Mark Foley

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the chairman of the committee for the excellent bill that is on the floor today, and let me urge the members of the minority to use a little caution when characterizing these bills. First and foremost, I supported increasing minimum wage and will vote again that same way today. But let me also detail for my colleagues the fact that the process today in the bill we are debating are in fact sponsored largely by a number of prominent Democrats. Pension modernization that is coming within this bill is known as the Portman- Cardin bill; distressed communities, which does not sound like something that is for the rich in Palm Beach, known as Watts-Talent- Frost and 19 others. Low income housing, Johnson-Rangel, the ranking member of the committee, on a bill that I have sponsored with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for forgiving mortgage obligations, that is, forgiving debt for somebody who has gone bankrupt. We are trying to help those that need help rebuilding their lives. Why do we debate this bill if it is going to be vetoed by the President? I heard that question asked by my colleague. We have to do that until the President finally gets it right. We did that three times with welfare reform and finally, finally the President signed the bill. Lo and behold, every Member running for Congress for reelection, Democrat or Republican, gets up and says, we have reformed welfare. Now they take credit for it because it is a good bill. The other thing that bothers me in this process is many of the people that advocate putting another dollar burden on the average small business owner are those same people who have never actually worked outside this process in their life. They have not had a small business. I owned a restaurant. It was difficult to make ends meet, difficult to make payroll; and at times, I went without a paycheck because I had to pay my staff. Yes, I agree increasing the minimum wage will help, but I certainly do not find it a problem to at least assist the small businesses in making that increase in payroll costs softened at least by some important tax provisions. Now, we can sit here and wrangle all day about a bad bill, a good bill, this bill, that bill. I have heard many Members of Congress today say, help the small people out, and I agree. People at minimum wage are seeing increased fuel costs. I am not hearing much being done by the Energy Department or the White House, other than to say, my God, gas prices are up. I think we need some help for people that are, in fact, paying for gas at the pump. But one thing we can do certainly today is help provide some incentives for small business. Mr. Speaker, again, if people would look carefully at what is in this bill, they will not be taken in by the persuasive arguments of some on the other side that this is for the wealthy. That is an easy argument. They always come with that wealthy argument: it is for the rich; it is for the rich. Folks, look at the bill. Health insurance, pension modernization, distressed communities, low-income housing. These issues are not for the rich; these are for every American.

Mr. FOLEY

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

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to first mention to the gentlewoman from Texas who just spoke, it was in fact a senior member of the Democratic caucus that may have derailed the efforts on gun safety that she claims today on the floor. I would also like to strongly suggest that we keep talking about the NRA as if they are somehow responsible for the deaths around this country. Last I checked, none of the crimes committed were perpetrated by a member of the NRA. Now, we can have different positions on this issue, but how anyone can think for a minute that that crackhead, where that gun was found and that young innocent life was snuffed out by a gun, would have put a trigger lock on their gun, is beyond me. Mr. Speaker, that is not what I am here to speak to, however. I do not want to talk about this issue. We do need to debate it in fairness. We will have an opportunity to have this debate, but I want to strongly urge Members once again not to point fingers or accuse groups, whether it is the NRA or Hollywood, for the decline of values in America. Let us talk constructively on trying to make something that will work, that people will obey and abide by. Let us construct a law that will have some teeth for those criminals who are violating the law. I applaud the President on his efforts to increase funding for ATF, to increase the outreach to find out who is selling guns illegally. There are a lot of things we can do. But let us not sit here and point fingers and say it is the Republicans or it is the Democrats, it is that or that. It is too serious of an issue. Let me also rise today to talk about an issue that is coming to the floor tomorrow, and that is on minimum wage and the economic growth act that we will be discussing tomorrow. The President said clearly today that it should be a clean bill and it should not have amendments. But I would urge the President once again to at least tone down the rhetoric and discuss this in a very fair manner. I can assure all of America that members of the Republican Party have in fact been meeting in good faith to try to structure a bill that will in fact increase the minimum wage. I commend people like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), and others who have been working constructively to find a way to increase incomes for those at minimum wage. I was involved in a restaurant. I owned a small business. I understand full well the impact of increasing expenses, such as payroll, through minimum wage increases. But at the same time I recognize that with rising gas prices, insurance costs, health care, it is probably timely that we look to seek to raise the level of people who are in fact working at minimum wage. Let me also suggest to the President that we can in fact come to some kind of agreement here today or tomorrow and discuss this with some clarity. Raising the minimum wage will in fact cost small businesses money. What is the solution? Offset the cost with some benefits that we could structure, that are targeted, that are reasonable, that will be effective to not only assisting the low-income worker on minimum wage but helping the business owner meet the obligation of continuing to provide things for his community, his family. We could accelerate the increase in the self-employment health insurance deduction to 100 percent. That would help insure more people and provide a good write-off for that business owner. We could increase section 179 expensing. We could raise the business meal deduction. As a restaurant owner, raising meal deductions would in fact incentivize people to come to eat in a restaurant, would increase income, and would allow the employer to increase minimum wage through that effort. Real estate tax relief is in the bill tomorrow that we can talk about. Tax credits encouraging the move from welfare to work. Getting people off of welfare into the workplace. This is something that would extend work opportunity tax credits. So there are some very, very good things in this bill. Tax relief for America's farmers and ranchers. Death tax relief. The bill is constructed in such a way that I think, if we can talk logically and fairly, we can find an increase in minimum wage over 3 years, we can provide some relief and incentives for small businesses, and we can go away making a lot of people happy. Regrettably, though, I hear the word bipartisan used around here a lot. If they would only work in a bipartisan manner, we would solve this issue. But that only assumes that one side agrees 100 percent with the other side's argument. Nowhere can we disagree without being accused of being obstructionists, stalling or doing those types of things. I would suggest to my colleagues that we could in fact work very clearly and quickly on this very, very important issue. We want to help Americans, but I will also say that 1.2 percent of the American work force is at minimum wage. Those that are on minimum wage are usually just starting their job, or teenagers seeking their first jobs. Yes, I agree, and I said it before, I will vote to increase over 3 years a dollar per hour because I think it is important and it is warranted. But make no mistake about it, those people who are successfully fulfilling their jobs in the workplace are exceeding minimum wage because employers need employees and they will pay in order to retain good qualified workers.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, can I ask one question if the gentleman would continue to yield. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has been in Congress since 1980. And I am not certain of the start of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, why was this not considered before? Why was this issue not brought to the forefront? It seems like, with 422 votes, this is a child looking for adoption and it found it today. But what was wrong in all those years?

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and, of course, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for their comments. I was delighted to see on this House floor today a unanimous vote for the measure that he introduced in our committee. It is a beautiful thing that people are finally recognized. At least in America, seniors are recognized for the value that they bring to our communities. It is interesting to think about back in Social Security's origination, of course, the longevity tables were much different; and I can understand maybe why initially they thought there may be a penalty because people were not expected to live past 68 or 72 years of age. And now they are longer, and they are more productive and healthier. One of the most important things I want to strongly note is that the seniors are the most important life link not only to the past but to the future. We can learn so much. Many people in my generation and below my generation, particularly all these new Internet people and Internet-challenged children, if you will, they are looking to the 21st century as the new unique and opportunistic place in time; and they are forgetting the wonderful gains made by those who are now over 65 and those who have brought so much insight and wisdom to our communities. I mentioned today on the House floor that my father retired at the age of 77 from the Palm Beach County school system. He continued to work. And, of course, he had a penalty back when he worked between 65 and 70. And I think that was patently unfair. He worked from his early youth, served in the Marines, served in World War II, came home to raise a family, became a proud member of the community, and chose a profession that he deeply loved. He could have made money in the private sector and done some things, I am certain. He is very talented and smart. But he chose to instill the knowledge he had with our children in the school system. He was a coach, much like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, back in his days of high school. He then decided after 65 that he wanted to stay vigorous and involved in helping change children's lives. So he did. And lo and behold, our Government slapped a penalty on his Social Security income. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) said clearly at one of our conferences, he said, under any other circumstances, this would be discriminatory; there would be an age discrimination suit filed. And so I applaud the leadership. I applaud certainly both the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). I know they have worked on it for years and years. But I particularly applaud the two of my colleagues, because they really spearheaded the initiative. They brought it to fruition. More importantly for the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I, who represent Florida, I am the seventh oldest, if you will, Medicare- eligible district in America. And I know that this is fabulous news for our citizens. We have adjoining districts, so we have so many similar, if you will, constituents who want to be a part of the great economy, who want to be part of the dynamics that are now evolving; and they want to be feeling like they are appreciated. But somehow that light goes out in the Federal Government at the age of 65. No, no. Why do they not go sit down, go rest, go lounge around somewhere, because they are no longer valuable, they are no longer needed. What the Archer-Shaw bill does today is say to senior citizens 65 to 70, not only are you needed, you are wanted. We want you as part of our country. We want you as part of our economy. And we want you to not only have your Social Security money that you paid for and that you earned, but we want to give you the chance to make more money in your pockets to safeguard your financial security.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I thank the chairman for his hard work on this bill. Since 1986 the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of our committee, has been working on this product, joined with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), now, and with the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), we see victory today for senior citizens. But even in light of victory, we have to have a little bit of a political zinger put on the floor by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). He has to drill a little needle there into this debate, rather than celebrate the rewards of senior citizens across America. At 65, under this policy that was maintained by 40 years of Democratic leadership, we were telling seniors, get out of the way, you are too old and you are too tired. Modern-day America recognizes, and particularly our party recognizes, that seniors 65 are in the prime of their lives. My father at 77 years of age retired as a principal of a high school in Lake Worth, Florida. He contributed to the children of Palm Beach County schools, and he did it because, first and foremost, he loved children, and secondly, he had a lot to give to our community. But no, for many, many years they blocked the attempt to reform this crazy notion of retirement at 65, or penalizing, should one work. Mr. Speaker, let us face reality. Just like social security predicts that more retirees than active workers will exist in 10 or 20 years, so will be the notion of less workers available for active duty. This bill provides relief for the baby boomers who will retire to stay engaged and stay working. So today, rather than taking political shots across the aisle, let us join hands in this bipartisan spirit. But I must insist on commending the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), because he has been working on this when he was in the minority, and finally now has had comity from the other side of the aisle to bring this measure to the floor; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) in the same period, and again, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) from my district. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I have probably the 6th and 7th oldest Medicare recipient districts in the Nation. So today I join my good friend, the gentleman from south Florida, in saluting our retirees who worked so hard to pay to run the government of the United States of America.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow along with the words echoed by my colleague from New York. I am a Roman Catholic as well, and I do not understand this all of a sudden finger pointing over choices of chaplains or questioning people's beliefs. I personally work very closely with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) as Speaker of this House. In fact, he was the one that nominated me to be on the Committee on Ways and Means, considerably one of the most important committees of this Congress. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), another fine gentleman who I work with every single day as majority leader, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and others who occupy the office of majority whip. I am a deputy whip. So I can assure every American that is interested in listening that none of these leaders indicates any bias towards anybody of any faith. Now, I have a disagreement on at least the position of chaplain, and I long ago advocated we not have a chaplain; that we allow visiting chaplains from around the country so we would have the opportunity to have a Rabbi and have a Protestant minister or a Baptist minister and a Catholic priest. I personally go to my own church for salvation, and I do not choose to use the services of the chaplain. At times I question having one, inasmuch as we do not allow kids to pray in school yet we start every day with a prayer. So I find it a little complicated. But at the same time I do not doubt for one minute that the choice made by the Speaker was a valid, genuine choice on that gentleman's part to serve this entire body, not to single out and not to ratchet up the debate. It is amazing. I hear the other side of the aisle all of a sudden acting as if they are for all Catholics. If we look at the voting records of most of the Members, we would probably have to question considerably whether they maintain the very principles and edicts that the Catholic churches espouses. There is a complete virtual disagreement on virtually every issue the Catholic church uses and would be measured on a scorecard if you had to have one on that basis. I ask the Members to please stop this finger pointing. Stop the finger pointing and questioning people's values and beliefs. When Spike Lee made the comment about going to shoot Charleton Heston, I did not see any long-standing parade of speakers urging the rejection of this kind of thought. They sat quietly by and allowed that to be part of the mainstream dialogue. When I hear Louis Farakhan on the mall marching against people and calling people names, I do not hear this outrage from Members on the other side of the body screaming about how intolerant people are. No, they are silent. But they can use something like this as a wedge issue. George W. Bush goes to Bob Jones University certainly not to espouse or advocate positions held by one man that leads that church. There were thousands and thousands of students that wanted to hear the nominee, potentially, of the Republican Party address the issues that are important to them, as if any of us are invited. Daily we are invited to places. I was invited to a synagogue. Of course, I went to speak to my constituents about issues important to them at a synagogue. I am a Catholic. Should I have not gone simply because it was not a house of worship in my own faith? So I denounce this and ask people to be a little more civil and a little bit more respectful of the differences that we have as Americans on fundamental beliefs and principles. We should all agree that the nice thing about the United States of America is that we can worship in the way we so choose. We can go to the places of worship we recognize as those that lead our faith. But we do not cast aspersion nor do we criticize people. So this commentary that somehow the Speaker is biased and the majority leader is biased is pure bunk. And, again, I say to my colleagues that if they are compassionate, if they are one of faith, if they are one that deeply believes Catholicism is an important religion, those who seem to be defending it today and saying that Republicans are anti-Catholic, I can clearly assure them, clearly assure them from the bottom of my heart, that that is not the premise of the Republican Party and it is certainly not that of our leadership.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, as we conclude legislative business today, I particularly commend my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Weller) on his fine presentation on eliminating the marriage penalty, a vote we had first and foremost in our Committee on Ways and Means, of which I am a proud member, and obviously brought to the floor with overwhelming success in a bipartisan spirit of trying to eliminate the tax burden on married couples throughout America. Another issue we are debating and considering and, of course, has been authored by several people, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), but really one of the people that we need to single out today on this special bill is the Speaker of this House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). They say success has many parents and failure is an orphan. Well, today we can call one bill that will be coming to the Committee on Ways and Means next week and hopefully quickly to the House floor a very big success and that is thanks to the hard work, again, of the Speaker. In 1986, Mr. Hastert, the Speaker of the House, introduced a bill to eliminate the earnings penalty by our seniors that basically for the ages of 65 through 69, when they continue to work productively, they start losing, diminishing, their Social Security monies that come to their account. So virtually in America one is penalized, based on the Tax Code, for working past the age of 65. Clearly, all statistical data indicate people are living longer, more fruitful lives. They are more productive and more engaged in society, but somehow through the years a discriminatory position of the Tax Code has said we are going to start deducting from their earnings for every $3.00 over $17,000 they earn they will have a one dollar liability, basically losing one dollar of Social Security benefit. That is a horrendous policy. That is a terrible discriminatory policy of the Federal Government. Now everybody lately has been saying, I am for that bill. The President says he will quickly sign it. The minority leader says, I am for that bill; in fact, it was a Democratic proposal. Well, let me talk about the hard work of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) since 1986 in bringing that proposal to the floor. Obviously, it was stymied. It was not agreed upon. It was not voted on for many, many years. Finally, we have a chance to correct what I think is a colossal inequity in the Tax Code, and that is to say to senior citizens 65 through 70, that, yes, we encourage them to continue to work; yes, we in fact applaud them for their continuation of working in the mainstream and, secondly, we are not going to penalize them any longer for that productive activity. I think it is says a lot about where America is going and whether we should value seniors and value their input and value their expertise and value the fact that they are willing to continue to work hard in the marketplace. So, as I say, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and others who have joined with us today in this important opportunity, the committee will, in fact, be bringing the bill to the floor, or at least to the committee, next week and then onto the floor. So, first and foremost, we have had, at least on the House floor, elimination of the marriage penalty as a priority. Now we are facing an opportunity to do something for seniors. And we can continue to work on these initiatives. Let us be clear. We have balanced the budget. Yes, we still have a huge debt that we must pay, $5.7 trillion total debt, and we are working on a plan in fact to reduce that. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker; the President; virtually everybody agrees that it is time to pay down the debt. Let us do that. Let us do that while we have that surplus cash flow. We also have a chance to shore up Social Security and Medicare, and I think that it is incumbent upon everyone in the room to reach across party lines and start developing a format in which Social Security and Medicare can be reserved. Finally, I am certain we will join together in some form of coverage for medicines, health care. Medicare will provide some kind of pharmaceutical relief for those desperately in need of relief from the high cost of pharmaceutical and prescription drugs. These are issues I believe the Congress can work on without a lot of rancor and bitterness. These are issues that are fundamentally and vitally important for people throughout America. They are programs that seniors depend on. I think this Congress, now as we enter the 21st century, not only has the fundamental opportunity and responsibility, but clearly now has the resources to make some of these things come to reality: pay down the debt, modest tax cuts for those who desperately need them, shoring up Social Security and Medicare, and doing the kinds of things that will instill in us not only a national sense of pride but also act as a model for young people. By suggesting finally that the Federal Government is going to pay its debts, maybe it sinks into those who have failed to live up to their responsibility, recognizes the true leadership that is necessary, and they in fact in their own personal lives start paying down debts that they may owe, credit cards and other things that have probably hampered their ability for economic prosperity. If America is going to move forward, we can start embracing some of these topics today. But I again urge my colleagues to sign on to the elimination of the senior penalty, where we tax those 65 to 69 for continuing to be productive citizens in society. Undo this horrible tax, if you will, on their earning capabilities. Take free the shackles from them and allow them to be productive, prosperous, and successful Americans like everyone else.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, March 1, 2000.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House until Tuesday, February 29, 2000, the Speaker, majority leader, and minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.

Mr. FOLEY

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

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, frankly, I am stunned that anyone would have a problem with this bill. The bill does three basic things, two of which the President himself has embraced. One, it expands the Earned Income Tax Credit; and, two, it doubles the standard deduction for married taxpayers. The only thing that the bill does do that the President's does not is offer relief to those married couples who do not qualify for the earned income tax credit and who do not take the standard deduction because they itemize instead. Well, Mr. President, many couples itemize because they struggle to buy a home for themselves and their children, and they continue to struggle to maintain that home. I realize that President and Mrs. Clinton have only recently become homeowners, so they probably do not realize yet just how much of a financial sacrifice most American homeowners make to provide that home. In fact, The New York Times recently reported that Mrs. Clinton was quoted as saying, ``I am stunned to discover the tax burden faced by State residents.'' Well, Mr. President and Mrs. Clinton, welcome to the real world. Those taxes and homeowner mortgages are exactly why many married taxpayers itemize on their tax forms and will never benefit from the President's proposal. So here is my hope. Now that the President and Mrs. Clinton are finally homeowners, I hope that they will recover from their stunning encounter with high taxes in time to realize that married homeowners deserve a break too and support our fine bill.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an issue that was just on the floor less than an hour ago today. That was the marriage penalty elimination. I must say, as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I was quite shocked. If Members listened to the entire debate, they would have heard the hand-wringing and moaning and groaning from the other side of the aisle that somehow we were doing a terrible injustice to the United States budget, and that we were somehow going to bankrupt our Nation by providing necessary relief to married couples across this great land of ours. In the committee, when we were marking up the bill, I heard many Members of the leadership on that side of the aisle describing things like giving taxpayers back some of their money as a bonus. Why are they giving people a bonus when they do not pay those taxes that are being claimed on marriage penalties? And if we are giving them more of their money back, that is a bonus? Mr. Speaker, where I come from, every cent that the American taxpayer earns, a taxpayer who works hard 40-plus hours a week, some with two jobs, every cent that they send to this Capitol here in Washington, D.C. is their money, not ours. But they on the other side have this nomenclature of bonus, surplus, and you name it. Then, of course, I heard today about the most important necessity established by that side of the aisle, which is pay down the debt, pay down the debt. I must have heard it 48 times today, if I heard it once. I am glad they finally recognize that they need to pay down the debt that they have run up when they were in charge for well over 40 years, charging things to the American taxpayer, politically popular programs, but no means in sight to pay for them. Much like a reckless person with a credit card, they were ringing up the total, ringing up the purchase, not worrying about who is going to pay the bill. We are at a day of reckoning. We have balanced the budget. We are putting money towards debt repayment. We paid over $139 billion over the last 2 years in debt repayment. I think we are making wonderful progress towards debt repayment. Remember, a few years ago when we, the majority, started this and decided to cut the capital gains tax from ordinary income to 20 percent, we heard again, you cannot do it, the markets will go crazy, you will bankrupt the Nation. Let us talk about what has happened: a record Dow, a record NASDAQ, higher income for all Americans, more money to the Treasury, surplus revenues. Then the following campaign year when they argued against it, most took credit for it and said, I gave you a tax cut. We gave a $500 per child tax cut from this Congress because we believe raising children is expensive, and people need more of their own money back. Those are just some of the things we did to make a difference in Americans' lives. We also heard last year before we adjourned that we were dipping into social security, we were dipping into social security. Then new numbers came out in December that reflected the opposite. We did not touch social security. We kept our commitment. We kept our pledge. Our pledge was this: shore up social security, shore up Medicare, work on things for the average family and give them some tax reduction. Today we passed the bill. After the contentious debate, hours on this floor, hours of hand-wringing, we actually got 268 votes for our proposal to eliminate the marriage penalty. Forty-eight Democrats and one Independent joined us. That is a bipartisan effort. I applaud those who had the courage to recognize the inequity of the Tax Code. Fifty- one thousand and twenty-one people in my district are paying a marriage penalty, and 1,176,000 throughout the great State of Florida are paying a marriage penalty. We were on record today as moving forward to eliminate this tax burden on the average families who are working, who are struggling, who are providing for their children and their families in the districts in which they live. Let us get out of the notion here in this Capital of Washington, D.C. that this is our money, because it is not. This money belongs to the taxpayers of America. Every chance we get, and I am telling the Members, seriously, we are working as a Congress on our side of the aisle to preserve social security, to preserve Medicare, to fix the problems. Yes, we will meet, I am certain, in some accommodation on prescription drugs. I am certain of this. I know we need to do that. We will reach out in a bipartisan manner. But I have to tell the Members, I have just about had enough, because on some issues that are important to the other side of the aisle, this should be a bipartisan effort. When we come to the floor on what we think is a bipartisan effort, 22 Democrats signed our bill, we would think there would be mutual admiration for the great work being done today. President Clinton, Vice President Gore, support some marriage penalty elimination. It is all the devil in the details. If it is not their bill, they are not happy and satisfied, and have to bellyache about the consequences. Mr. Speaker, we will balance the budget. We will pay down the debt. We will shore up social security. We will fix Medicare. We will work on prescription drug coverage. We will also do the things that are necessary to help the American family, who are working oftentimes two jobs in order to make ends meet. We will work to make certain we have reached the threshold so they can at least have some of their own hard- earned money back in their pockets. At the end of a 40-hour work, it is pretty difficult to go home and realize you have very little left after paying excise taxes, mortgage taxes. In fact, Mrs. Clinton today was shocked, shocked when she said, and I quote from the New York Times, ``I can't believe how high taxes are on properties here in New York,'' since she just bought a house, the first one in well over 20 years. Welcome to the real world. We are paying taxes all our lives. I have been paying property taxes for decades. It is difficult. It is tough. Wake up. This is reality, so people do need a break.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if they will, to be a little patient. We are already hearing some ``foot dragging'' commentary on health care. We are hearing a lot of innuendos that somehow the Republicans are not getting to work. We just started. But I will tell you some of the things we did do last year. Paid down the debt, over $151 billion; paid do you know what we owe the taxpayers of the United States of America. Now we are going do have a chance for marriage penalty elimination. Talk about sensible tax relief for all taxpayers. So let us not start the rhetoric of this new year and this new millennium with accusations of foot dragging and partisanship. I implore the other side of the aisle to be calm, to be rational, and to be deliberate as we debate the very important issues confronting the American people. But if we are going to start with these types of one minutes of accusation, innuendo and character assassination, then I think the year will start off just as it ended last year, with acrimony and bitterness. Let us start for the American people a better way on this floor by proving we can legislate and not sit here and constantly belittle the other side of the aisle.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, thousands of children are reported missing each year. To many of us, the numbers are nothing more than statistics, albeit tragic statistics. But to a unique group of people, these numbers represent the pain and uncertainty that accompanies the loss of a child, grandchild, brother, sister, or friend. We should be using every resource within our power to find children who are missing or to get information about them to their families. We have the technology to find most of these children, but as is often the case, the technology is not being used to its fullest capability. Jennifer's law will help solve this dilemma. Linking national missing person files and unidentified persons files will make it much easier for local, State, and Federal law enforcement officials to get all of the information they need to solve a missing persons case. We would like to reunite every missing child with their families, but in reality this is not always possible. Even so, families with missing children deserve to have an end to their suffering and a sense of closure. Jennifer's law will help make this possible.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I do want to just correct a statement made by the prior speaker when she described their efforts to extend permanently the R&D tax credit. We can tell our colleagues from negotiations that Mr. Summers, the Treasury Secretary, vehemently opposed that permanent extension. So that, if that is the position of the party, we would like the Secretary of the Treasury to be informed of that position so that it would be much easier for the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to accomplish something he tried to do at the very outset of deliberations. I want to also suggest to my colleagues how proud I am to stand up and support this bill. Credits to Puerto Rico and U.S. possessions, minimum tax relief for individuals, permitting full use of personal nonrefundable credits, welfare-to-work tax credits, work opportunity tax credits, a number of initiatives that I think will stimulate the economy, continue us on our road to prosperity, continue to see additional revenues to the Treasury so we can continue to reduce the debt of the American taxpayers to increase and enhance investment in America. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for seeing this bill to the successful conclusion. Especially, I would like to note the ticket-to-work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. So oftentimes some of our vulnerable citizens in society who have been stricken by illnesses and ailments have been unable to make the required choice of whether to stay employed and then forgo, if you will, the Social Security, the Medicare-Medicaid provisions. This bill now makes an attempt, to allow those capable and able individuals to be in the workforce, continue those vital health insurance needs provided by Medicaid and Medicare, and allow them to be productive, taxpaying citizens. So I applaud the bill and I urge Members to vote for passage of this bill as it comes to the floor.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, for my colleagues who insist they do not know what is in this bill, they have not been paying attention during regular order, because within this bill are the multitude of bills that have been discussed in committee, discussed on this floor, and now rolled into one bill as we leave this process. The others that suggest somehow we are dipping into the Social Security trust fund, the only reason we are here still is because the President keeps asking for more money, more spending, more funds for programs that he needs. Now, some have suggested somehow we have been held hostage on international family planning. The President of the United States agreed to that provision in the bill. Now, let us talk about why some people will vote against the fine bill here today. I challenge them to vote against increasing funding to Medicare choice. Organ transplant patients will have an extended coverage on anti-rejection drugs. Vote no to that today. I urge you to today. Rehabilitation services, increasing therapy caps, something we have heard complaint after complaint from our citizens about, the need to increase physical therapy and rehabilitation. Women's health. Pap smear tests now and cervical cancer screenings. Go ahead and vote against those fine initiatives. I challenge you to do it. Increased flexibility for rural hospitals. Cancer hospitals, ensures that cancer hospitals will not face any reduction due to new outpatient prospective payment systems. Changing the prospective payment system for hospital outpatients. Nursing home skilled facilities will be, in fact, have increased patients. Home health care, reduce the scheduled reduction and increase benefit caps for some citizens. Hospice care. Matt Lauer and I and several others were with hospice this week in Palm Beach County raising money for hospice. This bill includes an increase in hospice coverage. Tell your hospice friends that you rejected this bill today because, I do not know why, but increased funding for them. Teaching hospitals for New York and other places who have been belly- aching about not enough money for teaching hospitals. Thanks to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the Committee on Ways and Means, we have increased money for teaching hospitals. Durable equipment, increased senior access to durable equipment. Rural health care. On and on goes the list. For my Floridians who say they are going to vote against the bill, they are going to be voting against $142 million for Everglades restoration. Go back and tell that to the Floridians who depend on the Everglades for water. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and go home and explain that. Indian programs. You name the list of things that are accomplished in this bill through the hard work of the committee in order to make this a better country. Money for national forests, bettering education, continuing our commitment to block grants. On and on goes the list of fine things in this bill. Those that live in rural farming areas, please pay special attention, because in this bill is a $178 million loan authorization for disaster relief, okay? My colleagues can go home and face their farmers this weekend and explain to them that they voted against this very important provision, if they have experienced a drought. Anyone from North Carolina, anyone from Florida, I urge you to go home and tell your farmers you had a chance to help them today and you chose not to from a partisan perspective. Juvenile accountability. On and on goes the list. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the rule, support the bill. It is a good bill.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my gratitude to the millions of veterans who have sacrificed in order to protect the freedoms that are enjoyed by all Americans. Last week, we celebrated a very important day in America--Veteran's Day. At a ceremony honoring veterans at Jupiter Christian School in my congressional district, several students shared their thoughts on Veteran's Day through poetry. Despite their youth, these students wrote stirring reminders of the respect and awe we feel for our veterans. These young poets displayed a tremendous understanding of why we honor our veterans and a remarkable sensitivity for the courage of the men and women who fought to preserve the liberty of our country. I believe that the entire Congress should hear these poems and reflect on their meaning and I submit them for the Record. Did You Ever Wonder? (By Kevin Maida, 10th grade) Did you ever wonder how it could be To live in a country where no one is free? Where decisions never are your own, And you are told what to do, even at home? Freedom merely just a word . . . Never spoken, never heard. Did you ever wonder about fighters on the foreign sand Risking their lives to protect our land? How courageous and brave they must be, To leave their loved ones and live at sea! Fathers, sons, daughters, and brothers Making a sacrifice for the freedom of others. Giving all they had and so much more, Awaiting the day they returned to shore. Do you take for granted the life that you live? Or are you truly grateful for what they did? Think of these words; let them sink in, ``How would our world be, if not for these men?'' Veteran's Day (By Jennifer VanNest, 10th grade) We honor the men dead and alive That fought to make sure freedom survived. We must never forget the sacrifice made To protect our country, with their lives, they paid. We need to remember the families that grieve, The sons and daughters and wives these men leave. We seek to praise the Vets this day And give homage to their bravery in some kind way. So break out the flag and start the parade November 11th Is Veteran's Day! Freedom Through The Ages (By Pam DeSanctis, 12th grade) You are a hero for today, For this I give thanks and pray. Through your continuous bravery You have given us history and Liberty. For this I give you thanks and pray. Nothing compares to the courage you've known Or the bravery that you've shown. We recognize the veteran's today, And for this I give thanks and pray. Like guardian angels sent to protect The rights of your generation and those of the next, You made us proud of the U.S.A., And for this I give thanks and pray. May God hold you in His hand, With this I give you one last command; Obey the Lord in every way. Honor Him, give thanks, and pray.

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 and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3073.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his hard work on this issue and obviously for recognition of all veterans. We are getting ready certainly to celebrate Veterans Day this year. I think it is incumbent upon us when we are considering the needs of the United States of America, we prioritize those that have fought valiantly for the freedoms that we all enjoy. It is one of the unique things, having come to Congress and being able to speak on the floor and advocate for constituents from the 16th District, to realize many of those fundamental opportunities have been given to us because of the fight the veterans made in previous conflicts. I think it is incumbent especially as well to recognize that years and years ago I remember the veterans were told that they would have to wait for their cost-of-living, we have to make budgetary matters first and we have got to balance the books and do all these other things. I think the gentleman from Arizona prioritizes the fact that veterans should not be treated any differently than any other citizen, that if there are cost-of-living benefits going to employees of the Federal Government, to Social Security recipients, that they should also be included for those disabled, those veterans and other groups. I want to strongly urge obviously my colleagues' consideration of this measure but also once again to underscore the fact that very few of us would be able to speak freely in this Chamber had it not been for the valiant effort of men and women who have sacrificed, men and women who have gone to theaters around the globe to protect freedom here and abroad.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman from Florida for his hard work on all of the appropriations bills, but specifically this one which has been most contentious, but welcomed to the floor today. Specifically, I just wanted to mention to my colleagues that I returned from Israel several weeks ago, and I found the peace process moving along expeditiously. The one thing that is vitally important today is an amendment offered by the chairman which would add the money for the Wye River Accord, giving $1.8 billion total; $1.2 for Israel, $400 million for economic support and assistance for the West Bank and Gaza, $200 million for Jordan, including $50 million in economic support and assistance and $150 million for military aid, $25 million in military support for Egypt. These are vital funds, and I appreciate the chairman working so hard to place these dollars in the bill because it means meaningful peace for a region that has been wracked with turmoil. So I commend this bill to the floor. I again want to mention as well my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), who joined with me several weeks ago, at his insistence, in authoring a letter to the leadership asking that this money be included. And, again, through the hard work of the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), through the cooperation of the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), we find that this in fact has been accomplished today. So I would ask all of my colleagues who are listening today to urge support for this vital bill, urge support of the amendment, and move the peace process forward. We find right now, I think, the best opportunity for lasting peace. All the players are at the peace table, all the players are anxious for stability, King Abdullah of Jordan, Mr. Barak, the new Prime Minister of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Mr. Arafat, have all finally joined together to achieve lasting peace. Nothing could be more meaningful for the leadership of the United States of America than achieving it through the mechanisms provided in this bill. So, again, I thank all parties involved, but specifically again my chairman from Florida. I want to thank the chairman's family, specifically his wife Bev and his two boys, for sharing him with us on this floor, for giving his time to provide the leadership necessary to usher in these bills. I know it is difficult for all Members who have families, but specifically the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who has dedicated so much time to all these issues.

Mr. FOLEY

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleagues and I on the Ways and Means Committee were able to craft a bill that addresses some of the problems the have arisen through the implementation of the Balanced Budget Act. I have heard from nursing homes, home health agencies, HMOs, hospital administrators, doctors and nurses, and other health care providers about their difficulties giving seniors on Medicare adequate care under new and sometimes unrealistic financial constraints. I have also heard from many of my constituents on Medicare who are frustrated and scared by some of the problems that the BBA has created. I am happy that we can give back some of the resources that Medicare patients desperately need. I would like to comment on some of the provisions in the bill; outpatient pps I am pleased that we can help hospitals, and specifically hospital outpatient departments, by including a provision that is similar to the bill I introduced--the Hospital Outpatient Preservation Act. This provision gives hospitals a more gradual transition to the prospective payment system. I hope this will help them to continue offering services that are better provided in an outpatient settings-- services like chemotherapy and psychiatric counseling--so that patients can return more quickly to the comfort of their homes. medicare+choice risk adjuster I was very concerned to read remarks made by the President, expressing his opposition to restoring HCFA's cuts to Medicare managed care companies. I have 12,500 seniors who are losing their HMO at the end of this year and I know that I'm not the only member who has had this experience. Many seniors will have to go back to fee-for-service because they don't have another HMO in their country. Most of my constituents are pleased with their HMO. These plans provide prescription drug coverage and other much-needed services that traditional Medicare does not cover. But these companies are struggling with the high cost of caring for Medicare patients in areas where their reimbursements are not high enough--especially rural areas. When we passed the BBA and started Medicare+Choice, we intended this to be a first step in modernizing the Medicare system. If HMOs--that had previously been successful in the Medicare system--cannot survive under the new reimbursements, how can other types of health plans compete? This bill contains provisions which will encourage HMOs to enter areas where none exist. I want to guarantee that we get HMOs into new areas, but also that we keep them there and keep them in areas where they are already operating. This must be an ongoing process. We must look at reimbursement rates for rural areas where the cost of health care is high but the availability is low. We must look at the rates for plans who are treating very sick patients. We must ensure that HCFA is paying these HMOs fairly and not cutting more money from them than Congress intended based on it's own motives of those of the Administration. immunosuppressive drug coverage Finally, I am pleased to see the inclusion of immunosuppressive drug coverage offered by two of my colleagues from Florida, Congressman Canady and Congresswoman Thurman. It defies logic for Medicare to pay for transplant surgery for a Medicare recipient, then cut off the drugs that they need to survive this surgery after only three years. Receiving a transplant is a tremendous gift--a chance for a new life. This chance should not be wasted by arbitrary limits on drug coverage. I am glad that we have showed compassion in extending these drug benefits. conclusion I hope that the President is quick to sign this bill into law so that seniors continue to receive the care they need. While more fundamental reform in Medicare is necessary, it is important to preserve the services of the current system until this is achieved.