Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. So, Mr. Speaker, it has come to this. If Members had a chance to actually look at the legislation and they had a chance to vote, let me ask the Members if they would be in favor of this: ``Provide an above-the-line deduction for health insurance expenses if your employer does not pay for it.'' That was in the tax bill that was sent to the President. The President vetoed it. We think it is important enough to bring it back. They said it had not been voted on. It has been voted on. ``Provide an above-the-line deduction for long-term care insurance.'' Would Members like to have that deduction? We want people to have it. We sent it to the President. He vetoed it. Accelerate, for those who are self-employed, the ability to write off, like corporations, their health insurance, so people who are self- employed could have 100 percent coverage as well. It was in the tax bill that was sent to the President. The President vetoed it. We want people to have it. It is in this measure. ``Extend the availability of medical savings accounts.'' Young people who are not going to get sick maybe want to invest in their health, and if they do not spend the money at the end of the year, they can roll it over, but let them choose. That was in the bill that was sent to the President that he vetoed. We still think it is a good idea. How about if we want our long-term care insurance to be part of a cafeteria plan, if one has insurance? It was in the bill vetoed by the President. We think we should have it. How about if someone is taking care of someone in our homes right now, out of the goodness of their hearts and their kin relationship? Would they not like to have $1,000 deduction on the tax form? We believe we should have it on the tax form. We sent it to the President. He vetoed it. We think it is important enough to give it to the American people. That is what this access bill is all about. It is access in ways people can use. We voted on them, we sent them out of the House, we sent them to the President, and he vetoed it. The problem was, it was in a larger bill that contained a number of other items. Now, these are very specific access issues for people. We think they are important enough. They stand alone. The American people should get them. If we vote for this, they will.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I will do my best in the short time I have to cut through the fog that has been laid and walk through the crocodile tears that have been shed in terms of this particular rule. Number one, the Congressional Budget Office has not scored any of these bills, so we do not have an official cost. For months, the Norwood-Dingell group said their bill did not cost anything. They are now complaining because, notwithstanding not knowing what it really costs as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, a tax provision that has never been looked at by the Ways and Means was not made in order. Some of us on the Committee on Ways and Means have looked at that tax provision. One portion of that tax provision says that the government- forced wage rate, called Davis-Bacon, would be required to be imposed on every school district in the United States. That probably ought to go through committee so that we can determine if that is an appropriate policy or not. But they do not need to attach dollars to their bill because it has not been scored. Secondly, when we take a look at their argument about the access provision, it is not married. Watch the vote. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) rings his hands over the problem of having to vote for access and then dealing with the patient provisions. Very simple. He will vote ``no'' on access, and he will vote ``yes'' on his choice in terms of patient protection. This rule allows that. The House will work its will. And what about that access bill? Those tax provisions that the gentleman from New York has said he has not seen, I will have to remind him he voted ``no'' on all of them in committee and on the floor in terms of the comprehensive tax package. What are some of those tax provisions on access? For the first time people who work for an employer, when the employer does not pay their health insurance, will be able to deduct the cost of that insurance. The uninsured will be covered with these access provisions. I thought that is what we were supposed to be all about.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman said he was supporting the Goss-Coburn- Shadegg-Greenwood-Thomas bill and that under the rule, if it passes, I want the gentleman to characterize accurately his statement.

Mr. THOMAS. I believe the gentleman made a misstatement, and he can take it on my time.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 459, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 458, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative Nancy Johnson's amendment to the Health Research Quality Act (HR 2506). This amendment authorizes $280 million in FY 2000 and $285 million in FY 2001 for graduate training programs at children's hospitals. Mr. Chairman, the way the government currently finances graduate medical education makes little objective sense. The system has unfairly penalized children's hospitals. The training of physicians, in what is known as Direct Graduate Medical Education, is financed through Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. Thus, the funds a hospital receives depends on the number of Medicare patients it serves. Since children's hospitals treat very few Medicare patients (primarily those with End Stage Renal Disease), they receive almost no funding from the Medicare program. Medicare pays teaching hospitals $7 billion in Graduate Medical Education, or about $76,000 per resident. Yet children's hospitals receive only about $400 per resident, despite training more than one-fourth of the nation's physicians and a majority of the pediatric specialties. In addition, free-standing children's hospitals constitute less than 1% of all hospitals but train more than 5% of all residents. This illustrates one more reason why the entire direct graduate medical education program is in need of fundamental reform. Why should the training of residents who go on to treat patients of all demographic profiles be financed out of a program designed for the elderly and disabled? Second, why should we pay certain hospitals 5 or 6 times the amount per resident as we pay for the training of equally qualified residents at equally prestigious universities and teaching hospitals in other regions of the country? Senator Bill Frist, also a former physician, headed a task force within the Medicare Commission, which recommended that direct medical education be funded outside of the Medicare structure. I believe we can provide a more secure funding structure through a multi-year appropriations process because it provides a larger pool of resources: the General Fund. In addition, an appropriations process will provide needed oversight into the inequities that is lacking in the current entitlement structure. I am pleased that Representative Nancy Johnson and the children's hospitals support the Medicare Commission's recommendation that children hospital DME be funded through the appropriations process. I strongly endorse this amendment and hope we can finally start providing needed resources to children's hospitals so that they may secure the important missions they perform.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 457, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 455 and 456, I was emavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea''

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 435, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I hope our House colleagues will support the Southwest Defense Complex, a proposal to consolidate defense research, development, testing, evaluation, and training in the Southwest United States. This proposal would link as many as 12 bases in 5 states (California, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona) to work to ensure our armed forces' technical superiority. Moreover, at a time of diminishing defense budgets, we must enhance the performance of military weaponry at lower costs. The consolidation of defense resources made possible by the Complex will help the Department of Defense achieve optimum use of its facilities. The threats to our national security around the world are rapidly changing, unpredictable, but extremely dangerous. Americans in uniform are clearly going to need accurate and secure information systems, and high impact weapons with extreme precision. We need to develop new systems to meet the challenges of warfare in the 21st century to remain the best military in the world. Yet, conflicting demands and competing interests for dwindling defense dollars has spurred inefficiencies in military research, development, training, and evaluation that threaten our long-term combat readiness. The Complex proposal offers a strategy of consolidation that is cost-effective and affordable and most important, allows us to redirect needed funds to military needs. The objective of the Southwest Defense Complex is to remedy the inefficiencies that hinder Department of Defense research, development, testing, and evaluation programs from strengthening our military superiority. The Department of Defense currently spends $80 billion annually to maintain an inefficient defense logistic infrastructure. Each service maintains facilities that are expensive and perform redundant capabilities with little regard for cost-efficient coordinated investment. Underutilized and non-competitive infrastructure must be eliminated if we are to get the maximum value for our defense dollars. We must equip our soldiers with the right equipment to protect our national security and deter any potential threats. It is our research and training infrastructure that ensures that our armed forces are strong. The advantages of the Southwest Defense Complex are numerous. First, bases in the Southwest United States are already becoming electronically linked and a number of them cooperate in solving problems and using facilities. In fact, western research and training facilities are already cooperating on sharing optical sensors between the Navy and Air Force for aircraft tracking devices, testing the weaponry of the F-15 at Edwards Air Force Base against drones at the Navy's Pt. Mugu range, and developing the Global Positioning Systems with shared information from all western facilities. Second, it is the only area in the U.S. where advanced technology can be used and tested in a realistic, high fidelity environment with minimal impact upon the general population. Third, the area provides ideal weather conditions for testing and training operations largely free of commercial activity. Fourth, the Southwest provides the physical space necessary for the testing and training that uses advanced technology. It is a region that offers 335 million acres of federally owned land. Over 490 thousand square miles of air space; and 484 thousand square miles of sea that can be used for training personnel. No other area in the country can offer these benefits. The Southwest is a critical area to develop a stronger defense for our nation. The coordination of western facilities can allow for an effective and streamlined system to replace the status quo. The land, air and sea ranges available in the west will permit new technology to be developed, tested in the field, improved in the lab, and evaluated in a combat simulated environment. The most cost-effective way to test and adapt commercial technology for military purposes is to have facilities in the vicinity of where the field tests were held. The Department of Defense has taken the first step in changing the way it researches, develops, and tests new technologies and trains personnel with the recommendation of the Western Test Range Command. The next step should be creation of the Southwest Defense Complex. Such a complex can provide long-term solutions to current military inefficiencies to develop, test, and deploy new weapon systems. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Southwest Defense Complex to strengthen our national security in the future.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, September 23rd the 1999 Kern County Fair will name Mr. Jimmie Icardo as the Fair's 1999 Agriculturist of the Year. Jimmie Icardo's contributions to Kern County agriculture have helped make California farming the competitor it is today. When you look at agriculture across the United States, California's ability to turn out and export quality crops is exemplary. It is through the efforts of Kern County farmers like Jimmie Icardo and the quality goods they have consistently introduced into the market place that California is now one of the world's foremost suppliers of quality produce. Jimmie Icardo represents a generation of farmers who sought to put out the best product they could. Successful in real estate, oil and gas and other ventures, Jimmie remains first and foremost a farmer. He did want to be the best farmer he could and his long standing reputation for quality melons, cotton, carrots and other produce says he achieved that goal. His work, along with the work of other farmers who also sought to be the best at the business, has given Kern County agriculture the reputation for quality the state enjoys today throughout the world.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, in spite of all the jobs produced by foreign trade in California and the opening of a new round of agricultural trade negotiations expected during the World Trade Organization Ministerial meeting this fall, there continue to be those who claim the U.S. should not undertake new negotiations. I believe what we need are more ways to sell overseas so California farmers can take advantage of their ability to produce quality products. Exports are vital to California's agricultural industry as well as the California economy. California's agriculture accounts for almost $7 billion in exports every year. Cotton and almonds, which account for one quarter of California's agricultural exports, are the two largest exports with 83 percent and 55 percent of the crops respectively being sold to foreign markets. We have also seen a booming increase in wine exports, which have grown 80% since 1995. Wine is now the third largest California agricultural export. One third of all California's agriculture output goes to foreign markets. The three leading export markets for California are Japan, Mexico, and Hong Kong. Japan still offers the largest growth potential in value added products. Mexico is recovering from the effects of the peso devaluation and has resumed its position as the largest market for California's farm agricultural exports. Hong Kong plays a key role as the gateway to Asia for exports. Thanks to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), tariffs between two of California's major markets, Mexico and Canada, are being phased out or have already been eliminated. These markets are not the only ones in which growth is expected. California has the real possibility of making inroads into new emerging markets with long term potential. Many Asian markets were largely closed to foreign trade until this decade. Latin American nations also have potential to become important long-term importers of California's agricultural products. Another contributing factor to California's agricultural export strength is the motivation to adopt useful latest technology. Approximately 90,000 farms in California currently have Internet access and the number of farms ``on line'' has doubled from 23% to 46% in the last two years. Using this tool, farmers have access to commodity prices, weather, news on the latest technology, advice from the USDA and market conditions. This improved access to information will give farmers more control over production and marketing. In fact, California agriculture has demonstrated remarkable flexibility in marketing its products during the last ten years. Anyone who shops for produce is familiar with the bagged, ready-to-eat salad and vegetable products packed for consumers. Storage techniques have improved to the point where many types of produce are available for months after harvest with the same quality we have come to expect from fresh-picked products. Having perfected these techniques at home, Californians are positioned to offer foreign buyers high quality goods as well. While California has grown to be the biggest agricultural producer and exporter in the U.S., we should remember that our farmers also have the ability to offset unfair trade restrictions or obtain time to adjust to new market conditions. For example, American lamb producers recently obtained a 3-year recovery program to battle the recent drastic increase in lamb imports. This tariff-rate quota system will impose high tariffs on any lamb imports exceeding a specified amount. This will give our domestic lamb market the ability to recover competitiveness. Agricultural exports from California continue to grow and support our economy by creating jobs, revenue, and increasing our own economic stability. By continuing trade with our current customers, as well as researching new and emerging markets, California's agricultural production and value will continue to grow. We know we can prosper through trade. What we need to do most is pursue new places and means of trading with other countries.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want, first of all, to complement the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, the Chairman of the Treasury- Postal Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Kolbe, for his work on this legislation. I want to particularly complement the Chairman for the inclusion in this bill of three key and much needed reforms of the Federal Election Commission. They are a requirement that campaign reports be filed electronically, a simplified administrative penalty process for campaign reporting violations, and a change in the campaign reporting period from a calendar year to an election cycle basis. As Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, I want to say that we have worked closely with the Appropriations Committee on the development of these legislative items. I believe we have taken an important step towards improving our election process. These reforms may not make headlines, but they are the most significant legislative changes in the operation of the FEC we have seen in 20 years. These reforms were originally recommended in the January 29, 1999 report of the Independent Audit of the FEC. That Audit was authorized by the Committee on Appropriations in consultation with the Committee on House Administration. The adoption of these reforms has been recommended on a bipartisan basis by the Members of the FEC itself. They were all included in H.R. 2668, the Campaign Reform and Election Integrity Act of 1999, reported favorably to the House floor by the Committee on House Administration on August 2, 1999. Virtually everyone agrees these reforms would be good for the House and good for the American public. Electronic filing would substantially speed up the transmission of information from campaigns to the general public, and ensure that information filed with the FEC is legible and more easily subject to analysis once filed. A campaign could not hide or delay the disclosure of its donors. Reports filed electronically with the FEC can be posted on the Internet almost instantly, eliminating processing time that can delay the release of information for short, but critical periods, especially as election day nears. Allowing the FEC to impose administrative fines for reporting violations without the lengthy procedural steps required in a normal enforcement case will free critical FEC resources for more important disclosure and enforcement efforts. The rights of those under these regulations are protected by preserving the option of appeal to a U.S. District Court, for those who believe the FEC erred. Saving taxpayer dollars, cutting costs for the regulated community, and ensuring speedier resolution of cases are all a net gain for the voter and our electoral system. Finally, the seemingly minor, but highly significant change from a calendar year to an election cycle reporting period will make it easier for candidates to avoid inadvertent receipt of contributions in excess of allowable election cycle limits, and provide more information to the public about the level of fundraising and campaign spending at any given point in an election cycle. Reports will show how much money a candidate has raised and spent from the end of the last election to the present, rather than from the end of the last calendar year. This recommendation will save money in enforcement costs and provide more relevant information to the public. These reforms are the kind of legislation we should see more of from the U.S. House of Representatives. Without impairing the right of free speech, without the expenditure of large amounts of taxpayer funds, we have improved the level of information, and the quality of enforcement in our political process.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to give an example of the kinds of things that we propose in the Thomas substitute that simply have been overlooked for more than a quarter of a century. When one makes reports, there is no requirement to show secondary payments. In many campaign reports, they simply list their key campaign support committee, $50,000. We have no idea where that money has been spent, and there is no requirement under federal law to break it down. What we say we ought to do is to require record keeping and disclosure by political committees in terms of who got the actual payment: the secondary payers, the subcontractors. This is absolutely essential to have an understanding of the flow of money. They say they want to follow the money. They say they want to make sure everyone knows who pays whom. It simply is not done in Shays-Meehan. This is a long overdue change. It also requires post-election reports to include cumulative information on contributions and expenditures. Those are the kinds of things that will give people a true picture of who contributes and who spends. It is not in theirs; it is in ours. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, although I appreciate the argument of my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the idea that a portion of a significant campaign reform bill ought to be allowed to stand, notwithstanding the fact that other provisions are declared unconstitutional, is exactly why we are where we are today because back in the 1970s they attempted to use the model, and we have heard this phrase repeatedly on the floor, that we want to stop corruption or the appearance of corruption. The court, I think quite properly, looked at contribution limits and said if we limit the amount that someone was given it certainly could be plausible that the limit was there to stop corruption or the appearance of corruption but in no way should it extend to the expenditure of money. How does spending money corrupt? The court then took that same logic and applied it to individuals who spent their own money and a key portion of Shays-Meehan that we have been concerned about is those individuals who make independent expenditures exercising their First Amendment freedom. We heard the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) in his opening statement say Shays-Meehan is constitutional. We heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) say they believe it is constitutional. What we ought not to do is go down the same road we went down 25 years ago with campaign election reform. Any structure is balanced. If we can come to an agreement now and the court throws out a portion, we ought to be able to come back and come to an agreement on a whole, not on a piece. For more than 25 years, we have operated on a piece. It seems that if we want to go down the reform road again, we ought to opt as a whole. It is either all constitutional or if a portion of it is not, it all falls and we do it again. The only way to stop repeating exactly what we have done in the last 25 years is to say there should be no severability clause; that it all stands or it all falls. That is exactly what the Ewing amendment does. It ought to pass.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, there has been an agreement among us that we are now going into the amendment process to H.R. 417, following general debate. There are 10 amendments. Each is to be considered for 10 minutes. We have agreed that we will deal with five at a time and then ask for a vote. That would be a 15-minute vote followed by four five-minute votes. Then we would take the second block of five amendments, and then have a vote of 15 and then four 5s. Then we would move through the substitutes. Each of those have 40 minutes, with a vote following each substitute, which would, of course, then require a 15-minute vote for those. So after five amendments there will be a block of voting, and then at the end of the next five amendments there would be a block of voting. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, what I was going to do is inform the House and Members the procedure we are going to be following through the amending process and the substitution process so Members can plan for the rest of the evening.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 1 minute.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to review an agreement that we have made about the way we proceed with the amendment in the voting.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. We just heard a statement that Shays-Meehan is not perfect. Obviously it is not, but we have a chance to perfect it. We heard during this debate that we thought maybe it would be a good idea to raise hard money, given how long it has not been affected, yet the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), who will have in front of us an amendment to raise hard money, has a letter saying ``vote no on Whitfield'' signed by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan). Are we to believe them on paper or believe their words? They talked about making sure that labor union money is not involved. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has an amendment. They are opposed to his amendment. We heard the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) complain about the fact that they did not keep in this bill something that passed the floor the last time this was in front of us in terms of foreign dollars, so now we have a chance to make it perfect, at least better than it is. We are going through the amendment process. Let us approve the amendments they say they have no opposition to, and vote ``no'' on Shays-Meehan.