Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When there is a problem that is overdue for fixing, and has been for more than half a century, someone who argues process is the reason why we should not fix it, does not get it. Given the kind of problem that we have seen, it needs to be fixed. Tonight we are fixing it. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who helped us fix this more than half-a-century-old problem. (Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to join with the gentleman in thanking the ranking member for his tireless work on the tobacco buyout as well. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), an invaluable member of the Committee on Ways and Means, a gentleman who also happens to be a member of the Texas delegation. (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentleman that I would be pleased to invite him to the bill signing ceremony so that he can see the President of the United States sign this bill into law. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures and was the foundation for building the overwhelming majority portion of this conference report, the tax provisions.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means, to perhaps offer another view on the position that the gentleman from New York just indicated.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from New York for maintaining his competitive edge, notwithstanding the fact that by my count now more than a majority of the people who have taken the well on his side of the aisle are supporting the conference report. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), the real Member from Washington who actually made sure that the sales tax provision was in the bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank all of the Members on both sides of the aisle. I want to thank the staffs on both sides of the aisle. This has been a very arduous and long journey. I think it is one of the more remarkable debates when half of the Members on the other side of the aisle taking the well say they are going to support the conference report. Apparently it was not that difficult for them to find out what was in this conference report. It is kind of interesting that after all of the difficulties we have been through, the last comment was about process. Not about content, not about righting the wrongs that for so long should have been righted. I want to tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, I enjoyed working with them; I look forward to working with them again. Jurisdiction is not as important as righting wrongs, and we will do that. And I want to tell the gentleman from New York that in the largest State in the Union, it is only 6:15. I ask Members to support this conference report. Let us get this work behind us.

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

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 the conference report accompanying H.R. 4520.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2828, the Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act. This legislation, authored by my good friend, Resources Water and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert, is the result of many years of hard work by the California water community to find a way to balance the competing water needs of agriculture, the environment, and a growing population. My district in the Central Valley of California is a prime example of these changing needs. In 1960, Kern County had a population of about 291,000 people and an agricultural base that produced commodities with a farm gate value of $247 million. In 2000, those numbers had increased to a population of 661,000 people and farm gate value approaching $2.5 billion. Much of this growth is due to the construction of the State Water Project in the mid-1960's, but virtually no investment in that all-important infrastructure has been made since that time. Our water infrastructure requires attention and upgrading to continue supporting California's agriculture economy, and H.R. 2828 provides for many of these necessary improvements. I congratulate all my colleagues from California who have worked tirelessly to overcome regional differences and reconcile competing priorities to ensure that this vital legislation is enacted.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 820, which commends Mojave Aerospace Ventures and their great success capturing the Ansari X Prize on Monday, October 4. I am proud to represent Burt Rutan and his team based in Mojave, California, and it has been a great pleasure to watch their success. The first private effort to enter space has succeeded. As part of a competition stimulating private enterprise in an area that formerly was totally government-controlled, the Ansari X Prize Foundation and the collaborators of Mojave Aerospace Ventures have proven that private organizations can achieve anything they put their minds to. The sky is no longer the limit. Although almost 80 years apart, the X Prize is similar to the reward that in part led Charles Lindbergh to fly across the Atlantic in 1927. That achievement sparked the initial age of commercial aviation, and this achievement truly begins the era of commercial space aviation. I congratulate Burt Rutan, pilots Mike Melvill and Brian Binnie, all the employees of Scaled Composites, and all those community volunteers who worked tirelessly to prepare for this event at the Mojave Spaceport. In recent days they have provided us with an exciting glimpse of the future, and I look forward to their next endeavors.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3242, the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004, which is intended to improve Federal agricultural policy in order to ensure that American consumers continue to have access to an abundant and affordable supply of nutritious fruits, vegetables, nuts, and other speciality crops. I thank Mr. Ose, Mr. Dooley, and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Goodlatte for their efforts to develop this legislation. This legislation is important to my constituents in the 22nd Congressional District of California, who collectively produce agricultural products with a farm gate value in excess of $3 billion, with specialty crops accounting for more than two-thirds of that value. Unlike other crops and many of their foreign competitors, U.S. specialty crop growers do not receive direct government support despite the fact that they face increased competition from imports; since 1995, imports of fruits, vegetables, and nuts have increased 80 percent, from $4.6 billion to $7.4 billion in 2002. It is important to note that during the same period of time, while U.S. exports of fruits, vegetables, and nuts have increased since 1995, they have only increased 17 percent, from $5.2 billion to $6 billion. Moreover, U.S. producers continue to encounter sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) barriers when they seek to export their goods to foreign markets. Accordingly, in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I am extremely interested in efforts to open and expand foreign markets through the reduction of SPS barriers and the negotiation of multilateral and bilateral trade agreements. H.R. 3242 seeks to assist U.S. specialty crop growers by authorizing funding that could be used by State departments of agriculture to create consumer demand for specialty crops, enhance food safety efforts, and to support production-related research. H.R. 3242 also seeks to help U.S. producers break down SPS barriers and reduce the number of pending export petitions for agriculture goods. With regard to those pending export petitions, I look forward to working with Chairman Goodlatte to ensure that the process is more transparent so that Congress can enhance its ability to conduct oversight. H.R. 3242 is strongly supported by over thirty organizations, including the Western Growers Association, Wine Institute, California Table Grape Commission, California Farm Bureau Federation, California Winegrape Growers Association, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, and Sunkist Growers. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 3242.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of S. 878, which would make important upgrades to the Federal judiciary's infrastructure. I appreciate the leadership Chairman Sensenbrenner has exhibited in the development of this legislation, which would establish 58 new Federal judgeships. As reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary, S. 878 would provide 47 new Federal district court judgeships. Significantly, S. 878 reflects legislation (H.R. 3486) that I introduced earlier this year in that S. 878 would convert the expired temporary judgeship in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California temporary judgeship to a permanent judgeship and add three additional permanent judgeships. These additional four judgeships are much-needed as the seven judges in the Eastern District are currently carrying an average weighted caseload of 788 each, far in excess of the 430 benchmark used by the U.S. Judicial Conference to determine when additional permanent judgeships are required. Moreover, it must be noted that the judges of the Eastern District have exceeded that benchmark since 1998, when their average weighted caseload was 567. The judges of the Eastern District also have an average of 920 pending cases each, an increase of 25 percent since 1998. In addition, the Eastern District continues to see an annual increase in total filings; in 2003, 5,853 cases were filed in the Eastern District, which is an increase of 1,139 cases from the 4,714 cases filed in 1998. As one would expect, the number of pending cases in the Eastern District has likewise increased; in 2003, there were 6,440 cases pending, which is an increase of 1,269 since 1998. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to continue to work to quickly enact legislation to provide the Federal judiciary, and especially the Eastern District of California, with the resources necessary to efficiently and effectively administer justice.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4569, which would require the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture to develop a plan to control and manage Sudden Oak Death (SOD). Sudden Oak Death is an issue of significant concern to my constituents who live in San Luis Obispo County, and I thank Mr. Burns and Chairman Goodlatte for working with me to develop this legislation. Oaks are a significant part of California's culture, and San Luis Obispo County is famous for its beautiful oak trees, particularly those along U.S. Highway 101. In fact, ``El Paso de Robles,'' which is the name of one of the cities located in the northern portion of the County, is literally translated ``the pass of the oaks.'' It also should be noted that oak trees provide pleasant vistas that encourage tourism, which is an important component of the California and San Luis Obispo County economies. Unfortunately, oak trees are susceptible to a disease known as Sudden Oak Death, which is caused by the fungus-like pathogen Phytophthora ramorum, and for which there is currently no known cure or treatment. Rather, the standard regulatory practice is to quarantine the infected woodland area to reduce the likelihood of its further dispersal. However, quarantine efforts are not always effective because the disease is difficult to contain. Thus, while San Luis Obispo County is not among the thirteen California counties that are subject to such quarantines, I am interested in efforts to contain and combat Sudden Oak Death in order to ensure that Sudden Oak Death does not become established in San Luis Obispo County's environment. In order to most effectively and efficiently combat Sudden Oak Death, we need to have a plan, and that plan should be derived from a careful analysis of what we have learned from our past efforts. As that is exactly what Mr. Burns' legislation would facilitate, I encourage my colleagues to join me as I work to see it enacted into law.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just as we began taking up going to conference in this motion to instruct, a number of Americans were not watching C-SPAN. They were watching other television programs which showed a private enterprise effort to go into space. Burt Rutan from Mojave in my district has built a spaceship called SpaceShipOne. It was launched earlier today. It reached an altitude unofficially, yet to be confirmed, of more than 100 kilometers, or 62 miles. It has returned safely and landed. The first private effort to enter space has succeeded. This is part of a competition stimulating private enterprise in an area that formerly was totally government-controlled. He will now have a clock ticking in which 2 weeks will expire and prior to the second week, he will have refurbished SpaceShipOne, sent it back into space, achieved a second time an altitude of more than 100 kilometers; and, if he is successful in doing that, he will win the X Prize. It happens to be a $10 million reward for the first privately financed space vehicle to achieve those parameters. I cannot help but see how striking this initial part of the achievement is to the reward that in part led Charles Lindbergh to fly across the Atlantic in 1927. That achievement sparked the initial age of commercial aviation. This is the beginning of commercial space aviation, and I find it somewhat ironic that, while people are pushing the barriers of man's involvement with minimal or no government involvement, that we are here on a motion to instruct that plows old ground, that does not yield any harvestable crop other than pure political rhetoric. The motion to instruct indicates that the conference, which we are all anxious to begin, and I accept any criticism about how long this has taken to achieve but we are now ready to go, and yet there will be continued delays based on political rhetoric that has no merit whatsoever. How can I make a sweeping statement like that? The gentleman indicated that the House bill contained international tax provisions which will send jobs overseas. A pretty inflammatory statement. But I think it might be worthwhile to examine those areas of the House-passed bill and the Senate-passed bill that are identical. Interestingly enough, the single biggest area in which the House and the Senate bill are absolutely identical are the international tax provisions, the very provisions the gentleman from Massachusetts said drives jobs overseas. It might be useful to examine the way in which the Members of the Senate voted on this measure, which, if they supported it, would obviously mean they are also interested in driving jobs overseas. This measure was presented in the Finance Committee, and a Member of the Finance Committee is the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry voted for the international corporate tax provisions. Following the logic of the gentleman from Massachusetts, his own Senator, the Democratic nominee for President, apparently supports sending jobs overseas, since those two provisions are identical in the House and the Senate bills. Who else would support this outlandish position which we will hear repeated time after time after time on this motion to instruct? Let us see. On both the Graham amendment and the Hollings amendment, which were to remove these provisions which the gentleman from Massachusetts purports drives jobs overseas, willing to keep these measures in the bill on the Senate side was minority leader Senator Daschle, who voted in favor of keeping these provisions. Senator Baucus, who is the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, voted. I could obviously go down the list of Democratic Senators who apparently are interested in putting jobs overseas. Point of Order

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his inquiry. Obviously, what I am quoting is the voting record which was established in the Senate on this measure. I can understand why my colleagues on the other side would not want to hear the list of Democratic Senators who supported the international tax provisions because it pretty well demolishes their argument, and what they want to do is continue this fantasy argument that the provisions in the House bill ship jobs overseas. These provisions, as I said, were identical in both the House and the Senate versions. In fact, the vote on the Graham amendment was, yes, let us eliminate the tax provisions, 22; no, 77. On the Hollings amendment, it was yes, 23; no, 74. By 75 percent or better, the Senate said, let us keep these international provisions. A significant number of those were members of the gentleman's own party, and, as I said in committee, his own party's nominee for President voted in favor of those provisions, and those are the provisions they are arguing they are shipping jobs overseas. I would hope that that part of the argument on the side of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would now end because it is pretty obvious they do not ship jobs overseas because the Democratic Senators would protect jobs here at home, and hopefully, they would vote to enhance jobs here at home. As a matter of fact, the rejection of the Graham and the Hollings amendments did just exactly that, i.e., they support the international tax provisions that are identical in both the House and the Senate bill. They do not ship jobs overseas. Senator Kerry would not vote for that. Senator Daschle would not vote for that. They voted to keep jobs here at home and strengthen America's economy. We should not hear another argument on the other side of the aisle about shipping jobs overseas. Just let me say, if we do, one, it does not make any sense if one takes a look at what occurred in the other body in rejecting the attempt to remove these provisions; but, two, it does create an opportunity to sow seeds of dissent about the fact that, when we try to strengthen the private sector, create more jobs, it just does not fit their rhetorical pattern. So I think it is fairly ironic that, at the very time they are misrepresenting assisting private sector in enhancing the economy, that a private entrepreneur with private dollars has achieved for the first time reaching the edge of space. I would rather look with Burt Rutan up toward the stars and enhance our ability to create jobs at home than to argue a position which even members of their own party rejected on the Senate side and, wisely, the House rejected as well. Let us see if this argument is not made again during this debate. It should not be. Let us see if it is. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, my understanding of that interpretation is that I am not permitted to characterize the vote, and I believe I did to a certain extent. And, therefore, what I would like to do is to simply emphasize that one of the votes was a rejection of 77 to 22 and the other one was a rejection of 74 to 23, and people can reach their own conclusion on those votes rather than my presenting a conclusion, which was, I thought they were overwhelmingly rejected. I am not allowed to say ``overwhelmingly rejected,'' but 77 and 74 can be concluded by anyone on their own. To that extent, Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to correct the record in emphasizing that it was overwhelming rather simply make sure that the vote of 77 and 74 noes is on the record.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman from Washington knows his nominee better than I do, but the fact that he voted ``yes'' in Finance Committee and he suggests that he would veto it if he became President would certainly continue the pattern of first he voted yes, then he voted no. So I have no evidence to quarrel with him, that once again Senator Kerry will again be on both sides of the issue. It is just that he will change venues. The behavior does not change. Where he continually flip-flops, of course, would. The gentleman from Washington also said that unless we pass the motion of the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) motion to instruct, we will do something. Oh, come on. Everybody knows motions to instruct are not binding. It has no influence whatsoever on the conference, unless the conference wants to. Now, the measures that they are arguing, ``Oh, by the way, did I tell you that, notwithstanding the fact the Senate supported overwhelmingly the international corporate provisions, and I assume that they believe that they will not ship jobs overseas or they would not have voted the way that they did, and they probably should not be mentioned again in this debate,'' but the very next speaker not only mentioned them, but made it the core arguments of his position, that if in fact there are 23 Senators, 10 of whom are Democrats, they are members of the Finance Committee, save for 2, which passed these provisions out of the Senate Finance Committee, 19 to 2. And I do not believe they have any intention of reversing their position, even if this ludicrous motion to instruct were to pass. So, I just want you to forbear. We will go through, the time will be used up. We will vote down the motion to instruct, and we can then get on with the conference. And I can assure you, the senatorial members of the conference and a clear majority of the House members of the conference intend to support those provisions that will strengthen jobs here at home, and they will dismiss, for the obvious reasons, the argument that continues to be made by those individuals, even encompassing a denial of the Senate's minority leadership's decision- making ability indicating that we should not listen to them. I happen to believe that you should take each issue on its merits and not dismiss them by stereotyping, and on this issue, I believe the Senate got it right, just as the House got it right. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair, characterizing a current Senator who is running for another office and what he would or would not do would fall under that same admonition?

Mr. THOMAS. Who are still Senators, and how they would behave, does that fall under the same admonition?

Mr. THOMAS. I will accept the nonresponsive answer. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.