Bill Thomas

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 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 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.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my short time to address all those Members of the House of Representatives who are not from California. They do create a majority in this body after all. We have a rather unique situation with the chairman of the full committee from California, the ranking member of the subcommittee from California, and the chairman of the subcommittee from California; but that is not what is important. What is important for my colleagues not from California to understand is this is a State of more than 30 million people that has a significant impact on the economy of the United States and, frankly, the quality of life in the United States. In the 1930s, the Federal Government began developing the water resources on the east side of California. Californians in the 1960s took the responsibility on themselves to build a multi-billion dollar water project on the west side of California. They have been discussing CALFED. The State and the Federal Government water projects have never been coordinated, and the resources of California have never been maximized for the benefit both of the environment and the economy and individuals. Our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), talked about the fact that as other States, Arizona and others in the area of the Colorado River, have gained population, California is using a source of water that we have relied on for a long time. This is the first time that we have not had a partisan fight; that we are not going to have a regional fight; and that California has come together to begin to solve the water problems of the largest State in the Union. I would ask my colleagues, if they are not from California, witness the bipartisanship, witness finally in California the understanding that north and south need to work together, and please, give us a strong vote on this legislation which is important to California and important to the United States.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) because those of us who came in the 96th Congress in 1979, and I see my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), is with us who was a member of that class, there were 77 of us, both Democrats and Republicans who came. And when you come in the same class, you then have seniority established alphabetically. So you need to understand that from the first day Doug Bereuter was envied by me for the seniority which he achieved immediately in the House. However, the years, and it is now 25, Doug and Louise and my wife, Sharon, and I have gotten to know each other in a way that you can say that we are colleagues. We professionally deal with a number of issues, but probably as much as any other person in the House, Doug is a friend, and I admire him so much. If you look at his background, rarely is anyone as prepared as he was to take on the responsibilities as a Member of the House of Representatives. And then when you look at what he has done and the manner in which he has done it, I admire him so much for the professionalism that he has brought to this House. And I know that as he now decides to go a different way, and Louise leaves her home by the river and they move into other activities, that Sharon and I will keep in touch with them because the memories that we have shared will be renewed as he moves on. I will conclude, I will tell the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), by saying this: Republicans have now been in the majority for a decade. Some of us have been privileged to be able to chair committees in this great body. I can without refutation say that up to this point the most well-qualified mind-set approach, Member of the majority not to be able to be a chairman is Doug Bereuter. It saddens me. Although he has done a marvelous job in his professional career here in the House, in a number of committee assignments, I want to underscore that Doug Bereuter should have been a chairman of a full committee. He and I will lament that over drinks in a number of countries over the next few years as we continue to share our lives in many ways. I am saddened to see Doug go, but I am not sad because I get to move up one spot in seniority. I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not rise to defend the honor of Miss Piggy, as the gentleman from New York indicated, and I am anxiously finding a flashlight because, apparently, the gentleman from New York exists in perpetual darkness since he believes night extends for more than 2 years. This bill has been around a long, long time. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentlemen from New York and Colorado, because without their active participation, the Green Bonds provision would not have been included in the House Energy Conference Report, H.R. 6, but it was, and this House passed it. Therefore, the opportunity to examine it in this conference is available to us. We did not deliberately exclude that measure from this bill, and I look forward to working with the gentlemen as we deliberate with the Senate on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 1986 the reason the basket went from two to nine was for pure revenue to be spent in other areas. And as President Reagan said, it would entice someone to go from a high-tax country to a low-tax country. Shame on us if we are the high-tax country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a champion in trade around the world.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and to observe that I was worried about a job for the young man, but it is clear that he now has a job being a shield for his father.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the United States Tax Code is out of sync with the rest of the world. Among our major trading partners, the United States is alone in the world in not using other forms of taxation other than direct income taxation. Four times the United States defended our ability to create subsidies and, therefore, produce a more level playing field among our trading partners. We had for years refused to reexamine our code more fundamentally and thought that a subsidy mandate would create a more level playing field. Four times, the World Trade Organization said that under the rules of the World Trade Organization, of which we are a founding member, that that would not be permissible. We are here today because the core of the bill is to repeal the Foreign Sales Corporation extraterritorial tax structure, and it also affords us an opportunity to examine an out-of-date Tax Code. For those who say all we should be doing is repealing the subsidy, which has been declared against the rules, is to ignore the reason why we put the rules in place in the first place. The reason we did the subsidy was because we were at a disadvantage. It can certainly be argued we should have fundamentally changed our Tax Code back when we did that, but the simple answer is, we did not. What we are trying to do is correct the errors of our ways, primarily by omission, but occasionally by commission, of not allowing U.S.- based, U.S. workers to put products and services out in the world on a level playing field with the rest of the world. That is what this bill does. In addition to that, in examining these areas, we discovered portions of the Tax Code that are just flat out unfair. And this is an opportunity; I believe everybody deserves 1 day every 20 years to have a look at the problems they face in the Tax Code. Why? Because small business in certain industries are faced with a discriminatory U.S. Tax Code that puts U.S. small businesses at a disadvantage to foreign businesses. We are going to hear there is a provision in here about arrows, there is a provision in here about tackle boxes, there is a provision in here about sonar, fish detecting equipment. The reason it is in here is because our code discriminates against American producers. So not only are we rewriting our laws to be good trading partners and assisting those people who no longer get the subsidy because we are rewriting the laws, we are providing one day every 20 years to examine those portions of the code that make absolutely no sense. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentleman, only my friends on the other side of the aisle would have a 6-inch tree and call it Christmas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the minority leader, in discussing the minority position, talked about the vision of the gentleman from New York, the path that he wished to take. We were just handed 3 minutes ago this particular motion to recommit, so if we are looking for a contest of freshness, the gentleman's vision is clearly the most recently pasted-together piece of legislation to be presented us. In fact, the paste is still kind of damp. So if, in fact, the vision is the path that the gentleman from New York wishes to follow, we would hope it is a shining path. But when you look at this legislation, what you discover, notwithstanding the half an hour of berating on the floor of the House the tobacco proposal, guess what is recently pasted to his vision? You guessed it, the tobacco proposal. Apparently he has had a change of vision. For more than 20 years, when they were the majority, they did not give a dang about people deducting sales taxes, because they were the ones who removed it from the code. But, guess what? That vision had a bolt of lightning 20 minutes ago, and now we have permanent sales tax removal. Had Republicans decided to go with permanent sales tax removal, I am quite sure they would have come up with a deduction for your dog. Why? Because no matter what we do, they are going to be better. But better is not copying. Better is starting out with an idea, carrying it through, and presenting it to you. What their motion to recommit will do is to say if you are a company in the U.S. and you deign to try to make a profit by selling overseas, you will be punished. It says that in our desire to raise revenue, we will examine what you have been doing. Not tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow. We will retroactively go back to what you have been doing for 20 or 30 or 40 years and now say not only can you not do it; you are going to have to pay for doing it, notwithstanding the fact it was legal. Retroactively. And then bragging about the fact that they removed the international tax provisions, what they are really bragging about is since U.S.-based companies are double taxed today, without these changes, they will continue to be double taxed. Why are companies going overseas? Because they are double taxed. They want to keep double taxation, and they want to complain about companies going overseas. It is pretty simple: support H.R. 4520. Companies will stay at home, and that creates jobs. So I appreciate the gentleman from New York's vision. I just hope the paste lasts through the vote, because, frankly, that is about what it is worth. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I understand 1 minute was yielded, and I just respectfully ask for 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida as was done on the other side. That is all.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentlewoman, a Delegate from Guam, and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands I would be pleased to work with them in conference to try to solve this problem for the Territories.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a very valued member of the committee.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) for a colloquy.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues and those paying attention to what is going on to appreciate what has occurred on the other side of the aisle. The gentleman who is managing the bill for the rule for the minority took some time to discuss the Crane-Rangel bill. Had that been offered, that would have been a substitute. That would have been, under the rules, appropriate; but they did not offer the Crane-Rangel substitute, notwithstanding the fact that what was offered was an amendment; but I want my colleagues to understand this. In the Committee on Ways and Means on Monday, the gentleman from New York had every opportunity to offer the Crane-Rangel substitute. It was his choice. He did not offer a substitute. He offered an amendment. Last night, with the option of offering a substitute, he did not offer a substitute. He offered an amendment. Under the rules, it has to be a substitute. Now why is the Crane-Rangel substitute not before us? Because it did not offer a tax cut to small business, because it did not include the appropriate and necessary elimination of the tobacco subsidy program; because it did not include the assistance to small business, called section 179, expensing; and it did not include the provisions for small S corporations to continue to reform. Those are in the underlying bill, and what the gentleman from New York and his staff did was simply cut and paste various provisions of the underlying bill, and they wanted that to be accepted. A letter was submitted by the gentleman from New York in which it says in part, ``I request that I be allowed to add to the amendment.'' Additionally, he says, ``the additional language . . . would include.'' At one time we were able to submit material like that without having legislative language and it would be accepted. When we became the majority, there was a thrust by the now-minority to require everything to be in legislative language. That is the rules, and the gentleman wanted not to follow the rules. He wanted the rules bent for him, the very same rules they insisted that we follow. I want to offer my colleagues three quotes: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; all politics is local; and patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. My colleagues heard the gentleman from Washington. I have here the 1985 markup document from the then-Democratically controlled Committee on Ways and Means, Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. The position in the House was to remove from the Tax Code the sales tax exemption, the income tax exemption, and the property tax exemption. Fairness. What happened in the final law was that if you were a renter in a State that raised its revenue by sales tax, you got no relief; but if you paid income tax in a State that used income tax and you were a homeowner, you got relief. That is not equitable. That is not fair. Twenty years ago that occurred. I say it is fairly reasonable to give people 1 day out of 20 years. This is their day. A provision in this bill will be ridiculed about eliminating the excise tax on arrows for goodness sakes. We are going to hear a lot of crocodile tears hitting the floor about us not helping small business. The technology that is currently controlling the arrows market was invented in the United States; but if you have a foreign arrow coming in, it is on the shelf cheaper than the arrow made in the United States. Why in the world would we let, longer than absolutely necessary, discrimination against an American product? That is in this bill. It is time to eliminate it. They should get a day. Tackle boxes. If it is pink and it is called a cosmetic box, it does not carry a tax. If it is olivedrab and called a fishing tackle box, it is exactly the same, except for the color, it carries a tax. Whether it is pink or olivedrab or red or black, the color of something should not determine how it is treated. It should be fairly treated if it is the same box. We have sonar fishing equipment in here. Guess what? If you do not use the latest technology LED screening, you do not get relief from the 3 percent excise tax. Why in the world would we stop technology? Why? Because the law is written that way. They deserve a day. When my colleagues argue that it is eliminating American democracy to not let somebody not follow the rules, that is not American democracy; that is un-American.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 681, I call up the bill (H.R. 4520) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove impediments in such Code and make our manufacturing, service, and high- technology businesses and workers more competitive and productive both at home and abroad, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 and include extraneous material on H.R. 4520.