Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is true that Bob and I were on the Committee on Ways and Means together; but, frankly, Bob and I go back a long way. This is especially difficult since just a very short time ago I was going through the Members' Christmas cards. If you have been around a long time one tends to see the march of time in the cards. You get a very formal card from a new Member. Maybe he is not married. Or if married, it is just a very bright, young couple. Over the years, the family grows, not just in stature but in numbers. We just received one from the Matsui's with a grandbaby prominently displayed. In 1978 in November in Sacramento, Members who had been elected to Congress in that election got together as Members-elect in Sacramento. I had known Bob by virtue of his being on the Sacramento City Council. I was an assemblyman at the time and of course spent some time in Sacramento. There were three other Democrats, colleagues in the assembly, Vic Fazio, Julian Dixon, and Tony Coelho who had been an aide to a Congressman and been elected in that same election. To show Members how much things do not change, one of the freshmen in that class was the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren) who has joined us once again as a Member. Another member from the State Assembly who joined us that year, was the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). All of us got together as newly elected Members from California. We stayed together because when you are in the same class, even if you are of a different party, you have common ties, notwithstanding the differences of policy positions that you take or oftentimes the different committee directions that you take. It was my privilege and pleasure to serve not only at the same time as Bob, but for a significant number of years on the same committee. He was, as we now know even more so than we thought, in many ways a very private person. It was, I think, personality as well as culture. But if one could get inside there, all of the comments that Members have made in a very public way were also true of the private person. You often wonder, as is the case with some Members, how Bob would get elected if he had to go out and be gregarious among people. But when one meets Doris, you figure out how he did it easily: he just kept her in front of him. As some people have said with my wife, Sharon, they understand better once they have met the spouse how you get elected. But the most important thing was the couple and the union they formed. One of the things that some of the newer Members need to realize is that what occurs in committee and on the floor is business, and people go about their business in different ways. The reason we are going to hear a number of Members talk about Bob in the way that we will talk about Bob is because if you spend a little time getting to know the other businessmen, you cannot help but get to know them as a person. All of us are lamenting the passing of Congressman Bob Matsui, but those of us who knew the person of Bob Matsui are perhaps lamenting even more.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the retirement of the B-52B launch aircraft, tail number 008, the oldest NASA aircraft and B- 52 on flying status. This aircraft is flown by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, California, which is in my district. I am especially proud of those who have worked over the years with the B- 52B, making history and providing vital research data for our nation's aerospace programs. The B-52B is an important piece of our nation's aerospace history, and I am pleased to note that it will remain on display on Edwards Air Force Base for future generations to visit. Visitors will be able to trace the aircraft's history through mission markings along the side of the aircraft that document every research flight it made. Beginning on June 11, 1955, this aircraft worked on some of the most significant projects in our nation's aerospace history, including the X-15 hypersonic plane, which contributed to the developments of the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and space shuttle programs. Between 1959 and 1068, the B-52B was the launch aircraft for many of the missions of the X-15, or wingless lifting body aircraft, that contributed to the space shuttle's development. Additionally, through this program, these missions explored areas of high aerodynamic heating rates, stability and control, human physiological phenomena, and other problems commonly experienced with hypersonic flights. Several remotely piloted aircraft used the B-52B for launching in the 1970s and 1980s. During this time, NASA studied spin-stall, high angle of attack, and maneuvering characteristics. In addition, this was the launch aircraft to develop and test the parachute recovery system for the space shuttle's solid rocket boosters. The aircraft was also used in several tests for the shuttle's drag chute deployment system, which was later installed on the shuttle orbiters. Most recently, the B-52B was the launch aircraft for the X-43A hypersonic research program. In March of this year, the X-43A flew freely at a speed of Mach 7, carried by the same pylon that carried the X-15. The final flight of the X-43A on November 16 flew a record- breaking speed of approximately Mach 10, almost 10 times the speed of sound, at an altitude of approximately 110,000 feet. The X-43A missions provided research in the area of ultra high-speed flights, such as increasing the affordability, safety and flexibility of such flights. I commend the many men and women who have worked on the B-52B 008 and its research missions, and I thank them for pushing the envelope in aerospace research.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I understand section 222 of the Transportation, Treasury and Postal title provides the Committee on Appropriations with proper access to IRS facilities for oversight purposes but not the ability to examine individual tax returns, data, or information and that it is the intent of the Committee on Appropriations that all access to taxpayer information would remain governed by the disclosure and privacy rules of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. Is that correct?

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

Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, with that clarification, I want to rise strongly in support of this omnibus bill. But, more strongly, Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in admiration of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. All of us think we have difficult jobs around here. Some of us have impossible jobs. And heading that list is the gentleman from Florida, who has done a magnificent job, and I want to thank him not only for this bill but for the service he has rendered over the years.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the men and women of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Dryden Flight Research Center and Langley Research Center for the record- breaking flight of the X-43A research vehicle on November 16, 2004. During the flight, the scramjet-powered X-43A flew successfully at record speed approaching Mach 10, almost ten times the speed of sound, as it raced across the sky above the Pacific Ocean. The Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, where the mission originated, is in my district. Earlier this year I visited Dryden and met with the men and women involved in the program and I share their excitement about this successful flight. Supersonic combustion ramjets, or scramjets, offer safer and more affordable options for high-speed flights, as well as more airplane- like operations, than traditional rocket powered vehicles. Much of the information scientists have about scramjets has come from computer- generated models. The goal of this program was to provide actual flight data for a scramjet engine. This was the third and final flight of NASA's Hyper-X Program to explore alternative power sources for space access vehicles. It was also the fastest flight, breaking the record of the second flight, which reached speeds near Mach 7. The Guinness Book of World Records named the X-43A the fastest air-breathing aircraft when it reached speeds of over 5,000 MPH during the March 27, 2004 flight. Only eight months later, the Guinness World Record book needs revising already; the X-43A is still the fastest, but now it has flown almost 7,000 MPH. The X-43A took off from Edwards attached to a B-52 bomber. This was the last research flight for the B-52, which has been used successfully for many historic research efforts at Dryden. At around 2:30 PM local time, the X- 43A detached from its booster at 110,000 feet to fly on its own. The 12-foot long vehicle streaked through the sky, reaching speeds of Mach 9.8. After its short flight, the X-43A splashed into the Pacific Ocean, triumphantly completing the eight-year program. The $230 million Hyper-X program pushed the envelope, as no air- breathing scramjet engine had been previously flown at hypersonic speeds, but the rewards are evident. The important discoveries made by these flights will lead to advances in both space exploration and commercial aviation. We all honor the success of the program and encourage more research into this valuable technology. It is vital that the first `A' in NASA--Aeronautics--remain a strong and vibrant part of the agency.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following correspondence for the Record. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, October 6, 2004. Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC Dear Chairman Barton: I am writing concerning H.R. 5213, the ``Research Review Act of 2004,'' which is scheduled for floor consideration today. As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over matters concerning title XVIII of the Social Security Act. Section 4 of the bill requires the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on the coverage standards that, under Medicare, apply to patients with inflammatory bowel disease, and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill. This is being done with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 5213, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration. Best regards, Bill Thomas, Chairman.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record, the following letter concerning the Conference Report to H.R. 4520, the ``American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.'' Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, October 7, 2004. Mr. George K. Yin, Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Yin: Enclosed are the combined comments of the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department on the new deduction relating to income attributable to domestic production activities contained in the Conference Committee Report on the ``American Jobs Creation Act'', that you identified for complexity analysis in your letter of October 6, 2004. Our comments are based on the description of the provision provided in your letter, and the statutory language and description of this provision in the Chairman's Mark for the Conference Committee on H.R. 4520, dated October 4, 2004, as posted on the House Ways and Means Committee web site. Due to the short turnaround time, our comments are provisional and subject to change upon a more complete and in-depth analysis of the provision. Overall, the conference report provides new tools that will assist the IRS in administering the tax laws. However, thus far in the appropriations process, I would note that Congress has not taken favorable action with regard to the request for incremental enforcement resources for the IRS in the President's FY 05 budget request. As noted in the attached analysis, IRS will face additional challenges and resource requirements in administering the proposed domestic production activities credit. Sincerely, Mark W. Everson, Commissioner. Enclosure. Complexity Analysis of Provision From H.R. 4520, American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 Deduction Relating to Income Attributable to Domestic Production Activities Provision The provision provides a deduction from taxable income (or, in the case of an individual, adjusted gross income) that is equal to a portion of the taxpayer's qualified production activities income. For taxable years beginning after 2009, the deduction is equal to nine percent of the lesser of (i) the qualified production activities income of the taxpayer for the taxable year, or (ii) taxable income (determined without regard to this section) for the taxable year. For taxable years beginning in 2005 and 2006, the deduction is three percent of income and, for taxable years beginning in 2007, 2008 and 2009, the deduction is six percent of income. However, the deduction for a taxable year is limited to 50 percent of the W-2 wages paid by the taxpayer during the calendar year that ends in such taxable year. For purposes of determining the deduction, qualified production activities income is equal to domestic production gross receipts, reduced by the sum of (a) cost of goods sold allocable to such receipts, (b) other deductions, expenses, or losses, directly allocable to such receipts, and (c) a ratable portion of deductions, expenses, and losses not directly allocable to such receipts or another class of income. The provision is effective for taxable years beginning after 2004. IRS and Treasury comments Administration, Compliance and Controversy The new deduction for domestic production activities will require the promulgation of extensive, detailed new guidance, particularly in the form of regulations. We anticipate that guidance will be required to address: 1. Which activities constitute production activities; 2. The statutory exceptions to the definition of production activity; 3. The allocation of revenues between production and non- production activities; 4. The allocation of deductions between production and non- production activities; 5. The application of the provision when related and unrelated taxpayers perform parts of the production activity; and 6. Numerous other issues. We expect that such guidance will be difficult to craft. By distinguishing ``production'' from other activities, the provision places considerable tension on defining terms and designing anti-abuse rules. Many businesses, particularly small businesses, will find it difficult to understand and comply with these complex new rules, which will affect not only the computation of a taxpayer's regular tax liability but also its alternative minimum tax liability. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for the IRS to craft simplified provisions tailored to small businesses or other taxpayers. Taxpayers will be required to devote substantial additional resources to meeting their tax responsibilities, including not only employees and outside tax advisers, but also recordkeeping and systems modification resources. The resulting costs will reduce significantly the benefits of the proposal. Some small businesses may find that the additional costs outweigh the benefits, particularly during the initial phase-in period. It will be necessary to devote significant audit resources to administering the new deduction. This will be due not only to the novelty of the rule but also to the benefits that are provided to ``production activities'' over other aspects of a taxpayer's business. Taxpayers naturally will classify everything possible as production activities. Audits, particularly those involving integrated businesses, will have to focus on classification and the allocation of income and costs. Significant additional IRS resources will be needed to administer the provision to avoid diverting resources from other compliance issues (such as tax shelters). Finally, for all of the reasons discussed above, we anticipate a significant increase in controversies between taxpayers and the IRS. This will increase the number of IRS appeals cases and litigated tax cases. Tax Forms and Publications The computation of the deduction relating to income attributable to domestic production activities would be figured on a new form for 2005 of at least 10 lines. The instructions for the new form would likely be at least 3 pages. Two additional lines would have to be added to each 2005 form or schedule on which the deduction from the new form could be claimed. The deduction would be claimed on the following forms and schedules, among others. 1. Schedule C (Form 1040) (sole proprietors); 2. Schedule F (Form 1040) (farm businesses); 3. Form 1041 (estates and trusts); 4. Form 1065 (partnerships); 5. Form 1065-B (electing large partnerships); 6. Form 1120 (corporations); 7. Form 1120-A (short tax return for corporations); 8. Form 1120S (S corporations); and 9. Other Form 1120 series returns. 2005 Forms 4626, 6251, and Schedule I of Form 1041 would have to be revised to add a new line to reflect the difference between the regular tax deduction and alternative minimum tax deduction. The instructions for all affected forms and schedules listed above would have to be revised to reflect the new deduction. The tax forms and publications for 2007 and 2010 would have to be updated to reflect the increasing percentage of qualified production activities income taken into account beginning in those years. Programming changes would be required to reflect the new 10 line form, the two additional lines on the above forms and schedules, and the changing percentages. Currently, the IRS tax computation programs are updated annually to incorporate mandated inflation adjustments. Any programming changes necessitated by the provision would be included during that process. The following 2005 publications, among others, would have to be revised to cover the new deduction, adding 3 to 6 pages to each. 1. Publication 225 (farmers); 2. Publication 334 (small business tax guide); 3. Publication 541 (corporations); 4. Publication 542 (partnerships); and 5. Publication 535 (business expenses). Training materials and the Internal Revenue Manual would have to be revised to reflect the new deduction.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1047) to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to modify temporarily certain rates of duty, to make other technical amendments to the trade laws, and for other purposes, and that the conference report be considered as having been read.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I could not help but hear some of the discussion, which is obviously tied to the underlying matters rather than the question of a same-day rule. And the argument that someone has not seen it, I find it ironic that this particular conference, the first conference in my memory, was held entirely with the public permitted complete access, televised over the internal television structure for the entire time of the conference. There were no separate conference meetings. All of the conference meetings were public. As the gentleman from New York said, the Committee on Ways and Means' website is now available. We have just filed a conference report, and under the rules, hard copies are required and hard copies are available. The one point I want to make is, the constant and the only word that comes to mind is ``harping,'' the constant harping about the fact that we are not bipartisan. Bipartisanship is a two-way street. The Senate had 23 Senators on this conference. Twelve of them were Republicans. Ten of them were Democrats. And one was an Independent. Of the 12 Republicans, 11 supported the conference; i.e., they signed the conference report. Of the ten Democrats, six supported the conference report, including, I might tell the Members, the minority leader of the United States Senate and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. The Independent member on the Senate side chose to pass. So 17 of the 23 Senate conferees, a majority of both the Republican and the Democrat conferees, support the conference report. Now let us take a look at the House side. Submitted for the entire House were three Republicans from the Committee on Ways and Means and the majority leader and two Democrats. For the Committee on Agriculture, two Republicans and one Democrat. For the Committee on Energy and Commerce, three Republicans and one Democrat. For the Committee on Education and the Workforce, two Republicans and one Democrat. And for the Committee on the Judiciary, two Republicans and one Democrat. The four Republicans from the Committee on Ways and Means and the majority leader supported the conference report. None of the Democrats supported the conference report. From the Committee on Agriculture, two Republicans supported it, and the Democrat supported the conference report. From the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the three Republicans supported the conference report; the Democrat did not. From the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Republicans supported it; the Democrat did not. The Committee on the Judiciary, one of the two Republicans supported it; the Democrat did not. When we look at what the House does, it is not bipartisan because the people who were appointed by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the Democrats do not want to be bipartisan. They are the hardnosed partisans. If, in fact, the House would appoint people who want to come to a reasonable resolution, as the Senate does, it would be bipartisan in the Senate and bipartisan in the House. I chaired that conference to produce a bipartisan conference. The only group that did not seem to want to be bipartisan is the same group that argues we ought to be bipartisan over and over and over again, and as one might guess, they are the partisans. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 830, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4520) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove impediments in such Code and make our manufacturing, service and high-technology businesses and workers more competitive and productive both at home and abroad, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. economy has experienced robust growth in the past 12 months, and it can be largely attributed to the tax relief this Congress provided the American people in 2001, 2020 and 2003. Today, we are considering H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. We believe it will encourage further economic expansion and job creation by relieving sanctions and providing tax relief to America's job creators. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. economy has experienced robust growth in the past 12 months--which can be largely attributed to the tax relief this Congress provided to the American people in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Today we are considering H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, that will encourage further economic expansion and job creation by relieving sanctions providing tax relief to America's job creators. Right now 12 percent sanctions are being levied on thousands of American products--like agriculture, steel and timber--because the World Trade Organization ruled that the FSC/ETI export subsidy is noncompliant. These sanctions are making U.S. products more expensive in overseas markets, which hurts America's competitiveness in the worldwide economy. H.R. 4520 will repeal the offending provision, bringing our tax code into compliance, thereby ending sanctions. Repealing that provision without providing equivalent relief will amount to a tax increase on American businesses. To encourage further growth in the U.S. economy, the American Jobs Creation Act will provide tax relief to American manufacturers--including corporations, S corporations, partnerships and sole proprietorships. These American businesses will save nearly 10 percent on their income tax bills for manufacturing activities here at home. Meanwhile, the international portions of our Tax Code are antiquated--they have not been updated in four decades. To help provide U.S.-based businesses with a more level playing field when competiting against their worldwide counterparts, this legislation reduces double taxation and simplifies our complex international tax law. The WTO ruling forced us to update our tax laws but also provided the opportunity to improve the tax code to encourage business growth; to close abusive loopholes; to update our antiquated international tax law for the first time in 40 years; and to make all of these structural improvements without increasing the deficit. This conference report rightly enjoyed strong bipartisan support from conferees and I urge Members of the House to vote for H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the gentleman from Maryland has, in essence, kicked off the debate, because he indicated that since we did not operate on his timetable, that there is a 12 percent assessment imposed as sanctions, and basically shamed us for not moving sooner. If my colleagues did not pay attention to what he said during the remainder of his speech, what he said was, if it was up to him, the sanctions would stay in place, because he is going to vote no on this conference report, which means the sanctions would go up to 17 percent, which means all of the burdens that he described would be even greater. He wants it both ways. He wants to criticize for not moving, but he does not want to help to solve the problem. I am pleased that in the conference, there were a lot of people who wanted to help, especially on the Senate side. There were 23 Senators; 17 of them voted to support the conference report. Six of them were Democrats. Three-quarters of the Senate conferees support this measure, a majority of the gentleman's own party in the Senate. On the House side, of the 17 conferees, two-thirds of them supported the conference report. So an overwhelming majority of the conferees urge a yes. The gentleman from Maryland lambasts Republicans for not getting it done, but will not help solve the problem. That, I think, is a theme we are going to hear repeated over and over again on the other side: you folks did not do it right, but we are certainly not going to help. What a message. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, and let me say that without his yeoman work, we would not be here today.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his question. The rule and the Statement of Managers upon closer examination, we believe, contain some ambiguity as to which deductions are disallowed. The intent of the rule is to disallow only deductions for expenses that relate directly to generating the dividend income in question.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman said ``they'' stripped from the bill. Well, who is they? How about six of the 10 Democrat Senators who were on the conference. The Democrats who were on the conference were the minority leader, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, the Senator from Arkansas. A majority of those Democrats support, signed a conference, and agreed with what we did. It seems to me that when the minority leader on this side describes ``they,'' the world should know who ``they'' is. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, a member of the conference committee, for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the ranking member of the House Committee on Agriculture, a member of the conference.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I want to thank both of the gentlemen, members of the conference committee, Republican and Democrat. Both of them voted for the conference report, and the Chair appreciates that. The Chair would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida and will consume as much time as is required.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I tell the gentleman it does and he is correct.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This conference report is in front of us tonight due to a number of Members doing yeoman's service. There is a provision in this bill that was alluded to by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture that is long overdue to be changed. This gentleman from California started his congressional career on the Committee on Agriculture, and I tried to do something about it at that time. This was an opportunity to do something to correct the record that is long overdue for correcting. The gentleman I am going to recognize to speak was one of the first to come to me to suggest that this might be an opportunity that we could take advantage of. I have to tell my colleagues that as far as a State-wide race in North Carolina, I have received only one phone call from those individuals. I have worked beside only one of those individuals for far more than a decade, and the provision of removing the tobacco buyout was placed in the House bill long before it was placed in the Senate bill. I can assure anyone that had we not been able to put it in the House bill, it would not have been in the Senate bill, and so for all of those people who are now going to receive a payment, the argument about how much they are going to get, whether or not it is greater than someone other's offer, is all moot. The fact of the matter is, tonight, we are finally going to end a depression-era government created program that is long overdue for repeal, and the primary gentleman that worked with me to make sure that it would be in there is my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), a senior member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr). (Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), an important member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who, I daresay, virtually single-handedly made sure that there was an additional item in this particular conference report for those States that do not have income tax.