Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), a medical doctor and someone who has provided considerable assistance in writing a plan that not only works but also meets the needs of seniors.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, a member of the Subcommittee on Health, and a Medicare beneficiary. (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a member of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I had reserved points of order against the measure.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against the motion on the grounds that it violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act which prohibits consideration of legislation that would exceed the Committee on Ways and Means allocation of New Budget Authority for the period of 2001 to 2005.

Mr. THOMAS. I do, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this was an important debate, although at some point the seniors are tired of waiting for Congress to act to put prescription drugs in Medicare. I want all Members to understand the significance of this vote on the motion to recommit. Although it may not seem important, the motion to recommit of the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) is not forthwith. If the motion were forthwith, the legislation the gentleman described would be substituted for the bipartisan plan, and it would come back in front of the House to be voted upon. The motion the gentleman offered on the motion to recommit was to report promptly. That means, in reality, that any prescription drug benefit for seniors this year is gone. I would sober everyone up by saying that if they vote for this motion to recommit, they will have denied the seniors the opportunity that all of us want to provide them with. The reason there is no point of order against this motion, although over the 10-year period it spends $295 billion, is because, as the gentleman from California said, there is a trigger. One really ought to examine the trigger that is in this legislation. First of all, it says that there has to be a law that says we are going to retire the entire Federal debt by 2012. We are for that, but this bill adds $300 billion to the job of doing that. Secondly, it says that there has to be legislation that has been passed guaranteeing the solvency of Social Security for 75 years. We could have already done that. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), have legislation ready to go that will not worry about the 75-year provision because it resolves the solvency of Social Security for all time. If the President had been willing to address that problem, this would not have been in their bill. We would have guaranteed the solvency of Social Security. There is another trigger that says solvency has to be guaranteed, under law, for the hospital trust fund, Medicare, beyond 2030. The bipartisan commission that this Congress created could have provided a plan had the President been willing to cooperate with the public and private Members of the House and the Senate, the Democrats and the Republicans who all came together and provided 10 votes for that plan, but not one of the President's appointees agreed with that plan. That would have been met had the President been willing to work with the bipartisan commission. So what do we have in front of us? A bill that gives no choice, limits choices of drugs. Basic benefits are flat, not just for 2003, 2004 but 2005 as well, and provides no out-of-pocket protection for seniors until the year 2006. Two presidential elections have to go by before seniors are guaranteed that their exposure to drug costs are limited. The bipartisan plan has freedom to choose. There are a number of drugs in the various classes. The benefits are increased by the drug inflation rate, and one gets immediate pocketbook protection when they vote for H.R. 4680. I would ask everyone here to make sure that seniors get prescription drugs this year. Vote no on the motion to recommit, and vote yes on the bipartisan H.R. 4680.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is indeterminate at this time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), someone who believes in policy over politics.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee, the chairman of the Subcommittee of Trade, a member of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Just so that people understand, letters of support for H.R. 4680 have come in from a number of institutions. The American Cancer Research Institute, the Kidney Cancer Association, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. There are a number of organizations that simply disagree with the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a member of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to use the statement of the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) who conceded that it was, in fact, in violation of the Budget Act, but I believe the Chair is in possession of a statement from the chairman on the Committee of the Budget which, in fact, supports the point of order that has been presented. Therefore, I would insist on my point of order.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, am I allowed to speak on the point of order, or would it be appropriate for others to speak?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, under the rules, is the majority allowed a copy of the motion that the Clerk is reading? We do not have a motion, a copy of the motion.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve all points of order against the motion.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 4680, all Members be permitted to use exhibits in debate.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Chair has ruled that, under the rules, a member of the minority party may object to another member of the minority party offering a chart.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, today actually started in 1998, when, under the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, we created the Bipartisan Commission on Medicare. We knew that Medicare had to change, that prescription drugs had to be integrated into Medicare, that it was overdue. The bipartisan commission met for more than a year, and we came up with the proposal. That bipartisan effort has continued even though the commission ended. In January of this year, the President, in his budget, finally presented a prescription drug proposal on the administration's behalf. Remember, 1999, the bipartisan commission offered a proposal, then early this year, the President offered it. We have been working, on a bipartisan basis, to carry forward a plan to put prescription drugs in Medicare. Today we have that debate. Most of the discussion so far has been on the rule, that somehow when the bipartisan plan gets a vote and the Democratic plan gets a vote, that is unfair. Their argument is they cannot argue their issue. Every Democratic speaker that has gotten up to speak has condemned the bipartisan plan and praised theirs. There is an hour debate on the rule evenly divided. There is a 2-hour debate on the bill evenly divided. There is one vote for the bipartisan plan, and one vote for the Democratic plan. The reason the Democrats are upset is because it is not two bites of the apple for them and one bite for us. They say the bipartisan plan is not in Medicare. They say it is not guaranteed. That, in fact, it is a shame. Now, I could spend a lot of time arguing with my colleagues on the other side to tell them they are wrong. Do not let me make the argument. We will let Horace Deets, the executive director of the American Association for Retired Persons, make the argument, and what does he say, we are pleased that both bills include a voluntary prescription drug benefit in Medicare. If my colleagues are honest, they will not make that argument again. I quote from Horace Deets: ``Our plan and their plan puts it in Medicare. Further, both bills provide a benefit that would be available in either fee-for-service or managed care settings.'' They have made the argument. If they are honest, they will not make it again. It is available in fee-for-service, and managed. It is not just one area. Let us see if they are honest. He goes on to say, ``There are differences between both bills, but the core prescription drug benefit is in statute.'' It is not illusionary. My colleagues have made the argument that we are offering something that does not really exist. Horace Deets and the American Association of Retired Persons say the bipartisan plan is in statute. It is guaranteed. It is part of Medicare. It is available on a voluntary basis, and we can get it in fee-for-service or in managed care. I imagine that is going to require my colleagues to scratch out a lot of lines of their debate. Let us see if they scratch it out, so it is an honest debate or if they continue to repeat the untruths that Horace Deets shows are, in fact, untruths. Now, what is it the real debate is going to be? It is going to be this: The bipartisan plan offers choice. Their plan does not. We offer pocketbook protection now, seniors should not have to pay high costs. We incorporated it into the $40 billion, which was in the budget resolution, pocketbook protection for seniors now. Look at the Democratic plan. They matched the $40 billion over the first 5 years, the same as the bipartisan plan, but the Congressional Budget Office says over the next 5 years, it goes to $295 billion. Why? Because the pocketbook protection is not in the first 5 years, it is in the last 5 years. They lose on that comparison. We have twice the savings that their plan has. The Congressional Budget Office certifies it. As we listen to this debate, just remember they get one vote, we get one vote. The time of the debate is evenly divided, they are making their points, we are making ours. The rule is fair. The question is will the debate be honest.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 535 is an important resolution because just as we have discussed, and the House has passed, Medicare modernization and prescription drugs for seniors, there are still other areas of Medicare that continue to need adjustment. If we have additional surplus money, we want to make sure that we alert both the seniors who are the recipients and the providers of that Medicare care that we believe a high priority is to make sure that a significant portion of that surplus is reserved for reinvestment back into Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control the time and yield further blocks of time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 535) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives concerning use of additional projected surplus funds to supplement Medicare funding, previously reduced under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.