Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with the gentlewoman's argument; and, in fact, her argument will be sustained if Members vote ``no'' on the motion to instruct and we can get on to conference. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the ranking Republican on the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would tell my friend, the gentleman from California, that I am a little concerned, because he has admitted that his own private purchasing choices are that he buys foreign products, but he is here on the floor trying to change the law of the U.S. to not allow that to happen. It seems to me that if you are going to be here expounding a position of not sending jobs overseas, that your purchase pattern should reinforce it. A choice that people make in terms of their private purchasing is a choice that they control, and he did indicate that in his home there are a number of imported products. People have a choice. My hope would be that our private behavior corresponds to our public positions, because not only does the American Tax Code put us in the current position, which we are trying to correct with this legislation, but our own private behavior as well.

Mr. THOMAS. Not on my time. If the gentleman wishes to seek more time, I would certainly respond to him.

Mr. THOMAS. Regular order. You always have a choice.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, perhaps it requires a little bit of endeavor and search, but that is what life is about. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), an honored member of the committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I suggest the gentleman take a trip to North Carolina, take a look at the furniture they have there, made in America, American products, American labor. Looking for curtains? There is still a cotton industry left. We produce flat goods. Carpets, you want to buy a carpet? They make them in Georgia. You want to buy cars? Take a look at American cars. You want to buy a radio or a CD player? An area where pretty obviously people say we do not have a choice, Bose makes an excellent quality American-made radio/CD. China? Glassware? I can go on and on. There are products made in America. If you take the time to do it, you can help in your private life instead of arguing you are compelled to buy foreign products, and you come to the floor and demand that we change the laws to stop you from your private behavior. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and all of us who served with the gentleman from New York, Frank Horton, certainly feel saddened by his passing. I will tell the gentleman from Michigan, I have two additional speakers, and he has the right to close. We will conclude, and the gentleman from Michigan can then close. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the subcommittee chair of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on my side?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In history, Mr. Speaker, there are those who opposed change, modernization. They were called Luddites. Please vote ``no'' on the motion to instruct. Do not be a Rangelite.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 794, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax relief and simplification, and for other purposes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the conference report for H.R. 1308, the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. It is, I think, a significant and timely agreement. It will prevent tax increases on millions of Americans and their families. We will renew the current law tax extenders like the R and E tax credit and take a major step towards simplifying the Tax Code by implementing the uniform definition of a child provision supported by the administration, the Senate and the House. This conference report builds upon the President's 2001 and 2003 tax relief initiatives. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York once again has painted primarily a conspiracy that this was done somehow in a clandestine way. What I really want to do is make people understand that on the conference there were five Senators, three Republicans, two Democrats; and from the House there were three House Members, two Republicans, one Democrat. This provision was voted seven ayes and one no. It should not take you much time to figure out who the ``no'' was. You also need to know that the Senator from Arkansas, Ms. Blanche Lincoln, had she had her way, based upon the amendments she offered to the conference committee which were not accepted, would have raised the price of this bill by almost $100 billion. For those people, those families, those struggling lower income people who the gentleman from New York describes as though they are getting nothing out of this bill, it is just a total cliche to say this is another tax cut for the rich as it involves $23 billion in outlays for those very same people that the gentleman from New York says were left out of the bill. It was a bipartisan agreement. We were able to hold down the exuberance of the Democrats in the Senate. I know I am not supposed to mention the Senate, but I want everybody to remember it was the other body that would have had this bill $100 billion higher. It is not because of the fiscal restraint on the part of the majority in putting this package together. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we are trying to draw a line between Democrats and Republicans, then I think we really ought to understand that prior to the 2001 tax bill, the provision that my friend from California is getting exorcised over, allowed that refundability only for families with three or more children. That is how generous they were. President Bush, the Republican House and a Republican Senate extended that provision to all families. They were in power for 40 years and thought it was appropriate and fair to provide refundability only to families with three or more children. We said that did not make sense. We said it should be provided to all families. Yet you just heard the diatribe about what we do or do not do. That is actually what we did. In addition to that, it just seems to me that a Senator from Arkansas and a Senator from Montana would differ with the gentleman from California about their party affiliation. All of the Senators, Democrat and Republican, supported the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chair of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, that the statement that the minority from the Senate offered offsets for the provisions that they offered simply is not true. They did not offer offsets. There were provisions that were offered that did not cover it. There were offers for particular portions of the bill, and there were offers to simply cut the bill in the tax credit areas to cover the cost of the new items added, and on the largest amendment offered by the minority, there was not coverage for the cost. So the gentleman's statement that they provided offsets for the entire bill, including the amendments that they offered, if that was the intent of the gentleman's statement, simply is not accurate.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's statement, and that was with respect to the underlying bill, but there were amendments offered which were not offset. The gentleman indicated that yes, there were increases offered, but offsets were provided as well. That statement simply is not factual. Certainly, the gentleman from New York, who voted against the bill, provided a method which would take money away from individuals, increase their taxes, to distribute their income taxes, to distribute money to people who do not pay income taxes, but that was not on the portions that were offered by the Senators on the amendments that they offered. I will certainly concede the underlying bill was covered by making people pay more in income tax so money could be distributed to those who do not pay income tax, but the statement that all of the amendments that were offered that increased the cost were offset is simply not a factual statement. That is the only point.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland also knows that, under the United States Constitution, the purse strings are controlled by Congress under article I, not the President under article II. The reason we were able to balance the budget after all of those years was that, notwithstanding the fact that the Democrats captured the White House, which does not control the purse strings, the Republicans captured the Congress, House and Senate. Those who control the purse strings control the spending. The budget was balanced because of a Republican Congress, not a Democrat President. I would also have to tell my friends, as they review with indignation the combat pay provision included in the earned income credit, it used to be that way. But President Clinton in his administration recommended that in 2001 it be dropped. We accepted the Clinton administration recommendation, and it was dropped. We are now reinstating it. And what people need to understand is, the reason President Clinton asked us to drop it is because it was just too complex. We have figured out a way, through election, to resolve that problem. Yet, when people voted to remove it, we did not hear all of the criticism. When we decide to put it back in, in an effective way, we get criticized. It just is interesting, the process here. Even when we are trying to help people in need, we get criticized. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, ``crash course to abomination?'' I mean, I understand getting carried away with rhetoric, and I agree we have to be concerned when the Federal Government spends more than it takes in. We did not do that during World War II because it was a time during which we needed to win the war. We are in the wartime situation. Prior to getting into that wartime situation, we were in surplus. ``Crash course to abomination?'' The gentleman ran off some numbers about how big the current national deficit is, or the debt. This economy earns more than $11 trillion a year. If you made an analogy to a family, the entire deficit is less than what the family makes in earnings in a year. That does not even begin to examine the assets that the family holds, usually equity in a home. Begin thinking about all the physical assets that the society owns through the government. Do we need to worry about debt? Yes. You worry about it most often as a personal relationship to your income or productivity for countries. Today, that debt is about 3.8 percent. Back in the 1980s and 1990s when the gentleman's party was in control, it went over 6 percent. We were better than two-thirds of that percentage when the gentleman's party was in power. I didn't hear ``crash course to abomination'' then. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that you need to have a debt that is manageable. The best way to view the debt is not in the absolute numbers, but in a percentage of your ability to pay. Today that debt is about 3.8 percent. In the recent past it has been as high as 6. Do we need to be concerned about it? Yes. Chairman Greenspan has said repeatedly in front of congressional committees, the way you control a growing debt is to reduce spending. That is the long-term procedure for getting imbalance back into balance. The other thing that you need to remember is the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) said that when we cut people's taxes, we just throw the money away. If you ever wanted to get a mental set of how people approach the revenues raised by government it is that when we cut taxes, we gave people back their own money. When they look at what we did, giving people back their own money, they see it as throwing money away. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased that the gentleman from California has announced apparently on behalf of the gentleman from New York that he has Presidential aspirations. What I said was that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) voted ``no'' on the conference report. The gentleman from California stood up and said, lest there be any misunderstanding, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) proposes to vote ``yes'' on the measure, and so it is pretty obvious he has got Presidential ambitions. The point is he voted ``no'' before he voted ``yes.'' Perhaps my colleague should have said the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) will do the usual. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. I have several speakers, but the Speaker announced the time differential.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

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