Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Is it permissible under the rules for a member of the minority party to present a chart and then a member of the minority party to object to the member of the minority party presenting a chart?

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 and to include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 333, as amended.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 344) permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medal to Father Theodore Hesburgh, as amended.

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, lest anyone think that although this is being presented in a bipartisan way, that it is purely a partisan interest in Notre Dame. I really would be remiss if I did not mention that there are a number of Republicans who have attended and indeed graduated from Notre Dame, and one that I know is no greater Irish hunk than our former colleague Dan Lungren from California, who not only bleeds green and gold, but would occasionally wear green and gold on the floor of the House, especially after a much-needed win over the University of Southern California in the annual football contest. Having heard these words about Father Hesburgh, this is simply an introduction and an invitation to join in the Rotunda in the presentation of that Congressional Gold Medal.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as was indicated, this is a resolution to use the rotunda of the Capitol for the ceremony of awarding a Congressional Gold Medal to Father Theodore Hesburgh. Dr. Hesburgh's history is truly an impressive one, especially when we look at the rapidity with which he moved to the presidency of one of the more distinguished private religious and secular universities in the United States, the University of Notre Dame. He received his ordination as a priest in 1943; studied here at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., receiving his doctorate in 1945; moved to Notre Dame to teach; and then at the age of 35, in 1952, became the 15th president of the University of Notre Dame and held that position until 1987, shaping in a significant way the current position of the University of Notre Dame. Based upon additional activities, along with this very short biography, which my friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) will elaborate on, it is absolutely appropriate that we authorize the use of the rotunda to present the Congressional Gold Medal to a religious scholar, a scholar, an administrator, and someone who has made a significant impact not just on students, not just on faculty, not just on Catholics, not just on the United States, but upon the world. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 344, as amended, the concurrent resolution just agreed to.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his comments. He was indeed an impressive historical figure. The purpose in allowing States to send statues is to illustrate the diversity of the historical figures that by adding up the statues of the States give us an even better understanding of the history of the United States. It is not by accident that the other statue from the State of Wyoming is a statue of Esther Hobart Morris, who was a suffragette, who was the first woman governor anywhere in the United States, and who pushed the legislation that made Wyoming the first State in the Union to afford the full voting privileges to women. So this impressive statue, and my understanding is that Chief Washakie is going to be more than 12-feet tall in full Indian headdress with a spear, it will be a focal point on the tours given to the Capitol visitors and they will be able to visit a portion of our history, all Americans' history, presented to us by the State of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As visitors move around the Capitol, one of the most striking examples of State representation is, in fact, the ability of each State to send two statues to the Capitol. It is fascinating to look at the regional and especially the historical differences of who States recognize as appropriate figures to memorialize by statue in the Capitol. We have before us today a resolution which completes the State of Wyoming's decision to send two statues. I think it is emblematic, the particular statue that Wyoming has chosen. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) to really give the details of the reason for the selection of this particular statue.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 333) providing for the acceptance of a statue of Chief Washakie, presented by the people of Wyoming, for placement in National Statuary Hall, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, among my duties in my capacity as chairman of the Committee on House Administration is to oversee the officers of the House and the Office of the Clerk. In the 105th Congress, we changed our voting devices. Many folks have known that for years we have used electronic, as they say, voting cards, with the board visible behind us. The old system was an analog one in which the cards were physically punched and a reader read the holes in the cards. In the 105th Congress, we installed, going from an analog, as the world is going, to a digital system. The new cards have a chip embedded in them. Since the 105th Congress, we have cast almost 1 million votes, and there have been no concerns or problems or anomalies, as we say, about the votes. It is my institutional responsibility to inform the Members that on Wednesday, June 21st, an anomaly occurred. A Member who was not here, who had possession of their voting card, was recorded as voting. It is not analogous to any of the situations in the past about the confusion of ``I didn't think I voted'' or as we found, unfortunately, the potential of someone else using the card. It is a true anomaly. Members might imagine the concerns that the staff and we had about this. It was the fact that a 64-bit string of digital numerals was somehow at a particular terminal read wrong, and ironically the wrong reading coincided with another set that was in fact a card set. You may have heard of the analogy of an eagle carrying a fish flying over the Sahara, they drop it and it hits you on the head. A billion to one, but it happened. Since Wednesday, we have tried to re-create the event in terms of dirtying up the cards, playing with the boxes, repeating a process. We have now gone through 500,000 cycles. We will continue as a fallback to cycle this to see if we can re-create the anomaly. It is one of those situations in which you really have to say it is a statistically improbable anomaly, but it occurred. As this majority has done from the very beginning, instead of not talking about it, instead of just letting it slide, we feel it incumbent upon us to come to the floor and announce there was a statistically improbable anomaly. We cannot explain it at this time; we will do everything in our power to explain it if it is explainable. Obviously, everyone is on the alert to make sure that notwithstanding that statistically improbable anomaly, we will make sure that every vote that is recorded is recorded accurately.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, we have recently voted to establish permanent normal trade relations with China, which I believe will provide economic opportunities for us and further advance reforms that will promote democratization and hopefully improve human rights in that region. China recently negotiated to become a member of the World Trade Organization, a union of 135 nations who will require China to follow established trade rules. China has agreed to lower tariffs and duties on many products imported from foreign countries including the United States. These lowered tariffs will increase American exports, expand opportunities for our businesses, and create new jobs. If we had not granted permanent normal trade relations with China, we would have lost these economic benefits to other countries that would trade with China. Increased trade with China will create new jobs and stimulate the economy in my district. Lowered tariffs will apply to California's Central Valley agricultural products, such as almonds, oranges, grapes, and cotton. In a few years, China will reduce its tariff on almonds from 30 to 10 percent, on oranges from 40 to 12 percent, and on grapes from 40 to 13 percent. China will also import millions of additional tons of cotton at a low duty. These lowered tariffs and duties will lead to lower prices for Chinese citizens who will demand more products, necessitating increased production in the Valley. New agricultural jobs will support this increased production. We are already reaping abundant benefits from trade with other countries. Since July of 1999, Kern County alone has shipped over 220,000 tons of cotton to Mexico. Production, transportation, and marketing of cotton for Mexico have generated numerous jobs in the Central Valley. Because China's population is significantly greater than that in the other countries with whom we trade, the amount of products we will export there will also be significantly greater. Not only will increased trade benefit our economy, but it will also help further the expansion of freedoms in China. In any nation, this process take times. Our own nation's history attests to this fact. The rights guaranteed in our Constitution have not always been granted to everyone. For example, slavery, with all of its abuses, we practiced for 78 years after the ratification of the Constitution. Eighty-three years after the Constitution, the Fifteenth Amendment theoretically granted suffrage to all people, regardless of ``race, color, or previous condition of servitude,'' but these rights continued to be denied to people of color. Our country progressed over time to expand and guarantee equal protection of rights under the law. Just as the expansion of freedoms has progressed over time throughout the history of the United States, so it will take time for China to extend more freedoms to its citizens. China is just starting the process we have been pursuing for over two centuries, and they are in a different situation than was the United States at its foundation. Chinese leaders do not regard the individual as, in the words of our Declaration of Independence, ``endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.'' Their government does not derive its ``just Power from the Consent of the Governed.'' The Chinese have still to develop a real understanding of the value of the individual. Communist Party control over the financial future of Chinese citizens is weakening. Millions of people are migrating away from state-owned enterprises to work in private businesses. At these businesses, they experience improved working conditions and higher wages. They are less dependent on the government, can make their own choices, and thereby have more personal control over their lives. As this movement into the private sector continues, more people will come to expect and demand the reforms necessary to guarantee individual rights. Exposure to international trade rules will enable the Chinese to appreciate establishing rule of law within their country. Increased trade with all nations will acquaint Chinese citizens with innovation and new technology from sources outside their government. These ideas will increase their awareness of the rights and freedoms to which they are entitled. Chinese citizens may in time pressure their leaders for reforms that will guarantee these rights and freedoms. Our trade relations will allow us to support the Chinese people if they choose to push for these reforms. For all of these reasons, I am pleased that the House has voted for permanent normal trade relations with China. The bill is now in the Senate, where I am hopeful it will pass so that the United States and China together can secure the benefits of a more open trade relationship.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. It was a long, hard road to reach this day; and we still are hearing repeatedly that some people just do not get it. The gentleman from Michigan said 98 percent of his constituents are not going to benefit from the elimination of the death tax. Why did the polls repeatedly show a majority of Americans support repeal? It is pretty simple. It is called the American dream. All one has to do is go to Ellis Island. My colleagues know the words: ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free.'' Yearning? The dictionary says, Yearning: to have a strong or deep desire. To be filled with longing. Free. Freedom to choose, to do what you want to do; freedom from want, from fear. If someone works and really does not do a good job of developing and living the American dream, they get taxed once. If someone works hard, saves, takes care of their family, creates, produces jobs, currently, in this country, they get taxed twice. Do my colleagues know what? Those 98 percent who are not going to get the immediate benefits of this believe in the American dream. They want to have the opportunity, the freedom, to leave their fruits to their children. Let us today vote yes on the repeal of the death tax and yes in favor of the American dream.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I do want to compliment everyone involved in this process. When the democratically-elected representative legislative system functions, it is a wonder to behold, and we are in the process of doing that today. I do hear these concerns. I am not going to talk about trade, although I am on the Subcommittee on Trade. Just go back and read the history on Smoot-Hawley. No one should argue that this is not going to benefit all concerned, especially the United States. I do want to address my colleagues who are concerned about the progress that has been made in China with this Communist regime that has been in for about 50 years. We inherited a lot of concepts of Western Civilization. Probably the most important, coming from the Greeks, is the inherent worth of the individual, the concept that one is worth something simply because one is alive. We have institutions structured on that basis. The institutions are here to further the individual, not the other way around. But if we go back to 1776 when we declared our independence and we said all men are created equal, it was 12 years later, in 1788, that we wrote the Constitution. There was not religious freedom as we know it in the first amendment in 1788. It was not until 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified. And as a matter of fact, the Bill of Rights was not ratified in Massachusetts, Georgia, or Connecticut until 1939. Eighty-nine years after the Declaration of Independence, the 13th Amendment ended slavery; 144 years after the Declaration of Independence, women were given the right to vote; 178 years after the Declaration of Independence, we said separate but equal is inherently unequal; and it was 186 years after the Declaration of Independence that we said one person, one vote. The purest statement of all men are created equal. So when people are upset over a 10- or a 20- or a 30-year period of the failure of China to take a foreign concept, the inherent worth of the individual, and fundamentally restructure their society, I would say, take a look at our history. And lastly, let me say this, for those of my colleagues who are going to vote ``no.'' We do know what that ``no'' vote means. It does not mean that we will keep China out of the WTO. It does mean that the hard-liners, the people who are looking for excuses inside China to continue to foment real concern about our national security, will have a card that they can play at any time. And probably, most importantly, one of the reasons I am so pleased we have come together today is that it will be reported that my colleagues voting ``no'' are on the wrong side of history.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I think what we owe the American people, the veterans, the military retirees, is the truth, and I have not heard much of that here tonight. The idea that military retirees, if the Taylor amendment passes, can now go to military hospitals, and if you are Medicare-eligible, receive care, is simply not true. It was not true yesterday. It is not true today. It is not going to be true tomorrow. I heard a lot of people saying we promised the military and that we ought to deliver on the promise. What is being proposed does not deliver on the promise. If we heard the gentleman from Oklahoma, if we really truly want to provide healthcare to all Americans and most especially veterans and military retirees, we ought to make sure they have the ability to get it where they are able to get it, as close to them as possible; not at isolated locations called military hospitals. The whole approach of trying to say one does not have to change, notwithstanding the fact that they are a widow and they have moved away from the area that their husband served his military service in, that they have to locate a particular physical place for them to get the benefit that we promised, is 19th Century thinking. It is worse than 19th Century thinking. It is telling people we are going to deliver a hope and a promise and, in fact, shatter a belief once again. Now I do believe there has been some enlightenment in the understanding that there needs to be a change in the way in which we honestly meet a commitment to our veterans and to our military retirees. It frankly is not the Buyer amendment. It most certainly is not the Taylor amendment, because it makes permanent a flawed system which guarantees it fails. Now, I didn't have to speak on this. I could have sat on the sidelines but what I do not want to be done is what has been done repeatedly, and that is make a promise that cannot be delivered, because the Taylor amendment does not do it. At least we are moving forward with the Buyer amendment, and I would ask my colleagues to be responsible in moving forward.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I do not often find myself facing a tragic situation, but what I see occurring tonight here on the floor is a tragic situation. Everyone in this House wants to honor military retirees and veterans. And those are two different groups. We have worked tirelessly to try to assist military retirees, through the Department of Defense's program called TRICARE, as we have worked diligently to try to help veterans under the Veterans Administration program called Vision. Now, what is at stake here is not helping Americans who turn 65. That is not at issue. A military retiree turning 65, a veteran turning 65 has the Medicare benefits available to them. No one is being deprived of the full Medicare services, even though the hospital portion is a payroll tax, paid for by some Americans into a payroll tax and not paid by others. No one turning 65 does not get Medicare. That is not the issue in front of us. Please, do not try to make that the issue. It is not. The issue is should military retirees be able to go to military hospitals to get their Medicare benefits. Now, as my colleagues might imagine, the military hospitals were not exactly structured to handle geriatrics. They did not have as their history the ability to deal with old-age infirmities. That is not what they were designed to do. By what we are trying to do is take the Medicare funding, the taxpayers' money, and utilize it in Department of Defense institutions. It is not an easy thing to do. They do not have doctors that necessarily deal with old age. They deal more with wounds than arthritis. But what we have tried to do is meet the request; merge the Medicare monies into the DOD hospital structure. And we have been moving forward. In 1997, under the new majority, we said let us try this program. Here was the first General Accounting Office evaluation in May of 1999. ``DOD Data Limitations May Require Adjustments and Raise Broader Concerns.'' We knew that it was going to be difficult getting started. Here is the September 1999 report. ``DOD Start-up Overcame Obstacles, Yields Lessons and Raises Issues.'' That is progress. Here is the January 2000 report. ``Enrollment in DOD Pilot Reflects Retiree Experiences and Local Markets.'' We are making progress. If I asked members of the Committee on Armed Services if they wanted to issue a rifle that they knew jammed on every fifth shot, just so they could say that they met some deadline in giving them new equipment, when they knew the equipment would not work; is that really what they would want to do? If we make this program permanent, it will fail. There is no question it will fail on the basis of the ability of the DOD to account for the costs of seniors who are military retirees in their hospitals. It will overwhelm them. We will be paying out billions of dollars. Instead of receiving money, we will be paying money. We do not want that. My colleagues do not want what they are asking for. This program is moving forward. It is responsible. Support the Buyer amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, now we are beginning to make some progress. I thank my colleague the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) because, as we heard him say, he is not coming back so he wanted to speak from his heart. What we heard from his heart was that we ought to give military retirees and in fact we ought to give veterans a card, as he said, to go anywhere to get the health care they deserve. That is not the Taylor amendment. The Taylor amendment says they have got to go to a military hospital on a military reservation. Now, I tell my friend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) that I am quite sure that Bethesda Naval Hospital, in the middle of this military area called Washington, does a pretty good job with military retirees. He ought to come out to China Lake in the middle of the Mojave Desert, he ought to go to Edwards Air Force Base and take a look at their military hospitals. They are not Bethesda, believe me. Those people deserve to get the best health care they can. They do not deserve to be forced to get it on a military base. That is what this Taylor amendment does. What we did was to set up some programs to figure out how we could merge the private sector assisting the military through the public sector. The Taylor amendment may be well-intentioned, but what they are trying to do is guarantee that every military retiree gets their Medicare benefits at a military hospital. That is the wrong service to provide to our military retirees. I agree with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), let them go anywhere. But that is not the amendment. I ask them to understand what they are trying to do. They are going to guarantee that the military retirees are going to fail in their effort to get Medicare services at military hospitals. The amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) is a definite step forward in making sure that this plan continues to show progress. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is bound and determined to give the military retirees a rifle that will jamb. Why does he think a shiny new rifle that will not work is somehow benefiting military retirees?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will join me in recognizing and applauding the achievements of Dr. Robert C. Corley of the Air Force Research Laboratory as he prepares to retire June 2nd as Senior Scientist for rocket propulsion in the Propulsion Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory at Edwards Air Force Base. As we assess the role the Air Force has played in this nation's security during the last 40 years, it is clear that Bob Corley's contributions to defense technologies have been significant. Dr. Corley is recognized as one of the world's foremost experts on missile propulsion technologies. His research skills helped produce the extremely dependable solid fuel propellants that are used in almost all American tactical and ballistic weapons systems. His work also promoted our space program through booster systems development. The dependability of those systems is in large measure the result of his efforts. In addition to research, Bob Corley has managed propulsion research projects. He coordinated international research projects involving university and government researchers across the globe. More recently, he has been the founder of the current Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT) program. The latter program is a joint project coordinating efforts by the Department of Defense, NASA and private industry to develop new, dependable propulsion technologies for the 21st Century. They have already begun producing better launch systems for military and civilian programs, and the coordination of government and private efforts under the structure Dr. Corley established will continue to be of benefit well into this century. From the time he arrived at Edwards Air Force Base in 1958 as a Second Lieutenant in the Air Force right through his retirement as one of the most senior research managers in federal service, Bob Corley has worked on tough projects vital to this nation's security and scientific advancement. The executive branch recognizes his contribution. He has been named as a recipient of the Outstanding Civilian Career Service Award. I join his colleagues in recognizing the value of his work and wish him a well deserved retirement.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for yielding me this time, and I take the time only to compliment everyone. Having served on the Subcommittee on Trade over these years and watching how we have tried to put a product together, especially on a bilateral basis, and the difficulty in dealing with regions that cry out most for need like the Caribbean Basin and Sub- Saharan Africa, I think all of us agree that this piece of legislation is overdue. But having said that, it still took an enormous amount of work to put together, and I compliment the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and most especially the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), chairman of the subcommittee, and everybody who put in their hard work. Mr. Speaker, this is a promising beginning. But as we all pat ourselves on the back, we have to underscore the fact that this is the beginning.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman very much, one, for taking the time and, two, for beginning to get into the details. This does become somewhat complex for most people, but the key point that we need to have everyone understand is that if we were discussing, as the gentleman indicated, automobile insurance or homeowner insurance, and we peeled back what most people know about the insurance business, it is pooled risk. And it would get into exactly the same kind of discussion that we are getting into here. One of the reasons that we are doing it is to create a comfort level, I believe, notwithstanding all the details, that what we are trying to do is to create a product that takes care of the real concerns of seniors. It is not the first dollar that we spend on prescription drugs; it is that last dollar. And we do not know when it is and we do not know how much it is going to be. That is what insurance is all about: pooling the risk in a way that everyone can afford to protect themselves against that last dollar, no matter how much it is going to be. And that is what we are trying to create. There are others, for example the President, who said let us just set up a prepayment plan. Everyone will know how much they are going to get. And he has a plan that eventually gets to like $5,000; but it is $2,000, and that is all anyone is going to get no matter what their costs are. That is better than what we have today. There is no question it is better than what we have today. But if we are going to put a plan in place, I think the gentleman and myself and others who have been working on this agree, including Democrats who have been working with us, is let us try to do this the best we can. The way we really need to deal with prescription drug cost is to take care of the low income and create a risk structure that allows the private sector to write the product. Now, why in the world are we always saying let us get the private sector into this process? It is very simple. If we take a look at prescription drug insurance today, there is value brought by those people who are managing the prescription drug programs. It is so specialized that even people who offer ordinary health care, and if they include prescription drugs, will hire these people to run their prescription drug portion. One, taking drugs, especially taking more than one drug, becomes risky business if there are not knowledgeable pharmacists and others to help in the management of taking those drugs. Sometimes drugs that would be lifesaving are not worth very much if we only participate in a portion of the regimen; if we leave pills in the bottles; if we do not follow the directions; if we do not take them in a timely fashion. Seniors are one of the groups that have the least support of any group in assisting in taking drugs. This is one of the real value-added features brought by one of these programs. We keep talking dollars and cents. Dollars and cents is important, but availability, deliverability and proper usability of drugs is very, very critical. That just comes as a kind of a free aspect of putting this kind of a plan in place. The other thing that we have to remember is that seniors have been very knowledgeable in this whole process. I have become quite enamored with their ability to realize that when someone promises something for nothing, they know they cannot get something for nothing. And what we are trying to do is put a plan in place that will assist those who, through no fault of their own, do not have the wherewithal to pay for it; and those seniors who, through no fault of their own, cannot afford the enormously high cost of the drugs that happen to meet their particular health needs. And for those who would like to have the protection, whether or not they fall into one of those other groups, to be able to participate in a minimally reasonable fashion, I think, is a proposition that most seniors would be interested in. I know that the idea is enormously popular to promise people that they will not be involved financially and they will not be involved administratively or behaviorally. But, frankly, I think the seniors have been appreciative of our open approach, which says all parts of the society are at fault and all parts of the society are the solution. The pharmaceutical industry is part of the problem, and they are also part of the solution. The insurance industry, the same. Members of Congress, the same. The children of our seniors, the same. And, of course, the seniors themselves. It has to be a positive, cooperative effort that builds a plan that not only works today but, more importantly, 5 and 10 years from now when those biotech drugs come on the line that are more expensive and, through no fault of our own, the cost is something we could not handle. There must be an insurance product available for seniors. More importantly, not that it is just available, but that we have created a system that allowed us to get into it at a time when the costs were reasonable, where now that they are not reasonable that we are covered. It is simply something that needs to be done. I appreciate the gentleman taking the time not just to talk about prescription drugs, because we are focusing on that as a new addition to Medicare, paid for, by the way, and I do not think we say this often enough because people do not realize it, the $40 billion that the Republican leadership has laid on the table to cover the prescription drug and the modernization cost for the next 5 years is money that we have saved from the Medicare program. We are not taking it from taxpayers. We are not robbing current programs that need money to pay for this. And we are not simply saying that it is a revenue-neutral game and that if we pay money for drugs it is coming out of hospitals or doctors or some other health care costs. It is money that was saved because of the changes in the program that we have put in place that we are reinvesting. The leadership has said let us put this money back into Medicare that we saved from Medicare, but let us put it back in in a new way in which we get an even better benefit out of the dollars that we have spent. And to that end, part of the other program that we are advocating is that as we add prescription drugs, we do not just tack it on to a system that now says we get drugs and we get health care. Because the way medicine is delivered today, as the gentleman well knows, and those of us who have looked at it for some time, and especially those seniors who have participated in the health system, drugs and old-fashioned, as we say, health care have merged. We cannot deliver health care today without, as I say, an integrated approach with prescription drugs. So as importantly, in my opinion, as adding prescription drugs to Medicare is the extra care and attention we are trying to provide to creating a system that integrates this new benefit in with the other benefits that are defined and guaranteed in the Medicare program in such a way that seniors are now going to receive health care just the way the rest of the society receives health care. Frankly, they are a decade or more behind because we do not have this integrated prescription drug aspect to seniors' Medicare health care. It is overdue. It needs to be put into effect, and it needs to be integrated. And that is what we are trying to do.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes an excellent point. Because, as everyone knows, we can take a fixed amount of money and spend it a number of different ways. And, in essence, that is what we do. The amount that we lay out for prescription drugs is about the same amount roughly as the President. But their goal was to achieve a slightly different payment balance. We place the emphasis on low income as the President does, but we talk about making sure that those out-of-pocket payments that are unexpected and too high to pay for fall under an insurance umbrella on shared risk. The President has chosen to take a bit more of that subsidy and some of the earlier basic costs to create, which I think, in fairness, we could say one size fits some because those who have the very high cost would not be served by that system, but that there is a consequence in the way we write the program. And it is entirely possible that, for the middle-income person who is not low income and who does not have the extra high drug costs at that moment in time they occupy that position, they may in fact be paying more than they would under the President's plan for roughly the same support. But most of us know and the seniors certainly do, at some time or other over the course of the rest of their lives they are going to fall into the category where they are going to get expenses for drugs, hopefully on a temporary basis, that they cannot afford to pay. That is what we are trying to protect against. We believe it can be done today. Not 5 years from now, not 7 years from now, not 8 years from now, but today. So our discussion, as my colleague points out, will quite rightly be how do we best construct a program to meet the most important and dangerous concerns that seniors face; and that will be, hopefully, the policy discussion that we are engaged in. My colleague is quite rightly proud of the product that we are moving forward. My goal, frankly, in the next several days is to be able to stop using the phrase ``the Republican plan.'' I have engaged in a number of discussions with Democrats both here in the House and in the Senate. Some of them I think could be described honestly as excited about the idea once they understand the policy direction that we are trying to go, not only excited but supportive about it and will be able to talk about the bipartisan plan that the Congress is moving forward as a legitimate contender, one we believe most appropriate to meet seniors' needs and that we will be dealing with this on a policy level and not a political level. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for taking the time and for allowing me to participate.

Mr. THOMAS. If the gentleman will yield, not only are they similar but they are identical. No one should say that the President's plan or our plan treats low income differently, because we treat them exactly the same. They get complete coverage.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, we heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) on his knowledge and his wisdom in the area.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, given that fact that I agree with it, is the gentleman from Ohio for or against the motion to recommit?