Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a very valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for a brief period of rationality.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, that the statement that the minority from the Senate offered offsets for the provisions that they offered simply is not true. They did not offer offsets. There were provisions that were offered that did not cover it. There were offers for particular portions of the bill, and there were offers to simply cut the bill in the tax credit areas to cover the cost of the new items added, and on the largest amendment offered by the minority, there was not coverage for the cost. So the gentleman's statement that they provided offsets for the entire bill, including the amendments that they offered, if that was the intent of the gentleman's statement, simply is not accurate.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend four Olympic medalists from Kern County, California, which I am privileged to represent, on their outstanding performances at the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens, Greece. I am proud to recognize and praise these athletes for their dedication, resolve, and extraordinary talent that so perfectly epitomize the American spirit. Joey Hansen of Bakersfield helped power the eight-man rowing crew to a gold medal--the first victory in 40 years for the United States in that event. In the kayak slalom, Rebecca Giddens, demonstrating expert skills honed in relentless practice on the Kern River, came from behind to win the silver medal. Swimmer Larsen Jensen, also of Bakersfield, shattered his own American record by eleven seconds in the 1,500 meter freestyle. Finally, Bakersfield's Gabe Woodward also made Kern County proud when he helped guide the 4x 100-meter freestyle relay team to a bronze medal. Each of these four champions reflects the spirit of hard work and perseverance that is cherished in Kern County, and each resident of Kern County takes great pride in their achievements in Athens. We congratulate Joey, Rebecca, Larsen, and Gabe for making us proud. While I want to especially salute Kern County's Olympians, I also want to laud the achievements of each of the men and women who admirably and honorably represented the United States at the Olympics this summer. They made an entire Nation proud.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the LoBiondo amendment to Section 221 of H.R. 5006, the ``Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005,'' would make a change to Medicare Part A payment policy, and thus falls within the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Legislating on an appropriation bill is a violation of House Rules XXI, and the Committee opposes attempts to legislate on appropriation bills. However, in this case, I have worked with Representatives LoBiondo, Lowey and Wamp to draft the amendment being offered today to ensure that the Committee's position is addressed. The Committee on Ways and Means has long been involved in this issue and is interested in ensuring that any rule relating to the classification of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals is properly implemented and enforced. The amendment is being offered with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, my assumption is that the closing remarks on the part of the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee was an endorsement. It sounded as though we began with an extremely flawed product and, through their efforts, they were successful in righting the ship so that we could actually have a minimally decent document. I wonder where they were when President Clinton wanted fast track, their President, and three quarters of them voted against providing the President. So when we listen to the remarks, we really have to put it, one, in context and then appreciate that intensity or outlandishness does not equal votes. And when I close shortly, take a look at the votes in terms of who is for and who is against. But I do want to spend just 1 minute analyzing the level of the content and the direction of the debate. The ranking member from New York began this discussion by indicating that I stole the election in Florida. That certainly was an appropriate beginning on a debate on a Free Trade Agreement with Morocco. I would probably classify it as silly, but that is the level of debate that we often engage in. And it is just a pleasure to allow the rest of the country to understand the level at which exchanges are made not only in committee but on the floor when we try to engage in a serious discussion. I heard an indication that people were interested in jobs, and, of course, I will talk about the gentleman from Ohio and his diatribe in a minute. You missed the boat on the jobs issue. That was the jobs growth tax bill. It has had a major positive effect on jobs. You were ``no'' on that one as well. We have got 46 of the 50 States expanding. Unemployment is down in all regions of the country. This is the fastest growth in the last 20 years. And based upon your debating style, at that point I would pause and parenthetically say even including the Clinton years so that we can understand that the mention of Bush in every other sentence and in a negative way was clearly focused on the Free Trade Agreement and had nothing to do with attempting to influence an election. We have got 1.5 million jobs, continuing to grow, and they will continue to grow right through the election. But I want to especially focus on the other gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) because at some point we cannot allow statements made on the floor of the House to stand when they are so outrageously false. The statement referred to legislation that we were considering earlier, and the statement was that what we did denied what the Constitution provides. I would urge everyone at some time, and especially certain Members, to look at the Constitution and turn to Article III, the judicial article, and look at Section 2. And I will just read it briefly, referring to the judicial branch: ``In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.'' The Congress was exercising its constitutional function in indicating that areas of appellate jurisdiction were not to be examined by the court, and it absolutely floors me, well, I guess it does not based upon the other statements made by those on the other side of the aisle, that not only apparently they do not know the Constitution, but they actually invoke it in a totally false way on the floor of the House of Representatives. So what I would really urge Members to do is not pay any attention to what was said necessarily on the other side of the aisle but take a look at the vote for this particular measure. H.R. 4842 certainly deserves the overwhelming majority support of this House. I believe it will be bipartisan. And, please, we will take away from this particular bill on the floor the fact that the vote was bipartisan even if the rhetoric is not and at times not just silly but downright, flat-out wrong.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 738, I call up the bill (H.R. 4842) to implement the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and ask unanimous consent that he control the time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4842, which will implement the United States- Moroccan Free Trade Agreement. This Free Trade Agreement is comprehensive, it is solid, and it will benefit American workers across the spectrum, including farmers, consumers, businesses, and therefore the United States economy. Morocco has been since the inception of this country and is today an important strategic partner of the United States. This agreement will enhance and in fact solidify our economic relationship. Not only will this agreement advance our relationship with Morocco, but it serves as a cornerstone to assist the President's broader initiative to create a Middle East free trade area by the year 2013. The United States has entered into additional agreements, Morocco, Bahrain. We have entered into trade and investment framework agreements with Kuwait, Yemen, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. Many of these countries have expressed interest in moving forward and negotiating a free trade agreement similar to the Moroccan agreement. Mr. Speaker, this is a long overdue day, but it has arrived, and I am pleased to say that the Senate has already acted on this legislation, and when the House concludes its business on this bill it will be sent to the President for his signature, and this is a marvelous way to end this portion of the 108th Congress. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, September 8, 2004.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 4 p.m. on Monday, July 26, 2004, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 479, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I have been listening to some of the discussion; and, sadly, it tends to revolve around the same themes, and what I would like to do is suggest that instead of a semantic war, i.e., you are concerned because this particular legislation was called tax simplification, we would be open to some terms that would suit you, such as Tax Code rationalization, Tax Code clarification. If you are hung up on the fact that this is not the end-all and the be-all in terms of simplification, I can suggest to you that if you want to look at the recent record of voting on measures, the ultimate simplification of the Tax Code would be to zero out a tax responsibility for someone. That was done. In terms of the low-income who fall into the tax-paying category, if you have dividend income or you have capital gains returns, we provided a Tax Code modification which would produce a zero tax rate. Now, that is ultimate simplification, and the fact of the matter is you voted against that. So when you take a look at areas that the administration should have changed, I do hope that you take a step back from yourself and look at yourself as others do. You are standing here on the floor of the House criticizing legislation because it does not do enough, and you point out that there are provisions in this legislation that could be done administratively, but they have not; and at some point, either you continue to state that it could be done administratively and it is not done, or you agree it is relatively modest and minor and you wonder why it has not been done, and you go ahead and say you should do it. Now, that is at least a step forward. So when I find you criticizing, what you do is you criticize if it is too grand, you criticize if it is too minimal, you criticize if it were requiring the administrator to do something they have the administrative power to do, but they do not exercise it. In fact, all you do is criticize. When you listen to your arguments, it really boils down to one point. You simply cannot stand the fact that you are no longer in the majority, and I understand that. I was in the minority for 16 years, and I watched what you folks did to the Tax Code when you were in the majority, and I will return briefly and then end on the theme of the alternative minimum tax. The problem we are in today is based upon a tax measure passed by the Congress of the United States, originating in the House of Representatives, controlled by my friends on the other side of the aisle, with not one Republican voting for it, which created the nonindexed provisions which you all lament have driven people into the alternative minimum tax structure. I will tell you, when I was in the minority on the committee, I could not understand the logic in which you wanted to impose an alternative minimum tax in the first place. Because when we began discussing the fact that there were some people who did not pay taxes and because of the various deductions in the code, it allowed them not to pay taxes, the question I asked you was why do we not modify the deductions so everybody pays taxes. That is a fundamental, direct change. Oh, no, we are not going to do that; we are going to create a whole alternate world, akin to physics in terms of matter versus anti-matter. We are going to have a structure which has a minimum tax, then we are going to create a structure which has an alternative minimum tax, and it only works in your bipolar world if the indexing in terms of the objects you do allow to be counted against a modification of the alternative minimum tax are adjusted the way those same items are in the regular tax structure. What you wound up doing in that piece of legislation was freezing those deductions in the alternative world which has created this march into lower and lower brackets. It is wholly something that you are responsible for. Now, since we are now in the majority, we obviously need to address a number of areas that you either failed to address or complicated significantly when you were in the majority; but it seems to me if you want to be a constructive minority, you join with us when we have these modest changes that make sense, instead of opposing absolutely anything, whether large, small, simple, or clarification. Someone once said the role of the opposition party is to oppose. You folks are driving it to the absolute supreme example. What you really ought to do is begin to talk about where it makes sense and we join together, we join together. You start in the small areas, and we can move to the larger areas. You folks proved absolutely conclusively that when you ran the place you could really mess up the large areas. What you are doing now is indicating that you are more than willing to be the opposition and the obstructionists even in the small.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, and I thank the gentleman for his rapid response to a problem in his district. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), a cosponsor of the legislation.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the House has a series of procedures which determine whether or not a bill is a candidate to be placed on suspension. One of the first things that one would look at, obviously, is the way in which the bill was dealt with in committee. I said in my opening statement that this bill passed 33 to 0. One cannot get any more unanimous than that. I would ask my friend, because he is my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), while he is recounting the amendments that were offered, which were presented, arguments examined, decision made by the committee, and it just so happens that each of the amendments were not accepted. They had every right at that time to vote against the measure. Not being able to completely divine the reason for why they do such things, but they came to the conclusion that the bill, notwithstanding not being amended, was perfectly acceptable. I do, however, have to ask my colleague, when an argument is made in committee and absolutely and completely refuted, it does not lend itself to a continued positive working relationship to then come to the floor and repeat the same argument, which was absolutely refuted in committee, as though he had no knowledge that what he was saying was not accurate. The gentleman said that the $2 billion the gentleman from Maryland was kind enough to indicate we all agreed would be appropriate could not go at all for enforcement. The language in the bill is ``and between general counsel and enforcement,'' not ``and/or.'' It is ``and.'' And the gentleman's argument that no money can go there is simply not accurate. It was not accurate when he made it in committee, and it was refuted. It is not accurate on the floor when he makes it. And so after all is said and done with all of the concerns and all of the arguments which end with ``and we will support the bill,'' the only conclusion one can reasonably come to is that the problem is we are the majority and they are not. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to engage the gentleman in a colloquy.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; and as the gentleman knows, this is an issue that was just presented to us now, and in trying to do some immediate research, we could not determine whether it is amenable to an administrative resolution or a legislative resolution; but certainly the chairman is willing to work with the gentleman from Washington, as our staffs confer, to try to address those concerns.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will tell the gentleman that as we are moving forward with the integration at the border, this committee and its responsibilities, especially in the area of customs, will always work with the other authorizing committees to make sure that not only is it more seamless in terms of security, but, frankly, we need to be much more efficient in the movement of economic goods across international lines, especially in the areas that you mentioned, especially in the area of Detroit and Windsor where unbeknownst to a lot of people, when you travel south, you go to Canada. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, but I will tell the gentleman from Michigan I have no other speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To make sure that everyone is perfectly clear, I think we may need to recount what occurred in committee in the discussion of this bill in front of the full Committee on Ways and Means. There were three Members on the minority side that had indicated that they either wanted to offer amendments or they wanted to discuss points at which they may or may not be prepared to offer amendments. The gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) raised a point, there was a discussion between staff and Members, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) terminated his discussion. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) indicated that he was going to offer amendments. There was a colloquy between the chairman and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and he withdrew his amendment. The gentleman from Michigan then offered an amendment and had the clarification, which the Chair is grateful for, which was the subject of his amendment and that is that no money could go to enforcement. The gentleman corrected his statement, although he still believes that perhaps the United States Trade Representative is engaged in gamesmanship and perhaps they would send a dollar to enforcement but that would be all. That was precisely the basis of the discussion that occurred in committee. The Chair offered to work with the maker of the amendment, the gentleman from Michigan, to put report language that would clarify the concerns that all of us have that this is not an issue over which games should be played. But what was not mentioned was the fact that an amendment was offered with a specific reference to one country in terms of enforcement. That is, the Chair believes and apparently a majority of the committee believed, because the amendment was put to a vote, there were 11 ayes and 21 noes, that perhaps that degree of direction and specificity is not appropriate; and that had the gentleman not attempted to micromanage, he would have found far more support. Notwithstanding that, he decided to move his amendment. The offer was made, let us work together to reconcile the concerns, and we can put report language in that shows the concern of the committee that we need money both to general counsel and to enforcement. That offer was rejected. The gentleman from Michigan instead chose to move his amendment. That amendment was defeated, not for the basic concept of wanting to make sure that the United States Trade Representative work in the enforcement area as general counsel, because of the way the amendment was written. The degree of specificity and the desire to micromanage and control was the reason the amendment was rejected. So once the attempt to micromanage failed, then a vote was requested. At any point any Member could have voted no. The vote was 33 to zero, and I think that indicates the true depth of support for this provision. There truly is no real controversy; and, frankly, there should be no real opposition. I would ask Members to vote for H.R. 4418 with the intent and purpose of its content supported unanimously out of the Committee on Ways and Means. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, July 13, 2004. Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4418, the ``Customs Border Security and Trade Agencies Authorization Act of 2004.'' The Committee of Ways and Means ordered favorably reported, as amended, H.R. 4418 on Thursday, July 8, 2004 by a 33-0 vote. I appreciate your agreement to expedite the passage of this legislation although it contains several immigration provisions that are within your Committee's jurisdiction. I acknowledge your decision to forego further action on the bill is based on the understanding that it will not prejudice the Committee on the Judiciary with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. Our committees have long collaborated on these important initiatives, and I am very pleased we are continuing that cooperation. Your leadership on immigration issues is critical to the success of this bill. I appreciate your helping us to move this legislation quickly to the floor. Finally, I will include in both the Committee report and the Congressional Record a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. I look forward to working with you in the future. Best regards, Bill Thomas, Chairman.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4418. I am particularly pleased by the strong bipartisan work that has been done on this legislation. The bill was introduced by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and its original cosponsors include the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel); the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin); and on our side of the aisle, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad). The bill was reported unanimously out of the committee on a rollcall vote of 33 to 0. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4418, the Customs Border Security and Trade Agencies Authorization Act of 2004. I am particularly pleased by the strong bipartisan work that has been done on this legislation. The bill was introduced by Congressman Crane, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, and original cosponsors included Congressmen Rangel, Shaw, Levin, and Ramstad. The bill was then reported unanimously out of the Committee on a vote of 33 yeas to 0 nays. Our customs and trade agencies authorization bill is part of our two- year authorization process to provide guidance and exercise oversight of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (or CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (or ICE), the Office of the United States Trade Representative (or USTR), and the U.S. International Trade Commission (or ITC). This week the House will focus on trade legislation as a means to enhance our economic well-being, including legislation to implement the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement. While free trade agreements bring obvious economic benefits, the provisions in the customs sections of this legislation are the nuts and bolts of trade facilitation. This legislation provides the critical resources that CBP and ICE need to safeguard our borders while still facilitating the flow of legitimate trade. The legislation provides resources for USTR, which has done a tremendous job in recent years of negotiating trade agreements and enforcing the obligations in those agreements to ensure that our business, farmers, workers, and consumers reap the benefits of these agreements. This legislation will provide an additional $2 million in funding above the President's budget request for staff in the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement to ensure that USTR can continue to perform its vital functions. This earmark will allow USTR to address a variety of needs that will best enable U.S. companies, farmers, and workers to benefit from the trade agreements to which the United States is party. Finally, the bill ensures adequate resources for the ITC, which has provided valuable advice on the probable economic effects of U.S. trade agreements and other trade legislation considered by the Congress. In conclusion, this legislation provides the resources and the administrative flexibility that allows legitimate trade to flow freely across our borders. I urge the support of my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4418) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security, for the Office of the United States Trade Representative, for the United States International Trade Commission, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.