Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, I want to take this opportunity to comment on the Budget Committee's report language relating to the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research [AHCPR] that was included with its discussion of the major discretionary health programs funded under function 550. The report language refers to the committee's objections to AHCPR's role in the development of outcomes research-based clinical practice guidelines and the need to better integrate survey and data collection efforts at a number of agencies, including AHCPR. This is an important goal but think it is important to note that AHCPR has already addressed the two issues raised in this report. First, in the area of clinical practice guidelines, AHCPR has been responsive to the committee's concerns. The Agency took this criticism seriously, engaged in a dialog with the health care community, and announced last month that it will no longer directly support the development of clinical practice guidelines. Instead, AHCPR will concentrate on its strength, the development and assessment of the scientific evidence that physicians, health plans, and other providers need so that they, not AHCPR, can develop guidelines or other qualify improvement strategies. This approach will provide physicians and health plans with the information they need to develop better, evidence-based guidelines, without the implication that the Federal Government is telling them how to practice medicine. Second, the agency has been responsive in attempting to minimize their overlap with other Health and Human Services agencies in the area of the data collection. Despite the fact that AHCPR has only a small, but important, role in the area of data collection, the Agency took the lead in proposing a major restructuring of its medical expenditure survey to eliminate areas of duplication with other HHS surveys. The new medical expenditures panel survey that they are now undertaking reflects those survey integration efforts. I agree with the committee that it is important that the other agencies of the Department explore greater integration of their survey and data collection efforts; AHCPR has stepped up to the plate on this issue and their contribution should be acknowledged. In light of the responsiveness of AHCPR to our concerns, I think it is time to move forward. We have seen major reform and restructuring at this Agency and now we need to let it get on with its mission of identifying what works and what is cost-effective in health care. Its research has already demonstrated that better quality care can cost less if clinicians and patients have the information they need to make more informed choices. This research is crucial to our committee's efforts to reform and save the Medicare Program and we now need to let them do their job.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to my friend and colleague from Indiana that he knows full well we just went through a committee funding procedure in which the chairman of the select subcommittee made a number of statements on the record. But before I talk about a comparison between the October Surprise Task Force, which was chaired by the gentleman from Indiana, and the current select subcommittee, I just think we need to revisit the statements made by the chairman of the October Surprise Task Force as to the rationale for the Democrats, who were then in the majority, to conduct a task force which for 8 months ran without any funding whatsoever and wound up spending five times as much, open-ended funding. This is what the gentleman from Indiana said when asked about the task force in front of the then-Committee on House Administration. Representative Lee Hamilton said, quote, ``There was no clear pervasive evidence of wrongdoing, but we ought to go forward.'' He said he did not know if the allegations were true or false, but we ought to spend $4.5 million. He then went on and said he did not know, quote, ``how to get to the bottom of it unless you have a formal investigation with a body with some kind of empowerment to issue subpoenas and to take statements under oath.'' He said the objective of the task force that the Democrats put in when they were in the majority was a simple one: ``The objective is to simply find out what happened.'' If you heard the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], about how this President, even within the secret inner sanctums of the national security structure, did not talk about letting Iran into Europe, I think the Congress of the United States ought to at least know what was happening. Now, let us talk about the funding and the ratios. As I said, the October Surprise Task Force operated for over 8 months and spent virtually the entire amount of this select subcommittee before ever coming before a committee to be authorized to spend money. Let us talk about relationships. The gentleman from Indiana said he did not know what the relationships were. Hogwash. During the hearing in front of the Committee on House Oversight, it was clearly spelled out by the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the select subcommittee what those ratios were going to be, and guess what? In terms of the consultants, it is a 50-50 split. In no use of staff is the now-minority being treated in any way worse than the old minority, which is the majority. As a matter of fact, the new majority is treating the old majority in a fairer way. So there are some differences. We are putting the money up front. We have a time limit on it. But the questions, the reason for creating of the October Surprise Task Force and this one are the same. We want to get to the bottom of what could be a very smelly situation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, my ear heard ``tomorrow.'' I believe it is to be today.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is today.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, today, I join in commemoration of the 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide. On April 24, 1915, under the direction of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, a campaign of Armenian extermination began. Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders from Istanbul were arrested and exiled--silencing the leading representatives of the Armenian community in the Ottoman Empire. Over the next 8 years, 1.5 million Armenians were murdered, with another 500,000 forced into Russian exile. Today we recognize the struggle of the Armenian people to live peacefully in their historic homeland. Armenians in the United States and elsewhere should know that their history of suffering has not and will not be ignored. Like the Jewish and Cambodian holocausts, the Armenian genocide stands out as one of the world's most morally reprehensible acts. We need to address and trace the causal factors leading to the rise of totalitarian governments, and ensure that the seeds of fascism are never again planted. On this day, we should remember those Armenians who died 81 years ago. I have cosponsored House Concurrent Resolution 47, which would put the House on record honoring the memory of the 1.5 million genocide victims. The House should pass this resolution and send a message to the world that we will never forget what happened during that terrible period in history and that we reaffirm our resolve to ensure that no nation will ever again have the opportunity to participate in mass genocide.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Accountability Act--Public Law 104-1--became effective on January 23, 1996. This law created the Office of Compliance, an independent office within the legislative branch, which is responsible for educating Congressional offices on how to comply with the laws made applicable to the Congress, as well as for providing a procedure for resolution of employee grievances, and for adopting regulations to implement these laws. These regulations must be approved by the House. The Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance adopted regulations which were published in the Congressional Record on January 22, 1996. In anticipation of these regulations, on December 19, 1995, the House agreed to House Resolution 31 and House Concurrent Resolution 123, which provided for provisional approval of these regulations until the Committees of jurisdiction could review them and make a final recommendation to the House. On March 12, 1996, the Committee on House Oversight considered these regulations, and voted to recommend their approval to the House. The regulations were also considered by the Committee on Educational and Economic Opportunities, which has jurisdiction over most of the laws made applicable to Congress by the act. The two House Resolutions which will be considered by the House today are the product of consultation by the two committees. An issue addressed by the Committee on House Oversight at its March 12, 1996 meeting was supporting of time off plans. Our research indicates that these plans are available to House employers in the same way they are available to employers in the private sector. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in the Record a memo on this issue written by the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service. In addition House Resolution 400 provides for approval of the regulations adopted by the Office of Compliance which are applicable to House employing offices and covered employees, as contemplated by section 304(c)(4) of the act. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a memorandum from the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service. American Law Division, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, Subject: Time-off Plans Under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Author: Vince Treacy, Legislative Attorney. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires that employees be paid one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 207(a). Overtime compensation earned in a particular workweek must be paid on the regular pay day for the period in which such workweek ends. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 778.106. The Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) made the overtime provisions of the FLSA applicable to all employing offices in the Legislative Branch. Public Law No. 104-1, Sec. 203(a)(3). Under a time-off plan, the employer may comply with the FLSA and continue to pay a fixed wage or salary each pay period, even though the employee works overtime in some other week or weeks within the pay period. The employer lays off the employee a sufficient number of hours during some other week or weeks of the pay period, so that the desired wage or salary for the pay period covers the total amount of compensation, including overtime compensation, for each workweek taken separately. The essential principle of the time-off plan is the control of earnings by control of the number of hours an employee is permitted to work. A time-off plan cannot be applied ``to a salaried employee who is paid a fixed salary to cover all hours he may work in any particular workweek or pay-period.'' U.S. Dep't of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, The Time Off Plan. In other words, a time-off practice cannot be applied to a nonexempt salaried employee who is paid a fixed salary to cover all hours, however few or many, that he may have worked in a particular workweek. For example, if an employee was hired to work for a salary of $400 per week to cover all hours worked up to 40 in a week, then the employee would earn the same $400 whether he worked 40, 30, 20, or no hours in a week. This employee could not be compensated with time off within another week in the pay period, since the employer would have paid him for that time in any event. Since the employee was already entitled to his salary for the short workweek, the use of the hours under 40 as an offset against overtime liability owed for a separate workweek would result in a denial of the extra overtime compensation the employee was entitled to under the FLSA. The Department of Labor expressly disapproved time-off plans for workers with a guaranteed salary in Opinion Letter of May 27, 1964. The employer wanted to guarantee certain employees 40 hours of work or pay each week. Employees would receive a minimum week's pay in any week even though they may have worked fewer hours in the week. The proposed plan ``is not a bona fide time-off plan in that the employee is guaranteed a definite number of hours of work or the equivalent in pay each workweek. The required control of earnings through control of the number of hours an employee is permitted to work in a pay period is lacking.'' A similar problem would arise if an employee were expressly hired to work 35 hours per week for a fixed salary of $350. That employee could not be compensated with hours-off under 40 in a week, since those hours are unpaid under the employment agreement. The time off for such an employee must be subtracted from the 35 hours in the regular workweek. An employee who worked 50 hours in one week could then be compensated by receiving the full $350 salary for 20 hours of work in the second week. In the second week, $200 would represent compensation for the 20 hours actually worked, while $150 would be cash compensation for the 10 hours of overtime in the first week. A time-off plan allows an employer to control earnings by controlling the number of hours worked. If the employee works more than 40 hours in a workweek, the employee can be required to take one-and-one-half hours off for each overtime hour within the same pay period. This produces virtually the same total earnings as if the employee had work only 40 hours in each workweek in the pay period. Salaries status does not preclude the use of time-off plans for nonexempt employees. Time-off plans are barred only when the employee is guaranteed the salary regardless of the number of hours actually worked. Salaried nonexempt employees are customarily required to work a fixed number of hours for their pay. Absences must be charged to leave banks for vacation, sickness, or personal use. The actual salary is reduced (``docked'') only when leave is denied or exhausted. These salaried employees may be given time off with pay in lieu of cash overtime, since the pay for the compensatory time off represents pay they would not otherwise have received. In the state and local public sector, compensatory time off may be carried over to other pay periods, and can be accumulated into banks of up to 240 hours, or 480 for public safety employees. In the private sector, however, the overtime hours cannot be accumulated and the time off cannot be given in another pay period. This policy is based in part on the possibility that the employer may go out of business, or file for liquidation under the Bankruptcy Code, and thereby eliminate employee overtime compensation entirely. The Congressional Accountability Act expressly adopted the private sector policy, and prohibited the accumulation of compensatory time. ``Except as provided in regulations under subsection (c)(3), covered employees may not receive compensatory time in lieu of overtime compensation.'' Public Law No. 104-1, Sec. 203(a)(3). Time-off plans were approved by the Court in Dunlop v. State of New Jersey: :``The restriction that time off for overtime be granted within the same pay period as earned mirrors the stricture placed upon monetary payments for overtime.'' 522 F.2d 504, 510 (3d Cir. 1975), affirming 364 F.Supp. 156 (D.N.J. 1973), vacated on other grounds, 427 U.S. 909 (1976). Time-off plans have been approved by the Wage- Hour Administrator in Opinion Letters. DOL Opinion Letter No. 913 (Dec. 27, 1968), quoted with approval, 522 F.2d at 509- 510, 364 F.Supp. at 158. The use of time-off plans was first suggested to the House in 1990 by Betty Southard Murphy, an attorney who was a former Wage and House Administrator at the Department of Labor. Overtime compensation need not be paid as money wages. Under proper and rigid circumstances, employees may receive their overtime compensation as compensatory time off. Such plans are only permitted as an alternative to overtime payments if the time off is taken during the same pay period in which the overtime is earned. Presentation by Betty Southard Murphy Before the Administrative Assistants Association, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, Oct. 18, 1990 (emphasis in original). The time-off plan must meet three requirements. (1) The employees must be either hourly or salaried; employees paid by piecework, commission, or amount of production are excluded. (2) The wage agreement must provide a fixed number working hours per week; employees who work fluctuating hours for a fixed salary do not qualify. (3) The pay period must be either bi-weekly, semi-monthly; or monthly; the plan cannot be applied to employees whose pay period is weekly. Furthermore, time-off plans require careful records, because the employer may not at any time owe the employees overtime compensation. Payroll records should clearly indicate that the premium rate of one-and-one-half of the regular rate of pay is paid for all overtime hours worked. The employer must maintain an individual account for each employee, with credit for the appropriate amount of time. ``Overall, time-off plans are rarely used because they are difficult to administer--the employer must anticipate workload requirements in all weeks of the established pay period.'' Betty Murphy, Guide to Wage and Hour Regulation at 46 (BNA, 1987). Under the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, an employer must act ``in good faith in conformity with and in reliance on any written administrative regulation, order, ruling, approval, or interpretation'' of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 259. The Office of Compliance has ruled that the Portal-to-Portal Act applies under the Congressional Accountability Act. 122 Cong. Rec. S222 (daily ed., Jan. 22, 1996). The Office of Compliance has stated that ``[t]ime-off plans are authorized under section 7(a) of the FLSA. See, e.g., Wage and Hour Administrator Opinion Letter, issued 1950; Wage and Hour Opinion Letter dated December 27, 1968. Thus, employing offices are authorized to use such plans under section 203 of the CAA.'' It would therefore appear that employing offices may rely on the written opinions of the Wage and Hour Administrator of DOL in adopting time-off plans. In the House of Representatives, several provisions should be noted. Title 2 of the U.S. Code provides that ``[n]o person shall be paid from any clerk hire allowance if such person does not perform services for which he receives such compensation in the offices of such Member or Resident Commissioner in Washington, District of Columbia, or in the State or the district in which such Member or Resident Commissioner represents.'' 2 U.S.C. Sec. 92-1. The Rules of the House of Representatives provides that a Member or officer of the House ``shall retain no one under his payroll authority who does not perform official duties commensurate with the compensation received in the offices of the employing authority.'' Rule XLIII, clause 8 (1995). The Members' Congressional Handbook provides that ``Members may not [emphasis in original] retain a Clerk Hire employee on their payroll who does not perform official duties commensurate with their compensation,'' and that ``Clerk Hire employees must perform the duties for which they are compensated within the Washington, D.C., or district congressional office(s) of the Member.'' See section II.A, clauses 2, 3, at page 5. Moreover, Title 31 of the U.S. Code provides that ``[a]ppropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law.'' 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a). An employing office in the House of Representatives may adopt a time-off plan. It is advisable that the plan be in writing. The plan should note that its provisions revoke and supersede all prior customs, practices and usages concerning time and pay. The plan should stipulate that all covered employees, whether salaried or hourly, are employed for a fixed workweek, such as 40 hours per week. The plan should also require that all hours be strictly accounted for, either as hours worked or as hours charged to paid leave, such as annual, sick, personal, holiday, emergency, or administrative leave. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 400) approving regulations to implement the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 with respect to employing offices and covered employees of the House of Representatives.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. (Mr. GOODLING 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. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Section 301(h) of the Congressional Accountability Act-- Public Law 104-1--requires the Office of Compliance to carry out a program of education for employing authorities of the legislative branch with regard to the laws made applicable to Congress by the act. The purpose of this section was to ensure that employing offices have the information necessary to comply with the act. On March 12, 1996, the Committee on House Oversight agreed to direct the Office of Compliance to provide educational assistance through interpretive bulletins, advisory opinions, and other methods with respect to the regulations adopted by the Office of Compliance. It is important to note that this assistance is currently provided to employers in the private sector by the Department of Labor. The Office of Compliance has publicly claimed that they cannot issue advisory opinions. The authority to issue advisory opinions, in the committee's opinion, is a necessary function related to the authority to issue regulations. It seems a little disingenuous to adopt regulations. It seems a little disingenuous to adopt regulations and then claim an inability to explain or interpret those regulations. Therefore, H.R. 401 expresses the will of the House that the Office of Compliance provide educational assistance through various methods. Advisory opinions are only one of the many ways such assistance may be provided. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a copy of an analysis on this issue from the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service. The document referred to is as follows: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Washington, DC, April 15, 1996. To: Committee on House Oversight; attention: Dan Crowley. From: American Law Division. Subject: Examination of Authority of Office of Compliance to Issue Advisory Opinions. This memorandum is submitted in response to the committee's request, as discussed with Dan Crowley of the committee staff, concerning the subject noted above. Specifically, the committee has asked that we examine the position taken by the Office of Compliance that it cannot, consistent with the scheme of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 \1\ (CAA or the act), issue advisory opinions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Footnotes at end. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On March 12, 1996, the Committee on House Oversight (committee) considered, but did not report, two resolutions to approve regulations adopted by the Board of Directors (Board) of the Office of Compliance (Office) to implement the act.\2\ The first section of each resolution states that specified regulations of the Board ``are hereby approved. . . .'' Section 2 of each resolution provides: ``In carrying out its duties under section 301(h) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, the Office of Compliance shall, through interpretive bulletins, advisory opinions, and other methods, provide educational assistance to employing offices of the House of Representatives in the same manner as, and to no lesser extent than, such assistance is provided to other employers through the Department of Labor with respect to laws made applicable to the House of Representatives under that Act.'' We have been advised by the committee staff that similar language may be included in a resolution to be considered by the House on April 15, 1996, to approve of the Board's regulations.\3\ The Board maintains that, given its functions and powers under the CAA, it cannot issue advisory opinions.\4\ Two premises provide the foundation for the Board's view. First, the Board argues that, as an administrative entity with adjudicatory functions under the CAA, it ``may not issue binding legal interpretations concerning disputed matters in non-public proceedings and without the benefit of an adversary proceeding that is governed by rules of law and subject to judicial review. . . . [T]o issue such binding interpretations and advisory opinions . . . would . . . compromise the independence and impartiality of the Office. . . .'' \5\ And second, the Board considers the issuance of interpretations and advisory opinions to be incident to an agency's investigative and prosecutorial powers--a means by which an agency informs those subject to its jurisdiction of its prosecutorial policies and its stance with regard to conduct deemed to be violative of the pertinent laws and regulations. Since the Office does not generally exercise investigative and prosecutorial authority under the CAA, the Board believes that it would be inappropriate for it to issue advisory opinions. From our review of the CAA, the committee's resolutions, the Board's argument, and sources on administrative law, it appears for several reasons that the Office need not be precluded from issuing advisory opinions of the type seemingly contemplated by the resolutions. (2) The resolutions call for educational assistance. The resolutions call upon the Office, in fulfilling its duties under CAA, Sec. 301(h), to ``provide educational assistance to employing offices of the House of Representatives'' by means of ``interpretive bulletins, advisory opinions, and other methods. . . .''\6\ The resolutions are arguably intended to secure education for employers, and advisory opinions are only one of the means contemplated by which this education would be furnished. Although the Office deems it to be inappropriate to issue advisory opinions, it could fulfill the central purpose of this provision of the resolution by affording other types of educational assistance to employing offices. The Office acknowledges that it ``has issued hundreds of pages of educational and informational materials, sponsored numerous educational programs, and established an information hot-line.'' \7\ Additional assistance to employers of the type already provided by the Office, although perhaps more particularized, could satisfy the goal of the resolutions. Furthermore, it seems that the Office could issue advisory opinions, as contemplated by the resolutions, without raising the concerns advanced by the Office in regard to the impact on the ``independence and impartiality of the office.'' \8\ The Office is troubled by the prospect of issuing ``binding legal interpretations . . . in non- public proceedings'' on``individual fact-specific cases that may then later come before . . . [the Office] for adjudication.''\9\ However, it is arguable that an advisory opinion could be rendered by the Office, consistent with the purpose of the resolutions, without speaking to the facts of an individual case but addressing instead a fact pattern potentially of interest to a number of employing offices. Additionally, the educational assistance sought by the resolutions could be afforded without providing a binding legal interpretation, but merely further guidance along the lines already made available by the Office in other ways.\10\ (2) Advisory opinions may be issued pursuant to rulemaking power. Although our research has revealed a dearth of literature on the issuance of advisory opinions by administrative bodies, one study of advice giving by federal agencies observes that ``the most striking characteristic of the advice-giving procedures of the agencies studied is that, except on the question of jurisdiction, agencies view advice- giving assistance to the public as part of their rulemaking, rather than their adjudicatory processes.''\11\ From this statement, it seems that an agency with adjudicatory powers may provide advice \12\ and it would further appear that such advice might encompass advisory opinions. \13\ Thus, it might be argued that the adjudicatory powers vested by the CAA in the Office of Compliance need not bar the Office from issuing advisory opinions. Furthermore, the advice giving function has been considered by at least some agencies to be a part of their rulemaking duties, and the Office does have rulemaking responsibilities under the act. \14\ Thus, the Office arguably could issue advisory opinions under its rulemaking powers, without regard to the fact that it lacks prosecutorial authority. conclusion It would appear that the scheme of the CAA need not preclude the Office from issuing advisory opinions, as contemplated by the resolutions described above, pursuant to its education function or pursuant to its rulemaking power, notwithstanding the fact that it generally does not exercise investigative or prosecutorial powers. Furthermore, the Office's adjudicatory powers would not seem to bar it from issuing advisory opinions. Jay R. Shampansky, Legislative Attorney, American law Division.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further request for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 401) directing the Office of Compliance to provide educational assistance to employing offices of the House of Representatives regarding compliance with the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 and requiring employing offices of the House of Representatives to obtain the prior approval of the chairman and the ranking minority party member of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives of the amount of any settlement payments made under such Act.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 51) to provide for the approval of final regulations that are applicable to employing offices that are not employing offices of the House of Representatives or the Senate, and to covered employees who are not employees of the House of Representatives or the Senate, and that were issued by the Office of Compliance on January 22, 1996, and for other purposes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee does want to thank the ranking member. It is difficult enough in making sure that the application of laws that have been applied to the private sector apply equally and fairly to this House, and I have to say that we have had an excellent bipartisan working relationship in making sure that this has been done in a professional manner so that the laws that apply to others apply to us fairly. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what this resolution does is it accomplishes the same purpose as House Resolution 401, but it is extended to those joint entities under regulations adopted by the Office of Compliance, and those joint entities are the Capitol Guide Board, the Capitol Police Board, the Capitol Budget Office, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, the Office of the Attending Physician, and the Office of Compliance itself. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS of California

Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], an extremely important member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I really do not know who to direct my remarks to, because apparently this motion to recommit is Dingell minus the increase for the self-employed. Two of our colleagues on the other side, the gentleman from North Dakota and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], took the well and talked about how much better the Democrat substitute was because it did better for the self-employed. Now what we have here is Dingell lite. Mr. Speaker, is it not interesting and, by the way how, cynical they were more for the self-employed if it was honey to attract people to the Democratic substitute, and so I guess I am addressing my remarks to the 10 Republicans who went for the improvement of Kassebaum because of the self-employed provision. That is out. It lasted 5 minutes. Show your commitment, it did not draw enough, so it is gone. It is not there because they believe in the self-employed and want to increase the deductibility, it was there to attract people. Since it did not get anybody, they pulled it out. If you did not like Dingell, they will not like Dingell lite. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honor to yield the remainder of the majority's time on this substitute to the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the special rule for coordination of long-term care policies has been misinterpreted by some in the administration. I want to clarify that this rule applies to policies that provide health care benefits only for long-term care and similar benefits, such as community-based care, and would not apply to a policy that covers other health care benefits. Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing for some time that all the Democrats want is Kassebaum. The gentleman from New York said ``Let's have `pure' Kassebaum.'' Let me tell you, what you have in front of you is not pure Kassebaum. As you might expect, the Democrats have changed the bill. They have told you they have only added things to it. They said, ``We just wanted to help the self-employed more than the Republicans.'' You left the self-employed stranded for a whole year in 1994 when you were in the majority. Nice to have you come around and have you helping the self-employed. If this is supposed to be pure Kassebaum, why don't you include the items on page 105? Title III, miscellaneous provisions. ``HMO's allowed to offer plans with deductibles to individuals with medical savings accounts.'' Kassebaum includes medical savings accounts and the ability to apply to an HMO to receive benefits while you have a medical savings account. You conveniently left that out. If you want pure Kassebaum, you would have MSA's in the bill. On page 106, Sense of the Senate. ``It is the sense of the Senate that the Congress should take measures to further the purposes of this act, including any necessary changes to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage groups and individuals to obtain health coverage and to promote access, equity, portability, affordability, and security of health benefits.'' That is exactly what the Committee on Ways and Means has done. The Senate committee cried out in the Kassebaum bill, ``We don't have jurisdiction over the Tax Code, but if we did, these are the kinds of things that we would do.'' And what they asked for, we have included in our bill. Only one committee has looked at the Kassebaum bill in the Senate. It is not on the floor of the Senate. They did not have jurisdiction over the revenue code. Four committees in the House looked at our bill, and given our distinct and unique jurisdictions, we contributed to and improved to this bill. We did exactly what Senator Kassebaum asked us to do. We added items that provided and promoted access, equity, portability, affordability and security of health benefits. Guess what you left in the bill? Notwithstanding all of the protestations on the floor about the Democrats in terms of States rights, and, after all, the Republicans are going to usurp the States rights, and, after all, the Republicans are going to usurp the States rights, take a look at page 91 in the Kassebaum bill. It says under subtitle D(b), certification, number 2, State refusal to certify. It says, ``If a state fails to implement a program for a certifying health plan purchasing cooperative in accordance with the standards under this act, the secretary shall certify and oversee operations of such cooperative's Federal preemption.'' Notwithstanding all of your crocodile tears, about ``pure'' Kassebaum, the Feds have a role in play in your substitution. I would tell my Republican colleagues, beware: This is not Kansas. This bill is not from Dorothy. It isn't even from Toto. It has been written and comes from the Land of Oz.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller], who knows full well that in the calendar year 1994 it was the Democrats who left the self-employed with no deductibility whatsoever. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn], who came here to make a difference, and he does.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have 5 minutes and I have one speaker left. Under the rules we have the right to close.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], for yielding me this time. I want to compliment him as I want to compliment the chairmen of the other committees, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]. It really is exciting, and I am pleased that this new majority for the first time in more than 40 years has a work product on the floor that could not be produced by the former majority. The Democrats had more than 40 years. In fact, it has been more than 10 years since the last health insurance bill has been on the floor. The Democrats owned Washington in the entire 103d Congress; the Democrats had a majority in the House. They had a majority in the Senate. They had a President. Not one product to deal with the plight of the American worker, so eloquently described by the Democrats over and over again, on this floor ever came to the floor. We were never provided the opportunity to help. We had the opportunity to hear of the plight of the poor worker just as we did a few minutes ago. The gentlewoman from Connecticut talked about that poor beleaguered person, and I am sure he is and he has been for a long time and he was during the entire time the Democrats were in the majority. The major committees in the House, not just one committee, the major committees of responsibility have come together and we have produced H.R. 3103. It is not too much, it is not too little, it is just about right for responsible and reasonable health care reform. We have actually accomplished a modest improvement for the self-employed. We moved their deductibility from 30 percent to 50 percent, prospectively. That is really all that we thought was prudent and appropriate. Criticism from the minority over this? We do not do enough, fast enough. Who was it that left those same self-employed without any protection whatsoever for the entire calendar year of 1994? All of a sudden they want to do something for these people. When they were in control they did absolutely nothing. They allowed the deductibility for health care to lapse. When you were running the place, why were not you more responsible? H.R. 3103 reforms tort law in the area of medical malpractice. Is it radical? Half the States limit noneconomic damages. Is it controversial? Last March, with 247 votes, 44 Democrats, 23 from the North, 21 from the South, joining the new majority, the responsible Democrats and the Republicans passed medical malpractice reform. We put it in the product liability bill. The exact same language as passed the floor of the House is in this bill. We have put together increased penalties for fraud and abuse. Tougher rules, stiffer penalties. We find it, we fix it, and we make sure that we can fight it. Stiffer penalties, stronger rules. What is wrong with requiring the government to tell people when they ask the government is this OK? What is wrong with advisory opinions? Apparently, the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] did not find anything wrong with advisory opinions last June, outside the context of the political responses we have been hearing today. In H.R. 1912, the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] introduced a bill to deal with health care fraud and abuse. On page 41, the gentleman from California has a provision, subtitled (d), advisory opinions, on kickbacks, and self-referrals. We also have greater availability and greater affordability of health insurance, you have heard from many of my colleagues in the area of medical savings accounts. We have heard over here from the minority, how horrendous is this provision. Well, is it really? It is choice. It does not say that you must, it says you can. It does not say you shall, it says you may. It is a choice. It is one more choice. Possibly it is a product that people who now cannot find a product in the marketplace will use. Who are those people? We have heard the profile of those individuals characterized as the healthy and the wealthy. Take a look at, again, the chart that the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, focused on. According to the Joint Tax Committee, 51 percent of the people who are going to find this a useful product are in the $50,000 to $74,000 range, middle class. On the far right of the chart that is $100,000 and above; that is everybody who makes more than $100,000, $200,000, $300,000, $400,000, a million. That is out there less than 12%. That is that enormous group on the other end of the chart. Let us look at the lower end, from $40,000 to $49,000, 13 percent, from $30,000 to $39,000, 11 percent, the vast majority of people who will find this product usable are the middle and the lower middle class. What is wrong with small employers being able to voluntarily pool their resources so they can save on their health insurance, just like large employers? We begin to make sure that people who more and more need to invest in long-term health care, their cost of the insurance, and the cost of the health care itself, thanks to the gentleman from Nevada, an amendment in the Committee on Ways and Means, will be allowed under the Tax Code. Long overdue, and never done by the Democrats when they were in the majority. Finally, the heart of the matter: The American worker will no longer have to worry about changing jobs or losing insurance. H.R. 3103 is a good bill support it.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, is it rather unusual for the committee that offers the bill on which a Member offers a substitute to the committee bill not to close? Is that a rather unusual ruling, or is that the ordinary rule around this place and has been for years?