Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before 1996, welfare recipients were trapped, trapped in a welfare system for an average of 13 years. The welfare program actually discouraged work, amazingly enough, and caseloads climbed, peaking at 14 million individuals in 5 million families. In 1996, reform law turned the welfare program in the right direction, in the work direction. Recipients now are benefiting from increased work, education, training, larger incomes, reduced child poverty, and greater self-reliance, which probably is the most important benefit from the new program. Welfare caseloads are down more than 50 percent since that historic 1996, and the caseloads continue to decline even in a recession structure. Some of my colleagues might remember the dire predictions of reform opponents in 1996 who predicted that the law, in their words, would cast 1 million more children into poverty. I am glad to report they were wrong. Nearly 3 million children have been lifted from poverty since 1996 in key groups, such as children raised in single-mother households and African American children, who are seeing poverty fall to record-low levels. Now, obviously, we need to continue on these successes, and that is why H.R. 4 is before us today. Our priority is to help more people successfully transition to work in order to know the dignity of collecting a paycheck instead of a welfare check. Now, more than ever, work is the only permanent path out of poverty. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear a number of claims; and I would like to present one that I believe is incontrovertible, and that is if people remain on welfare, they will remain in poverty. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means; and I ask unanimous consent that he control the remainder of the time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I yield briefly to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if the term ``promptly'' is in a motion to recommit, you kill the CR. You do not help it. You do not nurture it. You do not defend positions that the Senate has placed in the appropriations. You kill it. If the gentleman had put ``forthwith,'' he would have been helping. I cannot believe, based upon the time and experience the gentleman from Wisconsin has had in this body, that he does not know that ``promptly'' kills it and ``forthwith'' helps it. That is the difference between ``I love you'' and ``I hate you.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman is absolutely correct. It not only kills the bill; it stops the government.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding the time. Well, here we go again. I heard the gentleman from Wisconsin say that he was opposed to the continuing resolution without the motion to recommit added to it. If you read the motion to recommit very carefully, it uses a word which, if that word is used and the motion to recommit passes, it will kill the continuing resolution. I know one word sometimes does not mean a lot. If you say ``I you'' and do not say ``love'' or ``hate,'' you really do not get the meaning of what you are trying to say. The word the gentleman from Wisconsin included in his motion to recommit is ``promptly.'' What in the world is the difference between ``promptly'' or, let us choose another word, ``forthwith''? The difference is the difference between ``I love you'' and ``I hate you.'' Why? Because if you include ``forthwith'' in the bill, it means it would be immediately changed as the gentleman says he wants, it is reported right back on the floor, and we go forward. If you include the word ``promptly,'' it kills the bill. So do not pay attention to anything that is said after the word ``promptly,'' because it does not mean anything. If you pass the motion to recommit with ``promptly'' in it, it kills the measure. Let us examine what he says he wants. He has picked two items out of the motion to recommit. There are more provisions, you can imagine the Senate could not limit itself to two provisions, that they would want to try to legislate on an appropriations bill. They also said, Let's help Home Health Services, $40 million. Let's put $492 million in for bioterrorism. Let's put $120 million in for community access. Those are not in here. So if you really want to help folks, they should have put everything in that the Senate did. The trouble is, it is all headed with ``promptly,'' which means it does not make any difference what you put in here. My friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, made an offer to my friend from Wisconsin about future motions to recommit. I will give you a flat-out promise. If you will change ``promptly'' to ``forthwith'' and if you will heed the advice of our friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and say, Let's have malpractice reform, and you put that in your motion to recommit, the House has passed it a number of times; the Senate will not. If we really wanted to make a difference, we would not stand up here with a motion that kills the bill and say, This is what we want. Let us get serious. Do we have to address problems in Medicare? Of course we do. Do we have to do something about the flawed physicians formula? Of course we do. Will we? Yes, we will. What we should not be doing is holding out a false promise of part of what the Senate wants to do under a motion to recommit, that if you believe the promise is real and vote for the motion to recommit, you in fact kill the continuing resolution.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMAS. Further on my point of order, Mr. Speaker, the reason I believe a 302(f) budget point of order lies against this measure is that it significantly exceeds in its amount the underlying bill. The legislation before us was not reported by any committee of the House; rather, it was passed by the Senate, and the Committee on Rules has presented it to us. So my point of order is not based on the fact that the underlying measure has a waiver from the Committee on Rules; it is that if the minority had offered an amendment equal to or less than the Senate position, it would have been in order and not subject to a point of order. Since it is significantly in excess of the Senate measure, it does in fact violate 302(f) of the Budget Act.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Might I make an argument on the point of order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, apparently we have come full circle. I opened this debate by saying I had the uncomfortable requirement of informing the House and hoped that it would be the last time that we did so, that I was presenting a bill passed by the Senate and that we would be compelled to have to pass the bill that was passed by the Senate. I did mention at that time that the Senate passed it unanimously. Notwithstanding the difficulties the other body has in coming together to pass legislation, when time is up, they were able to come together and agree that we needed to address a problem, and they passed this legislation. For my friends on the other side of the aisle to offer this motion to commit versus the previous one, and the reason I said you did not need to read any further is all you have to do is look at the first paragraph that said the House should report it forthwith. That, in fact, means it comes immediately back and it could go to the Senate. They changed the word ``forthwith'' to ``promptly.'' That means it has to go to committee. And for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, members of the Committee on Ways and Means say all we have to do is get the Committee on Ways and Means together so we can go ahead and hold a meeting, I have to tell you, who are your appointees to the Committee on Ways and Means? The Committee on Ways and Means has not been constituted. We do not have a functioning committee. And yet they say blithely all we have to do is come together. I cannot imagine the mental set that says notwithstanding the Senate came together in time of need and worked cooperatively that even at 11:30 to midnight my friends on the other side of the aisle are offering motions to commit which will kill this provision. This provision allows for those December 28 folks to continue their benefits. In fact, it allows for almost 4 million to continue to receive benefits, an additional 2 million under the time extension, for a total of 6 million Americans to receive their unemployment benefits. If the motion to commit passes, it effectively kills the measure. The Senate's attempt to unify and put politics aside will have been destroyed by my colleagues' willingness to even today play politics. In December, the House passed a short-term extension, only 5 weeks. We were criticized for making it only 5 weeks. Why? Because we wanted to address the question when we came back. My friend from Maryland says we ought to address this promptly. You voted against the measure that would have required us to address it promptly. The Senate failed to pass it. So we are in a position of having the President sign a bill tomorrow or not sign a bill tomorrow. If you vote ``yes'' for the motion to commit, there will be no bill signed tomorrow and people will really lose the unemployment benefits that they have earned, those people that you apparently shed crocodile tears over. If you vote against the motion to commit and for passage of the measure, we will pick up those folks who inadvertently were dropped on December 28; and 6 million people will continue to receive benefits and hopefully we will pass legislation which will in fact spur the economy and provide them with a job instead of unemployment insurance. And I am quite sure my colleagues will be opposed to the proposals to stimulate the economy as well. So those will be future battles. Today the line is drawn very simply. Vote for the motion to commit and kill the opportunity to help people get their well-deserved unemployment. Vote against the motion to commit, vote for the underlying bill, and the President can have a bill-signing ceremony tomorrow, and we can do what we should have done back in December. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a point of order.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I object and make the point of order because this motion, if passed, would cause the allocation to the Committee on Ways and Means to be further exceeded in the first year and over the 5- year period governed by the budget resolution currently deemed in force. The motion therefore violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, and I make a point of order that it violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind Members why we are here today. We are here today to vote on an unemployment assistance bill because the House, in trying to respond to the needs of the unemployed, passed legislation last December. The Senate, in attempting to respond to the needs of the unemployed, passed legislation last December. As we all know, constitutionally for it to go to the President, if the Senate passes legislation different than the House, and similarly if the House passes legislation different than the Senate, the differences in those bills need to be reconciled. They were not reconciled. The last Congress adjourned without addressing unemployment needs with the understanding that some individuals, through no fault of their own, notwithstanding the fact that they had not received the full benefits entitled to them, would lose unemployment benefits on December 28. That is still technically the case. They have not yet lost those benefits, but if the President does not have a bill to sign by tomorrow, that technicality will in fact be a reality. We are here today because the Senate modified the proposal that they had passed in the last Congress and they sent it to us yesterday by unanimous consent. Mr. Speaker, I imagine there are as many different ways to structure unemployment benefits as there are Members of the House; and if we are to debate the different ways in which it can be constructed and if we are to offer votes to try to produce a different result than the Senate, then it is inevitable that what we are trying to avoid will in fact occur. I, as a Member of this body, do not like being put in the position of making a statement of this type. We are compelled to pass the unemployment provision as it was structured by the Senate because if we do not the President will not have a bill tomorrow. I had visited with the leadership of the Senate and talked to them about offering amendments so we could really target unemployment to where it is most needed, give those most in need more benefits. They indicated while they may be sympathetic with that view, there was no way given the structure of the Senate's membership and the rules of Senate that that could be done in a day. What we were able to do was to extend the period that the Senate had passed so instead of getting into this discussion in March, once again we are extending for 5 months the unemployment benefits to May with a phase-out through August. That means that we are going to see a continuation of assistance to the unemployed. It means that the President's commitment to make sure that those who would have lost their benefits on December 28 does not happen, and it means that there are going to be 1.9 million new recipients and 800,000 current recipients that will receive unemployment benefits at a cost of up to $7.2 billion when the House votes on this measure. We are going to hear people say we could have, would have, should have, and the argument is that they are being denied rights because they cannot offer alternatives. If we do not pass this measure, people will lose their unemployment benefits. That should not happen. Mr. Speaker, I hope I do not take the floor again in this session of the 108th Congress and say we have to do what the Senate has given us. I only hope we do that because we want to do it. I believe this is the right thing to do. More importantly, it is absolutely essential that we do it and that we do it today rather than argue that somebody is trying to withhold these unemployment benefits from these individuals. All we have to do is say yes, the President will sign, and the unemployment benefits will be available. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) to control the time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to considering the motion as having been read, but I object to the motion to commit on the basis of its violation of the Budget Act.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 14, I call up the Senate bill (S. 23) to provide for a 5-month extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 and for a transition period for individuals receiving compensation when the program under such Act ends, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that that is the technical effect. However, had the minority offered an amendment which was in the----

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 609, I call up the bill (H.R. 5063) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for members of the uniformed services in determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal residence and to restore the tax exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the uniformed services and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman's argument that we are giving someone 5 weeks. That is like saying we picked up a hitchhiker on the West Coast and drove him within three blocks of the Statue of Liberty and he is complaining because we did not drop him right at the door. As a matter of fact, we did not wait until he finished his business and then took him back to California. Because the facts are, and the gentleman is from Washington State so let us use Washington State, there are people in Washington State who have received more than 1 year of unemployment benefits. They have received 26 weeks, an additional 26 weeks, and the 5 weeks the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) was talking about was part of, on top of all of those months, an additional 13 weeks which was a 50/50 match between the State and the Federal Government. And of course States have their own programs in which they can continue to extend it. So for the gentleman to take the time to create the impression that all we are doing is 5 weeks is to say that at the very least that is 5 weeks on top of 26 weeks, on top of 26 weeks, on top of an additional 7. So when you really look at it in terms of the way in which the benefits have been provided, a short way of saying it is there are people who have received unemployment benefits for better than a year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, on the unemployment, as the gentleman well knows, there is a cliff that is going to occur because of the expiration of the unemployment provisions on December 28. We have had debates about how long it should be and in what form it should be. This at least provides those who are getting the unemployment, who are expecting their 13 weeks, to be able to get the 13 weeks.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is no guarantee that the administration will do anything. The difficulty in trying to move at this time those kinds of things that we call provider packages is that what is an appropriate provider package is in the eye of the beholder; and in trying to negotiate what it is that we are going to do, it is simply an impossibility. What we are aware of is that in one particular approach, which is the physician reimbursement structure, plugged numbers were put in for 1998 and 1999. They do not accurately reflect the number of cases that physicians were involved with. It is possible that the administration would change those numbers. There is no guarantee that they would change the numbers, but they are concerned that if they did go in and put actual numbers in place of plugged numbers, someone may entertain a suit to go back into the 1990s or the 1980s and say this number was not an actual number, and we want to sue you to make that change. So all this provision does is provide legal protection, that if the administration does decide to make an adjustment, that is, use real- world numbers now known rather than the plugged numbers, they would not be subject to lawsuits if they did not make additional changes. Now, that means that all we are doing is creating an opportunity for the administration to make a decision if they so choose to do so. That does not mean that this in any way adequately addresses the needs of many other providers. But there is no other provider group that the administration could make adjustments from plugged numbers to real numbers, as in this particular case. It requires the investment of money to be addressed to those various groups, be they hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health care or others. This is not about providing money to fix one group's problem versus another; it is to create an atmosphere in which, if the administration chooses to do so, they would be able to do so, and the cost would then be borne by the administration, not by the legislative branch. When we come back then at the beginning of the next Congress, we would address, as we normally do, those provider groups for which we would have to provide the finances to assist them. So all this does is put in place a legal protection, so that if the administration does choose to adjust those numbers, they would not be required through any kind of a court case to adjust any other number.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it sounds to me the gentleman is offering the classic argument of because it is not perfect, it should be opposed. It seems to me that if there is an ability to correct a mistake and that the administration simply wants legal protection to correct that mistake, that we ought to be able to do that. If the gentleman says others are not being provided for adequately, I would be the first to agree with the gentleman; and that is the first order of business. But no one else can be taken care of unless we go through those weeks and months of negotiations of what a package should look like. So I would simply say, in returning my time to the gentleman who was kind enough to yield it to me, if in fact using real-world numbers and providing the administration some legal protection from being sued because they did not do something else other than putting in real-world numbers is going to be something that someone opposes, it is amazing the point that we have come to. If others could be resolved this way, we would be doing others. Just because this particular problem could be resolved and others cannot does not mean that one should be in opposition to resolving this particular problem. We will deal with the others when it is timely and appropriate, because we will have to negotiate and put dollars on the table to solve other providers' problems. This is one in which the administration is merely asking for legal protection, and I think we ought to provide it.

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