Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Joint Resolution 111 provides for the appointment of Anne D'Harnoncourt to the Smithsonian Institute's Board of Regents. Ms. D'Harnoncourt serves as the director of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. In addition to her current position, she has worked at the Tate Gallery in London and the Art institute of Chicago. The knowledge she possesses from her vast arts background will obviously prove beneficial to the Smithsonian's Board. I urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 111. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 110) providing for the appointment of Howard H. Baker, Jr., as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, what I want to do is try to refocus our attention away from perhaps the more rancorous partisan aspects and frankly look at a little bit longer term perspective. Because I am here representing two individuals who are not here in both the House and the Senate. Senator Bentsen is no longer with us, and J.J. Pickle is no longer with us. But for a number of years, Senator Bentsen joined with Senator Roth and I joined with J.J. Pickle to focus on what we call superIRA accounts, the idea that individuals would have greater control over that money, which was theirs, which had been put away. We were unsuccessful for a number of years, but I am pleased to announce that in this particular reconciliation bill a couple of the key points that Senator Bentsen, Senator Roth, Jake Pickle, and I fought for, for a number of years, are present. Today, if you withdraw from your IRA to spend on medical expenses for yourself prior to the 59\1/2\ year, you not only have to pay taxes on the money you withdrew from your own savings, you also have to pay a 10-percent penalty. That just does not make any sense. What we do today is say, if it is for medical expenses, you do not have to pay and you do not have to pay the penalty. I might add that President Clinton's 1996 budget also includes this provision; and I might say that H.R. 11, which was passed by this House and unfortunately vetoed by President Bush two Congresses ago, contained that provision as well. So it is just kind of a nice culmination of a number of bipartisan projects that come together today in this particular bill. In addition, the long-term care insurance provision. You do not now get to deduct the cost of long-term care insurance as part of your medical expenses. This has been a project that we have worked on bipartisan for a long, long time. As a matter of fact, President Clinton has this in his 1996 budget as well. We think it is a good idea, and we included it in this reconciliation package. In addition to that, we are supposed to talk about taking care of your own. Today, if you have a senior or an elderly in your home, your parent, your relative, you do not get any tax credit whatsoever for the out-of-pocket costs in taking care of that individual. In this reconciliation bill, you get credit for those expenses. In addition to that, when we examined the medical savings accounts and those who were uninsured, we thought that those young people who are working above the poverty level but do not need all of that third- party first-dollar coverage of comprehensive medical care really did not have a product in the marketplace that fit their needs. This reconciliation bill contains a medical savings account provision for young people who can shape their insurance needs to what they need at an affordable cost. In addition to that, you have an orphan tax credit that has been worked on on a bipartisan basis for years. It had lapsed. We had not been able to renew it. It is for those drugs that go to Tourette's disease, go to Huntington's disease, but there simply is not a broad enough base to pay for them. That is in this bill. There are a number of provisions that for a number of years on a bipartisan basis we have tried to move forward. I just thought people should know in the middle of this partisan rancor that there are a number of provisions that colleagues here today have voted for and colleagues who have been here in the past have voted for, and it is a really good provision. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should have known the statements that were just made about how sound the Republican program is were false. They would have been punishable under current law under the should have known rule. We are sound until 2010. They are sound until 2006, I will give them the credit, but the difference is a $300 billion loss in 2010. When we are still solvent.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from California, what is this reporter going to do? I just heard him use the word ``preserve.'' I guess there are only certain words people can use because there are only obviously clues and keys. My belief is, you think your program preserves Medicare. We believe our program preserves Medicare. That word is going to be used on this floor back and forth. The difference is, how long and under what circumstances is Medicare preserved, and how do you preserve it? Yes, you preserved it nine times in the last 10 years. Six of those were increases in the payroll tax or lifting the lid on wages subject to the payroll tax. What you have here is an honest representation of the difference in the plans. I know you do not like it, but it is the truth. If you will read the bill, I said read the bill, the Republican program stays sound through 2010. After 2010, yes, we have to find some money, but 2010 is when the baby boomers become eligible for Medicare. Our plan is solid. We do not have to look for new money until we fix it for the baby boomers. The Democrats have said, they are sound at 2006. I agree, you are sound at 2006. What is the difference between 2006 and 2010? $300 billion. That is that red line. I know that is hard for you to envision. Red lines, $300 billion in the hole. At the time you are trying to work with the baby boomer commission, which you have in your bill as well, you are also going to have to find money to fill a $300 billion hole. Mr. Chairman, we do not. Our program better preserves and protects Medicare. It strengthens it. We do not go to the well like you do in terms of increasing taxes. We do it through slowing the growth and allowing innovative programs using market-based techniques to save the system. That is the difference between our approach and yours.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, are the wearing of buttons, or sloganeering, or communicative badges against the rules of the House?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, if they have been informed of that, they are, therefore, willfully violating the rules of the House?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, if someone is wearing that when addressing the House, they are violating the rules of the House?

Mr. THOMAS. First of all, I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to be part of a majority that has rejected politics as usual. What we have heard today from the minority was a lot of sloganeering, figurative and literal baloney, and that what we propose to do is, in fact, bold and innovative. And I think those are appropriate words, but I also believe it is radical. Mr. Chairman, what we propose to do is to not follow the politics as usual solution. What is the politics as usual solution? Fix Medicare until the next election. When the Democrats were in the majority that is exactly what they did. In the last 10 years, between 1985 and today, the Democrats fixed Medicare over and over again. Six times the Democrats either raised the payroll tax or raised wages subject to the payroll tax. That is how they fixed Medicare. And in 1993, they even blew the lid off of wages. There is no limit to the payroll tax being applied to wages today thanks to the solutions offered by the former majority. This new majority will not buy that approach. Quick fixes are out. Real solutions are in. Mr. Chairman, this is a quote from President Clinton, and it is up there because I, frankly, admire that he had the guts to say it. I counted over 100 times the Democrats went to the well and said cut. Is it because they just do not get it or is it because this is more of the demagoguery and the sloganeering? Even the President of the United States admits that when we slow the growth of Medicare, we do not cut it, we slow the growth of Medicare. Mr. Chairman, what we do is slow the growth of Medicare. That is how we make the savings. We do not stay at a 10\1/2\ percent increase because it will go bankrupt if we do. Hospital spending goes up under our program. It does not go up as fast as it was going to go up, but $652 billion will be spent between now and 2002 on hospitals. Physicians: Payments to physicians go up every year. Not a cut, but a reduction in growth. In fact, over those 7 years, more than $315 billion will be paid for physician services under the [[Page H 10361]] Medicare program proposed by the Republicans, and every year those payments grow larger. Mr. Chairman, in home health care, the same thing. Every year the payments go up. More than $150 billion over the next 7 years. And every year the payment to the home health care industry will go up. We are not making cuts, folks, we are slowing the growth. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot said about changes, and frankly, this is one of the more exciting parts about the Republican program. What we are doing is opening up the Medicare program to the choices available to more and more Americans today. The Medicare savings accounts, the provider sponsored organizations, the seamless coverage that has been discussed will be available so that individuals can go from the workplace to the rocking chair and not have to change or look for a new kind of a health care program. The coordinated health care programs will be expanded and improved. This is what we will get under the Republican program to preserve Medicare. This is what is offered now. This is what seniors will have available: Prescription drugs, routine physicals, the cancer physical that was discussed. Seniors will have available eye exams, lenses, ear exams, hearing aids, and dental coverage. That is available today and it will be available under the new program. Mr. Chairman, let us talk about eliminating fraud and abuse. We find it. We double the civil penalties. We establish new criminal penalties, and, more important, we have already passed medical malpractice. We did that in March. Here is the bottom line. What do we get for the money out of the Republican program? A sound program until 2010. We are in the black, or the blue, if you will, until 2010. The Republican program gets us clear to the baby boomer generation. The Democratic program has a $300 billion deficit in the same time. Mr. Chairman, let us focus on seniors, but let us remember people who are paying their taxes now want a program as well. The Republican program preserves, protects, and makes sure that Medicare is available for those who pay the bills today.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Chair, what are the rules in terms of sloganeering, buttons worn on the floor when participating in debate?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, is it against the rules to wear slogans, buttons, while addressing the Committee of the Whole, and did the Chairman not already indicate what the rules are?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about fraud and abuse. What my colleagues should do is look at the bill. Mr. Chairman, this bill, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] correctly pointed out, does more than any other provision ever in the history of Medicare. Fraud: We find it. We utilize 37 million Americans with not only a toll-free number, but a whistleblower reward structure by the Secretary. We require, it is not required now, an explanation of what goes on, so recipients will know what has been done to them. Mr. Chairman, we have a Medicare Integrity Program. We utilize the newest technology to go after fraud. We have a corporate whistleblower program. We double the civil penalties. We have criminal penalties. We have expulsion from all Federal programs if providers are found to be violators. Mr. Chairman, we increase the enforcement with bucks put in by the Shaw-Gibbons amendment for more enforcement officials. Lastly, and most importantly, we define in a way so that people will know what they can or cannot do. It is clear. It is responsible. Fraud: we find it, we fight it, and we fix it.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, we are going to respond every time someone makes a misstatement, and the misstatement was that we are cutting the hospital updates. We are not cutting; we are slowing the growth. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana talked about ``slowing the growth'' in a statement from the President. Here are the updates according to the CBO numbers. As any Member can see, every year the hospital reimbursement goes up. That is slowing the growth. That is not a cut.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on Senate Concurrent Resolution 29, the concurrent resolution just concurred in.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House and the leadership join me in urging all Members to support what is an occasion that I think will allow us to focus on our humanness in a way that we are rarely able to do it. In the resolution talking about the celebration of Jerusalem in the Rotunda of its 3,000th anniversary, it says: ``Whereas Jerusalem, the City of Peace, has held a unique place and exerted a unique influence on the moral development of Western Civilization;'' I think Jerusalem plays an even more significant role than that, if that is possible. [[Page H 9923]] I think it is because Jerusalem is one of the places in the world that is truly a crossroads for a majority of people in the world, because when we look at the development and history of religions, those things that have occurred in and around the city of Jerusalem have not only sent fundamental, positive repercussions East and West, but they have somehow been tied to defining developmental periods throughout the history of the world. Although we have not yet located the center of the universe, I think in terms of man's experience on this planet, the city of Jerusalem, along with very few other places in this world, Jerusalem deserves being placed in that category. I think it is entirely appropriate that the Rotunda of the United States Capitol be used as the place for the recognition of the 3,000 years of inhabitance of the city of Jerusalem.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Oversight be discharged from further consideration of the Senate Concurrent Resolution (S. Con. Res. 29) providing for marking the celebration of Jerusalem on the occasion of its 3,000th anniversary, and ask for its consideration in the House.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], if memory serves, in fact sat in with the Subcommittee on Health, not being a member of the Subcommittee on Health, wanting to make sure that any Member who was interested in being informed on the subject matter, sat in on several of the Subcommittee on Health hearings. We had 16 of them over every possible option that could be put into a Medicare package. We had two full Committee on Ways and Means hearings. Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of compiling that information. The original criticism was that one cannot write a bill without hearing from all of the folks who are going to be affected. We thought that was good advice. So we held hearings to hear from all of the people who were affected. Now we are being criticized because we have been here for 10 months, holding hearings during the first 9 months, and we are now in the process of writing legislation, and we are being criticized because we did not write the legislation before we held the 16 hearings. Now, you know, you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't. I understand that is the role of the minority. We played that for a while. But we are in the majority; we have a part A payroll tax trust fund for the seniors that is going bankrupt, and we are putting together a program to make sure that does not go bankrupt, and we have a part B program which is eating up enormous resources from our young people. What we are going to do is create a system, long overdue, which gives seniors choice, and through the exercise of that choice, we will make sure that the part A program does not go bankrupt, and that the demands on the budget will be less. Now, that is a complicated program. The gentleman from Florida knows all of the parts that would go into that program. His objection is that he has not seen all of the parts assembled. He will, and under the rules of the House, as the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, will have the ability to fully exercise his rights to ask for hearings on his side of the House, and we will certainly honor, under the rules, the maximum ability of the ranking member from Florida to exercise his privileges and rights under the rules.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], and the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], because the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] also serves as the ranking member on House oversight. I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] made the point this is an absolute reduction. It is a cut. This is a change from previous Congresses. Notwithstanding the desire not to make reductions or cuts, I still want to compliment everyone involved because I think it was done in the fairest manner and in the most efficient way possible. We took the major cuts ourselves. We eliminated three committees. Fully 30 percent of the money, 29 million, came out of the committees. So, I think by example we have indicated where we want to go. The 25- percent General Accounting Office cut was recommended by the General Accounting Office. All we did was accept it. We have more changes coming. Look at the new handbook which my colleagues have received. This is just the beginning.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I submit a committee order from the Committee on House Oversight. At the direction of the Committee on House Oversight, in accordance with the authority granted to the committee as reflected in 2 U.S.C. 57, the committee issued Committee Order No. 41 on August 3, 1995, which will become effective on September 1, 1995. Members will receive information describing this change through a dear colleague. I include at this point in the Record the text of Committee Order No. 41. Resolved, That (a) effective September 1, 1995, and subject to subsection (b), the Clerk Hire Allowance, the Official Expenses Allowance, and the Official Mail Allowance shall cease to exist and the functions formerly carried out under such allowances shall be carried out under a single allowance, to be known as the ``Members' Representational Allowance''. (b) Under the Members' Representational Allowance, the amount that shall be available to a Member for franked mail with respect to a session of Congress shall be the amount allocated for that purpose by the Committee on House Oversight under paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(B) of subsection (e) of section 311 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1991, plus an amount equal to the amount permitted to be transferred to the former Official Mail Allowance under paragraph (3) of that subsection. Sec. 2. The Committee on House Oversight shall have authority to prescribe regulations to carry out this resolution.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Perhaps she is not aware that this is a position that in the sergeant at arms under her party as the majority was called the director of special events. There are no significant changes. It is simply that it was vacant when the leadership changed. Perhaps the gentlewoman is also not aware that her leadership on House Oversight, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], and the other members of the Committee on House Oversight on her side of the aisle supported unanimously the continuation of this position.