Mark Foley

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. May I inquire of the Chair, will my amendment as currently being considered be allowed to be made in order and a part of the bill if I withdraw my pending amendment?

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from California will continue to yield, I would assume the oversight committee of the House, the Treasury and the Inspector General's office.

Mr. FOLEY. I am compelled, Mr. Chairman, to take the chairman at his word. I believe the chairman is looking out for the best interests of what I am attempting to do. I have heard from the gentleman from Ohio, who I respect as well, who has given assurances that we will deal with this issue in conference; that we will seek an appropriate investigation; that we will get answers to these questions; that we will devise a scoring system for this agency that will result in the appropriate granting of aid to these well deserved groups. And given the assurances of both chairmen, and what I believe to be the agreement of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] and others who have been party to this long discussion regarding this agency, I would withdraw my amendment; I would agree to the terms specified by the chairman; and I would hope that this effort to move the bill will result in the things that I, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] and others feel most appropriate. We do not back down lightly, because I feel there have been significant violations; that we have failed to identify appropriately funds that have gone to agencies without documentation; and I would suggest that Treasury would be very interested in pursuing these charges. I believe they are. I do not believe anybody is trying to stonewall this investigation.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, the deficit reduction lockbox is an idea that, when adopted, will genuinely lower our Nation's deficit and benefit every American's pocketbook. Had the lockbox been in place during the appropriations process last year we would have saved the taxpayer almost $1 billion. I expect you'll see Mr. Crapo, Ms. Harman, and myself a few more times this year unless this measure is permanently adopted. As Members of Congress, we work hard and round up the votes to eliminate unnecessary spending only to have the savings swept away by another Member and utilized for their pet project. This institution has played that kind of shell-and-pea game in the appropriations process for years--we shift money from shell to shell with such speed and agility that our baffled constituents soon lose track of the funds. They have a right to know that a cut is a cut and we have a right to expect our hard work toward reducing the deficit will amount to something more than a bank account to finance pork-barrel spending. Simply put, this amendment will guarantee that the spending cuts approved in this appropriations bill would be designated for deficit reduction. Our national debt isn't going away any time soon, but a small step like this is at least a step in the right direction to reduce it. We should close this legislative loophole. We have to get serious about deficit reduction and fulfill the pledge we made to our constituents to reduce the debt our children will ultimately be responsible for.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution to deny MFN trading status for China. Many of us share great reservations about the fate of Hong Kong under Chinese rule. Most of us also share deep concerns about human rights abuses, whether those abuses are in China or elsewhere. But denying MFN to China is the wrong way to address these issues. Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten has made it crystal clear that denying MFN status will only hurt Hong Kong. His quote: ``For the people of Hong Kong,'' he said, ``there is no comfort in the proposition that if China reduces their freedoms, the United States will take away their jobs.'' Christian missionaries are also pleading with us not to endanger their work and their people by denying MFN. We cannot address the issue of human rights in China, or anywhere, if we are not engaged, and we cannot help Hong Kong retain its freedoms and its status as the center of trade if we undercut our influence there and undercut Hong Kong's economic health. From my days as a real estate broker I can tell my colleagues that we gain nothing if we are not at the table. We cannot serve our interests or those of our clients by being absent during a closing. If we are not in the room, we are not a player, period, and that goes for trade as well. I urge opposition to this resolution denying MFN trading status for China.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this issue is not about simply the defense of our country. This is not about short-changing the men and women who serve our military. This is not about military preparedness. This is about a discussion that needs to go forward on a weapons program, the B-2 bomber, that is clearly a very, very expensive budgetary item. There will be a lot of rhetoric about the pros and cons of the B-2 bomber, and there is divided opinion. We read the editorial papers, we listen to defense experts, we listen to our colleagues, and one can come to the conclusion that the B-2 is the best thing we have ever invented, or that it is an extreme waste of money. We have to start talking about the budget of this Nation like we talk to our families at home, about making priorities fit within the confines of money available. Now, clearly, if we have an unlimited Treasury, which we have proven we do not, in fact, my side of the aisle has been one of the strongest proponents of balancing the Federal budget and saying no to other things that we cannot afford. Well, I think clearly, if we want to put something right on the table as a meaningful attempt to save the taxpayers' dollars, the B-2 comes to the top of the list. According to the Pentagon, again, I have to suggest that many in this body suggest let the experts decide, let sound science rule the day, and let those charged with determining the future success of our military operations be brought into the discussion and make recommendations. The current fleet of 21 B-2 bombers, according to the Pentagon, is sufficient to meet the two-war scenario, the ability to fight and win two wars at the same time. The B-1 bomber was mentioned earlier, which offers a greater payload and essentially the same range and weapons suite as the B-2. It is a logical complement to the 21 B-2 bombers authorized under current law. Again, we have 21 B-2 bombers. It is not as if we are on the floor today to determine should we get a B-2 bomber. We have 21 B-2 bombers that we paid for. Now, we received a letter. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] asked the Congressional Budget Office that was referred to by my colleague: At your request, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost to acquire and operate nine additional B-2 bombers. CBO estimates that adding nine bombers to the currently-planned fleet and operating each of them for 20 years would cost about $27 billion. Some may assume that today's budget item of $331 million is what we are talking about. We are not talking about $331 million; we are talking about a total outlay over 20 years of $27 billion. Most importantly, we have to discuss the fact that there are 95 B-1's in the fleet already bought and paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. The massive deep-attack weapons mix study conducted by the Pentagon concluded that it would not be cost effective, not be cost effective, to buy more B-2 bombers. The Dellums-Kasich-Foley amendment is important because it eliminates the $331.2 million in B-2 funding that would be allocated this year, but again, that figure is a mere fraction of the real cost. No money is programmed in any balanced budget plan to pay for the outyear cost, as was mentioned by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] that would be forced by authorization of nine additional B-2's. Small down payment today, folks, to keep the line operating; the big ticket comes in the outyears. Can we face the taxpayers to tell them the bill is in the mail and it is on its way? If Congress allows this fiscally imprudent spending to occur, we will be forced to confront untold trade-offs in the future. Balancing the budget is a very difficult task. We have seen it on the floor, we have read about it in the newspapers, we have heard from our constituents, so yes, we do have to make some spending decisions now, not later. Let me tell my colleagues what we could buy for one B-2 bomber. One B-2 bomber costs about $1.5 billion. Now, the proponents of the B-2 say that is because we are not ordering enough of them and we can get the cost down on a relative per-unit cost if we can just buy a lot more of them. The argument is not about buying efficiency in weapons system, it is about do we even need them to begin with. But let us go over what a B-2 bomber will provide the United States of America taxpayers as a trade-off for something else. Fifty-six thousand, six hundred and four elementary school teachers at $26,000 a year, that is what one B-2 bomber buys; 86,108 deputy sheriffs to patrol our streets at $17,420 per year; 57,692 clergymen to go out and spread the message of the Bible in our communities at $26,000 per year; 46,000 firemen to protect our buildings and our public safety. Here is one some may not agree with, but 47,928 newspaper reporters. We may not agree that we need that many, but they are there at $31,297 per year. Thirty-six thousand, five hundred eighty six new prison beds to lock up our most violent offenders in prisons with the price of 1 B-2 bomber; not the fleet, one. Take those numbers forward and see what they will do for us. Buy 188,372 brand-new GEO economy cars. Buy groceries for 1 full year for 360,577 families. For one B-2 bomber, I am going to tell 360,577 families, no groceries for a year. Now, we can go to public education, 224,000 students for 1 full academic year at a public 4-year college. Why do I mention these figures? Because it is about choices. It is about a parent sitting down with their children and saying yes, I want to take you to Disney World this summer, and yes, we are going to try hard, but, kids, if we do that, we are going to sacrifice a little bit this year. Maybe not go to the movies during the weekend, maybe not order the pizza from the delivery man, maybe sacrifice a few items in order to do what we would like to do as a family, go to Disney World. Now, maybe this is a simple analogy, but I got elected to Congress from a small town in Florida. I used to drive a tow truck, I worked at a gas station pumping gas, I opened my own restaurant at the age of 20. I found that every cent mattered in my life, because for me to open up the following Monday my restaurant caused me to be economical in my pursuit of excellence in that restaurant, and I could not waste money. I got to Washington, DC, and people talk about billions as if we are talking about somebody's walking around money. It is only $27 billion, or maybe less, maybe $20 billion. CBO says 27 billion, the proponents of the program may say it is only a couple billion dollars. Members decide. Members decide. Because April 15 every year when I ask people to send their money to the IRS to run this Government, part of those dollars they are sending, Mr. Chairman, is for things like the B-2 bomber. Now, we can spend billions of dollars to build up our society in public education, in housing, in infrastructure. Imagine that, building and creating our roads in America, strengthening our bridges, fixing the potholes in Washington, DC. What a novel thought, to think the American taxpayers will actually see some of their dollars at work domestically rather than flying planes we cannot see over in the Middle East somewhere. Let us talk about our personnel. I was on the floor proudly supporting the flag burning amendment, because our veterans, our military personnel, went to war and died for the symbol of our democracy, the flag. I went home and they said, that is just rhetoric. The Constitution gives us the right of free speech, so putting a constitutional amendment about flag burning is just a gesture. Men and women died for that flag, and the debate today is about do we treat them as human beings. Do we give them the housing they so richly deserve for protecting our Nation? Do we get our own personnel off of food stamps so they can proudly raise their own children? Do we give them the flight training and equipment up to standards that they desperately need? Or do we go off on a tangent and buy more weapons that the President and others have clearly said we do not need? The Boston Globe, Pentagon's high tech delusions. The Pentagon insists on purchasing weapons systems that have little utility in a real crisis because they either are irrelevant to the threat or technologically wholly disproportionate to the threat or so costly that commanders are inhibited from using them. The B-2 stealth bomber is the obvious and controversial case in point. Kansas City Star, hardware versus troops. Pentagon continues against all logic to insist no tough choices be made between the two. Kansas City Star, again, with the cold war over, the need does not exist for all three fighters. I can read from almost every editorial regarding this expenditure. Defense Secretary William Cohen, a Republican, is constantly being urged to kill sacred cows and must do so. Our own recommendation for cuts, including dropping the joint strike fighter and the B-2 bomber and cutting back the Marine Corps to free money for urgent needs particularly airlift and sea transportation. Mr. Chairman, if we look at the facts, look at the groups supporting the Dellums-Kasich amendment, we will clearly come to the conclusion that while the B-2 is a very valuable weapons system, the fact remains we have 21. The fact remains we are equipped. The fact remains we have not shirked our duty to protect our Nation. The fact remains we are advancing technologically to develop weapons systems that are more adequate for today's needs. We are looking at conflicts that are arising around the globe. I just got back from Asia with the Speaker of the House. We talked to people in China about their defense capabilities. The average pilot in China trains 2 hours a month. Their equipment is antiquated. Their resources are limited. So who is the threat? I am not suggesting China is not a threat. Understand, there are components within China that could operate to our detriment. Russia is broke. Boris Yeltsin was at the summit. He is broke. They are broke. They do not have the money to put toward weapons systems. They are no longer a threat. There are threats, I recognize that. I am not so naive to suggest that this is a perfect world. Iran, Iraq, other nations pose threats to us. But is the B-2 going to be called into service for those nations that may be hostile to us or will it be an F-22, which I do support? Will it be a more versatile, more mobile force? Let me read a letter that went to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] from the Secretary of Defense on June 18, 1997. Let me just underscore one statement: The loss in combat capabilities from retiring current weapons systems to pay for additional B-2's, the loss due to forgoing investment in other needed capabilities and the additional cost of the B-2 far outweigh the benefits from adding more B-2 aircraft to the fleet. I will read that once more. Bill Cohen, appointed by President Clinton, Republican Senator from Maine, a thought conscious, strong individual who has supported our military. The loss in combat capabilities, our young men and women on the front line, from retiring current weapons systems to pay for additional B-2's, the loss due to forgoing investment in other needed capabilities and the additional cost of the B-2 far outweigh the benefits from adding more B-2 aircraft to the fleet. The only former Defense Secretary that I think they could find to sign the letter of support was Cap Weinberger under the Reagan administration. I may stand corrected and I would look forward to it if I am. Mr. Chairman, the debate is significant. The debate is about providing moneys, supplies, necessary weapons to our troops to defend America's interests both here and abroad. We are going down a path of spending billions of dollars on a weapons system that we clearly do not need by most all recognizable experts. I hope my colleagues will join on the side of the righteous, if you will, and support the Dellums-Kasich-Foley amendment. It is a financially significant opportunity to show both our support for the defense of this Nation and for the conservative principle of saving money in a time when our budget is extremely stressed. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me state very strongly that there is no stronger advocate for national security veterans' issues or active duty personnel than the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence]. His fine amendment will bring the Pentagon into the 21st century. I think they are still living in the fifties over there. They are the world's largest bureaucracy. And I think, with this amendment, we will save considerable resources, $15 billion over the next 5 years, $5 billion a year thereafter, streamlining the work force, making more prudent use of expenditures on everything that is involved with the Department of Defense. Clearly, this is an outstanding amendment. It should be supported by every Member of Congress to be able to use the limited resources we have to make certain our military personnel are adequately served in the field rather than those serving outside of the beltway.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] for this very fine amendment, and also the spirit that is being exhibited on the floor today by both sides of the aisle in recognizing that we do need assistance from our friends and allies in the payment of our expensive defense, to assist them in the defense of their countries. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] and I traveled to Korea, to the DMZ, and met with our troops, our fine men and women who make up our military. One of the things they asked us is to come back to Washington and look out for them; look out for their pay; look out for their housing; think about their families. So we are here today to find a way to strengthen our budget for the military and the personnel of this Nation. I appreciate the comments of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson- Lee], because clearly if we are able to get our allies to contribute a greater share of our peacekeeping mission, we will then be able to deploy the assets we are currently spending on our personnel, those that desperately deserve it. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not call for U.S. troop withdrawal from overseas. It does ask our allies to contribute more to our mutual defense. Although Japan contributes 77 percent of the nonpersonnel costs for the stationing of U.S. troops in that country, our European allies contribute less than 25 percent toward these costs. This amendment ends this discrepancy by calling on all of our allies to gradually bring contributions to 75 percent. It is in the best interests of the United States to maintain American troops in Europe and Asia to provide for mutual defense. No one denies that fact. But it is time that they step up to the plate, assist in their fair responsibility so we can continue our commitment to providing safety and security for people around the globe. That is what America has been known for. That is one of our greatest strengths. Our friendship we bring to the international community is because of our strength, the strength of our defense, but again, clearly, if we have extra dollars they should go to military personnel and allow our allies to pay more of the burden.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to a serious issue that is coming before the Congress tomorrow, and that is our defense appropriation budget. There is an item in there that I will seek to eliminate by virtue of an amendment by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and myself, which would be to strike the funding for the B-2 bomber. In this time of budgetary constraints, Congress must learn to prioritize our defense dollars. As such, Congress should not authorize the additional procurement of aircraft we do not need and the Pentagon clearly has stated they do not want. In testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security on June 11, 1997, Pentagon comptroller, John Hamre, testified that while the B-2 is an exceptional aircraft, there is no more money for it. The massive deep attack weapons mix study conducted by the Pentagon concluded that it would not be cost-effective to buy more B-2 bombers. According to the Pentagon, the current fleet of 21 B-2 bombers is sufficient to meet the two-war scenarios. No money is programmed in any budget plan to pay for the outyear costs that will be forced by this decision. Other programs given higher priority by the military may have to be cut back. Finally, the Congressional Budget Office projects that to build and operate nine additional B-2 bombers over the next 20 years could cost over $27 billion. Let me read a variety of editorials that have appeared in the papers around America. Stuart News, Port St. Lucie, FL, ``U.S. Must Get Maximum Bang for Military Bucks.'' The cost of these programs is staggering, especially considering the strategic fact that the threats that they are designed to counter do not now exist or, like the B-2 bomber, are designed to attack countries that no longer exist. They are urging we look at first providing for military pay, for military housing, for the readiness of troops, rather than expensive technological equipment that the Air Force and the Pentagon themselves do not support. The Atlanta Constitution: ``Pentagon is Not a Welfare Agency.'' There is, however, one notable exception to that trend. Last week, the House Appropriations Committee approved a defense budget for 1997 of $245.8 billion, $11 billion more than the Pentagon says it needs, and the Pentagon is not known for underestimating its needs. Unfortunately, each additional dollar that we spend on defense is a dollar not available for schools, for infrastructure, or for deficit reduction. While other nations invest their wealth in those areas, we build B-2 bombers. ``Don't Sacrifice Military Readiness,'' by the St. Louis Post- Dispatch. Another case is the $2.2 billion for each B-2 bomber, which, again, the Pentagon doesn't want, but which Members of Congress do, to keep weapons contractors and jobs alive in their district. President Clinton himself insists on yet another Seawolf submarine to keep the production lines open to build other submarines in the future. Meanwhile, maintenance on helicopters, tanks, trucks, and warships is being deferred. Military pay raises are paltry, and the quality of housing for men and women in uniform isn't as good as it should be. No; because we are spending billions on a B-2 bomber that the Pentagon does not want. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: ``Bring Military Budgets Back to Earth.'' In fact, Congress in recent years has actually padded the military budget for projects like the B-2 bomber, that are relics from the cold war and pork-barrel goodies for hometown military contractors. The evidence against the B-2 is overwhelming. The debate really needs to be about helping people in uniform have decent pay so they are not on food stamps, living in decent housing, like most Americans would like them to live in. So we have a choice this week, to support the continued expenditure of massive dollars to weapons systems that we no longer need, or we can clearly change direction and focus on priorities that would make this Nation militarily sound and safe. I urge my colleagues tomorrow to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] to strike the B-2 bomber from funding, to close the production line, to allow the military to continue to have its 20-some B-2 bombers, but clearly understand since the end of communism and Soviet dominance in the cold war, the need for the B-2 bomber has been significantly reduced. Significantly reduced. Let us look forward to helping make the military strong by supporting their good intentions, and not give them things they have chosen not to ask for.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me commend the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Granger] for that very important presentation. Let me also talk about a problem that occurs to our young people after they are born. A high school janitor accused in the death of a student had a history of violence, but school officials waited until after he was on the job before seeking background information from the State. The slaying of Michelle Montoya, 18-year-old popular Rio Linda High School student whose body was found in the school wood shop Friday, has focused attention on the school district's hiring policies and the State's handling of fingerprint checks and requests for background information. The janitor, 34-year-old Alex Del Thomas, has a four-page rap sheet that includes violent felonies. The Grant Joint Union High School District hired Thomas in April, but the district did not submit a request to the State justice department for information about Thomas's fingerprints and potential criminal history until weeks later. Thomas, a parolee, served nearly 12 years in Folsom prison for voluntary manslaughter. He pleaded guilty to the charge which stemmed from a 1984 Los Angeles robbery. Sheriff's investigators described him as a former member of the 107th Street Hoover Crips, a Los Angeles street gang. My colleagues, a child has died once again in our community because of a lack of checking the backgrounds of those that work around our children. Last week in Saint Lucie County, FL, a 2-year-old baby boy was raped by a 49-year-old individual and the baby died from a heart attack. Day after day you wake up to the TV shows describing another violent crime against our children, a violent crime of abuse, sexual perpetration, denying them their youth. And they are dying on our streets, or they are being convinced, through the Internet, to leave home and run off with someone else or being subjected to pornography and violence every day of their lives. In 1993, we passed the National Child Protection Act, amid lots of cheers and whistles. States may do background checks, if they choose, if they choose. In Florida, you need a background check and a fingerprint card to get a real estate license. In about 38 States you need background checks and fingerprints to cut hair, to be a cosmetologist. But if you are entrusted with the care of our children, if you are working in a day care center or school system or taking them out on field trips, we do not need to check the backgrounds. We will just let them go off merrily on their way and hope and pray that the children come back alive. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children today celebrated several heroes in our Nation's capital from around the country who have helped recover our children alive and healthy and brought them back to their homes after they had been abducted. I commend their hard work in seeking to solve the problem of abuse in our society. We will be formulating legislation and several of us will be back on the floor tomorrow talking about the missing and exploited children's programs that we are launching across the Nation. But it is really high time that we focus on how to protect our children. When you read a story like this, you have to ask yourself, how does a school district find it more important to have clean windows and clean hallways than protecting the lives of our children. They found it inconvenient to do a background check on this individual who just served time in prison for a felony murder. Had to rush and hire him. She was left to die inside her school's wood shop last week after she was beaten and her throat slashed. Michelle's parents do not get a second chance, but a small investment of tax dollars to make certain that that person was fit for the job could have been done and they could have held off hiring them and saved a life. But let us not let legislation get in the way. Let us not let protection of our children stand in the way of getting our jobs done. Let us not worry about another Michelle Montoya, because we are all much too busy. We pass laws in this Chamber and then we go on our way and think what a great job we have done. Let us pat each other on the back. And another child dies, and another child is molested, and two girls are stolen from their home, found in a canal, their naked and beaten bodies found in a canal. There are sick people running around our communities. They need to be caught. They need to be apprehended. They need to be sentenced to the most severe penalty. But what would be better is if we apply the laws now, protect the children first, and then not have to suffer the consequences. My heart goes out to the Montoya family and every other parent who has suffered the devastation of the loss of a child.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today. We had a reception this morning for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, where we honored many of the police heroes that have helped bring back home some of our children that have been lost throughout our Nation. It is sad enough to read the headlines. There was the slaying of Michelle Montoya, 18, a popular Rio Linda High School student whose body was found in the school wood shop on Friday, and a high school janitor accused in the death of the student had a history of violence, but school officials waited until after he was on the job before seeking background information from the State. A child's life has been lost because we failed to do our job, and we find out had they done it properly, that this person who was accused of the crime had a violent past, had been in jail for 12 years for manslaughter. How many more children have to die before we do what is appropriate in protecting our defenseless children? I want to commend the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for all they have done to help reunite children with their families. But we have to do more. Our most precious resource in this country is our children. They are vulnerable, they need our assistance, they need the help of Government.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the Congressional Record and that all Members and former Members who spoke during the recess have the privilege of revising and extending their remarks.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I do have to take a moment to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, [Mr. Lazio] for a phenomenal job in trying to reform the public housing policies of this Nation. A lot of times we have votes on this floor that are partisan, but I can assure my colleagues on this bill, this is a bipartisan effort. Out of 37 amendments adopted at the committee's markup, 29 were from the minority. So clearly, we were willing to negotiate, debate, and prevent this bill from being simply labeled a partisan attack on others. Clearly, when we have been able to watch communities work on housing initiatives directed at improving people's lives, they have largely been successful. The Federal Government would rather trap people in housing that few Members in this Chamber would dare live in, or visit. The idea of the bill is to give incentives and opportunities. The Kennedy substitute encourages residents to contribute 8 hours a month. Yes, we require it. We do not think anything is wrong in requiring people to perform a community service when they have been given something. Now, I clearly, and Members of Congress, spend numerous hours in our communities helping the Red Cross, American Cancer Society, Habitat for Humanity, AIDS coalitions, and other groups. Many, many hours we donate and volunteer, even though we are paid by Federal taxpayers. Clearly in this bill we are trying to give people a part of the American dream, not trap them in rental housing where they cannot grow and develop strong family commitments and bonds. We see in this bill, while not a perfect bill, a chance to reinvigorate inner cities, to give people hope and opportunity, to give them something to strive for and, yes, ask them to participate in voluntarism.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the one thing I am thrilled about in the bill is that we create so many carve-outs that if someone is in a vocational or technical program, going to school, if they are caring for an aged parent, if you will, if they are sick themselves, there are so many carve-outs that only those that choose to stay home and do nothing are required then to commit 8 hours of service. That is the beauty of this bill, is that we are not telling people if they are physically incapable of working that they have to somehow go clean up streets or clean graffiti off walls. When I go home to my district and talk to my constituents, many of them earning meager wages, many of them who could qualify for public housing, when I ask them if it is something so onerous to ask them for give 8 hours of service for that housing, they say, ``Mark, that is simple. That is easy. You should do it.''

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

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to revisit the issue raised by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] on the Crapo-Harman-Foley amendment for lockbox. Clearly, when I came to this Congress I had made an attempt to save money for the taxpayers from a wasteful program in this Chamber. We saved $25 million on one issue, but that money then became freed up for spending in another boondoggle program, so all of my work and effort in saving the tax dollars was swept away in one fell swoop by a person seeing free-up capital. The lockbox, much like a savings account, would allow us to earmark that money for deficit reduction. The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Harman, myself, and the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, have had very, very good meetings with the gentleman from New York, Chairman Solomon, and others who agree with us on the premise of a lockbox, but now it is time to enact this mechanism to save dollars for the taxpayers, just like American families who decide they want a nice vacation. They forego expenditures and save that money up in an account, so at the end they can move forward in their life. Lockbox will provide fiscal sanity and integrity for the U.S. Congress.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the hypocrisy of this Chamber. The minority leader had a similar circumstance--a similar fine levied against him by the Federal Election Committee. He paid out of campaign funds. So, while he paid his fine out of campaign funds, we hear this hue and cry from the other side that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] is somehow doing wrong. Had he borrowed the money from the bank, there would have been further questions about the bank's involvement with those funds. The Speaker has done the honorable thing by stepping forward and paying out of his own proceeds. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch], offers a privileged resolution wanting interest payments on the fine. The gentleman from Florida, when he ran for this job, loaned his own campaign $300,000. Upon his election to this Chamber, he went to the PAC community and solicited funds from them in order to repay the loan to himself. Does the American public have the opportunity to go to PAC's to repay their loans as he used a little special-interest venture capital to finance his run for office? Absolutely not. The gentleman from Florida does, and then he files a resolution asking for the payment of interest. Mr. Speaker, we are putting this behind us and we are moving forward to help the American people.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and would say, of course, that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], spoke eloquently about the Speaker's great presentation on behalf of the United States of America, our ideals, our goals, our vision for this world we live in, but it did not hurt to have the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] along; the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] the ranking Democratic Member of the House, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings]; and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce]. What I noticed was that the leadership of all the countries took extremely seriously this visit because of the fact that the leadership of Congress had taken time out to visit them and discuss the issues that face us. One issue we raised on behalf of the environment was Taiwan has contemplated sending its nuclear waste to North Korea. North Korea is in desperate need of financial assistance, if you will, to prop up their rogue regime. Seventy million is the number that is bandied about that they will receive in order to accept nuclear waste. What assurances do we have that that nuclear waste, once brought to North Korea, will be properly disposed of? None. President Lee, upon the notification from the Speaker that we were deeply concerned with the environmental consequences to South Korea and to our entire planet, took due note and suggested he would revisit that issue and carefully consider it, because he did not want it to be a geopolitical problem, he did not want it to be a stress on relations with the United States. Again, I want to enter into the Record the fact that we raised the issue, we will continue to pursue the issue, we do not want to see Taiwan send its nuclear waste to North Korea under any circumstance. We also had an opportunity to raise issues of trade. We were fortunate in being joined by Congressman Jefferson and Congresswoman Dunn, both on Ways and Means, to talk about issues that are important to Congressman Hastings and myself from Florida: The introduction of citrus from our State to the People's Republic of China which has currently been banned; the protection of our intellectual property rights; our copyrights; our enforcement of the things that we hold dear, the movies, the CD's, the technology, software that is being pirated and sold on the streets for 1/1,000 of its value, depriving both the owners and creators of their due payment for those rights. So we raised those issues. But I think, more than ever, we raised the consciousness of the people that we visited. We found a people in China wanting to be free, that will propel what I believe is their own democracy, with some nudging by us, to seek free elections as they have had in Taiwan. But I will again go back to what the Speaker urged caution on and I will obviously suggest, as many newspaper articles have suggested recently, that MFN, most-favored-nation status, is not guaranteed, is not guaranteed business-as-usual in this Congress; and that when you read in the New York Times, in a severe blow to civil liberties, the man appointed by China to run Hong Kong announced plans today to impose more stringent controls on the right of public protest and free associations, certainly is not a reflection of the meeting we attended, where he stressed it would be an open affair country, that things would be smooth, that the process of coming back into the fold in China would be orderly and observing the rule of law. So again I would send that caution as well, that we made some valuable points. We hope that the lessons and the things that we tried to share with the Chinese Government and others is not lost, and we would sincerely urge Mr. Tung to evaluate his recent comments and ensure the democracy of this country. I was proud, as an American, to be on the trip. As was mentioned, the Speaker, I do not think he got 5 hours of sleep. I think it was 3. One of the things that I think most impressed our hosts was his tremendous grasp of the historical occurrences that happened in Japan, in China, Taiwan, Korea. He was able without note to speak extemporaneously about events that had occurred in their country, not just in the last 10 or 20 years but the last 1,000, 2,000 years, and was able to bring that reflected history forward in analogies and examples. I think when I watched the faces of the Presidents of those countries, saying, this man has not just come here with a printed text to give us; he understands our culture, he understands the dynamics in which we have operated, he knows that it is stressful when you change governmental policies or governmental operations; but he came with such authority and such strong presence that the mission was that much more successful because of his being there, obviously as Speaker of the House, third in line to the Presidency, but more importantly, that he was so phenomenally prepared to debate with leaders of other countries the urgent things that we feel important. I thank the gentleman for allowing me time under the special order.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to step up the heat, if you will, and the pressure on this administration to work with our Immigration Department and ferret out some of the significant problems that exist in that agency. I also call upon them to increase staffing for our Border Patrol agents in the State of Florida. I am reading today in Insight magazine, ``Customs Officials Eat Crow at the Border,'' which details a number of allegations that have been brought forward against border officials in our administration. Serious allegations. One includes a 3-week period where one of our agents called a known convicted drug trafficker, 207 calls from an agent's home. We also have some claims made by some of our employees that a customs dog handler when attempting to search an 18-wheel tanker was prevented from doing his job. Later that tanker was found to contain nearly 4 tons of cocaine. Meanwhile at the California port of Calexico, immigration investigators, who already have arrested one customs inspector recently on corruption charges, are closing in on a customs secretary who is accused of selling intelligence to Tijuana's drug lords. Mr. Speaker, if this country is going to be secure from both illegal immigration and the rapid importation increase of illegal drugs, we have got to be able to depend on people who enforce the law as passed by this Congress. It concerns me greatly when we read these reports and we hear allegations of corruption and bribery and people being allowed to bring numerous people into this country illegally. So I ask this administration, the attorney general, to fully investigate these allegations, not to sweep them under the rug as alleged by several officers of the Immigration Service. In fact one says, ``They're pulling punches.'' Inspectors at San Ysidro argue punches are being pulled and that several more serious corruption allegations against senior personnel are being buried. You read about what happens to people when they are discovered to have violated the laws of this country. They are moved to a desk assignment, they are transferred, they are offered early retirement. These are serious violations of our laws. These people should not be offered retirement. They should be shown the way to jail. We have also got to look carefully at what NAFTA has brought us. Recently allegations of tainted strawberries in our school system originating in Mexico. Under Federal law they are not allowed to sell to the school lunch program but somehow once again they have slipped into the process and now our children are being shot for potential hepatitis virus. Tainted strawberries. Last year we had a scare for raspberries from Guatemala. All along we have said about NAFTA that we are concerned about pesticide application, we are concerned about the quality of water that is used to irrigate the fields, we are concerned about the child labor standards. Obviously they do not have any. They would be serious violations here in this country if the same standards applied. Wage and hourly pay in Mexico. And at the same time our produce growers are going out of business in America because we have gleefully embraced NAFTA and said everything is perfect, give it a chance. At the same time, people are getting sick. If that is good progress on NAFTA, then I must have read the wrong book on protecting public safety and health. Drug enforcement not taking place on our border, I must have read the wrong chapter about getting tough on the laws of this Nation. Clearly the unbridled attempt by others to seek entrance into this country illegally has got to stop. But it will not stop if the people charged with enforcing our laws in this country look the other way, turn a deaf ear, or line their pockets with bribes in order to turn back the problems that we face in America. Again I urge the administration to act on my request as we have submitted with members of the Florida delegation asking for increased Border Patrol, increased immigration assistance, quicker deportation of illegals from our prison system, quicker deportation of those that have falsely claimed asylum as a reason to come to this country. Because if we again are not able and capable of protecting our Nation from invasion from those who seek to break our laws, then our Nation shall perish.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 68. I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a topic that is being debated today in our media regarding the NBC airing of ``Schindler's List'' on Sunday night. One of my colleagues has taken offense to the airing of the show because it depicted nudity and violence on TV where our children would watch. I deeply respect my colleague and his point of view, but I have to stand today and first and foremost congratulate NBC News for airing uninterrupted a 3\1/2\-hour movie of one of the worst tragedies in our global history. I must also add that the rating system voluntarily initiated by TV broadcasters was used that night. I must also reiterate that Steven Spielberg, creator of the movie, came on with a personal appeal to allow parents to know that what they were about to see would be graphic, violent, and they should caution their children against watching this show. Mr. Speaker, this movie is real. The events of the Holocaust are real. This is not fantasy, this is not Disney World, this is not make believe, this happened to real people. Their possessions were taken from them, their clothing was stolen, their lifelong belongings were stolen, and they were executed and murdered by Nazis. This was not some rating attempt to boost revenues. Ford Motor Co. paid for the entire production of the show that evening without running a commercial, the first time I can remember networks ever giving up commercial rights during a broadcast. Superbowl, $200,000 for a 30-second ad went like that, a full lineup of commercials during Superbowl, made lots of money. NBC News chose to not take revenue, because America and every person on this planet needs to know the truth about the Holocaust, needs to know what happened, needs to see the historical significance of a tragedy that occurred so that they can become sensitive to the issues that confront us in this country. It is not enough to talk about anti-Semitism and trying to eliminate it in America; you need to know the roots of the problems of why people have been hurt and harmed. We talk about civil rights. We have to understand from a black person's perspective of where we have been in America, where they were denied access to water fountains, where they were made to sit in the back of the bus, where they were treated as second class citizens. It is only through history will our children learn to become sensitive to the things that can change the course of history. Yes, it was a tragic, tragic show, and I watched it Sunday night myself, and I have seen it before, and I thought as that movie went on and on how these people felt, how they were herded off to their deaths by a demonic creature who was murdering millions of Jews because they were Jews, and we are not supposed to tell that story. We are not supposed to air it on TV, we are supposed to pretend it did not happen. We are supposed to make up some whole new story and put people in clothes and not show the gunshot wounds to the head. We are supposed to camouflage all of that destructiveness, that evilness, so that we can show people something that is not even a true portrayal. Then we have calls for government to make mandatory ratings. So 10 or 20 years from now we may never know what happened. We may not know the tragedies that are going on in Cuba today with Fidel Castro in charge because we are not allowed to talk about it. We cannot portray what is really happening in our globe. I am frightened for the children in our society that are not being told the truth. But the one thing that I feel so great about in this country is when I look at the young people, they are embracing each other, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Catholics, Jews, Protestants, because they believe in order for this world to survive we must be together as one people, regardless of race, color, creed, or ethnicity, one people. That is my hope for our future in this country, that we will join together in a spirit of democracy and freedom for each and every one of us, regardless of where we were born, what our last name is or what the color of our skin is. But it will not happen if we cannot tell the truth, it will not happen if we cannot tell it like it is. So for the government to get in the rating business now and say we are going to have mandatory ratings and take away the historical importance of the show I watched Sunday night and was proud to view simply because it told me something about what happened at that horrible event. So I urge people around America to call and support what NBC showed on Sunday night, because I think that is what America is about, telling the truth.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of term limits for Congress. They are necessary to reestablish the citizen legislature, to better respond to the needs of citizens in our community, and to end what has become an arrogance of incumbency by some who have turned public service in this body into a lifetime occupation. Being in Washington is not all it is cracked up to be, I can tell Members that. But it is vital that if Congress is going to serve the American people well, its Members not become stale and immune to the will of the people. Term limits do not limit the ability to serve the public in all manner of ways. By serving here, we can ensure Washington mindset does not become the law of the land. Term limits will embolden Members to deal with the difficult long-term issues like reforms of Medicare, Social Security, rather than wield them for their political advantage. This behavior serves neither the interest nor benefit of our constituents. Term limits, some contend, restrict the will of the public. The fact is, Americans across the country overwhelmingly support limiting the number of terms a Member of Congress can serve. Already 23 States have enacted such limits on their legislators. The people have spoken. We must pass term limits so that Members of Congress will no longer be tempted to protect their political careers at the expenses of their constituents, or the Nation's, best interest.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I welcome to the Chamber many people from the safety patrols from around our Nation's Capital. I urge our colleagues to work seriously on the issue of child abuse. Not a day goes by we are not reading another detail of the sad, tragic ending of JonBenet's life, JonBenet Ramsey's life in Colorado, and daily we read in our newspapers about the violence that affects our children: sexual violence, physical violence, a lack of a decent home. If there is a plague on America, it is our treatment of our children and our lack of response for our children. So I urge my colleagues today, as we build this bipartisan Congress, that we focus on children. On education, yes, but also their safety; that they are not intruded on, that they are not the victims of a nasty crime of sexual abuse, and that we look out for the young people of our communities to make certain that they will grow to be productive leaders in the future.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am, in fact, delighted to be the first person to give special orders, and obviously the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] was scheduled to be, but he is presiding in the chair. I had the great fortune as a freshman Member of the 104th Congress to be the first to deliver a 1-minute speech on this floor. I return to Congress very proud that the members of the 16th District have chosen to ask me to serve them once again in this very high honor in the U.S. Congress. We had a lot of debate today, a lot of acrimony, a lot of discussion about the future of this Congress and its Speaker. We have concluded that debate with reelecting Newt Gingrich, the gentleman from Georgia, as Speaker. I implore Members on all sides of the aisle, both sides of the aisle, that it is now time to come together, in the spirit of this country, in the pride of this Nation, to start solving our Nation's problems, to start solving our Nation's ills, to focus on things that will make people's lives better rather than focusing on things that will destroy people's individual lives. This Chamber and this Government is bigger than this Member, it is bigger than the Speaker, it is bigger than anybody else's ego. It is about helping Americans help themselves. It is about instilling in our children a knowledge and a wisdom that through hard work, you can overcome any adversity. But if this Chamber operates much like it did in the 104th Congress, with bitterness and rancor and personal animosity, we will not set an example for the future leaders of this Nation. We will not set an example for children to look up to this body and say, ``I, too, would like to be a leader in the Congress. I, too, would like to serve my community.'' We will denigrate into an embarrassment. So I ask my fellow Members, from all walks of life, from all localities, to think first about what is good for America, not what is good for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, what is good for this Nation. A balanced budget, saving our Nation from fiscal crisis. The education of our children, to prepare them for the 21st century, to prepare them with skills that will give them jobs that will allow them to provide for themselves and their families. To reach beyond partisanship, in a spirit of cooperation, to fight together against crime that threatens every American, crime in our schools, violence against our teachers, crimes in our malls and in our communities that frighten our citizens, regardless whether they be seniors or young adults. To work together on Medicare fraud and abuse, and save our Medicare Program so that we will have a system that ensures that every American will receive Medicare when they grow to the day to need it. Let us also cause special focus on the illnesses that hurt our American citizens: AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, cancer, leukemia, tuberculosis, to name but a few. Sudden infant death syndrome, to name another. If we would use our energies to focus our resources through the National Institutes of Health to try and find cures for these diseases, we will do more for humanity in this Chamber, we will do more for the future of this world and this Nation than any 5-minute speech or any special order or any rancor or debate. This Nation has given 435 individuals the chance to represent their communities. I know that the Members are up to the task of facing that challenge. I know that each Member, regardless of their party, deeply loves this Nation. But I also know that if we proceed in the 105th as we did in the 104th with gridlock, acrimony, personal attack, and negativity, that none of the successes will be possible. We will be mired in failure, mired in debate that is nonproductive. So I ask in this first day of the new Congress that we join together to make every citizen proud of the conduct of each individual Member and all Members of this House; that the Democrats join me in working with Speaker Gingrich, in assuring that the Speakership is respected, that the institution of governance of the House of Representatives is brought to the highest standard, and that we work together for all of the best interests of this Nation.