Mark Foley

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with a saddened heart that I come to speak to this Chamber today. Last week our Nation was again rocked when we learned of another senseless death of an innocent child. Carlie Brucia, a beautiful young girl from Sarasota, Florida, was violently kidnapped and brutally murdered on her way home from a friend's house, not too far away from her own. There is nothing I can say that will bring comfort to her family today. No parent should ever lose a child, and all communities throughout the country should shiver at what has happened in Florida this past week. This crime happened in daylight, on a major thoroughfare and in front of passersby. Carlie's death is not just her family's loss but a loss to us all. This fallen angel's death must not be in vain. Police and prosecutors must ensure that her murderer will never see the light of day again, but that is not enough. We must come together as a community, and as a State, to make sure we never let such a crime happen in our backyard again. The AMBER Alert system is the best tool we have, but it is just a tool. I wish there was something I could do to undo this terrible crime, but I cannot. What I can offer is my promise to Carlie's family that I will never stop working to ensure that law enforcement has the tools necessary to capture these pedophiles and that families are fully armed with the information they need to protect themselves and their children. Mr. Speaker, all I can wish for is that I will never have to come to the House floor to talk about the murder of another child ever again. I want to offer my deepest condolences to Carlie's family. I hope that with the help of their family and friends they will be able to get through this terrible time. God bless Carlie.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the Record.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me give Members the following quotes: ``Sometimes the United States has to act alone, or at least has to act first. Sometimes we cannot let other countries have a veto on our foreign policy.'' That is a debate quote spoken by President Clinton. Madeleine Albright: ``I am going to explain our position, and while we always prefer to act multilaterally, we are prepared to go unilaterally.'' President Clinton: ``Would the Iraqi people be better off if there was a change in leadership? I certainly think they would be.'' In the last couple of days, we have heard a lot of people questioning the President's veracity. Let us talk about the successes: Libya is cooperating and disarming; Charles Taylor has been forced out of Liberia; India and Pakistan are talking about Kashmir and reducing tensions; and as Senator Lieberman said, ``Saddam Hussein was a walking weapon of mass destruction.'' Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of this President. I am proud of standing with him and our military as they combat terror and tyranny around the globe. Shame on the Democrats for suggesting that the President is not truthful.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I see there are a few Democrats on the floor today; they are busy preparing their ``I hate George Bush'' speeches for the day. We finished last night with a message from the President of the United States about the hopeful optimism this country has and the things that we can do together if we only stop bickering and start working towards our common goals. The war on terrorism is his single focus; and since September 11, our homeland has been safe. Liberating the world has been his hallmark, and today we can claim that Libya is now negotiating with the United States. North Korea is finally talking about putting aside their hatefulness. India and Pakistan are joining together for conversations that are hopeful and helpful for solving the world's problems. This President has led effectively, honorably, and with distinction. At the end of the State of the Union speech, the minority leader went on to describe how reckless, basically, this President has been. I disagree vehemently and strongly. I applaud our President. I applaud the state of the Union. The economy is growing stronger, unemployment is reducing itself and we are finding ourselves in a better place, thanks to his leadership. God bless this great Nation and, as the chaplain said, God bless our President.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for bringing in resolution to the floor and to my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), hopefully our next Senator from the great State of Louisiana, for proclaiming the importance of Catholic parochial education in our society and in our lives. As a product of Sacred Heart School in Lake Worth, I remembered returning to that very classroom where the shock of my life at that time had been the assassination of President John Kennedy. We were in 4th grade. We were asked to pray and pray for our nation and for our assassinated president. And after September 11th when I was equally shocked as the Nation was watching in horror the events unfolding in New York City, I returned that classroom for solace, for comfort, and for guidance. Catholic education was a lot to me and to our family. My father started at Sacred Heart himself as a teacher, went on to Cardinal Newman to be a coach and earth science teacher, and then went on to the public school system where he retired from a school for troubled children. Through his leadership and our parents' guidance and the church's blessing, it has meant a lot to all of our family as we learned life's lessons. I recently attended St. Ann's school in West Palm Beach. Their students undertook on their own initiative an effort to send memorabilia and messages to our troops in Iraq. They gathered and worked together to do handiworks and crafts and essential items, care packages, if you will, to our troops only to find that nobody would take the packages. Not UPS, did not fly there, not FedEx. There was no way to get all of their hard work accomplished. They called our office. Thanks to the hard work of our staff, they repacked the boxes, asked the Department of Defense for permission and were able to load those packages on to a flight heading to Iraq. I recently went to the school and thanked the children for their extraordinary efforts and thinking of our troops first over the holiday period. And they read for me a number of the letters that were sent back by our personnel in the field. It was heartwarming to see the interaction between soldier and student. Ave Maria is a new university contemplated and soon to be constructed in Ft. Myers, Florida, the first Catholic university to be built in the country in 40 years. I commend our community for being lucky to have a Catholic University soon in our presence. Catholic schools are important to the fiber and foundation of our Nation. They give every child a chance to pray in class, which is a unique and novel thing, one I welcome and urge other non-parochial schools to participate in. Because, after all, after September 11th the one thing that lifted the soul of the Nation and gave us courage to fight on in the days ahead was, in fact, our collective prayer, our willingness and wishes for a better world for all Americans and all inhabitants of the world. So I salute the author of the amendment, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman, and all who will join with us today in, again, saluting the importance of Catholic education in our daily lives.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be back here in our Nation's capital for the opening of the 108th second session of Congress. As we start a new year, we often pray for hope and optimism to help lift the Nation, to help guide the Nation, to help give it strength and to honor the character of this Nation that we all love so dearly. So it is troubling that when, in the first hour of the first day of the 108th second session, the negativity ringing in this Chamber is deafening, the criticism, the constant carping, the antagonism towards this President knows no boundaries. Yet the American public remains optimistic and hopeful because that is in our core nature. That is our core; that is who we are as people. There is a reason Howard Dean went down in ashes, in flames in Iowa yesterday, because for the last 11 months he has done nothing but characterize and criticize the President of the United States in negative tones. Consequently, John Edwards comes in second because he was at least talking about hopeful optimism, a spirit that is imbued in the character of this Nation and its people. As we proceed in this year of trials and tribulations, you have to look back at the past year and look forward to the future and hope that, rather than fighting one another, we can join together in finding solutions to our common problems. In the last hour and a half I have heard how bad the economy is. Yet at this time our Dow Jones Industrial Average is over 10,500; NASDAQ has passed the 2,000 threshold. Unemployment is dropping. Statistics prove it. Last month was not the best month; but anyone who follows the economy recognizes there is a lag behind employment and robust employment numbers and optimism in the sector that is gauged by Wall Street. Factory orders. Sale of durable goods. Light trucks. Look at the numbers. Real estate. First time home buyers. People's 401(k)s now back to where they were pre-1999. Their IRA's are gaining momentum again. Their financial status is better. Not perfect, not perfect, but better. And what fuels that basic surge in investor confidence? Well, that is the term. Investors' confidence. In order to have confidence, you have to have some optimism, and you have to have some hope that times will in fact get better. But if you listen to the cacophony of voices from the other side of the aisle, woe is me, and how desperate we are. It was telling, one of the speakers offered the President an olive branch moments ago. Why is it when they offer the olive branch, they always hand it to you with the thorns exposed? Can there not be a generous offer of helping together, solving Americans' problems? It has to be about criticizing virtually everything this administration has done. Look at Iraq and look at the strength of character that this President displayed in challenging one of the most evil dictators of our time. He is met with negative sound bytes and poll-driven babble about why we should not be there and why we should leave immediately. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and Mr. Dean eloquently made that point. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) came in last and Mr. Dean was third. So clearly I think others, based on if you are taking polling statistics, 65 percent of the American public thought it was the right thing to do to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein. The President stood alone on that precipice trying to decide what was best for the people of this country, stood alone. And yet with the wind at his back, he has now been able to change fundamentally the way other nations look at us. Fundamentally. Libya is now in negotiations to turn over its nuclear secrets and arsenal and weaponry and technology. Libya. It was not that long ago that Muammar Khadafi was heading Libya, obviously with an eye towards destroying the Middle East. And now Libya is at least, hopefully, brokering negotiations as we speak. North Korea is sounding more conciliatory rather than beating their chests and threatening the annihilation of Japan or South Korea or other places. North Korea is now starting to talk about containment. Pakistan and India, who have been at odds for a long time, are talking about constructive engagement to solve their mutual problems relative to Kashmir. Think about it. Think about just those hot spots in the world where because of the President's strength of character in pursuing the evil of Saddam Hussein have we now started to recognize that only peace can be achieved through strength. Yes, it must have been lonely for this President when the rest of the free world was saying, I am not interested; let us not do that; let us not upset the apple cart; let us not bother Iraq. They are quiet now. To the contrary. If you are one of the 1 million people that have died in Iraq, I am not sure you consider it quiet. If you had your tongue cut out by Saddam Hussein's henchmen, I do not think you consider Iraq peaceful. If you were starved or imprisoned or murdered by the regime, I do not think you consider Iraq a place you would call home. Yet, because of the President's insistence on pursuing the course of action that would free and liberate the people of Iraq, we now have the dominoes falling in other areas of the world that are showing that the United States' strength is what is solving the perplexing and difficult challenges we face as a Nation and as a world power. I can remember during the last administration when there was a problem in Haiti, and I believe the U.S.S. Harlan was heading for Haiti, and because of a band of malcontents and miscontents and misfits who were on the dock waving brooms and pitchforks, our Commander in Chief then ordered the U.S.S. Harlan to turn around and not head into Haiti to bring peace and stability to Haiti. We turned around a naval vessel because we were nervous about the gathering of dissidents on a dock at Port au Prince. That visual image of our naval vessel turning around from a group waving brooms at our military power was a shot heard round the world because people looked at that as an abject instance of failure on behalf of diplomacy and democracy and America's commitment. So why would people be fearful of the United States? The first World Trade Center bombing was met with loud voices but no follow-up. Khobar Towers. The U.S.S. Cole. The war on terrorism was gathering strength for years before this President became our Commander in Chief. But only because of his leadership have we now seen progress in the theater and in the fight against terrorism. It seems like I turn on the TV every other day, and there is a critical commentary about homeland security; and yet we have not had another instance of terrorism in this country since September 11. September 11 remains vivid in my mind as I left that City of New York that morning, minutes before the first World Trade Center was struck by that aircraft. I had passed only 4 or 5 minutes before that first plane struck and had noticed those gleaming towers in that New York glorious morning. After that strike on American soil, this President knew his obligation and his duty was to protect the public, and he has done that. There is no perfect plan; but this President has marshaled his team, whether it be John Ashcroft or others, to help mobilize our law enforcement agencies for the fight ahead. Tom Ridge of Homeland Security and Asa Hutchinson have done a masterful job of bringing our Nation together to focus on our domestic tranquility. The economy, as I mentioned earlier, is improving steadily. And that optimism will bring jobs for the American people. This President will talk about jobs because it is important to him. He has mentioned it time and time again. He never gets credit from those on the other side of the aisle, but he consistently believes that full employment and a robust economy go hand in hand. This economy has improved. We were down at 7,200 on the Dow. We are now at 10,551, I believe, an hour ago. That is good news for the American investor. And it is good news for the American economy. Medicare. People keep moaning about the bill. Most have not read it. Most of the benefits of the bill will not become effective for a while, but there is an improving opportunity for seniors through the Medicare delivery of prescription drugs to their communities. I woke up this morning to the moveon.org campaign commercial with soft money. It is interesting. They raising soft money with reckless abandon. George Soros gave $5 million to an organization headed by Democrats to destroy this President and demean him and demean the office, but they have moved on. Remember, they have moved on. They were there for the past President and they are there now as a vehicle to spend soft money, that old bugaboo that was so reviled by the other side of the aisle. Now they have found other ways to move money into new different camps and run the same negative ads but just not run by the political committees here in Washington. They are just committees that are closer to home, I guess. Health care is something we are concerned about, and the President will address that as well. He is concerned about health care. The President's concerned about health care, the delivery of health care, the availability, the affordability, and that will be discussed tonight. He is talking about the space program, and yes, there are those that question whether the space program has, or do we have the funding to move forward in the corridor of space, and let me challenge everyone to recognize what has occurred because of the space program. Whether it is the cellular phone or the Blackberry, it is the heart pacemaker, the microwave oven, Internet technology, all has come from a genesis of discovery of space. From the scientists and astronauts, from the team leaders, whether it is Johnson Space Center in Texas or Kennedy in Florida, these have been the pioneers that have brought about incredible opportunities in technological corridors to bring about a better way of life for all America. The discovery of cells and cancerous genes and things that may stem the tide of devastating illnesses and disease have been discovered in space. So this President, true to his mission of being an innovator and a leader, is challenging us to move forward. The clarion call to all, this final frontier, as was mentioned by John Kennedy, has not been conquered and will not be given up because of tight budget years. The President talks about immigration, and a lot of people are nervous about immigration. Obviously, again, they have not read the bill. They think there is a blanket amnesty. The President's leading on an issue that, yes, is politically polarizing but is an issue once again that he is not willing to have just out there in the abyss and not be discussed in practical solutions, rather than political sound bytes. Education. I have mentioned many times on this floor my father was a principal and a schoolteacher. So education is important to this Member of Congress, and this President has worked to make education the hallmark of his administration. So rather than continue to take the time of the Congress today, I just ask the other side of the aisle if rather than snappy sound bytes and eloquent rhetoric all directed to demonize this President, that if half the energy was going into developing constructive proposals to bring to the floor, we may be able to solve America's problems. In today's Roll Call, a newspaper that is all over the Hill, David Winston has the headline ``Democratic Hopefuls' Sniping Souring Their Images With Voters.'' It talks about, ``Twenty-four hours after the Iowa caucus grabbed the national spotlight for the Democrats, President Bush takes center stage tonight for the annual ritual of the State of the Union address. As Bush heads to Capitol Hill with the power and prestige of the presidency behind him, the Democrats are licking their wounds and heading to New Hampshire, some on CPR. ``In contrast, the President will report to the nation as a strong wartime leader,'' and I emphasize strong, wartime leader, ``as the economy comes roaring back, creating jobs, as his education centerpiece, No Child Left Behind, remains popular with the public, and as a President who kept his promise to pass a prescription drug benefit for seniors. As Ronald Reagan said when he left office, `Not bad. Not bad at all.' ``Meanwhile, the Democratic presidential contenders have gone to the mattresses in the biggest family feud since the Hatfields and McCoys. The Democratic primary has become little more than a nasty snipe-a- thon, leaving none of the candidates looking statesmanlike, much less presidential.'' If my colleagues happened to watch Mr. Dean screaming at the TV today, they will realize this may not be the man we want close to the nuclear button. I added that. That is not in Mr. Winston's column. ``The endless bickering and name calling is beginning to take its toll on everyone in the race. ``The latest polls show not only that the Democratic presidential candidates are losing ground with voters overall,'' but they are also losing Democratic voters who have an increasingly unfavorable view of their own field. Let me continue because I think it is important to just lay this out as an observation made by Mr. Winston. ``A comparison of the two most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls, taken January 2-5 and November 10-12, spells bad news for Democrats in two key measurements. First, with all voters, every one of the six candidates tested . . . saw little or no movement with their favorables since November, while their unfavorables increased.'' Why? Because America rejects pessimism, negativity and nastiness, and that is what we have had hurled at those in Iowa and we witnessed through the reporting of Fox and CNN and others. Let me finalize with this one. ``Dean led the pack in this dubious category with his unfavorables increasing more than his favorables by 13 points to reach an unenviable 28 percent favorable, 39 percent unfavorable rating by all voters. But, every one of the Democratic candidates saw their favorable-unfavorable ratings get worse among the overall electorate.'' They are running for the highest office in the land, and as time goes on and people get to know them more, they like them less, not because they are not pleasant people to look at and not because they are not educated. I am sure they all qualified in their educated endeavors, but why is America rejecting them? They are rejecting them because of their nastiness and their negativity and their pessimism because America, after all, is about optimism, about hope, about opportunity, about equality, about engagement, about being part of a bigger picture, a bigger world, a bigger place. So I do pray that as we conclude today that the minority party, that may be the permanent minority if they keep it up, rather than promising in speech to extend an olive branch, that they actually do it and give this President a chance. We will not always agree with this President as Republicans or Democrats, but I think in the final analysis, as we look at the man as a person, I have come to really admire his determination. When I heard those comments by Paul O'Neill, I thought back of several meetings we have had with multiple Members of Congress in the Cabinet room of the White House, and one foretelling day was about the Patients' Bill of Rights, a subject that I had worked on with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and others in this country for a long time. As we sat around the room I was really taken aback by the depth of knowledge that President Bush had relative to the Patients' Bill of Rights. The discussion with lawmakers, the back and forth, the questions, the probative questions, the responses, whether we wanted to hear the answer or not, he gave it to us with what he believed was the best course of action for this particular piece of legislation. This was a President engaged in the minutia of debate, not a scripted card that was given to him by an aide, but something that inherently he understood, both intimately and through research and through interest. So as we hear the State of the Union tonight, as we enter 2004, let us hope that the optimism that I know will be contained in the speech becomes contagious, and let us hope that all of us as Members of this deliberate body can join together in trying to figure ways to make every American safer, Democrat, Republican or Independent, bringing together a better world where we are talking and communicating and helping each other in the Nation, whether it is the fight against AIDS in Africa or whether it is terrorism in the Middle East or whether it is freeing people from tyranny. Let us join together in a pledge that in order to form a more perfect union, we must be organized together as citizens first and politicians second. Our political parties are not the most important credential on this floor. Our most important credential is citizens, Americans, and hopefully patriots. I wish the President well tonight because his guidance and his expertise is needed by the American public, and I hope as young children hopefully are allowed to watch history and democracy in action here on the floor, we will see a President whose character cannot be questioned, whose administration has performed admirably, whose people have been at the forefront of the fight. I wish him well and I wish him success, and I know together, as Americans, his leadership, his vision will help every American find work in the new year.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing the rule to the floor and for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, there is a commercial on these days that has a catch line, and it says, ``What is in your wallet?'' Well, I ask Members of Congress to ask themselves that very question, what is in your wallet? I will tell you what is in mine. It is a card that I get as a Member of Congress. It says BlueCross BlueShield Federal Employee Program. It is a PPO. It has a prescription drug benefit attached to it, a $35 copayment. Certain attributes of this plan work for Members of this Congress. In my congressional district I have the fifth largest Medicare- eligible population of 435 Members of this body, the fifth largest Medicare-eligible population. When I go home to my town hall meetings, they say, ``I want what you have. I want choice. I want opportunity.'' Interestingly enough, they do not say, ``I want it all, and I want it free.'' They want fairness, because they want the system to continue. The harangues on this floor the last couple days are amazing. We have heard repeatedly, speaker after speaker, ``We haven't seen this bill; we haven't read this bill.'' But we have spent hours of time talking about what is bad about what is in this bill, so either they have not seen the bill, or they are just guessing what must be in the final work product. For 4 years I have been on this committee, and I have met over on the other side of the Chamber with the respected Senator Bob Graham, Senator Harry Reid, at that time Senator Chuck Robb and a number of Members of the Senate as we tried to work out an opportunity to find a prescription drug plan that would suit the test of time and be financially equivalent, if you will. In our bill there is a wellness provision which allows us to do diagnostic testing for cardiovascular disease, allows us to test for diabetes early, before the onset of these diseases. There is, in fact, a drug discount card that will be offered to those lower-income individuals who need assistance. That drug discount card will have, much like an ATM, $600 of purchasing power so they will have an opportunity to buy the vital drugs they need. Many people on the other side of the aisle decided politically to sign the AARP pledge. If you read the pledge, it says all Medicare beneficiaries will have access to a stable prescription drug benefit on a voluntary basis. Not forced, not coerced, not mandatory. Affordable prices will be the rule, not the exception. We are trying to do that. To those who suggest just reimport drugs from Canada, let me ask the basic question; read the articles in Florida in the newspapers where there have been numerous arrests because of counterfeit drugs coming from Canada. Reasonable premiums, deductibles and copayments. Those are in the bill. Prescription coverage will leave no individual with extraordinary out-of-pocket costs. There is a catastrophic provision written into this legislation. Reduction in soaring drug costs will keep the program affordable. Extra help for low-income individuals. Help for rural communities that I represent with their hospitals, their ambulances, their doctors. We talk about a number of things in the bill that I think provide relief for every American. Increased fees, if you will, for physicians, increased index for the hospital what we call the market basket. So if you look at the Medicare bill, yes, there may be problems for some. But AARP, which was, up until last week, described as the ``gold standard'' of senior lobbying organizations, has decided to take this first step with us. Will this be a perfect vehicle? No. No legislation I have ever worked on in this process has ever been perfect. We have had to come back, work it, amend it, and deal with some of the consequences. And if we fail to make this critical step and pass this rule and pass this legislation, we will have surrendered our ability to bring seniors a necessary improvement to the Medicare health delivery system that they so vitally need. So I urge my colleagues, support the rule and support the underlying legislation. Let us do for seniors what Claude Pepper and Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to do to enhance their safety and security. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I learned in the real estate business, you never leave the negotiations for fear they may fail and you do not get your commission. Today, I understand the Democrats are planning a walkout from this floor to protest Medicare legislation. Yesterday, uniquely, the Democrats were burning their AARP cards down the street. The only thing missing from that scene was Jane Fonda. Mr. Speaker, the seniors of our country deserve a Medicare program that is updated for the 21st century, including prescription drugs. It is an opportunity to help our seniors with new technology, diagnostic tests for osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, diabetes. But no. If the Democrats do not get their way, they take the highway. That is discouraging for American seniors. And for them to ridicule and criticize AARP that just last week was the gold standard for senior lobbying organizations is somewhat a tremendous stain on the Democratic Party. Where are the leaders like Claude Pepper and Franklin Roosevelt? I urge them to come to the floor today and work on Medicare legislation. Let us pass a bill for all seniors.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and for his outstanding presentation on the floor today and for going over some of the most relevant and important topics of this extension of expiring tax provisions. I want to call to the attention of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle some very, very important substantial pieces of legislative tax work that are here in the bill. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit, a credit for employers equal to 40 percent of wages for hiring certain disadvantaged individuals. Targeted groups include TANF families, high- risk youth, certain ex-felons, summer youth, certain Veterans, and families on food stamps. This is a very important provision in this bill. Welfare to work, again an experiment which has yielded tremendous results in Palm Beach County, the county in which I live, provides a tax credit for employers hiring targeted groups equal to 35 percent of wages. These are interesting and important provisions to help people get back on their feet, to maintain a work ethic, and contribute to themselves, their families and our Nation. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and I authored an important provision relevant to elementary and secondary school teachers. My father is a retired teacher and principal, and that is a $250 above- the-line deduction for teachers purchasing classroom supplies. It was first enacted in the 2002 stimulus bill, and it continues today. Qualified zone academy bonds. These are targeted tax credit bonds for school construction in economically targeted areas. This is very important for Florida with the rapid growth of the population and the need for school construction, once again a mechanism by which localities can seek tax credits for bonds to help with that opportunity. Charitable contributions of computer technology used for educational purposes. We have seen a blossoming of computers in the classroom in educational settings, most due to the generosity of companies with excess equipment. This extends for 1 year the current law which encourages donation of computer technology and related equipment for educational purposes, providing donors with a higher basis and, therefore, larger deductions. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) mentioned the brownfields remediations cost. Again, those are in my district and districts throughout the country. The Archer medical savings account, which will be a provision contained also in our Medicare bill which will be brought to the floor tomorrow or Saturday, all of these issues contained in this extension provide some great opportunities for constituents throughout all 50 States and the territories. Finally, for D.C. residents, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has worked extensively in reviving the fortunes of the city, and extends for 1 year a range of tax incentives for activities in the District of Columbia, including an important $5,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers. Anyone who lives on Capitol Hill has noticed a refurbishing, a reinvigoration of one of our most important cities. Visitors from around the world come to see where we work and where democracy flourishes. Thanks to this provision, a $5,000 tax credit, we are starting to see the fruits of the labor of this bill, increasing homeownership and increasing opportunities: zero capital gains for D.C. on long-term capital gains held in the District, rental real estate buildings, things of that nature, getting people to reinvest in the capital city; and I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for helping the Mayor of this city and bringing some of these opportunities forward. I encourage passage of the expiring tax provisions and urge adoption of this bill.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) for recommending the Louisiana Purchase to Thomas Jefferson. It was a good deal then, and it remains a good deal today. I particularly thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Baker), the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney), the gentleman from Nebraska (Chairman Bereuter), and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley). My friend from Louisiana was very, very helpful in crafting amendments that have been incorporated in the bill to bring some fairness to policyholders that I believe were lacking in the original bill. I represent Floridians at both the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, and we certainly see our fair share of hurricanes and tropical storms. The base bill would have punished people for choosing to live there. Does the Federal Government discriminate against people who choose to live in the areas that are prone to earthquakes or tornadoes? Of course not. Some people who live in coastal areas should not be punished either. So reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program is extremely important. I would have preferred a cleaner reauthorization, but I am thrilled it is for 5 years. Of course, failure to reauthorize this program would have disastrous consequences to policyholders, as well as to the banking and real estate industry in my State. I thank all for their cooperation, and I look forward to passage of this important legislation.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Maybe. That may be possible as we move forward. With some cooperation, we may be able to actually expedite the time frame. That is this gentleman's wish. The sooner, the better. But within 6 months of enactment, we will have the first phase of this. We will have a number of the components already implemented. As to the prescription drug plan, I think our leadership will move more quickly than 2006. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is almost comical on the floor for people who claim they have never seen this bill, they know every aspect of it and can criticize it with great flourish and abundance. We just heard about the rural health care network, and I absolutely represent a lot of rural communities. Mr. Speaker, $30 billion additionally to fund rural health. Standardized amount for payments. A labor share to help with the labor index in rural communities. The disproportionate share program is increased in our bill. Low- volume hospitals receive additional payments based on their discharges. Critical-access hospitals have additional benefits. A wage index. Graduate medical education programs. Sole-community hospitals qualify based on some data. These are all incorporated in this new Medicare reform proposal that will benefit constituents in the gentlewoman from California's district. Bonus payments for physician, an increased 5 percent add-on if you are in the rural component. Clinics pay separately for professional services. Rural health care clinics, federally qualified. Low-volume rural ambulance, targets higher payments for ambulances in rural communities. Home health care adds an additional 5 percent. So these are all funded by our program, including community health centers. Now, it came up about the $2,200, the doughnut that they continue to describe. The median recipient on Medicare uses approximately $2,000 annually in drug utilization costs. That is why we came up with the $2,200 to cover the majority of Americans. After $3,600 of drug expenditures, we then pick up 95 percent of the tab for the catastrophically ill. Now, what the Democrats fail to continue to mention, and I wish they would put their price tag alongside their lofty ideas, is to give drugs to every senior in an unlimited amount without payment, without copayment, without deductible, would be about $900 billion, almost $1 trillion. Please, somebody on the other side, advise me where that money comes from, and I will be willing to listen to their proposal. But in the abstract and failing to offer concrete solutions, they criticize a bill that has been worked on by the Committee on Ways and Means. They should contact some of their Democratic colleagues who serve on the committee with me. They are probably not happy with every aspect of the bill, but they have seen it. We have debated it. We have discussed it. This bill has been around for about 4\1/2\ years, no shocks, no nuances, no changes. It has all been part of the debate. Yes, they may object to portions of it, but to claim that somehow we just popped this bill up in the middle of the night belies the 4\1/2\ years I have been on the committee working on this and shows little of the knowledge of the very important components that provide relief to a number of their constituents, Democrat, Republican, and Independent alike. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just ask Members who are so comfortable with the insurance provided to them through Blue Cross Blue Shield, it is a PPO, it is made out to me, it is a government-wide benefit plan that has a retail pharmacy carrier; it has a mail order if I want; there is a customer service number; I can use it at most hospitals for admission and medical doctors. But surprisingly, it is not the Federal Government, it is Blue Cross and Blue Shield. So if this is so onerous and a disaster waiting to happen, then maybe my colleagues ought to turn in their card. I think they probably would not go without the coverage, and that is what my constituents have been asking for: give me what you have. Let me have choices. Let me have options. Let me decide for myself. Now, they may be outraged at AARP, but up until last week they were always throwing it in our faces that this was the legitimate group that negotiated for seniors, and now all of a sudden they have racked up this alleged racketeering, mob-style pharmaceutical alliance with big PhRMA. It is just interesting, when they change their viewpoint and decide to support something we are doing, this is evil incarnate. A week ago they were the gold standard of senior care and consideration; today we are going to burn our cards. So I ask my colleagues to be the judge: is it politics, or is it process? Is it results, or is it claiming credit? As a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, yes, there is a lot more I would like to do to this bill. But part of the process I have learned is compromise, negotiation, and meaningful steps forward to make results achievable for citizens, the people that pay our salary that send us to work. When I go home after reviewing this bill and looking at its contents, I know in my heart I can look at seniors, whether they live in Lake Worth, Port St. Lucie, Punta Gorda, Okeechobee; whether they are wealthy or poor, whatever their ethnic background, whatever their family composition, that I will be able to look them in the eye and say, this is a better program than it was last month and last year. Mr. Speaker, with that I know the hour is late, and I sincerely appreciate, as I have worked with the gentlewoman from Oregon on a number of issues, and we care deeply about health care; we share common objectives and common goals. But I think the characterization of this bill is overstated in its demagoguery. I think if we look at what is being provided and the full range of services, people should come away from this bill knowing this is an important, critical first step to providing prescription drug coverage for our seniors. Today, at this hour, seniors have absolutely zero coverage by the Federal Government for prescription drugs. If there is any indication that what we are about to embark on by those who suggest this is not a benefit, then they have not read the calculation. Just do the math along with me. From $3,600 to $5,000, the example used by the gentleman from California, if you spent $5,000, you are only paying $900; well, do the math. From $3,600 to $5,000 is $1,400. Your obligation is a 5 percent copay of that. So it does not take rocket science to figure out that is $70. That means you have $1,330 of a benefit there alone. If you take the front end, if you take the front end and you look at the deductible and the $2,200 amount, you are talking about roughly $900 to $1,100. So if you add those two together, there is about $2,430 of benefit for a person that spends $5,000, not counting the $600 and the discount card, plus the discounts achieved. So if we reflect on all of those numbers and you hear these numbers thrown around, get out a calculator, we will supply the numbers. It is not that difficult. My final statement will be to those who say our seniors do not understand enough of what they are doing to be able to figure these new processes or new bills out. Well, do my colleagues know what? The generation I am talking about managed their way through the depression, they survived World War II, they taught us how to ride our bikes and drive our cars. They raised us. They fought wars. They have been able to succeed in life on their own without the Federal Government dumbing them down and acting like they cannot make choices. The Medicare bill we are about to bring to this floor represents significant, important, fundamental change. It represents increasing opportunity to gain wellness care. It represents prescription drug coverage for the first time in this Nation's history. The Congress was controlled by the Democrats in 1965, when Medicare was introduced, to 1995 when the Republicans took over and, in that span of time, no prescription drugs were added. So I ask the basic question. I have been working on it since I came to Congress in 1995. We finally have a product on the floor in 2003, a lot later than I would have liked to, but under our majority, with President Bush and the Senate majority in Republican hands, we are about to embark on a wellness Medicare program for the 21st century. So I appreciate the time of the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), and I appreciate the House's indulgence. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to be on the floor talking about Medicare tonight and certainly thrilled I have a chance to answer some of the comments made by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley). In my district in Florida, I have the fifth largest Medicare eligible population of 435 congressional districts. This is not an issue I take lightly. I would suggest some of our colleagues read the actual bill because what they are asking us to do tonight in their amendment is exactly why we are focused on some of the reforms in the very Medicare package we are talking about. A physician update, an increase in payment, is in the bill the House Republicans have authored and sent to this floor and now is in conference. There was a mention that there was a fee cut last year of 5.4 percent. I would like to correct the record. As a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who fought to increase physician reimbursement, not only did we eliminate the cut a year ago; we actually increased by 1.5 percent in this bill. In Oregon we have a 1.5 percent update in 2004 and in 2005. We have a 5 percent bonus for those working in rural Oregon to make certain that they are able to see the patients because of the limited access and limited number of physicians. So there is a 16 percent increase in the bill we are talking about today. Let me also take some exception when it is discussed about this FEHBP competitive-style model for a minute. My district is typical of most districts in the country. In fact, in Florida I represent eight counties: Palm Beach County, St. Lucie, Okeechobee, Glades, Hendry, Martin, and Charlotte. It goes from the east coast on the Atlantic to the west, ending at the Gulf of Mexico. There is almost every demographic mix one can imagine, people moving from the north and east coast; and what they have said to me in town hall after town hall, I want choices like Members of Congress have. They say they want choices like we have in our health care delivery system, and I reach for my wallet because I know somewhere in here is my Federal health benefit plan; and I get a range of options to choose from, whether I want a higher deductible, higher copayment, whether I want a fee-for-service or PPO or a managed care plan. Seniors in my district are smart enough to know they are able to make choices. The Democrats have been down the street burning AARP cards this afternoon. Rather than engaging in constructive debate on how to fix the most important plan for seniors in this country, they are invoking memories of Jane Fonda burning things in city streets around our country and screaming that AARP has sold them out. A month ago AARP was, as I was told by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the gold standard of senior lobbying organizations, and I tend to agree. I meet with AARP in my district in order to have a dialogue to see if we can meet some common ground and common objective. So when AARP indicated that they were supporting our Medicare bill, it was not only refreshing that we were engaged in a bipartisan, constructive conversation, but we were actually modernizing Medicare. So to eliminate the competitive model in the Medicare plan we are discussing undermines the very notion of what the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) is debating on the floor today. The update for physicians is in the bill. Let me also say another thing that is troubling me because I have been somewhat perplexed by this insistence by the other side of the aisle that the trouble with this bill is we do not get after those nasty drug companies. We do not just let our citizens run across the border and buy drugs from Canada. I just finished a TV interview with one of my colleagues talking about the cost of drugs in America and the cost of drugs in Canada, but let me talk about a more critical concern of mine. In my district in my county in Florida, the first case of anthrax poisoning occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida, the death of a man who worked for the National Inquirer because he contracted anthrax through the mail that was sent to the National Inquirer. Why do I bring that up and why do I raise the anthrax attacks and the fear it invoked in Florida? Because one of the concerns that we have all indicated is we want cheaper prescription drug prices for our seniors, but we wanted a protected chain of custody to make certain that the drugs we are getting for our seniors are not tainted. Let me read this headline from the National Journal Group American Health Line. It says that Florida laws to prevent the sale of counterfeit or diluted prescription drugs in the State are too weak, according to a report issued Tuesday. The Miami Herald reports the report found that as many as 55 of the 1,458 prescription drug wholesalers licensed in Florida sell counterfeit or diluted medications or treatments illegally imported into the United States. The Office of the Attorney General said the questionable medicines for some wholesalers have reached pharmacies, but the extent of the problem is not known. So I continue to hear these bottles of pills rattling on the other side of the aisle saying just let us have our chance to be in the debate, and we will get Americans cheaper drugs from Canada. Well, the first person that dies from an anthrax-laced medication or the first person that receives phony or altered cancer drugs and dies because they did not receive the proper dosage, the first person who has a catastrophic incident because somehow that cheaper drug that my colleagues have suggested they will bring to our States has harmed a citizen, I cannot wait to watch the rush for the exit by each of those who have been rattling these pill bottles saying that was not my idea, I certainly did not want any part of it. So let us debate Medicare and let us debate it on the floor, not in the AARP lobby, not in the newspapers, and not on TV, but for seniors like my parents and in the memory of my grandmother, whose one wish was that Social Security and Medicare would sustain her for her life. The one check she would wait for was Social Security, and the one thing she wanted more than ever was not to be a burden on her children or grandchildren. She wanted to be self-sustaining. It is in her memory I have worked 9 years on Medicare and want to make certain this proposal works. So I reject this motion. We will continue to have discussions on it, but the things that have been raised in this motion today on H.R. 1 are just not accurate. They just do not apply. If they read the bill, they will see that physicians are getting compensated properly. They will see the competitive model is not going to undermine Medicare. It has no effect on entitlement. There is continued entitlement to defined benefits under current law. There is continued access to traditional FFS Medicare through the fee- for-service Medicare throughout the country, and all payments to plans, including traditional fee-for-service Medicare based on the demographic and health risks of employees. We have provisions in this bill that deal with most of the problems raised. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is indeed appropriate that there be a doctor in the House sitting in the well presiding as we discuss this important project, a doctor who happens to be a Republican. The notion that we want to destroy Medicare is patently false. It is interesting, I am on the Committee on Ways and Means, so this is something we deal with quite frequently, how many letters I get urging us to increase the fee payments to Medicare+Choice organizations, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida. From my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who somehow find those Medicare+Choice, which are popular with their constituents, we should increase reimbursements to those plans. But if they listened to the argument they just made about privatization, then those Medicare+Choice panels would not even operate. They would not even exist. So it seems like there is a number of Members here that seem to trust the private health insurance industry when it suits the political goals of allowing their constituents to have access to prescription drugs, to eyeglasses, to other remedial services, that is okay. That is not really privatization. That is kind of a sort of an experiment, I guess. But that is in fact what is happening today. There are managed care plans that President Clinton supported and endorsed and increased funding for, community health care organizations, a number of things that we have done in our communities to make certain health care is delivered. We know they are losing the debate when they have to bring up Newt Gingrich on the floor and rather than talk about substantive debate here, many of us have read the bill numerous times because we had it on the floor, we all had a vote, I think nine Democrats joined us in supporting that bill. I know it was not in its entirety. I am sure there are some new additions, some new conference report language, some different things, but we are not talking about whole new territory here, we are not going over new ground. But I would caution when we start accusing the entirety of the Republican Party as being opposed to Medicare that that is somewhat of a hurtful statement to this Member because I take seriously the responsibility I have representing seniors, I take seriously the fact that my parents are on Medicare, enrolled in Medicare, my father is suffering today with cancer who is being treated by great physicians in Palm Beach County who are being reimbursed by Medicare, who seem to be not only caring for him, but obviously thrilled with their work and happy with the reimbursements being offered. The current Medicare system is a sickness model. I am hopeful that the party on the other side of the aisle comes back to the roots of Claude Pepper from Florida and Lyndon Johnson who would have recognized a fabulous program but one that needs to reflect today's technologies. In our bill we have wellness incentives to look for dietetic screenings to see if we can prolong the life of someone suffering from diabetes. Medicare today will reimburse to amputate your limb, they will watch you go blind, they will put you on dialysis, but we will not reimburse a dietician to come in and see if we can properly construct a diet to minimize the onset of the disease. That is a plan that they want to sit here and defend? New technologies that can indicate a cancer in the body early and detect it and cause, hopefully, the cure of that cancer. Cardiovascular screening that I have worked on with Senator Bob Graham from Florida. This Medicare bill we are bringing to the floor has a lot more to offer than some of the criticism would indicate. But I still have to snicker when I see a group of people standing outside of AARP burning cards. It harkens back to an earlier day. I just somewhat humorously look at how quickly they turn on that organization whom they held in such high esteem up to 48 hours ago and now is being vilified here on the floor. We are happy AARP weighed in. They said it was a first step. They did not say this was a panacea, nor did any Member of this body ever suggest that this is the last thing we will ever do on Medicare. We will learn as we go along, we will add, we will try and increase the opportunities for preventive health care, we will increase reimbursement to hospitals in every Members' district, a bill that I authored. We are doing the drug discount card, another provision that I authored that will be in this bill. I think we are on the right track. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Of course I respect very much my colleague from Florida, and I appreciate his words tonight. I do want to at least add that at the current program we have on Medicare, just to correct any record, there is zero prescription drug coverage in Medicare. So for the very seniors they are talking about tonight, the veterans they are talking about tonight, citizens watching us tonight, they have zero coverage from Medicare for prescription drugs. Yes, there is a $275 deductible, and there is a monthly premium. The average American spends about $2,000 on drug costs annually. Under our plan they will probably save anywhere from $900 to $1,100 that will now be provided through Medicare to them. So anyone who is spending money on drugs today with this bill will have a benefit. The drug discount card that I authored along with Senator Hagel that is now part of this global bill includes for low-income families a $600 credit much like their ATM card that they can use at drug stores to not only achieve a discount off the retail price of the pharmaceutical but also have money to purchase and back up that purchase. So, yes, I am pleased with the progress we are making. I am pleased that we have things in this bill to provide new remedies for situations for ailing seniors, and I am encouraged by the fact that we have been able to increase reimbursements to hospitals, increase reimbursements to physicians. We are able to do some of the diagnostic tests necessary to improve and enhance the quality of life. So I feel very comfortable, as we continue the debate, that more changes probably can be made if we deal in a constructive fashion.

Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, actually 6 months from enactment, we will start with a discount card that will provide an immediate $600 in the plan. A number of the wellness provisions we are talking about will become instantaneous, the increase to physicians, the increase to hospitals, the increase to managed care.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there will be a number of things that will take place up until 2006. The big fundamental prescription drug will be 2006, the gentleman is correct. Because we have to get plans up and running. We have to implement the delivery system. We have to get plans concurrent. We have to do the pharmacology. So there are a number of things that will require some time.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, what should be a celebratory week for America's seniors is turning into a partisan fight. In memory of my grandmother, I come to the floor today urging my colleagues to come together on this important change in Medicare to provide prescription drugs for the first time in our Nation's history for our seniors. Let me ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in the memory of Claude Pepper, Franklin Roosevelt and others who cared so deeply for seniors, to put aside your partisan differences and walk with us in improving the most important fundamental health care program for seniors in our Nation's history. Discount drug cards, lower prices for prescription drugs, availability for new technology to help those who are ailing, preventive health care, diagnostic screening for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. This is a tremendously important bill for our Nation's seniors. Let us not fight about it. Let us move forward. AARP supports this bill. Yet the Democratic leadership is urging Members that if they vote for it, they should leave the caucus. One Member from California is actually resigning from AARP because she is so upset with their endorsement of the bill. AARP has long been known as the gold standard for keeping and caring for America's seniors. Let us not put their vision outside this building. Let us bring it in. Let us debate this bill but in behalf of millions of American seniors, let us pass this important landmark legislation this week before we go home.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to take a moment to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), for calling a hearing yesterday to examine the failure of our system to protect our children. It was a very, very difficult hearing for those of us who attended to listen to the traumatic and heartbreaking story of four young men in a family, the Jackson family of New Jersey. As someone who has worked on child protection for my career in the Congress and in the State legislature and as cochairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, I was shocked to hear and to see the photos of these four young men who were suffering at the hands of their adoptive parents. What struck me even more, or at least made me more outrageous, was the fact that the Division of Youth and Family Services from New Jersey had visited the home of this family over 38 times in the past several years. What did they fail to observe in these visits? For one, they failed to observe a 19-year-old boy who weighed just 45 pounds and was a mere 4 feet tall; a 14-year-old boy who was 3 feet in height and, I believe, less than 40 pounds. Where were they protecting these children? The fact is, Mr. Speaker, most Americans treat their pets better than New Jersey cared for their children. We heard arguments, which we always do when there is a child tragedy, that, A, we lack resources and funding, we have too many caseloads. Those excuses and finger-pointing and blame-gaming must stop, because they are outrageous accusations suggesting money was at the root of the children's problems. The family received over $30,000 annually in a subsidy to care for these children from the Federal and State government. $30,000. There is no excuse that money, or shortage of money, was the reason these children were starved. Thirty-eight visits by a caseworker to this house indicates obviously that they had a routine appearance in the household. What did they fail to observe? One thing they failed to observe is that there were locks on the doors to the kitchen, not allowing the children to come into this home, into their own kitchen to eat. When you look at the photos, and you have probably seen these photos if you have picked up any paper in this country because they have been blasted across the headlines of every newspaper in America, including both TV and print journalists. We have to in this country get a handle on this problem because this is sickening to its core that children that would be in the hands of people would be allowed to be treated so miserably. And regrettably at yesterday's hearing a person, a man of the cloth from the church where the Jackson family attends, actually got up and defended the parents and started to blame the children, suggesting they had eating disorders, that they were violent children. We are talking about 19, 17 and younger than that. I would have accepted some of that argument from this reverend had the family sought medical attention or had the family chosen to return the children to foster care because they were too difficult to care for. But no, they did not do any of that. What they did was cash checks from the welfare system and then fail to feed the children. Testimony from children's services indicate all of these boys have now had remarkable weight gain in the last several weeks. So the argument put forward by the reverend that these children were eating three square meals a day and they suffered from eating disorders is absolutely false and spurious when you look at the results of the care and feeding under Division of Youth Services of that State. At the end of the day, and fortunately for the gentleman from California's leadership in calling this hearing, we may get to the bottom of some of these problems, but we must act quickly. We are not talking about overdue library books, we are talking about human life. We are talking about children who are allowed to starve, we are talking about a system that is run amuck, and we are talking about only getting a response when some politician's job is on the line. It is time to get serious. It is time to get to the job of protecting our children. I only hope that there is never again an example like the Jackson family suffering at the hands of a State agency.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare conferees are about to wrap up their important work on providing a prescription drug coverage plan for America's seniors; and I am excited about the impact it will have on my district, the 16th Congressional District of Florida, which has the fifth largest population of Medicare-eligible seniors in America. Legislation I have worked on over 4 years with Senator Hagel includes the drug discount card which is part of this historic landmark legislation which will provide for over 40 million seniors the opportunity to receive up to a 25 percent discount on their prescription drug costs. This is good news for seniors, welcomed good news for our seniors in the 16th Congressional District, and I am hopeful as we continue our bipartisan negotiations that when we conclude our work on Medicare, it will not only be reformed, it will become cost effective, and it will also contain the vital new programs necessary to modernize for the first time in over 35 years this vitally important safety net, a medical delivery system for our seniors. Mr. Speaker, I am excited about the drug discount card, I applaud the White House for their leadership in taking the idea of Senator Hagel and myself to make it permanent law, and we welcome the opportunity to reach out to seniors with this good plan.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, we will celebrate America's heroes and those are our veterans. Since President Bush and Secretary Principi have taken office, one as President, one as the head of the VA, we have opened 194 new community clinics for a total of 676 clinics; 87 percent of the veterans now live within 30 minutes of a VA medical facility. We have increased enrollment, increased outpatient visits. We have reduced waiting times for our veterans. We have increased prescription drugs coverage for our veterans. We lead for all veterans health clinic quality indicators throughout the entire scope of these facilities. We have increased homeless veterans outreach with a $35 million collaborative program with HUD and HHS. We have reduced the inventory of related claims from over 432,000 to 253,000. We have reduced waiting times for claims answers. We have increased national cemeteries, now six new cemeteries: Atlanta, Detroit, South Florida, Fort Sill, Pittsburg, and Sacramento. We remain on course to complete our national shrine commitment to improve the appearance of our national cemeteries. Veterans have received great response from this administration. We are proud of our record.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in Washington here on a Monday and obviously reflect on the past week, and hope that we have seen some brighter economic news emerging: The Dow Jones Industrial Average, the NASDAQ, unemployment numbers dropping slightly. Even though we are still concerned about unemployment, we are making progress. Some of the other intrinsic things that we can judge the economy by are starting to show real signs of progress. Numbers of companies reporting record earnings, improved performance, back order of supplies in inventory diminishing, which is all pointing us in the right direction that this President and Congress has delivered an economic package, a tax incentive package that is starting to stimulate, albeit slowly, the economy back into a performing economic model. We have more to do, and the Committee on Ways and Means will start debating next week opportunities to create jobs here in this country by providing the economic and tax incentives for corporations to remain here in the United States, producing jobs, providing incomes and hopefully financial stability for Americans everywhere. So we will be reporting that bill out next week, bringing it to the floor hopefully with the cooperation of both the Democrats and Republicans to assure that we have the kind of economic job producing model that will create the incentives for our citizens to once again return to the active workforce and create the kind of economies that are so vitally important to this Nation. So I want to salute our committee, particularly the Committee on Ways and Means, for undertaking what will be a very difficult task. There are a lot of people who would be opposed to any tax relief whatsoever, but if they look at the significance and substance of this bill, they will see this is, in fact, earmarking to create jobs, manufacturing jobs to States like North Carolina and Georgia and Pennsylvania and, of course, the high-tech corridor in California. So all of these things are important, the debate is important, and so I join with my colleagues in saluting in particular this President, saluting our efforts in Iraq. Our prayers are with our troops there as we continue to liberate Iraqis from the grips of Saddam Hussein. It has been difficult. We have had loss of lives, but at the same time, if we look at the progress we have made, we will see that we are starting to find great solutions to the problem in Iraq.