Mark Foley

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Let me thank my colleague from the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, first I rise in support of the ban and this rule. As most of you know, I never come to the floor to speak on an abortion- related issue. Under normal circumstances, I do not believe this is an issue or the business of government. It is a woman's business, a medical business, a family business, a moral business. But it is not government's business. And that also means no taxpayer money for abortions. I make an exception to this bill today, because it involves a medical procedure that the American Medical Association itself says is unnecessary and it is unnecessarily cruel. We just heard from the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) how cruel and how painful this procedure is. This procedure is used primarily in late-term abortions, when there is absolutely no question about the viability of the fetus. It involves the partial delivery of what clearly is a viable fetus, and that, by any standard, should amount to murder. Regardless of anyone's position on the general issue of abortion rights, I find it incredible that anyone could condone such an abhorrent procedure, particularly one that is by no means an exclusive medical remedy. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I urge them to support the ban as most Americans do. There is no reason for this procedure, there are other options than this procedure, and I think we need to stand up and recognize the life of the unborn deserves merit and consideration on this floor today.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 324, I was with the DEA Administrator, Asa Hutchinson, and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the world discovered that another child, 5-year-old Samantha Runnion, who was violently abducted from outside her home while playing with a friend, was sexually assaulted, strangled and left naked on the side of the California road. The police in California said that this sick and deranged person may do this terrible act again to another child based on the way he left this poor child's body on the side of the road. They say this may be his calling card. Parents throughout the Nation are both shocked and frightened that this could happen to their child. Over 2,000 children are reported missing to law enforcement every single day. While Congress focuses on restructuring its homeland security, we must be made aware of the incredible efforts that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies provide in retrieving these children and finding their abductors. We must make sure that these agencies have the manpower and resources necessary to continue these efforts. To that end, as cochairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Caucus, I will work with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), the Committee on the Judiciary and the administration to ensure the work on legislation to increase both criminal and civil penalties for abductors and provide the necessary funding for our law enforcement agencies.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise again in opposition to the Moran amendment. It is very creative. In fact, if we did this on everything we were unhappy with in this process, not only would we balance the budget, we would save the taxpayers billions of dollars. Mr. Chairman, we hear there is a discrepancy in the report, but I think there has been a genuine effort on behalf of the majority to try to work out the time schedule and advance this report. Nobody is hiding anything. Nobody is shielding any report. In fact, we all want to see this very, very important information. But I think, as the gentleman from Illinois just said, to cut salaries and budgets and use money as a fulcrum point against hard- working employees is unreasonable. But if it is, in fact, reasonable under the gentleman's amendment, let us offer it on every appropriations bill, on every expenditure. In fact, let us reduce the spending in government because we are not satisfied, totally, with the reports. We could save billions of dollars by doing it. This is not the appropriate time, not the appropriate place. We will get the report, and we will answer the charges. The Joint Committee on Taxation needs the funding. They should not have a punitive amendment on the floor today.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, we talk about important bills, and this is one of them. I support the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), who has worked very hard on this issue. I also want to see this issue resolved by next week. The Democrats talk about the Sarbanes bill as if it is the end-all, be-all bill on this floor. While I was on the Senate floor watching the debate, they resisted Senator McCain's efforts to include language relative to options. They did a procedural effort to stop calculating options in the corporate environment. So it is not perfect. But I have been given assurances by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, that he is going to go into the room and see that we have a final working product with Senator Sarbanes, who I have a great deal of respect for on this issue; and I believe that is going to be accomplished. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) enunciated some of the concerns that I have as well: stabilizing the markets, ensuring integrity, bringing relief. I will not be supporting the motion to instruct. I am going to work with our chairman, and I hope that we will deliver a product. But I can assure the House that we will be back on Wednesday and Thursday if it is not delivered to the floor for a vote.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, as most Americans awoke, they were greeted with headlines like the one I saw in my hometown Palm Beach Post: ``Lindh's Dad Says Son a Good Boy.'' John Walker Lindh being described by his father as a good boy. While I ran on the Mall this morning, I was listening to NPR, and I was listening to the defense attorney for that good boy, John Walker Lindh, describe his client as a slightly misguided youth who was actually in Afghanistan fighting the cocaine traffickers and the poppy growers and the drug lords. John Walker Lindh, a good boy. It was difficult yesterday, because I received calls from two of my constituents, Ed and Maureen Lunder, whose son Christopher, at the age of 33, perished in the World Trade Center; and Stanley and Carol Eckna, whose son Paul perished in the World Trade Center at the age of 28. John Walker Lindh, the good boy, will celebrate his birthdays in a Federal prison; and when he turns 41, he will celebrate his birthdays outside in the free world. Christopher and Paul do not get any birthdays any more. They do not get any anniversaries. They do not get to see their kids grow up. But John Walker Lindh is a good boy. Maybe it does not startle people that the ethics of this Nation are collapsing. I remember when our President and chief executive officer of this Nation lied to a grand jury and lied to the American people. And at that time I heard from my colleagues who said, hey, listen, the economy is good, do not worry about it; it is his personal business. Now we have companies like Endrun, formerly known as Enron, and WorldCon, formerly WorldCom, stealing money out of the till and enriching themselves at the cost of the consumer, taxpayer, and investor. And now we have John Walker Lindh described as a good boy. Where are the ethics of this Nation? What about those 3,000 lives that were lost in the World Trade Center in New York and Washington, D.C. at the Pentagon, and in that airplane in Pennsylvania? Collaborating with the enemy, to me, was always treasonous. No matter how you describe it, no matter how you tie a bow on that package, John Walker Lindh has committed treason against the common good and purpose of this country. He violated our constitutional premise. He violated the sacred oath we have as citizens to protect one another. And he aided and abetted the enemy. Now, in trying to comfort my constituents who lost their children, I said, well, maybe we did not have enough evidence, maybe we did not have enough to really secure a solid victory, so we took what we could get. I hope in the coming days the administration and others talk to us with clarity about why this deal was struck, how 10-year sentences can ever be equal to the damage suffered by my constituents. We have to establish the right principles in this Nation if we are in fact to beat terrorism. We have to establish right from wrong, and we have to set a clear moral authority. In the last couple of days, of course, the Democrats have seized on a lot of issues and tried to portray the President as not having ethics. Well, I challenge them to at least focus on some of the issues that face Americans, that face citizens like my constituents, who lost children; to face the issues of fighting the common problems with our economy; and not to point fingers but to find solutions. Politics is beautiful. Politics is great. We have a chance to debate and to bring clarity to the issues. But oftentimes we muddle ourselves in the acrimony of fingerpointing, name calling, and attempting to malign other people. I am proud of our President, and I think he has spoken with clarity on so many issues. There is not a scandal out of the White House any longer. There is a proud leader of the American people trying to clear the way so we can beat and combat terrorism. We have a lot to do on the economy, and I join my colleagues in looking for tougher standards. I honestly believe those who stole from the shareholders should go to jail. We take the cars of prostitutes and Johns, we take the ill-gotten gains of drug dealers and others as we combat the war on drugs. We should combat the war against deceitful CEOs by doing the same things. Today, let us at least put John Lindh behind us, never to think of him as a good boy. Let him spend the 20 years in prison thinking about what he has done to his American colleagues. Maybe he will find justice somewhere. Maybe God will forgive him. But it is very, very difficult for me to forgive a traitor of this country.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am often admonished for urging the other body to take up action on a bill, and yet I just heard a dialogue between the minority whip and the majority leader on urging us to take up a Senate bill. I was on the floor yesterday when that bill was under consideration. Ironically, Senator John McCain from Arizona had a very, very important provision in that bill that would have accounted for stock options, which is one of the biggest problems in the accounting of corporate income and expenses. He was blocked by the majority, the Democratic majority, from accepting his amendment that would have brought to light how these stock options are treated. Now, in fairness, we are willing to consider a bill urgently to clean up corporate abuse, accounting abuse; but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot say it is a perfect bill that has been produced by Senator Sarbanes without acknowledging that they failed to address a very important option test, accounting for options, which has been the fundamental root of the problems. WorldCom, Enron, all of these options that were allowed by the corporations had faulty accounting techniques applied. So I commend Senator McCain for introducing that, and I urge those on the other side to consider it as well.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, we spend a lot of time in Congress talking about health care, and reasonably so, we should. Health care is probably the one thing none of us as citizens can totally control on our own. We can exercise, diet. We can work out. We can do all the right things, but we may be stricken at sometime in our life with Lupus, leukemia, Alzheimer's, AIDS, cancer, any number of maladies that face us. It is important to talk about these subjects because it is important for Congress to grapple with these issues. There is also a looming issue that needs to be discussed, vetted and a solution found for, and that is medical malpractice insurance rates. Florida particularly has been inundated with liability crises and looming coverage where we may see our physicians unable to afford any coverage at all, and if they can find it, the cost prohibitive for them to continue to practice their vital roles that they play in society. Malpractice rates have been rising 20 to 40 percent per year, 20 to 40 percent per year, while inflation has remained virtually stagnant. The hardest-hit doctors in Florida are over 50,000 obstetricians, radiologists, orthopedic surgeons, lung specialists, oncologists, among the list of people. Average damage awards, which is part of the root problem, ordered by courts have doubled over the past 3 years, meaning jury awards for courts have increased damage awards substantially and significantly. Hospitals, one insurer increased a local hospital rate to $1.5 million this year from $500,000 a year ago. That is a tripling of premium, which any person can routinely understand that if we add an expense like that to a category, it has to come out of somewhere; and ultimately we pay more for health care, pay more for all the services provided for indigents and others in our community. Some doctors are paying up to 80 percent of their annual income in premiums. Many people snicker and say physicians make a lot of money. I beg to differ. Some do, but most have been working tirelessly to provide the important roles they do for society and are often compromised because they are not only having to pay extraordinary liability insurance, but with all the regulations and all the attendant things that they are expected to do, including continuing medical education and the like, they are consequently under the great glare of looming bankruptcy or finding themselves wanting to leave the practice of medicine that they have loved doing for all their life. We need to do something about this issue. It needs to revolve around getting the parties together, and this is not a shot at the trial lawyers, but they have to be intimately involved in some of these discussions where there would be another system like a loser pay something where at least the onus is on those bringing charges, to be certain they have valuable and vital suits to bring to the courts. Oftentimes litigation ends with a letter to the plaintiff defendant, ultimately trying to shake down a few dollars, and hopefully the insurance company will settle because they will tell us it is more expensive to go to court than to settle out of court; and consequently, doctors are hemorrhaging incomes because of these consequences. I do not stand aside or take any notion that we should excuse wrongful and wilful malpractice. Somebody cuts off the wrong limb, absolutely the person who has been aggrieved demands full compensation for damages rendered. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a system that has run amuck; that does not recognize dangerous procedures that were done to people, devastating their lives and frivolous lawsuits. This Congress nationally, as well as legislators in 50 States, needs to grapple with this issue because I can tell my colleagues today that if this does not get resolved soon, we will have a mass exodus of professionals leaving health care, a mass exodus because they can simply no longer afford the premiums that this malpractice insurance costs. It is affecting hospitals. It is affecting nursing homes. It is affecting practitioners. It is affecting every American, because as these rates rise, they must be passed on to others, and that is the patient. The patient pays more; health insurance becomes less available. Cost of treatment and facilities increases; cost of health care premiums skyrocket. Costs to the consumers in every product, good or service produced, sold or distributed in this country is exponentially increased because of the underlying costs of these looming crises. So we can stand here and do nothing, afraid to tackle a tough issue; or we should include it in at least the act of debate.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, our chaplain just spoke of opening our hearts with love in this country and solving some of our great dilemmas, homeland security, the fight against terrorism and, yes, corporate responsibility. I hope the other side of the aisle listened to that prayer carefully because I think what we need today is people to open their hearts with love and kindness, thinking about the American economy and our citizens and their 401(k)s and their futures. Rather than pointing fingers at the President and Vice President Cheney, let us work together to solve the problem. On April 24, we sent over a bill to the other Chamber that passed 334 to 90; 119 Democrats voted for it. It is about accountability. It is about establishing a good audit committee. It is about peer review and oversight to ensure corporations factually report their numbers, but it has languished because the majority leader does not have time for the important bills that face this Nation, and he happens to be a Democrat. All of a sudden when it breaks in the headlines, he is in a panic and he is asking everybody to rally around the Democratic bill. There is a bill on his desk. There has been a bill on his desk since April 24. Wake up, smell the coffee, get that bill passed, and we will restore moral order.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, one of the beauties of being in Congress after September 11 was the Members, Democrats and Republicans, rallying together on behalf of this great Nation. It is regrettable what I have seen in the last 24 hours, the attack on the President relative to the recent corporate scandals. If we want to point fingers and lay blame, we will never solve the problem for the average investors. We will not stabilize the stock market. We will use politics to ruin the economy of this Nation. We can work together as Democrats and Republicans to solve the problem or we can sit here and point fingers. They pat the President on the back relative to the war against terrorism, and then they stab him in the back relative to this war against corporate waste, fraud and abuse. We have a significant problem in America. We need to get to the heart of it. When the chief executive of this Nation lied to a grand jury, it was described as none of our business, that is personal, it does not matter if someone lies before the jury as long as it is about their personal life. Regrettably, what these CEOs are doing is lying to their shareholders. It is equally bad and they should be punished and sent to jail.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago a constituent of mine approached me to complain about her Medicare bill. I assumed this would be a typical complaint about either how much she was paying for premiums or how much she paid for services. Boy, was I wrong. Her complaint was worse. She was concerned not about her cost but about how much Medicare was paying for a particular product she uses. As a diabetic, she is required to wear special shoes that need shoe inserts. At one time, the only type of insert available was custom made. However, with the wide use of these products, coupled with advancements in technology, many of these inserts are now available off the shelf which are the ones that she gets for herself. Looking at her bill, I found that Medicare was paying, on average, $50 a pair for these inserts. This is the insert, a simple Styrofoam insert. The shoes she is required to wear are $134. The inserts for the shoe, over $50 apiece. She is required to pay a portion of that and Medicare reimburses, for three sets of diabetic shoe density inserts, $190. $190 for these inserts. In total, the provider was getting over $50 per pair for simple inserts. If you go to the local pharmacy or grocery store, you will discover that these off-the-shelf orthodontics cost only about $10. Even these inserts, which I purchased at CVS, a local pharmacy, not to do a plug for the pharmacy, but you can get them anywhere you want, they are Dr. Scholl's, these were $16. They look state of the art. They have all kinds of descriptions on them, a strong heel pad. I am not an orthopedic surgeon; I am not a podiatrist. I am a simple average person who had my own business in Florida, and I know how to comparative shop. I think we all do. But this is outrageous. If Medicare paid that amount for the $16, we would have saved substantially. She would have been thrilled and delighted. That is why she brought it to my attention, because she felt as a senior citizen, talking about Medicare and the need for prescription drugs, that we will never be able to solve the problems inherent in Medicare if we do not get our acts together and start finding ways to prevent these kinds of horrific overexpenditures of the Federal Government. But why do they do it? Let us ask the basic question. Why did people charge such an outrageous sum of money for these, what I will call, rather inadequate inserts? Because Congress told them to. We wrote into the statute what price should be paid for these products, assuming at the time that the only available insert was custom made. Now that off- the-shelves are available, Medicare is stuck. In today's Washington Post, there is an article talking about the rising cost of health care and the choices many employers, including the government, will have to make if these skyrocketing costs are not placed under some control. Two weeks ago, Congress began to address this problem when we passed H.R. 4954, the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act of 2002. However, we need to do more. We need to look at the entire Medicare program from top to bottom and allow the marketplace, not Congress, to determine prices. The only way we can save both the Medicare program and our health care system in general is to stay out of the business of setting prices and establishing controls. I look forward to working with Chairman Thomas and others as we continue to debate this very important issue. The Republicans, when we proposed prescription drug coverage, we recognized that within Medicare, for its solvency, we needed to do more and should be able to do more to provide for these benefits for our constituents, our seniors, and do so without robbing and causing taxes to have to be increased on existing working Americans. If we continue down this path and allow this kind of ripoff to take place, if we allow an insert to be over $60 a pair paid for by the Federal Government, then we will be walking away from our responsibilities to our seniors, we will bankrupt Medicare, and we will cause significant disparity for seniors. We believe we have an answer, but we believe we have to act now. There is no way anyone can explain to me and give me comfort about these charges and make me believe this is a legitimate expense of the Federal Government. Yes, she needs insoles; but at $16 versus about $50-plus, I think we can find a way to not only make her walk comfortably but save the Federal Government a ton of money. Therein lies the opportunity to provide a prescription drug coverage for our seniors who need it.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for this excellent legislative initiative, and I want to also thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of the committee, because this is vitally important to our Nation, to our democracy, to the comfort our voters feel when they leave the polls, that the vote is counted, but in this particular instance, we need to ensure that every American is allowed and able to vote. It is not as easy said as done. We have barriers and we do have roadblocks for people to achieve a normal living in this country. This will go a long way to ensure that those who are disabled are able to make it to the voting polls and cast their ballot for the candidates that they feel are most appropriate for this Nation. We in Florida, of course, had an interesting election. The gentleman from Ohio's bill speaks to all of the concerns that many Floridians had during that contentious debate. I do want to commend him and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for working so cooperatively on an issue that for a while divided the Nation, but hopefully when this final product makes it to the President's desk, it will unite us as Americans, knowing that when we do, in fact, cast those ballots, those critical ballots, whether it is for city commissioner, county commissioner or President of the United States, they are done accurately, they are done effectively, and they are done without any degree of uncertainty. The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) has been the leader on this and a number of other issues, and I commend him and encourage and urge my colleagues to be fully supportive of this motion to instruct. It will not only improve the bill substantially but will improve the lives of millions of Americans who up until now may have found themselves disenfranchised by polling places that were not familiar, not comfortable, not accessible. So I think this is something overdue, quite frankly, long overdue in the annals of our electoral system, and I commend the gentleman for his great efforts in bringing this to our attention and urge everybody to universally support this motion to instruct.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, in the dark hours after September 11 there was one thing that brought a Nation together, young and old, rich and poor, black and white, Hispanics, and that was the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of this great Nation. As men and women were toiling to rescue victims in Washington, Pennsylvania and New York, our hearts and minds turned to God to ask for devine guidance as we struggled with this difficult time. In my morning run this morning I visited the Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt memorials to bear witness to the inscriptions of their most memorable speeches to this Nation, each citing God's divine guidance in creating the Nation. Now, judges of the Ninth Circuit of the left coast of the United States have decided that this Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. The ACLU may be applauding a ruling, but their victory will be short- lived. One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all; behind me ``In God We Trust,'' in a Nation God guides us in a country where free people worship. I reject the court's ruling. I urge Congress to immediately undertake a constitutional amendment, and I salute every man and woman in uniform who serves this Nation being guided by God's love and inspiration.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to welcome Dr. David Paul and his wife, Judy, to the House Chamber this morning. I join my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), in this great honor. Dr. Paul is a third generation Floridian. He was born in Miami, Florida, in 1946; and he is a graduate of Miami Senior High School and the University of Florida. Go Gators. He is a true spiritual leader rooted in Florida. An accomplished trombone player, Reverend Paul played with the Savannah Symphony Orchestra for a number of years before attending the Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, where he earned his master of divinity degree and doctor of divinity. After 10 years in Kentucky, Dr. Paul again regained his senses and returned to Florida where he has served churches in Eustic, Groveland, Clewiston and Lake City. I know the community in Clewiston was very sad to see Reverend Paul head to Lake City, but one community's loss is another's gain; and I am sure he will have the same impact in Lake City that he had for us in Clewiston.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for that outstanding explanation of the bill, and I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) for his expert opinion on this issue and his hard work and dedication, and I want to take a moment to single out two Floridians. There has been a lot of concern about terrorist activities in our country, and some people have been second-guessing some of our great agencies. There have been two notable Floridians, Senator Bob Graham and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), who are Chairs of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on the House side and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the Senate side, and I have to praise them for their handling of this information and the way they have been able to work together as colleagues across the aisle and across the Chambers in trying to develop a comprehensive terrorism strategy and a homeland security strategy. I also want to applaud the agencies themselves. It is time that America lifts up its heart and wishes the best for every agency and every American, rather than the cynical second-guessing of people and the Monday morning quarterbacking and the reflections in the rear-view mirror. Let us look forward as a Nation to provide for the common defense, to protect our communities, to salute the fine men and women who make up these agencies. Let us not sit here and have a pity party. Let us work together. I also want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), who has done a tremendous job explaining on national network some of the intricacies of what we are dealing with. I know my constituents are very, very pleased and proud when they see Democrats and Republicans explaining to the American public what we are doing relative to homeland security, to give us security, to make us feel better, and to also let us know we are fighting terrorism.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Illinois on his excellent advocacy to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It is a perverse thing in the Tax Code that would have us tax marriage, and I am glad we are successfully removing that barrier from families so they can spend more of their disposable income on their children, rather than sending it here to Washington. I am quite perplexed with the statements made earlier by the gentleman from Ohio relative to Medicare and prescription drug coverage. Regrettably, rather than talking substance, they talk political attack. I come from Florida, the seventh largest senior population of all 435 districts, my 16th Congressional District based in West Palm Beach, Florida. Seniors care about Social Security, seniors care about Medicare, and seniors do care about prescription drugs. But rather than having a fair and full debate on these very important programs, the minority of this House chooses instead to demagogue and demean, disparage and create basically smoke screens. Now, for 40 years they ran this place, and never once did they offer prescription drug coverage. In fact, their party was the one that actually put in a penalty to Social Security recipients by taxing their Social Security income. And yet they talk that they are ``senior- friendly'' and here to do the ``people's work.'' They raise issues like fundraising. The gentleman from Ohio suggested we did not deal with the very important bill because the Republicans were at a fundraiser. Well, let me underscore that our committee, the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce worked and labored mightily to produce a bill that will provide prescription drug coverage. No fundraiser interfered with our pursuit of this important dialogue on behalf of America's seniors. Now, I have to chuckle because the party that advocated campaign finance reform, the ones that made it the centerpiece of their campaign attacks, the ones that said it was the most important piece of legislation ever to be voted on in this House, were the first ones to advance arguments against the very law that they passed. They were the first ones to send lawyers down to the Federal Election Commission to try and find loopholes in campaign finance reform so that they could continue to raise their gross excess sums of money. Rather than point fingers and start having a dialogue on campaign finance reform, I would prefer we talk about the things that matter to seniors, and that is a bill that we have on this floor. Seniors in my district are not greedy. Seniors in my district realize for a plan to work it must function fairly and equitably. It must not tax the Medicare system beyond its capacity. In addition to Medicare prescription drugs, we still have to provide home health care, nursing home care and hospitalization. We also have to provide a myriad of other services under Medicare for our seniors, our most vulnerable. They talk as if it is a one-size-fits-all, pass prescription drugs and the world goes on and lives happily ever. Their plans costs $900 billion over 10 years. In their own budget documents, they do not even have the money provided for this giveaway program that they suggest is important. Seniors need help with prescription drugs, and we are providing it. We are not trying to buy votes for the next election; we are trying to provide a plan that provides the poorest seniors, the sickest seniors, and helps every senior with their drug plan. The Committee on Ways and Means spent a lot of time and effort in providing this drug opportunity. I would suggest that if Members of the other side of the aisle really want to engage in concrete debate, rather than having objections and motions to rise and motions to table and motions to adjourn, we have gone through that charade on many important bills on this floor, they sit there and repeatedly stop the work process on this floor because their nose is out of joint about some little issue, and then they wonder why we do not have things on the floor to vote on. If they quit moving to rise, we may stay long enough to consider the very important debate. My grandmother came from Poland. She was a maid in a Travel Lodge Motel. She cleaned 28 rooms a day. She died at the age of 88 with $10,000 in the bank, her life savings. She desperately depended on Medicare, and she desperately depended on Social Security; and in her memory I am on this floor, as I am in committee, fighting to preserve those two fundamental programs, as well as adding a very important key piece to that puzzle, which is prescription drugs. It is shameful the way the other side of the aisle conducts the debate on this issue. Rather than talking intelligently to seniors and talking about relief for prescription drugs, they demagogue and scare seniors, scaring seniors. It would be a crime, if it was not so sad, that they sit there and tell seniors that somehow our party does not care about them. I can assure you we do, we care deeply. Republicans will deliver a plan that meets the test of time and meets the test of seniors.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I thank the chairman for his hard work on this issue, as well the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). I have heard terms described today that this has been rushed to the floor of the House. Maybe those who claim it has been rushed have not had a chance to see the virtual pornography that has been created since the Supreme Court's ruling, endangering our children, virtually created; horrible portrayals of our young and most fragile citizens on the Internet. Today's passage of this legislation is a pedophile's worst nightmare. Congress is one step closer to helping the High Court side with children over pedophiles. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to make no mistake about it. We are not talking about Scooby Doo or Lilo & Stitch, American Beauty, or any of the other characterizations that have been lobbed against the passage of this legislation. The images of exploited children are indeed virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. Our legislation unshackles prosecutors so they can start protecting the children once again. In the past, prosecution was swift and severe, for good reason, when sexual images of exploited minors were found in someone's possession. Now, after the Supreme Court ruling, unless the prosecutors can find the child in the photo, even if the photo is 10 or 20 years old, the pedophiles walk free. Prosecutors never needed to match the photos with the child, since that is nearly impossible with the laundering system that has been developed from State to State and country to country. I urge the High Court to reconsider the consequences of its actions the next time they rule on legislation dealing with the protection of our children. Lastly, we need to get this ban through the Senate and onto the President's desk immediately. With every passing day, another pedophile escapes prosecution because of this flawed ruling of the Supreme Court. Let us stop wasting time and start focusing on protecting our children.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, today is an interesting day on the House floor, as the Democrats ladle hypocrisy from the caldron of cynicism and political rhetoric. They are talking about a lot of issues other than the underlying issue. They are bringing up names like Tyco and Enron. I notice an absence of any mention of union pension funds that have been looted fraudulently by their own leaders. Do not accuse their advocates and allies of those kinds of crimes. Do not bring them up. Let us deflect the issue of the importance of this bill. This bill is important, important to millions of Americans. It is about portability. H.R. 4931 will ensure that these reforms remain in place and that the barriers to pension portability do not return. Under the bipartisan provisions of this bill, which were developed by my colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), workers for the first time will be able to move retirement benefits between the different varieties of retirement plans offered by for-profit, not-for- profit, and State and local government employees. In a provision especially important to public school teachers and other State and local employees who move between different States and districts, the tax law allows these workers to use the savings in their 403(b) and 457 plans to accrue greater pension benefits in the States in which they conclude their careers. Mr. Speaker, provisions that this bill make today will make permanent to allow millions of Americans to keep more of their retirement savings in one place by allowing them to roll their tax-deductible IRA funds into the workplace retirement plan. The portability reforms also allow any after-tax contributions to the workplace plan to be rolled into an IRA. The provisions we want to make permanent also help workers build meaningful retirement benefits more quickly in today's mobile economy by reducing the period of time it takes for workers to take possession of the matching contributions their employers make to the 401(k) accounts. Under the 2001 tax law voted on by some 400-plus Members, employer-matching contributions will be vested either 100 percent after 3 years or in increments over 6 years. For the sake of millions of American workers whose retirements will depend on the pensions they have worked hard to create, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4931 and reject the substitute.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, House rules prohibit me from urging the other body to act on pending legislation, so let me just take a moment to tell of a very important piece of legislation that left this Chamber some time ago, and that was INS reform. Our borders are vulnerable. We have been picking up absconders who have orders against them to be deported, and yet they are not sent out of the country. We have potential terrorists living in our country, and the INS is in a shambles. We have asked, through this body, that this agency reorganize. Somewhere between here and the other end of the building, legislation awaits action. We demand action on that bill, and we urge action on that bill for whoever is listening to this conversation. This is a critical issue. It is critical for the safety and security of this country, and I cannot fathom why we wait and delay getting that important piece of legislation to the President's desk for signature.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me first indicate Florida's pride in the gentleman's being in the chair today. We are delighted to see the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) as Chair of the House and Speaker pro tempore. We are also delighted to have a conversation today in calm and measured tones about an issue that is vitally, vitally important, to every American. That topic is Social Security. Typically, when we mention Social Security, people 65 and older are all ears and stay tuned to the debate. What we hope to do today is spend some time on this very valuable program, this important program, this safety net, if you will, for all Americans 65 and above and those yet to reach that wonderful age. We would also like to put to rest some of the demagoguery relative to this issue. We find so often that people, particularly the minority party, regrettably, have sought to use Social Security as a political issue to try and divide people and suggest that they had better vote for their side if they want to see Social Security preserved. Let me start with a personal anecdote, if you will. My grandmother came from Poland. She came to the United States of America. Her husband died, and she raised my mother and her sister on her own. She was a maid in the Travelodge Motel, and she cleaned 28 rooms a day. It was a job she was proud of, and a job she did well. But in her later years, the one thing was certain, she depended desperately on that Social Security check, and she depended on Medicare. She died with but $10,000 in the bank, her life's savings, all a woman of her means could afford to save in her lifetime while she cared for her two dependent children, paid her taxes, contributed to the church, did volunteer work, and helped the community in many ways. I remember her waiting anxiously for that check every month. She could have counted on us, but she wanted to be self-sufficient, and Social Security provided that self-sufficiency. So it is in her memory that I stand today as a proud Member of the Republican Party talking about ways to correct and strengthen and improve Social Security. Now, they use tag lines on the other side of the aisle like ``privatize'' and ``take away'' and ``diminish'' and ``raid'' and ``abscond''; and it is amazing, rather than constructive rhetoric, like, let us see if we can work together to fix a problem, they simply say, let us be in charge, and we will make certain Social Security is fully protected. Well, we have had that experiment. In fact, since 1935, when Social Security was created, they ran this place for 40 years. They ran this place into looming and growing deficits. So if we look at the facts of the matter, we will see that our stewardship of Social Security has actually been more on the point of making certain that it not only is fundamentally and financially secure, but that it also has long-term potential for future generations. We have to think more than just the current voting age population of 65 and above. We have to think of those born today in this country. We have to think of those who are just entering the workforce at 17, whether they are in Orlando or Palm Beach or Fort Lauderdale. The three Members here on Florida Day right now are Floridians. I am from the district with the largest population of seniors in all 435 districts in America. Seniors matter to me. Social Security matters to me. My legacy that I hope that I can leave in this process to my grandmother's memory matters to me. I do not want to try and convince people to vote for our party by scaring people. I would like them to have a chance to look at the record and say, this group of individuals, hopefully including some fair-minded Democrats, came to this great city in this great Nation and endeavored to fix a growing problem. Now, I am joined, fortunately, today, by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security who happens to adjoin me in the neighboring congressional district in Florida, a person who knows not only full well of Social Security's importance, but some of the remedies that we have prescribed to make it financially secure. He represents an equally large number of senior citizens; and every day he comes to work he considers and reflects on that same awesome responsibility, that it is not just about getting elected and reelected, it is about doing something while we are here to earn the confidence of the voters. He has been here since 1980, I might add, in a largely Democratic district; so I think he has proven to Members of all political stripes that he has the best interests of seniors, not Democratic seniors or Republican seniors or Independent seniors or nonaffiliated seniors, but of all seniors, at heart. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Mr. Shaw), chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would go back to the chart, I think it is very telling about the tax increases, but I think it is more telling about the time required for a person to work in a given 12-month period in order to pay those taxes. Can the gentleman illuminate that for us?

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would also explain the Social Security trust fund because that is a misnomer. There has been a lot of debate today, in fact, about raiding the fund, borrowing the fund, stealing from the fund, which we know is false, patent rhetoric. But if the gentleman would explain the fundamentals of the trust fund for us.