Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I take the floor as Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means because the Joint Committee on Taxation is a bipartisan, nonpartisan research structure that is shared by both the House and the Senate. Some misstatements of fact have been made and I want to put it in its proper context. If anyone does not think this is not a pure partisan political contest, they did not hear the gentleman from Virginia. They have decided this now is an issue that they can ride, and of all the people to make the statement is the gentleman from Virginia. The chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation is the United States Senator from Montana, the Democrat, Senator Baucus. The request that was made to release this statement cannot be a former Member of Congress; it has to be a current Member of Congress. That request was made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). It has been said that the report has been completed. That simply is not true. How in the world could a report about ex-patriots started several years ago not be completed? The answer, very simple. The primary reason people give up their citizenship is not to pay taxes, but, more importantly, not to pay estate or death taxes. Somebody may have noticed last year, the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate changed the estate or death taxes. That is now the law of the land, a fundamentally different way that we are taxing death or estates. The committee had to go back and reevaluate the question of who was and who was not going to leave based upon a change in the law. It is the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the underlying tax structure changed, so they are not going to release a document based upon old law; they are going to offer a document on new law, and it is just about here. So the statements saying it is finished are flat out not true. A Democrat asked for it, a Democrat is the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, and is it not ironic that it is Democrats who are going to punish nonpartisan, bipartisan professionals who they argue they are supportive of in terms of working conditions and requirements by cutting their money. Now, if my colleagues understand it is politics, they understand what this amendment is all about. Ironically, it was the gentleman from Virginia who offered the motion that was declared out of order, passed by a voice vote of the Committee on Appropriations, so the Committee on Appropriations knew what it was doing. It was violating the Rules of the House in its own measure, and now we are forcing him to offer an amendment and exposing the political nature of the amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, it is a fact that the report is not completed. The argument that it is completed is simply not so because of the change in the tax law. But if someone wants to look at what is going on, we would assume the proper approach would be to ask the people who are involved. The current chairman is the chairman of the Finance Committee, Max Baucus, I would tell my colleague from California, but I am quite sure that we can work it out if somebody really wants to look at the report rather than making some kind of a partisan gesture.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has an excellent idea, and I think, in fact, if the goal is to get to the bottom of where the committee is and where it is not, that would solve the problem, but to cut the money of these hard-working professionals is not the answer.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I apologize for attempting to create a partisan approach to dealing with a very real problem. I think all of us are intending to make a good bill better. But one of the things we have to be cautious about is in examining the Senate bill which has been brought over is to be reminded that article I, section 7 of the Constitution says, ``All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.'' Referring back to the opening of the 102nd Congress in which the Congressional Record reflected, and I will have this made a part of the Record at the appropriate time, ``jurisdictional concepts related to clause 5(b) of rule XXI.'' This is an attempt to create a systematic approach: ``In order to provide guidance concerning the referral of bills to assist committees in staying within their appropriate jurisdictions under rule X, to assist committees without jurisdiction overtax or revenue measures, it should be emphasized that the constitutional prerogative of the House to originate revenue measures will continue to be viewed broadly to include any meaningful revenue proposal that the Senate may attempt to originate.'' I would tell the gentleman in reviewing the Sarbanes bill, especially in terms of the scope of the board under section 108 on page 61 and the requirement that the fees be raised necessary to meet the needs of the board, when we take those two provisions along with several others, there is no narrowly defined board which would produce narrowly defined fees which could meet the test of fees. When we have a broadly based, loosely determined jurisdiction of a board and a commitment that mandatory fees cover all of those activities, we begin to slip into the area Speaker Foley rightly referred to as broadly to include any revenue proposals. The constitutional and institutional prerogative of the House I would hope everyone would want to maintain. We do not want to delay producing this product, given the commitment of the chairman on a very tight time line. We just want to make note of the fact that we believe there is a possibility of this violation. As this bill goes to committee, I understand that the Committee on Ways and Means will be conferees. We will work with everyone to make sure that the fees that are called fees in the Senate truly are fees that do not violate the revenue provision and/or we will work together to produce a product which the House participates in, protecting our constitutional prerogative to generate revenue. The goal is not to stop progress, but to make sure that it is done correctly.

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

Mr. THOMAS. He has not dropped the gavel, so I assume there is still time on your time.

Mr. THOMAS. So the gentleman voluntarily removes the time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I was not interested in yielding to ask the gentleman a question but merely to clarify that the gentleman is adept at putting words in people's mouths. I did not say that I was going to blue-slip it. At no time did I say I was going to blue-slip it. The determination was whether or not it was blue-slippable, and those are two entirely different things, in an attempt to create an appearance that we were slowing the process down. All I wanted to do was make sure that constitutionally and institutionally we did it correctly. I would assume that would be in the interest of all Members of the House, in fact, anyone who raised their hands and swore to uphold the Constitution. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a friend and fellow public servant from my Congressional district, Kern County Supervisor Ken Peterson. Ken was committed to his family, his faith, and his community. Becky, his wife, their eight children and three grandchildren, were Ken's inspiration, support structure and compass. They knew well Ken's motto, ``working quietly and effectively.'' It exemplified the life he led. The Petersons moved to Bakersfield in the 1970s from Orange County, California. Before dedicating his career to serving his community in public office, he owned and operated a local family business, contributing to the growth and development of the area. In the process, gaining a better understanding of the needs of the people he would later serve. In 1992, Ken was elected to the Kern County Board of Supervisors and was re-elected to subsequent terms in 1996 and 2000. Previously, Ken served as a member of the Bakersfield City Council, including 2 years as Vice-Mayor. He served as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in 1995 and 2000 and ably represented Kern County before the United States Senate and House Subcommittees, testifying on the issue of Endangered Species Act Reform. Ken and I worked together on a number of issues over the years: hospital funding, oil and energy production, land use, private property rights, along with other local concerns of the people who live and work in Bakersfield and Kern County. A strong advocate for local control and personal responsibility, Ken believed in welfare reform that empowers individuals so that they could take control of their lives. He was also committed to making government more business friendly. He was an ardent protector of free speech and a defender of the Boy Scouts of America. An avid outdoorsman, he enjoyed golf, hunting, hiking and camping with his family. Ken Peterson was an original. I was honored to know him and work with him. Ken will be missed.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. As women enter their senior years, in terms of the problems they have with osteoporosis, do we include in this bill additional money to assist in mammography?

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

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, at some point, somebody needs to talk about reality. What we have heard from the other side of the aisle is that they want to operate under democracy, that democracy does not operate here. There is a difference between democracy and chaos. Democracy means majority rules, but it also means rights of the minority. What are some of those rights? The rights are the minority gets to participate if they play by the rules. What are the rules? That under the budget, and they want democracy, under the budget they have the right to offer a plan which costs no more than the amount the budget provides: $350 billion. What they presented was a plan that costs $974 billion. Guess what? They do not play by the rules; they do not get to offer their substitute. What they want to do is do whatever they want to do without following the rules. That is not democracy. Secondly, what I heard from the gentleman from Florida while we were arguing the rules was, our bill does not do a pay-back to the providers. What does that mean? They are going to spend $1 trillion, and they do not take any of it to address the fact that our physicians serving seniors have a payment system that is broken. Why is it broken? Because it is not automatic. If it were automatic, it would adjust to the market. Instead, it is an arbitrary, fixed price. But they do not even want to fix that in their bill. Now, we have also heard several times, the latest argument was that we are in the pocket of somebody; that Republicans can only write a bill if they are in the pocket of somebody. Oftentimes we have heard that we are in the pocket of the pharmaceutical manufacturers. Mr. Speaker, let me explain what is in this bill. The Democrats put into effect a payment called ``best price.'' Whenever someone says, we are going to give you the best price, you had better beware. What is ``best price''? It is an arbitrary, bureaucratic, green eye shade determination of a floor of what we are going to pay. When the Democrats ran this place and when the Democrats wrote legislation, they put in best price. Do Members know what we suggest? In this bill, we get rid of best price. What in the world would we pay if we got rid of best price? Guess what. Do Members know that in that pocket of the pharmaceutical manufacturers that we are in there is going to be a whole lot more room for us, because the pharmaceutical manufacturers get taken out of their bottom line $18 billion in this bill. They are denied $18 billion by going from best price. They have to help us solve this problem by the tune of $18 billion, because instead of best price, guess what we ask them to do? We ask them to compete. We have all kinds of laws to produce pure drugs. Who will give it to us at the cheapest price? A modest competition produces a savings of $18 billion applied to the benefits to seniors paid for by pharmaceutical manufacturers. They have nothing in their bill. They have rhetoric. They have hot air. We have $18 billion paid out of the pockets of the pharmaceutical manufacturers to help seniors.

Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns. We have moved in the direction. There are still some concerns, and I assure him that, as we move forward in Congress, we will address the concerns of pharmacists.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman from Missouri mentioned several times 1965; 1965 was 10 years before a Member of this Congress was born, Adam Putnam. For more than 30 of those 37 years, you were in the majority. You never put prescription drugs in Medicare. You had your chance. You never did. And your argument is that you have now in front of us a plan. The gentleman from Missouri read a definition from Webster's. What my mother would have said, you should have washed your mouth out, because for you to cite the definition of fraud and call it trickery is for everyone to understand what this motion to recommit really is. It is a little word called ``forthwith.'' If this motion had said Mr. Gephardt moves to recommit the bill forthwith, it would not have been fraud, and it would not have been trickery. But because that little word is missing and it requires it to be reported promptly, the effect of this motion to recommit is to kill this bill. All of the statements that the gentleman from Missouri made in the well were simply trickery, it was a fraud, because this bill cannot come back and be made law. You are wasting the House's time. Obviously, some of you do not understand the rules under which this House operates. Mr. Speaker, had they had the guts to put ``forthwith'' in this motion to recommit, this bill would have come back to the floor, and we could have debated it. You did not put ``forthwith'' in it. Your motion to recommit is a motion to kill the bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the parade on the other side of the aisle which repeated the mantra that it was a sham bill, cruel hoax, harmful to women and the disabled, in case anybody really thinks that is true, I am wondering why then when we look at the more than 90 organizations that support this bill, have names such as the Visiting Nurses Association, the Pennsylvania Women's Health Alliance, the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, the National Coalition for Women With Heart Disease, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Pennsylvania, American Parkinson's Association of Vermont, the Epilepsy Foundation of Mississippi, having someone parade to the microphone and repeat some mantra, as though it was some kind of a fixed statement that meant anything really does embarrass me, when if we look at the organizations and more that I just repeated who every day help the people that my colleagues say are not helped are for this bill. Someone is wrong, and it is not them.

Mr. THOMAS. Is it not true that during their working lives men very often have physicals? In fact, it is oftentimes part of their professional occupation to get a physical periodically, and many times women who are not working do not get that physical?

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

Mr. THOMAS. Actually, nobody deserves to be heard on this motion to recommit. It is 119 pages of nothing. The way you constructed it, knowingly and on purpose, was to pull a charade on seniors. Nothing in this bill will be available to seniors because you did not put a little word in there, a word that would have proved honesty, a word that would have proved courage, a word that would have let seniors know----

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

Mr. THOMAS. Is it not true in this bill that, for the first time, every senior who becomes Medicare eligible, that means every woman, gets a free physical?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. They wanted to know where is the debate? I am trying to figure out what it is that I am supposed to debate. The gentleman from Michigan comes on the floor and says Democrats will vote to increase the debt limit. The measure in front of us is to increase the debt limit. But the gentleman then said he asked his colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution. Which position are you supposed to debate? Yes or no? I find it interesting that if they knew last year prior to September 11 that we were going to have all of those problems associated with the tragedy around the 11th and the consequent commitment by this President to carry the war to the terrorists and they were prescient enough to know that the country was going to face that situation, gee, I wish they would have let us know that was going to happen. We could have taken some procedures and some steps that would have certainly been far more humane than what occurred. I find that people who are more than willing to use hindsight as the reason for taking a position rather interesting when shortly they will also urge their colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Medicare package. Only this time their argument is going to be that we do not spend enough. We are only going to spend $350 billion. The beauty of the Democrats' ability to debate is they are masters at compartmentalizing. Right now it is, ``You spendthrifts, we have to raise the debt limit.'' Several hours from now it will be, ``You cheapskates, you are not willing to spend enough to help the seniors.'' And they say, why are you not willing to debate? I am trying to figure out which Democrat I am supposed to debate. The one that is complaining the Republicans are spendthrifts and we have to raise the debt limit? Or the one who is saying, you are cheapskates, you are not willing to spend enough, $800 billion, to help seniors. I guess the problem I have is that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) in characterizing a Member several days ago puts me in exactly that dilemma. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time and yield the control of the time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 462, I call up Senate bill (S. 2578) to amend title 31 of the United States Code to increase the public debt limit, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, more than a month ago, this House passed H.R. 4775 by a vote of 280-138, a clear bipartisan majority. That bill created the ability to address the debt limit. For over a month, the Senate has not responded to addressing the debt limit. However, recently the Senate sent to the House S. 2578, a bill to raise the debt limit. Debt-limit bills usually originate in the House. In fact, the last time this situation faced the House was in 1946. In 1946, the Senate sent the House a debt ceiling bill. On the floor of the House then-majority leader John McCormick referred that bill to the Committee on the Judiciary. The House did not consider the attempt by the Senate to initiate debt-limit legislation. So today, in the act of considering a Senate-initiated debt-limit bill, we are in a situation which, based upon the data provided to me by the Parliamentarians, could be considered to be an unprecedented situation. But given the circumstances surrounding the way in which we are required to take this bill up, it should not be considered a precedent because for over a month we could have been engaging in the historical usual pattern of addressing debt limit. It is quite true that that measure that was presented to the House in 1946 was a Senate bill to lower the debt limit, not to raise it. That is why the House, in attempting to preserve its prerogative, felt comfortable in referring the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary from which it never surfaced. But a bill to lower the debt limit, as Members appreciate, does not contain within it the need to act, as does a bill that increases the debt limit. The failure of the Senate to act on the invitation to address the debt limit by the House means that the Senate has successfully run down the clock by which we could utilize the House initiation of addressing the debt limit. So as far as the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is concerned, the measure before us should not be considered a change in the historic relationship between the House and the Senate over the origination of debt-limit legislation; but, rather the action taken today is a one-time acknowledgment of the exigencies of the circumstances facing the House. We are dealing with this purely to facilitate the movement of this bill to the President's desk, and it should not be interpreted as a precedent-changing situation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am trying to understand how the Committee on Ways and Means is losing jurisdiction when the chairman of the committee and the ranking member are debating a bill brought to us by a rule which allows no amendments, exactly the way in which legislation coming from the Committee on Ways and Means is always dealt with. I think if you have really followed this debate over time, you will understand the dynamics of the debate. If we do not do it, we get criticized. If we do do it, we get criticized. If in fact the measure before us, which originated in the Senate and is the work product of the Senate leadership and the gentleman from New York finds the Senate's language and structure unacceptable, then his problem is with the leadership of the Senate, not of the leadership of this House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.