Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my friends and constituents in the community of Taft, California in celebrating Taft's 90th birthday. On November 7th, Taft will be 90 years old and the town has come together to celebrate that fact as part of this year's Oildorado Days celebration, entitled ``Blowout 2000''. It is a proud celebration of the community's history and ties to the California oil industry. Taft is an oil town, pure and simple. From the time of oil's discovery in the area in the 1860s, the area around this small western Kern County community has been the focus of oil production. Some of the biggest producing fields in the lower 48 states are located around Taft, fields like Midway-Sunset, Cymric, the Belridge Fields, Buena Vista and Elk Hills. Kern County, California produces more oil than the State of Oklahoma and the people of Taft do much of the work that makes the county so very productive. The Oildorado celebration Taft holds every five years is one way the community celebrates its link to energy production and lets its hair down--literally, since there is a beard growing contest. People who work hard producing energy get together to celebrate their commitment to a very tough trade. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating their pride in their work and in their town with them.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I do want to thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), for his willingness to assist us in moving these pieces of legislation. Mr. Speaker, Senate bill 3201 has its House counterpart authored by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). This is an interesting bill. It is ``what is in a name.'' We currently have the National Museum of American Art, and we are going to rename that National Museum of American Art not for the first time. In 1906, this Museum of American Art was called the National Gallery of Art. But in 1937, they built a building, which most of us now know is separate, and that name was given to that separate building, the National Gallery of Art. The National Museum of American Art is confused with a number of other museums because of the national museum connotation. So this piece of legislation will once again rename this museum so that it will never be mistaken again. The new name is the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I do want to associate myself with his remarks. This is far more complicated than most people believe, as the gentleman from Michigan said. I am very familiar with his historical involvement in this area. All of us want to relieve this problem, but I want to underscore the comments the gentleman from Michigan made, and I do want to associate myself with his remarks.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill H.R. 5174, which preserves the voting rights of people in communities who live on or around military bases in remote, rural areas. Earlier this year the Department of Defense issued a directive that disrupts the traditional role of these bases whose commanders have for years allowed local election officials to set up election voting booths. Lawyers at the Department of Defense have said they are concerned that an old Civil War era law prohibiting troops at election polls could be used to impose criminal sanctions on military personnel who are simply allowing local election officials to set up voting booths. My interest is in protecting those military personnel while allowing the commanders of remote bases to continue to allow the setting up of voting booths. H.R. 5174 does this. The need to act quickly is great. These bases are sometimes the only facility in a remove and isolated area; indeed, the remoteness is usually what attracted the military to locate the base there in the first place. It is entirely proper that the military should permit these election polls to continue at the commander's discretion. The people in communities that support our military bases sacrifice by living in isolated rural areas. They look to the military for shopping needs at commissaries, recreation needs at rec halls and theaters, and sometimes homes and schools on base. We should not be making it more difficult for them to vote. We should be making it easier. At the same time, I am very aware that the military must have the final say as to whether an election poll can be permitted on a military base. The very nature of national defense is such that we must not tie the hands of those who are working to protect us. Obviously, many bases, if not most, are sensitive and should not be open to election operations. That is why I have written H.R. 5174 with great care to allow the presence of election polls on military sites, but the discretion to have them is entirely with the military. H.R. 5174 provides a safe harbor by expressly stating that the military may make a building located on a military installation available for use as a polling place in any Federal, State, or local election. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this bill and preserving the tradition of the military in protecting the voting rights of people in communities that support our military facilities.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that we recognize the accomplishments of a visionary who is set to retire from service to the Congress at the end of this year. Herbert S. Becker has been the Director of the Office of Information Technology Services at the Library of Congress. During his 15 years of leadership, he helped bring about new programs in support of the Congress, the Library, and the nation. In collaboration with the Congressional Research Service, Mr. Becker created a Capitol-Hill-wide Legislative Information System for better and faster access to legislative resources. He oversaw the successful transition to new technology that made the Library's online card catalog easier for patrons to use. He initiated the development and implementation of new technology to improve archiving at the Congressional Research Service and the U.S. Copyright Office. And he helped create a new financial management system. But perhaps Mr. Becker's most significant accomplishment was his role in the development of the popular THOMAS website for public access to legislative information. With the advent of THOMAS, any citizen can access detailed and recently updated information about the business of Congress and gain insight into the legislative process. His vision and the strength of his commitment have clearly facilitated the work of the people's representatives. I know I speak for the entire House when I wish him well in his future endeavors and thank him for his years of service to the American people.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor my good friend Bill Goodling, who retires this year after a quarter-century of service to this country in this House, during which he has become one of the nation's foremost advocates on common-sense education policy. Since becoming Chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, Bill Goodling has fought tirelessly to send more control over our schools to local authorities. Bill's leadership and success in education policy have created options for educators and students throughout the U.S. which were not previously available. For the last quarter-century, Bill Goodling has been a friend, mentor, and leader on education issues. Like many other Members, I have looked to him for guidance. I am proud to have been his colleague, and honored to call him a friend. The people of Adams, York, and Cumberland Counties are truly fortunate to have had Bill Goodling represent them in Congress for all of these years. I thank him for his friendship and wish Bill and Hilda the very best for the years to come.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the key term is ``flexibility.'' As I said, we are on the verge of a dramatic breakthrough and a number of drugs are going to be available that are not currently on the market. One of the reasons that the nonpartisan analysts that we use to look at pieces of legislation said that our plan, the bipartisan plan that passed the House, had as much as twice the discount capability of the Democrats' plan, including the one that the Vice President has offered, is because of the flexibility; that we provide the opportunity to change the structure when the structure needs to be changed, not when the bureaucrats or the politics say it should be changed. And so, we really should not wait one day longer than necessary to provide the seniors this relief. Now, I think it is also worthy to note that there are as much as two- thirds of the seniors that have some form of insurance protection; but even though they have it, they are in fear of losing it. And, of course, if they are part of the one-third that has none at all, they live in fear every day that something is going to happen in which their finances simply are not going to be capable, if they have them in the first place, of paying for some these miracle drugs, which do come at relatively high prices if they have to buy them at retail, as many seniors do today, instead of group purchases. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his observations. Because although his State does not share its border with Canada in any significant way, he is clearly in a situation in which, because we failed to provide group purchases for seniors under a plan, they are forced to take some drastic measure. General Leave

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 the subject of my special order this evening.

Mr. THOMAS. That particular program 3 years, but actually there is one program on the statutes that has been 7 years languishing waiting for the Health Care Finance Administration to implement it through regulation.

Mr. THOMAS. I know the gentleman shares my frustration in trying to get the media and others to realize that folks on the other side of the aisle and, for example, the Democratic Party nominee for President make things up. They simply are not truthful about the programs. In fact, I have often thought, if you think about ``Do You Want to Be a Millionaire,'' a couple of really good questions that should have a high dollar value to them because they would be very difficult for people to answer, and, that is, which party was the majority in Congress when preventive and wellness programs for seniors was put into Medicare? You would probably have to use one of the lifelines to realize that it was the Republican Party and not the Democrats. Better than that, which party was in the majority when for the first time in the history of the 35-year Medicare program a prescription drug program was voted off of the floor of the House? That should be way up around a quarter of a million, because the answer is the Republicans, not the Democrats. But if you listen to Al Gore, if you listen to the Democrats who describe our program, frankly I believe you would have to say, less than truthful terms, we are out to destroy Medicare. That old Medicare partisan scare card unfortunately is being wheeled out once again in this election by the Democrats' presidential nominee, except I am pleased to say that he was so carried away with not dealing with the truth that the press has now found out that he simply makes things up.

Mr. THOMAS. I want to point out again that we are not talking about a risky scheme; we are not talking about something that is different than what seniors have now in terms of Medicare. The American Association of Retired Persons said that they are pleased that both the Republican and the Democrat bills include a voluntary prescription drug in Medicare, it is an entitlement, and what we have been talking about are the differences. We frankly think that when you talk about the differences, do not use scare tactics, do not say that this plan will not work because ironically, and the gentleman from Louisiana and my colleague from Connecticut know this, under the Al Gore plan, if they are not able to get those prescription benefit managers that you have talked about to do the job, which is to limit their professional experience and let a bureaucrat tell them what to do, if they are not doing it, the fallback provision in the Vice President's plan is to those insurance companies that the Democrats like to say, will say that our plan fails. Our plan, which was passed on a bipartisan vote, reduces the cost of drugs to seniors up to twice as much as the Democrats' plan because it is flexible and it lets professionals make the decisions in a timely and professional manner. It may not seem like a big point now, but 4 or 5 years down the road when the senior finds out the drug they need is not one that is approved and therefore you do not get the group purchasing insurance premium value to it, when they realize that they do not have the flexibility, that they do not get to choose between plans, those differences that we are mentioning now will loom very large in the life of those seniors who need to choose and who need the flexibility of our program.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, five different plans chose to compete for the business.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman for his comments. The solvency the day after tomorrow is important, the needs for tomorrow is important, but frankly we should not go one day longer than necessary to provide seniors with prescription drugs, and we ought not to keep talking about the issue. We did something, we passed it, especially when talking apparently coming from the Vice President is not truthful in the first place.

Mr. THOMAS. And what we get out of that, as we repeated over and over, is the flexibility of choosing, but also the advantage through the competition of a lower price to the seniors, and, of course, given that the Medicare program is taxpayer financed, a lower cost to the taxpayers. We have to be concerned about the Medicare program, because it is not financially sound as we make these improvements, things like adding prescription drugs, we have to keep an eye on the bottom line costs 10 years out, 15 years out. The intensive more than 1 year study that was undertaken by the bipartisan Medicare commission wound up unanimous in terms of the experts, whether they were professional, academia, in saying the one thing Medicare needs to preserve itself over the long run is a degree of competition and negotiation for the price of the services. The plan we are talking about, the plan as indicated that the State of Nevada has put into place, provides the structure for that competition, which will produce, bend those growth curves a little, it will produce a plan that will save us money in the long haul. We are preserving Medicare by making sure that we can get the job done at the cheapest possible cost. We are protecting seniors. We are, in fact, strengthening and simplifying the program. Now, that is not what we will hear from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because if they, in fact, were honest about the plan, we could focus on the differences, we could make adjustments, and we could provide seniors with prescription drugs in Medicare. That apparently is a choice that they have made that they do not want. They want the political issue during this campaign. The Vice President is more than willing to make up stories that are not true to try to win the Medicare prescription drug debate. What happened to that slogan ``I would rather be right than President?'' This particular candidate would rather make up stories in the attempt to convince people that his plan is better. It is not better. It is more costly. It is more limited. It does not provide the choices that this plan does, and it does not provide the savings in the long run, the competition and negotiations provide.

Mr. THOMAS. Our bill provides that competition in negotiation, and the only thing I am really pleased about with Governor George W. Bush's plan is he gets it, he understands the need for that competition in negotiation to provide a better product, flexibility and choice, but ultimately at a cheaper price. My only hope is that as we continue this very important debate, my druthers would be that we do not debate, we show action. We took that action in our hands, we passed a bill off the floor of the House, we would like to deal with legislation moving forward, but if it is apparently the way that the Democrats have chosen to be rhetoric, to talk about the needs, then I think, at the very minimum, what we would hope is that the Vice President, the Democrats' nominee for President, would not play fast and loose with the facts that, in fact, the debate be a truthful one. This is a serious matter. It is not just partisan rhetoric. It is whether or not a senior gets the kind of lifesaving drugs they deserve at a price they can afford. The bipartisan Republican plan that passed the House does that. We do not want rhetoric. We do not want debate. We want action. We have taken action. It is now up to the President and others. I thank both of my colleagues for participating and our colleague from Pennsylvania as well.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, tonight we want to discuss one of the measures that has passed the House of Representatives. Sometimes, we do not feel the need to discuss measures that have gone through committee and have passed the House, but since there has been so much misrepresentation about the legislation that passed the House on a bipartisan vote called the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act, and since the Presidential nominees are engaged in a spirited debate, I thought it would be worthwhile to take some time, one, to focus on what it is that the House actually did, but probably more important than the specifics is to put in context the way in which the prescription drug issue has been discussed. I think the first thing that people have to remember is that as the former majority, the Democrats controlled the House the entire time Medicare was law, up until 1994. Indeed, when President Clinton was elected in 1992, the Democrats controlled the House, they controlled the Senate, and they controlled the Presidency. I find it rather interesting that at a time when they could do anything they wanted to do, they did not talk about putting prescription drugs in Medicare for seniors. All right. Let us say that that issue is one which has matured only recently. However, let me tell my colleagues what I consider to be an even more telling fact. During the time the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate and the Presidency, they did not add any preventive care measures or wellness measures. Now, that I think is very telling, because it was pretty obvious even at that time that if we would do relatively aggressive screening on seniors for colorectal cancer, increase mammography, and especially tests for women with osteoporosis; and one of the real scourges is diabetes, and with education and early detection and treatment, we can make significant life-enhancing behavioral decisions; but none of those were part of a Medicare program that the Democrats offered. In 1995, the Republicans became the majority in the House and in the Senate. We offered a series of reforms adding preventive and wellness and suggesting prescription drugs. Well, as some people may remember, the 1996 election was based upon a series of untruths, frankly, that Republicans were trying to destroy Medicare, that Republicans never liked the program and could not be trusted with it. Well, as it is now historically recorded, in 1997, it was the Republican majority that, for the first time in the history of the Medicare program, put a preventive and wellness package together, and proposed a commission to examine the way in which we could successfully integrate prescription drugs into Medicare. Why? Because no one would build a health care plan, especially one for seniors today, that does not make medicines or prescription drugs a key part of the program. Now, what we have heard from this well from a number of our Democratic colleagues about the Republican prescription drug plan and its modernization of Medicare are frankly untruths. They have attempted to use what they have unfortunately historically done during campaign seasons with prescription drugs, and that is, they have tried to scare seniors into believing that Republicans would never believe, notwithstanding the fact that we have mothers and fathers and aunts and uncles and now, for me, even sisters who are on the verge of turning 65; I hope I do not get an irate phone call on that statement; but I have a real concern about making sure that Medicare is relevant to today's seniors' health care needs and especially tomorrow's. I mention that brief history because, as we talk about Medicare, suggested changes in Medicare, and the proposals that the Democrats have offered, including President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore in his race for the Presidency, and alternatives that Democrats may offer, I think it behooves all of us to stick to the facts; to talk about what the programs are. And there are differences between the Republicans' approach to reforming Medicare and providing for prescription drugs, and Democrats'. But one of the things we ought not to do is take the liberty with the truth. One of the things I think we need to put in focus is the fact that, unfortunately, according to recent news reports, Al Gore was unable to contain himself and made up stories; made up a story about his dog and his mother-in-law, which is already on thin ice, and comparing their use and price of drugs. I am sure it was quite a good story. He is good at telling stories. There is just one problem with it: It was not true; it is not true. He made it up. I think it ironic that as the press and some of my colleagues focus on some verbal stumblings on the part of our Presidential candidate, he does not make things up; and that when one is challenged with the pronunciation of a word, I think it is significantly different than when one is challenged with the efficacy of a statement. Al Gore lied. He was probably so overcome by the occasion that he felt he had to have a better story than the truth. And, actually, that is a perfect setting for the discussion of what the Republican prescription drug proposal and the modernization of Medicare is and the Democrats description of it. The first thing they have said frequently is that our program is not in Medicare; it is not even an entitlement program. That is, it is not part of the traditional Medicare. It is something new, it is a risky scheme, and it is probably not going to be available. During the debate, we were pleased to get a letter from the American Association of Retired People, and I do believe that in this instance it is better to rely on third parties describing what our program is rather than listening to us or to our opponents. Because what the American Association of Retired People said was, ``We are pleased that both the House Republicans and Democrat bills include a voluntary prescription drug benefit in Medicare, a benefit to which every Medicare beneficiary is entitled.'' That is where they get the name entitlement. ``And while there are differences, both bills describe the core prescription drug benefit in statute.'' So there should be no misunderstanding, Governor George W. Bush's basic plan is a Medicare plan. The Republican plan, the bipartisan plan, the plan that passed the House, was a Medicare entitlement program. AARP says so. Do not take our word for it. But what we want to spend a little time on tonight is the phrase that there are differences. Because if we do not have to worry about the fundamentals, that is they are both in Medicare, they are both an entitlement program, they are both voluntary, then maybe it might be worthwhile to stress what the differences really are. If once we have met the threshold that Republicans are not trying to destroy Medicare, that we are trying to improve Medicare, just as it was the Republican majority that added preventive and wellness and it was described as an attempt to destroy Medicare, let us spend a few minutes talking about how the plan that passed the House differs from the one that, for example, Vice President Gore wants to offer. And in that regard I am joined by two of my colleagues tonight, both of them members of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means, which has the primary responsibility in the House jurisdictionwise of the part A Medicare program and shares the part B Medicare program with the Committee on Commerce. We have worked long and hard. I was a member of the Medicare bipartisan commission that spent over a year examining the particulars. Both of my colleagues were close followers of that debate, read the material, and as we put together the plan that passed the House, we were focusing not on whether or not it was in Medicare but key things that I think seniors are concerned about, such as: Does it give me some choice? Do I get to choose or do I have to fit the plan I am told that I get? The idea that if someone cannot afford the drugs, how do we help them? Whether an individual is low income, or even if they are not low income, whether the cost of the drugs that they are required to take are so expensive that even that lifetime earning they have put away would soon be lost. Those are some of the key questions. But probably the most fundamental question, given the fact that we are going to put drugs now into Medicare, and we are at the very beginning of not an evolution but a revolution in the kinds of drugs that are going to be available to seniors, do we really want a one-size-fits-some government-regulated drug program; or would we rather have the professionals who do this every day for the other health care programs decide when and how we need to shift this mix to maximize the benefit to seniors? That really is, when we strip away all of the scare terms and the untruths about the program, the real question. The differences that AARP has said are in the two plans. And when we begin to focus on the differences, I think we will find that there are not only quantitative differences in the plans but there are clearly qualitative differences as well. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania wish to talk about one or more of those differences?

Mr. THOMAS. What is especially of concern to me about now, apparently the news media's understanding that the Vice President manufactured some facts to try to make his point is that there is a lot of reality out there that is better than made-up stories. What concerns me is that he knowingly made that story up. And I happen to personally believe that there are some of the Members in this body who have made up fictions about the plan that passed the House because they would rather have the issue than the solution. That is just to me reprehensible, when we could have already provided prescription drugs for seniors in Medicare. It should not be part of a presidential debate. It should be part of the law. We are doing everything we can to make that happen, including create a bipartisan plan that passed the House when those Democratic leaders who wanted to make it an issue walked out of this body rather than engaging in an honest, direct debate about the flexibility of our plan versus the rigidness of theirs, the integration of the plan rather than theirs as an add-on, and probably, most important, the fact that we provide the drugs that your doctor believes you need, not a bureaucratic structure that may not provide that particular drug but will force you to an alternative. That is not the kind of choice that we believe seniors and their doctors ought to make.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to give my colleagues a real- world anecdote to support what my colleague says. Because, clearly, as we talk about the flexibility, and as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) indicated, no one should have to choose between prescription drugs and food. Using professional managers in dealing with seniors' drug needs directly addresses two fundamental problems with seniors and drugs today; and that is, the drugs are miracle workers, as I said, but oftentimes only if they take them as prescribed. And sometimes it is money. That should not be the case, but sometimes it is just failure to remember to follow a regimen. Professional management is important there. I was in the Kern River Valley, and this is a predominant retirement senior area, and it was at a health fair and we began discussing this question of prescription drugs. And if my colleagues have not really experienced it firsthand, they just do not appreciate the other real problem that we face with seniors and prescription drugs and that is, many seniors are not on just one prescription drug or two or three. There were about 200 seniors there; and I said, how many seniors here are on one prescription drug? Well, every hand in the place went up. How many are on two? Virtually none went down. How many are on three. All the hands went up. How many are on four? By the time we reached four, a couple hands went down. How many are on five? Still a majority. I went all the way up to 12 different drugs, 9, 10, 11, 12, until I finally got one hand. And I said, well, okay, you win. How many do you have? He said, as far as I can remember, 16. So it is the failure, the tragic failure to not only provide availability or low price through the group purchasing but the management, the best way to allow seniors to enjoy this miracle is what we are missing and that professional management, that flexibility is what gives us the opportunity to tell seniors under our plan and the President's plan that, yes, they are going to have a prescription drug program that meets today's needs; but they are going to have tomorrow's needs met and the day after tomorrow the flexibility that gives us those discount savings that the nonpartisan professional saves twice as much as the Democrats or the Vice President's plan. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), who represents a different region than the ones we have been discussing but whom I am sure has similar concerns based on his seniors' needs and how a program is structured.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Chair of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking member for allowing us to disrupt the proceedings.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, just let me say that, as we move into this period in which demands are going to be made that are actually inhumane and we expect materials to be prepared in absolute time frames, for those staff who are here and continue to carry on the work, I just think that they also need to get recognition, credit, and a ``thank you'' ahead of time. All too often we fail to say, it is not just us. Because, without them, it would not be us. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).