Mark Foley

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, like most of America, we grieve today the loss of Paul Johnson, apparently beheaded by an al Qaeda-linked Saudi militant group. He was found today in the Saudi Arabian capital. He was an American contractor living in Saudi Arabia since 1980, a Floridian who was beheaded by these terrorists: immoral, barbaric, and demonic. I know most Muslims, Christians and Jews would join me in the feeling that these acts are offensive in the eyes of God. This murder had no purpose except to show that these cowards had one purpose, and that is to take an innocent life. They hid behind hoods and executed a citizen of this country who loved the people of Saudi Arabia, who enjoyed working in that country to help the people of Saudi Arabia, who was an innocent, decent, kind husband and father. This was not an execution but a barbaric and demonic act of torture. If these sadists believe this type of action will unnerve America and weaken our resolve in our war against terror, they are both stupid, as they are wrong. I take great exception to the speech by the gentleman from Washington moments ago who tries to conclude from the 9/11 report that there is no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. It all is of the same vein and nature. The death of Paul Johnson, the death of Nicholas Berg, the retaliation against Saudi officials, the attempt to bomb the Jordanian intelligence service, the murder of hundreds of Spanish citizens peacefully on their way in Spain are all interconnected and intertwined. He says there is no connection. I urge people to read the Wall Street Journal today and its editorial page because there is a lot of spinning going on. Maybe there have not been enough dots to connect yet so the gentleman comes out here and alleges that the President lied, that there is absolutely no connection. If he spoke any longer, I would have assumed he would have called Saddam Hussein just a sad, old, tired man who really should have been left alone to live in peace. He killed a million of his own citizens. He said there is no link. A citizen of my county died from anthrax. He worked at National Media, the owner of National Enquirer. It is interesting that Mohammed Atta was living in Palm Beach County, a few miles from the facility in which that citizen died in Palm Beach County. It is interesting, in the 9/11 Report, ``al Qaeda operatives trained in Iran, and al Qaeda helped Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists obtain explosives.'' ``Another revelation concerns al Qaeda and anthrax. The 9/11 panel says al Qaeda had an `ambitious' biological weapons program and ``was making advances in its ability to produce anthrax prior to September 11.' '' That is in the report, anthrax, prior to September 11. It is telling, too, that the henchmen for the Iraqi leader agent al- Ani happened to be in Prague for meetings. Oh, lo and behold, cell phone records indicate that phone calls were placed from Florida to Mohammed Atta's cell phone at the same time he was reportedly in Prague. A coincidence, I guess. A sheer coincidence that Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijacking of planes, who was living in Delray Beach, Florida, close to where a citizen was killed by anthrax, meeting with Iraqi officials in Prague, is all coincidental, all coincidental, all sheer fantasy. Read this editorial in the Wall Street Journal today. Paul Johnson died at the hands of terrorists, not because we are in Iraq. They are going to kill Americans and other freedom-loving people because they resent our way of life. They resent who we are. For Members to come to this floor and say there is no link and no connection with the terrorists and Iraqis and anthrax and 9/11 have not read the entire report and are simply spinning a tale that they want America to believe.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would see the day on this House floor that Democrats would criticize and belittle American workers making tackle boxes and bows and arrows, hard-working citizens. They may not be as elegant as George Soros or as wealthy, but they work hard. The very simple issue is a tackle box made in America has an excise tax; a tackle box sent from China does not. So I guess their inference is keep jobs in China, do not worry about us. I never thought I would see the day when the Democrats would criticize a corporation like Tyco that has thousands of American workers, hard-working citizens in our community and they criticize them and call them unpatriotic, but they get up on the floor and start worrying about protecting people that owe the taxpayers money. They are afraid of collecting taxes that are due the United States Treasury. This is a perverse sense of arguments that really is almost laughable. We have got great provisions in this bill. We have got important provisions in this bill. We have got things that will make the economy work, leasehold improvements, faster, accelerated depreciation. So they can crow all they want about this, but it is a jobs bill. It is a fair bill, and we urge its adoption.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for leading this discussion. I want to set the predicate for a moment because this Congress and this President inherited a very troubled economy. In 1999 when the Internet stock bubble burst, there was a tremendous amount of sensitivity, if you will, to the economy. People had lost lots of money in their savings accounts and IRAs and Keoghs and 401(k)s, and so psychologically the economy started heading in a negative manner from that point on. President Bush inherited a struggling economy; and then we have all heard about September 11 and what it did to the investor psychology and what it did to the job market and what it did to the economics of places like Florida where our tourism market was ravaged. We all experienced that, so we are not reliving history; but we have to set the predicate about how important the leadership of this White House has been in setting in place the kind of economic tools necessary to develop what are now very, very hopeful numbers for people around the country. Florida's jobs have been up. In fact, we have created 29,000 payroll jobs in April alone. We now have 168,400 more payroll jobs than a year ago. Our economy is adding good-paying jobs. More than two-thirds of Florida's payroll job growth in April was in industries that pay more than the national average. For example, the professional business service industry comprised the largest share at 11,500. The average hourly pay of a nonsupervisory job in that industry is $17.27, well above the national average of $15.59. Unemployment was down in Florida from 5.3 a year ago to 4.6. The national average is 5.6. Florida's average unemployment rate in the 1990s was 5.9. Personal income swelled in Florida in the last quarter by 1.3 percent to over $528 billion. Florida's housing values are up well over 11 percent in 2003 and over 53 percent in the last 4 years. Exports have increased over $400 million for a total of $25 billion from Florida's export economy alone. And insourcing, a subject some on the other side of the aisle do not want to talk about, but we have had over 303,000 jobs in Florida from companies based in other countries. About 12.2 percent of all manufacturing jobs in Florida are with foreign companies. So the statistics are clear, the effects of our tax reductions and our attempts to make this economy stronger and more resilient are absolutely made positive by the charts that my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means illustrated just moments ago. I am proud of the leadership of not only this White House but the entire Congress for recognizing that in order to get the opportunities present for people for jobs, for growth in their families' income, for more job security and for an aggressive, can-do spirit of passing very detailed and complicated legislation that has yielded in the pockets of people of the 16th Congressional District of Florida greater disposable income, greater sense of purpose, and greater job security. These are things that are not just imaginative. These are things displayed each and every day. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for leading this opportunity to talk to the Nation and talk to our friends. Look at the price of the Dow Jones Industrial Average today as opposed to 3 years ago, look at the unemployment numbers, look at all these factors; and I think it will bear out that the work done by this Congress is not only showing great progress but the months to come will show even more positive improvements in the lives of all Americans.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor as my colleagues have before me saddened by the death of one of our Nation's greatest leaders and humbled by the far-reaching impact his life has had on millions of people throughout the world. He was a great man and a gentle spirit. Optimistic, cheerful in service and buoyed by the confidence that comes with unwavering conviction, President Reagan reignited the feeling of promise for this country. Ronald Reagan is the reason I became a Republican. And for many Democrats, he was the pathway to the Republican Party. He reminded us all that government cannot replace individual empowerment and told us in 1995 that every dollar the Federal Government does not take from us, every decision it does not make for us will make our economy stronger, our lives more abundant, and our future more free. We join together with people across the globe in mourning the loss of Ronald Reagan. His decisive leadership during the twilight years of the Cold War indeed made him a beacon of hope for freedom-loving people throughout the world. Our thoughts and prayers and our love go out to Mrs. Reagan and the entire family. Because of Ronald Reagan our Nation is stronger and our future is more free. Here we honor him and are continually working toward the dreamed-of-day he spoke of when no one wields a sword and no one drags a chain.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, first, let us all give each other a round of applause for a very, very successful year here in Congress. The first time you have actually been able to sit in the seats of Members on Congress and be on national TV. Congratulations. You really are living in a unique time in our country. I think my colleagues have well expressed the sentiments all of us having watched you arrive one day as very young and excited newcomers to Washington, some with fear in your eyes because you have left friends and family, others with a sense of optimism and pride that you are getting to represent your districts from around this country. It is fun to watch the transformation from that first day to the last week. Because I see in all of you that sense of kind of reluctance to some degree to leave this place. You have met and have established lifelong friends in this very process. What is exciting for all of us that serve here is that you truly represent the best and brightest in this country. It is very, very difficult, as you know, to become a page in the Congress. It requires a number of skill sets that will serve you in life: leadership, intelligence, personality, perseverance, and faith; and those are attributes that, as you mature and go forward in life, will serve you in phenomenal ways. Many of you know that several Members of Congress originated in the page class. So it is not only a training and testing ground. You certainly got a long exposure to the good and bad Congress has to offer. The good is the fact that in this democracy, in this Chamber, we get to express our opinions about what goes on in the world. We get to weigh in on behalf of the district that I represent and the other Members represent, those 600-plus thousand people who count on us to come to this Nation's Capital every day to work on their behalf. Disagreements are the joy of democracy. You get to argue and discuss and debate and create hopeful solutions that do not reflect the partisan views of the people in this Chamber but reflect the views of all Americans. Now, I know you have one more year of high school to conclude and that probably is some degree of relief or maybe, to those you feel like you are probably well equipped to enter your first year of college, some of you, I think, in conversing with you, some are actually mature enough to enter college right away. I want to thank you for taking time out of your life. This is a sacrifice. It is unique. I know my page Anthony was, and is, expected to deliver the commencement speech. So a word of warning, Anthony, the 16th district is watching you very carefully. This Member of Congress, of course, is delighted that there is an age requirement to run for the job. He lives in my community, and he certainly has to reach 25 before he campaigns for this job. But congratulations on behalf of our district, our mutual district that you have been selected by your peers to have this high honor; and I will be looking for transcripts of that speech. Anthony came here as a page on the recommendation of several in our community. It was kind of interesting to watch this little mini- campaign take place and those friends that he had in the northern part of my community urging and cajoling and talking to me about submitting his name to be a page. Of course, for those Members of Congress, we get to submit names, but, ultimately, it is the choice of the Page Board and the Speaker of the House that bestows on you this high honor. So you are, in essence, the Speaker's appointment. Take with you the valuable knowledge you have gained. Never forget your friends. Stay in touch. The interesting thing is that, years from now, as you look around the country and you have your page reunions, you will see each and every one of you doing something unique and different. Hopefully, some of you will be going on to better communities by being teachers, police officers, firefighters, members of the military, nurses, veterans, whatever your chosen profession. A few may go on to be Congressmen, Congresswomen, Governors, Senators. In fact, in this very room may be the future President of the United States. God bless you. I wish you well, have a great life, and thank you for your service to this Congress.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me suggest to our colleagues there are several vehicles that would help simplify the IRS completely. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has a sales tax proposal that is very thoughtful and worth studying, and I urge some Members on both sides of the aisle if they would like to actually simplify the operation of the IRS, they look at that piece of legislation. There are other proposals such as the flat tax proposal that again bears some discovery and conversation. So as we continue to try and make the IRS as user friendly as we possibly can, I just commend my colleagues to look at that situation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the Chair of the Subcommittee on Research. He is also a member of the Committee on International Relations and a sponsor of flat tax.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4109) to allow seniors with Social Security and pension income to file their income tax returns on a new Form 1040SR without regard to the amount of interest or taxable income of the senior, as amended.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me first open up with the discussion on H.R. 4109 and the importance of this bill that is on the floor today, the Simple Tax For Seniors Act of 2004. Mr. Speaker, in America, it is customary to recognize the long life and achievements of older citizens by offering a discount on rides, theater tickets, and other fees. While there are certainly many businesses that choose not to offer discounts, Federal law requires that all individuals be treated equally in public accommodations. Yet, there is an exception. Instead of offering a discount, the IRS makes filing a tax return more difficult for seniors. Taxpayers aged 65 or older are not allowed to use the one-page form 1040EZ, even if they have a simple return and choose not to itemize deductions. Instead, seniors are required to file using the far more complicated form 1040 and its numerous schedules. There are over 35 million seniors over the age of 65, and the IRS receives over 10 million standard tax returns from seniors each year. Due to the retirement of the baby boom generation, this number is expected to rise to 12.5 million by 2010. The IRS has taken note of this trend and, thankfully, the agency is working on a new simplified tax form for seniors. But even though the test form has been popular among a focus group of seniors, the IRS has not yet fully or finally decided to implement the new form and make it available. The IRS estimates that the new form, assuming it is made available, will simplify tax filing for millions of seniors and their tax preparers. This legislation will assure the IRS devises a simple form for seniors to use in filing their 2005 tax returns. Senior taxpayers earning Social Security, retirement benefits, interest and capital gains will be able to meet their obligations on a simple tax form tailored to the specific needs of senior filers. Because it will make tax filing easier for seniors, the bill has the strong support of the AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons, and the 60-Plus Association. Mr. Speaker, during the past several weeks, we have addressed the marriage penalty and other problems with the tax system. Now is the time to address the senior penalty. There is little justification for denying seniors access to a means of filing that is so popular and efficient. I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for championing this piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I also know it will be difficult for those to see, but it is a 1040EZ form. It is very, very simple; it is easy to read. It is not complicated, and it provides all the details necessary for the IRS to properly calculate either liabilities or refunds. The beauty of a form like this is that it is simple. Many know that even those who have the help of accountants find it an enormous task in completing the IRS required forms. But for the seniors to be further penalized by not being able to participate in this easy document is simply shameful. So we are very excited about the chance to bring this bill to the floor. I have as well, and I will provide and place into the Record, the floor statement of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) relative to this; but I want to take a moment also to single out one of his constituents, a member of the Silver Haired Congress, Mr. Roland Boucher of California, Orange County, California. This idea germinated basically in a discussion of the Silver Haired Congress. Many people I know say nothing ever gets through Congress. You cannot reach the people. It is hard for them to understand the difficulties people face. They are just not hearing me. Well, Mr. Boucher, your idea has merit. It has been brought to the attention of the policy committee. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) is the chairman of the policy committee and, of course, he is a member of the Congress, but also the hard working efforts of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), who decided to team up together to make certain that this idea not only was vetted properly in the policy committee but was ultimately brought forward by the Committee on Ways and Means which has jurisdiction for Social Security. So to Mr. Boucher and the Silver Haired Congress, I salute you for taking the time to bring the idea and the notion to Congress of the inequity of the current situation where seniors were not allowed to file on the simple form. It is another example of where Congress hears from constituents and legislation is enacted on this floor, the people's House, bringing these ideas forward for seniors everywhere to enjoy the simplified form. So I place Mr. Cox's statement into the Record, who had to go to the White House for some briefings on homeland security, a very, very important topic. And I know he wants this placed in the Record. Mr. Speaker, at this point I will also enter into the Record the 1040S form so it can be part of the testimony. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH02JN04.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH02JN04.002 Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to commend the majority. When we took control of Congress in 1994, we were very specific in sending a message to the IRS through hearings we held here in the Capitol that we wanted more simplified forms. So I do not agree to the notion that somehow we are trying to get ahead of the curve here or catch up with the IRS. It is after our pleadings with them to make the IRS more user friendly do we find ourselves now viewing the forms that they are testing. In fact, they have been tested in two locations, in Tampa and in Minneapolis, so we know that the tests are receiving very popular and positive acclamation. Our idea is that we now further define it so that the IRS, in fact, will make this available for all seniors who choose to use them. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), the author of this legislation.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to make life easier for millions of American seniors who file a tax return. In view of the large number of seniors and the relatives who file on their own and the growing number of seniors, the IRS has long recognized the need to simplify tax filing for seniors. In support of this goal, the IRS has conducted focus group meetings in Tampa, Florida and Minneapolis, Minnesota in which group members praised a test form 1040S developed by the IRS. If Congress does not act, however, there is no guarantee that the IRS will make this simple filing option available. Moreover, seniors will continue to be barred from using form 1040EZ because of their age. The American Association For Retired Persons supports this legislation. So does 60-Plus. And the Joint Committee on Taxation has concluded that it will not cost anything in terms of revenue. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for bringing this measure to the floor; the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), chairman of the policy committee; the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), the sponsor of this legislation; my colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), on the Democratic side; and again a special recognition of Mr. Boucher of the Silver Haired Congress from Orange County, California, for illuminating the problem and bringing this idea to the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, when Senator Chuck Hagel and I drafted the drug discount card 3 years ago, we realized at the time that it would be a very important tool for seniors to save money on their prescription drugs. It is the reason so many people join Costco, or Price Club, and so many millions of America's seniors have joined AARP, for discounts, because they save money. It is simple, it is effective, and last Monday, on May 3, when we rolled out the drug discount card as part of the Medicare legislation, over 400,000 seniors called the 1-800 Medicare number to inquire about the plan. Interestingly enough, almost every national chain, be they a grocery store or a pharmacy, advertised that they would be offering a drug discount card. It is simple. It is easy. It is convenient. And it allows seniors the choices that they deserve: to buy from their local pharmacist, their drugstore, their Costco, their Price Club, you name it. Medicare should be simple. Seniors 65 and older deserve discounts on their drug cards, their drug and pharmaceutical usage. They are receiving it under this legislation.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I do take some exception, and I am here to speak on another subject, but as the author of the discount card, I find it very practical, very reasonable, and very meaningful for seniors in my district, the fifth largest Medicare-eligible population in America. We will get on that at another time. Why I am here today is obviously having read the Roll Call this morning and seen the headlines, I am furious by the remarks that were attributed to one of my colleagues that said the war in Iraq is unwinnable. ``Unwinnable'' was the comment made. What is more mind-boggling is the remarks are attributed to someone who has served this Nation as a veteran during the Vietnam War conflict, and we respect him immensely for his service to this country. There are some, though, in this process who have recently spoken in the national media comparing this conflict to Vietnam. I find the comparison absurd. It is also deliberately partisan rhetoric. But if there is one lesson we should have learned from Vietnam that should carry over here in this Chamber today, it is that disparaging what our soldiers are doing in Iraq is tantamount to giving comfort to the terrorists and comfort to the enemy. Saying this conflict is unwinnable will make no difference one way or the other to what we do in Iraq, but it has a devastating effect on American men and women who are in Iraq now doing what we in this Congress have asked them to do. Congress voted on a resolution to go into Iraq. We are there. We have sent more troops there to bring peace and democracy to Iraq. We are not risking our lives as Members of Congress; they are, as will the thousands of other Americans who may follow to bring liberty to Iraq. Whether anyone here agrees or disagrees with the reasons we went to Iraq in the first place, the simple fact is that we are there now and we have to accomplish the goals that free Iraqis are asking of us. We are fighting terrorism at its doorstep. If someone disagrees with that, so be it. But no one should ever forget that what they say has a direct impact on the men and women who are in Iraq at our behest. To tell them they are over there risking their life and limb for something unwinnable is just unbelievable. On a very basic level, it is like a coach telling his team of Little Leaguers that they do not have a chance of winning the game, but go out there and play anyway. Let us waste some time. I know that is a poor analogy, because we are not talking about Little League. This is the big league. This is life and death. This is America's finest young men and women serving this country. For that reason alone, I find it stunning that anyone in this body could say something that will have absolutely no effect, other than to undercut the morale of our troops in Iraq and cheer on the terrorists. I went to a funeral in my district of a young man who was killed in Iraq 2 weeks before he was to return home and marry his high school sweetheart. It was a very, very tearful day for everyone in the room. When I approached his parents, I felt remorse, obviously, because I had voted to send their child to that place. They did not look at me with bitterness. They were proud of their son. They were proud he died doing what he wanted to do since he was a little boy, and that was defend the flag that flies over this building. I did not sacrifice anything in Iraq, but these people did. They knew that the cause that their son perished under was just and was noble and was right. For him and all the others who have perished in this conflict, these kinds of words of ``unwinnable'' are simply political rhetoric designed to influence the outcome of this next election. But I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans and citizens alike, while there are people in harm's way from this country in that nation and everywhere on the globe, we respect that, and let us not make their burden more difficult by giving the enemy even an inkling that they may be winning. That succeeded in Spain during this recent election by bombing a train and killing people. Those that say that they were attacked simply because the Spanish were in Iraq have not looked at the entirety of what is happening. Jordanians are being attacked, if you will. There were plans to attack their intelligence service. Saudi Arabia was the target last week of a terrorist attack. These things are happening because of terrorists, not because of Iraq, but because they want to undo the way of life that we respect. So I take umbrage with the comments that this is unwinnable, and I ask us all to join in salute for our strong, brave men and women in the field.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 627, the resolution just agreed to.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, 7 years ago the United Nations established an Oil for Food program intended for humanitarian relief. Oil was sold to finance the purchase of food, medicine and other relief necessities for the Iraqi people. The General Accounting Office estimates that more than $10 billion was stolen from the Oil For Food program. Money that was to help the Iraqi people went to pay off politicians and executives, build a $20 million Olympic sport facility for Uday Hussein, and spent over $50 million for promotion for the Husseins' propaganda. They may have even financed weapons that are now being used against our troops. Oil for Food was the largest UN program in the world at one time. The Iraqi people are owed an explanation for the exploitation of their resources. And if the United Nations is to be treated credibly, they must assist in the investigation of where this money went to; $10 billion stolen from the Iraqi people. The U.N. needs to come clean on this issue and share with the people where these dollars went.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for leading the debate today. I certainly want to salute my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). He has raised this AMT issue at every one of our hearings on the Committee on Ways and Means. He has kept this issue alive. It is important for the people who are middle wage-earners in our country to get some relief. I disagree with the past speaker on suggesting we are limping along, suggesting that the tax cuts that we put in place have not helped this economy. If we tune in to any show or read any publication, whether it is CNBC or CNN or to read Forbes Fortune or the Wall Street Journal, virtually every person who studies the economy is giving credit for this resurgence, if you will, of opportunity due to the tax cuts we have enacted. The AMT is a burden for middle income taxpayers. We in our bill solve that burden, and we do so without raising corporate taxes. That is a good debate for a day, maybe today, maybe another day on corporate taxation, because we do understand a lot of companies take their plants and facilities overseas. I asked the H.J. Heinz Company why they found so many countries comfortable for them to move plants to and they said we want to be close to those who are buying our goods and services. So I do not look at the Heinz Company as unpatriotic for opening Heinz of Canada, Heinz of Ireland, Heinz of France, or Heinz of whatever countries they settle in. But I do recognize that at times, companies do make decisions based on their locations, based on the Tax Code of this country. All agree that our corporate taxes today are too high, and in the Rangel substitute, they raise them further. So we start off with a problem of substance in their bill that actually further punishes corporations who are trying to provide jobs here in America for the citizens of our country. So the administration and this committee, the Committee on Ways and Means on the Republican side, do oppose what would be a $15 billion tax increase. We also recognize that this needs to be dealt with, and we have dealt with it. If we look back at our history, Public Law 107-16, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, we allowed the child credit, the adoption credit, the small savers credit to be counted against the AMT in 2010. We increased the exemption from 45 for 49 for married couple, and 33 to 35 for single individuals. In public law 107- 47, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, we extended through 2003 the ability to claim nonrefundable tax credits against the AMT. Public law 108-27, the Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act of 2003 again expanded the amounts and extended the amounts. The Tax Relief Act, H.R. 3521. So there is a consistent history of our committee in a Republican-led Congress moving forward on trying to minimize the grab, if you will, of the AMT. Now, I believe as we try to determine on this bill how to give people an understanding of how to file their taxes, how to do their taxes, simplicity is the best possible option, and I do look forward to the chance we have on our committee to talk about simplifying this very complicated Tax Code. But today we are here to oppose the Rangel substitute and genuinely support H.R. 4227 to provide relief for American families.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who has served his country and who remains a role model for his family and community. I speak of Louis P. Bartolotta, Sr. Louis is a veteran of the Second World War. He was born the son of immigrant parents in 1918. He married his wife Ida in 1941, just three months before Pearl Harbor. This year they will celebrate their 63rd wedding anniversary. On November 26th, 1943, he was aboard a British transport ship, the HMT Rohna, when the vessel was attacked by a German bomber off the coast of North Africa. Over one thousand United States service members and more than 100 British and Allied officers and crewmembers lost their lives in the attack. Louis is a survivor of that tragic day. In October of 2000, Congress recognized the heroic sacrifices made by those who lost their lives, the survivors and their families in House Concurrent Resolution 408. Today Louis and Ida live in Boynton Beach, Florida. At the end of May, as we dedicate the World War II Memorial, they will visit Washington, D.C. to participate in the Rohna Survivors convention. Mr. Speaker, as we honor the veterans of World War II please let us add to those tributes those who lost their lives on the HMT Rohna as well as those who survived, like my dear friend Louis.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of repealing the penalty on people who choose to marry. It seems strange that the tax code discriminates against married couples. It's even stranger that there are many in this body who are opposed to fixing this problem. The President and the Congressional majority have worked hard to enact marriage penalty relief. Because of demands from the other side, this relief will end next year. That means an automatic tax increase in an economy that is coming out of a recession. Mr. Speaker, we must pass this legislation to permanently extend this relief. As we attempt to eliminate this discrimination in the tax code, I will continue my work to repeal the marriage penalty that affects many couples on Social Security. Yes . . . there is also a ``marriage penalty'' that occurs when Social Security benefits are taxed. As a result, I have introduced legislation to increase the income threshold for couples to double that of individuals to end this unequal treatment in the tax code that discourages marriage among seniors. Certainly our seniors should not have to worry about losing Social Security benefits because they are married or want to marry.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the ranking member and the chairman are trying to do relative to truck safety, but this is a very unique issue. As chairman of the House Entertainment Task Force, we have been working consistently to try to keep jobs in America. We are talking about jobs not only about movie stars, but for the grips, the caterers, the production folks. This is a totally different issue. The truck arrives on the set of a production in the morning, having driven maybe 50, 75 miles, and remains on the set for the remainder of the day before it moves back to its location. This is not long-haul shipping. Mr. Chairman, we have had enough runaway productions leaving to Canada and other locales. This is one more impediment to keeping film production in the United States. It is a jobs opportunity provision. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Tauscher), and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), I appreciate their sentiments on this. So, please, as we get ready to vote for this amendment, this is not contrary nor trying to be argumentative with our great chairman and ranking member on safety. We all join in the safety of our streets and highways. But we have to be very careful and make this unique distinction to protect jobs.

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 demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, last Friday in Punta Gorda, Florida, I attended the funeral services for one Specialist Michael Woodliff who was killed in Iraq. He was laid to rest in Arlington Cemetery on Monday. At the ceremony there was no bitterness, but fond memories for a fallen hero. His friends and families describe his credos as faith, family, country. His father said to me, ``Michael died serving his country with pride in defending his homeland.'' Michael would not want the political debate that has taken place in the last 24 hours of acrimony and division. Michael would want us not to question the merits of the war in Iraq. He would want us to track the terrorists who killed him and others who killed those in New York on September 11. Iraq has changed the world as we know it. Libya is cooperating on nuclear weapons. North Korea is talking about peace. Pakistan and India are trying to settle their longstanding skirmish over Kashmir. Michael Woodliff died defending the honor of this country. Politicians should think of him when they utter words on this floor. His sacrifice to this Nation is a lot better than the speeches I have heard by some. God bless you, Michael. Thank you for serving your Nation.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, as Paul Harvey says on his radio show, now for the rest of the story. It is interesting, many of the Democrats have talked about job loss in America, but they do not mention the fact that trade has actually brought jobs into America. In Ohio, the Honda plant now paying high wages for its employees assembling Honda automobiles. In South Carolina, I know the Democratic governor was very instrumental in getting BMW and other companies to come to their State to create jobs for their citizens, high-wage, high-paying jobs. You can look at one-half of the spectrum and say we have real problems. We are trying to find employment for every American. But they seem to ignore, they seem to ignore the fact that trade has brought jobs to this country, good jobs to communities that were desperately in need of those jobs. This morning in a 1-minute, I was extraordinarily critical, rightfully so, of the Democratic candidate for the presidency. I am not allowed under House rules, I was admonished today, for using the name of a Senator, so most of us know who I am talking about. But the word and phrase used yesterday on an open mike was that this administration is corrupt and is lying. That is the charge by the Democratic nominee for President about the sitting President of the United States of America. I called it this morning despicable and disgraceful, and I stick by that terminology, because that is the truth. Now, look at who they are talking about. We are talking really about Iraq, because they keep using that as the reason they are calling this President a liar. They are saying Iraq is the reason he should be called these derisive terms, which I believe are disrespectful for any sitting chief executive President of the United States. So what does that say ultimately, that we should not have done anything in Iraq, we should not have gone to Iraq, we should not have dealt with Iraq? That is their conclusion. Well, today in the New York Times, ``Saddam team skimmed billions in aid projects. Cash in suitcase.'' In its final years in power, Saddam Hussein's government systemically extracted billions of dollars in kickbacks from companies doing business with Iraq, funneling most of the illicit funds through a network of foreign bank accounts in violation of the UN treaties. Millions of Iraqis were struggling to survive on rations of food and medicine, yet the government's hidden slush funds were being fed by suppliers and oil traders from around the world, who sometimes lugged suitcases full of cash to ministry offices.'' That is who they are defending. Saddam Hussein, who killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, we should not have gone there and interrupted his killing spree. We should not have done anything to stop the demonic leadership of Saddam Hussein. I reject the comments, and I am entering the entirety in the Record, because I want people to be able to read in the Record what the New York Times discovered about the cash-skimming operations of this ugly regime. Now, another article that I will enter in its entirety in the Record, because it talks again about an outside observer's view of this President, an outside observer. It happens to be Bill Sammon of the Washington Times. The headline, ``Bush's Grand Strategy Overlooked by Liberal Historians.'' ``An influential Democratic historian has credited President Bush with instituting one of only three grand strategies in the history of the U.S. foreign policy, by trading in the doctrine of containment for preemption. John Lewis Gaddis of Yale said his fellow historians have not paid sufficient attention to the importance of Mr. Bush's sweeping overhaul of U.S. foreign policy because they are blinded by their liberal bias. He also accused former President Bill Clinton of failing to adequately address global threats that gathered on his watch,'' the World Trade Center first bombing, Khobar Towers, the two embassies, all during the watch of Clinton. ``The Bush team really did, in a moment of crisis, come up with a very important statement on grand strategy, which has not been taken as seriously as it should have been taken, particularly within the academic community. ``Mr. Gaddis writes that America's three grand strategies were instituted by Mr. Bush,'' this President Bush, ``John Quincy Adams and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. All three strategies were prompted by rare, catastrophic attacks on America by foreign enemies.'' He goes on to quote, ``The Clinton administration was somewhat like the Harding and Coolidge administrations after World War I, Mr. Gaddis said. There was the sense that the war had been won, the fundamental processes in world politics were favorable to us, and therefore we could sit back and let them run. But these processes of globalization and self-determination during the Clinton administration did nothing to stop terrorists from using minimal resources to inflict massive death and destruction against the United States and its interests. The former President did not act decisively to head off a gathering threat.'' I bring you to September 11. I bring you to the carnage of September 11 as a result of our not being willing to take on any enemy. Look at what has happened because of his leadership: Iraq. Look at North Korea turning over nuclear documents. Look at Libya surrendering nuclear hardware. Look at Pakistan and India, finally talking over Kashmir. These are the results of a determination by this President to root out terrorism. I conclude by saying this, and this is important in context to this article. Mr. Gaddis, who describes himself as a very long-term disillusioned Democrat who still has hopes for the Democratic Party, disputed the liberal stereotype of the President as a lightweight. There certainly have been tendencies to underestimate President Bush himself and to view him in the way that Reagan was viewed when he first came in, as being a cipher, manipulated by his own advisers. That turned out not to be true of Reagan, and it is turning out not to be true of George Bush. Mr. Speaker, I will at this time enter the entirety of this article into the Record, along with other documentation referred to earlier. I salute our President. I am proud of our President and proud to stand with him in Florida in the coming months. [From the New York Times, Mar. 1, 2004] Saddam Team Skimmed Billions in Aid Project Cash in Suitcases/UN Sanctions Violated (By Susan Sachs) Baghdad.--In its final years in power, Saddam Hussein's government systematically extracted billions of dollars in kickbacks from companies doing business with Iraq, funneling most of the illicit funds through a network of foreign bank accounts in violation of United Nations sanctions. Millions of Iraqis were struggling to survive on rations of food and medicine. Yet the government's hidden slush funds were being fed by suppliers and oil traders from around the world who sometimes lugged suitcases full of cash to ministry offices, said Iraqi officials who supervised the skimming operation. The officials' accounts were enhanced by a trove of internal Iraqi government documents and financial records provided to The New York Times by members of the Iraqi Governing Council. Among the papers was secret correspondence from Saddam's top lieutenants setting up a formal mechanism to siphon cash from Iraq's business deals, an arrangement that went unnoticed by UN monitors. Under a UN program begun in 1997, Iraq was permitted to sell its oil only to buy food and other humanitarian goods. The kickback order went out from Saddam's inner circle three years later, when limits on the amount of oil sales were lifted and Iraq's oil revenues reached $10 billion a year. In an Aug. 3, 2000, letter marked urgent and confidential, the Iraqi vice president, Taha Yassin Ramadan, informed government ministers that a high-command committee wanted extra revenues from the oil-for-food program. To that end, he wrote, all suppliers must be told to inflate their contracts by the biggest percentage possible and secretly transfer those amounts to Iraq's bank accounts in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. Iraq's sanctions-busting has long been an open secret. Two years ago, the U.S. General Accounting Office estimated that oil smuggling had generated nearly $900 million a year for Iraq. Oil companies had complained that Iraq was squeezing them for illegal surcharges, and Saddam's lavish spending on palaces and monuments provided more evidence of his access to unrestricted cash. But the dimensions of the corruption have only lately become clear, from the newly available documents and from revelations by government officials who say they were too fearful to speak out before. They show the magnitude and organization of the payoff system, the complicity of the companies involved and the way Saddam bestowed contracts and gifts on those who praised him. Perhaps the best measure of the corruption comes from a review of the $8.7 billion in outstanding oil for food contracts by the provisional Iraqi government with UN help. It found that 70 percent of the suppliers had inflated their prices and agreed to pay a 10 percent kickback, in cash or by transfer to accounts in Jordanian, Lebanese and Syrian banks. At that rate, Iraq would have collected as much as $2.3 billion out of the $32.6 billion worth of contracts it signed since mid-2000, when the kickback system began. And some companies were willing to pay even more than the standard 10 percent, according to Trade and Oil Ministry employees. Iraq's suppliers included Russian factories, Arab trade brokers, European manufacturers and state-owned companies from China and the Middle East. Iraq generally refused to buy directly from U.S. companies, which in any case needed special licenses to trade legally with Iraq. Iraq also created a variety of other, less lucrative, methods of extorting money from its oil customers. It raised more than $228 million from illegal surcharges it imposed on companies that shipped Iraqi crude oil by sea after September 2000, according to an accounting prepared by the Iraqi Oil Ministry late last year. An additional $540 million was collected in under-the-table surcharges on oil shipped across Iraq's land borders, the documents show. A lot of it came in cash, recalled Shamkhi Faraj, who managed the Oil Ministry's finance department under the old government and is now general manager of the ministry's oil- marketing arm. I used to see people carrying it in briefcases and bringing it to the ministry. UN overseers say they were unaware of the systematic skimming of oil-for-food revenues. In any case, they add, they were focused on running aid programs. The director of the Office of Iraq Programs, Benon Sevan, declined to be interviewed about the oil-for-food program. In written responses to questions sent by e-mail, his office said he learned of the 10 percent kickback scheme from the occupation authority only after the end of major combat operations. As the details of the corruption have recently emerged, law enforcement authorities in several countries said they had opened criminal and civil investigations into whether companies violated laws against transferring money to Iraq. Treasury Department Investigators have also been helping the Iraqi authorities recover an estimated $2 billion believed to be left in foreign accounts. So far, more than $750 million has been found in foreign accounts and transferred back to Iraq, said Juan Zarate, a deputy assistant Treasury secretary. To some officials of Iraq's provisional government, what is perhaps most insulting is how little their country got for its oil money. Taking stock of what was bought before the U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam last spring, they have found piles of nonessential drugs, mismatched equipment and defective hospital machines. You had cartels that were willing to pay kickbacks but would also bid up the price of goods, said Ali Allawai, a former World Bank official who is now interim Iraqi trade minister. You had rings involved in supplying shoddy goods. You had a system of payoffs to the bourgeoisie and royalty of nearby countries. Everybody was feeding off the carcass of what was Iraq. The UN Security Council first imposed a trade embargo on Iraq on Aug. 9, 1990, one week after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. It has kept in place after the Gulf war in 1991, with the provision that sanctions would be lifted after Iraq destroyed its unconventional weapons and ended its weapons program. But as living conditions deteriorated, the council made several offers to let Iraq export limited quantities of oil to buy food and medicine. The two sides agreed on a mechanism only in 1966. In 1999, Iraq was permitted to sell as much oil as it wanted, with the proceeds going into an escrow account at Banque Nationale de Paris, supervised by the United Nations. The new rules also allowed Iraq to sign its own contracts for billions of dollars in imported goods. As ministry officials and government documents portrayed it, the oil-for-food program quickly evolved into an open bazaar of payoffs, favoritism and kickbacks. The kickback scheme worked, they said, because the payoffs could be included in otherwise legitimate supply contracts negotiated directly by the former government and then transferred to Iraq once the United Nations released funds to pay the suppliers. We'd accept the low bid and say to the supplier, ``Give us another 10 percent'' said Faleh Khawaji, an Oil Ministry official who used to supervise the contracting for spare parts and maintenance equipment. ``So that was added to the contract. If the bid was for $1 million, for example, we would tell the supplier to make it $1.1 million.'' The contract would then be sent to the U.N. sanctions committee, which was supposed to review contracts with an eye only to preventing Iraq from acquiring items that might have military uses. The kickbacks were paid into Iraq's accounts, and designated ministry employees withdrew the cash and brought it to Baghdad on a regular basis, according to Khawaji and Iraqi financial records. U.S. and European investigators said they were trying to determine whether the banks knew they were being used for illegal financial dealings with Iraq. Under the oil-for-food program rules, the United Nations' oil overseers had to certify that Iraq was selling its crude oil at fair value. Until the overseers changed the pricing formula in late 2001, Iraq's oil sold at a discount compared with similar oil from other producers. At the same time, Oil Ministry officials said, purchasers of Iraqi oil were required to pay a surcharge, either in cash or by transferring money into Iraqi accounts in foreign banks. When oil companies complained to the United Nations about the per- barrel surcharges, Iraq levied higher charges on ships loading at its port. When Dr. Khidr Abbas became Iraq's Interim minister of health 6 months ago, he discovered some of the effects of Saddam's political manipulation of the oil-for-food program. After a review of the ministry's spending, he said, he canceled $250 million worth of contracts with companies he believed were fronts for the former government or got contracts only because they were from countries friendly to Saddam.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor outraged and disappointed at the conduct of the Presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry. To issue a term about our Commander in Chief and calling him a liar is disgusting, despicable; and we reject this kind of politics. Today, it was reported on Fox News that the Saddam Hussein government stole over $4 billion from the Food-for-Oil Program to help the poor people in that country of Iraq. They spent the proceeds of that $4 billion bribing and paying off officers all over the world. 400,000- plus people died at the hands of Saddam Hussein, and the candidate running for President is calling our Commander in Chief a liar. I think that is regrettable, think it is disgusting; and they have consistently used this kind of terminology throughout this entire campaign. America is tired of negative politics. I challenge the Senator to talk about what you will do for the people of this country rather than tearing down the institution of the President. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have it both ways, and I am sick and tired of this kind of language polluting political airways and making our children wonder why they should vote. He did not think he was miked. What you say in silence is what you will say everywhere you go. So whether you thought the mike on or not, Mr. Kerry, you were wrong.