Mark Foley

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to yell today. I want to thank this Chamber. I want to thank the conferees of the Senate and the House who have agreed to put $200 million in the budget for the Everglades restoration in Florida. The administration proposed a tax to fund the Everglades restoration. We proposed a solution, an immediate infusion of $200 million, plus vital lands to protect the fragile Everglades in Florida, protecting water supplies, protecting our second largest national park, and doing so in a bipartisan fashion. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues, particularly Speaker Gingrich, Senators Dole and Mack, and the 299 Members of this House who supported the efforts of environmental protection. This Congress, when it wants to, can work together in a bipartisan spirit. I hope we do more bipartisan efforts in the future in order to bring this Nation to the point of pride that it once was where it can restore the pride in ourselves and our abilities to govern, lower the rhetoric, lower the anxiety and allow us to proceed in an orderly fashion for democracy.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Gallegly-Bilbray amendment to create a mandatory pilot program. We need a driver's license to board an airplane. We need identification with a credit card or a check. This is not big brother. This is enforcing laws. Some of our own legal residents have found there are errors in their Social Security numbers. They have found payments being made to other people's accounts after 5 years. This system will not only deter illegal immigration but will help perfect our own domestic work force. It is not onerous. It is not burdensome. Employers universally will call past employers to find out about backgrounds, past landlords to find out about the worthiness of the employee. We are asking a simple step. How many people in this audience use the 1-800 number to find out about their check balances, the last five checks cashed, the last five deposits? It takes 15 to 20 seconds. It is not a difficult process. Anyone can do it. It is not complicated. It will ensure that we are not hiring illegal employees.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee yielding me this time for a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, this bill authorizes an increase in Border Patrol agents by 1,000 agents each year from 1996 through the year 2000. Yet, the report language requires the deployment of these new agents at sectors along the borders of the United States in proportion to the number of illegal border crossings. Therefore, I am concerned that some States which are not officially designated as border States, such as Florida, will be overlooked when the INS distributes the new agents. Earlier this year, the INS temporarily deployed eight Border Patrol agents from Florida to the Southwest border. Border Patrol agents in Florida have gradually diminished from 85 agents a few years ago to just 41 agents today. In my home district, the Palm Beach Border Patrol office has just three agents and one supervisor who are responsible for covering eight counties and 120 miles of coastline. These are not enough resources to effectively protect our shores from illegal immigration. Florida experienced an estimated 52-percent increase in Border Patrol apprehensions from 1994 to 1995. One in nine of our Nation's illegal immigrants now reside in Florida and could be as high as 450,000. These alarming statistics clearly demonstrate the critical need for a strong Border Patrol force in Florida. While I support a strong Border Patrol force for the entire Nation, it seems that the unique illegal immigration problems facing Florida has not been fairly recognized by the INS. Therefore, I would seek the support of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] on this issue during conference and the appropriations process to ensure that in the distribution of the new agents, States such as Florida will receive their fair share.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, first congratulations to the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], in advance, because this will be successful. For the first time, Congress is going to face the fact that, when we cut spending from programs, it is not going to be siphoned off and sent over to other spending programs. Much like Americans all across our land have Christmas club accounts, vacation accounts, savings accounts, the lockbox will truly give us a mechanism by which when we cut wasteful spending on the floor or in committee, that wasteful spending will actually go for deficit reduction. I applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This has been a great opportunity for us to work, Republicans and Democrats, for fiscal responsibility. Again I applaud the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] for his leadership on this initiative and to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for strong words of encouragement all the way.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Just a quick summary for those listening: I went to an authorizing committee of the Committee on Science and withdrew an amendment for 25 million of spending. I had not a unanimous, but a majority support for the cancellation of this wasteful spending, 25 million. It turns out a day later one of my colleagues found the 25 million that I cut and immediately inserted it into another program. Now, I would work very, very hard in order to save the taxpayers 25 million. In this process everybody says, ``Oh, Mark, 25 million, that's no money. You're not talking serious dollars. That's a nickel and dime.'' And I thought to myself never let me think that 25 million is not significant money. But they went and put the 25 million on another project. Well, at that time I heard about Mr. Crapo's lockbox, which is a phenomenal technique meaning I could cut that 25 million, but before it goes anywhere I designate it to the lockbox. That means just like a Christmas club account, or a savings account, or a travel account that a family sets up. That money is earmarked for deficit reduction only. So basically the mechanism would take the 25 million, put it in the expense account but, more importantly reduce the appropriations authorized for that committee by a like amount so no longer would they have the wherewithal to bump up other projects since you save money, and that is critical in order to bring the deficit down. If we do not establish some mechanism for savings where a Member can actually not only take credit for wasteful spending, but can take credit for deficit reduction, then all of our work and efforts is for naught because you start competing against regions and areas. The 25 million was important to certain districts, they were upset, but bottom line: everybody recognized it for what it was, a wasteful spending. But if we do not have a mechanism by which to save those dollars, to put them aside and to reduce the Federal deficit, this Nation will never achieve any fiscal sanity. So the lockbox is critical. We are working to get it into House legislation overall and to get the Senate to adopt it, and thereby, if a Fox amendment is offered to reduce spending in a unwarranted project, if it reaches the majority consensus that the spending is unwarranted and that it should be in a lockbox, we can achieve those victories one at a time. With a $1.6 trillion budget we have got a long way to go based on $1.4 trillion of income and the rest excess spending, we have got a long way to go to reduce our Federal dependency on dollars and to wean us off of a natural addiction toward spending. Lockbox is the only answer that I have found in all of my budgetary pursuits that works, and the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] is to be commended, as are other Members, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent], yourself, the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick], a number of people that stood up and fought for this initiative, and we do not want to see that initiative lost in this Congress.

Mr. FOLEY. Yes, I spoke to Forestdale High School yesterday, and they have a class, an actual magnet program, on environmental studies. It is the youth of the community working in a classroom setting, learning about the environment. Again, one of the things that I want to stress, too, is the fact that one of my concerns with the government is the fact that we do have so many agencies doing similar functions with different agendas and different mandates. I think the young people need to get involved and look at the practical applications of environmental sciences because there is a cause and effect. I have always suggested that farming and the environment can coexist with the right guidelines and the right tools. I think it is important that we train our young people to understand, yes, recycling is a viable method of preserving our Earth and also to consider all of the other aspects of how can a business coexist with an environmental movement and not look at them as enemies. And ofttimes you try to draw lines, if you are for business, you are against the environment; if you are for the environment, you are against business; and I think we have clearly indicated with our cooperation with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and others to try and make that connection that we can make it happen. The EPA has a tremendous program in Louisiana, which is a fast-track approach to permitting. They are doing a good job, and I will commend them for that. It is a leadership environmental movement within the EPA, but they actually work hand and hand with business, they get together with them and get their executives on board early so they can streamline the permitting process and in fact encourage that dialog so, No. 1, the company's resources are not expended unnecessarily. It is a cooperative effort, so you got both sides working for harmonious relationships, and the reports from both the corporation and from the EPA were a resounding success. There are things in our Government that I think we need to work on to exemplify and highlight so the public says, you know, these people are serious about helping the environment, but they are not just going to sit there and throw billions of dollars at it and say now we feel good in our conscience because we have spent money and that should solve everyone's problems.

Mr. FOLEY. Think with about your own family. When you are planning something for your future, I am certain you and Judy sit down and go over the pros and cons of a situation, you review where you are currently, where you hope to be, but you do it through a deliberative fashion. In Government it is we who have set it up, we have done our job, let us leave it alone and forget it. And that I think is a significant problem, because there is no oversight, no checking up on the kind of initiatives that were proposed and whether they yield any benefits. So sunset review, your initiative to push and pursue this legislation, it is vitally important for Congress to become more efficient and effective.

Mr. FOLEY. If the gentleman will yield, you mentioned Habitat for Humanity. That is a prime example. People say, when we go looking into HUD, that we, the Republicans, are evil, mean-spirited, we do not want to provide housing. You just mentioned Habitat. In Okeechobee County, the McArthur Dairy Foundation deeded over 35 former housing units, single-family homes, to the Habitat for Humanity. About 2 weeks ago I went to the dedication of a home that a woman and her four children were about to move into. Through sweat equity, determination, perseverance, she was now in a single-family home, the girls and boys had their own bedrooms, and they had a home to call their own, pride of ownership. They worked on it. It was their home. It was in the neighborhood. It was not something HUD did for them. It was not something they were trapped in. Here, this is your rental quota and this is what you get every month and you can't move, and this is not really your home, it is a rental home and subsidized. You feel these constant strings attached by government. Habitat has given people the willingness to succeed, to own, to be proud of, and to prosper. That is the difference in what our philosophies are when we start talking about where we want our Nation to go. Privatization in Florida: The Department of Commerce is becoming the ``Enterprise Florida,'' which is made up of large corporations. If corporations think it is great to promote the State and its opportunities, that is a role for corporations. Not the State or Federal treasury to prop up organizations that do not really promote. The Commerce Department, you are only lucky enough to get on a Commerce trip if you have donated significantly to either a Democratic or Republican President. You do not get to go because of a novel or unique opportunity or invention. So when we talk about downsizing, Mr. Fox, I think we have to be very, very aggressive and outline what we hope for the outcomes, that we are in fact liberating companies, businesses, individuals, to seek their own opportunities, rather than stifling them.

Mr. FOLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, I think it is important in every level, every walk of life, for a review. When you create an agency or commission or a study or a rule, I do not think it was ever meant to be perfected in its entirety throughout its lifetime. I think in Florida we always would call back a commission or authority or issue for a 5-year review, to find out if it is doing what it was established to do. Is it operating within the guidelines? Is it spending appropriately the public's funds? Obviously that is the No. 1 component. Are they spending the public resources correctly? These are the things I think a sunset review would provide for us. Think about it: the Department of Energy established in 1978 under the Carter administration because of the fuel crisis, and we were to set our thermostats to 78. Look at what that agency has become. Now, are we indeed saving energy in America? Consumption is up almost in every category. Has it fulfilled its usefulness? I do not think there is anything wrong with analyzing agency-by-agency on a frequent basis its need, its necessity, and cost effectiveness for the consumer.

Mr. FOLEY. I am anxious if somebody can tell me what is right with our welfare system today. For a President to veto what I believe is a bipartisan effort to reform a tragic situation that perhaps people in a welfare system, with no means of exit, how anybody can defend the current status quo and not be seriously concerned about not only the future of this Nation but those we pretend to care for is beyond me. I go home to the district. I would be interested if the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] or the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] have any other indications. When I go home to the district, my constituents resoundingly say, ``Mark, help people with the Association for Retarded Citizens, help those mentally or physically challenged who have not been given the full tools to do what they need to do to function in society. But, by God, get healthy, capable, able-bodied people out of the welfare rolls and out in the workplace.'' What is good about the proposed legislation, not adopted by the President, but certainly, hopefully, in the near future will be, under that legislation you spoke of, there are some or many good points with it, the able-bodied people to be in a job within 5 years, with the Federal Government assisting with job training, job counseling, job placement, day care, if necessary. That is certainly, in a sense, moving ahead, still leaving a safety net for those who are unable to work, or have to take care of a child, and increased enforcement by Governors to collect child support. I always love the example about the State of Maine, where they threatened to take away the drivers licenses of those deadbeat dads who have not paid child support, but all but 50 out of 21,000 paid within a record period of time. This is legislation that is going to make sure child support is paid, to make sure food, nutrition programs, frankly, we feed more children, we also do so with quality standards that the Federal Government is going to enumerate, so I think that, you know, the welfare reform we discussed and proposed and passed in the House in a bipartisan fashion certainly will, hopefully, come to life again in this second session of the 104th Congress. Perhaps the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] could shed some light on why he feels this bill, the revitalized bill, would be beneficial, what your take is from California.

Mr. FOLEY. It is essential they be forthcoming, because after I have asked for that commitment of resources, that is the largest single appropriation ever in our Federal history toward the Everglades, the dollar amount. Two hundred was allocated by the Senate, Mr. Dole specifically, and Senators Mack and Graham, both Florida members Democrat and Republican, led the initiative in the Senate. Of course, we had a bipartisan coalition in the House. I think they deserve the followup to that expenditure, to see that the dollars they spend in fact are working. I know they will.

Mr. FOLEY. Actually there are a number of things. We have a number of initiatives. We have the Preservation 2,000 fund, the Carl Land programs, we have obviously the Audubon, Everglades National Park, a number of different groups that are very intricately involved in the process. South Florida Water Management, Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife, all are looking for solutions. That is another thing that I think is important, is to look at the broad opportunities we have as a nation to solicit input from a variety of groups. Not any one individual or group has the right answer for any given question of the day. It is seeking compromise, seeking consensus, and getting the agencies all together in the same room and saying we have a common mission, we have a common problem. Let us solve it with a common solution, rather than 100 different solutions that end up not getting the problem addressed.

Mr. FOLEY. As everyone knows that follows the environment and particularly the Everglades, because of growth, 5 million population in south Florida, 41 million visitors to our State last year from Pennsylvania, New York, and all throughout the great 50 States and throughout the entire continent and the globe, visited our State, and obviously that impact has greatly affected the water quantity and quality going into the Everglades. The Everglades is one of the motion unique National Forest Park water systems, and one we are all immensely proud of. What we are doing with the $210 million appropriated last week is acquiring additional lands to buffer the Everglades, almost acting like a kidney in a body, to filter the water as it comes through these areas, and then taking the nutrients or phosphorus contents away and allowing cleaner water to flow into the Everglades and the Florida Bay. It is vitally important for the sustaining of life. No human life, no plant life, no animal, can survive without water. So basically this is a step in the right direction of helping the Everglades. But what I wanted to fundamentally point out, and you mentioned Mr. Mica from Florida. Mr. Mica stated very clearly in a press account that the Republicans are not against the environment. Clearly by their vote for this $210 million, we have stepped up to the plate of committing Federal resources to a vital, national interest park. But what we are tired of spending our money on is study after study, report after report, consultants, lawyers and others, giving us ideas that are never carried out. Here we have for the first time dollars allocated to the project for actual construction and work, for something we can go back and talk about tangibly, as a result of Federal action rather than inaction. So one of the things that I want to stress when we talk about the environment is that we are not antienvironment. The Speaker of the House came to the floor and spoke of the Everglades, announced we had to do this, the time had arrived for us to work together collectively for the Everglades. It is about making certain that the monies we are appropriating actually end up in the critical areas that need our attention. So that is why I was proud. You marshalled the troops from Pennsylvania and your northeast corridor, because, again, as you clearly stated, this is not a Pennsylvania issue, but it is a national issue. It proves for all that enjoy the vast wonders of our continent, the Grand Canyon, you name the desert, the parks, the Allegheny Forests, all of the things we enjoy together as a nation, our pursuit of the preservation of those national resources should be first and foremost on our minds. Not whether we are getting rated on a vote, this is a good environmental vote or what have you. It is about are the dollars we are spending as a nation being applied effectively to solving problems.

Mr. FOLEY. Well, that is what we know about. I mean the problem with Medicare, the fraud and abuse that is being perpetrated on the taxpayers is so pervasive and so difficult to track that I think in my heart if we merely went after that with the full force and weight of the Federal Government and put the resources behind it we would probably save enough to hopefully balance not only Medicare, but lead us to a balanced budget in our Nation. There is a lot of waste and fraud. But I will tell you one thing about Medicare because there is a hue and a cry by the other side of shame on you, and GOP stands for get old people, and you are destroying Medicare. When I went to the district, and I am the first among freshmen Congressmen with the largest number of Medicare recipients I am No. 7 in the Nation of all Members of Congress with the most Medicare recipients, we would have often 150 to 200 people attend the hearings, and when I explain the program, stay in traditional Medicare, do not change premiums, stay the same, no different than they would have been, they become more comfortable, they find that they can go to a managed care physician, care network or a medical savings account more and more comforted. The fact is if they choose a product that they do not like, the following year they can disenroll in that and reenroll in something else or go back to traditional Medicare, and the options and ranges of options created in the plan do not deny benefits, in fact encourage opportunities for seniors. One person at a town hall meeting said, ``You know, I like chiropractic care and it is not covered under Medicare; why not?'' I said, well, in the medical savings account you could make that discretionary choice with the moneys we provide in your account to spend on the health care you think best suits your appropriate condition, 7.5-percent increase. I mean, everything, when I finished the hearings I did not get but one or two persons still disapproving, and often that was more of a partisan than it was a practical disagreement. What they were saying was you know you have comforted me knowing, first of all, it is not going out of business if you get your bill enacted. Second, choices. Third, competition. Fourth, we are not creating a new commission for fraud, waste and abuse; it stays with Donna Shalala, it stays with HHS. We are getting a hotline and increased enforcement in penalties, but the Medicare bill for the first time provides a road map for our system to make certain that seniors, ourselves included some day when we make that golden year, are in fact provided for, not a Band-aid, not a political let us ignore it until it really becomes a crisis. Let us look at it now strategically and make certain Medicare is something we can all be proud of in the year 2010, 2020, and beyond.

Mr. FOLEY. One other item, line-item veto. That seems to be a significant legislative initiative passed by this body. I hope we are going to be able to flush that out and get it passed by the Senate and onto the President for his signature.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield a final moment, I want to thank him very much. I thank him for this excellent opportunity to portray the things we are trying to do, to balance the budget, and for his leadership on a number of issues.

Mr. FOLEY. If the gentleman would yield, if you can imagine how in name the process is that allows the memberships to pass bills onto other people and not have them impact their own lives or their own offices. When I first toured the Capitol complex after being elected, I go to many offices looking for which one I may potentially select in the draw, and in front of every door that had, you know, the exits out into the hallways were books and computers and desks blocking the exists. There was generally in most offices one exit remaining open. Now in a business, OSHA, the fire marshall, everyone would have cited that facility for not having a proper escape for an employee. Here in Congress they can do whatever they want, clog up the offices, junk everywhere, and they consider that fair. Civil rights laws, fair labor standards, all the things that we impose on small businesses, Members of Congress sat back and said, ``Oh, no, but I am holier than thou. I do not need to enforce those laws on ourselves, because we are in fact the Congress. We are the superior body of mankind.'' I think it was that attitude that got this Congress into such trouble.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] yielding. One of the things that I hear from my constituents when I return home is the fact that the balanced budget is first and foremost in their minds. They are not necessarily interested in what party gets credit, but they want this Government to learn to live by the same standards our society imposes on the average citizen. Balancing your checkbook, that is normal. I mean if you do not, as you know, Mr. Fox, if somebody issues a worthless check, it is rejected by the bank.

Mr. FOLEY. If you overcharge on your credit card, they will cancel your card. If you do not pay your home mortgage, they will foreclose your home. But the Federal Government somehow spends $200 plus billion a year that they do not have and they call that compassionate and good Government. Well, they are telling me, ``Mark, seek out a solution. The rhetoric needs to stop. We don't want to hear anymore about during the Reagan years and the Bush years, those Presidents ran up the budget because you know the that Congress is the one with the checkbook, not the Presidents.'' So it is our incumbent responsibility as legislators to focus on where the spending is occurring and how we alleviate the spending, and I think we have done a yeoman's job of attempting to portray that. You know, the other outside influences try to paint us as noncaring, wanting to destroy the fiber and safety net of this Nation. But to the contrary, when you read some great editorials, I think Mr. Riggs referred to one earlier, Mr. Glassman has been great in portraying the fact that Republicans are not cutting near what is being accused, 7 percent growth rate in Medicare, 7.5. All of the programs grow in excess of CPI.

Mr. FOLEY. People do not realize the nexus. The Government is out bidding for dollars like a private consumer. So while the Government drives up interest costs with its ever-excessive appetite for credit, it is driving up comparable mortgage costs. A plain example by Mr. Greenspan is the fact that with current rates at about 7\1/4\ to 7\5/8\ on a 30-year fixed home mortgage, we could see those rates decline to 6 percent, maybe below. A 2-percent difference in a $100,000 mortgage is $200 in savings in the consumer's pockets from interest savings alone, $2,000 per annum, which is about $180 per month in the homeowners' pockets to spend on their families, vacations, children's savings account, and what have you. So clearly, clearly the balanced budget will provide an economic windfall, not only for the taxpayers of having to pay fewer dollars into the public treasury, but more yield back home in their individual accounts.

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

Mr. FOLEY. Well, if you think about the debate that can occur, and when people say line-item veto, what power does that give the President? Well, just like you mentioned with your Governor, they can strike through the appropriation as wasteful pork spending without having to veto an entire bill. But the safeguard for Congress is if a President, and a lot of people say, well, they can take retribution against a Member. If the President does not like Congressman Foley, he can strike out all of his projects. Well, if my projects are so good, I can go back to the floor after the veto and defend them among my colleagues and get an override within the next couple of days to restore the project. So I do not sense this disastrous consequence of a line-item veto. In fact, I sense that there could be a bigger opportunity for us to really tighten the rein of Government, and give the President an active hand in budgetary negotiations, and in fact strike through some of these things you read about, these studies, asparagus studies, or, you know, this and that study, none of which lead to any better prosperity for anyone that has a response to the study. It is just another give-back to communities, a little pork barrel spending that I think has to stop. Line-item veto is the only mechanism in which to do that.

Mr. FOLEY. That is the sad part of the political debate, people need credit for everything. We were sent here from around the country, 435 individuals, 100 Members in the Senate, and the President, Vice President, elected by the people of America to lead, not to take unnecessary advantage but to solve the people's problems. So again, I think we have got to put beyond our debate who eventually gets credit for the legislation. It is more important that the American public sense a victory here, that the consumer senses a victory.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, last year the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights subpoenaed members of the Florida proposition 187 committee, a grassroots organization interested in curbing illegal immigration. The Commission went so for as to subpoena all of the group's internal documents, including reports, memos, and computer-generated printouts. In the words of one housewife who was paid a visit by a U.S. marshal, she felt intimidated and harassed by the Commission and felt like she was living in the land of the Gestapo. By statute, the Commission is granted subpoena power to conduct fact- finding hearings on discrimination and racial tensions. But whose civil rights are they protecting? It certainly does not appear to be the rights of those Floridians who were exercising their constitutional rights of free speech and free association. Regardless of any individual's personal beliefs or political associations, no one should be subjected to this type of intimidation by Federal agencies. It is for this reason that I am introducing the Civil Rights Commission Amendments Act of 1996 to prevent further fishing expeditions at the expense of law-abiding citizens. The bill would allow the Commission to subpoena only government officials, or in cases where a person's right to vote has been violated.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the Congress for their excellent efforts on behalf of the Everglades in Florida, with their resounding 299 vote of support for the $210 million appropriation for our National Park, the Everglades. Particularly I would like to thank the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, for appearing in the well and debating this issue with me for the preservation of our endangered Everglades. I think Congress sent a message across America that this is a bipartisan effort to preserve and protect our environment, and I again applaud the Speaker and the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Armey], and others who valiantly supported our efforts, as well as the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. Deutsch], and members of the Florida delegation, for their strong, steadfast belief that in order to preserve the quality of life of Florida, we must protect our natural resources, including our water supply. I would also like to take a moment to commend the Caring Foundation in West Palm Beach, FL, headed by Larry and Betty Brown, who are dear friends of mine. They put on a performance called We the Living, which was produced by the School of the Arts and the South Area High School. It is a play reflecting the problems faced by our youth today regarding drugs and violence. The young people put on this performance to display the concerns that are expressed in the school environment: the peer pressure, the degradation of life, and all the tragedies that result in the abuse of narcotics. It is important today, as we have many closeup students in the gallery, to understand how destructive drugs are and how destructive violence is in our school system. ``We the Living,'' the play, exemplified why students are fighting, fighting for survival in the classroom, fighting for survival in the streets of our communities, all recognizing that the one fundamental problem that is so difficult for them to overcome is the influence of drugs in our society and the influence peer pressure has in the first attempt to use drugs. Again, I applaud the Caring Foundation, and I urge all of our schools and all of our youth to do what they can to not make it cool to be involved in narcotics or illegal activities, but in fact, that it would be cool to say no. As in the DARE Program and the Just Say No Program, stand up and be counted against the destruction of human life, the destruction and aggravation of human suffering which drugs provide. I would also like to speak about child abuse today, because that is another topic that is creating tremendous havoc in our Nation. Our children are abused daily. We are reading about more shocking details of abuse and abandonment, both sexually and otherwise, and it just has to stop. As a nation, we have to lead the charge against child abuse, most strictly penalize those that would bring about child abuse, especially sexual abuse, and fight for the rights of our children, because once they are abused, it is a very difficult and tragic way to come back into society. Palm Beach County is starting a Home Safe project, which will give children a chance to be in an environment safe from the dangerous opportunities they experienced in their homes. I would also like to take a moment and look at the headlines ``Hamas Bomb Kills 13 at Mall in Tel Aviv; Bomb Ravages Israel.'' The war in Israel is a tragedy. The New York Times did a wonderful editorial today, basically outlining the problems: The suicide bombings, the difficulties that are being experienced by the people of Israel. We in America, and I know my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Jon Fox, joins in a strong condemnation of these attacks, a strong condemnation against violence, not only in Israel, but in London and in other places around the globe. But the one thing they stress in the editorial, the war in Israel, the war between a small group of fanatics who want to destroy the chances for peace and the millions of Israelis and Palestinians who want to live side-by-side in peace, prosperity, and security, the fanatics must not be allowed to prevail. Both sides, the Israelis and the Palestinians, want peace. There are a few radical groups that are trying to dislodge that peace. We must remain calm and committed to peace in Israel. We must remain calm and keep the PLO and others at the table to ensure the survival of the Middle East. We cannot condone or tolerate terrorism, and we certainly cannot condone it in Israel or, as I mentioned, in London. It simply must stop. The hatred, the violence, the antisemitics in this country must stop. The campaigns that are being waged for the Presidency, the dialog needs to change and we need to focus on the future of America, not dividing people by color, race or ethnicity, not dividing people by differences of opinion, but thinking of what unites this country together in a spirit of independence and democracy. This is the greatest Nation in the world. We have so much to be proud of, and at the same time we seem to be destroying everything we have worked for for 200-plus years by divisive, nasty, mean-spirited debate. It needs to stop, and it needs to stop by arguments by both sides of the aisle that for democracy to prevail, men need to think with their heads clearly, committed to compassion and to people's rights.