Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, most Americans are familiar with May 7, tax liberation day. We labor all the year up until May 7 to pay our income taxes. A date they may not be familiar with is July 3, government freedom day. We labor the rest of May and all of June to pay for Government regulations and interest on the national debt, so it was just July 3 that Americans began working for themselves, instead of Government. Last night on NBC News, most Americans, I am sure, were startled to find out that those taxpayers' dollars were going to pay for people who do no Government work whatsoever; that in fact, full-time, paid for by taxpayers' dollars, they do union work and union organizing. To add injury to insult, we found out on the program that they are paid out of trust fund moneys, not just Social Security trust fund money, but Medicare trust fund money, that same trust fund President Clinton's trustees said is now going bankrupt in the year 2000 instead of 2001. While Clinton's trustees were painting more red ink, out of that trust fund were people being paid who did no work for the taxpayers, full-time for the unions. I would tell the gentleman that his amendment is still unacceptable because, as I read his amendment, after it says that none of the funds can be used, he says nothing in this section shall be construed to deny the right or prohibit the commissioner from carrying out those self- same activities. He believes he has found a safe harbor by saying the trust fund money perhaps will not be touched. But it is the taxpayers' money not being spent for its intended purposes that I think is the fundamental problem. Last night, Lisa Myers held up a fax that had been sent to one of these union workers from the gentleman from Missouri, Dick Gephardt, and the House Democratic leadership, and said, ``I thought you said politics was supposed to stay out of this. Is this right?'' Ruth Pierce, the Social Security Administrator, looked Lisa Myers in the eye and said, ``I will yield to Congress what is a right law and what is a wrong law, but it's the law.'' I will tell the Members, it is the wrong law. This is the chance to change it. Reject the substitute, go with the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]. No trust fund moneys, indeed no taxpayer moneys, ought to go for this kind of private sector inurement at the expense of that hardworking taxpayer who spends half the year paying for a program and for a government, and he does not even get to have any employees work for him at all.

Mr. THOMAS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, would the author of the substitute agree with the gentleman that no taxpayer funds are intended to be used for union activity on the job site?

Mr. THOMAS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, very briefly, it is not the intent of this gentleman from California to deny legitimate union activities. Our concern is, paid for by taxpayers's dollars. These phrases do not preclude it. That is the problem.

Mr. THOMAS. If the gentleman will yield further. The gentleman does his profession well with that response, because I do not know what that means. It means it may or may not.

Mr. THOMAS. But in fact, it can be interpreted that way. I know and understand and love the gentleman from Indiana, but his assurance does not guarantee that it is not taxpayers' dollars.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I find it rather hypocritical to respond to the comment about fascism that ``I have done my homework and I know that it was a quote and, therefore, in quoting others on the floor that it is not a breach of the rules; however, since I am a new Member I may not be aware of the rules.'' It seems to me we cannot have it both ways. The gentlewoman knew exactly what she was trying to do, and what she did was interject a level of hostility which is totally inappropriate on this particular subject. What she does not know, perhaps, is that there was never any intention not to provide the ordinary software procedures for moving to sites that one is returning to by those people who browse frequently. The problem arose when the ranking Member, using that unique authorizing and appropriations avenue that he has, moved to the appropriations route to try to meet his needs instead of sitting down with the chairman of the committee and working it out. As we move forward with this new technology, just as we have in every area, just as the letterhead says, chairman and minority, we will share. And we share far more than the other side ever shared when they were the majority. We are doing more in reaching out to the minority than they did, and we will continue that trend, despite the references.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if anyone ever wondered what was meant by the old phrase, ``cut off your nose to spite your face,'' we have got exhibit A in front of us in this motion to recommit. The gentleman from California talked about the committee Web sites, that we have to go through hundreds of pages. Just a short time ago I showed our colleagues the pages. It is right on the front page. They even use an icon of a donkey for those who are not sure where they are supposed to go. We provide a book mark, go to that site once, and then in the software the return user can go directly to the minority site. Every committee has it except the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. What he proposes to do is cut out the employees in HIR that assist in the more than 180 Web sites. Democrats and Republicans, we heard speech after speech about wanting an open Congress, wanting a House that was more willing to work with people on the outside, and we were not willing to do that by having the committees with the majority and the minority tied together like it is everywhere else. I say to my colleagues, ``This amendment cuts off your nose to spite your face. You are going to deny support services to Democrats as well as Republicans, to groups like freshmen Democrats and freshmen Republicans so you can make a point backed up by facts that simply are not so.'' I would urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me rise to comment on the specific amendment which we are supposed to be dealing with during this time, and I do not know about the desire for Members to have a referendum on the CAO. I am concerned about the language of the amendment which the gentleman from California, who as a member of the Appropriations Committee and the authorizing committee has the ability to move freely between the two areas, and attempt to write policy from an authorizing committee position in the appropriation. We are supposed to have that be against the rules. It is legislating on an appropriations bill, but the Committee on Rules did make it in order, notwithstanding that. My problem is that it builds a fence around the $4 million. I would be less opposed to the amendment if he gave the $4 million to the House Committee on Oversight so that we could place it where the Members could get the best use out of it. This amendment places it where the gentleman from California thinks we can get the best use out of it. Where we are is the gentleman from California, notwithstanding the fact that he is in the minority, still wants to basically run the place and tell people what to do. I do not deny that that is a desirable position, it is just that I wanted 16 years to be in the same one and I would now like to exercise it. But the gentleman from California apparently does not want me to because he wants to tell me where to put the money. At the beginning of this Congress, we took the separate categories of the Members' representational account and put them into one so that Members would have freedom to choose between staff or computers or travel or a district office. The gentleman now wants to go back to the policies of old, that he has already repudiated by his vote in committee, to free up the ability to determine where the member spends his money. So on that particular amendment, I would ask for your opposition. Now the Internet. The gentleman from California said something that I agree with, and that is that the Internet is information in a different form. After that, I had a fairly fundamental disagreement with what he has had to say. I really believe the people who took the floor earlier and said this was a gag rule--the gentleman from Colorado said it was un-American, that this is censorship I think got a little carried away with their rhetoric. The reason I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] that this is information in a different form is that we really ought to look at that information in a different form so that we can understand what we are talking about. Committees give reports. They hold hearings. They write a report. Very often the minority dissents from the majority report, and so you have the majority report and the minority report. Is the minority report presented in a completely separate document available to those constituents who want to find out about the hearing? No. It is included in a package that says, ``Committee on House Oversight, House of Representatives, together with minority views.'' It is the majority and the minority combined. The gentleman, and I think he waxed eloquent in the Committee on Rules, said that it was possible that visitors would probably thumb through 120 electronic pages to be able to find the minority location. Every committee in the House except the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the Committee on Intelligence has a Web site. We might understand why those two prefer not to have a Web site: The Ethics one probably would be too full and the Intelligence one would be blank. But for the other committees, here is the Committee on Resources. First page, picture of the chairman, Democrats, minority of the committee. We do not have to thumb through pages; it's right there. It is on the front, just like the reports. Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, right up front. ``Welcome to the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services. Greetings from Chairman Jim Leach;'' the Democrats' view, right up front. House Committee on the Budget, they even put a donkey so that those folks who have trouble with the cursive can locate the minority home page. The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] was complaining about the Committee on Science. We do have to go to the second page on the Committee on Science because the chairman decided ``Hot News'' would take up a third of the page. Current issues that affect both the majority and the minority would take up a portion of the first page; but right there, the Democrats. Let me talk about information in another form in another way. If we go to the House of Representatives telephone directory, we will find staff listed alphabetically. We will find staff listed by Members' offices, and we will find staff listed and Members listed by committee. On that page it says Committee on House Oversight, for example, just thumbing to that page, the majority, the minority, the majority staff, the minority staff, located by committee. What the gentleman from California and the others are really asking for is something that is unprecedented in the history of the House, a wedge, if you will, to open up the opportunity to create a distinct and separate structure for the minority. Now, if our colleagues had been in the majority for 40 years and now have to suffer under the yoke of being in the minority, our colleagues would not accept the fact that their colleagues share the page with the majority in the phone book or share the pages under the cover of committee reports or that they are second on the Internet page for the particular committee. Our colleagues would want their own distinct structure. Well, it has never been that way. They are trying to use this argument of censorship on the Internet as a wedge argument to begin to unravel the 40 years of history that they established as the majority. Now, the new majority is somewhat more conservative than the old and we probably would tend to hang on to those areas that worked well. One of the areas that worked well was to use the committee as the structure, underneath that, the majority and the minority. All we are doing is continuing that structure on the Internet as well.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to compliment the gentleman for his amendment. His amendment follows a long line of positive amendments offered on both sides of the aisle, and as a matter of fact originally in a bipartisan effort by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and the then gentleman, still gentleman, but member of the House from Minnesota, Mr. Frenzel, to begin to separate the cost of franked mail from the general fund category. We have not yet reached the Senate stage. The gentleman from Delaware indicated that it puts us in the same position as the Senate, and I know he is aware that the Senate actually separates the unsolicited mass mail from the other franked mail. We do not do that. But what the gentleman's amendment does is in essence do it in the report so that people can see not only the amount but the number of addresses to which the franked mail has been sent. The gentleman alluded to the way in which this Congress continues to make changes. He of course is aware that at the beginning of the 104th Congress we cut franked mail by yet another one-third of the total amount and that we moved up the statutorily required 60-day ban to a voluntary 90-day ban. Once again I want to compliment the gentleman. His addition of a required statement that it is at taxpayer expense is a good, positive notifier of where the money is coming from. It also perhaps might be somewhat of a conscience conditioner in terms of whether you mail it out or not, and by giving it a separate report, we do move closer to the Senate, separating the response mail from the unsolicited mass mailing. I compliment the gentleman on his amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise very reluctantly in opposition to the amendment of my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota. I do not know about the other areas of the appropriations package. I do know about the legislative branch. I worked very, very closely with the gentleman from California, and look at where we have gone. I do want to correct slightly the gentleman's numbers. In fiscal year 1995 it was $1.9 billion. Last year it was $1.72 billion. This year it is $1.68. Those are declining real numbers every year. Last year, because it was larger, we cut $154 million. We cut the committees by one-third when we came in, saving $67 million. This year, notwithstanding one-third of a cut in committees, the gentleman from California sharpened his pencil and came up with an another $37.4 million reduction over last year. We are talking about real reductions over last year, not reducing the increase. We do not play that game. This is a new majority. It is an absolute reduction. It is not a mindless across the board. It was focused on where we could cut. I support the gentleman generally, but not in this particular instance.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, with the recent issuance of the 1996 annual report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance [OASDI] Trust Funds, it is time to heed the warning that this report provides. The funds will be fully depleted by 2029. In addition to the loss of the trust funds that year, the 2029 annual Social Security tax revenues will only be adequate to cover three-quarters of the amount necessary to pay the OASDI benefits for that year. If we don't act now, our retirement system that employers and employees have paid into since 1937 may become extinct. Today's young workers already have little faith that they will ever be able to collect Social Security benefits. In fact, in a recent survey, workers indicated that they believe they have a better chance of seeing a UFO than collecting Social Security benefits. The number of covered workers receiving benefits has grown dramatically but the number of workers paying into the funds to cover each retired worker is shrinking dramatically as well. In 1945, the system had over 1 million recipients with approximately 41.9 workers paying into the fund for each retired worker receiving benefits. In 1995, there were over 43 million recipients with 3.3 beneficiaries supporting each retired worker. By 2070, there will be over 96 million recipients and only 1.8 current workers per each recipient. Let's look at it from another perspective. In 1945, 2 out of every 100 covered workers were actually Social Security recipients. In 1995, there were 31 recipients for every 100 workers and in 2070, with the baby boomers, it will top off at 55 recipients out of every 100 covered workers. In 75 years, more covered workers will be retired than working. Please keep in mind that 41 years earlier, the fund was depleted and payments to recipients will be coming directly out of Social Security taxes paid in that year with the shortfall being made up with other taxpayer funds. If these funds are covering the Social Security shortfall, that means that less dollars are available for other entitlement spending--including Medicare and Medicaid--and discretionary spending. The same time that the trust funds are gone and the shortfall is being made up with Federal dollars, Americans are living longer. Retirees will be collecting Social Security benefits for a greater length of time. In 1940, the average male did not even live long enough to collect Social Security benefits--average life expectancy 61.4 years; and females did not collect it for very long--average life expectancy 65.7 years. By 2070, the average man will live 78.4 years and the average women 84.1 years. They will start collecting Social Security retirement at age 67. Changes to the system need to be made now. Of course, the trustees look for solutions in America's checkbook and tell us that the system can be saved if we increase Social Security taxes approximately 2 percent during 1996. There is a better approach. My Social Security IRA bill, H.R. 2971, is a modern plan. It incorporates the best of the present Social Security system and also provides the worker with a role in personal retirement planning. The worker's portion of the Social Security tax is placed in a federal insured depository institution of the worker's choice. If today's average salaried worker pays into the Social Security IRA account for 45 years, upon reaching the future retirement age of 67 years, the worker will have accumulated approximately $172,000 in the account--converted to present dollars and computed using a 3 percent annual rate of return. If these funds are rolled over upon retirement, into an annuity program, the monthly annuity payment to the retiree will be $854. At retirement, the worker will also receive a reduced Social Security monthly annuity. Please note that the present monthly Social Security benefit for the average worker is $886. The time is ripe for change. The OASDI trust funds are in trouble. Let's not wait until it's too late. We need to make a change now if we want to save the Social Security system. Social Security IRA offers an alternative.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment that language dealing with the Section 8 Housing Program in sections 204 and 205 of H.R. 3666, the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill, was removed from the bill. We have been working to reform this program since 1993 when my local newspaper in Bakersfield, CA, described the rents subsidized by the Section 8 Program. According to the article, some building owners were receiving rents $200 and $300 above comparable market rents for similar size units in the area. While I understand that there may be some additional costs associated with managing section 8 units, I do not believe that an additional $200 or $300 per month is justified. I believe he Department of Housing and Urban Development must be given the authority to simply reduce rents to those projects which are blatantly out of line with rents paid for comparable units in the area. In taking such a step, I understand that other factors beyond a simple comparison of other area rents must be taken into account. That is why I have introduced legislation to provide the HUD Secretary this authority and why I am disappointed, therefore, that the section 8 language, which would have allowed HUD to bring in a third party arbitrator upon the expiration of section 8 contracts to negotiate new rents based upon comparable market rents was deleted from the VA/HUD appropriations bill. The intent of my legislation is not to bankrupt these projects or violate a contract, nor throw anyone out of their apartments. The intent is to eliminate the windfall that a few project owners may be unjustly receiving at taxpayer expense. I hope that the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee of the Banking and Financial Services Committee moves quickly this summer to bring legislation to the floor that addresses this issue.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to correct my statement. The gentleman was not on the ballot as a socialist. He was on the ballot in Vermont, as he indicates, as an independent but that he proudly claims he is a democratic socialist.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I was here in the well earlier and I assumed that the time that we had allotted was the time that was going to be used and apparently we now have more time. I will be more direct than I was earlier. The idea of taking money out of the Naval Petroleum Reserve, $11 million on top of the $43 million that has been removed on a project which the President has signed that we are going to sell this Government property, is a dumb idea. The Department of Energy itself has said if you take the $11 million, we have two choices. We do not drill like we need to drill to continue the production. That will cost the American taxpayers next year $14 million. He takes $11 million out. Next year, it costs the taxpayers $14 million. In 1998, it costs the taxpayers $31 million because they did not have the money to drill the wells they need to continue to improve the largest Government holding of oil resources in the lower 48. If they decide they are going to spend money they would have otherwise spent on other projects, it would come out of the environmental fund, which means it may not meet the standards that these people impose for the environment. Now, you are damned if you do and you are damned if you do not. Weatherization is important, but keeping a natural resource that we are going to sell for potentially $1 billion up the private sector levels to get the maximum taxpayer dollar out of it simply is not a smart thing to do when they have taken $43 million out and now he wants to take $11 million out. Notwithstanding whatever the merits of your weatherization, the idea of going after this is typical fuzzy-headed thinking. Why, at the time you are getting your house ready to sell and the contractor says you have a hole in the roof, it will cost $5,000 to fix, but you will have to lower the price of the House by $10,000, you do not spend the money to make sure that you can get the full market value for the House? He is taking what we are going to sell and refusing to spruce it up so we can get the highest dollar possible for the taxpayer. As far as the weatherization program is concerned, there are a number of other areas to find the funds. There are amendments that have approached it in other areas to find the funds. Why he is absolutely insistent upon going after this particular fund, at a time when the Congress--the House and the Senate--and the President have agreed to spruce up this property to get the highest possible taxpayer dollar out of selling that property, is beyond me. Except I remember then that he is on the ballot in Vermont and when he reached this body, his ballot designation was Socialist.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I am not here to speak to the merits of weatherization or where the gentleman from Vermont wants to spend his money. I believe the chairman of the subcommittee may have some remarks directed to the weatherization programs. Rather, I want to focus on where the gentleman gets his money from. Ever since I have been in Congress, I have represented Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 at Elk Hills. Since the mid-1970's, on order of then President Ford, the Naval Petroleum Reserve has been producing petroleum at the maximum efficient rate. That is, the Government has been trying to run it like a private oil field. For years, beginning with the Reagan administration, there was suggestion that we sell Elk Hills, since we are producing it as though it were a private operation. We said then that we wanted to make sure that the taxpayers got the maximum benefit of selling this very important natural resource, and that it be sold, because we can maximize the removal of petroleum from the reserve if it is coordinated with all of the private sector holdings surrounding Elk Hills. With the assistance of, in one of the better bipartisan efforts in the 104th Congress, the two gentlemen from Virginia, Mr. Bateman and Mr. Sisisky, we put together a procedure for selling Elk Hills. It calls on experts, a maximum of five, to determine the value. There is a procedure that we are going to go through that we all believe will produce the maximum dollar to the taxpayer in the selling of this asset. There is a timeline we are operating under, and we have already cut from the 1995 level $43 million, almost 25 percent of the total budget. It is the additional $11 million that concerns us about our ability to maximize for the taxpayers the dollars in the sale of Elk Hills. I have told you I have represented Elk Hills, and some folks may think I would be giving less than an objective view in analyzing what this amendment would do. Therefore, I would like to read to you from a Department of energy letter than I received late last night, signed by the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. This is the Clinton administration addressing the Sanders amendment. ``The Sanders amendment would severely compromise the prospects for obtaining an appropriate sales price,'' The letter says. ``The proposed $11 million reduction would eliminate new drilling activity in fiscal year 1997. That would produce $14 million in reduced revenue in 1997 alone, and $31 million in reduced revenue in 1998.'' Now, let us say that you go ahead and spend that money for production, and, if you do, the Department chooses then to continue drilling at the field to preserve production. The letter says it will have to take the cut from other activities at the field, such as environmental compliance. If the field is not within its environmental compliance guidelines, it will be of less value to a purchaser. In short, the letter says, the proposed funding reduction would have a cascading effect. The American taxpayers lose now in terms of revenues to the Government, and they would lose later in terms of the proceeds that go to the Federal treasury when this field is old. In the old English saying, penny-wise and pound-foolish, the $11 million removed from the Naval Petroleum Reserve is a classic example of that. Again, not speaking to the merits of weatherization, the administration agrees with me that taking $11 million out of the Naval Petroleum Reserve costs the taxpayers immediately next year $14 million, $31 million in 1998, and untold millions to the taxpayers in sprucing up this property, getting it ready for a final sale. I would tell the gentleman from Vermont that others could speak to the merits of the weatherization, but as far as where he gets his funding, I hope the House, if he proposes to offer this for a vote, would soundly reject the source for his funding.

Mr. THOMAS. I apologize. The gentleman wishes to be called a democratic socialist.

Mr. THOMAS. I certainly apologize if the gentleman has never, ever represented himself as representing a socialist point of view.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I missed a vote on an amendment to H.R. 3662, which passed by a 93 vote margin, 257 to 164. I oppose the amendment which would resume designating critical habitat for the marbled murrelet and would have voted against the amendment had I not been detained discussing a matter of importance to some of my Tulare County constituents with Members of the Senate in the Senate Chamber. For too long, the Endangered Species Act has hurt our economy and wasted public resources. As a cosponsor of H.R. 2275, I believe Congress must reform the Endangered Species Act, so that it will contain strict requirements for scientific documentation and mandate objective evaluation of evidence prior to any species being listed and a habitat designation made. If society wants to protect a species, then society should pay for it, and not lay the costs onto the backs of that segment of society who own property on which so-called endangered species live.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 253, I was unavoidably delayed, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' personal explanation

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and a certain amount of pride that I take the floor this morning, finally, as we appoint the conferees to meet with the Senate on our health insurance package. I find it somewhat ironic that this package passed the House some time ago, passed the Senate on April 16, but it is not until June 11 that we are naming conferees. That is simply because the Senate stalled. The Senate would not go forward. The Senate Democrats wanted to play politics with health care once more. We discovered, Mr. Speaker, that the President's mediscare tactics over the last year cost the American people more than $100 billion when we compare the 1995 Medicare trustees report with the 1996 Medicare trustees report. If we follow the wishes of the former chairman of the Committee on Commerce and pass this motion to instruct, we are once again going to be part of an operation that delays and obfuscates. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said that the negotiations that we have been carrying on with the Senate tried to crowbar provisions into the package. One man's crowbar is another's compromise and accommodation, and I just find it totally ironic that the gentleman from Michigan, given his history of rather cavalier and arrogant management of conference reports, would, in fact, make such a comment. He alluded to the fact that the Senate package passed the floor 100 to 0. If that is the case, why is the motion to instruct not to go with the Senate program? Oh no, he knows there were flaws in the Senate bill. So on the one hand he says we have to go with the Senate, they are wise, they were bipartisan, they passed it 100 to 0, but, oh, by the way, in the motion to instruct, we do want to make changes in the Senate provision. Well, let me tell my colleagues, the House and the Senate coming together has created historic legislation. We believe the President will be compelled to sign this package. We changed the language in the fraud and abuse area so that someone committing a bookkeeping error would not be liable to the penalties. Rather it is deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard of the law, rather than a simple bookkeeping error. Mr. Speaker, we have cleared away a lot of the paperwork logjam that has been there way too long. We cleaned up the long-term care insurance area, changing the Tax Code to allow seniors to deduct this off of their medical expenses. That has been left to languish far too long. And on MSA's, the agreement between the House and the Senate is to begin on January 1 with employers of less than 50 employees. Currently, out of the 29 million in that category, only 3 million have health insurance. The MSA's will afford health insurance for millions of Americans if we disregard the motion to instruct.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Washington if he would like to come to the mike. I will give him time on my time to respond to a question I would like to ask him, because in his statement he was quite emphatic that if the medical savings accounts as we are beginning to work them out with the chairwoman on the Senate side from Kansas, that if, in fact, we work out something that is acceptable to the gentlewoman from Kansas, that the President is going to veto it. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington spoke with such certainty that this was a poison pill. I guess I would ask the gentleman if it is included and the President signs it, what does it tell the gentleman about the President? Why is he so certain the President is going to veto the package if it has the compromised MSA language in it?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I was amazed as to how certain the gentleman from Washington was that the President would veto it. I think that certainty does not come from knowledge; it comes from fear that the President will, in fact, sign the legislation because it is a reasonable compromise and is going to leave a lot of people who have been very unwilling to be reasonable out on the limb. Mr. Speaker, we are going to test that hypothesis very soon because I believe the President will sign this very responsible health insurance reform package.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, it just seems to me sometimes we get carried away in our speeches, because we try to get people to believe that the real world does not work the way the real world works. You have heard a number of my colleagues, the most recent one on this side of the aisle, say it is not going to be passed on to the consumers. How many of you have driven by a gas station at any time in your life when there were two stations on the same corner and there was a nickel difference between the two? The answer is never. All you have to do is have one enterprising station owner decide as a gimmick to sell more gasoline to say, ``I am lowering my price by 4.3 cents and I am passing the savings on to you,'' and how long does he stand alone? What happens is the guy on the next corner says, ``We are passing it along, too.'' What happens, as in any market situation in a highly competitive product, is that once somebody gets the idea that they can get the consumer to come to them rather than someone else by offering something. And the headlines are going to be, finally we have repealed a tax that never should have been imposed in the first place, and it is going to be passed on to consumers because somebody out there, an entrepreneur is going to be bright enough to say, ``I am lowering the price, you get the tax benefit,'' and it will not be able to be contained to that one bright entrepreneur. The idea that you have to have government tell people they have got to pass it on is a classic example of the difference between a party that believes in market-oriented entrepreneurs and the government having to tell you how you are supposed to run a competitive market- based structure. All you have to do is to vote here and you will see it out there tomorrow, unless of course you do not have any confidence at all in the American system.