Amo Houghton

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my most sincere congratulations to the community of Fillmore, New York, as it enters its Sesquicentennial Year. This vibrant community, located in Allegany County, in the Town of Hume, enjoys a long and proud history in the State of New York. Celebrations surrounding the 150th Anniversary are planned for this coming May 27 to 29, 2000. Fillmore is, of course, named after the thirteenth President of the United States, Millard Fillmore, who in 1850 was responsible for the establishment of a Post Office in the then existing settlement. Coincidentally, in addition to this being the community's sesquicentennial, the year 2000 also marks the 200th anniversary of President Fillmore's birth. Born on what was then the ``frontier'', in the Finger Lakes region of New York, Millard Fillmore rose from serving on his family farm to serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, the New York State government, and finally as Vice President and President of the United States. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in this very building, in the Old House Chamber, there is a plaque marking the location of then-Congressman Fillmore's desk. The spirit of hard work and rugged dedication shown by President Fillmore throughout his life is certainly carried on by this small but vibrant community that bears his name. Fillmore's idyllic, pastoral setting in the Allegheny Mountain Range at the top of the Appalachian Region, makes it a beautiful natural local surrounded by attractions such as Letchworth State Park and the Swain Ski Resort. But the people of Fillmore make the community the success that it is today. The citizens of Fillmore are very proud of their community, and rightly so. For the past 150 years, Fillmore has contributed much to our region, state and nation. From the character and successes of its young people--both those who remain in Fillmore and those who have moved on to serve other communities around the nation--to many of its citizens who have fought and sacrificed their lives on the world's battlefields. One of Fillmore's greatest assets is their outstanding public school. Fillmore Central School, led by Superintendent Dave Hanks, is a shining example of rural public education at its finest--from its top notch instruction of subjects such as mathematics and social studies, to a firm commitment to technology, and the provision of creative outlets for for young people to participate in the arts through drama, visual arts, and music. As an added benefit, the mighty Fillmore Eagles have, on many occasions, brought great pride to the community by bringing home titles in sports such as basketball and tennis, and just last year made it to New York State's ``Final Four'' in soccer. Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to recognize one of Fillmore's greatest public servants, Alton Sylor, who passed away recently after years of service to the community, particularly as a member of the Allegany County Legislature for the past twenty-two years. We miss him greatly, and will remember him most during this celebration of Fillmore's history--a history that he helped shape. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join me in extending our most hearty congratulations to Fillmore on the occasion of their 150th anniversary.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, as you know, food service is the second largest contributor to our Gross National Product. The quality and expense of food is important to us all--as individuals and as a society. I rise today to share news with you and my colleagues of dedicated food service professionals in Ithaca, New York, who have married high technology to food distribution in a way that enhances the quality and quantity of food served, while dramatically reducing waste and unnecessary expenses. I'm referring, of course, to CBORD, which was founded in 1975 by John E. Alexander, then an MBA candidate at Cornell University, and two of his associates with a start up investment of $1,000 each. Their dream-- to create a software system that could organize the haphazard menu planning process for institutional food service systems, increase the nutritional value of every meal served, and rein in runaway food costs. Working nights and weekends, this tireless team of entrepreneurs built their system, and today the company they launched on a shoestring served over 4,000 food service clients world wide, while employing over 300 people. Here is a story that exemplifies the very best in American business. We have long admired individuals with a vision and the courage to pursue it until they achieve success. Today, CBORD's food service control systems are in use by major corporations, colleges and universities, health care facilities, nursing homes, and the United States Armed Services. But there is more to this story. In 1983, John Alexander founded the Computer Applications in Food Service Education (CAFE) Society, which provides free or reduced cost software systems for use in hospitals and dietetic programs and promotes innovative educational uses of computer applications to help solve the problems of world hunger and chronic food shortages. CBORD is actively involved with numerous anti-hunger organizations such as HUNGER and FOODCHAIN, provides generous support to the Special Olympics, and sponsors a number of charitable and educational programs throughout the Ithaca region. The social conscience exhibited by CBORD and the leadership that its founder, John Alexander, has shown in applying America's advancements in technology to one of the world's oldest and most pervasive problems is something we can all applaud. It is encouraging, as we look to the dawning of the new millennium, that there are still opportunities in this great land to follow your dreams, build a thriving business from the ground up, and then share all that you've learned for the benefit of people everywhere.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak long, but I really am firmly opposed to this particular amendment. I do not know why we are doing this at this particular time. Our policy now is effective. It has worked for 21 years. Why do we change it now, particularly with the very sensitive elections coming up now? It is very easy to sit back here and intellectualize on a particular issue from our base in Washington, but if you are over in that part of the world, it is perceived differently. I always remember talking to one of our distinguished Secretaries of State about his setting up an agenda between President Nixon and the Chinese, which happened to be Chou En Lai. He had at the top of his agenda the Taiwan issue, and at the bottom of the Chinese agenda, much to his surprise, was the Taiwan issue. He said, I thought this was very important to you. The answer from the Chinese, they said, it is, but in a way, it isn't. The only thing we ask you is do not embarrass us. This is going to embarrass the Chinese. It is not necessary. Our policy works now. It has worked for over two decades. We ought to continue it as it is. I oppose the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I've always thought of the great religious leaders over the ages to be strong men of substance with a hearty voice and good spirit. This of course perfectly describes our Chaplain, Jim Ford--a strong man, a kind man, an effective man. He comes to us from a long line of great religious leaders. We're goig to miss him sorely.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen from California, Mr. Farr and Mr. Lewis, for organizing this tribute to George Brown. Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to speak for the Record, as we all do here, and go over the distinguished points of George's life as he was a Member here in terms of his support for NASA and the Space Station before it was even a priority with him, what he did in setting up the Office of Science and Technology in the White House, and of a whole variety of things; the environment, and a series of things like this. But I would really like to, and I am not sure whether that is appropriate, but I would really like to speak to Marta and the family, because I felt that George was sort of one of my family when I was here. I am a Republican. I did not go to the Democratic Caucuses. I many times voted differently from George, but I always felt I was on the same wave length. I will mention, what specifically keyed this to me was our fight for the Office of Technology Assessment. We both believed in science, George coming from a more academic and political atmosphere, and I coming from more of a business atmosphere. But we believed that it was important that this body have a scientific group that interpreted new science as it was coming along, new technology that was being applied in the workplace, so we could gear our legislation more to those things which are important for our future, rather than becoming just a commodity producer, which we would rapidly regret. So we fought the good fight and we lost, but in the losing of it, we forged a tremendous bond of respect. First of all, about his appreciation of science, I am a big believer of this. I think all of us here feel this way, that the reason our country is what it is is obviously because of the human endeavor and the enterprise, but the ability to take chances and to reach out. Marta, you and your family come from the State that is doing it all now. What is happening in Silicon Valley is the thing that is going to determine the next century, and maybe even beyond that. He believed in that. He thought it was endemic, he thought it was important for the very lives we were leading every single day, not just scientists, not just politicians, but schoolchildren. But also, it gave me an opportunity to know George as a human being. There are a lot of people we meet around here that are sort of different. They have their own ideas. They are all bright, they are all motivated, they are all decent, they have high integrity, but there is always something special about the chemistry between people. I always felt I had this with George. I really do not have a lot more to say, other than thank you for letting us share the life of your husband with us.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, together with a bipartisan group of our colleagues, in introducing the ``Artists' Contribution to American Heritage Act of 1999.'' The bill would alleviate an unfairness in the tax law as it applies to charitable donations of property by the taxpayer/creator and significantly enhance the ability of museums and public libraries to acquire important original works by artists, writers and composers, and ensure the preservation of these works for future generations. Since 1969, the law has provided that the creator of the artistic property is only allowed a charitable deduction equal to the cost of the materials that went into the property. For example, an established artist who donates a painting to the local museum is allowed a deduction for the cost of the canvas, brushes and paint, etc., used to produce the painting. Of course, these amounts are de minimis. There is no real tax incentive to contribute such works of art for the public to enjoy. In fact, the tax law works in the other direction. It makes more financial sense to the creator to sell his or her work. If a collector or art buff buys a painting that appreciates over time, because the artist becomes well-established or was a known and collected artist when the painting was purchased, the collector is allowed a deduction for fair market value when the painting is contributed to the local museum. This is the fairness issue. There has not always been such disparate tax treatment. Before 1969, the artists/taxpayers received the same treatment--the deduction was based on fair market value. The law was changed, primarily because of the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of the law through less than accurate valuations of their charitable gifts. After the change in 1969, gifts of donor generated art work (paintings, manuscripts, compositions, artistic and historically significant correspondence and papers) to qualifying charitable organizations and governmental entities dropped significantly. Creators were more likely to sell their works than to contribute them. Tom Downey, a former colleague of ours, introduced similar legislation in 1985. In his floor statement he noted that Igor Stravinsky had planned to donate his papers to the Music Division of the Library of Congress the month the 1969 tax change was signed into law. Instead, the papers were sold to a private foundation in Switzerland. Now, 14 years later the situation has not improved. It is time to change our law to encourage rather than discourage such contributions. There have been significant changes in the valuation process since 1969. All taxpayers making charitable contributions of art work (other than donor generated art work) are required to: (a) provide and/or retain relevant information as to the value of the gift, (b) provide appraisals by qualified appraisers or, in some cases, (c) subject them to review by the IRS's Art Advisory Panel, depending on the dollar amount of the contribution. These changes would apply to creator- donated property under our proposal. In addition to the valuation safeguards already in the law, our proposal would add additional protections to prevent abuse. These include the following: (a) limiting the value of the deduction to the amount of income the creator received from similar property, (b) providing that the deduction can only be claimed in the year of contribution, i.e., the carryover rules do not apply, (c) limiting the deduction to property created at least 18 months before the contribution, (d) limiting the deduction to gifts related to the purpose of the institution which receives it, and (e) excluding contributions of property (letters, memos, etc.) created by taxpayers in their role as employees or officers of an organization. The benefit to the nation when artists are encouraged to contribute their work during their lifetime cannot be overemphasized. It allows the public, historians, scholars and others to learn from the artist his/hers aesthetic aims for the work; how it was intended to be displayed, performed, or interpreted; and what influences affected the artist. Our proposal represents an important step in providing some tax incentive, with needed safeguards, for the creators and moves toward putting them on the same footing as collectors who contribute similar property. Most importantly, it could make the difference in a decision by the creator/donator to contribute some of their created art works to a museum or public library, rather than sell them in the marketplace. That way important works are preserved in the public domain and we all benefit. We urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I do not really know where to start here because we are at cross purposes. Logic does not make any difference. We are coming from emotional standpoints. I guess I have to come from the standpoint of being a businessman who operated on both sides of the Canadian border. I know what this means. I know what the people who I used to work with say it will mean, it is one of these obstructionist laws which does not make any sense at all. I think what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) is doing is absolutely right. Now, if they are down in Texas or they are in another part of the country or have a different set of intellectual or philosophic approaches, that is one thing. But from a practical standpoint, they are making it very difficult. It seems to me that if they are in a business or even if they are in the area of international relations, what they try to do is to make friends. This is not making friends. The Canadians hate it. They scratch their heads and wonder what we are trying to do. They are great friends, the best friends we have in the world. Whenever we are in trouble, we call upon them. It does not make long-term either international or diplomatic or tourism or business or any other sense. I agree with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) in terms of offering a motion to instruct conferees on the Commerce, Justice, State bill. I support him and I support the motivation behind the things that he is trying to do. I would hope the rest of us would do the same.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Georgia would like another minute, I will yield him the balance of my time.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I, together with my colleagues the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary) and the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) rise to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Norwood-Dingell bill, and I will make this really quite short, this introduction of mine. I am an original cosponsor of the Norwood-Dingell bill. I absolutely support what it is trying to do. It is thoughtful; it corrects a wrong which has been around since the beginning of the health maintenance organizations. And all three gentlemen who are supporting this and promoting it are superb legislators and believers in health care reform. But I have only one problem with the bill in that what it does, it slides over another very, very important issue. What it does, frankly, is to open a huge gap for those who are simply providing the money to fund these plans. So while supporting the concept and the aim of the Norwood-Dingell bill, because of this huge void in funding, we almost surely will, in effect, be hurting the people we are trying to help. And I say this autobiographically from my experience in the business field. So I think it is irresponsible for us to ignore this issue in this great wave of enthusiasm for this bill. Despite the emotions of the day, if we do not do something, and I feel that it will be appropriate through our amendment, it will come back to haunt us. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), my great friend.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

Mr. HOUGHTON. I would say to the gentlewoman, Mr. Chairman, that she is correct, we have added language that ensures that employers and unions who intervene on behalf of a patient in one circumstance are not held liable for actions committed and decisions made directly by the plan. Furthermore, employers and unions are not held liable for not intervening on behalf of their patients.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HOUGHTON. That is right.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, have I any time left?

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for his courteousness, the dean of our House, a very distinguished man, a great and dear friend. This is the final vote to keep Norwood-Dingell intact and yet save the caregivers. I understand that the American people are pleading for something like this, and we are also. I wish, as my friend from Maryland has said, that this had been an amendment. But it just was not. It was in the form of a substitute. I have no control over that. But I can only talk from personal experience that the Norwood-Dingell bill means that the health care is now going to be provided at a very scary cost. My colleagues have got to believe me. They may not agree with me. They may be able to tear some of my statements apart. But having lived through this process and taking a look at what is now available, the basic thrust of my argument is absolutely right, no question about it. The problem is that these people who have had problems, such as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) has indicated earlier, if they do not have any health care, they cannot be helped at all. I worked for many, many years, more than I would like to recount, for a company that was one of the first five in the country to offer health care to its employees. And I never thought in terms of employers or employees. We were members of the same corporation. I really believe that these people felt that we treated them correctly. But as I looked over that plan, and if I put on my other hat and I was now a businessman, I would have to change my thinking. I could not stand the liability provision hanging over my head. And I would do a couple of things. One of them might be to just give individual grants to employees, but that would not be good. We would not have the pooling. Many people would not have the money when they needed it. But the problem that I would have in being exposed to the liabilities, no matter how you want to define them, is they would be so great I could not continue the present plan as it is. Now, let me just say one other thing. We have heard from people who care very much about this. We have heard from lawyers. We have heard from doctors. I would like in pleading here, as others have, to plead for the employees and employers of corporations and the small companies who are going to be dramatically affected unless something can be done to refine this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.