Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the American people in November decided to put their trust in our party in this House after 40 years. In large part I believe it was because we told them what we were for. We offered a contract with the American people. They know what we are for. We know what you are against. You have indicated that over and over and over. We know what you are against. The 2 great parties in this county should be for something. The American people know where we are. We have our contract. Let us try to determine where the Democrats are. Following the November election the President of the United States went on television and told the American people, and this is from the administration's revenue proposals, Department of the Treasury, it says ``tax relief for middle class families has been and continues to be an important goal of this Administration.'' The proposal: ``A nonrefundable tax credit granted for only those children under 13 to ultimately reach $500 per child.'' Marvelous new idea. I wonder where the President got it? When we debated this bill in the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Democrats had an opportunity to offer a substitute at the end of the debate in the Committee on Ways and Means over our middle-class tax proposal, this was the amendment that the Democrats offered. The amendment in its entirety as a substitute for our proposal laid out to the American people before the election was not what the President said he was for. Their amendment as a substitute in toto was one word, one word: Insert after section 1 the following new section, section 2, ``sunset.'' ``It is not that we are against what you are proposing,'' the Democrats said in the Committee on Ways and Means, we just do not think it ought to be open-ended for the American people. We think it ought to be sunsetted, stopped at a given time, should not apply after January 1, 2001. The President said he has been for a long time for middle-class tax relief. The Democrats said, yeah well, it is okay, but sunset it. And then we have in front of us tonight the minority leader's substitute. Does it look like the President's bill as he said he wanted it and as the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] introduced along with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] in February called H.R. 980 which had the middle-class tax cut in it? No. What this proposal has in it is one of the most onerous provisions that has ever come to this floor. We heard the gentleman from Michigan give a representation about this business of taxing people because they have decided to give up their United States citizenship. Many people in this country are born here and get citizenship by birth, others acquire it after birth. It is something that you can get, and it has always been something that you can give up. We have had a law on the books for years that says if you are going to give up your citizenship to avoid paying taxes, then there are actions that can be taken. That is not what is in the proposal by the minority leader, and let me turn to the testimony in the Oversight Subcommittee of just a few short days ago when Chairman Johnson, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, inquired of the Treasury representative, Mr. Guttentag, What is it that you are proposing, how many people have given up their citizenship? Mr. Guttentag then went through numbers over the last several years, several hundred people. She then said, How many of them have given up their citizenship to avoid taxes? The representative of the administration of the Department of Treasury said, ``We do not know''. She then said, ``How in the world can you have a revenue estimate about how much money you are going to make if in fact you do not know how many people voluntarily gave up their citizenship to avoid taxes?'' Listen to the reply of the Administration's representative, and see if it is not chilling. ``The Clinton-Gephardt proposal,'' he indicated, ``does not require an intent to avoid taxes.'' He said, ``The Administration's proposal does not require an intent to avoid taxes.'' The fact that you would have the audacity to decide that you were voluntarily giving up your citizenship would result in tax penalties and we have heard these Members taking the floor saying there is no way you can compare yourself with the Soviet Union. Outrageous to do that. The Soviet Union used to make people pay a penalty for leaving their country voluntarily. You had to pay through the nose. We have historically said if you are trying to avoid taxes, then we are going to get you. What this proposal says, and which is included in the new substitute, is we are going to get you even if it is not to avoid taxes. We have lost the high moral ground. Do not let this substitute pass with this onerous provision.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman did not mean to say the Small Business Committee. I believe he meant to say the Small Business Administration.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, under the rules of the House, are there procedural motions available to the body, and if moved, voted on, and is the motion to table a procedural motion utilized by the former majority over and over and over again? (The letters referred to by Mr. Moran follow:) U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC, April 3, 1995. Hon. Zoe Lofgren, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: Given my statutory responsibility (15 USC Sec. 634b(4)) to determine the impact of the taxes on small businesses and advise Congress, I have been asked to analyze the impact on small businesses of the ``Contract With America Tax Reform Act of 1995'' which is scheduled to come before the House of Representatives this week for consideration. Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995, creates a 50 percent capital gains exclusion for individuals but, in so doing, repeals the special small business capital gains tax incentive in the existing law (P.L. 103-66, Sec. 13113). This will have the effect of raising the taxes of future investors in qualifying, high growth, small businesses from the previous maximum rate of 14 percent to the new rate of 19.8 percent. This may be the only category of taxpayer to have its taxes raised under the capital gains provisions of the proposal. One change from the original bill added in H.R. 1327 that small businesses will appreciate is a provision which allows investors who have already purchased qualifying stock to keep the lower rate they expected under previous law. Nevertheless, the repeal is troubling for small businesses for two reasons. First, as a matter of even-handed tax policy, it seems incongruous to raise the tax rates of those who invest in the research, plant and equipment of a high- risk, emerging growth company while rewarding non-productive speculation in real estate or the stock market with substantial tax reductions. This is particularly true where a windfall of capital gains treatment is provided to some investors for gains on property held previous to the introduction of the across-the-board proposal where such purchases were made with no expectation of a higher after-tax return. Second, there is persuasive evidence that emerging, high- growth small businesses are the best choice for investment incentives when measured by return-per-dollar of tax expenditure. Yet historical data suggest that the across-the- board capital gains proposal will not significantly help these small businesses seeking investment dollars and repealing the special tax preference will hurt. Our estimate is that only 10% of business finance resources currently go to small businesses and most of that is in the form of bank loans and commercial mortgages--not long term or ``patient'' capital that is needed to finance research and growth. The across-the-board 50% reduction which would replace the special small business capital gains incentive will do little to improve the situation. Historical data, based on previous across-the-board capital gains treatment, indicate that about two-thirds of the capital gains benefit will flow to appreciated property, such as real estate, and only about one-third will go to corporate equity investment. Most of the corporate equity investment, however, will reward gains generated by the transfer of existing shares of stock in the market which do not result in any new productive investment for businesses. Based on this data and current levels of venture funding, we estimate that less than one per cent of the across-the-board capital gains benefits will flow to venture capital that would help small emerging companies. Our research, and research we have reviewed, indicates that growing small businesses are greatly underfunded compared to their contribution to our economy. Small businesses in general provide 54% of all jobs and 50% of total output using only 40% of total business assets. The lion's share of our economy's job growth and innovation is generated by the type of efficient, high-growth, high-tech small business that can qualify for special capital gains treatment under current law. The purposes of the incentive is to persuade ``mainstream'' investors to take the added risk of investing in an emerging firm. Without such an incentive, the ability of these businesses to attract equity investment may be seriously impaired. We conclude that the repeal of the special small business capital gains incentive and the resultant increase of the effective tax rate on qualifying small business investors will make it more difficult for these small businesses to compete in highly competitive capital markets. Since small, high growth businesses generally develop the markets and provide the jobs that help to secure our commercial leadership in the future, the repeal may have an adverse impact on our future economic growth. I hope that this information is useful to you during the debate. I would be happy to provide any statistics or information that I have. Feel free to call me at 205-6533 or FAX at 205-6928. Sincerely, Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. And the Speaker.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the title.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the preamble.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that several of the new Members wanted to know whether or not we had enough rooms if we were going to name rooms after Members. I asked them to walk around and look at the number of rooms named for distinguished Members of this House. And all of the rooms that have not been named. I would just say, to anyone who wants to know whether or not rooms should be named after Bob Michel, to read the Congressional Record following this presentation. There is ample reason. Anyone who meets the profile that has been discussed among Members here, we have ample rooms. I think you will find that very few of us would meet that profile. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. House Resolution 65, which was unanimously approved in the Committee on House Oversight on March 8, 1995, with the three technical amendments that we will offer, is a resolution that was introduced by Speaker Gingrich on February 8, 1995, to do as we sometimes do in this body, name certain rooms after a figure who indicates a significant benchmark or milestone in the history of this House, and the resolution by Speaker Gingrich asks that the House wing in the Capitol be named after former representative Bob Michel. Clearly, by unanimous agreement the committee thought that it was most appropriate to do. Mr. Michel retired after 38 years of distinguished service in this House, including 14 years as the Republican leader, the longest tenure of any Republican in that capacity. The rooms to be so designated will be H-230, 231, and 232. Those are the rooms that Mr. Michel occupied as the minority leader and are currently the rooms occupied by the Speaker of the House. I will offer the technical amendments to the title, preamble, and text of the resolution which were recommended by legislative counsel after the gentleman withdraws his reservation.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Oversight be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 65) naming certain rooms in the House of Representatives wing of the Capitol in honor of former Representative Robert H. Michel, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 matter on House Resolution 65, the resolution just agreed to.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, these folks just do not get it. Actually, I realize they do get it. I just want everybody else to understand the game they are playing. You wrap yourself in the flag, play the games with class warfare in terms of millionaires and billionaires. But let us not get so far away from reality that people who are listening to this debate really believe what you are saying is the way things are. No. 1, we have a law on the books, current law it is called, which says that if you try to renounce your citizenship for purposes of tax evasion, you are violating the law. All of the rhetoric on your side, including the gentleman from Texas who just spoke, falls under current law. The gentleman from Hawaii, in repeatedly excoriating people who would refuse their citizenship for pecuniary reasons, say we have current law that handles that. The problem is, repeat, the problem is the current law does not work very well. We have conceded this. The Senate has conceded this. Any rational person looking at this area of the law has conceded this. What the Senate said the other night was, we probably acted too hastily in adopting Senator Bradley's amendment, which was not the Clinton proposal, to apply evenly on citizens and noncitizens and we ought to take a little closer look at the subject. Coming out of the conference committee is an agreement, repeat, an agreement between the Senate and the House as part of the provision that we are going to vote on and pass shortly. It says, in order to examine fully the issues presented by the Treasury Department's proposal, the Clinton proposal, not the poorly executed Bradley proposition which the Senate adopted, but the Clinton administration's proposal. It pains me a little bit to say this, but the administration's proposal is far better. It is the one that we should use as the underlying structure of focus on. We have included a requirement to direct the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation to provide a comprehensive study due June 1, 1995. This is on a fast track. We want to look at it as soon as possible. Among the issues to be considered, one, the effectiveness and enforceability of current law with respect to the tax treatment of expatriation. The enforceability and the effectiveness of current law. Treasury has testified they offered this proposal because current law is not working well. We have said we are going to create a study by June 1 to examine the effectiveness of current law. You folks want to attach an ill-advised structure now, without knowing where we need to go and what we need to do. But beyond that, the conferees want to know the current level of expatriation for tax avoidance purposes. The gentlewoman from Connecticut held an Oversight Committee hearing and asked a direct question of Treasury, how many folks are involved in this. Virtually every one of you have come to the floor on your side and mentioned a number. That number was not supported by the Treasury Department. The fact of the matter is, we do not know how many people are affected by specifics so that we can actually make a decision on an informed basis instead of an impassioned basis. You folks are trying to move people by emotion. What we in the majority would like to do would be to move people by reason. Obviously, our hope is that reason prevails rather than your emotion. Second, we want to determine whether or not any restrictions imposed by any constitutional requirement dealing with the Federal income tax would apply to realized gains. Now, as the Committee on Ways and Means, we have a responsibility in terms of the Tax Code and the Constitution. We do not want to act with emotion. We want to act on the advisement of those people who are knowledgeable in the area about whether or not in restricting someone's right to deal with their own finances affects the Constitution. On and on and on, for 11 points, we will look at due June 1. If you are rational, if you are honest, you will wait for the report.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. A cop-out on the part of the gentleman from California. I will finish the letter. The Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus says, ``The proposed tax has serious human rights implications and is inconsistent with the longstanding U.S. policies with respect to the right of free emigration expressed in the Jackson-Vanick Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 and elsewhere. Indeed, this policy was the centerpiece of our effective opposition to the Soviet Union during the 1970s and the 1980s. If the United States now adopts this restrictive approach, it will give oppressive foreign governments an excuse to retain or erect barriers to expatriation and immigration.'' If Members want to assist oppressive foreign governments, in the opinion of the Dr. Felix Frankfurter, professor of law emeritus, shame on you. A cheap political stunt, repeated twice now, in the face of the conference committee responsibly investigating ways to change this law. Shame on you. You really ought to learn how to be the minority better than this. Pick your shots where you can be responsible and positive in trying to make change. Do not create a situation which would reinforce oppressive governments based upon the way in which Congress treats citizens of the United States. Shame on you.

Mr. THOMAS. What was the statement that you just made?

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman very much for allowing me to finish the letter. Excuse me. I did not hear the gentleman. I will yield to the gentleman to repeat the statement that he just made. I will yield to the gentleman for the purpose of repeating the statement he just made. I yield only for the purpose of repeating the statement he just made. What was the statement you just made?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to finish my statement. Does the gentleman mind if I finish reading the letter? May I have the courtesy of finishing the letter, if the gentleman does not mind?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to shed some light on this discussion since some folks seem to be knocking about in the dark. I was on the conference committee, and I will tell you what happened, not somebody's supposition of what happened, but what happened. On the floor of the House the minority party offered a motion to instruct. You lost. The House then went to the conference and made a proposal to the Senate. The proposal to the Senate was to remove the Senate provision on expatriation based upon the vote on the floor of the House. The Senate accepted the House position. It was the Senate that made the decision to drop that provision. And the chairman of the conference, the gentleman from Oregon, Senator Packwood, said, ``Thank you. In my bones, I believe the Senate acted hastily.'' Now, notwithstanding the agreement of the conferees to drop this section, the section that had been added by Senator Bradley, which was not President Clinton's proposal as presented to the Congress but, rather, a distortion of that proposal, which created a situation in which citizens of the United States would be treated differently than noncitizens and that the citizens would be subjected to harsher treatment than noncitizens, that was the Senate's position that Senator Packwood said, ``In my bones, I believe we acted too hastily.'' Now, what did this conference agree to? In the language of the conference report, we agreed to not include the Senate amendment. But then we went on in 11 specific areas indicating to the joint tax committee, we want an examination in this area. We want a study of the issues presented by any proposals to affect the tax treatment of expatriation, including an evaluation of, one, the effectiveness and enforceability of current law; two, the current level of expatriation for tax avoidance; three, any restrictions imposed by any constitutional requirement; four, the application of international human rights principles to the taxation of expatriation; five, the possible effects of any such proposals on the free flow of capital; six, the impact of any such proposals on existing tax treaties; seven, the operation of any such proposals, on and on and on, to be reported back by June 1, 1995. Every one of the arguments that were presented by your side and our side on the floor of the House on the vote to instruct conferees is included in this study to be given to us by June 1, 1995 so we can make an informed decision about what we do in this area. You are back to rush to judgment, regardless of the fact that the Senate has said they probably acted too hastily, regardless of the fact that the conference report says by June 1 we will provide an answer to all the concerns on both sides on this question so that we can make an informed decision. And then lastly, let me say, a number of harsh words were presented on the floor the other night about the question of citizens and whether or not citizens of the United States should be treated similarly to citizens in Germany or any other country. Frankly, I do not think we should compare ourselves to any other country. Citizenship in the United States is something special. And that if an individual decides on their own they want to make a choice about that citizenship, we especially those of you on this side of the aisle institute some kind of a punitive action unless it violates the law, as we will examine and restructure it. I was very, very comforted by my mail this morning, in a letter dated March 30, on paper with the letterhead Harvard Law School, Professor Abram Chayes, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus wrote me and said, ``Dear Congressman Thomas, I am writing to express my concern about the current proposal to impose a tax on persons leaving the United States who renounce their citizenship. I am the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law emeritus at Harvard Law School where I teach international law. From 1961 to 1964, I was the legal advisor to the Department of State.'' That is the President Kennedy, President Johnson era, 1961-64. ``In my opinion,'' says the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus of Harvard Law School, ``in my opinion, the proposed expatriation tax raises serious questions under the Constitution and international law involving the fundamental right of voluntary expatriation and immigration.''

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, in case some folks think that what we are talking about is what was just talked about, let us take a look at what we are really talking about, and that is specifically a motion from the gentleman from Florida to require the House conferees to agree to the provisions contained in section 5 of the Senate amendment, not to the administration's proposal, not to the Clinton proposal to change the law we have on the books, which is clearly flawed. Not to the administration's proposal; not to the Clinton proposal to change the law we have on the books, which is clearly flawed. That is not what we are being requested to do. We are being requested to bind ourselves to the Senate language. What does that Senate language do that the Clinton administration language does not do? The Clinton administration language said we should go after noncitizens and citizens. What does the Senate language say? We should go after only citizens. In other words, if we bind ourselves to the Senate language, we will treat citizens of the United States worse than noncitizens. Aliens can come in this country, take that money, and leave, and this provision of the law would not apply to them. It is only to citizens. What happened to you folks when you moved from the majority to the minority? What is this, comparing us to other countries? We should not be compared to any countries. We should not take other countries' laws and say we are as good or this is not as bad as they are when it deals with citizens. When the gentleman from Florida stands up and states his position, I will disagree with that position, but I will defend his right to say it. I will never, ever oppose his right to say it. When we offer citizenship, we ought not to offer it qualified. If we have a problem with the law, let us change the law. Maybe the problem is the Tax Code as well, in which Americans take a look at the confiscatory tax structure that we have and go so far as to say in weighing choices, maybe I will take a look at citizenship. If we buy the Senate position, a holder of a green card, a noncitizen, would never have to make that decision. We have American citizens making that decision. There is a law on the books that says if you renounce your citizenship for tax purposes, you will be punished. Should we change that law? Yes, we need to change the law. It is not working. It is hard to nail those people. We have to perfect the law. But not here, and not now, and especially not with the Senate provision. Now, we have been told that we have to follow the Senate instructions. Then we have been told no, just go in and work out your differences. If it is not the specific instruction to buy the Senate provision, then let us go ahead and try to figure out a way in a couple of hours in a closed room how to solve this problem, when the gentlewoman from Connecticut came in front of you and said she held a hearing on it and the Treasury could not even produce accurate numbers of the number of people who are exercising this provision. We want to change the law, but not here, not now. If you want to see the frustration of the minority, it is a little bit like the fellow trying to train his dog, and it will not behave. So if it is sitting, he says ``sit;'' if it stands, he says ``stand;'' if it is lying down, he says ``lie down;'' because they are desperate for some kind of control. That is exactly what we are seeing here. You are putting so much weight into this motion to instruct on a flawed Senate provision, I do not understand. You heard the gentlewoman, who is chairman of the Oversight Committee saying we need to solve the problem, we need to sit down and resolve the law. Not here, not now. We have said the money in the Senate bill is tied to the deficit. We have heard do not have it go to the deficit, we can have it go to the self-employed, up their percentage. We will have it this or we will have it that. However it is, you want it your way. The answer is, this area needs to be changed. For you folks to stand up and get carried away about the question of citizenship is to put this out of complete context. You want control. You will go to the lengths you have just exhibited to show that control. We have already said we want to sit down and perfect the law. The Senate provision is flawed. You want us to try to get it right in a couple of hours on a conference that is critically timed to the tax bill provisions so that these people can get the relief they so desperately seek. What is the difference in a couple of months, if the gentlewoman from Connecticut has told you the date is locked in. Because of this discussion, we have the date locked in. Let us not do it fast. Let us do it right. If you are really honest about wanting to solve this problem, you will join with us in getting it right, and at the same time begin to change the Tax Code so no American citizen will ever consider renouncing their citizenship to get away from the confiscatory taxes that we have in this country.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], a long and valued member of the committee in its various ramifications in previous Congresses, not the least of which was as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Accounts that used to do this work first for us. It is exciting as a chairman to yield to a member of the committee as valuable as this gentleman is. (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor] for the kind words. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], a valued member of the committee and chairman of the Republican caucus.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, all time yielded will be for debate purposes only. Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to come to the floor of the House with a resolution to fund the committees of the 104th Congress. Anyone who has been in previous Congresses knows we have had a relatively difficult time in the past of deciding on what would be appropriate funding for committees. At the beginning of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority cut committee staffs by one-third. Not all committees were cut equally. Some committees have new assignments because we eliminated certain committees and restructured other committees. But on average, the staffs of the committees were cut by fully one-third. Since most of the committee funds go to staffing, it seemed appropriate that we should make, then, commensurate adjustments in the funding of committees. The successor to the old House Committee on Administration, the Committee on Oversight, is charged with that task. In the 104th Congress, the Committee on Oversight received the budget of one additional committee of the House, that being the Committee on the Budget. So, as of today, all standing committees of the House, save one, the Committee on Appropriations, have their funding resolutions go to the Committee on Oversight. Similarly, we changed the way in which committees were funded. In the past, the process looked like this column on the left on this chart. This is from the 103d Congress. The blue portion was that portion subject to public hearings in the Committee on House Administration at the time. The portion of funding subject to House hearings and public hearings was less than a majority of the funding, $101 million. The red portion was known as the statutory funding that was moved through the Committee on Appropriations, kind of an automatic funding under the law. The yellow portion is generally headed as other, and that is primarily legislative supplies, and detailees, those individuals from other agencies that were assigned to committees for a brief period of time. The total of the so-called investigative, statutory, and other funding was $223 million. As chairman of the committee, I bring to you a resolution which passed unanimously, no ``no'' votes. I want for the Record to indicate that the Republicans on the committee are Mr. Vernon Ehlers of Michigan, Mr. Pat Roberts of Kansas, Mr. John Boehner of Ohio, Jennifer Dunn of Washington, Lincoln Diaz- Balart of Florida, and Robert Ney of Ohio. The Democrats--and I am sorry to say that the ranking minority member, Mr. Fazio, is not with us today because of concerns over his wife and a hospital question. But Mr. Fazio of California was supportive. Mr. Sam Gejdenson of Connecticut was supportive. Mr. Steny Hoyer of Maryland was supportive. And Ed Pastor of Arizona was supportive. What is so significant about a unanimous vote on a bipartisan basis out of the Committee on House Oversight is that the funding resolution, for all but one of the committees of the House, is $156 million. That is a 30-plus percent cut from the 103d Congress. On a bipartisan basis we said we can live with less. We can live 30 percent less. We can do the job for American people by tightening our belts here in this institution in the funding of our committees. Staff has been reduced by one-third. Committee funding has been reduced by more than 30 percent. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend all the members of the Committee on Oversight for a job well done. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on House Oversight, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 107) providing amounts for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the 104th Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration.