Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. I do, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I guess if I were adopting the tactics of our colleagues, I could begin by saying we just saw this bill last night. It was not offered in committee. I cannot believe that they would create a bill without allowing us to work with them in a bipartisan way. I cannot believe they would generate a purely partisan document. But indeed, all of those are the facts. I guess I could spend a lot of time talking about the Democratic stimulus, but sometimes it is better to let others speak for us. The newly-elected spokesperson for the Democratic minority called this the Democratic stimulus package. Perhaps we should find out what neutral third parties believe it is. In today's Washington Post in an editorial it says, ``The Democrats have an implausible alternative. It was written mainly for show.'' And then, the well-respected economic columnist Robert J. Samuelson I believe hit the nail on the head when he said, instead of stimulus, we have a vehicle for pet agendas. ``Democrats propose a hodgepodge of tax rebates for low-income families, expanded government health insurance, and spending, from schools to construction. This is income redistribution posing as stimulus.'' More accurate words were never spoken. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in her exuberance, the gentlewoman from Florida indicated that World War II was fought without deficit spending. I believe if she will check the record, there was significant deficit spending, because our job was to win the war and not necessarily balance the budget. In fact, up until the 1980s, that was the single largest addition to the national debt, that is, the deficit funding of World War II. I know in her exuberance the gentlewoman carried over from World War I to World War II, and she does not intend the record to reflect we actually fought World War II with a balanced budget, because the facts simply do not prove that to be the case. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), a member of the committee. (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), just to indicate to all that no good deed goes unpunished.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, existing law put out almost $28 billion in unemployment payment. Frankly, it is beginning to take my breath away the degree to which the bill is being, I hope, knowingly misrepresented. Otherwise, it indicates that the gentleman has no understanding of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. You are not allowed to speak ill of the Senate. You can trash us and impugn our motives all you want to. Apparently those are the rules of the House. Let us take a look at what the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) just said. We are talking about repealing the alternative minimum tax in which some people, because the depreciation rate on the alternative minimum is not the same as the regular tax rate, therefore, wound up loaning tax free to the government which we call credits which they are now going to be able to reclaim. And he said it is entirely possible that these businesses may not use all that money, for example, under the 30 percent expensing for depreciation. And, you know, the gentleman may be absolutely right. What else would these job-creating machines do with the money besides reinvest it so they can continue to be in business? They actually might take some of that money to keep some of their employees on the payroll. So that money would wind up as payroll to employees. What are the employees going to do with it? I think they are going to spend it. That is called stimulus. Or, heaven forbid, please some of you Democrats plug your ears, they might actually give some back to the shareholders. They might indicate that since they are now once again profitable that people might invest money in the corporation so they could continue to do what? Create jobs. What would the shareholders do if they got some of that money back? They will either invest it or spend it. See, it is called the circular flow of economic activity. Since you are most used to government programs that give money to people and it is one way and it is a one-time gift, you do not understand the concept of gifts that keep on giving by virtue of reinvestment in the circular flow of economic activity. I hope you people have been looking at that list of corporations that has been shown periodically. Number one up top is IBM, International Business Machines. I would urge all of you who are listening to me who belong to a union to call up your union shop and ask your steward in your union has your pension funds invested in IBM. I think you will find virtually every one of those unions have their funds invested in IBM and your union members' pensions are dependent upon IBM remaining healthy. It seems to me that would be the most ironic circular flow of economic activity that anyone could imagine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of the House of Representatives.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the admonition by my ranking member from New York, because I do want to give specific citation to the two particular areas that I was concerned about, both in the Democratic substitute and in the underlying bill. The gentleman from Maryland and the gentleman from Washington repeated the argument that legislatures must pass laws in dealing with the unemployment money available to them. That is simply not so. The bill provides three different ways that States can assist: One, they can go ahead and provide regular pay or increased unemployment benefits; they can provide extended benefits; or they can furnish unemployment services and support to health. The second concern I had was the misrepresentation that the gentleman made of the Democratic substitute. The gentleman said that it was all Federal money, that it was money that went from the Federal Government on unemployment insurance to States. If anyone wants to take the time to read the bill and look at the Congressional Budget Office scoring sheet, what it says is it has zero cost over 10 years because it comes from the unemployment insurance fund. Why is it a zero cost over 10 years? Because they assume the States will pay back that amount over 10 years. They give it with one hand and say it is Federal money and require the States to pay it back over the next 10. Those are two misrepresentations of the underlying bill and of the substitute. Those are the points that I made and I gave the particulars. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a valued member of the committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 270, I call up the bill (H.R. 3090) to provide tax incentives for economic recovery, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the desire for bipartisanship, especially about the fact that the administration has been working to try to bring groups together so that we can move forward on a package to stimulate the economy, indeed secure economic security, and recover from what I think everyone will soon agree, if they do not now, is a short-term recession. I think it is important, then, that if we are going to say that we should listen to the President, that we should listen to the President. My colleagues cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they want to be with the President, but then do not focus on the statement of administration policy in regard to H.R. 3090. The first thing I think we should do, Mr. Speaker, is clearly establish where the President is, where this administration is on this bill, the Economic Security and Recovery Act. I will include the Statement of Administration Policy in the Record. It says, Mr. Speaker, in the very first line: ``The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 3090.'' It then goes on to say: ``The Administration is very pleased that the bill includes the main elements that the President has proposed for an economic stimulus package.'' It then goes on to list some of them: ``Tax relief for low to moderate income individuals and families and an acceleration of scheduled tax rate cuts that are in the bill.'' The policy statement goes on to say, ``increased business expensing and repeal of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax to create jobs and encourage capital investment.'' Let me underscore that. The President is pleased that he asked Congress for and contained in this bill is the repeal of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax to create jobs and encourage capital investment. The statement goes on to say: ``The Administration commends the fact that this bill is focused primarily on tax relief.'' The assumption is any bill not focused primarily on tax relief is not one that the administration would support. It concludes by saying: ``The Administration urges quick action in the Congress to enable an economic stimulus package to take effect as quickly as possible.'' The right remedy, done quickly. The administration supports this package; and I am pleased to say, the House will pass today H.R. 3090, the Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001. Statement of Administration Policy (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned agencies.) h.r. 3090--economic security and recovery act of 2001 (Rep. Thomas (R) California) The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 3090. The Administration is pleased that the House has started the process of acting on a stimulus package to help get the economy going again following the terrorist attacks of September 11th. The Administration is very pleased that the bill includes the main elements that the President has proposed for an economic stimulus package: (a) tax relief for low-to-moderate income individuals and families and an acceleration of scheduled tax rate cuts to spur consumer spending, improve economic growth incentives, and restore confidence; and (b) increased business expensing and repeal of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax to create jobs and encourage capital investment. The Administration commends the fact that this bill is focused primarily on tax relief, since Congress has already adopted adequate spending measures to address the economic disruption caused by September 11th. Over sixty billion dollars has been committed or proposed since September 11th, including monies for disaster relief, security enhancements, and defense. As part of this amount, the President has announced a Back-to-Work Relief proposal and looks forward to working in a bipartisan fashion with Congress to enact it. This is ample spending to address the direct impact of the terrorist attacks. Stimulus is best accomplished through prompt tax relief to restore consumer confidence, spur capital investment, and thus create new jobs. The Administration opposes alternative proposals that contain large spending and tax increases. Raising taxes on small businesses--which create most new jobs--as well as on families and individuals is ill-advised in any environment, but is particularly troubling in an already slow economy. Additional spending and tax increases will retard economic recovery rather than stimulate it. The Administration urges quick action in the Congress to enable an economic stimulus package to take effect as quickly as possible. The Administration remains committed to working with the Congress in a bipartisan manner to produce a fiscally responsible end product consistent with the President's principles to help consumers, spur investment, and contribute to the recovery from the terrorist attacks of September 11th. pay-as-you-go scoring Any law that would reduce receipts or increase direct spending is subject to the pay-as-you-go requirements of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. Accordingly, H.R. 3090, or any substitute amendment in lieu thereof that would reduce revenues or increase direct spending, will be subject to the pay-as-you-go requirement. OMB's scoring estimates are under development. The Administration will work with Congress to ensure that any unintended sequester of spending does not occur under current law or the enactment of any other proposals that meet the President's objectives. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I tell the gentleman that he is desperately hanging on to an offhand comment by one member of the administration who has since said a number of different things, and apparently he chooses to ignore the statement by the President that they strongly support House passage of H.R. 3090. One of the problems, I guess, is that we wind up talking about individuals and benefits to individuals, and then the other side we wind up talking about business or corporations. I do believe there is a kind of an internal rejection on the part of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, by and large, when we use the term business or corporation. Somehow that has a negative connotation. I think maybe it might help in this debate if instead of calling them businesses or corporations we would call them job-creating machines. Because if you understand that what these entities do is create jobs, then we might be able to deal with this debate slightly differently, and that would be this: this bill puts about $100 billion into the economy right away over the next 12 months, and it is divided this way: About 40 cents of every dollar goes to individuals. About $14 billion of it goes to individuals who filed an income tax form, but who possibly did not pay any income taxes at all or even any payroll taxes. They had no tax obligation, but they are going to receive as part of a stimulus, i.e. give them money because they will spend it, about $14 billion. We also accelerate a reduction already on the books for the middle-income folk, and that is about $12 billion. And then there is about an additional $12 billion to assist unemployed and assist in the purchasing of health care of those who are temporarily unemployed. Now, that is about 40 cents out of every dollar. Sixty cents out of every dollar goes to help the job-creating machines. See, there is an idea that if you can create a job, a real job, people get recurring income from the job. They also get health care very often in the workplace. But then they also wind up paying taxes, and, lo and behold, the job-creating machine pays taxes. So we thought it was appropriate to do 40 cents on the dollar to stimulate the individual spending, but 60 cents to help the job-creating machines. Now, the spending is a gift. It is a one-time gift. It is a gift that gets spent. The $14 billion to those low-income individuals gets spent in the next 12 months and it costs $14 billion over 10 years. There is no other tax consequence. It gets spent. That is a one-time gift. But if you want a gift that keeps on giving, then you assist the job- creating machines. Because what they do is not provide unemployment, they provide a job, and they provide tax revenue, and the machine itself provides tax revenue. That is a gift that keeps on giving. So, really, what we ought to be talking about is the fact that this package assists with a government gift, spending, 40 cents out of the dollar; but it also deals with 60 cents out of every dollar helping those machines that create jobs so that we can have a gift that keeps on giving. And that I think is the fundamental difference between the approach that we take to a stimulus package. Do you want a one-time gift? We do that, 40 cents on the dollar. Do you want a gift that keeps on giving? We do that, 60 cents on the dollar. It seems to me the administration wisely said that this is something that they commend us for doing, but that first and foremost it needs to be passed to be effective. Let us get on with our business. I would prefer both sides yield back the balance of their time and we can vote, but I know full well that will not occur. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Notwithstanding the fact the gentleman impugned the motives of the Members on this side of the aisle, I am sure he was carried away by emotion and did not really intend to do that, and I understand that. He also said those corporations on the list get $25 billion. The fact of the matter is, he knows that if he had a list of the corporations it would be 23,000 names long and not just the list there. I told you if we quit talking about corporations and talked about them as job-creating machines, we could look at this entire argument slightly differently. That list the gentleman held in front of us represents 1,500,000 jobs. Now, that is more jobs than there are people in 15 of these United States. They are job- creating machines; and 1,500,000 people are employed by just that short list that the gentleman provided, let alone the fact there are more than 23,000 corporations that will benefit from the repeal of the alternative minimum tax, which by the way the President requested that we do. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the Chair appreciates the climate that the gentleman from New York clearly provides to allow us to continue to work together. And now to close on the Democratic substitute and all debate on what was called in today's Washington Post a hodgepodge of tax rebates for low-income families, expanded government health insurance and spending from schools to construction, that is income redistribution posing as stimulus, I yield the remainder of my time to the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to comment that, once again, the gentleman gives us his history lesson, but he fails to complete it. In 1993, the Democrat majority in the House and a Democrat President did in fact pass the largest tax increase in the history of the United States. What happened in 1994 was the American people rejected that majority and a new majority was created in the House. Most people know that the Constitution says that all money bills originate in the House and that new majority did not spend the money from the largest tax increase in history that was passed by the Democrats. So it was the majority, the new majority that was elected in November of 1994 and took office in January of 1995 that is primarily responsible for the surpluses that we have seen in recent years. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the gentleman more. The other committees that are supposed to be working on that provision, and the leadership that met to help us address those, all of us believe we need to put together a product and get it to us as soon as possible. But what we have today is a motion to recommit on a stimulus package that is under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Normally, as Members know, I admonish Members to read the motion to recommit. It is usually in legislative language. This time it is in plain English. Sometimes we actually run into problems when we are dealing with plain English. I will show the Members why. The first provision says, ``Reduce the tax cut provisions of the bill in an amount equal to the expense of financing short-term and long-term efforts to combat terrorism.'' What is combatting terrorism? In listening to the gentleman from Texas, I heard him say that it is fighting the war. I heard him say it is security. I heard him say public health. Does anyone dispute that making sure the economy remains strong so that we can be a vigilant and free America is combatting terrorism? That is exactly what this bill does. Secondly, they want to provide that the legislation is temporary. I would advise my friend, he really ought to go look at underlying legislation. For example, making the 15-year life for leasehold improvement permanent, which is in this bill, was a piece of legislation, H.R. 1030, which 48 Democrats cosponsored, 12 of them members of the Committee on Ways and Means, and if I had the time I would read every name who want this to be permanent, not temporary. Indeed, permanently extending subpart F was in H.R. 1357. Fifteen Democrats, 11 members of the Committee on Ways and Means, said they wanted it permanent. We listened to our colleagues, Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means, and made subpart F permanent. So if Members are only going to make it temporary, it makes it very, very difficult to carry out the wishes of people who are supposed to understand tax policy. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the third provision. It says, ``Provide assistance to workers who lost their jobs and health insurance coverage.'' If we are going to take this provision literally, it says ``lost their jobs and health insurance coverage.'' Does the gentleman from Texas know there are some people who have jobs who do not have health insurance; that they are employed by small business people who cannot afford the health insurance? Since it says ``and'', those people are not going to be able to get any assistance under the gentleman's motion to recommit because they not only have to lose their job, they also have to lose their health insurance. That is what happens when one hastily writes up a motion in an attempt to make a point, rather than to make law. Keep reading it. It says, ``to businesses affected by the economic circumstances following the occurrence of September 11.'' Does that mean they only deal with people who were unemployed after September 11? If people were unemployed before September 11, what are they, chopped liver? It seems to me we ought to deal with the unemployed, whether it was before September 11 or after September 11. Then if we take a look at what the Democrats offered, which is every unemployment check going up, every new program, new part-time additions to it, the gentleman, I will have to compliment him, is running totally counter to what his colleagues wanted in the other bill, but he is very, very close to what we are doing; that is, putting assistance where it is needed. But if Members read the English that makes up this particular motion to recommit rather than the legislative language, if Members vote for this motion to recommit, they are only going to help those people who were unemployed after September 11 and who had a job but did not have health insurance. Who in the world wants to single out that group to be the only ones to receive assistance? Certainly not Republicans. We are fair-minded where we help people who are unemployed. Even those who had health insurance we believe ought to be covered, and if they were unemployed before September 11 they ought to be covered as well. So if Members have a heart, they have to vote down this motion to recommit.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I tell the gentleman I appreciate the partially accurate quote. Everyone knows the phrase ``freedom isn't free,'' and what I did say was that we are free in part because we are strong and that for us to remain free, we need to remain strong. I do not think anyone does not believe that one of the reasons we have been able to remain free is because we have been strong. Perhaps the gentleman does not remember the comment made during World War II that America was the arsenal of democracy. To be and remain free, you must be strong. And to be strong, you need a healthy economy. That is exactly what I said. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend from Georgia that one of the very first things we did the day after the World Trade Center tragedy was to move special legislation for every one of those individuals who lost a loved one or other economic circumstances, and that currently is over on the Senate side and will be brought back. We did respond immediately to those individuals involved in the World Trade Center. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight, who probably knows more about the job-creating machines called corporations or businesses than most of us because he dedicated a significant portion of his life to making sure that people have really good jobs.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Well, I guess the gentlewoman was not present for most of the debate, because she just repeated all of the syllabuses that had been laid in front of us on which we have been spending the entire hour indicating that it is simply not so. The Alternative Minimum Tax elimination requested by the President is not retroactive. It is a 1 percent stimulus for the economy: $100 billion over the first 12 months, 1 percent, and it costs $160 billion over 10. Even former Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin could not say this was inflationary. It is the right medicine at the right time and we need to put the right vote up, that is an ``aye'', on H.R. 3090.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the real contributions of many individuals from California's 21st District to the relief effort because of the horrible tragedy on September 11, 2001. I am continually encouraged by the courageous and unselfish acts of our communities. Yesterday, I visited a group of American heroes at the Pentagon. Over the past two weeks, a tireless and dedicated crew of II firefighters and Forest Service personnel from Bakersfield and Kem County in California has helped with the rescue and cleanup efforts at the Pentagon. Facing, long days of work in a stressful environment, they kept their resolve. The display of internal fortitude by these heroes serves as a great example of generosity and selflessness. Soon, this talented and brave group returns home, and I would like to express my appreciation to Steve Gage, Kevin Harper, Nick Dunn, Ken Stevens, Bob Klinoff, Bob Lechtreck, Dean Clason, Pat Caprioli, Steve Shoemaker, Jim Scritchfield, and Dan Kleinman for all their hard work in assisting with the rescue and recovery efforts at the Pentagon. I would also like to thank their families for the sacrifices they also endured during these uncertain times. I am extremely proud of these firefighters and our communities for the compassion shown to the victims of this horrific act of terrorism. The blood, sweat, and tears shed throughout our history in the quest for life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness have never been in vain. That is why I am certain the American people will rise to the occasion and triumph in these most trying of times. Together, there are no difficulties we cannot overcome as the greatest example of freedom and democracy in the world.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the real contributions of many individuals from California's 21st District to the relief effort because of the horrible tragedy on September 11, 2001. I am continually encouraged by the courageous and unselfish acts of our communities. Over the past week, a tireless and dedicated crew of 11 firefighters from Kern County in California has helped with the rescue and cleanup efforts at the Pentagon. Facing long days of work in a stressful environment, they kept their resolve. The display of internal fortitude by these heroes serves as a great example of generosity and selflessness. I would like to express my appreciation to Steve Gage, Keven Harper, Nick Dunn, Ken Stevens, Bob Clinoff, Bob Lechtreck, Dean Clason, Pat Caprioli, Steve Shoemaker, Jim Scritchfield, and Dan Kleinman for all their hard work in assisting with the rescue and recovery efforts at the Pentagon. I would also like to thank their families for the sacrifices they also endured during these uncertain times. I am extremely proud of these firefighters and our communities for the compassion shown to the victims of this horrific act of terrorism. The blood, sweat, and tears shed throughout our history in the quest for life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness have never been in vain. That is why I am certain the American people will rise to the occasion and triumph in these most trying of times. Together, there are no difficulties we cannot overcome as the greatest example of freedom and democracy in the world.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, first of all, this motion to recommit does have consequences. The unanimous consent under which the Senate took up the bill said that they would vote on the House bill if the House bill was identical to the Senate bill. The Senate has finished its deliberations under the assumption that the House bill will be identical to the Senate bill. This motion to recommit will negate the unanimous consent agreement. I find it ironic that less than 24 hours after the President of the United States came here in a joint session and said this was a battle of freedom versus fear, that what I just heard from a number of Members on the other side in arguing for this measure was fear. I also find it ironic that a number of Members are upset that we are prolonging this debate because they want to catch planes to go home, and they are catching those planes because they believe they are safe, and they are going to fly, and they are going to fly back here for the next session, just as other people should. If, in fact, the attempt to pass this motion to recommit is based upon fear, they are wrong; and this motion should be defeated. Secondly, the gentleman from Washington has made an urgent appeal that there are a number of people who are being laid off from Boeing and they should be taken care of in terms of their health care. This motion to recommit does not apply to a single Boeing employee. It refers very narrowly to any airline that takes a loan. I have to tell the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman from Oregon that we are working today to make sure that not just the airline employees who have suffered and are being laid off, but every American who is laid off, should have the ability to get assistance on their health insurance needs if they are laid off. The way you do that is to go back to the bipartisan legislation that we passed in 1996 called HIPA, which provided a window of opportunity for employees who are laid off to attach themselves to their former employer's insurance. It is true that under current law they have to pay the full cost of that, and what we are going to do is mitigate that cost, not just for the airline employees, not just reaching out beyond this narrow motion to recommit, but to the gentleman from Washington's Boeing employees, but, beyond that, anyone else in the secondary industry or other aspects that get laid off. That is the least we should do. It is not in this bill, but we are going to do it. Just let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is not perfect. There are a number of flaws in it, and we are going to have to deal with amendments as they come down the pike. But putting this motion to recommit in this bill makes it a fatal flaw; one, in terms of the Senate's unanimous consent agreement, but, secondly, why in the world are airline employees who are out of a job of any higher value than any other American who loses their job because of the consequences that we face? Let us deal with this on a broad-based basis, and not on this motion to recommit.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 240) and ask for its immediate consideration.