Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have asked to speak out of order for 1 minute because there is a situation here on the floor that may not recur again. There are many new Members here who are beginning to learn that this institution could not run without the staffs that sometimes are never acknowledged or recognized but go about their work very quietly and efficiently. Unfortunately, someone who had been of great assistance to our side of the aisle for more than 42 years decided to leave just as quietly and efficiently as he had carried out his job over the years. I am not able to deal with the efficiency of his leaving, but I do think we can deal with the quietness. Somewhere back there is the gentleman by the name of Ron Lasch. I would ask Ron Lasch to come to the floor. Mr. Speaker, as usual, Ron Lasch is not to be found. But for 42 years, he provided this House with good counsel and assistance in doing our jobs. There are a number of people who make our jobs possible who do not get the desired or needed or worthy recognition. I just thought it would be nice, since he may not be able to be here again or he will not be here again after this particular occasion, to say to one of our long-time employees, thank you very much, Ron Lasch.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we almost got him.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my friends in the Kern County farm community in honoring Mr. Livio Palla, this year's recipient of the Agriculturist of the Year 2000. One of the primary reasons California has been the nation's premier farm state for decades is its people. Today, many outside California are surprised to learn California is the nation's top dairy state, the nation's second largest producer of cotton and the primary source of almonds, pistachios, table grapes and other fruits and vegetables. Americans know Californians have been innovators in trying new industries, in exporting, in creating efficient ways to use land and resources and in marketing new products. Often overlooked is a key part of the development process: the hard work and dedication of California farmers themselves. This year, Kern County agriculture honors Livio Palla because we understand how hard people have had to work to make California what it is today. Livio Palla has spent over a half century building dairy and livestock businesses in the San Joaquin Valley. Starting with 40 cows and 120 acres, he built a family operation that now includes a family full of farmers, dairy and livestock operations and almonds, cotton, corn, alfalfa and apples. He has served on industry panels that have built infrastructure Kern County farmers have been able to use to make even more progress. By giving recognition to the lifetime of work and achievement of Mr. Palla, the Kern County farm community recognizes how important individual efforts can be. It is an important message and one I join with many others in acknowledging by extending congratulations to Livio Palla as this year's recipient of the Kern County Agriculturist of the Year.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to join in commemorating California's 150th year as a State. Our diversity and the pioneering spirit of our people should be clear to anyone who visits the communities in Kern and Tulare Counties in my Congressional District, the 21st. While the image other Americans have of California is often that of beautiful beaches, high tech industries and outstanding sports teams, the real California stands out when anyone visits Kern and Tulare. These are rural counties where families have built some of the nation's best farm businesses--dairy, cotton, table grapes, oranges, almonds and pistachio nuts. The California oil industry is centered on this area-- over half the oil production in California comes from Kern County. At the same time, national public lands, including wilderness areas, provide some of the finest opportunities for recreation anywhere in the United States. If someone wants to see how Californians have continued to pursue new ideas, how they work and how they have built strong communities around the use of natural resources and high technology, they ought to come out and meet with my friends in Kern and Tulare Counties.

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. Con. Res. 368.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment the chairman and the ranking member. There has been an unprecedented degree of cooperation not only between the Democrats and the Republicans in the House, but between the House and the Senate and the administration in responding to what is clearly a crisis in our international responsibilities. Very often adults are prone in dealing with children to in essence say, Do as I say, not as I do. And today we are seeing an example of this country telling the rest of the world, Do as we do, not as we say. In stark contrast, for example, to the Europeans and their abject failure to respond to adverse decisions in the World Trade Organization, continuing to drag their feet when the international community says they are wrong, what we have here is an example of the United States moving with clear rapidity to make fundamental changes to bring us into compliance. Do not just take my word for it. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following text of a letter from Deputy Secretary Eizenstat to the European Union Commissioner for Trade: Dep Sec. Eizenstat FSC Letter, Date: August 11, 2000-Inside US Trade, July 28, 2000. Mr. Pascal Lamy, Commissioner for Trade, Rue du la Loi 200, B-1049, Brussels, Belgium. Dear Pascal: Following passage yesterday by the House Ways and Means Committee of legislation to repeal the FSC, I am writing to you to enclose a copy of the proposal and briefly explain the details of this new proposal. The new proposal embodied in the Chairman's mark represents a major departure from the FSC and, furthermore, a significant evolution from the proposal I discussed with you in May. This proposal directly addresses the issues raised by the WTO Appellate Body. Further, it addresses additional concerns raised by the EU, as expressed in our meeting on May 2, in your letter to me of May 26, and in our telephone call of July 14. In compliance with the Appellate Body decision, the FSC provisions are to be repealed from the Internal Revenue Code. The new tax provisions embodied in the Chairman's mark have the following key elements. The Chairman's work provides an exclusion of tax on certain extraterritorial income. Because this would be our general rule, there is no foregone revenue that is otherwise due and thus no subsidy. Further, because it treats foreign sales alike, whether the goods were manufactured in the U.S. or abroad, it is not export-contingent. Thus, a company would receive the same tax treatment on foreign sales regardless of whether it exports. The Chairman's mark excludes qualifying foreign trade income directly at the level of the entity that produces the relevant good or produces the qualifying service. It does not require foreign sales transactions to be routed through separate offshore companies. Thus it eliminates the Administrative Pricing Rules for transfer pricing between affiliated companies, which the EU alleged violated the arms length provision of the Subsidies Agreement, Further, it eliminates the dividends received deduction. Likewise, this approach address EU concerns about alleged incentives to use low or no-tax jurisdictions since a separated affiliate would not be necessary for this exclusion. The Chairman's mark is the product of an unprecedented bipartisan effort in which Congress and the Administration worked together both to develop a proposal that is WTO compliant and to act quickly in an effort to comply with the October 1 deadline set by the WTO. The House Ways and Means Committee voted 34-to-1 yesterday to support this legislation that meets our WTO obligations. Our key Congressional tax and trade committees understand that we have left the door open to further consultation with the EU as this legislation moves forward. We remain prepared to negotiate a solution on the basis of this proposal. I hope that we can work together to avoid an escalation of this conflict. It would not be in the interest of either the U.S. or Europe to engage in a major trade war over this issue. Both U.S. and European businesses would needlessly suffer the consequences. The legislation I am attaching herewith represents a serious effort on the part of the U.S. to comply with the Appellate Body's decision before its October 1st deadline. As we move to pass this legislation before that deadline, I hope that we can have a dialogue to resolve this conflict on the basis of this new proposal. For your review I'm attaching three documents: (1) A copy of the statement I delivered at the Committee mark up, (2) the joint Tax Committee's description of the bill, and (3) the text of the legislation as reported by the Ways and Means Committee; please note that the formal bill is not yet available. I look forward to talking with you again about these matters. Yours Very Truly, Steve E. Eizenstat. Mr. Speaker, a portion of that letter states: ``The Chairman's mark is the product of an unprecedented bipartisan effort in which Congress and the administration worked together both to develop a proposal that is WTO compliant and to act quickly in an effort to comply with the October 1 deadline set by the WTO.'' He goes on to quote, ``The House Ways and Means Committee voted 34-1 to support this legislation.'' I believe what we are seeing worked out on the floor is the result of that 34-1 vote. Let me say also to everyone in this country that when we are dealing on an international basis, one of the things we need to do is to show bipartisanship. I want to compliment the ranking member from New York who has done that. I want to compliment the chairman. For those friends of ours who are listening and not part of our system, I do want to refer to a section of the Constitution. It is in Article I, section VI. To a degree, what is occurring here today is going to be covered, thankfully, for some of the participants by that portion of section VI, which says: ``And for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.'' That is, on the floor of the House, we are allowed to say certain things for which we can never be questioned anywhere else. As we discuss this bill and statements are made, keep in mind the speech-and-debate clause, which allows some folks to say what they are saying.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 368) establishing a special task force to recommend an appropriate recognition for the slave laborers who worked on the construction of the United States Capitol.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment and congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), my friend and my conference chairman; and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), my friend and colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means; one, for the way in which this legislation has been put together; and, two, the time in which we have moved. It has now become better known that several months ago a local television reporter unearthed some United States Treasury Department pay slips that, strange as it may seem, allows us to have a better understanding of what went on in the early stages of the building of our Capitol. One would think that we would have as complete a documentation as any people could have. And yet what we found out was that those pay slips showed that there were slave owners who were paid for work in the building of the United States Capitol. Pretty obviously, the labor was not done by the slave owners. In fact, it was slaves that did the work, more than 400, which gives us an even more appropriate reason for recognizing the importance of this particular building, and a continued understanding of the true and honest history of the United States. The resolution would create a task force to study the history and contributions of those slave laborers. There has been some concern that the legislation is not real specific about the way in which this task force would be appointed, other than, according to the resolution, to have the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate make the appointments. I would hope everyone understands that this is not to be a political task force. It is not to be some kind of political endeavor to make sure one is politically correct. The reason we wanted to have the task force was to reach out to those very appropriate professionals who would have knowledge and understanding to assist us in creating whatever the appropriate recognition might be, and we do not want to prejudge what will be presented to us, so that in a prominent location in the Capitol we can, one, give proper credit; two, recognize the fact that it occurred but, more importantly, understand better this particular building and the very human involvement in now yet another dimension not fully appreciated in the creation of our country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), mentioned that we do know for sure one of the slave's names, a fellow by the name of Phillip Reed. Talk about irony upon irony, he, given his professional capabilities, helped cast the bronze statue atop our Capitol that was recently refurbished, and of course we know that as the Statue of Freedom. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the rest of the time be controlled by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), chairman of the Republican Conference.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to respond in part to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), in terms of his supposition that perhaps it was out of shame. I think I will just tell the gentleman that it was far more fundamental than that, and it was that common physical labor is not a high achievement and that we never, even to this day, recognize the fact that without it we would not have what we have today. The thing I like most about this, given the discussion, the participants, and the reflection on history, is that one of the fundamentals of democracy is in the inherent belief that an individual is worth something simply because they are alive and that what we are doing here is celebrating the obvious acknowledgment of our shared humanity in the best way we can in reaching back and telling those people, thank you, thank you very much for that basic physical labor that produced the opportunity, as Mr. Davis so eloquently indicated, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Holmes) indicated, we forget about. So it is in the shared humanity of our recognition that I think we can all share and appreciate.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the physical condition of many of the nations' culturally, historically, and aesthetically important sound recordings are at-risk because of poor storage conditions and inadequate preservation. With the passage of H.R. 4846, the National Recording Preservation Act of 2000, the Congress will create a public- private partnership to ensure that important sound recordings are preserved and restored. With the National Digital Library, the national audiovisual conservation center at Culpeper, VA, the Library of Congress's film registry program and now the sound recording registry program, the Congress has created groundbreaking public/private partnerships that minimize taxpayer investment while ensuring the preservation of America's cultural history. I would like to thank the ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration, Mr. Hoyer, the Committee on the Judiciary and its chairman, Mr. Hyde, the Library of Congress, interested Members of Congress, and the sound recording industry for working to make this legislation possible.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on July 28th supporters of the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake will gather together in Ridgecrest, California for the ribbon cutting of a new Navy museum dedicated to the history and achievements of the people who have worked at China Lake since the 1940s. As a Life Member of the Museum Foundation that is collecting private funds to create this monument, I support this effort to preserve a complete record of China Lake's record for future generations. Those of us familiar with China Lake have a strong sense of what the Navy personnel and employees there have done for this Nation's defense. China Lake personnel developed the first Sidewinder air to air missile. China Lake has been the source of technological advances in cruise missiles, fuel-air munitions, infrared and other technologies that Americans in uniform rely on in their quest to defend the nation. It is a remarkable story proving what exceptional dedication can accomplish. By building this museum, we can preserve a record of the achievements of people at China Lake. Those achievements are a source of justifiable pride in eastern Kern County, California. With this museum, they become a source of inspiration to visitors and to those important future Americans who will come to China Lake to solve new problems.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Bear with me, folks. Let us take a look at this motion to recommit. Let us find out exactly what it says. Less than 5 minutes ago, the Democrats offered their substitute which was double the Portman-Cardin bill. You would think that they had enough pride in authorship to require their substitute to be in this motion to recommit. Well, that is not true. The Portman-Cardin bill is in this motion to recommit. The only problem is, how do you get to this new pension relief in the Portman-Cardin bill? The motion to recommit says you have to do two things, because it says Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act of 2000, Portman-Cardin legislation, to apply if certain conditions are met. Now, what are those certain conditions? Number one, you have a zero budget deficit. Number two, we have to pass and make law the Democrats' prescription drug proposal which was defeated in the House 2 weeks ago. So, one, they do not even have pride in authorship, including their Democrat substitute in the motion to recommit. Secondly, they frankly in my opinion lower the level of this debate to say, one, if you really want this, you have to do these two other things, but here is the insidious part about this motion to recommit: because it is conditional, because we will not get the Portman-Cardin bill unless these other two conditions are met, the Joint Committee on Taxation says this has a zero score. What does it mean? If you vote for the motion to recommit, you defeat, not that you are cute about it, you defeat the Portman-Cardin legislation. Frankly, the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Maryland deserve a better motion to recommit than this. This is not the kind of motion that lends the kind of sobriety to the debate that we have. What we need to do is hopefully not have a recorded vote on this motion to recommit and move rapidly to the passage of much-needed pension reform, the Portman-Cardin bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, the fact that we are on the floor today with a bipartisan proposal to reform the pension and the individual retirement accounts is quite an accomplishment, and I want to compliment the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). It has been more than 20 years since we made an adjustment in this important savings area. I heard the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) say that the substitute had been looked at and that it was thoroughly understood. I do have to say it is fundamentally different than the President's initial offering. In fact, it is substantially different than the offering that the Democrats have presented in the Committee on Ways and Means just last week. Last week's offering cost $225 billion over 10 years on top of the fund. This one only costs $105 billion over 10 years. In one narrow particular area, the refundable credit, which was not in the President's initial budget proposal, cost $35 billion. So it is substantially different. It has not been aired in committee as this bipartisan proposal has. I heard the minority leader say that this plan simply did not treat low-income people fairly. Well, I know the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), I know the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), I know the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), I know the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), I know the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), and I know the more than 100 Democrats who cosponsor this proposal. They would not cosponsor this proposal if it did not treat low-income people fairly. Now, I heard my friend from California give my colleagues an example of what would happen under this bill with the expanded IRAs and that, in fact, the employers, while looking out for their self-interest, could in fact damage the savings interest of their employees. The response we heard from the cosponsor was I think significant, and I want to make sure everyone understands it. This is a bipartisan proposal, precisely because, under all aspects of the bill, the employers maximize their benefit by utilizing all of the portions of the bill; and in pursuing their self-interest and maximizing it, it in fact maximizes the employees' savings capabilities. It is the way in which this proposal is integrated that makes it really superior. It is the product of the bipartisan working relationship. It is the best of what this House does. As far as the veto threat, around here we learn to read the tea leaves, and the tea leaves are very clear. The message was very clear, it did not say veto. It does not say veto. Treasury is trying to buy leverage. As a matter of fact, once this moves out of here with the bipartisan majority and off the floor of the Senate, the President does not dare veto this piece of legislation because the last thing he wants is an override of his veto. The way this piece of legislation was put together, frankly, the House owes a debt of gratitude to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and all of those who have worked together to make these changes. They are long overdue. They are much appreciated. It fits our needs today. Vote no on the substitute, vote yes on H.R. 1102, and send the President a message. This Congress is working, and it is working for the American people in a bipartisan way.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, let us listen to what people say who have to enforce the law. Federal Trade Commission Chairman Robert Pitofsky again says, the stated goal of this bill is to promote quality of patient care. The labor exemption, however, was not created to solve issues regarding the ultimate quality of products or services consumers receive. Collective bargaining rights are designed to raise the incomes and improve working conditions of union members. We do not rely on the United Auto Workers to bargain for safer cars. Joe Klein, assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, says this about 1304: The AMA could pull every single doctor together or its local doctors and go to each and every HMO or managed care program and say we will not work for you unless you pay us X. That is unprecedented, irrational economic power. That is all the doctors are asking for.

Mr. THOMAS. No, no, I was on my feet.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I tell my friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) this amendment is not very clever at all. It is very straightforward. The gentleman from New York was very concerned about the precise language used over here, and maybe he did not hear himself talk, because he used the term ``collective bargaining.'' He said doctors need collective bargaining. Now, if this was about moving doctors under the National Labor Relations Act, where they would get collective bargaining, where there are rights associated with responsibilities, we would not have this problem. That is not the case. What we have got are giving people the rights without the responsibilities. Federal Trade Commission Chairman Robert Pitofsky has said, ``In every case we have brought, it is really related to doctors' income and not to patients' welfare.'' I think my colleagues can call this amendment ``trust but verify.'' If, in fact, the doctors are really needing this suspension of antitrust to help patients, then this amendment is exactly what it will do. Trust but verify. One: Do not negotiate regarding fees. Do not tell us that is about patients and care. It is about money. Two: Do not cost shift. Do not cut a deal in which the patient has to bear the extra cost in balanced billing. Three: Hey, we got a 100,000 deaths every year. How about getting some medical error structure in place before they turn them loose in terms of the ``collective bargaining.'' Let us have some truth in packaging. And finally, this amendment says that any acts by health care professionals engaging in boycotts is not allowed. We have all read The New York Times story about a doctor bragging about withholding medicines because the company that made the medicines was not supporting the legislation. That is about patients' care? Very simple. Let us help doctors help patients, but we should not let doctors help doctors without this amendment to trust but verify. That is what this is all about. We have heard slips of the tongue over here about collective bargaining, doctors should have the right to bargain collectively. It is under the guise of patients' rights. If they want doctors to bargain collectively, put them under the National Labor Relations Act. That gives them rights and it gives them responsibilities. This legislation does not do that. If they believe that they get a right and they have a responsibility to go with it, then the Ballenger amendment is the trust but verify. Let them have the right, but make sure they do not abuse it, not for fees, not for patient-balanced billing, not for boycotting. If my colleagues want it for patients, everyone should vote for the Ballenger amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do so to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), only for clarification purposes. I do believe that the sense of this resolution is to make sure that medical decisions are made by the medical professionals, but I do have some concern about the wording because it says that it is the sense of Congress that decisions regarding medical care and treatment should be made by the physician or, and here is my concern, health care professional. We had heard some discussion earlier on another amendment that this legislation was not just about physicians; that it was about other health care professionals as well. I am concerned about the class that would be covered by the term health care professional, because it is possible that some of those categories may, in fact, be jobs that we would not want to have the decision making and treatment recommendation in their hands. So was the intent of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) in terms of expanding beyond physicians the decision-making capability regarding medical care and treatment?

Mr. THOMAS. I was on my feet.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, is there a motion available to object to the use of the chart on the floor?