Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, if it does not make any difference, why not call it by its proper name, Shays/Meehan?

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), someone who has had a refreshing approach to campaign reform. And anyone who is concerned about foreign contributions, they know all we really need to do is enforce current law. (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes. Madam Chairman, as we observed under the rule that was passed, we are beginning a process which is one of the more open processes in the history of the House of Representatives. In the area of campaign reform, we have an underlying bill, and we have 10 substitutes that will be made in order. In addition to that, there will be amendments that would be perfecting amendments that will be made in order to those substitutes. It begins to sound as though it could be a very confusing and difficult process. What Members need to know is that we have already shrunk the potential amendments from almost 600 to closer to 300. Now, 300 is still a rather ominous sounding number and, as we begin to prepare and structure those amendments, I think we will find that they will shrink even more. But to try to assist Members, ``You do not know the players without a program,'' as they say in sports, The Congressional Research Service is in the final hours of preparing a document which I think will prove invaluable to Members. It will provide, for example, a quick glance, in terms of a checkoff procedure, indicating which general areas each particular substitute involves itself. For example, does it deal with spending or benefits limits, political action committees? What does it do with individuals, parties, candidates, in-State contributions limits or not, independent expenditures, et cetera? After it does the checkoff, so that you can do a quick analysis, it will go into more detailed tables taking those checks and turning them into statements as to what that particular bill does vis-a-vis the other bills. Then, finally, in the back as a constant resource it provides a summary of the amendments in chronological order so that Members can read in greater detail what each particular substitute would do. What I want to do for just a couple of minutes at the beginning is to back away from any particular measures that we are looking at and get Members to focus on the fact that we have been here before. That is, in 1971, the Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act. It has had subsequent amendments, but the basic bill was subjected to a court review in 1976 called Buckley v. Valeo. Once again, rather than going into particular details, take a step back and focus on the basics that the court dealt with. One of the basics that the court dealt with in Buckley v. Valeo that I think we should take into recognition as we examine the alternatives in front of us is that the court examined the various provisions of that legislation and said some were constitutional and some were unconstitutional. For example, on the contribution limit area, they thought it was appropriate to have limits because corruption or the appearance of corruption was closely tied or at least the appearance was closely tied to money that was given to candidates. However, on the other end, the expenditure of those funds did not have that close tie to corruption or the appearance of corruption so the court struck the limits that had been placed in the legislation on expenditures. So the court went through and examined particular areas using its criteria and said, this is constitutional or this is not constitutional. Now, the key to the court being able to do that was a severability clause in the legislation. What we wound up with was a crazy quilt that did not fit any kind of a structured pattern for orderly campaign reform. I would urge my colleagues, one of the things that they should do in examining the proposed alternatives is to take a look and see whether or not it has a severability clause. We ought not go down the same road that we have been down. We should not have a comprehensive piece of legislation in which the court can examine it and say, this is constitutional but this is not. That is lined up with the crazy quilt pattern that does not make sense. We have lived with that procedure for the last 25 years. I will provide for Members and remind them, as we go through this process, which of the basic substitutes have a severability clause and which do not. From my perspective, those substitutes that do not have a severability clause are preferable. Why? Because if the Congress votes for a comprehensive reform and the court says a portion of it is unconstitutional, it allows the Congress to revisit the area and put together an overall comprehensive, coordinated plan. If one of the substitutes has a severability clause, we are right back into the crazy quilt, court-dictated this and that, when it does not fit. The Shays-Meehan bill has a severability clause. The Farr proposal has a severability clause. The Tierney alternative has a severability clause. One of the major substitutes that does not have a severability clause is the Hutchinson Freshman bill. The second provision that I think we have to examine is the criteria the court used to rule various provisions unconstitutional. It was primarily first amendment fundamental freedoms. Six years ago, 10 years ago the primary threat to the American Republic were political action committees. If we did not do away with political action committees, the Republic was to be threatened. It is interesting how few of the major substitutes talk about doing away with political action committees. The court said, people have a fundamental first amendment right to assembly. Today we are talking about something called ``soft money.'' The question is whether or not the court will continue to maintain its position as to whether or not people have a fundamental first amendment right to spend their own money as they see fit. So when Members look at these various substitutes, look at, in the general sense, whether or not they contain provisions that in all likelihood will be struck down by the court under the argument of fundamental first amendment freedoms and if the same substitute has a severability clause, which means inevitably the court will strike a portion and other portions will remain. That is what we have been under through the last 25 years. Please, do not subject us to that. Look at the substance. Does it clearly appear in the history of the court's decisionmaking around the first amendment to be a fundamental violation, notwithstanding your desire to do it? Then does it have a severability clause. These two tests, I think, will guide this House into making the best possible decision. If we want reform and we move reform, will that reform stick? Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, it is a pleasure now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Paxon), a retiring Member of Congress, but someone who certainly is not himself retiring.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) who is one of the principal sponsors, along with a number of other freshmen, including the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) of the underlying legislation upon which we will be conducting our examination of campaign reform. (Mr. Hutchinson asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Chairman, I would announce that the Congressional Research Service document that I had mentioned at the beginning of the debate is now being made available. For anyone who is going to be leaving for the break from the floor, we have them available. Obviously, they will be available in greater numbers as we move through the process, and Members can have them in their offices. But if Members want one now, they are beginning to arrive. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], an author of a major substitute who will be addressing us at length later.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), another one of those members of the freshman class. (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf), a member of the freshman class.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. At this time, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, when I feel strongly about an issue and I believe that folks are not being treated fairly, I do get impassioned.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would inquire of the gentleman, under the current program with military retirees, is Medicare A the first payer?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may concern. Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the attempted agreement that was just made, which is clearly a concern in terms of the trust funds, but what I just heard was that the military retirees who give up their Medigap program and who may not in fact be able to get insurance, we will worry about them three years later when the demonstration program ends. I would tell the gentleman, if that is the way you are going to treat military retirees, then I can fully understand why you have some concern about the DOD program which we are now working on. You may have some concern about the VA program. But in every one of those programs that we worked with, that we sat down and made sure were done correctly, the military retirees were protected from day one. What you just heard, Mr. Chairman, was the hope that three years later, if this demonstration program does not work, those military retirees who gave up their Medigap insurance, we will see if we can pass a piece of legislation that will fix that problem. I cannot believe that the dialogue that just took place was concerned about the HI trust fund alone and showed no concern whatsoever for the military retirees that are the guinea pigs in this program. Had you sat down with the committee of jurisdiction, we would have worked that out to make sure that the military retirees were protected. This is just another example of what the gentleman from Virginia said was a well-crafted amendment, which leaves every one of those up to 70,000 military retirees who are asked to participate in this program at risk on their Medigap program. I do not believe the House is willing to vote on that kind of a risk for our military retirees.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in opposition because, quite frankly, I am sympathetic with the concern, but I wish the gentleman who is the cosponsor of the amendment would appreciate the fact that this is an attempt to tap directly into the health insurance trust fund of Medicare. The jurisdiction for the HI trust fund lies wholly within the Committee on Ways and Means. That is why, over the last several years, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health from the Committee on Ways and Means, I have worked tirelessly to perfect a Department of Defense subvention program, which attempts to utilize military hospitals to provide the service for military retirees in conjunction with the Medicare trust fund. There are a number of safeguards that are contained in the Department of Defense subvention program that are missing from this program. Shortly, perhaps immediately, the week that we come back, a bill will be on the floor providing a Veterans Administration subvention program. It will be a program for both the part A low-income service disabled veterans and for the so-called category C veterans who are not low income, nor do they have a service-related disability. That particular program has more than a dozen safeguards for the health insurance trust fund. I am sorry that the subcommittee of jurisdiction was not involved in the crafting of this particular program, because, frankly, there are just a number of flaws in the bill. They do not just extend to a clear protection of the taxpayers in the HI trust fund, although, clearly, that is of some concern. I would refer Members to a letter which was written in favor of this particular amendment by a group called The Military Coalition. Their concern is over the funding mechanism and the argument that the Congressional Budget Office believes that there will be an increased consumption of Medicare usage by these individuals. This is not a new argument that we have had with the Congressional Budget Office. We had it over the DoD subvention program, the VA subvention program. Frankly, I tend to support the argument that, if they are already a Medicare eligible user, that they will not necessarily increase their Medicare usage. The concern comes in the argument that says, ``Roughly 30 percent of all Medicare eligible military retirees have Medigap coverage right now. These are people that will switch to the FEHBP because it provides better coverage,'' that is the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, ``at a lower cost than Medigap.'' This is a 3-year program. It is designed to terminate after 3 years. These people will give up their Medigap and take private dollars and substitute them for taxpayer dollars 75 cents out of every dollar. In a moment, I will speak to the problems in the bill because these military retirees are not treated like any other Federal employee under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program. They are treated entirely differently. But let us take a look at this person who decides to get into this program, give up their Medigap, go under the FEHBP, and, in 3 years, the program ends. They now will be forced to go back into the Medigap market, and they may, in fact, face that concern that all of us face in terms of trying to go back and buy insurance after you released it, and the potential of not being able to get the kind of insurance that they had prior to going into this program. I would caution any military retiree who has Medigap insurance that I would be very, very careful of giving up my Medigap insurance to go into a program that has no guarantee that it would continue. Let us take a look in an attempt, I assume, to control costs what this particular amendment actually does. It says military retirees will go into the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, but they will not go in like every other Federal employee, including the retiree program. They have to create a separate risk pool for these people. It means that, if they are in the separate risk pool, they are already Medicare eligible. They are above 65. They have gone through rigorous military duty. Their per-capita cost could be considerably higher. But it says in another section of the amendment that the government's amount has to stay at the appropriate amount; that is the statistical average of 72 percent. The argument that the amount for the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program will be exactly the same or lower than the Medigap, which is used as an argument in the letter in favor of it, is not necessarily true, because the amendment requires a separate risk pool to be developed for these individuals. It is not clear what the complete role of the HI trust fund is. The argument is that it will be completely compensated. Remember, the health insurance trust fund is a payroll tax fund paid into by individuals. The funding mechanism in this bill is selling assets of the Department of Defense, principally precious metals that are stored for strategic use. The selling off of those assets go into the general fund. But the HI is a dedicated trust fund out of the payroll tax. There has to be a clear guarantee of transfer of funds to make sure that the HI trust fund is held harmless. I can go on and on in terms of a series of flaws that are contained in this amendment which, as I said, I am sorry no one ever involved the committee of jurisdiction to make sure, one, that the HI trust fund was protected; two, that it was integrated properly and appropriately in the two other defense measures that we are working on in terms of people who serve their country, the Department of Defense TriCare subvention program and the Veterans Vision subvention program. I would have to tell Members that this particular amendment is so fundamentally flawed that I am going to have to ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I would very much like to sit down and see if there is not some way that we could correct these fundamental flaws. But absent that, you may be exposing the HI trust fund; probably more insidious, you may be exposing these military retirees to a test program which will not allow them to get the Medigap coverage they had in the first place that they are giving up to go into this test program. It just does not make sense the way it is written. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. I would not want to take the gentleman's time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, so for the military retirees who use a military facility, that currently is the first payer, but they are denied the ability to go there; if they enter into this demonstration program, they are forced to find medical services elsewhere if they want to go in the program. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, what is the provision that protects those military retirees who choose to give up their Medigap program to go into this 3- year test that they can go back to their original Medigap program without risk? Where is that guarantee in the amendment?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, after having once again thanked the Committee on National Security, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do want to thank the chairman of the Committee on National Security and the ranking member, respectively the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), first of all for their courtesy in allowing me to discuss the amendment at this time. Actually, I have to go back. The original genesis of this amendment is once again thanking them; only at that time they were known as the Armed Services Committee and the subcommittee that consists of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky). It involved the sale of the naval petroleum reserve known as Elk Hills. In 1974 President Ford ordered oil produced at this naval petroleum reserve at its maximum efficient rate. For more than two decades, oil was produced commercially, but it was a government-held property. We always wanted to try to sell it if it was going to be used to simply produce oil to sell. But as I was wont to say at one time, you can shear a sheep every year, and you can slaughter it only once. It was producing more than $1 billion a year of revenue for more than a decade. But the gentleman from Virginia put together a sale and bidding procedure which not only succeeded in reaching the CBO's estimate of a $2.6 billion sale, but, in fact, sold for $3.65 billion. One of the reasons we think it sold at that price was that a lien on land held by State teachers, given to the teachers during the land grant college period, and the tracts of land being incorporated in the Elk Hills area, they never received a penny off the land. It was a Federal Reserve. But when it was going to be released for sale, they certainly were going to claim a revenue stream from that land. The solution put in the legislation in the then Armed Services bill was to take 9 percent of the sales price, whatever it was, and provide it to the State Teachers Retirement Fund. It was put in language that said pursuant to an appropriation. Elk Hills has been sold, $3.65 billion. Almost $326 million is held in reserve to be doled out over the years. In the wisdom of a number of people around here, we came to the conclusion of why not just give it to them. The money is sitting there. There is no reason to dole it out. Certainly $1 billion more than was planned would cover the cost of moving these dollars. So I am indebted, once again, to the now Committee on National Security for their willingness to accommodate the ability to pay the State teachers once out of a fund that is now reserved. That is the sum and substance of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 3616, pursuant to House Resolution 441, that the Thomas amendment presently at the desk be deemed to have been included as the last amendment printed in Part D of House Report 105-544.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, obviously, what is at debate here is whether or not this program, the way it is currently constructed, is one which has a maximum chance of retaining viability. One of our colleagues, I believe, got a little carried away in her eloquence and indicated that this was going to be available for every eligible retiree. It is not. It is a very limited program, 70,000. The gentleman from Virginia said it really exposed the trust fund to $50 million. That is correct. But it is a $327 million CBO estimate cost over 3 years, 70,000 retirees, $327 million. It also has no permanent transition. One of the things we tried to do in the DOD subvention and that Members will see we are doing in the VA subvention is to say that if it is, in fact, successful, this is what occurs as a follow-up. What we have here is an amendment that started out at more than $3 billion. In an attempt to get costs under control, although we were not able to work, and I would like to make one brief allusion to the May 4 meeting. That was the one meeting that was held. It was a late Friday night phone call, and my staff was unable to work because they were working on the VA subvention. They did a follow-up on Monday, and that was their only opportunity to try to have some input. All of us want to help our military retirees and our veterans. We have two solid subvention programs going forward with all kinds of guarantees for the retirees and, if the program is a success, its ability to continue forward. What we have here, I am sorry to say, is kind of a jerry-rigged program funded out of asset sales for 3 years in which there are a number of questions in terms of the way in which the program blends for the retirees, and it almost guarantees its failure. What I have been trying to do is to get people to understand that, if we make certain changes in this, if we can sit down and get it to conform more to the kinds of underlying structures we had in the subvention bill, what all of us seem to want, which myself, the gentleman from California wants, is a successful program. This program as it is currently constructed is doomed to fail. That is not the way we should go forward in terms of our military retirees. We should make the kinds of changes that enhance the chance of this program succeeding. It has fundamental flaws. Obviously, with the number of people who feel the pressure nearing Memorial Day, this measure is going to pass. I hope someone sits down and corrects the flaws. The military retirees deserve better than this amendment.