Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Once again we have heard those words ``we eliminate alternative minimum tax.'' They just cannot get over it. It is not true and no matter how many times they say it, it will not be true. If the gentleman wants his promise kept, all he has to do is go back and read the trade adjustment assistance tax. What we did, this House passed over to the Senate a provision that said that if someone lost their job based upon September 11, they would be elevated for benefits as though it was related to trade. That promise was kept. It is a problem that Members have such short memories and it does not fit your political agenda. People who lost their jobs because of September 11 have been taken care of in a House-passed bill and the Senate has not done a dang thing about it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a very valued member of the committee, the author of the New York Liberty Bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, so the truth is not the criteria for determining that you cannot make the statements that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) made?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. That ruling is one that is made regardless of whether or not the statements made are factual; is that correct?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, could I request a determination of the time remaining, please.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, is he making a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof). (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader of the House of Representatives.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. It is amazing how swiftly someone can place blame. If, in fact, we did what the gentleman said, there would be no health insurance for displaced workers, no New York assistance, no low-income help, no small business help. It is interesting we are to blame when in December we sent the Senate unemployment and only now it is coming back. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It was not too long ago that we all gathered on the floor of the House and listened to President Bush on his State of the Union message. It was a remarkable speech because it was interrupted by a number of standing applauses for the statements that the President made. One of those that I listened carefully to was one that elicited a significant amount of response. It was when he talked about his economic recovery program. He said, ``I can explain it in one word: jobs.'' When we talk about economic recovery, we have got to talk about the job-creating machines in this country called business. What we have in front of us today, Mr. Speaker, is an economic security and worker assistance act. Because frankly, during this recession, with the complications added by September 11, the fact is that we do not have enough jobs and we have people without jobs. We are going to hear a discussion on the floor today about the fact that we should simply allow the Senate to do our thinking for us; that whatever is the common denominator that can get out of the Senate should be what it is that we accept over here in the House. I think one of the things that we have to focus on is the fact that the President indicated, given his program, there will be a year or two in which the budget is not in balance; but in following his program, we will return to surpluses. There is a fairly easy explanation for those who do not get it. It goes something like this: if people do not have jobs, they do not pay much in taxes. The government gets its revenue from taxes, and then we get less in than we anticipated. We went from a surplus; we are moving to a deficit. If we have a program which creates jobs, people then are paying taxes, the government's revenue goes up, and we move from a deficit to a surplus. And what we have in front of us is a program to create more jobs. It helps those who are in need. It assists in consumer demand; $13.7 billion, as the President has outlined available for those individuals at the lower end of the economic spectrum. No one believes that they will not consume that money provided to them. That alone provides a modest economic stimulus. We talked about a very popular provision which is included in this package encouraging businesses to buy equipment now and not tomorrow. It is called the 30 percent expensing, and it encourages decisions that may be made later to be made today, so that the economic effect occurs now and not later. That is a pretty good definition of a stimulus. But it does more than that. When workers are unemployed, oftentimes they lose their health insurance benefits. This package addresses those who are unemployed by saying, we want to end the political football of unemployment insurance between the House and the Senate. If this becomes law, the tug of war is over, because we have provided the innovative structure which says the President's new trigger for assistance, not the statutory 5 percent unemployment rate in States, but the President's suggested 4 percent trigger should be utilized as a determiner of whether or not a State gets 13 weeks additional unemployment assistance. Every State would get the first 13 weeks. But if this becomes law, the trigger would determine whether a State would get an additional 13 weeks of assistance, based upon its unemployment rate; and then, after that 13 weeks, if the State still had high unemployment, it would trigger an additional 13 weeks and so on. We could resolve the unemployment issue for the rest of calendar year 2002 by moving this legislation. In addition to that, I hope people have not forgotten the commitment to assist the City of New York. They took it on the chin for all Americans. In this bill is the ``liberty provision'' to assist in the rebuilding of downtown Manhattan. That is a promise that we made. This bill will be a promise that we deliver. It seems to me that when someone decides that someone else ought to do the thinking for us, we have given up on trying to be creative and responsive. This bill is different than the one that we sent to the Senate in October; it is different than the one that we sent the Senate in December. It is different in positive ways. It helps more people, more meaningfully, and it ought to be passed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I always enjoy my colleague's description of legislation. It is difficult to recognize it when he finishes. I find interesting the fact that we are now reduced to simply saying that 13 weeks of unemployment insurance is the proper response to a Nation in need, not just those who are currently finding themselves, through no fault of their own, unemployed, but a business sector that does create jobs looking for help. What the gentleman from New York did not tell us was that there are provisions in this bill to provide $13.7 billion to people who do not pay income taxes and perhaps not even payroll taxes. This was a help as a stimulus to individuals who will clearly consume every dollar that they have been provided. The President supported this; we support it. It seems now our friends on the other side of the aisle have decided that is not necessarily a good idea. Oh, it may be a good idea, but it is not worth fighting for. The Senate has defined what it is that we can do. Unemployment insurance is all that we can do. Well, I will tell my colleagues, on this side of the aisle we find that unacceptable. We provide unemployment insurance in this package in a way in which where, when States have more than 4 percent of unemployment, they do not just get the 13 weeks that the gentleman from New York is pleading for; they get 13 weeks after 13 weeks after 13 weeks, that is, a continued renewed 13 weeks if the State continues to have high unemployment. In other words, it takes unemployment insurance out of the political football category. We sent unemployment payments to the Senate in October of last year. We are now receiving their response in February. Who is at fault? We are. We can devise a system that takes unemployment insurance out of the political football business. If this is to become law, then a State in need for the rest of calendar year 2002 will automatically trigger the ability to receive 100 percent-funded Federal unemployment benefits. But it seems to me also that the gentleman from New York failed to mention that we have what is called the ``liberty zone package'' here. The people from New York took a hit for all Americans. In this is a provision to help rebuild Lower Manhattan. I guess because the Senate said they did not want to do it, we should set that aside. What we are really hearing from the other side is that what we ought to do is the lowest common denominator. That is not acceptable. Business needs some help, low-income individuals need some help. Those who are unemployed need some help. This package does it. Why do we not, instead of talking about how little we can do, look at this package as the appropriate response and tell the Senate what the Senate did was not good enough.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge that a conference on patient protection legislation be called immediately. The House passed this bill last year and the delay in its enactment is impacting people in my state and beneficiaries in my district. In particular, a recent unfortunate event in California only illustrates the need for timely action on patients' bill of rights legislation, particularly my amendment on association health plans (AHPs). For several years, Sunkist, the world-renowned citrus and agriculture grower, contracted for a health benefit plan for its growers and workers. The SGP Benefit Plan, a multiple employer welfare arrangement, was regulated under California insurance law, which had some provisions for cash reserves and other protections. Late last year, the SGP Benefit Plan collapsed and filed for bankruptcy. As a result more than 23,000 participants, including 4,000 Kern and Tulare county beneficiaries, were left without direct health coverage. This interruption of care troubles me, especially since timely passage of the House patient protection bill, supported by President Bush and bipartisan House Members, could have prevented the situation these families are facing today. Under the House bill, these multiple employer welfare arrangements would be classified as AHPs and be subject to strict solvency standards, including requirements that AHPs have an indemnified back-up plan to prevent unpaid claims in the event of a plan termination, quarterly procedures to demonstrate financial health, and surplus reserve requirements that are on par or greater than similar state law. Along with requiring higher standards for multiple employer welfare arrangements and other similar employer pool arrangements, the added benefit of my AHP legislation is that it could increase access to health care by reducing burdens and costs employer groups face from multiplicitous and divergent state mandates. Since AHPs would help small businesses work together to purchase health care for their employees and families, according to one study of this legislation, AHPs could reduce the number of uninsured Americans by an estimated 8.5 million people. This is especially timely, since the recent recession and terrorist attacks have affected national employment, thus having an effect on the health care of Americans who depend on employer-sponsored coverage. In the 21st District of California that I represent, the unemployment rates in Kern and Tulare Counties recently hit 11 percent and 16 percent, respectively. With the District's dependence on agriculture, oil, dairy, and other small business, the potential for AHPs to help provide access or improve health are to my constituents and the self- employed is great. Sunkist's recent announcement, the rise in the number of uninsured, and the fact that patients, physicians, and other providers have waited too long for reforms are all compelling reasons why patient protection legislation must be enacted soon. Because the House legislation includes many common-sense improvements in patient access, coverage, and liability, along with the important AHP and medical savings accounts provisions, I urge that a conference on this bill be called immediately.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I could not be in both Bakersfield and Washington, DC on January 23, and January 24. I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 2234, and S. 1762.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the administrative simplification provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 will improve administrative efficiencies in the health care market by facilitating electronic transactions between covered entities-- health plans, clearing houses and health care providers. Indeed, the Department of Health and Human Services estimated that administrative simplification will save $29.9 billion over 10 years as a result of increased efficiencies. Many covered entities believed coming into compliance with the October 16, 2002 deadline set by the regulations implementing the transactions and code set standards required by HIPAA was an insurmountable hurdle. As such, they argued that a one-year delay in implementing the standards was necessary. The Committee was concerned, however, that a one-year delay in the implementation of these standards had the potential to result in an indefinite delay, as advocates for the status quo would present more excuses next year in asking for an additional extension, which could lead to indefinite extensions. The Committee also believes entities should undertake actions to prepare to come into compliance. However, a number of covered entities presented legitimate reasons why they could not come into compliance by the October 2002 deadline, and the Committee determined legislative action was necessary.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 295, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 4 p.m. on Friday, December 21, 2001, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its passage without amendment of House Joint Resolution 79, in which case the House shall stand adjourned sine die pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 295.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do want to note that the final act of the Senate in this year of 2001 and the final act of the House in this year of 2001 was in fact a very feeble gesture to those victims of terrorism that fundamentally changed our lives on September 11. And notwithstanding the difficulties of a democratic government, in which decisions are made quantitatively, as we close for this holiday season, the House and the Senate want this to be a gesture, small though it may be, to the victims of September 11. Finally, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the Members of the House of Representatives, I wish to extend to the constitutional head of the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and his family, a very merry holiday, happy Christmas, and a good new year.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2884) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief for victims of the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, with a Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 320, I call up the bill (H.R. 3529) to provide tax incentives for economic recovery and assistance to displaced workers, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we said on October 24, that was the bill that started the process. If anyone wants to look at any of the other pages in the bill, they will find out that on the health provision, there was $3 billion provided, and on unemployment, there was 9.2. That bill had $12.2 billion directed toward the unemployed and health insurance for them. In the bill we have in front of us tonight, thanks to the President Bush health insurance credit, there is $18.2 billion for health, and there is $19 billion for unemployment, for a total of $37.2 billion. One may wave one page, but the unemployed and those who are looking for health insurance think a $25 billion difference is real money. If the House and the Senate do not act on this before we leave for our break, all the one-page waving in the world will not help them out. This bill will provide $37.2 billion. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a member of the committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to tell the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) that a no vote on this would deny her fellow Ohioans $406 million additional on just the $9 billion in this program for unemployment insurance, and the decision is hers. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. THOMAS. To understand the import of that dialogue, if someone on the floor now was to indicate that the Senate has not passed a bill, that would be in violation of the rule; is that correct?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the last time we addressed a piece of legislation that was designed to help us stimulate the economy, as requested by the President, as Alan Greenspan had indicated, this economy needed some help, and that perhaps by making some decisions in the tax and business area we could assist the recovery. Equally important, those people who lost their jobs, and, as we have come to realize now more and more associated with the loss of job is the loss of health insurance, that that had to be part of the package as well. We started, as we normally do in the legislative process, by passing a bill out of the House of Representatives. What then normally happens is the Senate of the United States passes a piece of legislation, and, if it is different in the House and the Senate, we go to a conference. The conference then works out the difference between the two bills. The House did its job. On October 24 we started the process by passing our Stimulus and Recovery Act. The Senate did not do its job. The Senate did not pass a bill. But all of us, trying to stimulate this economy and help those who, through no fault of their own, are not now employed or do not have either the wherewithal or the opportunity to provide their families with health insurance, we decided to try to move under a leadership umbrella. Notwithstanding the Senate's inability to move legislation to get us into a regular conference, we reached out and tried to create a leadership conference that would try to operate under the same rules so that we could address the very real need to help stimulate the economy and answer those distressed workers. We have worked long and hard, and I do have to say on the floor that the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee on the other side worked diligently. I believe he was required to follow rules of engagement which made it very difficult to come together. His staff worked long hours. We tried to be as creative as we could under the restrictions placed on us, and we did not ultimately succeed in producing a document that looked like a conference between the House-passed bill and the pieces of legislation that were brought from the Senate. For example, the Senate finance-passed bill, which passed by an 11 to 10 vote, was one of the vehicles that we looked at. Notwithstanding that, those discussions, nevertheless, bore fruit, and the legislation that you have before you tonight, and we will talk about it in particular areas, has major modifications as though a conference took place. So the House started by passing legislation, and tonight we reach the culmination of what amounts to the result of a conference, notwithstanding the fact that the Senate has not passed any legislation in this area. As we discuss the pieces of the bill, I do hope Members will focus on how much the legislation changed between October 24 and today. That is what normally happens when the House and the Senate get together. The package represented here tonight in the legislation before you is a significantly different package than what we presented on October 24, and our job will be to enlighten both the Members and the American public about how the President's intervention in the area of health insurance has produced a significantly better package and how the House leadership's willingness to make modifications on the stimulus side has, in fact, produced a document that would look very much like a conference report would normally look. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who has contributed significantly in helping us shape this package so that we can actually get the country moving again.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I am pleased the gentleman believes this program in this bill is mine, because it is an excellent bill. It is in fact the President's plan. The administration has worked out the structure, and this is President Bush's response for those in need. Those people who have COBRA are able to utilize COBRA. But those who believe that that is a bit expensive when they are unemployed are provided additional options. And I think the President has done an excellent job in responding to those in need. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means.