Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. The answer is, if the Senate brings offsets, I will be happy to look at them.

Mr. THOMAS. I certainly do.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if in fact the motion to instruct is not binding, I would tell my friends we are ready to accept this motion. I will reserve my time, and whenever you are ready to move the question for a vote, since it is not binding, we are ready to go.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from California said, ``This really has nothing to do with working families.'' I will tell the gentleman, it has everything to do with working families. The provision that was offered and accepted on the Senate side, which was included in the Senate bill, was not supported by the authors of that amendment. This measure was never presented to, asked for, or included in the Senate provisions. We are now at a position of examining the Senate's behavior. The movement for the refundable tax credit from 10 percent to 15 percent is in underlying law. It will occur January 1, 2005. The entire debate is over whether or not it ought to be accelerated. But what also ends on January 1, 2005 is the $1,000 child credit, because the Senate decided it was more important to create the opportunity so that between now and the elections of 2004, someone can show their compassion for working families. The $57 billion of this proposal says, after the election, will you show your compassion for working families in the year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, which just happens to correspond to the 6-year term of the Senate. We thought it might be appropriate if there is compassion between now and November that the people are going to vote. No compassion will be there for the next 6 years as well. I believe one move was politics, the other is policy. Let us talk about working families. In New York City, a fireman who responded on 9/11 and his wife, a teacher, make about $150,000 together. The Senate in its wisdom said we ought to raise the child credit from $110,000 to $150,000. And if you read the fine print of the Senate proposal, they are going to do that for 1 year, in 2010. Is that politics or policy? The $21 billion of this measure says if it is good enough for the $150,000-a-year joint working family in 2010, it is good enough for the working family today, next year, and every year until 2010. Do you want politics or do you want policy? Politics is cheap. Policy costs money. We are asking you to put your dollars where your mouth is. July 9, 2002, as a matter of urgency we sent to the Senate a military tax fairness bill that would provide appropriate changes in the laws for our men and women in uniform. Underscore that: July 9, 2002. It still languishes over in the Senate. If they really cared about the men and women in uniform, we would have seen that bill-signing ceremony already. We are including that provision in this bill and asking the Senate once again to put policy where their mouth is. If the Senate has provisions in their measure that they want to bring to conference that we did not include, we invite them. But we invited them to a conference that does policy and not politics.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I told the gentleman from the initial introduction, and I am pleased to respond on his time, that three of the four seem to be somewhat reasonable; and my assumption is that as we go to conference, since it is the Senate that has been significantly concerned about the question of offsets, under the budget which was agreed upon by the House and the Senate, there is ample provision for us to move tax bills that are not required to be offset.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 270, I move to take from the Speaker's table the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax relief and simplification, and for other purposes, insist on the House amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, not withstanding the language of the motion to instruct, which says ``I move that,'' and three of the four provisions that say ``The House conferees shall be instructed to,'' is the gentleman from California correct in understanding that the motion to instruct does not in any way bind or dictate to the conferees?

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

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have requested the hour.

Mr. THOMAS. As I was saying, since this motion to instruct is not in any way binding on the conferees, the gentleman from California awaits the awarding of the motion to instruct, and it can either be now and we can vote on it, or you can exhaust your time and we can vote on it. The effect is the same. Therefore, I reserve the balance of my time until they exhaust theirs or move for a vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I asked of the Speaker a parliamentary inquiry which said this is not binding, yet the gentleman continues to pursue a yes or no as to whether or not an unbinding statement will bind me. The answer is, and it will be, if the Senate brings offsets, we will look at them.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. When I first came to this Congress, I was assigned to the Committee on Agriculture. It makes all kinds of sense. The district I represent in California produces about $4 billion value-added from agriculture. I have been dealing with this issue for more than a quarter of a century. What we just heard was a total fabrication of reality. We have heard about the green revolution, the attempt to feed more people in the world. In the old days, they used to take a plant, put a slit in it, and graft another portion of the plant onto it. That was science in those days. There is fundamentally no difference to what we now call biotechnology than understanding the way the world works, and through science improving our ability to produce food to feed people. Everything else is politics. Somehow, large corporations get involved, the desire to sell something to Africa that Africa does not want. I was in Africa 3 months ago. They pleaded with us to help them solve their problem. The problem is the Luddites in the world today who do not want to recognize science. Anybody who assists the Europeans in their unscientific opposition to wanting to do better with the amount we have is simply attempting to wreak havoc. Vote for science. Vote yes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 4, which would amend the United States Constitution to restore to Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Amending the United States Constitution is not something that should be undertaken in a cavalier manner. The gravity with which such changes in the document that provides the structure for our system of governance should be taken is reflected by the amendment process devised by the Founding Fathers. Article V of the Constitution provides that amendments can be proposed by two-thirds of both Houses or through a convention called by two-thirds of the states. Additionally, the Article provides that these proposed amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in three- fourths of the states. So, the question before us today is whether we believe that we should restore to Congress the power to protect the flag if Congress so chooses. As I have stated previously, we are considering this question because the United State Supreme Court has taken what the Bill of Rights says is protected speech, and has extrapolated it to encompass behavior that the Bill of Rights does not specifically mention, the burning or otherwise desecration of the United States flag. When the Supreme Court did this, it handcuffed Congress in order to provide Constitutional protection to behavior that many Americans find despicable. Notwithstanding those assertions that H.J. Res. 4 itself would ban the desecration of our flag, H.J. Res. 4 would instead unlock the handcuffs that the Supreme Court slapped on Congress. While the question of protecting our Nation's flag from desecration is not before us today, I do recognize that man of my constituents do not view the flag as merely a compilation of red, white, and blue cloth; rather, they see that cloth as the enduring emblem of freedom and America. I also recognize that to preserve both freedom and America, many American men and women, including some of my constituents in the recent Middle East conflicts, have willingly sacrificed their lives and limbs and have endured hardships that few of us can comprehend. And, I know that the desecration of our flag is a direct affront to these brave men and women and their sacred sacrifices. Thus, I now take my Constitutional prerogative to ensure that Congress has the ability to enact, or not to enact, legislation as Congress sees fit to protect our Nation's flag from intentional desecration.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I do so try to explain to some folks here apparently that currently in the Tax Code, if we have two people in the 15-percent bracket, their combined tax obligation, and they are both single, is less than two people in the same tax bracket that are married. There is no requirement under current law that they both work. One cannot work and one can work. But when they are married, they are filing a joint return. In filing a joint return, they actually pay more in taxes than they do with two single returns. And I make this statement with some shock and awe that the ranking member of the tax writing committee apparently does not understand that.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, now another view from the State of Connecticut. It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, prior to yielding 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), I yield myself 10 seconds. I am just concerned that if people are really worried about not having enough taxes, I understand you can voluntarily write a check to the Treasury and at least you will feel real good about making sure that more of your money stays in Washington.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds in case there are any students actually out there in the audience. I believe, if anyone wants to check an almanac, the election of 1960 resulted in the election of President Kennedy with less than 50 percent of the vote and there was some concern about whether or not a recount would reduce that. The argument that somehow there was a significant wave of votes simply is not accurate any more than most of the structures.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the remaining time on either side?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 253, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for the purpose of a colloquy.

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