Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I think what we have seen here is a continuation of the spirit in which we started this particular Congress. On opening day we did call for, by resolution, an independent audit. It was virtually unanimous in this House [[Page H 7152]] that we move forward with that independent audit. Regardless of the reasons that may have led us to that conclusion, I think everyone here today agrees that it was a positive step. The only regret we all have is that, as outlined in the resolution in several whereas clauses, the books that the independent auditor and the inspector general had to look at where wholly inadequate to coming to some clear and final conclusions about financial transactions over the last 15 months. This resolution, jointly sponsored by the majority and the minority leader, intends to clarify and rectify those areas of the financial books that the independent auditors were incapable of clarifying. We believe that based upon the representations made to us, the inspector general will be able to resolve the questions that are outstanding. We believe that the system was at fault. There is no reason at this time to try to draw any conclusions at all, given the difficulty of professional auditors in determining with some finality, what occurred. It would be a service to no one, the American people, Members of this institution, or anyone else, to speculate on what might occur. Rather, the absolute appropriate approach of a House resolution, asking our inspector general to take on what resources are necessary to finalize this audit as soon as possible, but no later than November 30, is not only the appropriate step but really consciously the only one that we can take. So it is with great pleasure, on a bipartisan note, that we offer for the Members consideration House Resolution 192. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], who is a CPA.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], the vice chairman of the Committee on House Oversight.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a member of the Committee on House Oversight.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania another way of putting it is the old saying, ``You can either give a man a fish and feed him for a day, or teach him how to fish, and he can feed himself for the rest of his life.'' That is the question of opportunities. Pure science will provide us with those jobs of tomorrow or teaching people how to fish. Clearly this amendment is to give them a fish to feed them for a day. We ought to defeat it and teach them how to fish so that the opportunity for jobs tomorrow will be there.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is the resolution in front of us is whether or not the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] shall be assigned to the Committee on Ways and Means. At the beginning the 104th Congress the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] was a Democrat. He currently is a Republican. The ratio on the Committee on Ways and Means is 21 to 15. I know for a fact that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], argued long and hard for a ration of 21 to 14. He was denied his wishes of that committee ratio by the wisdom of leadership, because the minority leader begged him to put another Democrat on. So when we started, it was 21 to 15. They got their Democrat at the beginning. It was not what we wanted. If we add the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] as a Republican, the ratio will be 22 to 15. That is still not 60 percent; 21 to 15 is not 60 percent; 22 to 15 is not 60 percent. I have been on the Committee on Ways and Means since 1983. It has been between 63 and 66 percent loaded in favor of the majority in that entire time, so it is not about ratio. One of the difficulties we have in examining this business of party switchers is because in the brief 17 years that I have been in Congress I have never seen anybody from this side of the aisle decide not be a Republican and go over there. In the time that I have been here, I have seen a number of Democrats come over here. One of the reasons we are pleased to welcome the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] is that we like his position on the issues. I do not see anything wrong at all in taking someone that you like on the issues and giving them a position of prominence in areas in which we are going to have significant votes. The Committee on Ways and Means in this jurisdiction is, with all due respect as a member of the committee, an important committee. It deals with all the taxes. It deals with Social Security. It deals with welfare. Yes, it deals with Medicare. What we want to do is take the issues position of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin], who was recently a Democrat, and now a Republican, and meld him with all of the other Republicans on the committee, who I might remind the Members represent a percentage of the total committee less than the Democrat-Republican ratio when they were a majority for the entire time I have been on the committee. What is your problem? That you want more Republicans to reflect the ratio that used to be there? We are not doing that. That you want Democrats to quit leaving your party and become Republicans? Then change your positions. If you do not, if you keep the same leadership, advocating the same position, there are going to be more Republicans over here before the election by virtue of people continuing to switch. Is that your problem, that you do not like switchers, or is it that you have no substantive point to make and so you are arguing items that are irrelevant? Let's make the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to speak, but I do want to put the statements of the gentleman from Michigan in context. He was one of the 14 who voted against the bill originally. There were 408 Members who supported it. Mr. Speaker, on April 4 he sent out a Dear Colleague letter that said, ``Why the rush to bring H.R. 483 to the floor this week?'' He just in the well stated, ``Why the rush on moving forward with this legislation?'' June 30, today, is the expiration date for this program. I would think that is why the rush argument has been laid to rest. As far as scope is concerned, we said it was going to be available to 50 States. The majority on the other side of the aisle, in their wisdom, decided to contest that; since the 50 States was extending it to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, as according to the Social Security Act, they were going to argue that was out of scope, so we simply went to the Committee on Rules to make sure that we could include the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico in the scope. As to the GAO study, I think the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] knows that we do not need legislation to get a GAO study. A Member just has to ask.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. As chairman of the House subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, we have looked at this over a period of time. As a member of the conference committee, we produced a conference report. I am a little confused by the gentleman from Maryland's statement that we would want to base a decision as to whether or not we would go forward with the program on a permanent basis on facts rather than just assumptions or desires or wishes or hopes. I can only assume that the gentleman from Maryland did not read the conference report, because I would join him, if, in fact, we were talking about creating a permanent program without a basis of analysis of a pilot program. Despite what may have been from any of the speakers who are in opposition to this, all this does is continue a program until the Secretary determines that, in fact, there are savings, that this is a better program. If the Secretary of Health and Human Services, after a 3-year study, says that this is not saving money, it is not a better program, the program ends. If she finds it does, it goes forward. So, first of all, the conference report says, we are going to take this pilot program that is in 15 States, make it available to 50 States, but not on a permanent basis. We are going to examine the results after 3 years. And then we will make a determination as to whether or not it is to be permanent. We heard talk about a study over here. As a matter of fact, on the earlier pilot program, there was supposed to be a study reported to Congress in January. Six months later, it still has not issued a report. What they are talking about is a preliminary finding which was leaked by this administration. We had the head of the Health Care Financing Administration in front of the subcommittee in which we said, you know, this seems to be a politically charged issue. We have folks who are taking extreme positions and making statements not based upon fact for whatever reason they choose to do so, and I am concerned about the political atmosphere. So, Mr. Valdeck, please make sure that your operation does not prematurely leak information which may not have been fully evaluated about this program. Mr. Valdeck in front of the Health Subcommittee said, you bet; we will make sure this information does not come out until it has been analyzed and properly understood and presented. Lo and behold, several weeks ago, initially on the Senate side and now we have heard statements read here that are supposedly flat-out statements of fact that this study shows that there are higher costs. In fact, that is not the case. Mr. Valdeck apparently was so embarrassed by this that he wrote me a personal note saying that he was embarrassed that the study had gotten out prematurely, that it has not been vetted. They have not done the proper correlations in the study. Somebody is very interested in killing this modest little proposal. Let us go back and remember what this is. Currently there are 10 programs available to seniors to augment their Medicare program. They are called MediGap. They are insurance programs that fill in where Medicare does not offer as complete a package as people would want. What we are doing is talking about adding one more, an 11th to the 10 that are already there, fully monitored by Health and Human Services. In fact, you have got to explain exactly what you are doing. You have to pass a standardized examination to make sure that you are doing what everybody else is doing. There are categories that have to be met. The seniors are fully protected and they have a choice. It is not mandated. You choose. We are simply saying instead of 10 choices, we are going to offer 11 choices. You would think that we are reinventing the wheel by offering seniors 11 choices rather than 10. All we are doing is saying that the 11th choice is of a kind of health care delivery service that more and more Americans find saving them money. That is what this is all about. These fellows over here who used to be the chairmen of the Health Subcommittee and Ways and Means, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] who spoke earlier was the chairman of the Health Subcommittee of Commerce, and the gentleman from Michigan was the chairman of Commerce, they are used to bottling up reform and change, especially the kind that had the private sector driving down costs in health care. They are kind of frustrated because with this new majority, different people are in charge. We want to try these new ideas, fully protected with studies by the Secretary making a determination as to whether it goes forward or not. So I understand their frustration. But in trying to deal with this frustration of being a new minority, you really ought to rely on facts rather than the kind of fear mongering and conjuring up of seniors deserted by their Government when you talk about the Medicare select program. The gentleman from North Dakota was absolutely right. This is a modest little program. We think it will save money. Four hundred eight Members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, voted for this the first time around; 14 voted against it. We have high hopes that the same 408 and perhaps some of the 14 who voted against this might join in in sending it to the President today so that on this last day of the pilot program the President will sign this bill so that the seniors will not be fearful that this option will not be available to them. We are going to pass it today. I have high hopes the President will sign it tonight and then we will move on to more fundamental real reform where seniors will see that more choices will be available to them and that their Medicare dollar expenses will be covered by an ever-increasing amount from the Federal Government. Those are the facts.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the bill number is H.R. 1854. The concept driving this amendment is truly circa 1854. No one is talking about cutting off depository libraries from getting information. In fact, we want to promote it. What we do not want to encourage is a central paper printing process which then produces a bulk paper product, which is then shipped across country, and then made available at a depository library. That is what we are trying to change. More than 90 percent of the libraries transmit, send, and receive electronic data today. What we are trying to do is tell the executive branch agencies we are not going to fund them. I have no quarrel with where the money comes from, the Botanic Garden, that is a secondary issue. It is up to those people to decide what they are going to do. I object strenuously, that they are taking money from congressional sources and funding an executive branch agency when they do not want to spend the money themselves. We should not be forced to pay the money for the executive branch to pay for perpetuating an 1854 paper world. What we want to do is get up to speed in sending that same data electronically, and by CD ROM. If taxpayers want a hard copy at the depository library, the library will produce it there. Taxpayers do not pay for shipping wood, printed on wood, across country. That is what they did in the 19th century. What we are trying to do is stop that. This amendment perpetuates it. It is wrong. It may be revenue neutral, but the concept is wrong. Unfortunately, I am going to ask Members to vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I too, do not rise in opposition or in support of this particular amendment. I would tell the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] he does not return money to the Treasury. First of all, no money is appropriated for individual offices. There is no appropriation for the 21st District of California, for example. There is no appropriation for Members' offices. There is an appropriation to the House in support of our official duties. Members draw down on that account. If they do not use all of the money, it means they did not draw down all of their call on that account. They do not return money to the Treasury. Having said that, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] knows that I have been working with our lawyers and others to try to figure out a way to make this happen. We are talking about even fundamentally changing the way in which we appropriate so that Members who do not draw down their account to the maximum amount available under law, can go back home and say: That amount I did not draw down is designated to go to deficit reduction. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a positive. That is an incentive and it is probably a better goal than just going back into the Treasury to be churned for other expenditures. So that is why I am not opposing this measure, but you have got to have an understanding, folks. Your concept of the way this place works in flat-out wrong. What we need to do is to make sure that what you are talking about, in fact, becomes reality, and I pledge my support to continue to work on this. And the reason I am not opposing the gentleman from New Jersey is because if, in fact, it is possible, within the context of this appropriations bill, to make some determinations without having to go to statute, at least, he says, it is to go to deficit reduction instead of the general treasury. That is a modest step forward, if we can make it happen.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I think the chairman for that clarification. Mr. Chairman, I would in the brief time I have indicate to my colleagues that I also will oppose amendment No. 1 or 2, which is the reduction in the Members' allowances, not that I am opposed to reductions in Members' allowances. I have encouraged, supported, and in fact brought about more than a one-third reduction in the franking account. I will continue to monitor and urge us to make adjustments as appropriate in the Members' accounts, just as we have in the committee accounts. My concerns with amendments 1 and 2 are, frankly, the timing. As I said, the changes in the House are a work in progress. We are going to make adjustments, a portion of them created financially in this bill by consolidating the three funds available to Members into one. We will do that through the committee in the next calendar year. We are assigning a number of specific increases to Members' allowances which ordinarily would have been paid for by the general funds of the House. My concern is that as we make these adjustments on costs that were borne by the House on the whole, moving $10,000 to $15,000 to the Members' individual accounts, that this is not the right time to make the adjustment, perhaps compounding the problem of budgeting for some Members. That adjustment should be made after we actually combine accounts and we absorb the individual costs that will be placed upon the Members through H.R. 1854. It is not that I am opposed to the concept of further reductions, it is frankly timing, and the timing is wrong. I would ask my colleagues to oppose amendments 1 and 2. Conversely, I would indicate that I would vote in favor of amendment No. 3 by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez] which would extend the cutoff period for unsolicited mass mailings from 60 days to 90 days before an election. Finally, I would strongly oppose amendment No. 8 by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton]. All this does is keep alive hard copy transfer at a time when we are trying to create electronic transfers. In no way should we provide funds, regardless of where they come from, to maintain the old way of doing business. If amendment No. 8 by the gentleman from Utah passes, it will only delay and make more expensive the transition into the new electronic world. I would urge my colleagues to join me in opposing amendment No. 8. As I indicated at the beginning, I think this is an excellent work product. It is a very difficult thing to do, that is, change, especially when it involves personnel and dollar amounts. Change is new and unfamiliar. On the whole, I believe H.R. 1854 is as good as could be expected and perhaps even better in making this institution more accountable to our shareholders, the American people. I applaud both of the gentlemen from California on their work product.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania that, I assume inadvertently, he is wrong. This chart is wrong. It does not apply [[Page H 6188]] to franking, it applies to the salaries of the Members, to the Members' staff and what they have committed to. It applies to the computers that they may have already obligated themselves to in terms of purchasing. That is why we ought to go about these changes in an orderly fashion. I say to my colleagues, I believe you think you're cutting the frank. The way in which the amendment is written, means that this reduction goes to the salary of the staff that you've hired, to the computers that you have already obligated yourself and/or mail. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, Please, let me repeat once more, that this is not a reduction in the frank, you are misrepresenting this amendment. it is not. We cut franking by one-third already in this session, one-third, 33\1/3\ percent. This is not an amendment to cut franking.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I will say briefly, You can look at the franked mail charts over there, but this does not apply to franked mail. Part of the problem around here is that we have some people who were very earnest in the changes they want to make. You need to know that this is an appropriation bill. It goes into effect October 1. The combined representational account, which the gentleman from Delaware wants to cut, the gentleman from California, has already cut by more than one-third since the last year. We cannot make the changes to make it a single fund until the calendar year, and that's why the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] is right. This money could very well go to deny already agreed-upon salaries to employees and purchasing of equipment. I want to underscore the fact I am not opposed to continuing to reduce Members' funds. There is a way; there is an orderliness to it. We are trying to move forward in an orderly fashion. The appropriation goes first, then the Committee on House Oversight will take those already agreed-upon changes and put them into effect. I say to my colleagues, when you introduce changes like this in midstream, that throws out the coordination of the leadership, the majority and the minorities' agreed-upon changes and it just makes it more difficult. I'm not opposed to cuts. I'm opposed to cuts at this time in this manner. Let's get this representational account combined. Let's then examine it. Frankly I am anxious to cut more than the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] is looking at, but I want to do it from a realistic, honest base where the Members have not already made commitments that they are now going to be forced to renege upon in the zealousness to get credit for some kind of a reduction. I would urge the Members to vote ``no,'' reluctantly, on this amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the provision in the bill neither prevents the Joint Committee from reviewing proposed refunds or credits in excess of $1 million as is required by Internal Revenue Code section 6405 nor does it limit the Joint Committee's ability to secure data from the IRS under section 8023. Is the sole purpose of the provision in the bill to make it crystal clear that the Joint Committee does not have the power to actually decide the amount of refund or credits in a taxpayer's Federal tax return?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of this particular piece of legislation, notwithstanding the fact that it does involve a degree of change. As a matter of fact, life involves a degree of change. My concern is the direction of the change. Change will occur. It is whether the change is understood and directed and for the better, or whether the change controls you and it is not for the better. I happen to believe that the combined efforts of the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and the hard-working members of that subcommittee have offered us change which is on the whole for the better. I congratulate them for their work product. I do need to point out, I guess in part because of a degree of pride, that of the $155 million reduction, $40 million plus of it is on the basis of the committee changes that originated in the Committee on House Oversight. I want to underscore the comment of both of the gentlemen from California that this is a work in progress. It certainly started before the 104th Congress. It also cannot be denied that it has been rapidly accelerated in the 104th Congress and that we are in fact making changes that are long, long overdue. There are a number of amendments that will be offered shortly and there will be a very brief time in which to discuss these amendments. I would like to take some time now to kind of do a preview of those amendments I have a particular interest in, and will indicate my support or opposition and the reason why. If I do not discuss a particular amendment, it is because I basically do not feel that my input would be useful to the Members in arriving at their particular decision as to whether to support or oppose that particular amendment. At this time, I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], if he would engage me in a colloquy in a subject matter which is focused on by amendment No. 4, offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]. If his amendment is offered on the Joint Committee on Taxation language removal, I would support that amendment. I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy to clarify a provision in the bill, it if remains in the bill, that states that no funds of the Joint Committee on Taxation can be used to determine specific refunds or credits under sections 6405 and 8023. As the chairman knows, in the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS is required to report to the Joint Committee on Taxation any proposed refunds, credits or tentative adjustments of certain Federal taxes in excess of $1 million. As the chairman is also aware, the Joint Committee on Taxation does not receive a copy of the tax return but rather reviews the adjustments and determinations made by the IRS in connection with the tax return, and that under the Internal Revenue Code only the IRS may either adjust the amount to be refunded or make the refund as proposed.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I will tell the gentleman that the Committee on House Oversight is working on the possibility of creating public service announcement-type purchases on the radio and other media, as a point of information, beyond mail, for the townhall meetings. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

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

Mr. THOMAS. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues for voting with us on the last amendment. It creates an orderly process in making change, and I want to thank them. I was the author of the 60-day postmark cutoff, because I thought that was what the law was supposed to be. I will tell Members that I am rising in support of this particular amendment because it does not create disorder. Since we are getting rid of the folding room at the end of August, the decision to go to 90 days from 60 days is basically a philosophical one. I would ask the Members to ask themselves whether they think it is appropriate or not. I would say that a September primary now, because of the 60-day cutoff, does not allow Members to mail between September and November, anyway. That is not an argument for this amendment. Members can send notice through newspapers and other means for town hall meetings. It does not have to be unsolicited mass mail. Therefore, this would not be disruptive, and I would support it.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the name of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1299. His name was added in error to that bill. The Speaker pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. THOMAS. Is the chairman aware of the State's concern about the amendment's possible effect on getting fair market value for its interest by giving Federal agencies power to force the State to take less than, in their opinion, fair value for those claims?

Mr. THOMAS. I believe the attorney general of California feels comforted by the chairman's statement that there is no intention to preclude a judicial remedy if we cannot reach agreement. I am perfectly satisfied we will reach agreement. But it is a comfort for the chairman to indicate that is his interpretation of the rule. I thank the chairman for the colloquy.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for entering into a colloquy over section 2 of the rule affecting the sale of the naval petroleum reserve at Elk Hills. Is it the chairman's understanding the new language in the amendment incorporated in the bill through this rule regarding settlement regarding the so-called school lands issue and California's interest in the naval petroleum reserve permits California to be fully compensated for its interest in Elk Hills?