Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. 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 would ask my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas, and I did not know whether he was going to depart the Chamber, having yielded his time, but if he is not, I listened carefully to what the gentleman said. We did come together, and I have read this motion to instruct. As the gentleman knows, we have to bring the House and Senate together, since two pieces of legislation have passed and they are different in each House. This motion to instruct asks, and we all know that motions to instruct are not binding, but they do focus on what is important to people, the motion asks that we include in the conference report the fiscal relief provided to the States by section 371 of the Senate amendment. That amounts to $20 billion in two different forms, $10 billion to be distributed through the Medicaid structure and $10 billion through a pro rata formulation with minimums to smaller States and smaller territories. Whenever we have to reconcile the differences between the two bodies, we oftentimes have to listen very carefully to whether or not what one or the other side is asking for is important to them. Having talked to a number of my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, on the other side of the Capitol, I believe this provision is important to them. I believe it is important to them to the level that, if it is not included, they would seriously consider the way in which they would be required to vote on a conference report that was placed in front of them without this provision. So I can tell the gentleman that I have every intention of including section 371, as we can mutually agree to internal amendments to that section in the conference report. The second item in the motion to instruct begins with the language ``to the maximum extent possible,'' which I believe is a very wise and even sage observation that what we are going to do is, as humans, attempt to deal with the situation as best as we are humanly capable of dealing with it, to the maximum extent possible. I have no problem with any of the language following ``to the maximum extent possible'', although I did hear the gentleman read that section and not read that portion of the section, as though it was a dictate that certain things must follow; but in fact it is not, the way it is written. It is a desire to the maximum extent possible to do certain things. When I read it that way, I have no objection to what the gentleman is saying in the second section, either, when I read it the way it is written. I would tell the gentleman, his reference to the time we came and the decisions that we have made, at the time we came the gentleman and his party were in the majority. Currently, the gentleman from California and his party is in the majority. One of the differences between the time the gentleman was in the majority and the time we were in the majority is that we have actually paid down on the national debt more than half a trillion dollars since we have become the majority. So I think not only in word but in deed we agree with the gentleman.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to be talking about the greatest threats to our children, we ought to at least get it accurate. The greatest threat to our children is our failure to acknowledge that we are currently engaged in the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. They are called the Medicare and the Social Security programs. The failure to modernize and to reform, given the continued growth of those programs in the Federal budget, will choke out every other aspect of the Federal budget. The threat that they will go bankrupt without our addressing them is the greatest threat to our children, denying them the opportunity tomorrow what seniors have today. So if we are going to talk about threats, let us talk about the failure, the absolute refusal to give up a political bumper sticker, you have all seen it: ``Save Social Security, Vote Democratic.'' If you do not address change, it is going bankrupt. It is not a partisan issue. Just like the yellowed papers on ``we are favoring the rich and hurting the poor on the tax issue,'' which is absolutely false, your failure to address this fundamental reform is the greatest threat to our children. And probably the greatest insult to Americans is to argue that while you refuse to seriously engage in modernization and reform, you are doing it to save the system. It is about as old and yellowed as all your other arguments. The test will be the choice made by the American people. They have made it recently; and I believe we will be able, despite the rhetoric that you offer, to make the changes that the American people agree on and move this country forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. I find that astounding. With all the speakers and all the time that was consumed, he still has more time?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, where might I find that Jericho clock somebody apparently has in keeping time? Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think I finally get it. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) indicated that some of these provisions are permanent. I actually thought that since it is under the process called reconciliation, governed by the rules of the Senate, by the way, not the House, that anything that is done under the reconciliation process by definition cannot be permanent. In fact, on the one hand they criticize a number of provisions that expire. Frankly, when we are trying to stimulate the economy and we offer a reduction on depreciable assets, what we want them to do is make a decision to buy that truck, to buy that computer as soon as possible. That helps stimulate the economy. That helps create jobs. If we leave the offer to reduce the cost on depreciation for the entire decade, a decision can be made anytime during the decade. The whole concept of a stimulus is to get decisions that will be made sometime in the decade near the current time. Those are supposed to expire. But for the gentleman to say that some of these provisions are permanent tells me there is an underlying fear on the other side of the aisle that, notwithstanding the statutes will expire, they will not be in the majority when they expire.

Mr. THOMAS. I will not yield at this time. I do not have a Jericho clock like some folks have, and my time actually gets ticked off. The real fear in terms of their arguments, notwithstanding the yellowed notes that they use about the class warfare, which simply is not true, based upon the facts in the tax bill, is that when those provisions do expire, as they must under the temporary provisions of reconciliation, the American people might have the audacity to continue to maintain a Republican majority, because they like what we are doing; and when it comes time to decide whether they get extended or not, they might actually get extended. Now I get it. You are in the minority, and your fear is if this becomes law, based upon what we do and the positive reaction of the American public, your fear is you will remain in the minority. I will trust to the wisdom of the American public. They have done pretty well in recent years. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker how much time remains?

Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has more time than the gentleman from California?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Might I ask the Speaker the remaining division of time?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from California indicated that they were quite disappointed that their substitute was not made in order. What the gentleman full well knows is that the substitute did not conform to the rules. That they could not construct, or chose not to construct a substitute that did not violate the rules, that was outside the rules. And what they wanted was to ignore the rules. What the majority did was construct a program that fit the rules. I understand, based upon the way you behaved when you were the majority, that you do not like the constraining aspect of rules. We believe that you ought to play the game according to the rules, and you do not think rules should apply to you. We understand that. But for you to argue that your motion should be made in order in which we had to follow the rules of the House and you did not is to say, let's have a game of baseball. You get nine in the field, we get 28. You get three outs, we get 12. I certainly understand based upon the way you performed when you were in the majority, you do not get it. Why can we not have 28 in the field? Why can we not have 12 outs? Why can we not spend more than we raise year after year after year when you had the ability not to? But now somehow the Holy Grail is to not spend more than you take in, and we would sip from that cup every day if we did not face the problems we face now. Just as we did in wartime when we spent dollars we did not have to try to save our country, we are trying to do the same thing right now. I understand your desire to score political points. But the argument that somehow we do not want people to know what we are attempting to do, as soon as we can get to conference, is absolutely the most amazing argument I have ever heard. You know why? Because once you understand what we are doing, it completely blows up your rhetoric. Those old yellowed sheets of class warfare give to the rich are actually going to have to be rewritten. Or maybe you just ignore, as you have done a number of times, reality. What we are attempting to place before this body is a change in the Tax Code that does not give no taxation of dividends or capital gains to the most rich. Warren Buffett does not get zero. Bill Gates does not get zero. We are attempting, and the longer we stand here the longer it is going to take us to present it to you, to create a change in the Tax Code that gives zero to who? No tax on dividends or capital gains to those who pay the lowest amounts of taxes. In the 10 and the 15 percent bracket, zero. Their modest investment in the engine that drives our economy, the private sector, should not be subjected to the Federal Government taking money out of that small pot. That is what we want to put in front of you. I think you are a little worried about it because your old syllabus will not work. We do not want to provide zero tax to the richest in America. We want to provide zero tax in the investment of the engine of this economy to those on the bottom and the second to the bottom rung of the ladder, so that they can amass wealth, they can understand what it means to be a capitalist, they can share in the resources of this country; and I believe your real fear is that eventually they will understand what it means to think and be a Republican. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. And, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have a very limited playing deck. I am surprised this early in the debate they have already played the class warfare card.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a very responsible member of the Washington delegation and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, what I really heard in that quote, which I did not hear after it was said, was the Speaker said, And we are really going to have to fight for it because that is exactly what occurs. We want to help Americans by letting them keep their own money and we are going to have to fight you to do it, because you want to hang on to their money just as hard as you can. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the debate, I do want to thank the staffs, the majority staff, the minority staff, and the institutional staffs for something that has to happen before the Members can stand before the Speaker and the House in the Chamber and the American people and debate measures in front of us; that is, do an enormous amount of paperwork, double-checking to make sure that what is the desire of the House and Senate actually is produced in the document. It happens on every bill that comes up. It especially happens on a very difficult and complex conference report, and I do want to acknowledge the tremendous service that our staffs perform for us on a daily basis. Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that, as is the wont of legislative bodies, one of the easier ways to gain enough votes to pass a measure is to tend to listen to what people believe are either their needs or wants, collect that in an amalgam, and move forward. It is my real pleasure to tell the Members of the House that if they have read the text, they will search in vain for any particular provision that is attributed to any particular Member of either body. In the vernacular, this is a clean bill. I say that because it is very difficult to get people to look from the individual to the collective. That is, when we are talking about reducing something like people's taxes, it is oftentimes very, very difficult to look to the larger, more fundamental societal needs. And I know we will have a very vigorous and healthy debate on this issue, and everyone will use numbers on both sides. All I request is primarily out of my friends on the other side of the aisle, and listening to the debate that went on on the rule, one individual would stand up and say this was less filling because it only was going to last for 3 years and then it was going to disappear. Only to be followed by another speaker who said this really tastes great because it is going to cost a trillion dollars, and it is going to last an entire decade. Now, really, I do not care whether you feel it is less filling and it is only going to last 3 years or it tastes great and it is going to last for a decade; but for those of us who also want to participate, you ought to pick one way or the other. When you are arguing on both sides of the same argument, it is a little difficult to really shed light for the American people what this is all about. If someone is going to watch this debate and they have a child under 17, there is one irrefutable fact. In calendar year 2003, $14 billion is going to be sent to those Americans with children under 17. They are going to be sent checks. They are going to be sent by the middle of July and by August. They will have that money in their hands. If they have children, one single aspect of this aspect of this bill, and we will go on and debate a number of other aspects, this bill puts money in Americans' hands immediately. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 believe the gentleman understands that when President Reagan became President, under the Constitution the purse strings are controlled by the House of Representatives, and the Democrats were in control of the House.

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, 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.