Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this bill, I support extending sanctions on Burma for a third year within the framework enacted into law under the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. I generally don't believe in unilateral trade sanctions. By preventing trade with Burma, we isolate Burmese citizens from the world and deny them the economic opportunity and better working conditions that trade can create. As a result, sanctions often have the unintended consequence of ultimately harming the people we are seeking to help. In fact, the State Department, for the second time, notes that one effect of the Burma import restrictions has been to cause the closure of more than 100 garment factories and the loss of tens of thousands of Burmese textile jobs. I don't see how those people are better off today than they were a year or two ago. At the same time, the actions of the ruling junta in Burma continue to be unacceptable. One of the requirements of the law passed in 2003 is for the administration to issue a report on whether the sanctions have been effective in improving conditions in Burma and in furthering U.S. objectives. The State Department, in its second report, observes that Burma's already poor human rights record has worsened over the past year. Moreover, the junta's exclusion of pro-democracy groups from the National Convention assembled to draft a new constitution suggests that Burma is not on the road to true democratic reform. Given the current situation, I believe action by the United States is warranted and sanctions are appropriate if they are limited, targeted, and effective. At the same time, the State Department also acknowledges that some opposition politicians in Burma question whether U.S. sanctions have any chance of success and whether they are worth the pain caused to Burmese workers. I share this skepticism. No other country has implemented the same set of economic sanctions as the United States. If we are to successfully influence the government of Burma, sanctions must be truly multilateral and international like those used to bring an end to apartheid rule in South Africa. While I support the extension of the sanctions for another year, this effort to build multilateral pressure is key to my continued support for sanctions against Burma.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, we just voted in committee on the question of a trade agreement with the Central America free trade region. It is extensively debated, it is discussed by the committees of jurisdiction, and the administration has to listen to what Congress has to say. It is entirely appropriate that it be done through the appropriate committees. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I will repeat the second point I made. We are currently in delicate negotiations in the World Trade Organization on market access, and one of the provisions is the question of temporary movement of legal aliens; not that it will be done, but that it is being discussed. The gentleman's amendment will pull the rug out from the United States. The amendment will have significant effects, and it should not pass.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, except for the provision of the limitation of funds which has become a gimmick to avoid the committees of jurisdiction, this particular piece of legislation would land right smack right in the middle of the Committee on Ways and Means in terms of international trade. There are two reasons to oppose the amendment. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) indicated that he was concerned about content in the Singapore and Chile free trade agreements. Had he consulted the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, he would have found out that we had entered into significant negotiations with the United States Trade Representative, and that they fully appreciate the fact that there will be no temporary provisions in any additional bilateral bills. They have expressly stated this in side letters accompanying various agreements. In addition, the United States Trade Representative has committed to the committee of jurisdiction that it will not deal with any issues related to temporary entry without extensive consultation with Congress and the appropriate committees. The second reason to oppose this amendment is because as we speak, the United States is attempting to negotiate the Doha Round, especially in the area of market access for U.S. goods, services and agricultural products in emerging markets. The United States was principally responsible for making sure the Doha Round went forward. A provision of the market access, or so-called GATS Mode 4, involves the discussion in negotiation over temporary movement of business personnel. If this amendment were to pass, we would be fundamentally and substantively undermining the United States in its attempts to negotiate agreements favorable to the United States in terms of market access. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means would have appreciated knowing that this amendment was coming because of these two vital pieces of information: One, it is not necessary. We have taken steps to ensure it does not happen. And, two, an expression of undermining the United States as it attempts to negotiate through the World Trade Organization fundamental agreements beneficial to the United States makes no sense whatever. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, having to search through the Congressional Record to discover that someone is meddling in another committee's jurisdiction is probably not the best way to make sure that the United States passes laws that are in the interest of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) on that clarification, because I find it kind of ironic, the fact that we are on a fundamental question, should the United States continue to belong to the World Trade Organization or not, complaining about degrees of differences in various pieces of trade legislation. That is, in fact, how we got here in the first place. Prior to World War II, in fact, many historians argue the reason we got into the Great Depression as deeply as we did is because the United States chose to throw up significant tariffs and barriers to commercial interaction among nations. Following World War II, there was an agreement that we should not do that again; and we created a rather imperfect agreement called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It was as good as we could get at the time. As we continued to operate under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, with so-called rounds named after various cities, which has become a tradition now, the Uruguay Round, the Tokyo Round, the Rome Round, we decided that we need to move to another level, a higher level of integration and coordination; and that became the World Trade Organization. The United States was somewhat frustrated, one, in our dispute resolution mechanism, and the problem was we were winning with no substantive result in those disputes. We thought we needed a better dispute resolution mechanism. Marginally, the one we have today, I believe is better. Is it good? Not yet. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) indicated, I think there needs to be a much higher degree of transparency, especially on the resources used to research decisions. That will be an ongoing point of discussion. But what is good primarily I think for the United States and the World Trade Organization restructure from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is that agriculture became one of the points of discussion and importantly for the U.S. services and financial instruments and in the protection of intellectual property rights. Those were critical. These were, in essence, new additions; and we are continuing to try to expand those areas that countries sit down and discuss under a structure. The decision today is, should that imperfect structure remain and we continue to work toward a better structure or should we simply withdraw? That really is not a difficult decision for most Members; and, overwhelmingly, we will agree to stay in the World Trade Organization when we vote on this particular measure. But what you are hearing primarily are complaints and concerns that we have about the ongoing world trade relationship; and, heaven knows, I can wheel out all of my arguments as well. But, as correctly pointed out by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), this is narrowly on the WTO issue. But let me just select a couple of areas of trade action by the United States in the last several years. First of all, under the Constitution, all trade-related activity with foreign countries is constitutionally the responsibility of Congress. Now how many trade agreements do you think we would reach if we went to a country and said, come on in, negotiate with the House and the Senate, wait until we go through a conference committee in deciding what that agreement is going to be, and you ought to agree ahead of time before you see the final product? Now, obviously, that led to a desire to restain the responsibility but provide the administration the ability to do the negotiating nation to nation. We are currently under the trade promotion authority structure. Can you imagine the World Trade Organization where every country has a veto, you can only to things by unanimous agreement, and how rapidly you can advance concerns that you have when the primary criteria is unanimity? So one of the reasons we continue to use bilateral country-to-country relationships and regional agreements, in part, so that we do not get bogged down by waiting for the WTO, but also to a certain extent, since we believe in transparency, since this country is the most open large country of trade, import, export, of any in the world, that open markets all over the world are good. So when you examine a bilateral agreement, for example, like the United States and Singapore, Singapore obviously is not too worried about agricultural product protection. They are worried about intellectual property rights. They are worried about services. We were able to enter into an agreement with Singapore, the United States and Singapore, to set a mark for other countries on what is the best way to deal with those particular concerns; and that is down now as an agreement which we can point to as a model that we should move forward on dealing with other countries. A regional agreement would be the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and what is left out of the discussion with CAFTA are just a couple of points I would like to mention. One, before we decided to deal with the region, we told those countries, initially the five Central American countries, they had to deal with each other. That El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, et cetera, all had to come together as a region, which, first of all, is fundamentally significant. They are not looking at themselves as individuals. The final question was an individual one, but they looked at themselves as a region. Once they did that, we then entered into trade negotiations with them. You need to know something about those trade relations. They were not driven by the Central American countries' desire to get into the U.S. marketplace. Normally, we can say an opportunity to get into the U.S. marketplace is a pretty good club in which we can get them to agree to various things we want them to agree to. Obviously, it is voluntary on both sides, but the incentive of getting into the U.S. market is a terrific reason to push the agreement probably farther than they would want, because the reward is getting into the U.S. market. Not the case in Central America. We gave away the U.S. market for security, humanitarian reasons. Their products come into the United States tariff free already. If there is no CAFTA, their products still come into the U.S. market virtually tariff free. Basically, what we are trying to do is open up the Central American market to U.S. goods and services where they have high tariffs. And when you negotiate freely, one of the things you cannot do is dictate to other people what it is that they are going to do internally in their country. You can set standards, you can cajole, you can create a mutual growth structure, you can bring money to the table to assist them in moving forward. That is basically what the United States does with the rest of the world on bilateral and regional agreements. And the CAFTA agreement is good for the United States in terms of the economics of getting into the Central American marketplace so that we have a little more of a level playing field with other countries around the world. But it also is a chance for these fledgling and growing democracies to have the input of knowledge, training, and financial assistance in growing their responsible labor structure as well. Most of this is tinted with ``protect America'' as the argument. America does not really need protection. America needs the opening of markets around the world in voluntary structures whether they be bilateral, regional, or multinational, as the WTO is. There will always be resistance. China coming into the WTO was a good thing. Are we having difficulties with them? Yes. Will they continue to have difficulties with themselves as they advance as the world's largest nation? Yes. But those discussions occur under a framework which over time has gotten better and will get better, especially with the United States leadership. For the United States to walk away unilaterally from what is the best historical example of nations dealing economically in a meaningful and useful way makes no sense whatsoever. And that is why overwhelmingly the vote today will be ``no'' on withdrawing from the WTO. Does that resolve any of the ongoing difficulties we have in terms of our perception of the world, how fair the world is, how open markets in the world are, what instruments we need to use to try to push a more transparent and open marketplace, between countries, among countries, and in fact in all trading nations of the world? Of course not. All of those issues will continue to be before us, but they will be before us in a structure which allows us to measure, allows us to judge, and most importantly allows us to change as the key competitive component between nations of the world today and tomorrow will be the question of trade. And ordered and structured competition is to the advantage of the United States. And that is why overwhelmingly you will see support staying in the WTO, nurturing and growing the WTO, notwithstanding the fact that we have a whole lot of concerns about a whole lot of issues.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent and friend, Mr. Gene A. Lundquist, of Bakersfield, California, upon his recent retirement from Calcot, Ltd., where he had an accomplished 36- year career. Although I will miss working with Gene on issues of importance to Kern County and California, I wish Gene and his family well as he enters this next stage of his life. Gene was born in Bakersfield, California, graduated from Arvin High School, and earned his Bachelor of Science from Colorado State University. He then served two years in the Army, where he was awarded the Decorated Army Commendation Medal. Gene joined Calcot in 1969, and spent the next 36 years working hard to further the interests of cotton growers in California and Arizona, who grew to admire him for his dependability and effectiveness. During his career, he directed the grower relations program, was active in Management Committee and Board of Directors activities, and most recently served as the Vice President of the Legislative and Public Affairs Department. Through his strong relationships with growers, manufacturers, and legislators he was able to expand markets for raw cotton to textile producers. During his distinguished career, Gene used his talent and time to serve Kern County and local farmers on a broad range of agricultural and water issues through his active involvement with various agencies, committees, and boards. In fact, Gene became an integral component of the local agriculture and water communities and is known simply as someone who can get the job done. Gene's involvement in these organizations was broad but deep. For instance, Gene served as Chairman of the Water Association of Kern County, Chairman of the Board of the Agricultural Council of California, Director of the California Farm Water Coalition, President of the Kern County Water Agency (he remains on its Board of Directors), Member of the Cotton Board, and as Delegate to the National Cotton Council of America. He also was appointed to the California Governor's Agricultural Summit, and participated in the California Agricultural Leadership Program, where he traveled to Africa to learn more about the governments and economies of Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa. As he enters retirement, Gene leaves behind a legacy of dedicated service, expertise, and accomplishment. Accordingly, I thank Gene for all of his contributions and wish him well.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Steve Sinton of Shandon, California, who will receive the American Farmland Trust's 2005 Steward of the Land Award on May 17. This is an impressive accomplishment as Steve is just the ninth American farmer to win this award, which is given to recognize exemplary leadership exhibited in environmental stewardship and the protection of farmland. Steve is a fifth-generation Californian and a fourth-generation rancher whose family has been grazing cattle in San Luis Obispo County for over 125 years. He graduated locally from Shandon High School, and then went on to earn his Bachelor of Arts from Stanford University and his Juris Doctor from the University of Colorado. He began his professional career working as an attorney for the California Department of Water Resources in Sacramento before returning to his family's cattle ranch in 1978. Steve and his wife Jane have two children, Julie and Dan, who are both pursuing their own careers, but have also become fifth-generation cattle ranchers. I have personally known of Steve's leadership and commitment to conservation for many years. In fact, over 20 years ago, I worked with the Sinton family to protect land in San Luis Obispo County. Today, Steve oversees his family's ranches, the Canyon Ranch in Shandon and the Avenales Ranch near Pozo, and manages his family's vineyard on Shell Creek Road. To promote the sustainability of his ranch and vineyard while also protecting the environment, he has employed a variety of original methods, including the use of a unique trellising method to balance the canopy to fruit ratio on the vineyard. Steve has also participated in experiments with cover crops and erosion control. In addition to his hard work on the ranch and in the vineyard, Steve has also been a national leader in the effort to promote conservation and sustainable agriculture. He was a founding member and the founding chairman of the California Rangeland Trust, which is a statewide agricultural land trust formed in 1998 that has used conservation easements to keep 173,000 acres on cattle ranches undeveloped. Steve also has been active in the San Luis Obispo, the California, and the National Cattlemen's Associations, and has served as the Vice-Chairman of the Land Use Committee of the California Cattlemen's Association. Steve also has used his talent and expertise to benefit the San Luis Obispo County agricultural community through his involvement with the Central Coast Vineyard Team and the San Luis Obispo County Water Advisory Committee. Accordingly, I would like to congratulate him and wish him well as he continues in his various endeavors.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, how much time is left?

Mr. THOMAS. And the other side?

Mr. THOMAS. And who has the right to close?

Mr. THOMAS. We have one speaker remaining.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I would inquire of the Chair, the 1 minute that was on the minority side, does that expire?

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I appreciate that, and I yield myself 15 seconds. If we could get the mileage out of the gallon of gasoline that they get out of 1 minute, we would not need an energy policy in this country. First of all, I want to thank the five Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means who had the courage to vote for this excellent tax provision. Understanding the pressure they are under, based upon the comments that were just made, truly it was a heroic vote. Madam Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again the House is debating a ``comprehensive energy package.'' I do have to say that as far as the Ways and Means Committee is concerned, it is just slightly less comprehensive than it has been in the past. But that is because we understand, having gone through a conference with the Senate, the kind of package that will maximize our chances in producing a fair and balanced tax section. In discussing what we do in this particular bill, and I enjoy hearing people discuss it as though it is the conference report that is in front of us, it is in fact, and I will say it flatly, and in a negotiating position, before us to sit down and work with the Senate. It does have renewable provisions in the tax package, but by a small amount. The majority focus is on the infrastructure of this country, the electric power lines, gas collecting lines, and supporting a structure which will be the backbone of our energy needs clearly for the next quarter of a century before any of the innovative approaches begin to carry a significant share of our energy needs. I might also caution Members not to get too carried away looking at this particular piece of legislation under the heading of an energy bill and assume that we have done nothing since the conference report that was agreed upon between the House and Senate was passed by the House and not the Senate. I would ask you to go back and refer to legislation passed just a short time ago under the title of the Working Families Tax Relief Act. In that bill we had incentives for wind, open biomass, electric cars, and alternative-fuel vehicles. In the American Jobs Creation Act, we provided incentives for ethanol, biodiesel, geothermal, solar, open biomass, municipal solid mass, and refined coal. I know the other side is going to offer that constant lament, what have you done for me lately? The answer is, let us get to conference, put together a package, once again come to the floor of the House with a conference agreement, we will pass that conference agreement, and the Senate will pass that conference agreement. And I will conclude my opening remarks by saying, I was very pleased that on the Ways to the Means Committee, five Democrats understood, one, the strategy that we are undertaking, and, two, supported the content of that strategy by voting for the Ways and Means position. I know a number of people have a definition of bipartisan, but based upon the recent history of the Ways and Means Committee, five Democrats supporting a measure offered in that committee is unprecedented bipartisan support. And I was very pleased for it. Madam Chairman, I retain the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a member of the committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. I anxiously look forward to the debate on the Democrat substitute and would willingly yield time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) to make all the points he just made on the majority bill on the minority bill since they include in their entirety the tax section of the majority's bill. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I also look forward to seeking to yield to my friend from Texas (Mr. Doggett) during the debate on the minority substitute bill, because the provision he just viciously attacked on the floor as being totally unacceptable is in the Democrats' bill as well. I look forward to having those words spoken against their own substitute because it contains exactly the same language. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of this legislation, which will name the Federal courthouse in Sacramento after our former colleague and friend, the late Representative Bob Matsui. As many of you know, we both arrived in Washington in 1979 as newly elected Congressmen from opposite ends of California's vast Central Valley. For more than 20 years, we worked together on issues of importance to California, such as securing funding to combat drug trafficking and to gain a better understanding of the challenges posed by California's air quality. Through these efforts, as well as through his work on the Committee on Ways and Means, I saw first-hand Bob's commitment to, and strong advocacy of, his principles and how he served his constituents with honor and distinction. Naming a Federal courthouse, where our Nation's laws and constitution are used to dispense justice, is a fitting way to remember Bob. Notwithstanding his service as a Member of the U.S. Congress, he was one of the more than 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry who, pursuant to Executive Order 9066, were forcibly removed from their homes by our government and detained during World War II. Undoubtedly, this experience had a profound impact upon his life and career. Accordingly, I now ask my colleagues to pass this legislation in honor Bob's service to his constituents and Nation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1134, which embodies the President's budget proposal to provide tax relief to those who will and who have accepted Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster mitigation grants. The bill is necessary to promote effective use of the mitigation grants. These mitigation grants alleviate the severity of the damage caused by unpredictable but anticipated natural disasters. These grants save taxpayer dollars by reducing future Federal disaster relief payments resulting from such disasters. Present law allows an income exclusion for amounts received by individuals as qualified disaster relief payments. This exclusion was enacted by Congress as a response to the disasters that occurred on September 11, 2001. This existing statutory exclusion applies only to amounts received by individuals as a result of a disaster that has actually occurred; thus, mitigation grants do not qualify. Given that an exclusion applies to payments made to victims after a qualified disaster, it is consistent to allow an exclusion for payments made to mitigate future disaster damage. Prior to the award of any mitigation grant, a cost-benefit analysis is required to ensure that the cost of funding the project is less than the damages expected to be incurred in the event of an actual disaster (absent the mitigation). FEMA mitigation grants are only awarded if projects are determined to be cost effective. Because mitigation is more cost effective for the Federal government than repair after the occurrence of a disaster, the FEMA mitigation programs are intended to translate into net benefits for the government. So, unlike grants which have been made available as income replacements and would be considered taxable income as a result, accepting these funds means taxpayers will face fewer claims for disaster aid later on. FEMA mitigation grants help people avoid the loss of life and property due to natural disasters. Mitigation programs reduce the number of cases where taxpayers would pay for meaningful disaster relief. We want to encourage people to take advantage of these life-saving and cost-saving programs. But recent IRS pronouncements that disaster mitigation grants are taxable income are discouraging people who live in flood-prone areas and elsewhere from accepting assistance needed to reduce the loss of life and property in future disasters. Some participants may not have the cash necessary to pay the tax imposed on the benefits provided by the mitigation grants. For people in potential disaster areas, the threat of immediate tax on something they have received in kind may be enough to keep them from accepting the help. H.R. 1134 is relatively simple. If FEMA funds are used to improve a dwelling, for example, the funds (and what they pay for) would not be treated as income when the improvements are made, but the owner would also not be able to get a double benefit by adding the value of the improvements to the cost basis of his property. In some cases, FEMA actually funds buyouts of owners in dangerous areas. Here, H.R. 1134 gives the owner a choice: they can take the benefits which may be available under current law (for example, the exclusion of gains on a principal residence) or they can defer tax using involuntary conversion procedures. The bill includes several provisions to ensure that the exclusion is not overly broad. Not only does the bill provide that there is no increase in basis on account of amounts excludable under the bill, the bill also provides that no additional deduction or credit is allowed with respect to amounts excluded from income. Amounts received upon the sale of property for purposes of hazard mitigation are afforded deferral of gain recognition, rather than an unlimited income exclusion. The exclusion under the bill applies to payments made to businesses because, unlike other grants that are not excludable because they are in the nature of income replacement, FEMA mitigation payments received by businesses are made to ultimately benefit the local community and Federal government. An income exclusion is appropriate for FEMA mitigation grants as such grants are distinctly different from other government grants. As mentioned, FEMA mitigation grants are only awarded if the projects are determined to be cost effective for the government. In addition, in the case of FEMA grants, if an exclusion is not allowed and individuals choose not to participate in the mitigation programs, the government may face increased spending, not only on behalf of one individual, but on behalf of entire communities in some cases. Finally, in the case of FEMA grants, present law imposes an illogical result in that mitigation grants are not excludable from income, but if mitigation grants are not accepted and a disaster subsequently occurs, payments made by the government to individual property owners could then be excluded from income. Generally, the proposal would have a prospective effective date. However, with respect to past mitigation payments where the statue of limitations has not expired, the President's proposal provides that the Treasury Department will have administrative authority to apply the policy proposed in the budget and embodied in H.R. 1134 to such cases. I strongly urge the Department of Treasury and the IRS to resolve existing cases in a manner consistent with this legislation so that taxpayers who have already undertaken mitigation will not bear the unexpected burden of extra tax liabilities. H.R. 1134 will cut taxes by $105 million over the next decade. FEMA estimates that mitigation projects over the past several years have saved our Nation nearly $3 billion in disaster-related costs. Clearly, when one compares the price of H.R. 1134 with what we might pay in future relief efforts, this bill is worth moving forward and passing into law.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me this brief period of time. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), welcome to the House. Under the motion to recommit, if in fact ``promptly'' is included in the first paragraph, it means that this is not a motion to recommit. I was just waiting for the gentleman, because he is probably the one that told the gentleman to do this. On ``promptly,'' it kills the bill. So all of the statements the gentleman made about the jobs that were going to come to western New York and the dollar amounts that the gentleman is putting in the bill have no standing whatsoever, because by including ``promptly'' in the motion to recommit, the gentleman is in fact killing the bill. In addition, the gentleman said that he wanted to try to match the Senate's amount of $318 billion last year. The reason we did not have a highway bill last year was because the Senate was at $318 billion. In the conference, we urged the Senate to agree at $283.9 billion. The conference failed. This year the Senate is at $283.9 billion; the House is at $283.9 billion. We actually have a chance to get a highway bill. But probably the most interesting and ironic part of the gentleman's motion to recommit, notwithstanding the fact it has no application, is the fact that the Highway Trust Fund is actually a user's fee; that people who use the highways raise the money to help build the highways. And the gentleman is looking to raise the additional money for the user-fee Highway Trust Fund from those companies who have left the country. So they are not using the highways, but the gentleman wants to have them pay. So if the gentleman wants to work a motion to recommit that actually can work and that you can actually raise money and you can actually get it from people who use the Highway Trust Fund, I look forward to working with the gentleman. But if this is the effort conceived and delivered on the other side, I would urge my colleagues to vote this down, because if you really want a highway bill this year, the vote on the motion to recommit is ``no.'' If you really do want to kill it once again and give the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) an opportunity to work yet again in another Congress, you will vote yes on this ill-conceived motion to recommit.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the retirement of a distinguished constituent and good friend, John Fields Stovall. John has worked as General Counsel for the Kern County Water Agency in my district for more than sixteen years, earning the respect of his peers for his thoughtful, effective work on behalf of California water interests. John has lived most of his life in Bakersfield, California, beginning at the age of ten. He graduated from Bakersfield High School and subsequently Bakersfield College, where he studied pre-pharmacy. John moved to the University of California at Los Angeles, where he graduated in 1970 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology. Before beginning his career in water issues, John first worked for the Food and Drug Administration as an Investigator and received his J.D. degree, with honors, from Loyola Law School. John worked for several law firms, including the respected Lebeau, Thelen and Lampe. While working at Lebeau, Thelen and Lampe, John met his wife, the former Jan Blocher, and began legal work on water rights issues. He took that experience with him to the Kern County Water Agency in 1989, when he joined the Agency as General Counsel. John has successfully shepherded the Agency through many legal challenges and opportunities, including the organization of the Kern Water Bank. His work to ensure continued favorable operation of the State Water Project has helped to provide consistent water supplies for thousands of Kern County residents and farmers. It was a pleasure to work closely with John in our efforts to reauthorize the federal portion of the California Bay-Delta Program. In recent years, he studied for and successfully received his Doctorate from the highly- respected Peter F. Drucker Graduate School of Management at Claremont Graduate University. In his personal life, John is active in the local community. He participates in the Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce's Government Review Council and the Bakersfield Breakfast Rotary Club. He supports local students as a competition judge for high school mock trial competitions, and is an active member of the Kern County Republican Party. While John's full-time career at Kern County Water Agency is coming to an end, I am sure that he and Jan will continue to be valuable and active members of our community in Bakersfield. On behalf of Kern County residents who recognize the necessity and value of reliable water supplies, I thank John for his service and wish him and Jan the best as they begin the next stage of their lives.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Clause 2 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, I respectfully submit the rules of the Committee on Ways and Means for printing in the Congressional Record. On February 2, 2005, the Committee on Ways and Means adopted by voice vote, a quorum being present, the following committee rules.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the retirement of Thomas Newton Clark, General Manager of the Kern County Water Agency. Tom has worked at the Agency for over 20 years, and held the position of General Manager for the last 15. Throughout his career in the California water industry, Tom has shown vision and tenacity when tackling the challenges of competing water interests. He has long been recognized for his negotiating skills and ability to find a resolution acceptable to widely divergent points of view. Tom is a second generation Californian and a lifelong resident of Bakersfield. He attended Standard Elementary, Standard Junior High, and North High School, graduating in 1963. After marrying Karen on June 19, 1966, Tom spent 2 years in the Army at Fort Irwin, California. After taking classes at Bakersfield College and California State University, Bakersfield for 2 years, Tom then ventured across the country to complete his coursework at the University of Pittsburgh, earning his Master of Science in Water Supply--Water Pollution Control in 1974. Tom moved back home to California, starting his long career in California water in 1974 with the Kern County Water Agency as a Water Resources Planner. After nearly 4 years with the Agency, Tom sought a new challenge as water manager for Nickel Enterprises and La Hacienda, Inc., where he was responsible for managing the water rights of this farming, commercial and residential water rights development firm. Tom returned to the Kern County Water Agency 8 years later as an Assistant Manager and was promoted to Assistant General Manager 3 years later. In 1990, Tom took on the mantle of General Manager, overseeing all operations of the Agency, including management of its allocated State Water Project water supplies. Tom is well known for his visionary leadership in promoting the idea of water banking in and around Bakersfield and for his dedicated work to balance California's commercial, residential and agricultural water needs. Tom has always sought to educate water users in more urban areas of California about the importance of water for agriculture, given that the Central Valley is the most productive agricultural region in America. He was one of the lead players in developing the Bay-Delta Accord of 1994 and following that through to State and Federal authorization in subsequent years. In the 108th Congress, I worked with Tom and others at the Agency to ensure a Federal reauthorization of the California Bay-Delta Program, a program that seeks to provide a balance to competing water needs in California. I wish Tom the best of luck in his retirement. While I understand he is retiring from his high-profile and high-pressure position, he will continue to be a voice and force in California water policy for many years to come.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the California League of Food Processors, CLFP, as they celebrate their 100th anniversary. For those who are not familiar with the CLFP, it was founded in 1905 in San Francisco and was originally known as the Canners League of California. Its mission then was to represent the canners of California fruits and vegetables. Since then, its membership, and its mission, has expanded to include not only canners but also freezers, dryers, and dehydrators; its membership contains familiar names such as Bell- Carter, Campbell Soup, Del Monte, H.J. Heinz, Kraft, Rio Bravo, Sun- Maid, and Sunsweet. These companies, along with the other members of the CLFP, play a crucial role in California's $27 billion agriculture industry. In a typical year, CLFP members can, freeze, or dry 11 million tons of tomatoes, 500,000 tons of peaches, 120,000 tons of olives, and millions of tons of other fruits and vegetables such as garlic, prunes, and strawberries. For the past 100 years, the CLFP has worked to ensure that the food grown and processed in California is of the highest quality. In the process, the CLFP and its Members have encouraged the growth of the California fruit and vegetable industry by being a leader in the development of technological innovations that have helped the industry achieve advances in fruit and vegetable varieties, harvesting automation, processing mechanization, food packaging, and distribution systems. Accordingly, I trust that my colleagues will join me in congratulating the CLFP on their 100th anniversary.