Mark Foley

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me strongly support the efforts of the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), because this amendment goes right to the heart of a horrible situation we in Florida have faced. In 1993, the Florida Department of Corrections reported that between January 1, 1987, and October 10, 1991, some 127,486 prisoners were released early from Florida prisons. Within a few years of their early release, they committed over 15,000 violent and property crimes, including 346 murders and 185 sex offenses. Florida tried to stop the early release program last year, the ``gain time'' provision, which was created because of prison overcrowding. But, whoa, the judges said, the courts would not allow them to change it. The courts suggested that since it was given in advance to create or vacate prison space, that it was now part of their sentence. It did not say when they were sentenced that they were entitled to it, but because it was a mechanism, a management tool created by the legislature, that it had to apply to every person in prison, no matter what crime they committed, whether it was bounced checks, murder or rape. Now, who is paying for this type of thinking? Who pays for this type of thinking in our society? Let me give you a few examples. One is a 21-year-old convicted burglar who got out of prison last October on early release. A month later he was charged with kidnapping and murdering a 78-year-old woman in Avon Park near my district. He abducted her from her home, forced her into the trunk of her car, and killed her in an orange grove about 20 miles away. Then, there is the 30-year-old man jailed in 1989 on grand theft and armed burglary charges, who was released early in 1992 because of prison crowding. Four years later he was charged with murdering the owner of a convenience store in West Palm Beach, Florida, part of which I represent.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the four bills just debated, H.R. 3581, H.R. 34, H.R. 2608, and H.R. 3582.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Smith) for bringing this very important bill to the floor. Having heard the gentleman from Guam, we understand, certainly, his interests and obviously other countries' interests in expanding the program, but we want to make certain as well that before we expand unlimitedly, that we provide the kind of safeguards that the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Smith) has been asking for, to make certain that the programs do in fact work, that we do have a viable program, but that we do not unwittingly provide for a flood of illegal immigration, if you will. I want to talk specifically about the bill the chairman has on the floor. It has been in existence 10 years. The visa waiver program has been an excellent tool for encouraging tourists to come to the United States. That has had a direct impact on virtually every region of our country. Whether you are on the West Coast of the United States, Florida, or Massachusetts, we have all benefited by the visa waiver program. In fact, in 1996 alone 46 million international visitors came to the United States, and they spent more than $90 billion; $90 billion spent by 46 million international visitors. Those dollars translate into jobs in hotels, in airports, in train stations, in restaurants, in clothing stores, in nearly every sector of the American economy. International tourists are so important that travel and tourism itself has become one of America's largest employers, directly employing 6.8 million Americans and generating a total travel-related payroll of $121.6 billion. Travel and tourism in fact ranks as the first, second, or third largest employer in fully 32 States and the District of Columbia. The visa waiver program extends to more than 20 countries right now, including Japan, Germany, and the United States, and tourists from these countries have generated considerable dollars for us. Some 5 million Japanese, for instance, visited America in 1996, and they spent more than $10 billion while they were here. Why do I keep underscoring numbers? Why do I keep talking about dollars? Because the jobs and the economy of the United States depend on a vibrant tourism industry. The visa waiver program has been part and parcel of that success. As cochairman of the Congressional Travel and Tourism Caucus, along with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), I strongly support the visa waiver program because of the benefits it provides to our economy through tourism. I strongly urge my colleagues, whose State economies all benefit from travel and tourism, to vote yes on the chairman's bill to keep this program alive. Whether Members know it or not, and they should ask their local restaurant operator, ask their local hotelier, ask their local rental car agent, ask their local merchant, how many people come into their businesses on an annual basis that are from other countries? I think it will startle and surprise us, because not only is the Sunshine State of Florida a popular destination, but almost every State now is enjoying the economy from tourism.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 62, I was attending a meeting with the Senate on N&H funding. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 61, I was attending a meeting with the Senate on N.I.H. funding. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendments Offered by Mr. Vento

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill and would like to commend my colleague from Florida, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for bringing this to the floor today. One of the most universally supported efforts in the welfare reforms we enacted 2 years ago were provisions to get tough on so-called deadbeat parents, parents who bring children into this world and then wash their hands of all responsibility for them. This scourge has been one of the saddest reasons why so many people, mostly women, have been trapped in the welfare system, dependent on government to help raise children because the fathers of those children have offered no help. We enacted provisions to curb this negligence within a welfare reform package entitled the Personal Responsibility Act. I repeat that, because that is the substance of this debate, personal responsibility, accepting responsibilities for bringing a child into this world and then accepting the responsibility to pay for them and care for them. Nowhere does that name better apply than forcing those who bring children into this word to take personal responsibility for their support. This bill modifies the penalties contained in those reforms as well as the Family Support Act of 1988, not to weaken the provisions, but to ensure that they can be realistically met. The current penalties for failure by States to meet data processing and collection requirements are severe, the loss not only of the State share of Federal child support funds, but the State's temporary assistance for needy families block grants. Clearly we will only compound the problems of those struggling to get off welfare if we penalize States so severely that they are financially crippled and unable to continue their reform efforts. This bill rectifies that by imposing penalties as incentives to meet child support program requirements, but without dealing these States such a blow that they cannot possibly meet those requirements at all. Again, I commend the Committee on Ways and Means for offering this bill and urge its passage.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, during the Second World War and the years preceding it, life insurance companies throughout Europe sold numerous policies to Jews and other minorities worth an average of 400 deutsche marks. As the Nazis seized power and began their anti-Semitic practices, laws were passed to deprive the Jews of their property. In fact a 1933 German law confiscated the property of Jews who emigrated to escape the Nazis. But with sickening irony, Jews who were forcibly deported to the Nazi death camps were considered emigrants, and their property, including any life insurance policies, was confiscated according to German law. At the war's end death camp survivors and the heirs of those who perished attempted to collect on the life insurance policies that were due. But because many policies had been paid out to the Nazis or because of the companies' unwillingness to pay out the claims, there was no money for the rightful heirs. Over the years much of the insurance companies' collusion with the Nazis became evident. Some companies attempted a small amount of restitution, but the vast amount of money owed the Holocaust survivors has never been paid. I have crafted a bill to help these Holocaust victims get restitution. The Comprehensive Holocaust Accountability in Insurance Measure will prohibit foreign insurance companies and their American subsidiaries from conducting business in the United States or conducting business with a United States bank unless the insurance company fully discloses all financial dealings they have with individuals who are known to have survived or perished during the Holocaust years. Today survivors and surviving heirs are still struggling to regain their property. I urge Members to cosponsor this bill.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, too often in Washington and in our districts we are greeted with news stories of public apathy and senseless death. It seems that we are constantly bombarded with accounts that reflect negatively upon humanity. When we do hear stories of people selflessly helping their fellow man, they are few and far between. For that reason, I would like to take a moment to commend David Lyon, a 2\1/2\ year veteran of the U.S. Capitol Police Force. At around 7 p.m. on January 18, Officer Lyon, who was off duty, was suddenly startled by the sound of a car careening into the river near his home on the Washington waterfront. Without hesitation, he dove into the frigid, winter-chilled water and saved the life of one of the vehicle's passengers. Like his neighbor, Mr. Courtney Thomas, who saved the other passenger, Officer Lyon displayed enormous character and selflessness. When confronted with someone in need, Officer Lyon unhesitatingly lent a hand; and his valor should be recognized and applauded. As a United States Congressman, I am proud that Officer Lyon is part of the distinguished U.S. Capitol Police Force; and, as an ordinary American, I am proud that he showed such concern for his fellow man. I think it is important to note that the Capitol Police Force who man security around this building are of the finest caliber and quality. They do serve the public and the people of the United States of America in not only protecting our guests and visitors, which number in the millions on an annual basis, but also the property that we consider sacred, this Chamber, the monuments that surround this wonderful complex. So it is not just Officer Lyon that I speak of today who deserves a great deal of thanks from this body and from all citizens of the United States for his bravery in this very unique and wonderful opportunity to help a fellow human being but, more importantly, that we salute all members of law enforcement, both our Capitol Police Force and those that serve around our country. Mr. Speaker, it is a very, very dangerous job. Many men and women who don uniforms and the badges that they wear go out of their homes and oftentimes their families do not know whether, in fact, they will return safely because of the dangers of just doing their job. They are not the best paid in our society. In fact, they are paid far too little for the job that they do protecting the civil order of our country. So tonight in this Chamber in our Nation's Capitol, I salute Officer Lyon for his bravery; and I salute every member of the U.S. Capitol Police Force for their protection of this great Capitol of ours and also all men and women throughout the Nation who honor us by service as law enforcement personnel for this country of ours.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I, too, join today with my colleagues in saluting a great American, a wonderful friend, a wonderful colleague. The United States Congress and the constituents of the 9th Congressional District in California will sorely miss you, Ron. One of my first days on this floor in the 104th Congress I had a chance to witness what I believe is one of the greatest orators of this chamber, and that was you. You inspired me that day. You delivered a speech that was so important in my life. And I think of the fights we have had since, not against each other but for common issue, and that was the B-2 bomber. And I learned so much. I learned so much. I think the greatest thing we can do in this body is share knowledge and share opportunity with your colleagues to make this country a better place, and you have shared more than you can ever imagine with this young Member from Florida. I have learned style. I have learned grace. I have learned about equality. I have learned about patience. I have learned that there is a time to speak and there is a time to listen. You have taught me so much of those great lessons here. You have been able to reach out across the audience. You have been able to reach out across the aisle. You have been able to focus on some of America's greatest strengths and shore up some of our great weaknesses. I believe you brought together people of all races, all ethnicities in the fight for a strong defense. But you also taught me that a strong defense does not mean just throwing money at the Pentagon and hoping it makes the right destination. When we joined together in the fight against excess spending and waste, it was not about shortchanging our men and women, it was about making certain that they, in fact, had more, that we treated them better, that we took care of their housing, that their families lived above the poverty level. But the only way to do that was making choices, difficult choices. I know you did not come here to argue against this defense contractor or that or this weapon system or that. You came here to make a difference. And you have done that. You have continued us on a course of military strength but, more important, fiscal sanity. I will miss deeply the debate when it arrives again for some of these important projects. There will be not one voice that can replace you, I can assure you. There will be no one in this Congress that can rise to your level of eloquence in debate nor, I believe, rise to your level of sincerity. You have been a true patriot, a fine American, a role model for all children. I wish you well and Godspeed in your new career, and I wish your community its best in finding someone who will pick up the challenges, be as good to the constituents as you have been, be a role model that you have been and fill that big void that will be left by your departure. I do wish you well, Ron. You are a wonderful human being, and it has been my distinct pleasure and high honor to serve with you in this Congress.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise on the reservation of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) not because I do not support the bill. In fact, I do support the bill and compliment the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) on his efforts to put this legislation together. I had, however, hoped to offer an amendment to it in order to address an issue of equal gravity to Holocaust survivors. That is the issue of unpaid life insurance policies from the Holocaust. Recently, I received a letter from a constituent outlining his attempt to collect on the life insurance policy owed to his father who was killed by the Nazis. He was given $30 for the life of his father and has never heard from the insurance company again. Because of this story and others like it and the fact that there were over 1.3 million policies sold to Germans at the time, Congress must act to right this wrong. In light of the circumstances under which the bill is being considered, I will now introduce legislation today requiring European insurance companies to report to the Attorney General the names of anyone they insured who is listed on either the Holocaust Museum's Registry of Jewish Holocaust Survivors or on Yad Veshem's Hall of Names in Jerusalem. Had the opportunity been presented, I would have offered this, the Comprehensive Holocaust Accountability in Insurance Measure, as an answer to the legislation presently before us. Of course, I am very pleased that the House is able to act quickly at the beginning of this session to redress victims of the Holocaust. They have awaited reparations for so long, and this measure is a step in the right direction. I only wish that it had been a larger step for victims of the Holocaust. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following: January 21, 1998. U.S. Congressman Mark Foley Dear Sir: I read in the Palm Beach Post of 1/21/98 that you are going after the insurance crooks such as the German Allianz. Many years ago (it must be may be 30 years ago--or somewhat less) I received a letter from Allianz where they had found that my father had a life insurance with them--and they were settling with me as his heir. They sent me the princely sum of about 20 to 30 dollars and said that the claim thus was settled. I never heard from them again and at the time I felt it was hopeless to go any further. Anyhow in the files of Allianz there is definitely the name of (my father who was murdered by the Nazis) and my name. Thank you.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, those of us who gather today gather to celebrate the life of a man who, while small in physical stature, had a giant heart and a remarkable way of putting us all at ease. We were both elected in 1994, and having grown up watching Sonny and Cher, he was an instant celebrity to us and to many Americans. But he was also one who found time in his day to help give an idea, an insight, a solution to a problem that many who had graduated from college could not think of because it was not in a textbook. Sonny Bono lived a life of having to struggle and survive and prosper by ingenuity, hard work and determination. So his solutions were not always something you would find in the Harvard Law Review, but really something he scratched out when he was working as a restaurateur, a songwriter, a creative partner in Sonny and Cher. He did a lot for his country and a lot for his district by bringing that simple sense of purpose to this Chamber, a Chamber that is rich in history and sometimes too steeped in tradition to recognize that there is a time when we all have to just laugh and say we are Americans first, we are not partisan gladiators in a war, but we are Americans. And Sonny had that wonderful ability to bring forth that smile and that spirit. He worked on, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Brian Bilbray) said, the Salton Sea, and labeling of produce, and so many other issues that affect us, but he was, at the bottom of it all, most proud that he was a husband and a father, proud of what Chastity was doing in her life now, proud of the two children he was raising with Mary, proud of the work he had done with his partner and collaborator, Cher, and I guess proud of the fact that he got to serve in this great Chamber as a Member of the United States House. For that bit of opportunity that all of us knew him, we thank God for the richness that he blessed us with giving us Sonny. We thank the people of California for sending him. And we really thank Mary and his children for sharing him with us. It takes a lot to be in this body. It takes a lot from our families and our families deserve all the credit. Not the Member, but the family, for enduring the sacrifice that it takes to serve this country.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize the retirement of a friend of all veterans, and the only director the West Palm Beach DVA Medical Center has ever known, Mr. Richard D. Isaac. A graduate of Morehead State University and an Army veteran, Rich began his 25-year Department of Veterans Affairs career in his hometown of Pittsburgh as a recreational therapist. With hard work, a professional attitude and a good sense of humor, he served in ten assignments of increasing responsibility including service as the Associate Director at VAMC in Lake City, FL, and as the Associated Deputy Regional Director at the Southeast Region Field Office in Gainesville, FL. In 1989, Rich was appointed as the director of the new VA Medical Center to be constructed in Palm Beach County, Florida. During the design phase of the medical center, Rich was charged with the daunting tasks of coordinating the efforts of regional clinical and administrative advisors who provided input to architects in the design of each department, as well as evaluating and implementing the overall design to assure quality care for every veteran. Rich brought the 265-bed medical center and extended care facility to life, with its 800,000 square feet of space, nearly 1600 employees and $110 million annual budget, and has given the veterans of South Florida one of the most efficient, technologically-advanced and caring medical facilities in the country. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to thank Richard D. Isaac for his many years of service to the dedicated veterans across our nation. I wish him and his wife, Marie, many enjoyable and healthy years in the mountains of Georgia.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 612, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 589, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``aye.'' Motion to Reconsider the Vote Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, the President says it is selfish to vote to slow the size and wasteful growth of government. Consider this: Have you looked at your phone bill lately with all the government fees? Have you looked at your cable bill and all of its government taxes and fees, your gas taxes when you fill up your car, your sales taxes on purchases, your property taxes on real estate, your State income taxes, your payroll taxes on earning, your excise taxes on beverages, your IRS taxes on income? Only in Washington can one say the Lord giveth and the Government taketh away. When Washington takes it from you, it is called compassionate. When you want your money back from Washington because it is wasting it, you are called selfish. Mr. Speaker, it is the American taxpayers' money, not ours, not Congress', not the White House's, the taxpayers'. It is not selfish to ask for fiscal discipline. It is not selfish to save for the future. It is not selfish to give more money to your children so that they can invest for their education. It is not selfish to ask government to restrain its wasteful spending patterns. It is time government recognizes that it is for the people, by the people, of the people, not for the President.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. As a Member of this Congress who worked hard all my life in the restaurant business and the travel agency business and the real estate business, I am proud of the taxes I paid and the common sense that I bring to this Chamber. My father just retired, after 20-some years, as a principal in a public school. So I care deeply about public education. I grew up in it and around it and graduated from it. But the notion somehow that the assembly worker is not going to be able to make a prudent investment decision with his IRA and earn more than $7 tax-free interest in a given year is ludicrous. That assembly line worker could invest appropriately in a mutual fund and have higher earnings enabling himself to educate his children. Now, we hear all the time about these taxpayers, these wealthy individuals who, yes, are paying higher property taxes in their communities, who are paying higher real estate and public school educational costs, who are paying higher payroll taxes, who are paying higher IRS taxes and who are not going to have any of those funds removed from public education due to this bill. But, in fact, they are going to be having an opportunity to help educate their children of all economic structures. Let us talk about some of the benefits of the bill that may happen if somehow some parent decides that they may choose a public, a private or a parochial school. If they choose one of the two, private or parochial, lower construction costs for public education because of fewer students. Fewer teachers, because fewer students will be in that classroom. Fewer books to pay for. Fewer security guards. So lower cost to the public taxpayers due to this innovative proposal. But let me also suggest that there is a bit of irony today on the floor, because the gentlemen from Texas, who rise repeatedly to object to this bill, voted for a very similar provision in a recent tax bill passed by this very Congress that allowed for an IRA for educational costs for higher education. Both gentlemen from Texas voted for that provision. And this is not any different. But it is giving parents a chance to save money, and that is something we should be proud of in America, that we are encouraging savings. We read in every magazine that there are fewer and fewer savers in America saving their funds for the future. Finally, we are earmarking a chance for people to save those dollars for the very best intention, and that is the education of our children, to give them a future in which to earn a living and hopefully after hard work like myself, be able to be a Member of this Congress and contribute constructively to the debate regarding these types of programs.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I call again the Members' attention to a concern I have that the EPA and FDA will ban measured-dose inhalers containing CFC that are vitally needed by asthmatics to treat them when they are suffering from a lack of air to their lungs. The EPA and FDA clearly are on the wrong side of this issue. There are over 70 types of inhalers today used by asthmatics at a time of critical need. We commend the EPA for attempting to ban CFC in all of our products as they have in hair spray, underarm deodorant, car refrigeration, air conditioning systems, and other things. But the amount of CFC sent into the air by inhalers used by asthmatics is minimal and marginal. Mr. Speaker, Dr. C. Everett Koop joins us in an attempt to block the EPA and FDA from embarking on this rule that will have devastating consequences to those who suffer from asthma. Thirty million Americans suffer from asthma. Thirty million Americans need this vital medication. Thirty million Americans asked the EPA and FDA to relax this idea and not institute a ban and allow medical science to prove that when we do have adequate medication available, we will then take those products containing CFC off the market.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that today all Members be permitted to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in that section of the Record entitled ``Extensions of Remarks.''

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House until Tuesday, October 21, 1997, the Speaker, majority leader, and minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, October 22, 1997.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, the other thing I want to discuss quickly is Alan Greenspan's testimony today that Congress should not spend budget surplus. And I agree. To get our fiscal house in order, we have got a $5.3 trillion debt, we should be reducing the deficit, reducing the outlay that we are spending on interest on the debt alone, finding ways to reduce that so we will then free up capital that is now being spent on interest to help the needed projects in America, the road construction and other things. My colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], and several of my colleagues have cosponsored his measure that would allocate additional increases or surpluses, 1 percent of those surpluses to Social Security Trust Fund restoration, Highway Trust Fund restoration, and, more importantly, reduction of the debt. That would bring us into a balance, if you will, allowing us to use legitimate business principles. When we have debt, we reduce debt, it frees up capital to spend on other programs. It is very simple, very common sense. And it probably will fail in this city, because people like to spend more than they have, because they are used to it. We clearly feel that Mr. Greenspan's testimony today indicates that we have significant benefits from running some surpluses. There is nothing wrong with running a surplus. We tell all Americans to save for a rainy day. We tell all Americans they should have a surplus in their checking account. We tell businesses that if they are profitable and have excess revenues, that they are a great thing, an American institution. Only in this building do we consider spending more than we take in. Excellent advice that we should spread around the world. Five point three trillion dollars in debt, incurring about $265 billion in spending on interest alone on the debt, and not reducing it by a nickel. So if we are to get our fiscal house in order, we need to start now. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the Members and Members outside of this Chamber a proposal by the FDA and EPA to ban measured-dose inhalants which contain CFC's, or chlorofluorocarbons, that are used by people suffering from asthma. Now, clearly, the goal of the FDA and EPA is laudable. They want to remove CFC's from all products in order to protect the ozone. But let us start with the basic premise that, first and foremost, the measured- dose inhalants contribute insignificantly to the problem. But let us also stress, the need for these is so great, 30 million Americans suffer from asthma. CFC's are able to propel the medication necessary to help a struggling asthmatic sustain life, receive that important breath, and go on living a reasonably healthy life. In 1999, through the Montreal protocol, the EPA and FDA wanted to start removing from the list products that are currently available to substitute one item that currently is on the market. Clearly, we expect further research to indicate that there will be options and alternatives. What we are asking in a bill that I have filed is that the EPA and FDA report back to the Congress with a wide range of options available for asthmatics so that they can find products suitable to solve their medical emergency when necessary. Currently there are over 70 types of inhalants available on the marketplace. My colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy], testified that he uses three different types of inhalants during the day that help provide life-sustaining breath to his lungs. I was an asthmatic as a child and suffered greatly when I tried to strive for breath. These products are not contributing to the problems in the ozone. I talked to Dr. C. Everett Koop on Friday, and he clearly indicates that this is the wrong approach by the FDA and EPA, that this is not the problem. Now, I applaud them for banning refrigerators with CFC's, air conditioning compressors with CFC's, hair spray and underarm deodorants that were polluting the air because of the excess of chlorofluorocarbons. But an asthma inhaler pumps the measured dose into the system and does not leach it out into the air. It is not something you waste. It is not something you spray. It is something you ingest, inhale into the lungs, to gain greater capacity. So I urge my colleagues to support me in this initiative and urge the Speaker to consider this initiative to allow us to have those agencies report back when there are adequate amounts of materials available that can clearly be CFC-free but also provide the needed relief for patients around our country, clearly a policy decision being made that has the right intentions but has devastating consequences to those that suffer from asthma. Thirty million Americans suffer from asthma. Thirty million Americans will not find comfort in knowing that they are only allowed to use one inhalant. Right now, the one on the market, to some people, does not contain enough propellant to bring the medication into the lungs. Congress Should Not Spend Budget Surplus

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 462, 463, and 464, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. I want to make one point as well. When we talk about the IRS, I want to be abundantly clear, as I know the gentleman from New York is. We are not upset with the workers that work for IRS. These are great family people who are doing a job. It is the complexity of the code they have to deal with that was passed by Members of Congress for the last 40, 50, and 60 years. Once in a while when I go out to town hall meetings, it seems we are agitated against the IRS, and they look at the person that works at the IRS as the culprit. It is not the average worker at IRS we are talking about tonight. We are talking about the system, the unfairness of the system that does render you guilty until proven innocent, and about the complexity of a Tax Code that is impossible to understand by an average lay person. After all, government is of the people, by the people and for the people, and if you cannot explain it in a very short sound bite or very short span of time, then it is too much for all individuals to assume.