Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I think we have a very clear recent historical example of what happens when Congress is not wise enough to make sure that they delegate the authority that Congress retains and the responsibility to allow the President to negotiate. We have not had the Presidential ability to negotiate for more than 8 years. We have had no agreements. Members can covet the power and not use it, or we can sensibly delegate it, with the clear ability to bring it back if necessary, and enter into bilateral, multilateral, and world trade arrangements which clearly benefit all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and Workforce. Prior to that, I would just like to say for folks who have not been able to read this, I sure hear a lot of citations on pages 200, 300, 350, 361. I just do not get it.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is making excellent points, he just does not make them as fast as most people; therefore, I yield him an additional minute.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley). (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 509, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3009) to extend the Andean Trade Preference Act, to grant additional trade benefits under that Act, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I consume. Mr. Speaker, I find it rather ironic that back in December this House examined the trade promotion authority that was sent over to the Senate that created this conference. In that measure was the strongest structure for oversight and control by the Congress in any trade promotion program. The House and the Senate by simply moving a resolution can deny the President the ability to enter into any agreement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), a Member who has been a stalwart in trade for many years. (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I tell the gentleman that I would like to have every T-shirt that everyone sees sold in the mall and every store come from the USA. The fact of the matter is they do not anymore. We can lament the fact that they do not, but the fact is they do not. And the choice is do you want them to come from Sri Lanka, do you want them to come from Pakistan, do you want them to come from areas that find Australian cotton far more available, or do you want to help our friends in the Caribbean when the choice is between someone tens of thousands of miles away or someone 100 or 200 miles away that will be purchasing U.S. cotton and U.S. yarn from the very areas the gentleman comes from and encourage a win at home, a win in the hemisphere? Because if we are debating whether we are going to have U.S. T-shirts or foreign T-shirts, that debate is over. Are we going to help our friends close to home that buy our product or are we going to make sure that we continue to lose opportunities because we refuse to understand reality? Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, gee, I thought when we were talking about trade agreements, it was a structure in which, over time, the trade between those two countries was mutually beneficial and that what we want to do is have a broad-based relationship between people who see benefits going both ways. The Caribbean Basin Initiative, an outreach to our friends in the Caribbean? I would not exactly say that is a reasonable, equal relationship. Free Trade Agreement with Jordan? A clear reward for the kind of friend we have in a very difficult area of the world, probably far more motivated for geopolitical reasons than really for trade. Southern Africa? We have neglected that area for years and years, and what we are doing is reaching out, not enough, way too late. And what we hear are criticisms because we are talking about not 1 percent of someone's amount of trade; we are talking tenths of 1 percent. That is not a long-term mutually beneficial relationship in which the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from New York talked about how we mutually better each other. Those are important humanitarian outreaches under the structure of trade. But if that is what we get without trade promotion authority, we had better have trade promotion authority. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that this is an additional step in a commitment this Congress made some time ago to try to move to a paperless Congress. More than 8 hours ago Members received in each of their offices an electronic copy of the document that was just delivered. If Members were concerned about the content of this particular report, they could have been reading it for 8 hours. And in fact that is one of the things that this Congress can do in the 21st century, and that is instead of dealing with massive amounts of paper, 6 pounds delivered to each office, which is not read anyway, we have provided an electronic forum in which it is easily disseminated among staff and Members and that it is a far better way to deal with these issues. In addition to that, it allows Members for more than 8 hours to consult the bill in which we are now bringing up the rule to allow us to consider. That is the way this Congress should be operating in the 21st century. If someone believes they should be lugging around 6 pounds of paper when it has been in their office for 8 hours, I would urge Members to acquaint themselves with the computer operators and with the staff if the folks are not computer literate, because for more than 8 hours this identical bill has been in their offices.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 367, although I would love to blame a machine error, apparently it was a human error. The gentleman from California recorded a ``no'' when he intended to record an ``aye''.

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.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. chairman, I rise in support of House Resolution 5005 enacting the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The protection of the United States from threat and terror is, and should be, the first priority of this government. The protection that we seek today with the creation of the new Department is for our people, our property, and our economy. For more than 200 years, the U.S. Customs Service has been on the frontline supporting and defending our nation. The requirement for a strong Customs was so important that is was the fifth Act of Congress and was 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. Customs collected over $20 billions of revenue. The bill before us today helps to protect the trade functions of the Customs Service that are so vital to the strength of this land. It helps to protect the investment that America has made in the new computer system that will be the cornerstone of the new Department. 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 funding or staff or reductions to Title V pay and benefits levels. Requries that adequate staffing of customs revenue services be maintained, and requires 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. Specifies that a portion of the Customs Merchandise Processing Fee must go to build the new Customs computer, which Governor Ridge has told us will likely be the cornerstone of the new Department's architecture. For these reasons I urge a ``yes'' vote on House Resolution 5005.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield one half of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade on the Committee on Ways and Means and that he be permitted to yield that time as he sees fit.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 101) disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 101, a resolution to disapprove the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, Members have a right to examine files. This is a report that is in progress. If the gentleman wishes to try to examine a report that is in progress, which clearly would not be conclusive, I think we can arrange that, if that is the concern that Members have.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the gentleman from Virginia on the point that he indicates there are parasites in the system and there are people who live off of others' hard-earned money by the way in which they conduct themselves. I would tell the gentleman the reason we objected to legislating on an appropriations bill, which is what the gentleman was trying to do, is the gentleman does not let us appropriate on our legislative vehicles. So it seems reasonable that if we get to legislate and you appropriate, that we do not confuse the two. Let me then also say that this report is coming out. If the gentleman's concern is getting this report out, the gentleman's report is going to be gotten out but, surely, someone would notice the fundamental tax change, at least the gentleman often mentions it on the floor about how big it is and how sweeping it is, and perhaps we should not have done it. And here we are not even willing to take it into consideration as a reason why the professionals at the Joint Committee on Taxation have to go back and completely rewrite the report on expatriation because of the principal role of estate taxes.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I take the floor as Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means because the Joint Committee on Taxation is a bipartisan, nonpartisan research structure that is shared by both the House and the Senate. Some misstatements of fact have been made and I want to put it in its proper context. If anyone does not think this is not a pure partisan political contest, they did not hear the gentleman from Virginia. They have decided this now is an issue that they can ride, and of all the people to make the statement is the gentleman from Virginia. The chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation is the United States Senator from Montana, the Democrat, Senator Baucus. The request that was made to release this statement cannot be a former Member of Congress; it has to be a current Member of Congress. That request was made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). It has been said that the report has been completed. That simply is not true. How in the world could a report about ex-patriots started several years ago not be completed? The answer, very simple. The primary reason people give up their citizenship is not to pay taxes, but, more importantly, not to pay estate or death taxes. Somebody may have noticed last year, the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate changed the estate or death taxes. That is now the law of the land, a fundamentally different way that we are taxing death or estates. The committee had to go back and reevaluate the question of who was and who was not going to leave based upon a change in the law. It is the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the underlying tax structure changed, so they are not going to release a document based upon old law; they are going to offer a document on new law, and it is just about here. So the statements saying it is finished are flat out not true. A Democrat asked for it, a Democrat is the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, and is it not ironic that it is Democrats who are going to punish nonpartisan, bipartisan professionals who they argue they are supportive of in terms of working conditions and requirements by cutting their money. Now, if my colleagues understand it is politics, they understand what this amendment is all about. Ironically, it was the gentleman from Virginia who offered the motion that was declared out of order, passed by a voice vote of the Committee on Appropriations, so the Committee on Appropriations knew what it was doing. It was violating the Rules of the House in its own measure, and now we are forcing him to offer an amendment and exposing the political nature of the amendment.