Mark Foley

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. That the public at large senses that Congress is acting responsibly, that they are no longer going to send or return Members of Congress to this great body just simply because they said, ``Look at all that I have done for you, and look at all the bacon and pork that I have brought home to our district. Isn't that reason enough to reelect me?" It is about saying, ``What have you done to reduce the burden on the American consumer, reduce the burden on business? What have you done to make it easier for us to educate our children?'' I think these are the questions in the debate that is going to rage in November, not about whose party is right or whose party is wrong. It is about what did you personally do as an individual that we sent here to represent our great district, to make a difference in America.

Mr. FOLEY. It is not just the public that is upset. I met with a young girl, 22 years old, in Belle Glade, FL, in a course sponsored by the Private Industry Council to learn to be a nurse. She came up to me at a graduation reception, where she had gotten her degree for nursing all on her own. She said, ``Mr. Foley, I am 22. I have five children. I am not married. The welfare system has encouraged me to stay in the welfare system and have babies.'' This is not a made-up story. This is an absolute occurrence that happened in my district. She said, ``For the first time, the Private Industry Council is giving me some hope for my future and for my children. But I am telling you it is a tragedy what we do as a Nation to encourage people to have additional babies out of wedlock, that they will get additional food stamps, AFDC and housing allowances if they simply add another child to the roster.'' She said, ``This has got to stop.'' She said, ``I am a sad example of what is wrong with the system. I am 22 years old, with five kids.'' I was amazed. She said, ``You have got to do everything you can to not hurt children, to make sure I or others like me are not encouraged to proliferate additional children to the society, knowing more money is coming your way.''

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw]. (Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would agree to the inclusion of ``shall'' in line 11.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the House.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, am I correct to assume I will have the right to close on this amendment?

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of a logical solution to aid in the environmental restoration of one of our true national treasures, the Florida Everglades. I would like to first point out there was similar language passed in the Senate earlier this month in the farm bill, and this language enjoys wide bipartisan support from both Senators of our State, the Governor, and the entire south Florida Congressional delegation. When I was chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, the Florida State Legislature passed the Everglades Forever Act. The Secretary of the Interior, environmental groups, and the sugar industry worked towards a comprehensive plan to help restore the Everglades. Under this agreement, the sugar growers will pay up to $320 million over 7 years as part of a State agricultural privilege tax toward Everglades restoration. Let me just review. In 1850 Congress gave the Everglades to Florida with one proviso, that it be drained. We have certainly come a long way since then. Back in those days, in the 1930's and 1940's, people running for office used to campaign that they would drain the Everglades. By the 1930's, 400 miles of drainage canals had been built. In south Florida this meant the infusion of agriculture in the region, as well as expanded development opportunities in south Florida. After disastrous hurricanes in 1926 and 1928, thousands of people were killed, and a levee was built around Lake Okeechobee. That levee took out of the Everglades ecosystem large blocks of land. Today's population has grown from 26,000 in 1900 to over 5 million today. This development and the resulting pollution has also put an incredible strain on the environment. Thus, all of these factors combined have disrupted the natural flow of water in south Florida. Now we are searching for solutions on how best to save our national treasure, the Everglades, from environmental and biological collapse. The bottom line is there is no single scapegoat in this issue. Instead of pointing fingers, we need to point to solutions. Through the combined leadership of the State's Senators, the Governor, and the Florida delegation, we have reached an agreement under which 52,000 acres, known as Talisman, would be purchased for water storage. This land is currently for sale voluntarily. The acquisition will give us long-term solutions for the Everglades water quality and quantity issues. Because of its strategic location in the Everglades ecosystem, a large water storage area can be constructed on the land. I ask my colleagues to support the environment and support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and commend the Committee on Rules and its chairman for fair consideration of over 70 amendments on this bill. Why is it fair? It makes in order five Democratic amendments. It makes in order five Republican amendments. It makes in order four bipartisan amendments. I think it has been extremely fair for all sides, both sides of the aisle, and any Member who has interests in agriculture. We talk about delay. Count up the number of quorum calls, motions to adjourn, motions to rise, and recorded Journal votes required by the minority in the first 100 days of Congress. Talk about why we are waiting until February to consider some important legislation. That will give you a significant answer. One of the amendments is extremely important to restoring one of this Nation's true environmental treasures, the Florida Everglades. The rule makes in order my amendment, which will provide $210 million for the purpose of environmental restoration in the Everglades, a provision similar to that which has already passed in the Senate bill. Let us make one thing perfectly clear. We would not be in a position today where this type of structured rule would be necessary had the President not vetoed the balanced budget bill placed on his desk last year. In addition to putting the future of this country at risk by jeopardizing the financial security for future generations with his veto, the President's actions made planting decisions for farmers in rural America extremely difficult due to the expiration of most of this country's agricultural policies. This rule that is being debated today will ensure the timely passage of this bill so that farmers and ranchers can make decisions they need to make and provide America with the safest, cheapest, most abundant food supply in the world. I ask my colleagues to support this very fair rule.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I will show the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] this brochure. These are people that live in my district, white, black, Hispanic families that work and live in my district in the sugar industry, not poster children, not models, not phony baloney, real people. Let me tell the gentleman I oppose his amendment. After a year of mass mailings, after a year of editorial writing, we are here on a day of reform. If this Miller-Schumer-Kingston is reform, then Dr. Kevorkian is the attending physician. This will kill the domestic sugar industry. We talk about world price, folks. World price is based on 105,000 pounds of sugar. My mother does not go to Winn Dixie and buy 105,000 pounds of sugar. If it was true that you could buy it at that price, then we would all be buying our gas in the barrel, $17 a barrel for oil, would be much cheaper to fill our cars with oil by the barrel, but we do not do that. Domestic sugar is now on the world market 13 cents, 3 cents up over the last month and a half. Prices to refiners are up. Ladies and gentlemen, where was the testimony on this bill? We were first talking and guaranteeing the other side a vote on elimination February 26, dated on the Miller bill. Were there hearings? Did we go around the communities, as we did on the Committee on Agriculture? Did any Members come to Belle Glade, Clewiston, Pahokee, where I live? Did any Members come along with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] and I to talk to the people that are going to be affected by this bill? Does this Congress care about jobs in America? Do they care about the families in our communities, or would they rather have every other foreign government giving us all our good advantages and when they are tired of giving us their wonderful sugar at a reasonable price, this wonderfully low-priced sugar being debated today, when they are tired of doing that, they are going to say, hey, we have got a captive audience like we do on oil. Remember when there were lines for oil? Remember when there were fights in gas stations over oil? When the sugar cartels from the other nations you want to invite into this country say to you sugar is going to be a dollar a pound, $2 a pound, you are going to be stuck paying for it. You, ladies and gentlemen, then face the consumer. You, ladies and gentlemen, face the housewives that have to bake with these goods. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining one-half minute. Mr. Chairman, I am not looking for headlines. I am not looking for a picture on the front page of the New York Times. I am speaking about people, real people in my district who will be out of work, people I know, people I have felt the flesh, and it is no secret that, yes, I have sugar cane in my district. But we are talking about jobs, jobs, jobs, U.S.A., American jobs. Otherwise, without this legislation, we partition it out throughout the world at lower prices, mind you, lower prices, but the world will benefit and American jobs will suffer. U.S.A., American jobs. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. sugar program operates at no cost to the Federal Government. In fact, through the fee assessments on the domestic industry, sugar has contributed more than $130 million to the Federal Treasury since the last farm bill--and has contributed almost $500 million over the last 10 years through import duties, the fees, and interest on loans. The U.S. sweetener industry has a positive impact on the economy-- more than $26 billion--generating 420,000 American jobs. My own district in the Rio Grande Valley of south Texas is a good example of the contributions of the sugar industry. The value of the sugar cane harvest from the farms of the Lower Rio Grande Valley annually averages $40 million. In addition, the sugar cane industry generates $16 million annually for the valley economy in the form of payroll, local taxes paid, and purchases from local merchants and services. A sugar mill and a nearby refinery process cane and raw sugar from hundreds of farmers and generate hundreds of job locally. The average sugar cane farm in the Rio Grande Valley is just 311 acres. These are not large corporate farms. These are small farmers who in 1973 formed a cooperative and built a sugar mill in Harlingen to process their sugar cane. U.S. consumers get a good deal on sugar at the supermarket. Our consumers currently buy refined sugar for about 39 cents a pound. By comparison, consumers in Tokyo pay almost 90 cents a pound while those in Europe pay from 50 to 70 cents. The average retail sugar price in developed countries last year was 54 cents--38 percent more than the U.S. price. On these purchases alone, U.S. consumers save $1.4 billion compared with consumers in other developed countries. Clearly, U.S. consumers pay a fair price for sugar. Sugar is an essential link in our food chain, and we need to maintain a viable domestic sugar producing industry, providing our consumers with access to a stable supply at a reasonable price. The sugar provisions continue the no cost program, and actually increase by 25 percent the level of the fees, which will generate about $288 million for the Treasury through 2002. In addition, the bill removes limits on production, removes a guaranteed minimum price, effectively reduces the loan rate by 1 cent, and ensures an increase in foreign imports.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2854. As a freshman Member of Congress, I came here to reform this process, and in the ag bill we have done just that. It amazes me to look at the amendments that have been filed, people that have the best intentions but do not understand rural America. They do not understand supply management. They do not understand cost to the consumer; sugar, for one. Yes, I am here to talk about reforms because they are in the bill. Retail prices of sugar, lower than most anywhere else in the world, here in the United States; 40-plus thousand jobs here in the United States. As my colleagues know, this Congress has passed NAFTA, it has passed GATT, promised great things for the American consumer. Do we get a price break from any of those benefits? Absolutely not. And what we are talking about today is not a phaseout program as described by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. It is death and elimination of a program; it is death and elimination of jobs. It will be an increase in price to the consumer. Sugar is blamed for a lot of things on this House floor. Coca Cola, Diet Coke, Regular Coke, priced the same. Cereal; 5 cents worth of sugar in a box of cereal costs 4 bucks. Is sugar the culprit? Absolutely not. My colleagues, we are ushering in a new era of ag policy in this Nation, but let us remember those that have jobs that are supporting their families. In my community I have families, white, black, Hispanics, feeding their children through their hard labor working for the sugar industry. They are not on welfare; they have proud jobs. Do not succumb to the temptation of those that indicate that their amendments are reform. Their amendments are destruction for the U.S. ag policy, for the abundant supply of food that we now have, and it is, in fact, for the elimination of thousands of jobs. I stand here today proudly backing the chairman's efforts to reform our farm programs.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, all the screaming needs to subside. This Government has been running deficit for a long time. Our credit card is about to be canceled. Our checkbook is dry. In America's communities, if we had produced the types of budgets this Congress has over the last 40 years, we would have had our home foreclosed, our credit card canceled, our checkbook confiscated, and we would be sent to jail. Everybody is yelling about the full faith and credit of this Government, and many Members that have been on this floor screaming have been the ones who have run up, through the use of their Member card, this card that they give us when we are sworn into office, the credit card of the United States, they have been running deficits each and every budget year. And now there is screaming going on about the full faith and credit of the United States of America. People have to accept responsibility for being the ones that charged the balance. If we give our child a credit card with a $500 balance and they run out and use it in one day and we scream at them for not paying the bill, we have helped get them the credit. We have taught them to spend maybe recklessly. I agree that the faith and credit of this Government is essential. This bill will allow the temporary borrowing of additional monies to cover Social Security. My grandmother depended on her Social Security before she died. She worked as a maid in a Travel Lodge motel. She was not a wealthy women. She had $10,000 in the bank. That is all the money she had in her life. Social Security was important to her, as it is to every other American. Mr. Speaker, we are allowing the debt limit to increase to provide for that, but we are not perpetrating the sham on the American public with $200 billion in excess spending year in and year out and call that democracy, call that compassion, call that good government. We need to stop the yelling, start working on the problems that face America.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the House on a problem we are having in Florida and we are having all across the Nation. Last evening we had a chance to hear the President deliver his speech on the future of America. One of the things he emphasized was on changing and enforcing immigration procedures in our country. It is ironic that this past week the Immigration and Naturalization Service announced that is was taking eight Border Patrol agents from Florida and moving them to the southwest border of the United States. Clearly I know that we are having extraordinary problems on the borders of Mexico, but Florida also is being inundated by illegal immigrants. What has happened with our Border Patrol has been a diminishing from 85 agents in 1988 to half that strength of 42 agents today, after these agents are detailed to the southwest border. In my home district, the Palm Beach Border Patrol Office will shrink to just three agents and one supervisor who are responsible for covering eight counties and 120 miles of coastline. At the same time, the number of Border Patrol and Coast Guard interceptions of Cubans and Haitians for the first 2 months of 1996 fiscal year, 1,248 interceptions, is almost as high as the total number of interceptions for the entire 1995 fiscal year, which totaled 1,789 interceptions--1,248 in 2 months, 1,789 during the whole fiscal year of 1995. Just yesterday Border Patrol agents arrested eight illegals who were working at a school construction site in West Palm Beach, FL. The total number of criminal alien apprehensions in the Miami sector last year totaled 1,857 people, criminal alien apprehensions in the Miami sector. These statistics clearly demonstrate the critical need for a stronger Border Patrol force in Florida, so it amazes me that the INS apparently ignores this data making policy decisions. I fully support a strong Border Patrol force for the entire United States, but not by slashing the number of Florida agents. I had a chance to go out with the gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly, and others, the gentleman from California, Duke Cunningham, and survey the border of Mexico. I understand their problem. I wholeheartedly support strengthening our enforcement on the border. However, Florida, much like California, Texas, and Arizona, has a similar problem. It is simply insane to remove agents from a State like Florida which continues to be strained by illegal immigration, insane. Ironically, the day after the announcement to detail Florida agents, the Center for Immigration Studies released a new report stating that Florida remains the third largest recipient of illegal immigrants, with one of nine illegal immigrants in the United States residing in Florida. In fact, the report suggests that the illegal immigrant population in our State could be as high as 450,000 today. The State of Florida estimates that in 1993 alone, State and local governments have spent around $884 million on undocumented aliens. In addition, there are approximately 5,504 criminal aliens in State correction facilities on any given day, costing Florida taxpayers on average $14,000 per inmate annually, 5,504 illegals in our State prison system, 5,504 beds that could be made available for rapists, murderers, and drug dealers. The INS decision to cut Florida Border Patrol agents further erodes our already limited resources and threatens the security of our borders. In fact, by INS taking eight agents out of Florida, they have in fact said ``Welcome, one and all. Come to the State, because we are no longer enforcing the laws of this land.'' The action sends the wrong message to illegal immigrants, and it is simply not in the best interests of the State of Florida nor of the United States of America. If, Mr. Speaker, the President is serious about changing the way Government operates in Washington, if we are in fact talking about the State of the Union of this country, the State of the Union of this country, then one of our most important challenges is to protect and secure our borders from illegal entry. I welcome people to this country. My grandmother came from Poland. She had a sponsored job waiting and a clean bill of health. I want people who come to this country with a clear indication of wanting to support the values we hold dear. I commend you, Mr. President, for your speech. I commend the enthusiasm by which you lead this country. I urge you and I urge our leadership to sit down and work the details out of all the problems we face, but if we are in fact to have a safe and free Nation, we must protect ourselves from illegal immigration.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because we want to open the Federal Government. Our side is not looking to hurt Federal employees. I just want people to recognize that we are in a very, very difficult time of trying to balance the Federal budget. I think the other side needs also to recognize that we are making some progress. President Clinton the other day decided that he would support a reduction in the capital gains tax, something that the other side has called ``a tax cut for the rich.'' The President now agrees, and I think it is incumbent, with the President's assurance that he will support a capital gains tax, that we give a little, that we work to negotiate, that we seek to reopen the Government. The bottom line is a 7-year balanced budget, CBO, OMB, make sure they are real numbers, honest numbers that the American public can agree to, and we can resolve the stalemate here in Washington. But the American public, both Democrats and Republicans, universally agree that a balanced budget can and should be done in 7 years.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to get this Government back working. You know, we have a lot of debate and a lot of rhetoric up here about a balanced budget. Yes, that, indeed, is one of my most important goals as a Member of the 104th Congress, to get a balanced budget, but I do not take any pride in doing it when we are talking about workers who work for this Government, who come to work to serve our veterans, who come to work to serve every average American in this country, and some Members of Congress act as if their jobs do not matter, as if they should not be paid, and we will keep this thing shut down until we get the President to blink. Ladies and gentlemen, we know the President has had a chance to produce a budget for us that shows deficits from 1996 of $196 to $209 billion in the year 2005. That is Congressional Budget Office numbers that suggest we will never get to under the prior 10-year budget plan for deficit reduction during the Clinton presidency or anyone who follows. The bottom line is: Why are we holding employees hostage of Government? There are people that have mortgage payments to pay, there are people that have to feet their families. So I think it is appropriate that, as we are standing on this floor tonight, Members of the Republican Conference are coming up with a strategy hopefully to reopen and put those people back to work. I have a veterans' hospital in my location, and that veterans' hospital has people that have served this Nation in times of peace and in times of war that are desperately needing medical attention. Those very fine people that work at that facility deserve pay. But the overriding, most important issue that remains with this Member of Congress is that the President does genuinely come forward with a proposal to balance the budget. We can disagree on spending. I am for getting rid of the B-2 bomber. I am for doing some things differently in this Congress and not spending money on pork and waste. I will put more money to Medicare to help our senior citizens. But we have got to develop a strategy that balances the budget, and we cannot talk in fiction and we have got to deal with reality. Let me just read a couple of letters I have got from people around the country. James Lister, from Simpsonville, SC, writes: Dear Mr. Foley, It is amazing what a few courageous men and women with a dedicated leader can accomplish. There are literally millions and millions of Americans who are standing with you and what you are doing to cut the size of government and bring the spending down. The media is pouring on its worst. We know it is because you are effective. For our sake, don't stop talking, don't cave in and don't let up the pressure on for a real balanced budget. Our warmest wishes for you and your family for a joyous Christmas and a prosperous New Year! Margaret Hurt, from California, writes: The freshman class are the best thing that has come to D.C. in a long time. With you guys and Newt and Rush Limbaugh I feel that the good old U.S.A. is getting a real break. Hang in there. With your enthusiasm and diligence coupled with an openness to the truth, we are going to be all right! I watched you tonight in C-SPAN, Dec. 19, and just love all of you. Keep in touch with the ``people''! We love it! Tell Newt we love him, and pass the card around, please. Donald Boelter; from Burbank, CA, writes: Dear Congressman Foley: It was very encouraging to watch on C-SPAN the group of Freshmen express their views on how best to bring government back to the people. To once again give the people the right to decide how their money is spent, how their lives will be regulated and the return of responsibility into their lives. As a young 71 year old, I saw in the gathered faces the same eagerness and resolve to face the problems that confront America today as in the resolve of American troops during the days of Bastogne. Your's is no less a battle. Ever greater than that of 51 years ago and consequences to our beloved Nation immense. On this Christmas eve I give thanks for all of the Freshman class and their efforts to bring back common sense to our Government. God Bless You and Yours. Rick Schendel, from Michigan writes: Mr. Mark Foley, I am a voter from Macomb county in southeast Michigan and I writing to thank you for keeping up the fight for fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately my Representative is Minority Whip and the chances of him being in favor of a balanced budget are nil. This letter might not mean much but I thought you should know than there are a lot of people out here that agree with your ideas. No one wants to hurt the elderly or throw people out on the streets, but a seven year plan to balance the budget should be relatively easy and painless to achieve. We are counting on you and your colleagues to take charge of this fight. Get us a good, fair plan with teeth in it so three or four years from now we aren't faced with another budget crisis. Again, I would like to thank you for your efforts on behalf of our generation and future generations. Keep up the good work. Those are letters from around the country. Let me read to you one thing, ``Ten Cannots,'' originally attributed to Lincoln but which were done by Rev. William Boetcker, a Presbyterian minister. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. If the gentleman would continue to yield, that means the Senate must act today on the appropriations matter before them in order for those checks to be delivered?

Mr. FOLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to see if the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, will engage in just 1 minute of question. I want to be certain, and I have received a number of phone calls to my office both in the district and in Washington, inquiring as to whether veterans of wars, disabled veterans, and others, would receive a check on January 1. There has been a lot of stress on the phone of some people who are deeply, deeply concerned. I just want to make certain we are taking care of those men and women who have spilled blood for this Nation for the freedoms that we enjoy.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Standing in this Chamber, I wonder if anybody appreciates business at all. The statements made by the last speaker would indicate that all of those national corporations are just terribly money- grubbing corporations, seeking only profit, with no concern for employees. A lot of those companies have made major contributions, not only to their employees, but to the communities in which they reside, to the arts and other things that they have paid for and benefited from. There was a statement made that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] obviously only holds meetings with corporate executives. Nobody has gone by his office when he has had Habitat for Humanity in his office, and groups that do not give any campaign contributions but care about the inner cities and developing homes for families. I guess some of the speakers today were not in the office when the gentleman from Georgia entertained several that were physically challenged, that were working on strengthening the Americans with Disabilities Act. These are people that were concerned about access to public buildings. They are handicapped. They were there, not contributors, but they were concerned about how government functions. Mr. Gingrich met with them as well. Schoolchildren from the District of Columbia certainly do not have any money for campaign contributions. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] did not have them in his office; he went out to their schools and into their community forums to talk about that. So I think the record needs to reflect that. You hold up an article and suggest corporations in America are all bad. I commend corporations in America for employing people, for giving people jobs, for giving people hope. The stock market is moving forward. That is great for all America. Small investors from Main Street to Wall Street are benefiting from the rise in the stock market. Let us talk about some other things today. One thing I want to focus on is the tragedies occurring among our children. I want to put in a special word for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Jimmy Ryce died a tragic death at the hands of a molester who sexually assaulted Jimmy and then dismembered his body. That person has been caught. Of course, the first thing that happened was the defenders, the public defenders, rushed to the aid of the perpetrator of the crime and suggested that maybe the officials had interrogated him too long, and possibly they should try and seek to get the charges dismissed against a person who readily admitted he raped and brutally assaulted young Jimmy Ryce. Now they are thinking of ways to get him off those charges. The tragedy is that it is happening far too many times in America where children are taken advantage of, children are assaulted, children are molested, and it has to stop. We are all familiar with the Susan Smith case in South Carolina, where a mother tragically put two of her own children in a car seat, strapped them down, and sunk the car in a lake, killed two children. I stressed before on this floor that if people are not comfortable or happy with their children, put them up for adoption, seek other alternatives, seek psychiatric counseling. But the kind of tragedies that are occurring to our children are just that, they are tragedies. I had a chance to talk to John Walsh. One of the things that was most frightening to me was the fact in 35 States you have to have a license to sell real estate, you have to have a license to sell mortgages, you have to have a license to be a hairdresser. Yet in over 35 States, you can be in child care without any background checks or verifications. Tragedies are occurring to our children in the most private of settings, in child care and other things. This is not to malign the child care industry, believe me, it is not at all. But the fact remains that our children are in deep jeopardy. If this is truly a spirit of thanksgiving and holiday renewal and Christmas spirit, then we must turn to the children in our communities and figure out a way, not necessarily by government action only, but by community spirit, that we reach out and save those lost young souls who are at the mercy of some very, very sick individuals. It is also important at this time that we all accept responsibility for our actions. It is about time that we stop trying to place the blame on other people. Oftentimes, in fact there was a killing of five young people in Gainesville, and the person who went before the judge said, ``I was abused as a child so you should let me off of these charges. I know I killed five people, but it was due to the torment that my father provided me as a youngster that I committed this heinous crime.'' Far too often people are looking to blame others in society. ``It is something else. It is something I watched on TV. It is a movie I saw.'' People have to accept responsibility for their actions. We in government have to. I also want to suggest that none of us take any pride or pleasure in the closing of Government. Some suggest that the freshmen are gleefully celebrating the fact that the Government shut down and that is the way it should be. We grieve for those Federal employees that are wondering what is happening to their job. The gentlewoman from Maryland, Mrs. Morella, the gentlemen from Virginia, Mr. Davis and Mr. Wolf, and others, are very critically concerned with the work force in this Capital, and so are the entirety of the Congress. We are not looking to make anybody's holidays miserable. We are not looking to keep people out of work, but some of us feel honor-bound to the commitment to balance the budget. We are anxious to work with the President. We are anxious to encourage the Speaker of the House to move forward with deliberation and discussion with the White House. There is not one person that sits in a back room and chuckles at the thought that Federal employees are not working and we are doing it in a malicious fashion.