Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it sounds to me the gentleman is offering the classic argument of because it is not perfect, it should be opposed. It seems to me that if there is an ability to correct a mistake and that the administration simply wants legal protection to correct that mistake, that we ought to be able to do that. If the gentleman says others are not being provided for adequately, I would be the first to agree with the gentleman; and that is the first order of business. But no one else can be taken care of unless we go through those weeks and months of negotiations of what a package should look like. So I would simply say, in returning my time to the gentleman who was kind enough to yield it to me, if in fact using real-world numbers and providing the administration some legal protection from being sued because they did not do something else other than putting in real-world numbers is going to be something that someone opposes, it is amazing the point that we have come to. If others could be resolved this way, we would be doing others. Just because this particular problem could be resolved and others cannot does not mean that one should be in opposition to resolving this particular problem. We will deal with the others when it is timely and appropriate, because we will have to negotiate and put dollars on the table to solve other providers' problems. This is one in which the administration is merely asking for legal protection, and I think we ought to provide it.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, on the unemployment, as the gentleman well knows, there is a cliff that is going to occur because of the expiration of the unemployment provisions on December 28. We have had debates about how long it should be and in what form it should be. This at least provides those who are getting the unemployment, who are expecting their 13 weeks, to be able to get the 13 weeks.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is no guarantee that the administration will do anything. The difficulty in trying to move at this time those kinds of things that we call provider packages is that what is an appropriate provider package is in the eye of the beholder; and in trying to negotiate what it is that we are going to do, it is simply an impossibility. What we are aware of is that in one particular approach, which is the physician reimbursement structure, plugged numbers were put in for 1998 and 1999. They do not accurately reflect the number of cases that physicians were involved with. It is possible that the administration would change those numbers. There is no guarantee that they would change the numbers, but they are concerned that if they did go in and put actual numbers in place of plugged numbers, someone may entertain a suit to go back into the 1990s or the 1980s and say this number was not an actual number, and we want to sue you to make that change. So all this provision does is provide legal protection, that if the administration does decide to make an adjustment, that is, use real- world numbers now known rather than the plugged numbers, they would not be subject to lawsuits if they did not make additional changes. Now, that means that all we are doing is creating an opportunity for the administration to make a decision if they so choose to do so. That does not mean that this in any way adequately addresses the needs of many other providers. But there is no other provider group that the administration could make adjustments from plugged numbers to real numbers, as in this particular case. It requires the investment of money to be addressed to those various groups, be they hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health care or others. This is not about providing money to fix one group's problem versus another; it is to create an atmosphere in which, if the administration chooses to do so, they would be able to do so, and the cost would then be borne by the administration, not by the legislative branch. When we come back then at the beginning of the next Congress, we would address, as we normally do, those provider groups for which we would have to provide the finances to assist them. So all this does is put in place a legal protection, so that if the administration does choose to adjust those numbers, they would not be required through any kind of a court case to adjust any other number.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman's argument that we are giving someone 5 weeks. That is like saying we picked up a hitchhiker on the West Coast and drove him within three blocks of the Statue of Liberty and he is complaining because we did not drop him right at the door. As a matter of fact, we did not wait until he finished his business and then took him back to California. Because the facts are, and the gentleman is from Washington State so let us use Washington State, there are people in Washington State who have received more than 1 year of unemployment benefits. They have received 26 weeks, an additional 26 weeks, and the 5 weeks the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) was talking about was part of, on top of all of those months, an additional 13 weeks which was a 50/50 match between the State and the Federal Government. And of course States have their own programs in which they can continue to extend it. So for the gentleman to take the time to create the impression that all we are doing is 5 weeks is to say that at the very least that is 5 weeks on top of 26 weeks, on top of 26 weeks, on top of an additional 7. So when you really look at it in terms of the way in which the benefits have been provided, a short way of saying it is there are people who have received unemployment benefits for better than a year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 609, I call up the bill (H.R. 5063) 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 ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5710 creating the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The protection that we seek today with the creation of the new Department is for our people, our property, and our economy. The U.S. Customs Service has been on the frontline supporting and defending our nation for more than 200 years, since its creation by the fifth Act of Congress as the first Federal agency of the new Republic. The many functions of Customs are as important today as they were at the start of our nation. Passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is the right decision for the country. This country is only as safe and secure as the economy that supports it. Last year over $1 trillion in merchandise was imported into the country. That is indispensable fuel for our economy Customs collected over $20 billion of revenue. I am pleased the final bill keeps important elements recommended by the Ways and Means Committee in order to protect the trade functions of the Customs Service that are so vital to the strength of this land. In particular, the bill keeps Customs core revenue functions whole, which ensures that the many trade and enforcement functions will be carried out. Our bipartisan agreement in this bill: Transfers the Customs Service in its entirety to the Department of Homeland Security Division for Border and Transportation Security. Identifies revenue-related offices and functions within Customs (about 25 percent of the agency) and prohibits reorganization or decrease in their resources or staff. Requires that adequate staffing of customs revenue services be maintained, and requires timely notice to Congress of actions that would reduce such service. Maintains the Commissioner of Customs as Senate-confirmed. Transfers all authority exercised by Customs to Homeland Security with the exception of revenue collecting authority, which would remain at the Treasury Department. Treasury may delegate this authority to Homeland Security. On this last point I would like to clarify that our purpose has been for the Treasury Department to remain integrated in the revenue, trade, and macroeconomic aspects of Customs' work. As such, we do not expect a wholesale abandonment of involvement by Treasury. We will scrutinize any delegation to assure that it fits within the purpose envisioned by Congress. For these reasons I urge a ``yes'' vote on House Resolution 5710.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 50th anniversary of the development of the Sidewinder Missile--the world's most accurate, reliable and successful dogfighter missile in use today. Fifty years ago, the research and development phase for a new fighter missile began at the Naval Ordinance Test Station (now the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division) at China Lake, California. A team of technicians, scientists, and fleet-experienced operators worked endless hours to produce a new type of weapon--one that sought out the heat exhaust from an enemy aircraft's engine. China Lake's vast test ranges in the Mojave Desert afforded researchers the ability to test new theories almost immediately. They eventually developed the design we have today: a heatseeking, short- range, air-to-air missile carried by fighter aircraft. The missile was named after a desert rattlesnake, the Sidewinder, which detects its prey by sensing an animal's heat emissions. Early versions of the Sidewinder proved its lethal accuracy and effectiveness in Southeast Asia. During Operation Black Magic in the Formosa Straights, Chinese Nationalist Air Force F-86s shot down eleven of the Chinese communist air force's MiG fighters. In Vietnam, the U.S. Navy and Air Force successfully used the Sidewinder in countless missions. My colleague and a highly-decorated naval aviator, Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, used the Sidewinder missile to become Vietnam's first fighter ace. The Sidewinder's early successes proved the weapon's capabilities, affording many opportunities to increase the effectiveness of the Sidewinder. Newer generations of the missile were developed and have seen action in many theatres, including over the Gulf of Sidra to shoot down a Libyan fighter aircraft during a dogfight in the early 1990s and during the Persian Gulf War, where twelve Iraqi aircraft were shot down using the Sidewinder. The current version of the Sidewinder, the AIM-- 9M, arms a wide range of American fighters, including the U.S. Navy's F-14 and F/A-18, the U.S. Air Force's F-15 and F-16, and the AH-1 W helicopter. The Sidewinder's newest version, the AIM-9X, is currently in development phase. To date, over 110,000 missiles have been produced for 28 nations and it is, by far, the most widely used air-to-air missile in the West. In celebrating its golden anniversary this November, the Sidewinder program is testament to American ingenuity and innovation. I am confident that the Sidewinder program will continue to be a leader in the field of missile technology for the warfighter of today and tomorrow.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Brigadier General Charles E. ``Chuck'' Yeager. I congratulate him on his pioneering work in the field of aeronautics and thank him for his many contributions to our country over the past 60 years. Brig. Gen. Yeager became the first man to ever break the sound barrier on October 14, 1947. This feat was accomplished in the experimental Bell X-1, called ``Glamorous Glennis,'' which is now on display at the Smithsonian Institution. He was able to successfully pilot his aircraft above the speed of sound, thereby proving the feasibility of manned supersonic flight. General Yeager also set another aviation record six years later by flying to Mach 2.44 in the X-IA. He continued to test experimental aircraft at Muroc Air Force Base (now Edwards Air Force Base) until 1954. These noteworthy acts, as well as his testing of hundreds of different aircraft during his career, are well worth our praise and accolades. Brig. Gen. Yeager not only set records, but he also helped establish a unique program at Edwards Air Force Base to train military test pilots as astronauts. In 1962, he was selected as the commandant of the new U.S. Air Force Aerospace Research Pilot School (now the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School), serving at this post until 1966. Despite his retirement from the military in March of 1975, Brig. Gen. Yeager has continued to fly in the annual Edwards Air Force Base Open House and Air Show and serve the U.S. Air Force as a flight test consultant. He will be taking to the skies again this year for the show, just like he always has, in what will be his last flight as pilot of an Air Force aircraft. In addition to his accomplishments as a test pilot and mentor, he is also a decorated combat veteran. After being shot down during World War II over occupied France on his eighth mission, he returned to fly 56 more combat missions and total 12.5 aerial victories. His heroics in WWII, his achievements in flight testing, and his service as a combat commander during the Vietnam War earned him a Presidential Medal of Freedom and a special peacetime Medal of Honor. On the occasion of Brig. Gen. Yeager's last military flight, I ask that you join me in saluting one of our nation's greatest aviation pioneers.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the so-called Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act is something that is done virtually every Congress, frankly because there are a lot of technical corrections that need to be made in the area of tariffs and duties. Oftentimes, decisions that are made that in fact were in error need to be corrected, a misunderstanding has taken place, a company can more efficiently produce goods if there are decisions and changes made, and that normally is the function of the miscellaneous trade bill. To that end, there tend to be requirements to be eligible to be placed on this bill, and that is certain dollar limits, so that significant and expensive items would not be moved under this heading and, probably most importantly, that any measure that is placed in this package is noncontroversial. Sometimes when we examine that, it is in the eye of the beholder; but most often there is an objective way to determine ``noncontroversial''. The reason this bill is being amended is because principally the delay in moving this bill forward was to wait to determine what specific measures from the other body might be reasonably added to this bill, given the time remaining, the possibility of the other body taking this from the desk and voting on it without intervening action or committee decisions. I do need to note, though, that there are two specific provisions on this measure that, had I not said that no measure can go on this bill if it is not noncontroversial, perhaps would have raised some eyebrows. One is a qualifying industrial zone provision for Turkey, and the other is providing a better instrument for the President to determine whether normal trade relations would be resumed with Yugoslavia. I believe, and I believe the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) will confirm, that, notwithstanding the potential difficulties with these two provisions in the bill, that there has been extensive consultation and adjustment of language to present two very useful, in fact I might say needed, provisions to provide the administration with the ability to make decisions in these areas, and that they are in fact noncontroversial, and my assumption is that attestations to that effect will be made. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to call up H.R. 5385, The Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2002, which is a compendium of trade provisions drawn largely from legislation introduced by individual Members during this Congress. This bill has more than 350 such provisions and enjoys broad bipartisan support. The bill contains provisions involving the temporary suspension of duties on narrowly defined products, miscellaneous trade-related items, and technical corrections to the Trade and Development Act of 2002. There are several miscellaneous trade provisions in this bill that are noteworthy. The bill would provide trade benefits to Turkey and to exporters of rugs under the Generalized System of Preferences. On the Turkey provision, I am aware of concerns expressed by businesses and farm groups regarding potential competition from Turkey as a result of extending the Qualifying Industrial Zone (QIZ) law to cover zones in Turkey and Israel. I believe that there are sufficient protections within the legislation and the QIZ process to allay these concerns. First, the bill does not automatically grant duty-free status to any product. The bill does not list any farm or other goods on which US duties will be removed by law. Second, qualifying for duty-free treatment under the bill would require at least 35 percent of the product's value to be derived from a combination of operations performed in both Turkey and Israel. Mere repackaging or similar de minimis operations in one of the countries will not automatically qualify a product of the other nation to enter the US duty-free. Third, the law clearly states that the President may not extend duty-free treatment to products he determines to be import- sensitive. I anticipate that the President will solicit comments and exercise the same care in awarding duty free treatment in the Turkey QIZ program as he has done in the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program, which contains a similar criterion. Finally, the QIZ program is not intended or designed to override US health and safety statutes, including sanitary and phytosanitary laws and regulations. In addition, the bill would make technical and clarifying corrections to provide benefits for Caribbean and sub-Saharan African countries. The preferential trade benefits for these countries would support U.S. trade policy to improve trade networks and opportunities for American firms while helping key American allies in the fight against terrorism and illegal drug traffic. Finally, the bill would provide Normal Trade Relations status to Yugoslavia, which was revoked in 1992. The provisions included in this bill are non-controversial but that does not mean they are unimportant. Most of the products in the duty suspension provisions are those that American firms uses as supplies or components of the products they manufacture. The purpose of this bill is to eliminate the burden that American firms have when buying these products, so they can in turn lower their cost of production and thereby the cost to the consumer. In many instances, these provisions will give our companies and their employees a fighting chance to compete. This bill traditionally follows the same rules in every Congress. The provisions have been thoroughly vetted and have no opposition. Both the Department of Commerce and International Trade Commission investigated the bills and contacted domestic industries. With the exception of a few of the miscellaneous provisions that have wide applicability, each provision has a de minimis cost under $500,000. Lastly, the Administration confirms that all of the bills can be administered. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill and to provide this assistance to American companies. 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. 5385) 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, as amended.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. And the case study he cited is a perfect example of why we have a miscellaneous trade and tariff bill dealing with these peculiarities in multiple products we have. Mr. Speaker, I would place in the Record the letter that has been discussed viz a viz the administration's understanding on the Turkey- Armenia border issue. The Deputy Secretary of State, Wasington, DC. Hon. William M. Thomas, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Chairman: Our staffs recently discussed the Turkey-Armenia border issue. To follow-up on the questions raised in those discussions, I want to let you know our views. The Administration is pressing Turkey to restore economic, political and cultural links with Armenia, and is encouraging Turkey to open its border with Armenia. We believe that such action would promote the economic development of both Turkey and Armenia. We are aware of the economic impact that this border closure has on Armenia. The Department of State, in coordination with the U.S. Trade Representative, will provide to Congress by March 31, 2003, a report on the economic impact of the border closure on Armenia and Turkey, and on diplomatic contacts with both parties on this issue. In addition, as you know, the United States has largely completed its negotiations with Armenia with respect to accession talks with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and is now prepared to make Armenia's accession to the WTO an Administration priority. To that end, we are working with other WTO members to complete, by the end of this year, negotiations with Armenia for its accession to the WTO. We look forward to working with you on these important issues. Sincerely, Richard L. Armitage.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman is correct, and I did not mention that because there is no measure in the bill that addresses that. But, clearly, part of the discussion was the production of a letter from the administration specifically containing the substance the gentleman mentioned. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I just wanted to indicate that I support wholly the content of the letter, and the fact that we are moving forward on this should in no way signify that the problems that are presently there are not being looked at and hopefully addressed in a comprehensive and bipartisan way.

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. 5385.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I guess I am just a little bit confused on the basis of initial remarks by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) because the arguments that he just made were exactly the ones he made when we had the welfare debate on the floor of this House, and I know that he would have rather had his position prevail than the one that did, and that is the bill that we passed and sent over to the Senate. And what it sounded like was he wanted to revisit the debate that occurred in the House prior to House passage of our legislation, and what I would urge him to do is, if he wants to have another chance at that debate, would be to vote for this resolution which says it is ``the sense of the House of Representatives that the 107th Congress should complete action.'' If the House has passed legislation to complete action, we have to get the Senate to pass legislation, and I would hope that that impassioned speech that he just made to us, those of us who debated and already voted on the welfare bill, could be made to his colleagues in the Senate so that they would move a bill off the floor, we could go to conference, and he would then hope that his position would prevail in conference. But to say that he is opposed to urging the Senate to complete action is to basically say that wonderful and impassioned speech he made is not going to go anywhere because we cannot get the conference to try to get his position to prevail. And so moving this resolution hopefully will nudge the other body along so that his position can be presented in conference and the House and the Senate can resolve their differences. So I do not understand how folks are arguing that they want to be on both sides. One, this is meaningless, and, two, his impassioned plea ought to be heard again; and the only place it can really be heard again by the House is in conference. Vote for the resolution, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) I will see in conference. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like the Record to reflect that I did not vote on rollcall votes Nos. 373 and 374 because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both H.R. 4727 and H. Res. 94.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize and salute the City of Visalia and the County of Tulare, California as they celebrate their 150th anniversary on September 7. Tulare County and Visalia will celebrate the area's rich history and its current status as one of the nation's top two agricultural- producing counties, with crops valued at $3.5 billion in 2001. While it was the California gold rush that brought the first permanent settlers to the area that is now Visalia in 1852, it has been agriculture that has sustained the city and Tulare County for 150 years. Today, Tulare County is America's leading dairy county, and is among the nation's leaders in dozens of other crops, including beef, tree fruit, vegetables, nuts, and olives. Tulare County is also home to some of the nation's most breathtaking scenery, including the highest mountain peaks in the Sierra Nevada range, rising more than 14,000 feet, the majestic Giant Sequoias, and the rich San Joaquin Valley floor. Visitors to Tulare County are often left with the indelible image of the mountains rising above the lush, green valley. The City of Visalia holds special memories for my family; my wife, Sharon Hamilton Thomas, was born and raised in Tulare County. She graduated from Redwood High School and attended the College of the Sequoias in Visalia. Sharon's parents, Mike and Georgia Hamilton, were active members of the community. While Visalia's economy has its foundation in agriculture, and is the county's trade center for the products grown there, Visalia has, in recent years, broadened its economic base to include other enterprises, including food processing, printing, and manufacturing. Mr. Speaker, I join the elected leaders, past and present, of Visalia and Tulare County, and the nearly 400,000 people who live there now, in congratulating the past 150 years, and wishing it well on the next 150.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tone of the debate. I am concerned about the content. For the first time, not primary but secondary workers are covered. Five times in this legislation references to the most abusive forms of child labor are listed. Some of the statements simply are not factually true. What is true is we have fallen behind in creating arrangements that help us in world trade. It is time to pass legislation to get us back in the game. With that, I would ask my colleagues to vote yes and I want to thank all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their courage and cooperation.

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 the conference report just passed.