Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time briefly, I will tell you that the gentleman from California, to my knowledge, and of course he can speak for himself has not worked on this bill; that the Committee on Ways and Means and the Subcommittee on Health has not been involved in this bill at all. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Medigap is a wraparound insurance program. There are ten standardized Medigap programs that are made available by HCFA. The argument is that these military retirees will be giving up their Medigap insurance. Now, I know as you begin to talk about how this program is supposed to fit together, some eyes begin to glaze over, and all you are supposed to do is just say, it ought to be done, and therefore it is done. Well, I will tell you, in trying to work with the DOD subvention program, and now successfully with the VA, if you are really interested in looking out after the interests of these military retirees, you had better have in writing exactly what is going to occur. The Federal Employees Health Benefit Program does not match up to any of the Medigap programs. What are the policies? What are the premiums? You are creating a structure which creates a separate risk pool. The premiums may be outrageous. You have no protections for the military retirees in that regard. On page 4 of the amendment, line 11 through 14, if you agree to go into this program, what do you agree to do? You agree eligible covered beneficiaries who participate in the demonstration project shall not be eligible to receive care at a military medical treatment facility. Under the DOD subvention program, we try to blend the military medical facilities with the HI program. What you do in this is you are a military retiree, you are used to going to a military facility, and, now, if you enter into this program, you become an FEHBP member, not knowing what your premium is going to be, because you are going to be in a separate risk pool, not knowing what the benefits are going to be in terms of an augmentation, and you get your Medicare money, which you also have been utilizing perhaps in conjunction with the military medical facility, but you are denied going to the military medical facility if you become part of this program. You have to find an entirely different health care delivery structure, maybe somewhere else if you live by a military reservation which you have been going to. These are the kinds of things in reading this bill and in analyzing it as we did with the DOD subvention and with the VA subvention that simply jump out at us. There are very many flaws in this bill. Why are we trying to rush this forward without putting it together in a way the military retiree has some comfort? Is it absolutely necessary to tell them that if you enter this program for your own benefit, you have to give up military medical facilities completely, you can never go back? A lot of times in today's health care system people are saying, I want to be able to choose my own doctor. What this demonstration program says is you have to give up the doctor you had or you cannot get in the program. That makes no sense. But after all, you have X number of cosponsors, you have X number of people whose heart is certainly in it, and my heart is in it, and the reason I am up here today is to tell my colleagues we have to put our heads in it as well as our hearts, and it is not impossible to work these out, but if we are going to move forward and simply say all of these are going to be resolved, unfortunately the end result will be a 3-year program which will fail. If we want a successful program, we ought to sit down and work out these difficulties, we will have a higher chance of succeeding, and perhaps my admonitions will go unheeded, and I am sorry, because it will be the military retirees who will have suffered.

Mr. THOMAS. On my time.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, did the gentleman or the gentleman's staff ever call the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means? The answer is if you did everything you could to work it out, it seems to me the subcommittee of jurisdiction, which has worked on the balanced budget amendment for the DOD subvention, which has worked with the Committee on Veterans Affairs on the VA subvention program, and which is currently working in the Medicare Commission to make sure that those individuals who served time in the military, and especially were in theaters of combat, are taken care of. The gentleman continues to give this blanket assurance that everything has been done. I simply continue to repeat, you never once worked with the subcommittee of jurisdiction. I believe that is one of the reasons that all these flaws are in the amendment. We have taken care of it in every other area that we have worked with combining Department of Defense and veterans interests with Medicare. They are not in this amendment. It is flawed. If someone would indicate that we could sit down and resolve the flaws in the amendment, then I am far more interested in going forward. What I heard as a resolution for those individuals who are going to give up their Medigap is that three years from now, when this demonstration ends, maybe we can pass a law that will give them a chance to get their Medigap back. I do not think that is a very comfortable assurance for military retirees. I certainly would not want to gamble my program to go into a program that may end on the assurance that this Congress, three or four years down the road, is going to be able to make sure I get back the insurance I lost when I started this experiment. That is not a solid guarantee, and that is what this amendment says, and that is what was just discussed on the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, perhaps the gentleman did not hear me. The one line you continue to refer to is the transfer of funds from the endangered HI trust fund, which is scheduled to go bankrupt in a short number of years. That is why we have the Medicare Commission, to protect those funds. What I have continued to refer to is the requirement and in fact the argument that is made by the military coalition, that these military retirees are going to give up their Medigap insurance to get into the program. Because certainly they are not going to pay out of pocket their own private dollars for a Medigap program, when in fact the taxpayers are going to pay 75 cents out of every dollar to put them into the FEHBP program. So you have the HI trust fund paying for the Medicare, and 75 cents out of every dollar of taxpayers money, the employer, to the retired military being paid in the FEHBP. They are giving up their private sector dollars, the Medigap dollars, to get this. But it is a demonstration program. It is only for three years. Why could you not write into the program a protection for these military retirees? It is not the one line you are talking about, which is the HI trust fund. It is the guarantee that you do not lose any more than the insurance that you had when you went into the program. That is one of the fundamental flaws of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on my time?

Mr. THOMAS of California

Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, this week is Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Week, seven days set aside to honor the courageous men and women who gave their lives protecting us and upholding the law. Yesterday, I was proud to vote for House Resolution 422 which states that law enforcement officers who have died in the line of duty should be honored, recognized, and remembered for their great sacrifice. Today I rise to help pay tribute to the law enforcement officers who died while serving Bakersfield, California. With all of the advances that have been made in the field of American law enforcement this century, one sad and sobering fact remains the same: police officers are often killed in the line of duty. On May 15, the Bakersfield Police Department will dedicate a monument to honor the law enforcement officers who sacrificed their lives for the safety and well-being of the people of Bakersfield over the past century. Of great men, Ralph Waldo Emerson once said ``brave men who work while others sleep, who dare while others fly . . . they build a nation's pillars deep and lift them to the sky.'' The names which will be etched on this memorial will be an eternal reminder of the seven brave men who lost their lives daring to protect the people of Bakersfield. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I pay tribute to the law enforcement officials in Bakersfield who died in the line of duty. The somber black granite monument will be a lasting tribute to these individuals who put the safety of the community ahead of their own. I am proud to live in a town which has chosen to honor its fallen police officers in such a fitting and lasting manner.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in announcing that the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) is holding its annual convention in Bakersfield, California this year and in welcoming wind energy experts from all over the globe to this event. Between April 27 and May 1, wind energy industry representatives and government officials from around the world will discuss and view new technologies and the burgeoning market for clean electricity generated with wind turbine technologies. This convention is a special event for my constituents because others will notice just how important the Kern County wind energy industry has become when conventioneers tour the Tehachapi Pass wind farms. Tehachapi hosts one of the largest concentrations of wind generation equipment in the United States. The area's 5,000 wind turbines produce enough power to light San Francisco. Wind power is big business in this small town: some 3,200 jobs in the Tehachapi area are related to wind power. The industry has a great story to tell everyone. Today, wind power is being generated in California, Hawaii, Vermont, Iowa, Texas and Minnesota. American companies have gone from buying foreign technology to developing and selling their own wind turbines here in the United States. There are tremendous international markets developing for U.S. wind technology and the industry has dramatically cut the cost of producing power with this environmentally-benign power source to as little as 3 cents per kilowatt hour. The future of wind energy will be explored by convention guests when they come to Bakersfield and I wish all who attend success as they chart the trade's future course.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, we have one remaining speaker, and I believe it is our right to close.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Madam Speaker, apparently moral outrage is alive and well on the floor. The argument is that reform is owned by only one group. It really is not owned by anyone. It has been said that only one side plays politics. The other side, as I said, claims the moral high ground. But what is the moral high ground in campaign reform? Quite frankly, if we examine Shays-Meehan, McCain-Feingold, earlier versions, we really come to the conclusion that it is for sure a title that will remain, but the contents will change. It is kind of interesting that the moral outrage today is that we have to ban soft money. When McCain-Feingold started, it was to ban political action committees. But nowhere in the current bill do they find banning political action committees. Does that mean that they were wrong earlier, and they are right now? Or were they right earlier and they are wrong now? It seems to me that, if we will examine those earlier bills, we will find that they banned leadership PACs. Members will find no provision in the current bill banning leadership PACs. At one time, they banned leadership PACs. Was it wrong earlier to ban leadership PACs and right now to exclude them? So I think, when we are talking about looking for the moral high ground, one of the things we ought to do is what the gentleman from Delaware did, and that is read the bills. Because I think, notwithstanding the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, Members will be surprised, indeed some Members might be shocked, to find out what H.R. 3581 holds and what Shays-Meehan does not hold. I mentioned earlier, at the beginning of the debate, millionaire candidates. Although the court has said, constitutionally, that candidates are allowed to spend their money, we are trying to create a level playing field. Guess what? When we read Shays-Meehan, they exclude the primary. When we read H.R. 3581, the primary is included. On their moral high ground bill, millionaires can still buy primaries. In our bill, they cannot. They say the bane of this system is soft money. What would we do to a Presidential candidate who promised to take only public financing but went ahead and raised soft money? What H.R. 3581 does is ban the ability of candidates taking public money if they take soft money. What does Shays-Meehan do? It is silent. Let us go to the heart of banning money both at the Federal and the State level. Guess what? H.R. 3581 is a hard ban on soft money both at the Federal and the State level. If Members actually read Shays-Meehan, they will find that, in fact, there are a number of loopholes on soft money at the State level. It is not a hard ban on soft money. We can use it for a number of overhead costs. We can use it for staff if it is less than the majority of the time. Of course one of the glaring neglects in Shays-Meehan is the whole question of voter fraud that has gained the headlines all across the country, it contains not one provision to guarantee that only people who are supposed to vote can actually participate in the election. Let me indicate another area where, if my colleagues are honestly for reform, they might be somewhat shocked. Today one of the dirtiest campaign tricks is what we call push polling. It is where they poll but then they say, ``If candidate X had done 1, 2 or 3, what would you think about that candidate?" Guess what? We require disclosure if it is not in the public domain. What does Shays-Meehan do? Absolutely nothing, no addressing of push polling. And then of course when we take a look at the way in which the Federal Election Commission requires us to report, we can put down $10,000 to campaign committee X, and we do not have to itemize. Shays- Meehan allows this block registration of money; it is wrong. We require that campaigns break down to secondary givers. It is amazing that when we look at real reform, we find far more specific real reforms in H.R. 3581 than we do in the bill that will be changed tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, just as it was changed yesterday and the day before yesterday, but they retain moral outrage. I would ask for an ``aye'' vote on 3581.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 34) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United States from making contributions or expenditures in connection with an election for Federal office, as amended.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this is a bill by our colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). It was introduced on January 7, 1997, and in yielding myself such time as I may consume, let me read what the bill does in sum and substance: It is to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United States from making contributions or expenditures in connection with an election for Federal office. Rarely have we had a bill in front of us that is so plain, simple to understand, and so necessary. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) who also had legislation dealing with this area as well.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am actually having a little difficulty understanding the last exchange, since under Federal law all corporate money, whether it is foreign or domestic, is not allowed to be in campaigns. This bill deals with individual contributions which are legal under the Federal Election Act, and the gentleman from Nebraska wishes to say that there is an additional criteria on individuals to contribute, and that is that they must be citizens.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I tell the gentlewoman that I still do not fully appreciate or understand her question, since it is the individual in that structure and not the association or the corporation that makes the contribution. Corporate contributions are illegal whether the corporation is a domestic corporation or a foreign corporation.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I tell the gentlewoman that in a bill she has an opportunity to vote on, H.R. 3581, we ban all soft money. So if the gentlewoman is talking about soft money in the system----

Mr. THOMAS. It is not my bill, it is the bill of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and if in fact they are a citizen, they can contribute.

Mr. THOMAS. And the law says it is illegal.

Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I tell the gentlewoman that if she is interested and if her point is that we ought to enforce the laws that are on the books, then I wholeheartedly agree with her, we should enforce the laws that are on the books. We just think that one more ought to be added, and that is the one before us.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my assumption is that that was a speech addressing the bill that is no longer in front of us. The bill in front of us is H.R. 34. It was introduced on January 7, 1997, and that is the bill that is before us. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), a member of the Committee on House Oversight and a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, who is extremely knowledgeable on the question of noncitizens contributing to American campaigns. (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let us remember the rules we have for voting is only people who are citizens are supposed to vote as well. My assumption is there may be some moral outrage somewhere about the fact that only citizens are allowed to vote.