Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I will tell the gentleman, this is the letter of December 18.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I asked for unanimous consent, I received it, and, without objection, it was given. I then proceeded to supply for the Record portions of that letter that I thought were pertinent to the statement that I want to make. Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is difficult for the gentleman from Maryland to understand that people who are employed are not guaranteed lifetime employment; that, as a matter of fact, somebody can be dismissed through no fault of their own. It happens all the time in the private sector based upon business decisions, business cycles, decisions to merge or eliminate businesses, and what will go on around here will be business decisions. We have responsibility for running this place, and we are going to run it in a professional manner. The gentleman can from time to time come to the floor, as he has done now, and criticize those decisions. He has every right to criticize the decision. But he has to understand that people are dismissed in this world when there is no cause for their dismissal, other than the fact that there is a restructuring going on, and heaven knows, this place continues to need restructuring. No one is guaranteed lifetime employment under this majority. Based upon his assertions, apparently that was the case under the old regime, with patronage and plantation as the model.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee on Education and Economic Opportunities, for a colloquy.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 311) to provide for the provisional approval of regulations applicable to the House of Representatives and employees of the House of Representatives and to be issued by the Office of Compliance before January 23, 1996.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I had concluded, I heard ``without objection,'' and, therefore, I read from the letter.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If anyone has watched the House of Commons, one of the things that goes on there is something that we might adopt; and I will see if we can work it today. I will refer the gentleman to comments the chairman made a few hours ago in response to his statement, but I will also say that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is certainly entitled to his opinions. The Clerk has indicated that the reorganization was not based upon arbitrary or political reasons, and I am not going to replace the Clerk's judgment with the opinions of the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 123 is a companion resolution to House Resolution 311 that we looked at earlier in the day and accepted. House Resolution 311 applied to the House of Representatives, and the House Concurrent Resolution 123 applies to covered employee offices and others, such as the Architect, and so forth. Mr. Speaker, recall the situation in which probably a provision of rules will be passed on January 8. We probably will not be here. We will accept these provisionally. When we come back on January 23, we will examine and then approve the final orders. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 123), to provide for the provisional approval of regulations applicable to certain covered employing offices and covered employees and to be issued by the Office of Compliance before January 23, 1996.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, what we have in front of us is our best attempt to construct the President's budget. I want to spend a few minutes talking about the Medicare portions of the President's budget, because frankly, he has probably focused on this more than most of the other provisions in the budget. The gentlewoman from California just indicated that we cannot get any more money out of Medicare. Rather than listen to me, I would rather have Members listen to the words of a television program that ran December 12. It is called Nightline. Ted Koppel said, ``Tonight Mediscare, Rhetoric Versus Reality.'' For one of the very few times on the national media, serious newspaper people focused on the rhetoric versus the reality in the Medicare discussion. What was said, I hope, will enlighten us. What was said on that program by an ABC reporter by the name of Chris Bury was that the Washington Post said: The Democrats, led by the President, have shamelessly used the issue, demagogued on it, because they think that's where the votes are. The Democrats are demagoguing on Medicare. To substantiate that point, Nightline then discussed the fact that you have to reduce Medicare to balance the budget. In fact, they used a clip from 1993 when the First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, was in front of the Committee on Ways and Means. This is what the First Lady said in front of the Committee on Ways and Means in 1993. She said: We are talking about beginning to reduce the rate of increase in Medicare from about 11 percent to about 6 or 7 percent annually. In fact, the Republican plan reduces it to 7.2 percent. What did the President say about the Republican plan? On October 19, on the program, a news clip of the President, he said: On Medicare, the House is voting on a $270 billion cut on Medicare that will eviscerate the health care system for our older Americans. That is plain and simple demagoguing, plain and simple demagoguing. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, what was said in the program later is what I want to focus on for a minute. Uwe Rhinehardt, who is a professor at Princeton University, in fact he helped the task force on an unassigned basis, said: The real problem is the current Medicare program cannot accommodate the baby boom after the year 2010. We need to reform Medicare. Ted Koppel asked Mr. Glassman, who is a columnist for the Post, ``Do you agree, Mr. Glassman, the problem is not the one between now and the year 2002 but the one beyond the year 2010?'' The answer, ``Absolutely.'' What is it that is going on beyond the year 2010? Guy King, an actuary for HCFA for 24 years, for 17 years the chief actuary, has now given us a picture of the world beyond 2010. Let us take a worker who in 2010 is 22 years old. They are going to get an average wage for the time they work. In 2053 they retire at 65 years of age. Under the current law for Medicare, part B this person would pay over their lifetime into the current law Medicare, in nominal dollars are $281,000. Under President Clinton's plan as determined by the actuary, $280,000. What is the GOP plan, the plan that reforms Medicare? One hundred and forty thousand dollars ($140,000) over the lifetime of that worker. This is what this debate is about. For those people who go to work at 22 years of age in 2010 and work hard for an average wage, the President makes virtually no change from the current law, despite all of his handwringing. What Republicans do is reform Medicare. What was said on that program by all of the experts is if you do not reform Medicare, you cannot balance the budget. The President has a phony plan. He does not do what he needs to be done in the area of reforming Medicare. It is Mediscare, it is demagoguery.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I support the provisions to sell Naval Petroleum Reserve No.1, better known as Elk Hills, that appear in H.R. 1530. I am particularly pleased that Congress is not only taking steps to ensure taxpayers get the maximum value for this asset but is finally dealing with California's longstanding interest in Elk Hills. Elk Hills is in my congressional district and I know it intimately. I am pleased that the 104th Congress is finally dealing with the issue of ensuring that taxpayers get fair value for Elk Hills, something I have sought and in the past introduced legislation to seek. I am particularly pleased to see that the conferees set aside 9 percent of net proceeds, representing the proportion of oil produced by the school lands within the Federal Government's share of the Elk Hills reserve for possible compensation to California for its claims to lands within Elk Hills. California members of both parties have sought this kind of compensation during the last decade because the Federal Government never delivered on its promises to the State. The history of Elk Hills makes it quite clear that California has a legitimate claim to compensation. California was granted sections of land throughout the State by Act of Congress in 1853 to support education, long before the creation of the reserve. The grant was identical to other grants made by the Federal Government to other States as they entered the union. The Federal Government never delivered on the promise. Lands in Elk Hills were withdrawn in 1909 and 1912 for creation of the naval petroleum reserve. California never got appropriate compensation for its rights. Even after the Federal Government opened Elk Hills to production in 1976, ending any semblance of its use as a naval petroleum reserve, California's claim remained outstanding. The importance of paying these claims has been recognized by Presidents and Members of this body during the past decade and I hope Congress will also choose to honor it. President Bush, after I met with officials in his administration, agreed to provide California with part of the bonuses and royalties from leasing Elk Hills. His 1992 budget explicitly said California would receive these payments and the essence of what he agreed to do was contained in a bill I introduced to facilitate leasing the reserve. President Clinton's own proposal to sell Elk Hills, submitted to the Speaker this spring, provides compensation for California. Further, this issue goes beyond equity to the very heart of what our National Security colleagues seek to accomplish by selling Elk Hills. Failing to recognize the equity of having the Federal Government live up to its obligations here could severely damage prospects for getting the maximum value out of Elk Hills for taxpayers. The State still regards its claim to the two sections as good. Once the Federal Government sells Elk Hills, there is no possible pretense that Elk Hills is a naval petroleum reserve. California's claim clouds the title to Elk Hills and will discourage a bidder from offering full value for the reserve. Our State attorney general's office is confident the State has a claim that can be successfully pursued; the Federal court case that the State lost related to the State's claim that the naval petroleum reserve's status had been effectively extinguished by commercial production. That earlier suit did not deal with actual termination of the reserve's status through sale to private industry and the merits of the State's interest in these lands were never reached. Any potential buyer will take these matters into account and that in turn will hurt the taxpayers' interest. No bidder will want to be exposed to the risk of paying twice for the same asset. The only way to avoid these problems is to do the right thing and provide a mechanism for fairly resolving the State's claims. The conference report does precisely that through a mechanism employing an escrow of net proceeds from a sale of Elk Hills. The conference deals with the State's claims in a straight forward manner. Nine percent of the net sale proceeds are set aside in a special account for payment to California for its teachers retirement fund, which, by California law, is where the proceeds will go. The only way California could get any of the money would be to settle its claims with the United States or win a court case on this issue. An explicit settlement process, included in the bill prevents delays in bargaining by requiring the Federal Government to offer to settle California's claims within 30 days after the sale for what the Federal Government believes to be their fair market value. Taxpayers are fully protected here. Actual payments are subject to appropriations. Any funds not used to compensate California revert to the general fund. In fact, if no payment is made within 10 years, the whole fund reverts back to the Treasury. Most important, this process ends the cloud on Elk Hills' title resulting for the State claims because California can only be paid if it releases its claims to Elk Hills lands.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise for this 1-minute to thank the gentleman from California [Tom Campbell], actually not as a Republican, but I want to thank him as someone who knew him before he was in office, while he was in office and after he left to serve the people of the State of California. I want to thank him for putting his name on a ballot. I want to thank Tom Campbell for his willingness to put his name on a ballot, once again. As we argue over the issue differences that we clearly will have, based upon our different philosophies and, frankly, the different people that we represent, I think all of us can be proud, not just today, but frankly yesterday, that the House of Representatives is accepting as Members people of the caliber of Tom Campbell, and that hopefully, seeing right prevail will encourage more people of the caliber of Tom Campbell, to put their names on the ballot. We are all better for him being a Member of this body once again.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that perhaps these kinds of discussions on the floor, without having all of the facts in front of us, are probably not as useful as they should be, and that I believe the gentleman ought to avail himself of all of the facts prior to making some rather strong statements. Of course, as the gentleman knows, given the dismissal policy around here, these individuals will be with us through the Christmas season. As a matter of fact, they will be with us through the beginning month of the year, and probably beyond that because simply, around here when you talk about removing people who, in the review of the needs, are no longer necessary, to make a statement that they are not going to be here through the Christmas session is simply not factually correct; and I would very much like to invite the gentleman to sit down and take a look at all of the facts surrounding the circumstances. I would have been more than willing to do that had the gentleman approached me, without taking the time of the House to make some statements. I think the gentleman will find, after he looks at the facts, that he was perhaps a bit extreme. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. THOMAS of California

Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 33) expressing the thanks and good wishes of the American people to Hon. George M. White on the occasion of his retirement as the Architect of the Capitol, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, after almost 25 years the Architect of the Capitol, George M. White, has retired. His retirement date was November 21. This resolution was passed in the Senate on the 20th of November, and we are just now getting around to giving the recognition that Mr. White deserves. We may certainly be recognizing his retirement after the fact, but at least it is not posthumously. Mr. White was appointed Architect of the Capitol in 1971 by President Richard Nixon. He was only the ninth Architect of the Capitol in the history of the United States. Mr. White's credentials were virtually unique. He holds both a bachelor and master's degree of science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He holds a master's in business administration from Harvard, and he has a law degree as well, a juris doctorate. In the time that George White has been Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol as we now know it evolved. There was no Hart Building. George White oversaw the construction of the third Senate Office Building. Anyone taking a tour of the Capitol today may not know that George White was responsible for the restoration of the old Senate Chamber or the old Supreme Court chamber, the restoration of the sandstone on the west front of the Capitol, and currently the renovation of the east monumental stairs in front of the House wing of the Capitol. Visitors may not realize how much he has contributed to the ongoing preservation of the Capitol. The most well-publicized and perhaps unique event occurring under George White's tenure as Architect was the removal from the Capitol dome of the statue Freedom by helicopter, placing it on the east front, and carrying out a restoration on this very identifiable symbol of the Capitol. Then, after restoration, with great precision and accuracy, placing Freedom back on the Capitol to be preserved for an open-ended amount of time, the first time the statue had been refurbished in 130 years. So, although it may be after the fact, our sincerity in wishing George White many happy years and many pleasant memories goes from this body to him. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding time to me.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation just considered.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Let us go back to the language. Let us look at what it says. Remember, a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate has already voted a program to balance the budget in 7 years. What this document says is, ``a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002.'' One of the reasons people are complaining about the current Congressional Budget Office numbers is they are too conservative. You think a whole lot more money is going to come to the table. This agreement says not later than 2002. If a lot more money comes to the table, there are going to be a number of people who are going to say,``We are going to do it in 2001 or 2000.'' A majority of the House and Senate has a balanced budget already in 7 years. Do not think that you folks are going to be part of the agreement if you think what you are going to do is have your priorities overtake the majority's priorities. This agreement is between the President and the Republicans, the majority in the House and Senate. If you want to keep talking about cuts, you are not going to be at the table. If you want to keep it at 7 years, calm your rhetoric just a little bit.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the President agreed to 7 years, CBO numbers; Republicans have been saying 7 years, CBO numbers. We have come to an agreement, but that really is not the parameter of the agreement. The agreement is how do we spend $12 trillion, over the next 7 years? Basically it is an agreement between the majority party, House and Senate Republicans, and the President. The Democrats come to this well the morning after the agreement and continue to talk about cuts. We are talking about how we spend 12 trillion more dollars over the next 7 years. To the degree the Democrats do not begin to be part of the solution, they are going to be even more irrelevant than they are now. To the degree they continue to talk about cuts, they are simply not going to be at the table. We are going to work out over 7 years how to spend $12 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office numbers. We would like to have our colleagues as part of the team. We are not cutting, we are adding. To the degree our colleagues think we are cutting, they are irrelevant.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois indicated that we should fund cancer research. I think the record should really show he voted against the CR and his President vetoed the CR that would have allowed cancer drugs for real cancer patients that are not now paid for by Medicare. It would have been breast tumors and it would have been prostate cancer. So everyone needs to understand his statements with cancer research were done for political reasons. He voted against drugs to help real research patients.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and finally provide specific numbers certified by the Congressional Budget Office. Completely worked out. Here is the plan. Currently, Clinton's trustees say the part A Medicare trust fund is going broke next year. It is going bankrupt in 2002. The Democratic folks chuckle about that. They say that is no problem we have solved it in the past. Yes, the way they solved it in the past was to increase the payroll tax. They have taken it from young people to give to seniors. Generational shift. We say we are not going to do that anymore. We will look at a program that was created in the 1960's and bring it up to date. We talk about opening it up, through choice by seniors, to new exciting programs, like the provider-sponsored organization. Local doctors, local hospitals, coming together. Not some outside the area operation, but local doctors and local hospitals creating community-based managed care. That is what we do. We preserve, we protect and we strengthen Medicare. The Democratic plan that was sponsored in the Committee on Ways and Means and lost, creates an enormous negative $300 billion right at the time we have to deal with the baby-boomers coming on board. This plan, certified by CBO, carries us beyond 2010 in a positive position. That is part A. Everybody knows we hold the part B premium at 31\1/2\ percent, the amount they pay today. We said, yes, we think that is a reasonable contribution on the part of the seniors. Hold the line. The President's plan, as Members can see, marching down looking at the numbers in 2002, shows $83. CBO certified our part B premium will be $88.90; $5 is all we ask. The 40 million seniors who will be in Medicare at the time are asked for $5 each. And what that does, Mr. Speaker, is create a program that creates a balanced budget in 7 years. What do we do with the various institutions under our plan? Hospitals get $652 billion over the next 7 years. Home health, $151 billion, That is up almost 9 percent. Skilled nursing facilities get $91 billion. That is up over 8 percent. The physicians, the doctors, they get $315 billion over the next 7 years. That is an 8 percent increase. Outpatient hospitals get $111 billion. That is an 11-percent increase. Direct medical education to our teaching institutions, $32 billion. That is up 12 percent. Clinical labs get $47 billion. That is up 9 percent. Those are increases. Those are hundreds of billions of dollars that go into Medicare to help our seniors. By opening up part A to choice and by asking our seniors to hold the line $5 apiece in 2002, we preserve, we protect and we strengthen Medicare and we balance the budget. Those are real numbers. Those are numbers certified by CBO. Support the plan.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Why did you characterize it as that?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the minority leader from Missouri asked a reasonable question: Why not 24 hours? Donna Washington used to sing about 24 little hours. The name of that song was ``What a Difference a Day Makes.'' Because frankly what the Democrats are trying to do in terms of playing politics is now, thank goodness, completely out in the open. We have talked about our problems and the difficulty of trying to explain to the American people why we had to place holding the line on the Medicare premium in the continuing resolution, and the Democrats have said, ``Well, gee, why do we have to do this? Why don't we just drop it?'' Now their plea is just 24 hours, just 1 day. In today's Wall Street Journal, for those who do not receive it, it lays out completely why the Democrats have been doing what they are doing. Initially it had been to pander to seniors: ``We don't want to have you to have to pay more for Medicare, that in fact we believe it should be lower.'' In the Wall Street Journal today an administration official, quote, involved in the budget deliberations privately concedes that keeping Medicare premiums at the current level, quote, would not be the worst thing in the world in the context of an overall balanced budget package. In fact, everyone, either publicly Republicans or privately Democrats, agree that the premium structure is part of the solution for seniors. As a matter of fact, the American Association of Retired Persons said, and this is John Rother, their legislative director, ``What we have said is that we recognize that seniors need to be part of the solution,'' he says. ``Sacrifice is better borne by premium increases rather than through higher deductibles and copayments which affect the sickest beneficiaries the most.'' House Republicans have opposed the other side's plan to increase deductibles and to increase co-pays. We only are dealing with the premium. Why in the world would Republicans then put a premium on a continuing resolution and make that the issue? Very simply. The President has said they are going to go ahead and reprogram the computers in the Social Security Administration tomorrow. Notwithstanding the fact this would affect the checks in January, notwithstanding the fact that the administration knows part of a reasonable agreement is the premium, they are going to reprogram those computers tomorrow so that when an agreement is made, the seniors will see their checks go down and then their checks go back up when everybody agrees the premium is the solution. But when will the seniors see their checks change? In February and March, in the high season of politics, in the campaign for the Presidency, the President will say, ``Republicans made me do it.'' So we took a defensive measure. We said, ``No, let's argue the CR now and the premium rate now.'' If the President will offer a gentleman's agreement that we will hold off on reprogramming the computers, our problem is solved. Guess what? We cannot get a gentleman's agreement out of the President. He wants to scare seniors for political reasons. He wants to argue we are trying to destroy Medicare, and he is going to stand in the way of stopping us, notwithstanding the fact everyone over here honestly knows the premium rate is part of the solution. This is, shocked if you may be, all about politics, and the ability of the President to posture himself as a savior notwithstanding his understanding that the solution is the premium. If we had gotten a gentleman's agreement out of the President to do the right thing, hold off on reprogramming the computers even until the end of the week, so that our reconciliation bill can be debated, we would not have done what we did. Why are they now standing here saying they want a clean CR for 24 hours? Because that is the right thing to do? Because it is the appropriate thing to do? No, it is politics. Because in 24 hours, they can then reprogram the computers. A clean CR for 24 hours gives them a political point-scoring debate in April and May. We knew what they were going to do. We said that is unacceptable. We said let's make sure that part of the solution is not part of the political problem. That is why Republicans put holding the line on the beneficiaries' part of the part B premium on the continuing [[Page H 12242]] resolution, to stop the President from this kind of political game playing. They will tell you it is for good and worthy purposes. It is for down-in-the-dirt gutter politics, and you people are going to pay.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Why did you characterize it as that?