing to be sorry for and have no intention of renouncing armed revolution. Another FALN member granted clemency, Ricardo Jimenez, told the judge in his case, ``We are going to fight. Revolutionary justice will take care of you and everyone else.'' I think that is a fairly strong threat. Talk about four killed, 54 injured. On October 26, five bombings in downtown New York City, more than $1 million in damage. December 11, New York police were called to an upper east side building to collect a dead body. A booby-trap was set for them. A police officer was injured and lost an eye. June 15, two bombs detonated in Chicago's loop area. February, 1973, Merchandise Mart in Chicago bombed, damage totaled $1.3 million. August 3, 1977, Mobil Oil employment office in New York bombed, one killed, several injured; November 1979, two Chicago military recruiting offices and an armory bombed; March 1980, FALN members seized the Carter-Mondale campaign office. My colleagues, these people should not have been released. This is an outrage, and the citizens of America should recognize it for what it is. It was a political act and not a just act.

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, as the Polish American Club of Lake Worth, Florida is preparing to celebrate Pulaski Day on October 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, I rise today to pay tribute not only to Casimir Pulaski but to all men and women of Polish descent who have helped to make this Nation the greatest in the world. Casimir Pulaski was an energetic and fiery soldier who, in July 1777, came to America to offer his services in the Revolutionary War. As a cavalry general he fought courageously and won distinction in several campaigns. Pulaski was to the American Revolution what Patton was to World War II. Though he was mortally wounded in the Battle of Savannah, he left behind a cavalry unit that earned him the title ``Father of the American Cavalry.'' Casimir Pulaski knew that freedom isn't free and that America is a great nation because it provides an opportunity for every person regardless of ethnicity. So Mr. Speaker, once again, I wish to pay tribute to all Polish- Americans as we prepare to celebrate Pulaski Day.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me thank, first of all, the author of the bill and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their leadership on this issue. We dealt with this in the Florida legislature back in 1992. We reduced the amount of money that PACs and individuals could give. And everybody said at that time Armageddon. It will not work. My colleagues, let me just tell all those listening: the Republican party actually won. They are in control of the House, the Senate, and the Governor's mansion. So our party should not fear this issue. Because I think the voters recognize there is a significant problem in politics today, and it is called money. Money influences politics. This is not unreasonable. This does not limit free speech. This is not Armageddon, political suicide, unilateral disarmament. I think we are fighting a war rather than a sensible discussion on campaign finance reform. So I urge all of my colleagues as they are listening today to think about the average individual. Yes, I have heard from my side of the aisle that people at town hall meetings do not bring up campaign finance reform. Of course they would not. Why would they? They want to know what is happening on crime, education, health care, things that matter to their lives. But if we ask them one stand-alone question, Do you think campaign finance influence politics? they would give us a resounding ``yes.'' Let us fix the system. Shays-Meehan does it. I am proud to support it.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Reclaiming my time, I want to reiterate we have had a substantial caseload increase in the veterans facility in my district, but I also wanted to single out the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) who has also been a strong strident advocate for veterans in her district, and while we disagree on the policy here, I do respect her standing up for veterans.

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

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Let me just first rise in opposition to the well-intended amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and my colleagues from New Jersey and others who definitely are on the side of the veteran; we realize that. Let me also suggest to my colleagues that Florida is not the bastion of wealth that is being assumed in this amendment, that somehow only the poor remain in their respective home States and only the wealthy move to Florida. We have veterans of every economic level. I urge my colleagues to come to my district and see the veterans firsthand. They are moving though in record numbers to the Sunbelt; there is no question about it. Every census, we get additional Members of Congress; every census, we get a different ratio of distribution of the formulas because people are moving in record numbers. And there is no difference with veterans. So I want to strongly urge we continue the formula currently established in law, that we look at ways to satisfy the concerns the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and others have raised, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), because they are genuine. They want to care for the people who served this country, and all of us together today should not be about debating States particularly, but how do we make certain that each and every budget and fiscal appropriation first looks at the veterans who served this country, dedicated their lives and now have merely asked to be treated in a dignified manner that they deserve? So again I want to urge my colleagues to carefully consider this, oppose the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), and let us continue to debate the critical needs of veterans.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, 45 years ago this year a bullet was fired into this Chamber. It does not matter who fired the bullet, who bought the bullet, who drove the getaway car. They were all involved in terrorism. The debate today is about terrorism. I have heard a word used, ``Phony emergency.'' They are about to be released. That is why it is an emergency. I hear it has been called a political resolution. Then we are joined by such politicians as Hillary Clinton, Senator Moynahan, and Bill Bradley. Then we also hear we should be working on social issues in this Chamber. The same people who are using a political club of gun control are willing to release people that use bombs and guns and weapons in destroying families' lives. Mr. Speaker, we can stop the release of these people, but if we do not, I urge those who have willingly said they should be released then to invite those terrorists to their districts and allow them to live in their districts. But I do not want them in mine. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, the United States must maintain a tough and uncompromising policy on deportation of criminal non-citizens. U.S. prisons and INS detention facilities are bulging to the point that many non-citizen convicts could be released into society in the near future. This is wrong. Those who abuse their immigration status by committing crimes in this country must not be allowed to stay. The INS is already overburdened and underfunded to the extent that it cannot fulfill its enforcement mission. This situation is only made worse when it is forced to deal with individuals whose home countries refuse to take them back. The Federal Government spends approximately $67 per day and $80 million per year to detain these individuals--sometimes indefinitely. For this reason, I am in strong support of Congressman Deal's amendment. I have been working on similar legislation myself. It is ridiculous that we continue to grant immigration visas to countries who will not cooperate with our law enforcement efforts. There must be some recourse. In fact, we already have the legal authority to do something. The State Department can sanction these countries by denying them immigrant and non-immigrant visas. However, the agency has never used this authority. We cannot continue to let U.S. taxpayers bear the burden of other countries' reprehensible behavior and of our own government's unwillingness to take aggressive action to correct this problem. We must put the Administration and the State Department on notice that weakening our policies toward criminal non-citizens is not acceptable. If a criminal from Mexico or Israel must be deported, so must a criminal from Vietnam or Russia. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to support Congressman Deal's amendment.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing this rule to the floor, and I obviously support the underlying initiative, the bill on Commerce, Justice, and State. Mr. Speaker, I support the additional $20 million being allocated to the Department of Justice for border patrols, but I must tell my colleagues that I am frustrated and outraged by the pitiful amount of funding for Florida. People are literally dying on our shores. They are victims of illegal smuggling operations that take advantage of desperate, innocent people, trying to leave the rapidly deteriorating conditions in Haiti and Cuba and other impoverished or politically oppressive countries. These countries treat human beings like cargo. This past March, 40 people died off of south Florida shores while the boat they were being smuggled in sank, 40 people died. A similar tragedy in mid-December when as many as 13 people died in another illegal smuggling attempt. Mr. Speaker, 300,000 illegal immigrants enter the United States each year. In the short period between January 1 and March 10, there were 45 illegal landings, 31 interdictions, and 34 identified smuggling activities, resulting in over 400 illegal alien entrants by sea. These entrants by sea are all coming to Florida. Florida is shortchanged while all of the funding goes to other States. Florida is the weak link and the focal point of current smuggling operations. While the number of immigration criminal agents has more than doubled during the past 5 years to over 8,000, Florida has not 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 capable of catching a mere 10 percent of them. The mechanisms designed to nab the illegal aliens that slip in is also failing. The INS has now decided to change their enforcement tactics and has suspended most surprised workplace inspections that would identify illegal workers and the employers who hire them. The switch sends a clear message to illegal aliens and to smugglers that they are okay unless they get caught committing a crime. Enforcement standards are going down just when illegal immigration is on the rise. Florida Governor Jeb Bush wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno following our most recent tragedy requesting additional efforts. We need, and I would ask this House to consider in the future, and I specifically ask the administration to listen: greater interdiction efforts along the U.S. coast; increased Federal resources to make the prevention of illegal smuggling a top priority with an increased focus on south Florida; expanded hold capacity for the Krome detention facility located in Miami, County so that officials will be able to retain larger numbers of illegal aliens after the raids. Even one of my own counties, Glades County, Florida has offered to construct the facility for INS, to lease on a per diem basis, bed space to make available for the excess illegals that are coming and being arrested. This request goes unanswered by members of the administration. Again, let us think about the human tragedy here. People are smuggling innocent people to this country and oftentimes throwing them overboard miles offshore so they will not get caught, yet they have taken the money from the person hoping to come to America. Mr. Speaker, we must support increased funding for Border Patrol. I recognize that, and that is why the base bill I support. But I want everybody to listen here today, because I believe Florida has been shortchanged. I have repeatedly asked the administration, I have repeatedly asked my colleagues in the House, and I would hope that the rest of the Florida delegation will support us in our effort for several things: Coast Guard, Border Patrol, INS and Customs. Florida is a growing State with growing tourism, growing needs, and we would certainly hope that this Congress would be receptive to assisting us in meeting those needs and demands, and let not one more person perish on Florida seas or on Florida's coast without this being addressed.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, for those Members who do not pay much attention to the local news, I can tell them that good news is coming out of Washington, D.C. A new mayor, a new government, a balanced budget. In fact, they gave away garbage cans last week to come clean up our city. So things are happening here. But what I am hearing from my colleagues is, ``Let's micromanage D.C., let's micromanage the way rules are promulgated.'' I would just ask my colleagues, when we had the debate of .08, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, we all said, ``No, it's a States rights issue. Let them deal with it.'' When it came to setting speed limits on interstate highways and on local roads, we said, ``It's a State or local issue. Let them deal with it.'' But here we are saying, ``Well, maybe we'll get involved in a little or a few items that have particular resonance with our constituencies.'' Mr. Chairman, there is no perfect world out there. But for my colleagues who are pro-life, more people will be brought into this world when there are less abortions, and with that will come a perplexing situation of how do we care for these kids and how do we find enough homes for them? Whether it is needle exchange or anything else, let us let local government decide. Let us let them be armed with information, statistics and data to decide what is the best policy for their community. Leave D.C. alone, avoid these amendments, and let us pass the base bill.