Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the Chair appreciates the vigor of the gentleman from Ohio on 6 lines out of an 11-page amendment. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, would you indicate the time remaining for each manager?

Mr. THOMAS. And would the Speaker indicate who has the right to close?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the chairman reserves the time.

Mr. THOMAS. I would tell the gentleman that I have the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Is the gentleman indicating that the gentleman from New York is the last speaker under his time control?

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts indicate that he is the last speaker under his time? I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton, for 2 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1099, I call up from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 6111) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running on the period of limitations while such claims are pending, with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1099, I offer a motion.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, to make sure that Members understand what we are doing, and, quite frankly, why we are doing it today rather than yesterday, is that we are considering H.R. 6111. H.R. 6111 is a bill that passed the House on suspension by voice vote on December 5. It then passed the Senate by unanimous consent with an amendment yesterday, December 7. We are doing this as the House of Representatives to assist the Senate under its rules to facilitate the handling of the amendment we are now discussing, and we are doing this because given the Senate rules, they would require a 2-day layover, two cloture votes and a number of other procedures. By doing this this way, we will save them a day and a cloture vote. Once again, the courtesy and kindness of the House is assisting the Senate in accomplishing the work of the Congress. So, if you will please understand, the gentleman from New York and I will lead a discussion on the amendment to H.R. 6111. In fact, the amendment is as though the entire text of H.R. 4608, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, is before us. In addition to that, there are several other provisions that accompany the Tax and Health Care Relief Act. So, notwithstanding the merits of H.R. 6111, the discussion will be on the so-called tax extenders bill; the energy extenders bill; Medicare, the so-called doctors fix; the health care provisions; certain wilderness designations; some tariff procedures and other items which will in fact be the subject of the debate we are about to be engaged in. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Perhaps again it is necessary to underscore the fact that the procedure we are going through is not the choice of the House. The current minority leader, to be the majority leader, and I know I am violating the rules when I say the gentleman from Nevada, personally called and asked that we engage in this procedure to assist the Senate. I do hope the gentleman from New York, when he assumes his majority rule, will see fit to accommodate even Members of the other party in making sure that the people's work is done in the most reasonable fashion possible. So, yes, it seems a little bit complicated, but it is in large part because both the Democratic and the Republican leadership of the Senate asked for our assistance in doing it this way. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. HAYWORTH 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, so that people again understand the process, notwithstanding the fact we are dealing with what amounts to a tax bill, because of the unusual procedure of using H.R. 6111 as a vehicle, asked for by the bipartisan leadership of the Senate and provided by us as a courtesy, there would be no motion to recommit available to the minority. This is a substantive amendment which is functioning as a substitute for the motion to recommit. It has been indicated to me directly by that bipartisan leadership and those individuals I mentioned that if what was to be a motion to recommit and which will now be a substantive amendment passes, in their opinion, this bill will not be able to move through the Senate. It may surprise the gentleman from Massachusetts to know that I agree with virtually everything he said and would like to add additional items in terms of the OCS provision. In fact, an Outer Continental Shelf measure passed the House. The measure that is currently carried in this amendment is totally isomorphic, exactly the same as the Outer Continental Shelf legislation that passed the Senate, that the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, that the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, and others supported 71-25. Need I say, this is an additional courtesy that the House is providing. If, in fact, Mr. Markey's amendment passes, everything we will be talking about for the rest of the time on this amendment will be moot. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), an extremely valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate people and their passion getting a bit carried away. This bill was signed into law by the last Democratic President, Mr. Clinton. It was on your watch. To stand in the well and tell us what is in the amendment that is going to be offered in a short time, after being criticized that they have only had 2 days on the content of our amendment, is absolutely unbelievable. We made this amendment in order because you didn't have the right to the motion to recommit. The Rules Committee out of courtesy asked you, could we have a copy of your amendment? You told the Rules Committee ``No, you couldn't have a copy of the amendment.'' Mr. Markey earlier described your amendment as having more than one item. Mr. Hinchey talked about it being OCS. Mr. Markey said it was OCS and it was AMT and it may be something else. What amazes me is that they can stand there with a straight face and criticize us because they only got the copy, the absolute legislative language, 2 days ago on our bill, and they have the audacity to go to the well and describe their amendment and what it is when they won't even give us a copy of it. Now, this is a preview of the coming majority in terms of their saying one thing and doing another. Buckle your seat belts. The piety and the arguments about how correct they are and how unfair it is was just said. This was done by this Congress, it was signed by President Clinton, and we have no idea what is in your amendment because you didn't even offer the courtesy of giving us the language of your amendment notwithstanding the fact that we gave you the privilege of offering an amendment. Now, that is what this is about. Okay? Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to refocus our Members. We are not on the Markey amendment. The Markey amendment will be presented following the conclusion of the discussion on the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, the Nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the public a technical explanation of the bill. This technical explanation expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the public a technical explanation of the bill. This technical explanation expresses the Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the spirit of H. Res. 1000, which the House passed this year to reform the legislative process, I note that the Joint Committee on Taxation has identified 2 provisions of H.R. 6408, introduced yesterday, as ``earmarks'' under the terms of that resolution. These provisions also appear in the amendment to H.R. 6111 which the House will consider today. A copy of the Joint Committee on Taxation's opinion letter is available for Members to review if they wish. The identified provisions are Title I's Section 414. Modification of special arbitrage rule for certain funds made permanent, and Section 211 of Division C, Certain related persons and successors in interest relieved of liability if premiums prepaid. Section 414 was requested by Congressman Kevin Brady (R-TX). Section 211 is part of a comprehensive mining reform proposal requested by Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Max Baucus (D-MT). H.R. 6408's Division B--Medicare and Other Health Provisions, contains an earmark. Section 111, Clarification of hospice satellite designation, was requested by Senator Reid (D-NV). The amendment also contains this provision. In addition, Division C, Title I, Gulf of Mexico Energy Security requested by Congressman Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and Title III, White Pine County Conservation, Recreation and Development requested by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) have been identified as containing probable earmarks. December 8, 2006. Hon. William M. Thomas, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 1102 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Thomas: House Resolution 1000 provides that the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation identify any tax earmark in a bill carrying a tax measure reported by the Ways and Means Committee or in a conference report to accompany a bill carrying a tax measure. You requested that we review the language of H.R. 6408, the ``Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006'' as introduced in the House of Representatives on December 7, 2006, and the House Amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 6111 (``An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running on the period of limitations while such claims are pending'') scheduled for consideration by the House on December 8, 2006, to identify any provisions which would satisfy the tax earmark standard of House Resolution 1000, if applicable. In response to your request, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation has identified two provisions in each piece of legislation that would qualify as tax earmarks under House Resolution 1000, were they included in a bill reported by the Ways and Means Committee or contained in a conference report. The two provisions, which are the same in both bills, are: (1) the provision to make permanent the modification of special arbitrage rules for the Texas Permanent University Fund (sec. 414 of Division A of each bill); and (2) the provision of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Amendments of 2006 allowing release of joint and several liability in the case of prepayment of liabilities to the Combined Benefit Fund, section 9711 individual employer plan, or 1992 UMWA benefit plan and modifying of the definition of successor in interest (sec. 211 of Division C of each bill). Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold, Acting Chief of Staff.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend, Don Talley, who was both a nationally recognized leader in the agriculture industry as well as a local community leader. Sadly, Don passed away on Saturday, December 2, 2006, at the age of 66, and I extend my heartfelt sympathy to Don's wife, Rosemary, his son, Brian, and the rest of his family for their loss. Don was president and a coowner of Talley Farms, a specialty crop operation in the Arroyo Grande area, which I represent. Founded in 1948, under Don's auspices, Talley Farms grew to encompass more than 1,150 acres. In 1982, he established Talley Vineyards, which produces a collection of fine wines. Over his lifetime, Don successfully worked to build Talley Farms and Vineyards into nationally respected entities. Talley Farms grew a variety of specialty crops and was especially renowned for growing the best bell peppers. As president of Talley Farms, Don established and implemented environmentally sound farming practices, developed innovative agricultural techniques for growing, harvesting, and packaging produce, and was noted for treating his employees well. Moreover, Don served in leadership positions with the Western Growers Association, Ag Box, the Council of California Growers, the California Agriculture Leadership Foundation, and Farm Credit West. One of Don's hallmark legacies was his strong personal leadership efforts to improve relations between the California agriculture industry and local communities. Notably Don was named Agriculturist of the Year in 1992 by the County of San Luis Obispo Farm Bureau and was voted Grower of the Year in 2004 by the Western Growers Association. In addition to Don's leadership in the agricultural industry, he served on the Arroyo Grande City Council and as mayor from 1974 to 1976. He also was a commissioner for the Parks and Recreation Commission and a member of the Cuesta College Board of Trustees. Don will be remembered not only for his leadership and achievements, but also for his community service, selflessness, and compassion for his employees. California agriculture suffered a significant loss with the death of Don Talley.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California, and I also want to thank Congressman Radanovich and Congresswoman Bordallo for the work that the Resources Committee has done, especially Chairman Pombo, and again salute my colleagues Mike Honda and Doris Matsui, Devin Nunes, also a member of the committee, and, as was indicated, Senators assisting us in moving this in a reasonable fashion, Senators Domenici, Thomas, Akaka and Inouye. This legislation is, in essence, a modest effort to provide the structure and resources necessary for citizens, schools, communities and others to undertake projects in the actual locales in which the so- called internment camps were located. For more than a decade, I represented one of those camps in Inyo County, Manzanar. I also came into the Congress with Bob Matsui. The understanding of this period in our history is essential. It has to do with fundamental rights, even of native-born citizens in time of war. The ability to preserve the actual sites and provide, if you will, an on-the-ground understanding was rapidly slipping away from us because of the simple distance of time from when this occurred and what has been happening in what were once very remote areas of Utah and California and other States. So I am very, very pleased that both the House and the Senate has responded in a reasonable time frame to provide some monetary resources, matched by those who are committed to maintain the memory, not for the purpose of rubbing in what happened, but to remember it so that it does not happen again. I thank the gentleman

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5602 was a bill that was introduced in June of this year by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) and principally the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson). This is the culmination of a long and sometimes very difficult process. The relationships between the United States and Vietnam have been difficult. When I was a member of the committee as a member of the minority and the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee was the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons, we traveled to Vietnam as the first official United States Delegation on Trade. That was a number of years ago. So we arrive today after an 11-year effort in working with Vietnam to enjoy the announcement that Vietnam is on the verge of joining the World Trade Organization. Vietnam joining the WTO will bring substantial economic benefits obviously to the Vietnamese and to the United States, because Vietnam has agreed to open its markets to U.S. goods and services. However, to fully benefit from this move on the part of Vietnam to the World Trade Organization, the United States must first extend the so-called permanent normal trade relationship to Vietnam, and that is what this bill does. I asked to take it up with the ``as amended'' phrase attached because we have been able to come to an agreement. One of the real concerns with an increase in trade between the United States and Vietnam is the textile industry. We have concerns about those areas in the United States that still have an ability to provide and afford the production of textiles and the relationship we are going to continue to grow with Central America with the free trade agreement there and with the pending free trade agreements with Andean countries that will provide us with an excellent opportunity to move our raw and partially finished textile products to an area that will both advance those countries and the United States. Vietnam will be a major player in the textile industry. The concern we have is in balancing the concerns of those who are on the retail side and those who are on the production side, and we believe that the amendment that we have offered will go a long way toward resolving those concerns. There is still concern as far as the chairman is concerned and, I know, of other Members on Vietnam's record on human rights and religious freedom. Just because it decides to join the World Trade Organization doesn't mean that it has decided in all aspects to join the world's civilized nations in its behavior not only to its people and to others. However, I do firmly believe that if Vietnam lives up to its commitment in its membership in the World Trade Organization, it will encourage and accelerate the opportunity for needed reforms in a tangible way that impacts the Vietnamese people's lives daily. So although I have a number of reservations in that regard, I do support going forward. This is a regime that is not a democracy. I do hope as we examine trade relationships that may be presented to this Congress before we adjourn sine die, that we take cognizance of the fact that we have an opportunity to enter into free trade agreements with growing and vibrant democracies in this hemisphere, and if we are anxious to move a trade agreement with a country that is not democratic, that we extend that same courtesy to those in the Western Hemisphere, specifically Peru, that have made significant sacrifices to come to a free trade agreement. They are, after all, a deserving people. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I turn the balance of my time over to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, and that he be allowed to yield said time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5602) to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of Vietnam, as amended.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 3525, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006. This legislation reflects a bipartisan agreement developed by the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee to reauthorize and improve important child welfare programs under our jurisdictions. Other bills might attract more media attention, but few are more important. This agreement reflects our mutual interest in doing more to ensure children are protected from harm. To achieve this goal, the bill increases resources for activities and services that will help prevent child abuse and neglect from occurring. But it also involves spending more intelligently and with greater accountability the money we have previously committed for these purposes. For example, we know from numerous reports and simple common sense that when caseworkers visit children in foster care, children are safer and more quickly placed in permanent homes. While most States agree that children in foster care should be visited at least once per month, there currently is no consequence for States that fail to meet that standard. Moreover, data suggest that most States can't even tell which foster children are visited and how often. Very simply, these children and the Federal taxpayers who support these programs deserve much better. The Child and Family Services Improvement Act is designed to address this shortcoming by requiring additional accountability. Specifically, the legislation will require States to ensure that, within 5 years, they can document caseworker visits once a month to at least 900 percent of foster children. This is a significant step in the right direction. This legislation requires States to increase child protection funding or risk losing Federal funds. That's the right structure--continue today's generous level of Federal support, but insist that States that don't make the grade contribute more of their own funds to improve these programs. This agreement will also target $145 million over the next 5 years for preventing and treating parental substance abuse, including involving methamphetamines. This is an issue of great concern to me because the State of California, its Central Valley region, and Kern County, which I represent, unfortunately have significant levels of methamphetamine production, use, and distribution. The Child and Family Services Improvement Act is good policy; it not only targets increased resources for prevention, it also is fully paid for, which protects taxpayers. Thus, it is not surprising that numerous groups including Catholic Charities, the Center for Law and Social Policy, Lutheran Social Services, and the National Congress of American Indians, have endorsed this important legislation. Finally, I would like to thank Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee Chairman Wally Herger and Ranking Member Jim McDermott, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley and Ranking Member Max Baucus for their hard work on this legislation. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and send it to the President's desk without delay.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to advance this important legislation. A few weeks ago, Presidnt Bush gave a speech in which he stated that our intelligence shows that al-Qaeda has two main goals--to destroy our nation physically through attacks such as 9/11; and to pursue a ``death by bleeding'' strategy in which terrorists destroy us economically. We could protect against al-Qaeda's first goal by shutting down our borders--but by cutting off America's life blood of trade, we would actually be helping al-Qaeda achieve its second goal. This bill is the right way to protect both our borders and our economy. It utilizes innovative systems to protect our citizens, and it provides new resources along our borders. Through programs such as the Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism, we bring the energy and experience of the trade community into our fight against terrorism. These programs, together with the bill's provisions modernizing our international trade data systems, also show that we can facilitate legitimate trade while at the same time providing information to our law enforcement officials to identify and stop threats. To defeat al-Qaeda and prevent it from achieving its goals of destroying America physically and economically, the Administration, Congress, our citizens in the private sector, and our international partners must work together--and trade cannot be seen as the enemy of security. I have made it a priority in this bill to ensure that through consultation and cooperative programs, all of these key partners are brought together so that we have the most effective and unified effort we can against terror and for trade. I congratulate all the Members of this Conference on this bill and look forward to its quick passage.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 430, which recognizes the 40th anniversary of the American Council of Young Political Leaders (ACYPL) and commends it for the work it has done over the past 40 years to prepare young political leaders for leadership roles in international relations and world affairs. As an alumnus of an ACYPL program and the sponsor of H. Con. Res. 430, I appreciate the House's consideration of this resolution as well as Chairman Hyde's efforts to bring it to the floor today. When ACYPL began during the Cold War, it initially focused its efforts on improving young leaders' understanding of Western Europe. In fact, when I participated in an ACYPL program in the 1970s, I traveled to the former Soviet Union. However, as geopolitical conditions have changed over the past 40 years, ACYPL has expanded its bipartisan programs to include over 90 nations throughout the world, including the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the Western Hemisphere, East Asia, and the Pacific Rim. As technology and trade continue to advance, the world will likely become even more interconnected. Thus, the need for our young leaders to better understand foreign governments and cultures will continue to be important, along with the bipartisan international exchange programs, educational forums, and leadership training ACYPL provides to prepare young political leaders for future positions of responsibility in local, state, and federal government. Accordingly, I congratulate ACYPL on its 40th anniversary, commend it for its important work, and wish it continued success.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Costa, Mr. Nunes and myself, I would like to advise the House that this past week an individual passed away, a former Member of the House of Representatives. Some of you didn't have the privilege of knowing him in person, but all of you knew of him. Bob Mathias as a 17-year-old high school student went to London and came home with a gold medal in the decathlon. Four years later, he went to Helsinki and came home with a gold medal in the decathlon. Bob Mathias was a member of this House from 1966 to 1974. Bob Mathias thought of himself as an ordinary person. Could we please, in recognition of an extraordinary human being, offer a moment of silence?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 966, I call up the bill (H.R. 4) to provide economic security for all Americans, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 966, I call up the bill (H.R. 5970) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit against the estate tax to an exclusion equivalent of $5,000,000, to repeal the sunset provision for the estate and generation-skipping taxes, and to extend expiring provisions, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.