Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, I call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that this legislation is meant to be inclusive and not exclusive, and the initial response is to take those provisions already in the Tax Code applying to combat situations and terrorist attacks overseas, and bringing them home. That was the very least in the short time that we had that I thought would be at least a minimum appropriate response. As the gentleman indicated, we will have additional responses as we move forward. It is clear that whatever folks think about New York in terms of its role, importance, significance, et cetera, there is no question that the City of New York and the surrounding area took it on the chin for the rest of the United States, and I think we will find that there will be additional ongoing responses to make sure that not just the victims, but those who by their own decisions in carrying out heroic acts and became accidental victims, are going to be taken care of. All of us want the gentleman to know that we share the concern, not just as Americans, but as people who have been brought to the scene in no physical way, but certainly in mental ways, based upon the horrific scenes that have been broadcast to us.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, along with everyone else, I support this resolution. However, mentally, I want everyone to know that I will assume it is a declaration of war. I believe that from a mental set a declaration of war is what we need. First, it will allow us to use any and all means necessary to strike at any group or government when facts support it and do it in a wartime mentality. Secondly, believing this resolution is a declaration of war I think creates a mental framework which we need as a society. We need to reach out in meaningful ways, in sustaining ways, to aid those who have suffered personal tragedy. We need to strengthen our economy to sustain our people, and understand that property damage can be repaired, that economic strength will be the key not only to carrying out the fight against those who have perpetrated these deeds, but also to make sure that we have available all of our resources. This will not be a short fight. It will be a long and difficult one. We need all of the resources available to us, moral, religious, and economic; and I will be looking at short-term, medium-term, and long- term responses to this. So that from a military point of view, from an economic point of view, and from a sustaining societal and nurturing point of view, we will not just use words against our enemies, we will have real arrows in our quiver.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement marks a milestone in the strengthening of our bilateral relations. This agreement is a sensible and necessary step. Vietnam has emerged as one of Southeast Asia's more promising economies, and it has the potential to be a strong trading partner for America. Continued engagement with Vietnam must lie at the core of our relationship. It has already produced concrete results in terms of the achievement of U.S. policy objectives, such as the fullest possible accounting of U.S. servicemen missing in action and resolution of remaining emigration cases. This trade agreement--the product of many years of bipartisan effort--will allow this engagement to continue, offering us the opportunity to promote significant change in Vietnam's trade and economic policies, enhancing both internal reform and regional stability. It commits Vietnam to the core principles of a market economy: open goods and services markets, expanded rule of law, and broader economic freedoms. You get off the plane in Vietnam and sense immediately the profound changes that interaction with the world at large has already brought. Vietnam moves at a vibrant pace. Its streets teem with new enterprises alongside the old. Young entrepreneurs sell modern electronic goods beside ancient shopkeepers and purveyors of hand-painted bowls. Joint ventures create modern factories where remote rice paddies once lay. But Vietnam is a work in progress. Its commitment to reform has been tested by two years of slow economic growth following an extended period of strong improvement. The economy is now recovering, but that recovery remains fragile. The country leapt toward a market economy in the last 1980s, and its GDP doubled in the '90s, making it one of the fastest growing economies in the world with 7.6 percent growth over the last decade. In a country where official per capita GNP hovers at $370, poverty is declining sharply as a direct result of the government's recognition of the value of market forces. Vietnam's ongoing commitment to structural reform has laid the path for this continuing recovery. But its economic promise has yet to be fulfilled. The bilateral trade agreement and American engagement will help move Vietnam toward fulfillment of that promise. Its exports to the U.S. are expected to more than double once the agreement is in place, helping to create jobs and raise living standards. Just as important, what does the agreement mean for the U.S.? First, American business gets greater access to Vietnam's market of almost 80 million people, as well as lower tariffs on U.S. goods. The agreement also reinforces Vietnam's full commitment to cooperate in accounting for the remaining American servicemen still missing in action. Most of all, continued engagement maximizes U.S. influence over the pace and direction of Vietnam's reforms, allowing our voice to be heard as Vietnam determines its future. And a strong Vietnam matters to America. It matters because history has proved that we pay a heavy price for instability in Southeast Asia. I urge you to vote yes for H.R. 51. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Joint Resolution 51, as appropriate with its title, deals with a trade agreement with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. This is the most comprehensive trade agreement with a nonmarket economy country that the United States has ever entered into. That is why I want to underscore that it is with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Normal trade relations used to be called Most Favored Nation treatment, and frankly, it was a misnomer; most nations receive Most Favored Nation treatment. And so a few years ago we appropriately changed the terminology. I think, therefore, if we are asking that we have normal trade relations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, who do we not have normal trade relations with? And in this part of the world, in the Far East, there are basically two nations that do not enjoy normal trading relations with the United States. Those are Laos and North Korea. All other countries in the Far East enjoy this status. The idea of having a bilateral trade agreement with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in a comprehensive way allows us to deal with access in areas of industrial and agricultural goods, in services, in intellectual property rights, in investment, and in the transparency of all of those activities. It is a trade agreement that will allow us to continue to improve the relations between one of the fastest growing countries, both in terms of population and in terms of economy, in Southeast Asia. Madam Speaker, I would place in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy with regard to H.J. Res. 51. This statement says, ``The administration supports H.J. Res. 51 which would approve the extension of non-discriminatory, i.e., normal trade relations treatment for products of Vietnam.'' The closing of the paragraph says that ``the Bilateral Trade Agreement's entry into force completes a normalization process that has spanned four administrations. Completion of this process will facilitate important bilateral engagement on other issues of concern.'' Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, September 6, 2001. Statement of Administration Policy (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned agencies) H.J. Res. 51--Approving the Extension of Normal Trade Relations Status for Vietnam)--(Rep. Armey (R) TX and 2 cosponsors) The Administration supports H.J. Res. 51, which would approve the extension of nondiscriminatory, i.e., Normal Trade Relations (NTR), treatment for the products of Vietnam. The Administration has continued to work with Vietnam to incrementally normalize our bilateral political, economic, and consular relationship. U.S. engagement helps promote the development of a prosperous Vietnam and integrates it into world markets and regional organizations, which, in turn, helps contribute to regional stability. In addition, U.S. involvement has secured Vietnamese cooperation and engagement on a range of important U.S. policy goals, including achieving the fullest possible accounting of POW/MIAs from the Vietnam War. U.S. engagement also gives hope of producing gains in respect for human rights as well. The U.S. has extended a Jackson-Vanik waiver to Vietnam for the past 3 years. This waiver, which is a prerequisite for NTR trade status, has permitted U.S. businesses operating in Vietnam to make use of U.S. Government programs supporting U.S. exports to and investments in Vietnam. U.S. business views Vietnam the thirteenth most populous country in the world, as an important potential market. On June 8th, President Bush submitted the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) to Congress for its approval as part of extending NTR to Vietnam. This BTA binds Vietnam to an unprecedented arrays of reforms, including tariff reductions for key U.S. exports, elimination of non-tariff barriers, intellectual property rights protection, market access for American service industries, protections for American investors, and mechanisms to promote the rule of law. The BTA's entry into force completes a normalization process that has spanned four Administrations. Completion of this process will facilitate important bilateral engagement on other issues of concern. pay-as-you-go scoring Any law that would reduce receipts is subject to the pay- as-you-go requirements of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. Accordingly, H.J. Res. 51, which would reduce revenues, will be subject to the pay-as-you-go requirement. 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 to reduce the debt, fund priority initiatives, and grant tax relief to all income tax paying Americans.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that ordinarily in this debate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), would be heavily involved in the debate; but due to a family circumstance, the gentleman is not here today. Mr. Speaker, in my response to my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) and his poignant comments, I too share the concern that he expresses. I think it is important to note, however, that, for example, in World War II there were more than 50,000 missing in action. It is true we have a better capability and we have carried on a much longer search to verify each and every individual who was missing in action; but the two former major Axis Powers are now two of our major trading partners. I do have to say we engage in trade disputes periodically, but we do so in an ordered process. I believe most of us who are in support of this resolution to enter into normal trade relations with the Socialist or Communist Government of Vietnam is to believe that this too will have a better outcome. I do want to respond to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), about his concern in terms of taxpayers' money. While this debate has gone on, we have engaged in a number of conversations. For example, the Export-Import Bank of the United States has indicated that there have been no transactions, therefore, no funds have been authorized for participation in Vietnam by American businessmen. We pursued farther. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation has indicated that there has been no activity. Beyond that they are required by law to examine any project to determine if it would have a negative impact on the U.S. economy and business. They would be required by law to turn a project down. So although there may be somebody's private dollars involved in the catfish operation, at this point I believe I can offer a degree of assurance to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) that there has been no taxpayer dollars. But the point he makes, if not specific to the catfish industry, is one that we have to be concerned about. And that is why this agreement can be revoked at any time by the President under the structure that we have established. This is a year-to-year renewal. It is an embarkation on an attempt with a nonmarket economy to improve not only the labor areas that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has indicated he has a concern about, but the intellectual property rights guarantee that has caused so much pain by the copying around the world. Of course, the key to that is the transparency in the transactions. This will be a good test of the Government of Vietnam to see if they can be trustworthy. In fact, I find it entirely appropriate to reflect on the comments of the President of Mexico in the address he gave to the joint session today. He indicated one of the key commodities to improve the relationship between the United States and Mexico is a degree of trust. He indicated that notwithstanding the democratic title of the country over a number of years, it was far more authoritarian, that was his word, than democratic, but that there is a new era. Mr. Speaker, I cannot say the same for the current government of Vietnam, but I do believe sincerely that this agreement will move us more in the direction of an open opportunity for Vietnamese citizens to express themselves. Currently, this will be in the more economic realm rather than in the political realm. There is no question they have what they believe to be a semblance of what they call a democracy; but the fundamental core of a democracy is that the decisions be made quantitatively with each person getting equal weight. We know that is not now the case in the Socialist or Communist Republic of Vietnam. All of those facts laid bare on the table, House Joint Resolution 51, introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader, with the support of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), is worthy of a ``yes'' vote. We should move forward with this ongoing engagement with the Socialist or Communist Republic of Vietnam. It will be a yearly test to see if, in fact, our trust is well placed. If it is not, we can change. But for today, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on House Joint Resolution 51.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield one-half of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and that he be permitted to yield time as he sees fit.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, September 5, 2001, the joint resolution is considered read for amendment, and the previous question is ordered. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, all of us express continued regret about the loss of American lives in Vietnam and treatment that Americans received during that war. Some of those very same individuals have been and are Members of the United States Congress. The stories that they tell are ones that truly depict a very difficult and troubled time. I do believe, however, that we can make a relatively firm statement that a no vote on this measure will not increase our ability to work with the Vietnamese for the fullest possible accounting of missing Americans. I also want to respond briefly to my colleague from Michigan about the question of a lack of a labor agreement in this particular provision. The last administration, in November of 2000, entered into a very specific labor agreement with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. I might underscore that they are no longer on my map as a North Vietnam and a South Vietnam. There is a Socialist Republic of Vietnam. That agreement, which was announced on November 17, 2000, was a United States and Vietnam agreement on labor cooperation. The press release issued by the last administration stated, in the Secretary of Labor's words, ``This is a significant step in establishing labor issues as an important component of our overall relationship with Vietnam. In fact, more than $3 million in technical assistance is being provided in collaboration with the International Labor Organization to address such issues as establishing skills training and employment services, including placement services, development of unemployment insurance and pension systems, improving access to employment for workers with disabilities, eliminating child labor and child trafficking, and launching workplace education to prevent HIV and AIDS.'' So although there is no specific labor component in this particular agreement, clearly the two countries have entered into an ongoing relationship to improve the labor standards and working conditions in Vietnam. I would respond to my friend from California to indicate that this is a bilateral trade agreement to establish normal trade relations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. It pertains to the tariffs that apply to Vietnamese goods coming into the United States. It does not apply to credits extended to American business people who wish to do business in Vietnam. That is a provision of the Jackson-Vanik structure, and this body voted 91 no, 324 yes on the Jackson-Vanik waiver. That was the structure that provided the credits to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. A no vote on this particular measure, House Joint Resolution 51, would be a vote against allowing Americans, consumers, business people, to bring Vietnamese goods into the United States not subject to the tariff. So if you are looking for a measure to stop the international credits going to business people doing business with Vietnam, that is under the Jackson-Vanik waiver. If you vote no on this particular measure, you are trying to make sure that Americans do not get the benefit of a tax-free relationship with the products that are going to be imported into the United States. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), someone who has been extensively involved in a number of trade discussions and debates. (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 51) approving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment with respect to the products of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means be discharged from consideration of the bill, H.R. 1448, and that the bill be re-referred to the Committee on Resources and to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 51, the joint resolution just passed.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would again yield, I would tell the gentleman there is no need for $3 billion to raise taxes. There are a number of administrative changes, cleaning up provisions that are already in the law that the gentleman was instrumental in putting on the books, where we can find savings of far more than that.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, we have a number of other measures that we will move along. As chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I can assure the gentleman that $3 billion over 10 years is not that large an amount of money to find, and as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I pledge to the gentleman, we will find it. If that is the gentleman's concern about not supporting the amendment, I hope he now supports it.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would tell the gentleman we have a golden opportunity today to find more than $2 billion of the amount that the gentleman indicated, because as the gentleman well notes, the medical malpractice amendment that will be up after we pass the Norwood amendment is scored by the appropriate scoring agencies as saving almost $2 billion.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said that this is the same bill. I know he does not want to revisit the passage of the Norwood amendment. It passed. And what is not in the bill now with the Norwood amendment is what is in this underlying bill. I invite Members to turn to page 121 where it says on line 15, ``no preemption of State law.'' And then down on line 4 it says, ``no right of action for recovery, indemnity or contribution by issuers against treating health care professionals and treating hospitals.'' They gave it on line 14, and took it away on line 34. Thank goodness that is no longer in the bill. Let us visit the tax portion. What the Congressional Budget Office said was that if this became law, their bill, the one we changed, it would increase premiums 5 percent. It does not sound like a lot, but guess what employers do? They will then, because their health costs are higher in terms of the insurance, lower the wages. The Congressional Budget Office says they do. You have to make up that because there is lower revenue. The Congressional Budget Office says that your legislation reduces income and the HI payroll tax, that is the Medicare Trust Fund, by $13 billion over 10 years. That is true; but remember, he proudly said, there was a tax increase in here. The tax increase that is in here increases the general fund because it is revenue. Now, that is good because they take general fund revenue and put it over in Social Security to make up the lost money because, remember, that payroll reduction also affects the Social Security payroll tax fund. So what they have done is taken general fund money and put it in the Social Security fund, but the corporate tax increase only goes into the general fund. You heard the gentleman on the floor. Guess who invades the HI trust fund? According to the Congressional Budget Office, their underlying bill, the one we are going to vote down in just a minute, decreases income and HI payroll taxes by $13.4 billion. The corporate tax provision in their bill can only go into general revenue. It cannot cover HI. They reduce the HI trust fund. Ironically, my friends, if you want to protect the HI trust fund, vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that was just passed puts a limit on the amount that can be received in terms of damages. One side of the equation has been adjusted properly. Notwithstanding the fact you can seek damages, there is a limit. This amendment proposes to create balance, put a limit on the other side of the equation. What you see here is a quote from a letter from the American College of Surgeons to the President of the United States on February 7. It says: If the Congress seriously entertains caps on punitive and noneconomic damages--we have just done that--we believe it would be difficult if not impossible to explain why Federal policymakers did not at the same time address the liability exposure faced by physicians, hospitals and other health care practitioners. It would be unfair, the College of Surgeons said, to enact a patients' bill of rights that caps damages for suits against health plans without capping damages for suits brought against physicians and other health care providers. This is exactly what this amendment does. It does not intrude on any State that has in place its own desired medical malpractice structure, but where there is none, this amendment will provide one unless and until the State passes its own and the State's prerogative would then prevail. It is simply an opportunity to provide a degree of uniformity where there is none today. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to include for the Record a letter, I might say a long overdue letter, from the American Medical Association. It says, and I quote, on behalf of the American Medical Association, we would like to express our support for medical liability reform consistent with the general tort reform provisions included in the amendment to H.R. 2563 being offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), myself, Chairman Tauzin, Chairman Boehner and Chairman Sensenbrenner. The American Medical Association has gone on record in support of this medical malpractice amendment. Let us bring symmetry to this package. Let us put limits on plans. Let us put limits on physicians. Let us move forward in a way in which, as we go to conference, we will know for sure that at long last there is balance in the way in which assessment and the metering out is done where patients' health is concerned. American Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois, August 2, 2001. Hon. Chris Cox, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Cox: On behalf of the American Medical Association (AMA) we would like to express our support for medical liability reform consistent with the general tort reform provisions included in the amendment to H.R. 2563 being offered by you and Representatives Bill Thomas, Billy Tauzin, John Boehner, and Jim Sensenbrenner. AMA policy has long supported medical liability reform and we appreciate your efforts in this regard. As you know we have expressed concerns in the past about coupling such reforms with the Patients' Bill of Rights. As we enter conference it continues to be our hope that controversy surrounding this amendment will not interfere with the ultimate passage of meaningful patients' rights legislation. This issue remains a high priority for the AMA and we stand ready to work with you on this or any other matter. Respectfully, Robert W. Gilmore, MD

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to control the time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. A few decades ago there was a song, and it went a little bit like this: ``Love and marriage, love and marriage, go together like a horse and carriage.'' Well, for the last several years we have been hearing Norwood-Dingell, Norwood-Dingell, a team that made health care reformers tingle. And yet today we find ourselves on the floor with a choice. Ironically that choice is to take a giant step toward making law in this area, or to keep alive a very divisive political issue. In my opinion, there is no Member of the House of Representatives who wants a law more than the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood). In my opinion, there are some individuals here today who are enormously disappointed in the fact that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) wants a law because they certainly want to perpetuate a divisive political issue. In listening to the way in which the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has been described, a Member got up recently and said he is a dentist. I do not think that was quite said in a way that would indicate that he has some knowledge in terms of the medical profession or that based upon his experience in dealing with HMOs, he wanted to make a change. I think it was done deliberately. I think it was done on purpose. If Members really look at the underlying bill and the bill that will remain if the Norwood amendment is adopted, we have 95 percent the same bill. What is the difference? With the Norwood amendment, it has a chance to become law. Without it, it does not. Well, I will simply leave Members with this. If Members had to think of a word to match with Norwood, the one that comes to mind to me is ``sincerity.'' If Members have to match a behavior to coincide with what is being exhibited on the other side of the floor, I have to think of a black widow and her mate. I am pleased today that this very, very difficult issue will be resolved. It will be resolved by those people who stand with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and his amendment, and then stand with the amended Ganske-Dingell-Norwood bill. It is time that we end this division. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), as he did in offering leadership at the beginning, is again offering leadership. All Members have to do is follow the leadership of the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.