Mark Foley

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Becerra and I introduced legislation today to clarify the income forecast method. As Chairman of the House Entertainment Industry Task Force, I have understood that changes made in the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 that modified depreciation under the income forecast method have had unintended consequences for the movie industry. Our legislation corrects those consequences. The ``income forecast'' method is a method for calculating depreciation under section 167 for certain property, including films. Under the income forecast method, the depreciation deduction for a taxable year for a property is determined by multiplying the cost of the property by a fraction, the numerator of which is the income generated by the property during the year and the denominator of which is the total forecasted or estimated income to be derived by the property during its useful life. The total forecasted income to be derived from a property is based on conditions known to exist at the end of a period for which depreciation is claimed and these could be revised upward or downward at the end of a subsequent taxable year based on additional information that becomes available since the last estimate. In the case of films, income to be taken into account means income from the film less the expense of distributing the film, including estimated income from foreign distribution or other exploitation of the film including future television exhibition. The Small Business Job Protection Act addressed the income forecast method in order to make the formula a more appropriate method for matching the capitalized costs of certain property with the income produced by such property. While the new law modified the method by including all estimated income generated by the property, however, it made no changes to the treatment of participations. Projected participations--such as percentages of the gross receipts due an actor--have been included as part of the total cost of a film ever since studios have been forced to forecast the total revenues of a film under the income forecast method. But the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has indicated that it will disallow participations as part of a film. Participations were not an issue addressed by modification to the income forecast method. Studios have negotiated their complex transactions based on the clear and well-established principle that the cost of a film includes participations. The legislation that we have introduced today will ensure that participations are a part of the total cost of a film. First, the legislation would guarantee that income-contingent costs are includible in basis, thereby accepting the conclusion of Transameric Corp. v. U.S. The legislation provides that the depreciation allowance, as so determined, will apply notwithstanding section 404 or section 419. There would be ``no inference'' clause with regard to films placed in service after the effective date to the 1996 amendments to section 167 (that is, films placed in service after September 13, 1995). Second, the look-back regime is tightened in two ways: (i) a third recomputation year is added; and (ii) the 10 percent de-minimis rule is applied on an annual basis not on a cumulative basis in the recomputation year. Thus, if the taxpayer initially estimates that the film's ultimate income will be $1,000X and the estimated ultimate income in year two is increased or decreased by more than 10 percent, then the look-back computation is required for that last year. The 10 percent threshold then applies to the new estimated ultimate income. This legislation was the result of consultations with the staff of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Joint Committee on Taxation. An analysis was done of the legislation for films in the following three situations: (1) where the film takes off late; (2) where the film falls short of expectations; and (3) where the film exceeds expectations. For each scenario, calculations were done using escalating income- contingent costs, and provided calculations on both an annual basis and a cumulative basis of accounting for adjustments to forecasted revenues. The conclusion confirmed that the legislative changes would not create distortion under the income forecast method. We look forward to working with the Committee on Ways and Means to find the appropriate legislative vehicle to address this technical correction that will reiterate Congressional intent on changes made to the income forecast method in the Small Business Job Protection Act.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, next month marks an important milestone for those who battle child abuse. This will be the date when a key facility in my district marks its twenty year anniversary. In my community we are blessed to have as our neighbor the Exchange Club CASTLE program in Fort Pierce, Florida. In celebration of their 20 years of fighting violence against children, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting this achievement. The CASTLE program (Child Abuse Training and Life Enrichment) is a true American success story. In fat, what was once a small program has spawned a legion of 100 similar facilities in 27 states. CASTLE began two decades ago with a budget of just $40,000 serving just 25 families and has grown exponentially. Today it provides crucial services to more than 10,000 families in and around my Congressional District. Mr. Speaker, child abuse is a silent scourge that strikes families from all walks of life and in every community rich, poor, small and large. Without the services of agencies like the Exchange Club's CASTLE program, our nation would bear the burden of thousands more cases of child abuse and suffer the effects of families torn apart. What makes CASTLE so successful is their broad approach to the problem, working not just with parents, but with community officials, educators and children themselves in many cases working to stop violence before it occurs. CASTLE has developed dozens of community- wide programs to target at-risk youngsters and ensure that those most in need get the care, comfort and protection our society owes to them. Their message has resonated loudly throughout Florida and across the country: violence has no place in our homes and families. Mr. Speaker, April marks the start of national child abuse prevention month. I am proud to salute the Exchange Club's CASTLE program on this important occasion and look forward to their continued success in our community and throughout the state. They have indeed made our nation a better place to live.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, we are delighted President Bush has arrived in the Capitol complex, and he is here to celebrate Speaker Hastert's Saint Patrick's Day luncheon here in our wonderful Nation's Capitol. I want to take a moment, obviously, to celebrate this important day that is arriving in just 2 short days and to commend President Clinton for his work in Ireland, particularly to try and bring together peace in that region. Ireland is a beautiful country, and anyone who has visited there recognizes its emerald beauty, its hospitality, its friendliness and its importance to the United States. But for too many years there has been strife, ethnic division, division created by religious beliefs that has gone on for far too long. President Clinton did his best to bring about a cease-fire, working with all parties to make a practical approach to peace, but the one thing that seems apparent to me more than anything else is our continued interest in economic ties with Ireland. Wherever I have traveled and whoever I have met in the world's theater, one thing seems to be clear in their presentations to members of our congressional delegations; that if we bring jobs and opportunity, America's economic might and stick-to-it-iveness, what emerges from strife and fighting and decay and despair, what emerges from those difficult situations, are hope and opportunity, progress and peace. When we recently went to the Middle East, King Abdullah, II, who is now the ruling leader of Jordan, rather than ask for military hardware and military might or more American funding, specifically asked could we introduce them to companies like Oracle and Microsoft and companies that may bring jobs and opportunity to Amman and places in Jordan. Because he gets it. He readily acknowledges that with work and opportunity and with income comes peace. People lay down their weapons in order to find jobs and prosper for themselves and their family. In Northern Ireland, we have that same opportunity; and, yes, we have that same obligation. The President has announced his choice for Ambassador of the United States to Ireland. I hope the Senate speedily confirms this appointment. It is important that we put someone in place to grapple with the difficult and tenuous issues we face in this region. But it is heartening and encouraging to see the progress that has been made under the past administration and the hopefulness of the future. Combining our resources, combining our strength, combining our character and our ability to persuade is our mission now. So as we toast a cheer to Ireland and we celebrate a holiday in our Catholic faith, Saint Patrick's Day, and our remembrance of Ireland and the many immigrants that came to this country based on the potato famine or for other reasons, we are really encouraged today as we see many of Irish descent returning to their roots and their homeland because there is jobs, opportunity and strength. Finally, if we could figure out the peace part of that equation and bring stability to the region, peace to our people and happiness for all, we will truly not only extend the blessings of our country but hopefully solve some of the world's problems.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here today to try and urge my colleagues here in this Chamber and the one across the hall on the urgency of the tax package laid before us, passed by this House, supported obviously by the President who is in New Jersey today trying to urge the Senators from that particular State to be supportive. Obviously as you watch Wall Street and look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average and you look at the Nasdaq and all of the economic indicators, and also the job losses occurring throughout the country, it becomes more clear and apparent of the urgency of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act passed by our body. We have been certainly applauded and ridiculed by some Members for the speed we brought that bill to the Committee on Ways and Means and then ushered it to its passage on the floor. I will add that we lost not one Republican in the Tax Relief Act, and in fact gained 10 Democrats and one Independent. Now it is obviously a major, important issue for us to have the Senators consider the important ramifications of not adopting this very important tax relief effort of the President. First and foremost, giving everyone a raise is important because it allows taxpayers to keep more money in their pockets, support their families better, and reduce the burden placed on them by government. Should Americans spend 40 percent of their income in Federal, State and local taxes? That is a basic question. That is a fairness question and needs to be answered by all parties. I think it is unfair that 40 percent of American's income is paid in Federal, State and local taxes. Should families pay more in taxes than for food, clothing, and shelter combined? That makes no sense whatsoever. Wasteful Washington spending is a dangerous road to travel in a weaker economy. We are concerned. We hear the notion of triggers that have been advocated by some, and we suggest if you use a trigger on anything, use it on spending as well, to make sure that budget surpluses do not continue and we do not spend our way back into the days of a $5.7 trillion accumulated debt which we witnessed when we came to Congress in 1994 and quickly reversed. We should let the American people spend their own money to meet their own needs. There are too many people in this Chamber and too many people in this Capitol who believe that the money sent to us is Washington's money not the people's money. People every day go to work and work very hard to make a living for themselves and their families only to see so much money taken out in the form of taxation: Income tax, estate tax, excise taxes, property taxes, you name the litany of taxes, whether it is on your cable bill, TV bill or other charges such as gasoline taxes. What will happen if we pass our tax relief bill. We believe more jobs, more take-home pay, a stronger economy. It will save the average family of four earning $55,000 a year, certainly not rich, approximately $1,930. To some that may be small, but to the family earning $55,000, that is a watershed of new moneys to help save for college or pay for prescription drugs. At least 60 million women income-tax payers will save money with our plan. More than 60 million African American income-tax payers will save money with our plan. More than 50 million Hispanic income-tax payers will save money on our plan. This means more money for college, a second car, or even a much-needed vacation. So let us not have the constant politics-over-people argument that seems to resonate in our capital city. Let us put people before politics and pass a bill that will help us bring financial security and stability to our taxpayers. Let us return their hard-earned money to them so they can spend it in their community, on their families and on their priorities. Let us not make our priorities forced upon them. We can balance Social Security and secure it for the future. We can save Medicare. We can do so many things, including a prescription drug policy, but we also have to recognize that every priority a Member of Congress assumes is so does not need to be that of every American. Mr. Speaker, let us balance the objective and rule with fairness and provide relief, fiscal strength and security, and move this bill forward so that the President of the United States can have a chance to pass this very important legislation.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, one of the great privileges and pleasures we have as Members of Congress is to appoint our fine young people to our service academies, be it Air Force, West Point, Annapolis, Merchant Marine, or Coast Guard. It always impresses me when I hear from some of them who have either told me about their experiences or, in fact, have written on issues that may concern them relative to our country. I had a great opportunity last week to receive over my fax, obviously, a letter from a proud father, George Liedel, who is a doctor in Sebring, Florida, at Highlands Regional Medical Center. He sent this from Jennifer, Jennifer Liedel, his daughter who is at West Point. I nominated her in 1997. She sent this Friday, February 23, from her computer to her mom and dad. The subject: ``I think this puts things in perspective as to where our priorities really are as a nation.'' On 18 February 2001, while racing for fame and fortune, Dale Earnhardt died in the last lap of the Daytona 500. It was surely a tragedy for his family, friends and fans. He was 49 years old with grown children, one who was in the race with him. I am new to the NASCAR culture, so much of what I know has come from the newspaper and TV. He was a winner and earned everything he had. This included more than ``$41 million in winnings and 10 times that from endorsements and souvenir sales.'' He had a beautiful home and a private jet. He drove the most sophisticated cars allowed, and every part was inspected and replaced as soon as there was any evidence of wear. This is normally fully funded by the car and team sponsors. Today, there is no TV station that does not constantly remind us of his tragic end, and the radio already has a song of tribute to this winning driver. Nothing should be taken away from this man. He was a professional and the best in his profession. He was in a very dangerous business, but the rewards were great. Two weeks ago, seven U.S. Army soldiers died in a training accident when two UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters collided during night maneuvers in Hawaii. The soldiers were all in their twenties, pilots, crew chiefs and infantrymen. Most of them lived in substandard housing. If you add their actual duty hours, in the field, deployed, they probably earn something close to minimum wage. The aircraft they were in was between 15 and 20 years old. Many times parts were not available to keep them in good shape due to funding. They were involved in the extremely dangerous business of flying in the Kuhuku Mountains at night. It only gets worse when the weather moves in as it did that night. Most times no one is there with the yellow or red flag to slow thing down when it gets critical. Their children are mostly toddlers who will lose all memory of who `Daddy' was as they grow up. They died training to defend our freedom. I take nothing away from Dale Earnhardt but ask you to perform this simple test. Ask any of your friends if they know who was the NASCAR driver killed 18 February 2001. Then ask them if they can name one of the seven soldiers who died in Hawaii 2 weeks ago. 18 February 2001, Dale Earnhardt died driving for fame and glory at the Daytona 500. The Nation mourns. Seven soldiers died training to protect our freedom. No one can remember their names, and most do not even remember the incident. For the record, the six identified casualties were Major Robert L. Olson of Minnesota; Chief Warrant Officer George P. Perry and Chief Warrant Officer Gregory I. Montgomery, both of California; Sergeant Thomas E. Barber of Champlin, Minnesota; Specialist Bob D. MacDonald of Alta Loma, California; and Specialist Rafael Olvera-Rodriguez of El Paso, Texas. She hits pretty much the nail on the head, as they say. We are completely smitten by personalities and successful stars, rock stars, TV actors, and others; and we give scant appreciation to those who serve in the military. Those men who just were mentioned, who died training for this country, deserve more than my speech on the floor or her memo. I hope it brings us to call to mind that the great bravery exhibited by our men and women in uniform, those on the police departments, our schoolteachers, our firefighters, you name the profession who works for the public, deserve more than thinking their life's work does not deserve headlines or certainly does not deserve the appreciation of our country. I salute Jennifer for bringing this memo to my attention. I salute her for her service to West Point, and I praise our country for those young people who choose to serve our country in uniform.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the Committee on Rules for bringing this to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk specifically, because we are hearing a lot of rhetoric today, about how we are matching priorities with our ability to pay. Basically, we are covering a fiscal relief package that not only provides Social Security and Medicare, but takes care of priorities and provides what we think is a rather slim tax relief package. Now, the people on the other side of the aisle say they represent the working class, and I appreciate their interest in that subject. I started in life in a gas station. I went on to become a dishwasher in a restaurant. I went on at the age of 21 to start a small family business in Lakeworth, Florida. And week after week I would work hard, with the help of my employees, to make the business a success. But oftentimes there was no money left for me at the end of the week. So when people demean a $180 tax cut as insignificant, maybe it is easy for people who make $145,000 a year to say $20 or $30 a month is insignificant. But I know when I was struggling in my business, if I got an extra 5 bucks a week I was delighted, because I was able to do something in my community with that $5. Let us not diminish this debate into, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) said, a class warfare debate. I think it is significant that every American works hard and, when they work hard, they are rewarded for their good behavior. But I want to show one other thing and I will leave my colleagues with this next chart. This is what we are facing now. This is Newsweek's impression of where our economy is. If we do not pass the tax cut we can look forward to more headlines like that. ``Laid off. How safe is your job?'' Maybe $20 is too much to give hard-working Americans back, or maybe it is the Lexus or muffler comparison used by the other side of the aisle, but I would suggest to my colleagues that those in the trenches working hard, and though I do not have a college degree, I know many people in my community who work hard every day would thankfully look at 20 bucks a week and say, Thank you, U.S. Congress; thanks for sending some relief. And maybe because of this economic stimulation, I will not face that headline and a pink slip at the end of the week.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring to the attention of the House a measure that has been introduced to extend the current, and very important, tax credit for wind energy production (the PTC) until the year 2007. I introduced this legislation with my Ways and Means colleagues Jerry Weller, Bob Matsui and Karen Thurman--as well as Jim McCrery, Rob Portman, Wes Watkins, and Jim Ramstad--because of the pressing need to get this issue addressed. If we do not extend the credit, the current PTC will expire at the end of the year--a situation that would deliver a stunning setback to a form of alternative energy development that is needed more now than ever, given our growing energy difficulties. Mr. Speaker, wind energy production credit was originally enacted under the bipartisan Energy Policy Act of 1992 and has enjoyed strong, bipartisan support every since. In fact, during the 106th Congress, 197 House members cosponsored H.R. 750 to extend the credit. What the credit itself does is to provide an inflation-adjusted 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour credit for electricity produced with wind power equipment. The credit is only available if the wind energy equipment is located in the United States and electricity is generated and sold by a U.S. taxpayer. There should be no question, given the current domestic energy crisis, that the need for fostering alternative energy sources in the United States is critical-- and wind energy has phenomenal potential. As of now, the majority of domestic wind development has been located in California, but there are numerous other states that have great natural potential, including North Dakota, Texas, Kansas, South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Iowa and Wind energy projects also offer a boon to farmers, particularly those in the Farm Belt--one of the most promising areas for the development of domestic wind resources. Wind power projects and ranching and farming are fully compatible; wind plants can be located and operated with little or no displacement or interference with crops or livestock. And for farmers and ranchers, the lease payments paid to them by wind operators serve as a stable source of extra income. Wind projects also create important new economic opportunities in the communities in which they are located. New wind facilities lead to increased local tax bases, new manufacturing opportunities, rental income for farmers and ranchers and new construction, and ongoing operational and maintenance jobs. This leads to more jobs and other economic opportunities in rural areas where those things can be scarce. Equally important, wind energy is an environmentally friendly form of energy that produces no air or groundwater pollution. Unfortunately, none of these benefits are possible without the production tax credit. Wind energy is viable and working, but without the credit, development would be hindered dramatically. As we know all too well, energy prices are in a terrible state of flux now. This sort of fluctuation makes the financing and development of wind projects terrifically difficult. Put simply, the production tax credit abrogates this problem by leveling the costs of production through a guaranteed revenue stream. In the end, such a guarantee--which must be at least five years to ensure viability--will foster a cost-effective and environmentally sensitive energy sector. And that is exactly what we need. For all these reasons, we owe it to ourselves to pass a five-year extension of the wind energy production tax credit. And I urge my colleagues in both the House and Senate to continue to support this important fledgling industry.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here today following the address of President Bush to our colleagues and to the Nation regarding his priorities and where he hopes to take our Nation in the next 4 years during his administration. Let me first commend him for identifying and discussing a number of issues that I would expect Democrats and Republicans to agree on wholeheartedly. He mentioned Head Start specifically. He talked about the environment. He talked about a military pay increase for the personnel first before we buy new equipment. He talked about our continuing efforts to increase the budget at the National Institutes of Health. He pledged to restore integrity to the Social Security system. He offered what is a blueprint for Medicare reform, and specifically one piece that was music to my ears, an effort to pay down the national debt. Now, if we listened to the other side of the aisle this morning, those baying at the moon, suggesting somehow that this is an irresponsible blueprint of fiscal remedy, who have argued against tax cuts, argued for more spending and consistently raised rhetoric that somehow this whole process is irresponsible from the start, it begs the question. Whose money is it really? If you stay around Washington or any of our capital cities around the country and you remain in the room with politicians for very long, they will convince you it is government's money. That theme plays out today on national talk radio as they launch an aggressive attack to demean the President's proposal, again suggesting it is irresponsible and telling us that they have a better plan. Having come to Congress in 1994, I remember the legacy left us by the majority party, at that time the Democratic Party, which was a ballooning deficit, out-of-control debt, increasing allocations annually for interest to pay on the debt, no ability to reign in spending, and when they really ran into rough sledding in the high degree of deficits, they blamed Ronald Reagan. As a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a Member of Congress, I can assure the American public listening to me that the only persons who can effectuate tax cuts, spending proposals are the Members of Congress, the House and the Senate, as prescribed by the Constitution. Yes, President Reagan recommended tax cuts, and he was successful in convincing Congress to pass them, but along the way they were careless in not reducing spending to offset that reduced amount income. So we borrowed against the legacy of future generations to fund the programs that were near and dear to the hearts of Members of this body. We have a chance to do something different now. When we proposed paying down the debt and balancing the budget, we were told by then-President Clinton we could not do it in 13 years, maybe 11 if we tried hard. Lo and behold, we suggested 7, we did it in 4, and now we have what is surplus dollars in the Treasury. The call from the other side is to spend, spend, spend more money on priorities. I think if you listened to the President clearly last night, he outlined priorities that meet the test of time, are designed to help society's most vulnerable, are prepared to protect our domestic tranquility and our national security and really go about changing the fundamental way we conduct our mathematical equation here in this body. Now, my colleagues can complain and can obfuscate and can deride his proposals, but I believe in my heart that at the end of the day they will come around to suggest and recommend that these are not irresponsible cuts. Mr. Speaker, I remember last year when we proposed, I believe, some $600 billion, potentially $700 billion tax relief to the constituents, we call it tax relief, but it is really refunding of overpayment, we were told that number was exorbitant. It was out of sight, it was out of mind. It would explode the deficit. Yet, I hear the number bandied about by the other side of the aisle that they may accept $900 billion. What a difference a year makes. What a difference a year makes. Let us focus on trying to resolve first and foremost our disagreements on key policy issues, but let us also take a moment to recognize the hard work of every American who sends their money to Washington and hope they can do some good with it, hope we can improve the infrastructure of our Nation's highways, strengthen Social Security, provide for the military pay increase as necessary and do the kind of things that society should do for its constituents. As the President suggested last night, charities are no replacement for government, and I am a supporter of some of the involvement government has in our daily lives. But if we keep the money here, if we keep it on the table, and we suggest somehow we will pay down the debt, folks, get with it and get real, it will not happen. Once there is an excess of money left on the table, there is a program in every Member's district that deserves that surplus, and we will argue and we will debate and we will spend. Let us join together, support the President's initiative, give the taxpayers some real relief, give them some of their overpayment of surplus revenues back to them so they can spend it in their communities, on their children, figuring out their future and letting the government take less of their take-home pay on a weekly basis.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 70), and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Madam Speaker, February is American Heart Month as designated by Congress in 1963. I want to thank my colleagues for taking time to come to the floor today to draw attention to the impact that heart disease and stroke have on our own society. Perhaps in no other instance is a quick reaction more important to saving lives than during heart attacks. There is an important chain of survival which, when followed, can make an impact on the devastating effect of America's number one killer, heart disease. The first step is preparation, understanding; and reacting quickly to cardiac events saves lives. Knowing the warning signs of heart attack and being ready to react can save precious moments. Warning signs include: uncomfortable pressure, fullness or pain in the center of the chest lasting more than a few minutes; pain spreading to the shoulders or neck; nausea, sweating or shortness of breath. The third step is calling 911. The earlier emergency medical personnel can begin resuscitation, the better chance of survival. Finally, learn CPR. It is important that we maintain this life-saving skill throughout our lives. One never knows when one will be in the situation to implement the chain of survival. The more of us that know it, the more lives that can be saved.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for bringing this quickly to the floor. Having just returned from India, I wish to express my deepest sympathy to the many victims of the recent earthquake. India is a beautiful country, with so many wonderful people. The scope of this disaster is just hard to imagine. Traveling across the country, I was amazed by the diversity in the culture and the hospitality of the hosts. The devastation caused by this natural disaster has taken the lives of over 10,000 people but has impacted countless others, both in India and here in the United States. In my own district, the American-Indian community is very strong, and I am honored to consider many of them my friends. It is difficult to imagine the magnitude of the devastation in India as we speak hear on the floor today, but I am deeply moved by the mobilization of the Indian community in response to this tragedy. Let me borrow a quote from the inaugural address of President Bush. ``Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today; to make our country more just and generous; to affirm the dignity of our lives and every life. This work continues. This story goes on.'' That is America, there to help in time of need. So I would encourage all Americans to consider contributing to one of the many aid organizations that participate in the recovery and aid the mission in India. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I thank all who participated in bringing it to the floor today.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation, and I want to thank my colleagues for their hard work on reaching this agreement. I want to talk today about the Medicare provisions of this package, the portion of the bill that will help many health care providers and beneficiaries whose needs were not met by the current Medicare program. This Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act in 1997 to save Medicare from insolvency. Now it is time to add some funds and benefits to the program to ensure it keeps up with the needs of those we serve. This bill effectively does that. We have updated hospital payments so our hospitals nationwide can continue to provide the quality care we expect from them. We have also added and expanded preventive benefits for beneficiaries, including screening for glaucoma. I introduced with my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), medical nutrition therapy, and expanded coverage of pap smears and pelvic exams. The bill also eliminates the time limit for immunosuppressant drugs cosponsored by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Thurman) for Medicare beneficiaries who have had an organ transplant, and waives the 24-month waiting period for those who suffer from ALS. These are provisions that have had our strong support this year. The bill addresses our Nation's rural hospital crisis, and incorporates many of the provisions of H-CARE, which I introduced this year with bipartisan and bicameral support. So often, these small and isolated hospitals serve a disproportionate share of Medicare beneficiaries with special needs. Our rural communities need this coverage, and have been supported by people like the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey) and others of this Congress, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins). Finally, the bill updates payments to the Medicare+Choice program so beneficiaries can continue to have a low-cost alternative to traditional Medicare. Much has been said about the funding in this bill for the HMOs that provide this coverage, but this is something of utmost importance to my constituents and to many seniors across the country. We have all heard about the planned withdrawals from the Medicare plus Choice program. This bill takes a first step towards bringing stability to this program and to the beneficiaries who depend on it. I also want to thank our colleagues in the Committee on Commerce and those on the Committee on Ways and Means who have worked valiantly to get this bill produced. I think the seniors of our Nation will greatly benefit from this, and I again urge my colleagues to support us in this effort as we prepare to finish the 106th Congress on what I believe will be a very positive note, which is additional health care for our seniors. Hopefully, we can continue to work for health care for all Americans.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time in the legislative day of Friday, December 15, 2000, for the Speaker to entertain a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3594, Installment Tax Correction Act of 2000.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, first, as we are about to end the 106th Congress, let me commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease) for his great job of conducting the chair in so many situations. And I see we are joined on the floor today by Brian Kerns, his successor-elect, who will be sworn into this fine body in just a few weeks. I come from West Palm Beach, Florida; and I am proud of the fact that I am a Floridian. I am proud of the fact that Palm Beach County is my hometown. The last 5 weeks have been a difficult time for our community, for our State, and our Nation. There have been a lot of negative characteristics put upon my county by some suggesting we are a backwater community where we disrespect the rights of individuals, where we denied people the right to vote, where we denied people going to the polls. I take strong exception to some of those comments. Tonight we will hear from our two contestants in the Presidential election of 2000. I pray that both rise to the occasion that is necessary for the job that they sought, and that is to begin the healing of this Nation. Those that question the legitimacy of this election are only fanning the flames of discontent and will create a divide amongst us. We are all concerned and confused about the allegations being charged in Florida. But, in my heart, I know the truth and I feel compelled on this floor to at least suggest to America, it is time to rise above both the partisan bickering, the acrimony, and the endless character assassinations that have taken place, whether it be the United States Supreme Court, whether it be directed toward the Florida Supreme Court, whether it be directed to Katherine Harris, the Secretary of State, or Mr. Butterworth or any of the other individuals that were part of this historic and very unique election. The one thing I have heard consistently from my colleagues and from my constituents is that during the election contest there were things that they clearly wanted to establish: prescription drug coverage; improving Medicare; strengthening Social Security; eliminating the marriage penalty, the tax on marriages; doing away potentially with estate taxes, which we consider a punitive tax against the estates and the wealth created by the hard work of Americans. These were issues that resonated with each and every American; and they said, regardless of your party affiliation, I would expect, in fact I demand you to act on these pressing matters of national importance. So 5 weeks later we will hear a speech tonight; and, hopefully tomorrow, Congress, those still in the 106th, those preparing to join the 107th, can recognize that America is watching very carefully what we do here in this process. It will be not enough to stand on the House floor and rale against the other side of the aisle, be they Democrat or Republican, in an effort to spin your story in hope either to regain control of this process or to exert your legislative dominance because you are the majority party. It will not be enough to simply suggest that we can stall the process by which we hope to govern. It will take great individuals, who I know exist in this process. I know many of my colleagues personally. I have traveled with them. I spent time in their offices. I know their families. And I know the beautiful thing about this process is the fact that when we need to, as Americans first and foremost, we do in fact come together and handle the requisite task. We rise above Democrat, Republican, or Independent registration and we look for answers to solve our problems. We have done it in the past. I know we are capable of it. I will suggest to my colleagues, I am going to join with my entire Florida delegation and hopefully others, I know the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) suggested we look at the voting machines, look at the voting systems, look at the way we conduct voting in our country in every precinct, in every parish, in every community to find a way to do it better. We should not have a lingering aftereffect or aftertaste of a bad election or a bitter pill to swallow because we failed to do it properly and correctly. We are going to have to join our brethren in the State legislatures and county commissioners and try to find a way to fund the technology that exists. Many in the national media have been asking me, ``What are these machines like? What are they like?'' I said, ``Well, I can tell you they are antiquated. They were with us since the 1970s.'' In Florida we play the Lottery from every 7-Eleven and every gas station in every hamlet in every community in the State, and on Saturday evening at 11 o'clock somehow we can figure out who the winner is after a million-plus tickets have been purchased; and we do so because technology exists to allow us to do that. And yet, in our voting machines, we are looking at a system that has created at least a sense of confusion amongst our constituents. So let us remedy today to look forward to the process of making it more fundamentally fair, but let us first challenge our colleagues to stand together tonight, after tonight, when the final speech is made, let us stand behind that person who will be our President and make certain that, as we assemble in January, the United States of America is governed together by one President, one Congress, one Senate.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I thank the gentleman for bringing this rule to the floor. Of course, I urge all Members to support this very important landmark legislation. It is one of the proudest moments that I will probably have here on the floor is to see the Florida delegation unanimous on an issue of importance to our State and to our Nation. Many people look at the Everglades and say it is Florida's issue, it is Florida's problem. But it is America's crown jewel. It is something we share not only with ourselves as natives of Florida, but also those 45-plus million visitors who come to Florida for the pristine wonderment of whether it be our oceans, our Everglades, our Keys, or our panhandle. Marjory Stoneman Douglas penned a novel, the River of Grass, about the wonders of the Everglades. Back in the thirties when candidates were running for office, one notably Mr. Broward, who became Governor, used to say the slogan, elect me Governor and I will drain that swamp, known as the Everglades, so we will have development. How wrong they were then, how right we are today, to reverse decades of abuse and neglect of our national park; to start paving the way, if you will, and maybe that is not the correct expression, paving the way, but creating the dynamics by which we can reengineer Florida's multitude of plumbing projects in order to make the Everglades once again the clean and pristine waterway and natural habitat that it is and should be. The delegation has been led by so many champions, too many to mention, back in the days of the governorship of Bob Graham, now Senator, Connie Mack, and others. We are truly a bipartisan State as it relates to the Everglades. Lawton Chiles, in his memory, would be so proud today to know after the years he served as our chief executive that one of his greatest efforts is now coming to fruition. The chairman of Florida's delegation was mentioned. There is a lot to be said for seniority in this process. The 20 years of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) of service to Floridians, to those in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach County, the hallmark of his 20-year tenure here, results in this bill being brought to the floor because he pleaded with the Speaker and all parties at the table, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and others, to make sure that this bill became the final act of this final hour of the 106th Congress. What a tribute and what a legacy to his grandchildren, 13 I believe now in number, maybe 11, two to come, 13 soon will know that their grandpoppy made possible this historic day on a Friday before we adjourn and return to our constituencies in Florida. So I salute every Member, Democrat and Republican, in our delegation, every person who will vote for this bill, and I urge, I hope, a unanimous acceptance of the fact that we take on the national responsibility of our national park, the Everglades, by signalling to the world we are prepared to lead, we are prepared to clean up our act, and we are prepared to make it the great park that it truly is.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, earlier it was described that there is just one little water bill to pass in the Congress, so why waste our time. That was stated by the minority appropriations senior member. The little water project described is the Everglades funding, a national park that we all have responsibility for. So I would suggest as Congress convenes tomorrow at 9 o'clock, we have a chance, a majority Congress by Republicans, to pass one of the most comprehensive environmental bills in probably my lifetime and my term in Congress. So I think coming back tomorrow is indeed appropriate. I hope some of the other Members show up for the vote because the most important vote they will get to cast this year involves a national park, not a Florida park, Everglades National Park. I commend this Congress, our leaders, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), and others who have brought this bill to the floor, Senator Smith from the Senate who has ushered that bill to our Chamber. And I am delighted and will be proud as a Floridian to cast that important vote tomorrow at 9 o'clock. I urge my colleagues to return from campaigns and vote with us on the Everglades.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am here in Washington, D.C. representing the constituents of the 16th district in Florida, and I have heard a lot of conversation tonight about the lack of progress of this Congress. I must refute those statements vehemently and personally. I came to Congress in 1994 with a freshman class of the 104th Congress. What we inherited at that time was 40 years of Democratic leadership which brought us to record deficits, annual deficits, huge amount of monies owed, the U.S.Treasury or the taxpayers, $5.7 trillion of accumulated debt, a government that was spending money out of Social Security, Medicare and every other trust fund that they could find, and borrowing money out of Social Security in order to camouflage the real size of the deficit annually. When we were elected, we were told that we could expect, if we allowed the President and the majority party at that time to continue their spending ways, we would be probably this year spending in excess of $200 billion or $300 billion over and above what came in in revenues. Interestingly, 6 years later, as I am about to celebrate my sixth anniversary of being elected to this important and fine office, we have a balanced budget. We have welfare reform. We have reduced capital gains, which has led to the largest expansion on Wall Street and more income made by Americans in the equity markets than in our history. We have increased Medicare funding, and we have created a lockbox hopefully for Social Security. We have passed a marriage penalty elimination, but the President vetoed it. We passed estate tax relief, but the President vetoed it. We passed a repeal of a phone tax, but the President vetoed it. Mr. Speaker, we have restored military funding that was cut by this administration year after year. The White House sent us budgets that were inadequate for our military, and the Republican majority had to step up and make certain that our men and women in uniform were not only properly funded, trained, but that the personnel support that they need, the transportation support that they needed would, in fact, be there in a time of crisis. People say we are just sitting around doing nothing, I think when you have a fight over real issues, then it is worth staying. We can go back to the ways of yesterday and spend, spend, spend to our heart's content and not care about the voters, because after all it is all about Members of Congress. I have to get elected, so I have to bribe my constituents in order to make sure they vote for me. So they spend money just willy nilly out of the pockets. It is not theirs to pay, it just comes in the form of borrowed notes; and we fund the government excessively. We are here today over a few very, very minor issues. Yes, it was stated the President is away. He is in California. There are other Members of their side of the aisle away campaigning, because, after all, control of Congress is more important than doing the people's work, being in charge somehow around here is more important than accomplishment. I always heard from my parents put people before your politics, make certain you take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. As a Member of Congress, I voted for Head Start and a number of programs that the minority side has asked for. But at the same time, I recognize we have to have some fiscal restraint. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, bent over backwards to give the President and the White House and the minority side as much money as we possibly could find in order to make certain that their needs were met. But in the waning hours, it just was not enough, because it was more about shutting this place down, about causing gridlock, about trying to pretend that somehow nothing has been accomplished in this Congress. Campaign finance reform, we passed in the House. Patients' bill of rights, we passed in this House. I mentioned the tax cuts previously, so there is a record of accomplishment. People do not raise their voices. People do not need to belly ache and browbeat. People need to come together and solve the problems that face America. That is why we were elected. We were elected to make certain, yes, in a partisan sense as a Republican, to represent the core elements of what my party is all about. The gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), who will speak in a moment, and I veer off from time to time on our party for a number of issues, because we believe we have to represent our districts, mine in Florida, his in California. We care enough about our constituents to say we will do what is right, not what is political. The last 48, 72 hours, I have heard nothing but bellyaching from the other side of the aisle that has made me nauseous. It is not about doing something for people. It is about winning an election. It is about trying to gain power for the shear sake of having power. It is about being called chairman. That is not what this process is about; that will be decided November 7, and God bless America, it will be decided by people who pay taxes, who vote in this country, who make a difference, and who send us the money we spend here. Let us stop the acrimony. Let us stop the nonsense and let us stop the partisanship from that side of the aisle and recognize there has been a number of good accomplishments by the 106th Congress.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago I asked a question on the House floor as to the schedule because it seems to me that there is some confusion. We have been asked now vis-a-vis the Senate to have a potential 14-day CR. Now, to refresh the memory of those listening, we were asked by the President to stay and work day in and day out 24-hour CRs until we get our work done, and we have done that. We have tried to work. We have tried to negotiate. Now it appears that sometime within the last 12 hours, Mr. Daschle, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and Mr. Podesta, the President's chief of staff, had a meeting and decided to take a 14-day CR over to the Senate and place it on Trent Lott's desk and ask for unanimous consent, and apparently the Senate has taken them up on their offer for a 14-day CR because the politics of confusion is not working for them. Many of the Members on my side of the aisle, including one of our most vulnerable members, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), remained in Washington, D.C. to do the people's business because he believes more in the sanctity of the voting process here than going home to protect his reelection. The courage that he has displayed will ensure his reelection, because he truly represents his district. Unlike some of the Democratic House leaders featured today in the Hill Magazine, Wednesday, November 1 edition, and let me read the headline because it is telling. Last night I heard the chants, work, work, work from the minority side of the aisle; gets everybody festered up, ready to do the people's business. Let me read this because it is telling. Democratic House leaders miss weekend votes. Despite President Clinton's pledge to stay here with you and fight for the legislative priorities, not one House Democratic leader was present last weekend for all 7 votes taken on session-ending procedural matters. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), all missed votes while we worked trying to solve some very, very difficult issues. Some are on immigration. We have heard a blanket amnesty requested by the President, and I am all for letting people stay in America that have been tortured and oppressed from their homelands, but let us get the record straight. We do not want to just give everybody amnesty until we figure out who they are, why they are here, what their backgrounds are, do they have criminal records. Every time they talk about blanket amnesty, people in Haiti and Cuba and other places decide maybe it is worth risking their life to come on a raft to the United States, because if they just reach our shores they will be allowed to stay because some day a future Congress will blanket amnesty them as well. So those that go legitimately to the INS process 2 and 3 years at a time, waiting for some response that they may be citizens, are basically shunned and turned away because they do not and are not covered by blanket amnesty. Now the Republican majority has proven itself capable of staying here in town working until the job is done. We were blamed for the shutdown of government. I remembered some on the other side howling about shutting down the government; it is the Republicans' fault. The Chamber is empty today and the Republicans are talking, I being one, and am prepared to stay through Tuesday, election day, to make certain we deliver a budget that is good for America, good for kids and schools, good for Medicare recipients, good for hospitals. We have delivered that bill and we have delivered tax relief, and we have done so in a prudent, sensible, cost-effective manner; but we are tied up on a couple of issues and they are refusing to budge. The President is in California, Kentucky, New York, except, excuse me, let me flash back, stay here with you, said the President, until our job is done. Well, he is in New York with his wife campaigning. He will not sign a bill helping women with cervical and breast cancer. He will not do a White House ceremony because it may involve the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and that would give him unfair publicity in a very tough Senatorial contest. Seemed like the White House had no problems finding a picture of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and Mr. Arafat at a common reception when a delegation went to visit Israel and Palestine and areas of that nature in order to talk to the people to bring about peace. They can find a photo, but they cannot make time for a bill signing. Mr. Speaker, one other critical matter coming before the Congress, and I can assure you it will get done, and that is the Everglades. Thanks to the Speaker today and others who have urged our leadership to move forward on the Everglades, we are going to see a bill before this session of Congress ends, not in lame duck but in this session, before Friday. If the other Members of the minority think it is too important to go home and campaign, well how about it, because you are missing anyway. We are going to stay here and make certain the principles of the democracy are upheld, that we fight the good fight on behalf of our constituents. Our constituents are as important as theirs are, but I urge every Member to stop the rhetoric and nastiness and aspersions and start focusing on why we are here. I think we have made some tremendous successes, and I compliment the other side of the aisle on a number of them but I suggest that in this day and era we need goodwill, not a poisonous atmosphere. It is time to put people before politics.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, we just had an exchange on the floor where the minority whip asked some questions about what the schedule was. I was trying to get clarification as well because I understand we are here on a daily CR at the behest of the President, who suggested we stay here on a 24-hour basis to get our work done. Now in the last 12 hours, I understand Mr. Daschle and Mr. Gephardt met with Mr. Podesta from the White House and suggested that we have a 14-day CR that has been taken up by the Senate and passed and the Senate has left town. Now, we did not negotiate that. We did not request it. We did not ask for it. We are here working, and we will continue to work. But I would like somebody to come to the floor today and make the point whether in fact Mr. Gephardt and others negotiated a 14-day CR with Mr. Lott, the majority leader on the Senate side, so we can figure out are we working this weekend, are we going to do the people's work, or are we taking a 14-day break to campaign on behalf of the minority.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle spent a lot of time talking about two deceased Republican Members of Congress, Davis and Bacon. We on this side are talking about the future of the children of our communities. My father taught all his life in public schools. He retired as a principal. Oftentimes he and many of his fellow educators would tell me, please, get rid of the burden imposed upon us by the Federal Government. Let us teach the kids. Give us the resources to do it. In this bill we have the resources. We have spent 20 percent more than last year on education. Our construction dollars are identical to what the demands of the minority are. We are meeting in the middle to try and solve the problems for children. The rhetoric should stop. The actions should start. The children will be able to learn if we pass this bill without some of the sentiment attached. I can just tell my colleagues, going to classrooms every time I am in Florida, I find kids eager to learn. Yes, the conditions are poor. But I was in a portable in 1973 in high school. I was in the same conditions then, and that is when the Democrats ran this place. For 40 years, they ran it; and, finally, education is getting better, thanks to the majority party today.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I do take exception to the statement of legislative terrorism. Obviously, we have recently experienced terrorism very real and very hurtful to citizens of our country on the U.S.S. Cole, and to link deliberation on very important issues before the American public to a terrorist-type activity, I think, is regrettable and it is shameful. There are differences of opinion that are arising today in this Chamber about the direction of this country, and as one who has voted on so many issues that the minority has supported I would like to stand up and say I am always looking for common ground. When it was hate crimes, I signed on to the bill. When it was patients' bill of rights, I signed on and actively supported it, one of 27 Republicans. When it was campaign finance reform Shays-Meehan, I was there 100 percent, voting for no amendments but the Shays-Meehan legislation. Now we come to a point where we do have some disagreements. We have heard a lot of discussion about immigration, blanket amnesties. My grandmother came from Poland so I deeply, deeply respect the fact that this country gave our family a chance to escape from Communism and tyranny, but she came to Ellis Island and she was processed. She learned to speak English. She became a registered voter, worked at a Travelodge motel all of her life to raise her daughters. Her husband had died. This country has been awfully good to our family, Irish- Polish immigrants, but I do have to question when we talk blanket amnesty because it does cause some consternation for the thousands of immigrants that are trying to be processed through INS in my office in Florida. The phone is ringing off the hook saying, does that include me? Am I allowed to come in as well? What are the rules for me to be allowed into this country since they have waited 2, 3, and 5 years being fingerprinted, being run around in circles trying to figure out how to be legal citizens of this country. Then the topic of ergonomics, yes, there is a difference of opinion; but I still do not understand how the President left town to go campaign for his wife in New York when we have so many pressing issues here before the American public. He vetoed a bill last night for no apparent reason. Now I am not an appropriator. I am on the Committee on Ways and Means. I understood, at least from the Speaker's letter today, that there was a certain agreement on that bill, but to throw a monkey wrench or a wrench into the works, the President chose to veto and skidaddle out of town so he can try to lift the sails for his wife who is campaigning for a seat in a State she does not reside in. Nonetheless, we are here today to hopefully get the people's work done. I voted for minimum wage, and it is in the bill. I voted for Medicare increases, and it is in the bill. Now, I did not bring in HMOs. I do not like them. HMOs, to me, stands for ``healthy members only,'' but yet our citizens in every district in America cry for satisfaction and want their managed care plans because they have prescription drugs and eyeglasses. That is in the bill. Marriage penalty has been vetoed. So many other things have been vetoed I cannot even keep score any longer. But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the harsh rhetoric needs to stop. Members do, in fact, want to be home with their families tonight and certainly through the weekend and on to November 7; but control of the House is not that important on either side of the aisle to make words like legislative terrorism part of the demeanor and discourse tonight. So I hope in the waning hours tonight that those who are negotiating, and I commend again our chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), whose wife, Beverly, and their two sons have gone without their daddy for many, many a week trying to bring some comity to this process, he has negotiated in, I think, very genuine good faith; and so we remain at gridlock over two or three remaining issues. I think it is sad. I think it is sad that grown men and women who have been sent from their districts around America cannot sit around the table and craft something that would make sense to everyone and not tie it up over one or two issues. There will be an election November 7. There will be a new President. There will be a new Congress, be it Republican or Democratic, and some of these issues will get resolved then; but to sit here and think you are winning some strategy by creating these types of arguments I think is a sad day, and I again urge every person listening to our voices to come together in a spirit that I think is in this Chamber, a spirit of patriotism that we can lead, that we can move, that we can resolve and that we can establish the principle of good government here tonight for future generations.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about politics today, so I figured I would weigh in on an issue that is of extreme importance to women and one that I am very critical of the President over. I want to express my absolute outrage over President Clinton's decision to play politics with women's health. Early this month, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act cleared the Congress and was sent to the President for his signature. This measure is critical because it covers the cost of treating low- income women who are screened through Federal programs and found to have breast or cervical cancer. Thousands upon thousands of low-income women in America are affected by this very, very important measure and President Clinton knows it. That is why he signed it into law yesterday. Unlike so many other bills, however, he signed this one into law with no White House ceremony, no fanfare, not even a press release, apparently, even though he of all people knows that such ceremonies are the best way of getting the media attention to focus on this issue. This month is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It was a perfect opportunity for him to hold a ceremony to draw attention to a new option that will literally save thousands of lives. But he chose not to highlight it. And why? Because his wife is running for the Senate seat for New York against one of the main authors of the bill, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio). Apparently, the President did not want New York women to know that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) has been instrumental in ensuring passage of something that may mean so much to so many of them. And, Mr. Speaker, I think the decision to play down the importance of this bill because of petty politics is one of the most awful things I have heard of. Two weeks ago, the President invited Republicans and Democrats onto the White House lawn to celebrate the signing of the Chinese trade bill. I guess he invited all of us there for bipartisan cover in case something goes wrong with the Chinese trade pact. But not for women, not for women with breast cancer, not for women who need treatment will we have a ceremony of such lavish proportion. In a few minutes we will hear about the importance of home heating oil in New York. And when we had that bill and, unfortunately, one of our Members missed a vote, he was roundly and routinely criticized by his opponent in the New York Senate race for not having voted on that very important issue. So I would ask the next speaker, when we move into the next bill, to possibly explain to me why the President did not place an issue important to women at the same level of importance as he did the Chinese trade bill; why he did not choose to let women around America, who are of low-income stature, know that they now have a new option; and why he did not seem to think it was so important to let every woman in America know about this vital bill? Several of my friends have been stricken with breast cancer at very early ages in recent days, and I have been traumatized to watch them suffer through chemotherapy and lose their hair, while their families had to take care of their children, and it saddens me to think that while we are here in the waning hours of the 106th Congress that our President could not find it in his heart because of petty politics to have a bill signing that would bring to the attention of millions of Americans that, in fact, this Congress has acted on cervical and breast cancer. So I plead, beg, and urge my colleague from Connecticut, who will occupy the next 45 minutes after we close debate, to join me in a chorus of urgency to tell the President of the United States, please, before the election day, sign the bill in a public ceremony, let Americans know the importance of this issue. After all, if I am not mistaken, it was his own mother that was stricken by breast cancer. Too many women are dying in America, and we are sitting here on a Saturday hearing the story about how the Republicans have failed to pass landmark legislation. I voted for a patient's bill of rights. I voted for hate crimes legislation. I voted for a number of things that I think are bipartisan in nature and important to this country. But if we are going to hurl adjectives of blame at the other side of the aisle, we better stand up and be ready to take it; and we better let our President know that women deserve to be treated better than this. The Chinese got a signing ceremony on the White House lawn with every major corporate fat cat in America. And we talk about campaign finance reform, look at the guest list that came to that even. Were women included in that event? Yes. But when it comes to women's health, I guess we should just let it go quietly; let us not make a commotion about it; let us protect the candidacy or future possibilities of a woman running for the Senate in New York. Mr. Speaker, I urge this Chamber to stop arguing, and I urge the President to sign these bills and let us move on.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It greatly concerns me to have this bill so maligned, because the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I worked so hard to have the increase for hospitals included in this bill, the inflation update. It pains me that Senator Kent Conrad and I worked so hard to have rural health care in this bill. It is in this bill. It pains me to have Senator Bob Graham from Florida, having worked so hard with me on preventive health benefits in this bill, to hear this being described as a partisan bill. It pains me, with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), who, we worked together on HMOs that are leaving our country destabilized to bring them relief and reform. Mr. Speaker, I realized this is not about people today, it is about power. When the President refused to have a public bill signing on a breast cancer treatment bill at the White House because he was afraid the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) would get credit for it, who is running against Mrs. Clinton, I realized it is about power, not people; I realized it is about politics, not people, and for the other side of the aisle to decry this bill as some last minute attempt, after we have worked 2 years on producing this document, shame on them for voting no. Shame on them.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me first commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for his sacrifices in trying to work through the difficult details of the bill. If my colleagues listened to the last several speakers who came before us, claiming this is a do-nothing Congress, as if all of this slow-down of bill passage is our fault, well, if my colleagues listened to the other side of the aisle, this Chamber and this government would be financially insolvent if they had their way. No rhyme or reason, no restrictions on spending. Our projects, our way or the highway. I voted for Patients' Bill of Rights. I have voted for hate crimes. I voted for a number of issues that are not considered traditional Republican issues, but I have yet to see my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle want to come to conclusion on any of those bills. Minimum wage, let us not pass it, let us just use it for campaign issue; and then they come down to the floor here today, and assume some way, we, as the Republican majority, are holding up the will of the people. Mr. Speaker, I personally believe we are exemplifying the will of the people by trying to bring some restraint and establish priorities and focus Federal resources. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said, despite the stump speeches, domestic spending has risen at the behest of the Republican leadership. Amen to that. We are finally putting our money in domestic accounts for the people of the United States who are the taxpayers. No longer are we willing to waste away money on international expeditions, finding ways to send money to every nation that never votes with us at the U.N. treaties or any other instances. Again, I hope that the Members of this Congress will applaud and appreciate the hard work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and I hope they will come together and end the rhetoric. Yes, it is almost election day; and we know we are all tense and ready to leave, but our government is better for the debate and the negotiations that have occurred. If the President is willing to negotiate with us on some of these final outstanding issues, we will be gone. Do not look to us and blame us for all of this slow-down. I think a lot of it is occurring on the other side of the aisle, and they should take equal credit.