Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. That is 1 percent across the board.

Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to go through each of the committees, that will eat up my entire time. The instruction was a 1 percent.

Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, it does not say restore to. Reading the black letters in front of me, it does not say restore to the President's request. It says eliminate the reconciliation instruction, not restore to the President's request. So it is clear, then, it is the removal of the 1 percent no matter what they may say they mean based upon that language. Then when we drop down further and the gentleman talks about the managers receding to the Senate on section 319. It was described, I understand, as the Breaux amendment. The Breaux amendment is in two sections. One section is to cut by $396 billion, the other is to create a reserve fund to strengthen Social Security. My assumption is that when the gentleman refers to 319, not tying it to the money number that was included in the Breaux amendment, he is referring only to the creation of a reserve fund or a lockbox for Social Security; is that correct?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in part because I have just now read the motion to instruct conferees. The ranking member on the Committee on the Budget had indicated that perhaps there were some misrepresentations by a description of what some of the black letter language was. If the gentleman would be willing to respond to some questions that I have, it might assist us in understanding, or at least it will assist this gentleman from California in understanding. When, for example, on page 5 the gentleman indicates that we be instructed to eliminate the reconciliation instruction, that means to remove the 1 percent across-the-board cut; is that correct?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has the right to place in the Record at another point in the proceedings. Since he has that right, which cannot be removed, I object to doing it at this time.

Mr. THOMAS. I reserve the right to object, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas, as any Member, has the right to place any material under extension of remarks in another area of parliamentary procedure of this body. Is that correct?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), who has a measure included in this bill, which was a separate bill, which is a significant piece of legislation.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with the gentleman from Missouri that the House and the Senate have indeed acted, but not in concert and let the Record note that the House acted in July and again in October. That perhaps was not enough lead time for the Senate; so we are moving in March, and we believe that may be sufficient lead time for the Senate to be able to act. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This particular provision is called the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003, and a couple of examples, I think, will make it quite obvious as to why it is the tax fairness part of the title that we should focus on. As we now know for some years now, you have been able to exclude the capital gain on a home if you lived in that home as your principal residence for 24 months out of a 5-year period. Of course, we all know that the military as to where they live is subject to the exigencies of the world and the need for military personnel to be dispersed sometimes literally around the world. I think it is entirely appropriate to examine this kind of a piece of legislation in the context of where we are vis-a-vis the President's decision to perhaps move militarily against Iraq. So what this says is that if, in fact, you are not able to meet that 24-months-out-of-5-year period for exclusion from the capital gains, and the reason you are not able to is because you have been transferred away from home on official extended duty during that 5-year period, you would be exempt from that regulation. There follow a series of other changes in the Tax Code that very much are representative of that kind of approach in treating the military differently because the military does not have the ability at times, the individuals in the military, to control decisions that affect them directly. That is the purpose of the bill. It is as it was originally introduced. For purposes of determining the above-the-line deduction for overnight travel expenses for military reservists, this bill, as some people know, passed the House twice in the last Congress, and in negotiating with the Senate, the agreement at that time was that the exemption should be up to $1,500 for reservists who serve more than 100 miles away from home. That was an agreement that had been negotiated between the House and the Senate, and this particular bill includes that agreement so that we could reach quick settlement in a conference between the House and the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1307) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for members of the uniformed services in determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal residence and to restore the tax exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

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 material on H.R. 1307.

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 material on the subject of H.R. 1308, the bill just passed.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This gentleman from California spent, I believe, 3 minutes explaining the bow and arrow provision and why it was included. It was an amendment that was presented to the committee. It is an unfairness in the Tax Code, and it passed by a voice vote, just as the astronaut provision was an amendment to this measure. Now, I know that in some situations you are damned if you do and damned if you do not. Had we selectively pulled amendments out and included them in the military bill, we would have been criticized, as we were before, that we were placing items on the military bill that, in fact, were not originally on the bill. That is why we are carrying a separate bill in dealing with all of those amendments that passed by voice vote. I did say in the opening statement one of the provisions, as compared to all of the other provisions that have passed the House, the Senate, and sometimes both multiple times, the livestock provision did not pass the House before. It is a response to a current problem and circumstance. When you lose livestock, you have an ability to deal with an involuntary conversion. The loss of livestock is over the drought. Now, it is unfortunate that weather does not follow a taxable calendar year. If that were the case and we have 2 years in which to deal with the involuntary compensation and replace the livestock, if that drought which killed the first cow is still present and will kill the second cow, it does not make a whole lot of sense to provide a time frame which encompasses an ongoing drought. So the gentleman from Colorado offered an amendment, accepted by voice vote, that says, let us extend that involuntary conversion to 4 years and not 2. Hopefully, the drought will be over in that 4-year period, and they will be able to get an involuntary conversion for a cow that, because there is no longer a drought, will be able to stay alive. It seems to me that these provisions are worthy and should move forward.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a modest bill that has come to the light of day by virtue of examining those issues, although modest in nature, that have passed the House or the Senate, or both, one or more times, but somehow have never made it to the President's desk for signature. Other measures in this bill are those measures that raise revenue in ways that those committees responsible for assisting us in determining ways to change the law indicate an appropriate change of the law. Lastly, there are items which were approved by the committee, notwithstanding the fact they do not raise revenue or they had been approved previously, which merited the committee's voice voting, that is, no recorded vote, and the bill itself passed by a voice vote. If there was a measure that appeared to elicit controversy, that is, it was a recorded vote in committee, then that measure is not included in this particular provision. For example, there was an amendment offered to extend some provisions of the military bill just passed to astronauts who die on space missions. Obviously, that was a voice vote, and it was unanimously agreed to. There is a modification on the orphan drug credit provision. This particular measure has passed the Committee on Ways and Means twice, it passed the House three times, and it passed the Senate, but, notwithstanding that stellar legislative career, it has never made it to the President's desk for his signature. There are other items in here which exemplify the fact that brought to our attention over time are provisions of the Tax Code which make absolutely no sense and should not remain in the Tax Code for 1 day longer than our ability to amend it, and, yet, notwithstanding that, remain on the books. The gentleman from Wisconsin brought us an example which I think is particularly egregious. It has to do with a very modest subject called bows and arrows. As you might guess, some arrows are produced domestically, and some are produced outside the United States. You would think that if someone was going to import the components to assemble an arrow, that is, use foreign parts and U.S. labor, that you would not tax the foreign parts so that they could come in, so the value added would be U.S. to produce that arrow. But, ironically, it is exactly the opposite. It is the completed arrow, with the foreign labor added, that comes in free of a tax, and the component parts are taxed, which would make it more expensive if you added U.S. labor. That is in direct competition to a U.S. arrow which carries the tax. Now, how in the world could the Tax Code get that far on its head? You do not want to pursue that questioning, you only want to change it immediately; not so, as some of the media has reported, that we give a tax break to domestic producers of arrows, but that we create a fair and equitable relationship between those arrows composed of foreign components assembled by foreign labor in competition with American arrows composed of American material. It seems to me that the only fair thing is to treat them equally. The Tax Code does not do that, in part or in whole. That is a typical example of one of the modest measures that are included in this provision. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 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. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to join in the statement of the gentleman from New York.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) eloquently indicated that freedom is not free, and that his own brother did not return in paying the ultimate price. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), who served his country admirably, and did return with an amazing story.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that is necessary to enhance our national security. The East Kern Airport District in Mojave, California, faces unique security threats. Although it is a General Aviation airport and does not have commercial passengers, the East Kern Airport District is home to high- tech aerospace firms and provides storage to over 300 commercial transport aircraft. These aircraft, which are stored with fifty percent of their fuel tanks full, rest just minutes through the air from several major military installations and downtown Los Angeles. Since September 11, 2001, the Airport has been seeking funding to address these threats, as it fears a serious act of terrorism. However, the Airport has been repeatedly informed that no security funds are available for its needs because it is classified as a General Aviation airport. To correct this situation, I am introducing legislation today to ensure that the Undersecretary of Transportation has the authority needed to enhance security at the East Kern Airport District. Very simply, this legislation will allow the Undersecretary to provide up to $300,000 annually to meet the Airport's security costs and up to $1.25 million to reimburse the East Kern Airport District for security costs incurred since September 11, 2001. I trust that my colleagues and the appropriate Department of Homeland Security officials will recognize the East Kern Airport District's unique situation and work with me to ensure that the Airport is adequately protected.

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 January 29, 2003, the Committee on Ways and Means adopted by voice vote, a quorum being present, the following committee rules. Rules of the Committee on Ways and Means for the 108th Congress Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, provides in part: * * * 1. (a)(1)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), the Rules of the House are the rules of its committees and subcommittees so far as applicable. (B) A motion to recess from day to day, and a motion to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available, each shall be privileged in committees and subcommittees and shall be decided without debate. (2) Each subcommittee is a part of its committee and is subject to the authority and direction of that committee and to its rules, so far as applicable. * * * * * * 2. (a)(1) Each standing shall adopt written rules governing its procedure. Such rules-- (A) shall be adopted in a meeting that is open to the public unless the committee, in open session and with a quorum present, determines by record vote that all or part of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the public; (B) may not be inconsistent with the Rules of the House or with those provisions of law having the force and effect of Rules of the House * * *. In accordance with the foregoing, the Committee on Ways and Means, on February 7, 2001 adopted the following as the Rules of the Committee for the 107th Congress.