Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. But if we passed legislation, that language goes away, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is not a trigger that says it will sunset?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health in 1996 and working on the legislation commonly known as HIPAA, there was a clear understanding that more and more as we computerize records and indeed, even today with paper records, we need a greater degree of security to provide for confidentiality for patients. That is why we purposefully put Congress under the gun. That is, we said in that legislation in 1996 that Congress had 3 years to act. If Congress did not act in 3 years, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would then write the provisions. One would think that Congress would act on its own. I have to tell everyone within my voice, Congress is an institution that almost always reacts instead of acts. One of the best ways to get Congress to act is to create a time anvil. That is exactly what we have here. At the end of August, the Secretary begins promulgating confidentiality and privacy regulations, unless Congress acts. It creates a requirement that Congress act. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and myself have been working on confidentiality legislation which will be bipartisan and comprehensive. What was placed in this financial services package because of the timing of the movement of this product is absolutely appropriate. It says that the paragraph will not take effect, or shall cease to be effective, on and after the date on which legislation is enacted that satisfies the requirements. It says, if Congress does its job, this provision does not do its job. I want Members to understand what the Democrat motion does. It says, they will recede to the Senate on that provision I just read. What is in the Senate? Nothing. In other words, they are asking us to recede to the Senate on nothing. Everybody knows the phrase, less is more. This drives it to the position that nothing is maximum. It removes the anvil. It means there is less pressure on us to do our job that we said we were going to do 3 years ago. Where is the pressure to force the appropriate compromise if we have no pressure at all on these Members, without the administration to write the regulations? We think Congress ought to do its job. It makes no sense whatsoever to recede to the Senate when the Senate has nothing. The only useful language is to say that this is a holder, and it will be here until Congress does its job. Please, let Congress do its job using the time frame that forces us to agree. Do not vote on this. Do not recede. Do not say there should be nothing, instead of the very excellent amendment that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) put in that is in this measure. When we go to conference, keep the anvil. Make us do our job.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The consequences that the gentleman described, in fact, may take place if given this language as a sunset does not produce congressional legislation; is that correct?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if we pass better legislation, we will improve privacy.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time, once again thanking the gentleman from New York for this resolution.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 172) to authorize and direct the Archivist of the United States to make available for public use the records of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Missing Persons in Southeast Asia.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the question of a final resolution on military and, indeed, even civilian personnel in Southeast Asia, principally in Vietnam, has been one that this country has wrestled with for some time. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) was a member of the Select Committee on Missing Persons in Southeast Asia during that Select Committee's existence in the 1970s. That particular committee was dissolved in the 94th Congress, and portions of its records, including 20 executive sessions, were, according to the appropriate procedures at the time, sealed for 50 years. Less sensitive records were sealed for 30 years. As a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Subcommittee on Trade, it was my pleasure a few years ago to travel with then subcommittee Chairman Sam Gibbons on the first official congressional visit to Vietnam prior to our recognition of that country. We spent 2 days in Hawaii being briefed on the extensive, laborious, scientific pursuit of all leads in terms of missing in action and prisoners of war. We also carried on a number of discussions with Vietnamese officials and with individuals in the private sector, indeed loved ones who had sons, daughters, husbands, missing in that war. It just seems appropriate, according to H. Res. 172, that the conditions in which we now relate to the country of Vietnam, as it pertains to records that were sealed, would only make it more difficult to conclude once and for all the question of prisoners of war and missing in action. In fact, opening up reports so that any number of people can examine and find leads they find most appropriate, especially the ability to move into the country and talk to individuals, would maximize the opportunity for closing this particular chapter in America's history. For that reason, and especially since the Senate has already taken similar action, I would urge all Members to support H. Res. 172. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the principal sponsor of H. Res. 172, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, this truly is a sad day for America. The once great Democratic Party is reduced to: ``We can't.'' However, there is hope, because the new Republican majority is showing how ``we can.'' The Democratic leader had a quote which said, ``A massive tax cut that encourages consumption would not be good economic policy.'' Well, we happen to agree with that quote. As a matter of fact, the Republican tax program is the most massive incentive for saving and investment in the history of the country. Our tax plan targets savings and investments for individuals, for small business, for international corporations, for farmers, for families. It is the sum and substance of the Republican philosophy: You do for yourself what you can do. Only then should government step in. The Democratic leader said that ``the Democrats' tax plan was conditioned on saving Social Security and Medicare.'' You heard the chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Shaw, on Social Security and the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Archer, have a plan certified by the trustees of the Social Security system that our Social Security plan saves Social Security for all time. All we have to do is pass it. The President has talked about a Medicare program. The Congressional Budget Office has now analyzed the meager information that has been given by the administration to the Congressional Budget Office. We know at least this, surprise: The President understated his prescription drug program by $50 billion. The President overstated his savings to the Medicare system by about $16 billion. Remember, it was the Republican majority, after every opportunity was available to the Democrats since 1965, but it was only after the Republicans became the majority that we added the preventive and wellness care package that was absolutely essential to Medicare, increased mammography tests, prostate cancer detection and treatment, diabetes detection and treatment, osteoporosis exams, critical in senior women. Those were only added after Republicans became the majority. Republicans have a provision for deductibility of prescription drugs in this tax package, tied to the requirement that we improve and preserve Medicare, conditioned on real behavior, exactly the same thing for the across-the-board tax cut tied to the performance of the economy in improving our debt. We reward performance. The Democrat leader concluded his speech by saying, ``Do not repeat the mistakes of the past.'' Well, the Democrats were the majority in this House for 40 years. I can assure the Democrat leader we are not going to repeat the mistakes of the past. We are not going to do what they used to do with various tax bills. There is no smoke and those are no mirrors in our bill. Today, sadly the party of that minority leader says we can't. Today, the Republicans say, we can. We can save Social Security. We can improve and preserve Medicare. We can give some of the taxpayers' hard-earned money back, but most importantly, we can build the economy. Today's Republicans say we can for today's Americans and most importantly for tomorrow's as well. This is an exciting day for America, an exciting day for the House of Representatives. We can. Mr. RANGEL Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when the Republicans talk about sensitivity and caring, they are certainly far more effective when they bring those cartoons to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 245 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for the vote on final passage of H.R. 435, Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act. If I had been present I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 150, the Education Land Grant Act, because it will help children in my district in Kern County, California, to continue to attend their school situated on federally owned land in the Los Padres National Forest. Passage of this bill will finally give the U.S. Forest Service the authority to dedicate 10 acres of land currently used by the Frazier Park Elementary School for continuation of this school's operation. Many schools in the rural West were built on land owned by the U.S. Forest Service. There is often no other choice because the communities are surrounded by government owned land--``land-locked''. However, under current regulations, these schools are facing skyrocketing lease prices from the Forest Service's new land value assessment methods. Many schools are finding it almost impossible to remain open because of being hit by the higher leases. Yet, it makes no sense for the federal government to dedicate billions to general education while strangling specific schools that operate on federal land. Frazier Park Elementary is a good example of a rural school the bill could aid. Imbedded within the Los Padres National Forest, the school is now facing a financial crisis. Since 1975, the School has leased and developed land from the Forest Service. Like many leaseholders, their property has been reevaluated by the Forest Service, and the lease has gone up by 1300% in one year from $1,290 per year to $17,750 per year. Does it make sense to take education dollars from isolated, rural schools to put into the coffers of a federal land agency? Local Forest Service officials have repeatedly lamented that they had no authority to dedicate the land to the school district. Passage of this bill will finally give the Forest Service the authority and direction from Congress to make such a dedication in the case of Frazier Park Elementary School. The Education Land Grant Act provides real and immediate assistance to school districts like Frazier Park Elementary School that are asking for our help. I urge my colleagues to stand and join me in voting for this bill and provide a resounding answer that we do support education for our children.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for the vote on final passage of H.R. 1915, Jennifer's Law or Grants to the States to Improve the Reporting of Unidentified and Missing Persons. If I had been present I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I was not present for the vote concurring in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4. The National Missile Defense Act. If I had been present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THOMAS of California

Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce on behalf of myself, Mr. Cardin of Maryland, and other Representatives the ``Real Estate Investment Trust Modernization Act of 1999''. This legislation modernizes outdated real estate investment trust (REIT) rules that prevent REITs from offering the same types of services as their competitors. I am proud to note that there are more REITs based in California than any other State, and REITs have invested more than $24 billion in California communities. In 1960, Congress created REITs to enable small investors to invest in real estate. Prior to the creation of REITs, real estate ownership was largely restricted to wealthy individuals who invested through partnerships and other means generally unavailable to the broader public. Although a variety of factors limited the growth of REITs through the mid-1980's, they played a leading role in reviving weak real estate markets in the wake of the economic turmoil of the late 1980's and early 1990's because of their access to public capital markets and because REITs offer liquidity, security, and performance which alternative forms of real estate ownership often do not. Yet, in more recent years, REITs increasingly have been unable to compete with private held partnerships and other more exclusive forms of ownership. Antiquated REIT rules prevent REITs from offering the same types of customer services as their competitors, even though such services are becoming more central to marketing efforts. Current law restrictions require REITs to adhere to unworkable distinctions that defy logic and impede competitiveness. Under current law, REITs only may provide ``customary services'' to their tenants, that is, services that are common in the industry and have been traditionally provided by real estate companies, such as furnishing water, heat, light and air conditioning. The ``customary services'' standard ensures that REITs may provide services only after industry leaders have already done so, thus locking in a competitive disadvantage. In addition, the vagueness of the standard produces seemingly irrational distinctions. For example, REITs can have parking lots for shopping centers or offices they own, but cannot offer valet parking. REITs can own apartments, but cannot provide lifeguards or amenity services. REIT competitors can--and do-- provide all these services without any restrictions. The Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget acknowledges this problem, and proposes modernizing REIT rules to permit them to compete. As the Department of Treasury stated in its explanation of the Administration's revenue proposals, ``The determination of what are permissible services for a REIT consumes substantial time and resources for both REITs and the Internal Revenue Service. In addition, the prohibition of a REIT performing, either directly or indirectly, non- customary services can put REITs at a competitive disadvantage in relation to others in the same market.'' The Administration addresses this problem by creating a new category of companies which it refers to as ``taxable REIT subsidiaries''. Those entities would be exempt from current law restrictions that prohibit REITs from owning either (a) securities of a single non-REIT entity that are worth more than 5 percent of the REIT's assets or (b) more than 10 percent of the voting securities of a non-REIT corporation. The Administration's proposal would create two types of taxable REIT subsidiaries: a ``qualified business subsidiary'' that could engage in the same activities now performed by ``third party subsidiaries''; and a ``qualified independent contractor'' subsidiary that would be allowed to perform non-customary activities for REIT tenants, as well as those services which also could be performed by qualified business subsidiaries. The Administration's proposal would limit the value of all taxable REIT subsidiaries to 15 percent of the total value of the REIT'S assets, but would restrict subsidiaries providing leading edge type services to REIT tenants to 5 percent of the REIT asset base. The Administration proposal also would amend the current 10 percent test so that it would apply to 10 percent of holdings as measured by the vote or value of a company's securities. Although the Administration's proposal is a welcome first step, its narrow focus still would leave substantial impediments to competition in place. Today, we are introducing legislation that builds upon the Administration proposal to make REITs more competitive. Our legislation would allow REITs to create taxable subsidiaries that would be allowed to perform non-customary services to REIT tenants without disqualifying the rents a REIT collects from tenants, that is, performance of those services would no longer trigger a technical violation of the REIT rules. Toward that end, the 5 percent and 10 percent asset tests would be amended to exclude the securities that a REIT owns in a taxable REIT subsidiary. Also, like the Administration proposal, the 10 percent test would be tightened to apply to both the vote and value of a company's securities. In addition, a REIT owning stock of taxable REIT subsidiaries would have to continue to meet the current law requirement that at least 75 percent of a REIT's assets must consist of real property, mortgages, government securities, and cash items; the subsidiaries' stock would not count toward that total. However, dividends or interest from a taxable REIT subsidiary would count toward the requirement that a REIT must realize at least 95 percent of its gross income from those sources plus all types of dividends and interest. Under our proposal, the income a REIT subsidiary would receive from REIT tenants and others would be fully subject to corporate tax. In addition, the proposal includes strict safeguards to ensure that neither a REIT nor a taxable REIT subsidiary could improperly manipulate pricing or the allocation of expenses to reduce the subsidiary's tax burden. Our bill is supported by the American Resort Development Association, the International Council of Shopping Centers, the National Apartment Association, the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, the American Seniors Housing Association, the Mortgage Bankers Association of America, the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, the National Association of Realtors, the national Multi Housing Council, and the National Realty committee. In sum, Mr. Speaker, our legislation will provide REITs the flexibility they need to be competitive. We must not allow the Tax Code to inhibit the ability of REITs to compete and to offer the full range of services demanded by residential and commercial tenants. Mr. Cardin and I and our cosponsors urge our colleagues to review this legislation and we hope that they give this legislation every possible consideration.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As was indicated, this is the use of the rotunda for the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of NATO, and it is an especially important fiftieth anniversary because of the beginning of the expansion of NATO across what we used to know historically as the Iron Curtain. It is, in fact, probably the best evidence we have seen of the reunification of Europe with the admission of the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Hungary and the Czech Republic.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 81) permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony in honor of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and welcoming the three newest members of NATO, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Hungary, and the Czech Republic, into NATO, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 85, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Stated against:

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to and participated in this Census debate now several times. I have to say that, as someone who believes that the arguments that we make on our side of the aisle are valid and felt strongly, this gentleman is getting a little tired of the way in which the minority seems to argue this point and others. A little truth in packaging: The idea that the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) somehow seeks to undermine the Census process by allowing locals to review what the Census does. Locals, for example, in El Paso, Texas, who are 72 percent Hispanic, locals in Gary, Indiana, who are 86 percent black should not have the right, the minority says, to examine what the Census Bureau has done because they believe Republicans are racist in the way in which we are making the Census arguments; that in fact the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) involves the locals in a responsible way. ``Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York. `This act may be cited as the Local Participation in the Census Act.' ''. Do Members want truth in packaging? Do Members know what Local Participation in the Census Act means? Section 142, beginning on line 1: ``The 2000 decennial Census shall include the opportunity for local governmental units to review housing unit counts, jurisdictional boundaries, and other such data as the Secretary considers appropriate.'' On line 17, ``Any opportunity,'' ``Any opportunity for local participation under this section shall be provided in such time, form, and manner as the Secretary shall prescribe.'' Local Participation in the Census Act, with the permission of the Secretary? What we have here is the bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) which says the locals get to look over the shoulder of the Census. What we have here is a substitute which says, ``It is the Local Participation in the Census Act,'' but only if the Secretary lets the locals play. Okay? That has been the tenor of this debate. The Democrats have been pure in their motives and above politics. The Republicans have been racist and we are playing politics in its entirety. They are white and we are black. They are the good guys and we are the bad guys. Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of that kind of a political game. The only thing they have been consistent in is playing the race card. They have been consistent in that. They are arguing that we have to move forward, time is of the essence. Why, then, did they not accept our argument that the Constitution says enumerate, and that the statute based upon that portion of the Constitution says that when we apportion between States, we have to count? They did not accept that. The Clinton administration did not accept that. We had to go to court. We had to go to the United States Supreme Court and have the court tell us we were right. That ate up a lot of time. But all of a sudden, now, time is important to them. We cannot let the locals participate. They want to move a provision which says if the Secretary wants them to participate, they can do it. We want to let them. But somehow now time is of the essence. And then, interestingly, it is really fun to listen to liberal Democrats talk about money, talk about the fact that this is going to cost money. Well, listen, if we want to get it right, let us spend whatever is necessary to get it right. The court has said that we have to enumerate between States. Okay, we have to count. Let us spend as much money as necessary to count as best we can. An argument that we have heard repeated over and over again, we tried this local Census review in 1990, and there is a quote that they have used several times, that the Bush Census chief said it was well- intentioned but ineffective. They used the same argument against the Census itself, but we are talking about using better methods and focusing better on the Census. We can do exactly the same on the local Census review. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Sawyer, said in 1994 they front-loaded the process. If in fact we front-loaded the process, if we got the locals involved for almost 6 years now, do we not think the local review will go smoother? But no, they do not want that. They do not want the locals participating, but they are not playing politics, we are. They are not racist, we are. Let us talk about who has been playing politics. Our argument has been consistent from day one. We think constitutionally we should have to count, we believe between States. The Supreme Court has supported us on that argument. Frankly, I believe ultimately if we get to the court on the constitutional argument of apportionment within a State, that in fact they will also argue we have to count. But let us take the January court decision for right now. It said we have to count between States. We have to enumerate. Let us spend the money for enumeration. The court then said we can use sampling. The gentlewoman from New York said we should use sampling. That is simply incorrect. What the court said was that the statute allows us to do that. Okay, then we have to spend money in terms of doing a good job on sampling. But what is wrong with letting the locals review what we have done? Why is that such a heinous crime? If in fact Members want minorities to be counted, what is wrong with the folks in El Paso for Hispanics, what is wrong with the folks in Gary, Indiana, or Compton, California, for blacks, to look over the Census officials' shoulders to try to get it right? The argument that we cannot do this because we are going to lock into an undercount for the entire decade is to simply play a really unfair political argument that we cannot, given the law, sample over the decade to make it correct. It is not a black and white issue. This question of the census is whether or not we count all Americans. It is totally legitimate to have a debate about what ``enumerate'' in the Constitution means. That is not a racist argument. In fact, the Court supported us in that position. Obviously between censuses, there is nothing wrong with taking the best shot statistically one can at the population changes over the decade. That is appropriate. But to say that we are arguing that one needs to count people because we are racist is one of the most slimy political arguments I have ever heard. My colleagues have done it repeatedly and repeatedly. Why do my colleagues not simply say, let us come together, let us spend what money is necessary to follow the court's requirement that we count for apportionment between States, and let us spend as much money as is necessary to do as good a job as we can on sampling, and let us support the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) so that the locals can look over the shoulder of the census officials and let the locals, whether they be Hispanic, black, white, or otherwise, have a comfort level that they believe they are also being counted. So I would say that I oppose the argument of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) that her amendment in fact is local participation because it is only if the secretary considers it to be appropriate. I would ask my colleagues to support H.R. 472, the bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), because it just seems to me that there is more than enough money to enumerate and to do the sampling correctly. If we get on with it, there is time enough. Let us get on with the business of counting Americans the way the Supreme Court said we need to do it between States, enumerate as the Constitution requires within a State. If a State chooses sampling or if they choose to use the actual count, it would be the State decision. It seems to me that there has been enough discussion. Let us support the bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller). Let us spend all money necessary to do it right whether that American is black or white or otherwise.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be back and listening to the political rhetoric. I came to the floor because the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) indicated that as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health I had not held a single meeting talking about making changes in the Medicare program. We have been holding hearings taking a look at current Medicare and trying to deal with the current issues. Just as at the end of the last Congress we made adjustments in home health, we are looking at current areas. Although I find it ironic, because I also was for a year on the Medicare Commission, and for want of a single vote, we had a plan which in fact took the government entitlement to standard benefit and blended it with the savings in the marketplace. It was a plan that was going to save a percent, a percent and a half in the outyears. It was a meaningful change. The President announced that none of his appointees were going to go ahead and support the plan, and he said he was going to offer a proposal. So it seemed to me, based upon his State of the Union message and based upon his going out the day the Medicare Commission voted on a very responsible plan, saying he was going to come up with his own plan, that I thought I would say, let us see it, Mr. President. Because what we did was guarantee Medicare, guarantee prescription drugs integrated into a program in a responsible way and expanding 100 percent coverage to the low and near low income up to 135 percent of poverty. The President has not laid a plan in front of us that shows us that. The President told his appointees not to agree with that bipartisan, broad- based position. Ten of the seventeen members agreed. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) did not agree on the changes in 1997. He did not agree on the commission. I actually am looking forward to trying to find something that he agrees on. He does a great job of coming down and giving speeches in which he is able to point and criticize, but I would love to see a solution which captures a majority; not a single vote, as he was on the 1997 changes, 34 to 1, or in the minority on the Medicare commission. I reach out. Let us try to do something in a real bipartisan way.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I would only tell my friend from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that perhaps he should have had the foresight to vote for that motion to recommit. Since he did not and no Democrat voted for it, they sent a pretty clear message that that was not something that they were for. Notwithstanding that, I think my colleagues will find that the new Republican majority has moved in that direction significantly. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a very hard-working member of the committee. (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)