Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Valley Fever Vaccine Development Act, which I introduced today. Valley Fever or coccidioidomycosis is a serious human disease caused by the inhalation of a soil-borne fungus, Coccidioides, and particularly impacts public health in the southwestern United States, specifically California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Texas. According to researchers involved in the Valley Fever Vaccine Project, each year a estimated 130,000 people nationwide are exposed to Valley Fever and there are about 5,000 cases. Of those cases, between 2,500 and 5,000 are serious and about 500 people die from Valley Fever. The disease is especially prevalent in Kern County, California, which I represent; 1,540 cases were reported in 2004, which was an increase of 1,137 from the 403 cases reported in 2000. Similar increases have been reported in Arizona, where some anticipate the number of cases this year will exceed 4,000. Moreover, 46 Kern County residents died from Valley Fever from 2000 to 2004. Valley Fever particularly affects those with impaired or less developed immune systems, including children and the elderly. The disease has a high incidence among minority populations as well as among those who work outside in occupations such as construction, agriculture, mining, energy, and the military. In addition, the disease also impact those who engage in outdoor recreational activities, such as biking, golf, hiking, jogging, motorcycling, rock collecting, and tennis. The drugs currently used to treat Valley Fever are often ineffective and the average hospitalization charges for the seriously ill exceed $30,000. Accordingly, a preventative vaccine is desperately needed. Unfortunately, there currently is no vaccine for Valley Fever and there is no private industry interest in making the investment, estimated to be about $40 million, needed for the development of the vaccine. However, nonprofit organizations have sponsored exploratory research conducted by the Valley ever Vaccine Project and their efforts have resulted in the identification of candidate vaccines for pharmaceutical development. While I greatly appreciate the $930,000 that has been provided through the federal appropriations process since Fiscal Year 2003 for the California State University at Bakersfield (CSUB) Foundation to purchase equipment needed by the Valley Fever Vaccine Project, additional funding is needed to develop a vaccine, particularly as incidences of Valley Fever continue to increase while treatment options are limited. Thus, I have introduced the Valley Fever Vaccine Development Act, which would authorize, from Fiscal Year 2007 through Fiscal Year 2012, funding for grants through the Centers for Disease Control for efforts to develop a vaccine to prevent and reduce the prevalence of this serious disease. As the development of a Valley Fever vaccine will directly enhance public health, I ask my colleagues to join me as I work to enact this important legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I do appreciate having you around making sure that everyone understands that what we did in 2001 was take millions of people off of the income tax rolls.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on my time?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on my time?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 805, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4297) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(b) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is finally able to take up the conference report. The last time the House visited the Reconciliation Act of 2005 was in December of last year. The minority was very much concerned about dealing with the alternative minimum tax problem facing millions of American taxpayers. We were also concerned, primarily on this side of the aisle, with making sure that the economy continued its robust growth. I am very pleased to announce today that there should be near unanimous support on the other side of the aisle for this reconciliation agreement. When we offered the alternative minimum tax outside of reconciliation, we got 414 votes for providing that alternative minimum tax relief outside of reconciliation. Subsequent to the House passing the reconciliation measure, my friends on the other side of the aisle offered, not once but twice, motions to instruct to require the conference to place in the reconciliation measure alternative minimum tax repeal. It is my pleasure to announce today that the wishes of my friends on the other side of the aisle have been granted. The alternative minimum tax, in the most comprehensive way ever offered, is part of this package; because it is so comprehensive, that more than 15 million Americans will not pay the alternative minimum tax once this bill becomes law in 2006, and that, in addition, more than 2 million taxpayers will not have any liability because of this bill. Because of its comprehensive nature, this is the only opportunity for Members of the House to vote to provide alternative minimum tax relief to taxpayers. And so I look forward to having my colleagues join me since we have provided in the reconciliation package what they have voted for and have asked for. I am also pleased to announce to my friends on both side of the aisle that this measure also contains a provision which extends one of the primary stimulus factors in the economy, and that is the ability to pay only a 15 percent tax on dividends for investing in the economy and 15 percent on capital gains for taking a risk opportunity in the economy. I will say for those items that were in both the House and the Senate bills that are not part of this package, we are working on an additional important tax relief package which will provide that opportunity. And I know my colleagues on the other sides of the aisle, especially those who represent the States that will see the greatest relief under the alternative minimum tax, those Members who represent the States of California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey, they will be pleased to note that a ``yes'' vote on this reconciliation measure provides the tax relief and, I might underscore, the only opportunity for tax relief on the alternative minimum tax measure. I might say in the reverse, that if a Member does not vote for this measure, they are, in essence, then voting to raise taxes on more than 15 million Americans. 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 do want to make a slight correction on a factual basis. The gentleman from New York knows full well, in the reconciliation package the single largest item is the alternative minimum tax relief. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the committee. (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. If, in fact, I said taxes, I obviously meant income taxes, and I appreciate the gentleman's bringing that point to me. And I would like the record corrected to say, they do not pay income taxes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. What the gentleman just quoted was indeed on the front page of The Washington Post today and it comes from the Tax Policy Center. Of course, what he did not bother to do is tell you other material that has come from the very same Tax Policy Center. Because in 2001 we took millions of people off of the tax rolls, and so for the first time many people making $10,000 to $20,000 do not pay any taxes. And what the Tax Policy Center said was, the top 50 percent pay 97 percent of all Federal income taxes. We are good, but when we remove people from the tax rolls who do not pay any taxes, how would they expect to get money back? That is, of course, the other side of the story, and it comes from the very same center that the gentleman just quoted. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on my time?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, how is the time distributed at this point?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I heard my colleague say a tax is a tax is a tax. Everyone knows a consumption tax buys you a fish for a day; an investment buys a fishing pole and bait, and you eat for a lifetime. A tax is not a tax is not a tax. Capital gains, dividends are a fishing pole and bait. The kind of taxes they go for is a fish. Eat for a day or eat for a lifetime. Our taxes provide a lifetime of benefits. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. The gentleman from Illinois wanted to know why we aren't going to be voting on the research and development tax credit, on State sales tax provision, the work opportunity tax credit or the assistance to teachers for out-of-pocket expenses, money for paying for items in the classroom. My answer to the gentleman from Illinois is that he should look forward shortly for an opportunity to vote on that measure. My hope is, based on the statement, at least the feeling I got out of the statement that he made, that he would be anxious to vote ``yes'' on that measure. We will provide him an opportunity to do that. Gee, I don't know. We had AMT outside of reconciliation, and we got all kinds of complaints about how it should be inside reconciliation. We put it inside reconciliation, and we get all kinds of complaints about the fact that it is inside reconciliation. Our colleague from Ohio said, what time is it, Mr. Wolf? I will tell her what time it is. It is time to act. This is the measure that provides alternative minimum tax to American taxpayers. It is time to act. If you vote ``yes,'' you are in favor of that relief. If you vote ``no,'' you are not. What time is it, Mr. Wolf? It is time to quit wolfing. It is time to vote. A ``yes'' vote provides relief.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a very valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. THOMAS. I will tell my colleague that in my opening remarks I indicated that there were provisions that passed both the House and the Senate in the reconciliation packages that are not part of this bill. We are working currently on this next bill. Clearly, the State and local tax deduction will be a part of it, and we will move it to the floor as soon as possible.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for a revision and extension remark. (Mr. CAMP of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), a member of the Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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