Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield one-half of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of seniors and taxpayers, pursuant to House Resolution 463, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1) to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a voluntary program for prescription drug coverage under the Medicare Program, to modernize the Medicare Program, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction to individuals for amounts contributed to health savings security accounts and health savings accounts, to provide for the disposition of unused health benefits in cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements, and for other purposes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chairperson of the Health Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, and I ask unanimous consent that she control the remainder of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, do we have the motion to recommit in written form?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I submit two letters for the record with respect to S. 1824, legislation to reauthorize the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). These letters are a letter that I wrote to Dr. Peter S. Watson, President and CEO of OPIC, and the letter that I received from Dr. Watson in response clarifying OPIC's statutory obligations and existing practices with respect to issues regarding worker rights. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, November 18, 2003. Hon. Peter S. Watson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Watson: The House of Representatives may soon consider H.R. 3145, legislation to reauthorize the operations of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) through September 30, 2007. It is my understanding that nothing in this reauthorization would alter in any way OPIC's statutory obligations or existing practices with respect to issues regarding worker rights. I request that you provide the Committee, in writing, with confirmation of this understanding and a complete summary of any and all of OPIC's existing statutory obligations and practices with regards to worker rights. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Bill Thomas, Chairman.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the chairman and I want to thank the Senate. Knowing the difficulty of putting a package together and being a part of it, I am very pleased that we are here on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, despite protestations to the contrary, this country has remained dependent on foreign energy sources, leaving our Nation vulnerable to rogue nations. Mr. Speaker, Americans have faced price spikes at the gas pump and high monthly energy bills. High energy costs have closed U.S. plants and factories and laid off U.S. workers. And as recently as last summer, U.S. cities experienced blackouts resulting from problems with the energy grid. Lacking a comprehensive energy plan has left the United States susceptible to energy shortcomings and downfalls. However, we have the opportunity today to reverse this course. Congress is poised, and I believe we are poised, to send legislation to the President that will put a balanced comprehensive energy plan in front of America's long-suffering consumers. The tax incentives included in this agreement are the most sweeping changes in energy policy in over a decade. The plan before us today encourages the use of nontraditional energy sources, wind, geothermal, solar, and other renewable sources. This diversification will foster self-reliance and lessen dependence on foreign energy supplies. We devoted nearly 40 percent of the resources in this tax package to that effort. Additionally, today's agreement promotes the use of traditional energy sources like our abundant coal supplies but focusing them in cleaner forms. To protect our country from experiencing further blackouts, we have devoted nearly one-fifth of the tax incentives to bettering the distribution of the United States electric and gas distribution and transmission systems. The production incentives in this agreement will encourage the development and use of alternative fuels like biodiesel and ethanol. Working with the Senate, we have compiled a package that promotes conservation, better reliability, and more production. This comprehensive agreement combines the best elements of the House and the best elements of the Senate bill, and it deserves and, I believe, will receive strong support. My compliments to the chairman.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that, in accordance with the recommendation of the United States Judicial Conference, would authorize the creation of three additional judgeships for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, as well as convert a temporary judgeship into a permanent judgeship. There is no question that these additional judgeships are needed. The average weighted caseload per judge in the Eastern District is 733, as compared to 649 a year ago, an increase of almost 12 percent. This is extremely significant, as the national average for weighted caseloads per judge is 524, and an average weighted caseload in excess of 430 is the United States Judicial Conference's standard for determining if additional permanent judgeships are required. The Eastern District's average weighted caseload of 733 exceeds this standard by 70 percent. In addition, the Eastern District's average weighted caseload surpasses the national average by more than 39 percent and has exceeded 430 since 1994. In 2003, there was a significant increase in the total number of filings in the Eastern District; in fact, total filings in 2003 rose 11.7 percent to 5,523. Criminal case filings, for which our Constitution guarantees an individual the right to have a speedy trial, rose 12.7 percent. In addition, there are now a total of 6,343 cases pending before the Eastern District; an increase of 11.5 percent in 2003 and an 18.5 percent increase over the past five years. Moreover, as the temporary judgeship expired in February 2002, upon a permanent judge's decision to take senior status, this situation will be exacerbated because the President will be unable to appoint a replacement unless Congress acts to convert the temporary judgeship into a permanent judgeship before that time. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to work with me to enact this legislation and thereby improve the administration of our Nation's laws in the Eastern District of California.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, China is now a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO is not a club that just anyone can join--a country must be deemed ready and economically mature. China's accession signifies that it is expected to meet the obligations that come with its stronger presence within the global economy. It is our role, as one of China's major trading partners, to make sure that china fulfills its WTO commitments. However, I am concerned that many of China's commitments have not yet been implemented or implementation has been inadequate. I join the many cosponsors of this resolution in urging the Administration to continue to engage China on compliance, as well as use the dispute settlement mechanism where necessary to enforce our rights. In addition to seeking WTO compliance, I support the Administration's efforts to encourage China to establish a more flexible exchange rate. At the same time, China's financial system is in desperate need of modernization. I urge the Administration to continue to work with China to modernize its fiscal structure and relax its capital controls. On Thursday and Friday of this week, the Committee on Ways and Means is holding a hearing to explore China's expanding role in the global economy, its currency management and its progress in meeting its new trade commitments. The insights we will gain in this hearing will give us more guidance as we develop a tough policy to promote a healthy and strong trade relationship with China. Finally, today's resolution is yet another foray in the battle to support U.S. manufacturers. We must create more jobs at home and preserve existing jobs by promoting innovation, reducing costs and making U.S. companies more competitive. Yesterday, the Ways and Means Committee approved the American Jobs Creation Act, legislation to foster job creation through comprehensive tax relief for domestic manufacturers, small businesses and other employers. It is my hope that the House will take swift action on this legislation. American workers need help now.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I appreciate that.

Mr. THOMAS. And the motion to instruct is to request that we retain language in the bill the House passed; is that correct?

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, my understanding is the next motion is a motion to instruct conferees, and my understanding is motions to instruct conferees are nonbinding; is that correct?

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor because I was off doing other business but listening to testimony that has been presented on this floor; and if something gets repeated often enough and loud enough, people may begin to think that it is true. In depicting the proposal that has been offered for seniors and prescription drugs, much has been made of the fact that when you have limited dollar amounts and you want to write a program that benefits the greatest number of people, the logical way to write the program is to provide reasonable benefits so that most people who have small drug costs have a decent shared payment structure. In the House plan, that happens to be 80 percent government payment and, 20 percent individual. And for those who, through no fault of their own, have extremely high drug costs, above a certain point, 100 percent of those costs are assumed by the government, or the taxpayers. That is called typically a catastrophic plan. The question is, how much would it cost to provide sliding coverage throughout an entire range? Many drug programs are set up where they have a period at which the individual pays the full cost. It has been depicted over and over again and, most recently, just a few minutes ago, that this is a program we are trying to provide to seniors which we do not have as Members of Congress. That is flat-out not true. If, in fact, Members of Congress can take their insurance from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which is where we get it, if anyone would take the time, instead of preparing demagogic speeches for the floor of the House, and study the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, they will find there are programs offered to Federal employees that have what is called, in a pejorative way, a doughnut hole. Why? Because it makes sense to build insurance plans at a dollar amount with a doughnut hole. The program that we have built makes sense. Programs in the private sector do the same. Programs that are offered to Federal employees, including Members of Congress, do the same thing. This is not some unique concept that we have dreamed up. It is a common practice in insurance. So I fully expect, if this is not done just for show, if someone really did not know, and if in fact they are now pleased to have the facts, I do not expect another Member to take the floor and say we ought to give to seniors what we give to Congress and other members of the Federal Government and that they don't have a doughnut, so we shouldn't have a doughnut for seniors. The fact of the matter is, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program has plans that are actually chosen by Federal employees that have doughnuts. Why? Because it makes sense. It provides you the maximum minimum payment when your drug costs are low and it provides you the maximum coverage at the top end when your drug costs are high. But remember what I said, if you are dealing with a fixed cost. The Congress said you have $400 billion to build a prescription drug program in a modernized Medicare. That is a fixed cost. For some people who do not believe the taxpayers' money should be accounted for or you should cater to groups so that you can give people whatever they want regardless of what it costs, I can understand why a sensible program, to give maximum benefits to the greatest number of people, would be a puzzlement. But for people who live on budgets and for people who are cognizant of taxpayers' dollars, building a plan for a given amount that brings the maximum benefits to the greatest number of people makes all kinds of sense. That is why, even in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, they have insurance programs that have doughnuts. I am quite sure now we will never hear another word about saying we are trying to give seniors something that the Federal employees do not have, because it is not true.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Might I respond or was the gentleman simply making a statement while the gentleman from California stood? The gentleman indicated in his opening statement that he would yield time for colloquy.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts for structuring this motion to recommit actually as a motion to recommit, rather than one which cannot be honored. So what we do is we look at the content of the motion to recommit, rather than the key words that determine whether or not he is serious. The gentleman from Massachusetts, by the way he has structured his motion to recommit, is serious. If in fact the House is judged on what we do, rather than what we say, all you have to do is go back to last March when this House passed the provisions which deal directly with this issue. Way before hurricane season, the House of Representatives said a child credit should be $1,000 and it should stay at $1,000 for the rest of the decade. If the Senate bill is better, why does the Senate bill contain a snap-back to $700 in December of 2004, right after the election? If the Senate bill is better, the House bill said marriage penalty, now, for the rest of the decade. The Senate bill says marriage penalty eliminated in 2010. They say, therefore, helping the military. The bill we passed last March offers more help dollar-wise and substance-wise to the military than the one they are proposing now. So I think it is fairly ironic that they are asking us to do what we have done. The argument that the conference on this bill has not met should not be directed to the House; it should be directed to the other body, because the other body chairs that conference. No call has been made. What we need to do for the rest of the afternoon is simple: vote ``no'' for 15 minutes, vote ``yes'' for 5 minutes, and we can beat the hurricane home.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should address the gentleman from Maryland's last point first. This is not about the date of enactment. Pick any date one wants. What normally happens is that if we now say something that was legitimate is no longer legitimate, we do it on what we say is a prospective basis. From now on, you are put on notice; you cannot do this any more. That is not what his amendment, or his substitute, says. What his substitute says is that it is applicable to taxable years beginning before, on, or after the date of enactment. It is not the date of enactment that we are concerned about; it is the fact that if this language is adopted in the substitute it means that when it does become effective, behavior that has already taken place, which was legitimate at the time that it took place, is now no longer allowed. That is called retroactive. As a matter of fact, if it were in the area of criminal law, it would be unconstitutional. But since it is in the area of civil law, it may be immoral, it may be unfair, it may be wrong, but the government can do that. I personally think in the area of tax law, we should never have a retroactive procedure. It is one of the primary reasons I voted against the 1986 tax bill. It had a number of retroactive provisions. How in the world are citizens supposed to trust the actions of government if when they conduct perhaps an irrevocable decision of a financial nature under the Tax Code, the time at which it was carried out was legal, several years later the Congress says it is no longer permissible, and we can go back and deal with it retroactively? How more fundamentally unfair can government be than that? That is what is in here. It is not over the date; it is over what happens when the date becomes effective. Prospectively, we can go to the substance of what the amendment contains, which is unacceptable, but the fact that it can reach back and deal negatively with behavior which was acceptable at the time that it was carried out on its face should be rejected. In addition to that, there is much discussion about how we need to make sure that these various lifesavers are available to the States in carrying out very useful and needed purposes dealing with those individuals who are in need. So if we are talking about lifesavers, the question is this: are we talking about lifesavers or are we talking about orange lifesavers, or perhaps cherry lifesavers, or perhaps lime lifesavers? I think we have to really visit what we have done in this year alone. In the tax bill, we have already passed at the insistence of the Senate a tax bill which contains $20 billion of gifts distributed to the States. Half of it, $10 billion, was to go to Medicaid. The other half, $10 billion, was totally flexible. It is available for social services block grants or any other services that States might want to use it for within their jurisdiction. They got $5 billion of it in July, they are getting another $5 billion this month. But in addition to that, earlier money that we had provided, almost $6 billion, is still unspent in Federal TANF money that is available for welfare, child care, other social services. And to make sure that it would be available and could be used, we did not limit ourselves to the modest percentage under the appropriations bill, we passed a welfare bill that said you get the full 10 percent. The welfare bill may hit rocky shoals in the Senate; we are providing it here again. Not a 4 percent, not a 5 percent, but a full 10 percent transfer capability. If, in fact, what we are now doing is not arguing that the States need lifesavers, they want a particular flavor of lifesaver; Members have to ask themselves is it really something that we need to do when there is more than enough money in the system, transferability is not a question; it is just that they want a particular flavor of lifesaver their way. And, if, in fact, they are going to fund it under a structure which reaches back and penalizes taxpayers when at the time they conducted the behavior it was legal, I would say, boy, that is overreaching, especially when the underlying bill, the key part that we are looking at, not welfare payments or social services block grants, but the charitable giving which is at the heart of the bill, is the same in both bills. The stuff they are adding is really beyond the narrow focus of what this bill is all about and that is charitable giving. So for all those reasons, I would urge Members, notwithstanding the appeals that are going to be made to tell you that there is more than enough money in the system, underscoring more than $6 billion in TANF money that still has not been spent by the States available to be transferred for the very purposes, they argue they want to force more money on the States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of the time, and I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be controlled by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the cosponsor of the underlying bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 370, I call up the bill (H.R. 7) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for charitable contributions by individuals and businesses, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman referring to the effective date on page 76 of his substitute?

Mr. THOMAS. I tell the gentleman that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) rose and said he would yield to me on his time. That tells you about the way they operate.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a public servant, a devoted family man, and a close friend. Clarence Medders was born in Mississippi on December 7, 1927. Clarence served in the Army Signal Corps and graduated from teaching school, beginning a lifelong pursuit to promote the education of young people. After moving to Bakersfield, California with his wife, Billie Jo, and their two children, Clarence worked for the Bakersfield City School District in various capacities for three decades. As a teacher, Clarence made sure his students received a quality education and understood the fundamentals. As a principal, Clarence was passionate about ensuring that his students were well-educated, and relentlessly worked with teachers, parents, and students to create an environment where his students could excel, both in the classroom and as young people. While Clarence received great recognition for his work, he did not measure his body of work by the accolades and awards he received; he measured it by the success of the students he taught, embraced, and advocated for. Clarence devoted himself to the lives of Bakersfield's youth, but he also found time to serve the community he so loved. He served as Bakersfield City Councilman, held a leadership role in the League of California Cities, and was elected Mayor of Bakersfield in 1989. As Chairman of the Kern County Republican Central Committee, Clarence also worked to raise awareness of local and national issues with the community and involved his peers and neighbors in politics. In these different capacities, Clarence served with integrity, a plain-spoken straight-shooter that counseled and led with the convictions and strength of his heart. The enthusiasm to serve others is a quality shared by Clarence's family. His wife Billie Jo has been on my staff for the length of my career in the House, and I have always been grateful to Clarence for sharing her with me and with the thousands she has helped. Bakersfield will miss this wonderful man who shared a rich legacy of accomplishment with his neighbors and students. More personally, I will miss Clarence. Clarence Medders was first and foremost a family man. He leaves behind his wife, his two loving daughters, Emily and Pam, and a large family that grieves an extraordinary loss. Today, Mr. Speaker, I join many of my neighbors in mourning the loss of a close friend, Clarence Medders. A patriotic American, he embodied our country's best ideals: love for family and a dedication to public service.