Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, definitely a timely fashion means before the session of Congress ends; and it seems to me that if, in fact, the committee moves, it should not be difficult to deal with the scheduling to bring it to the floor, if that is the appropriate thing to do on the basis of leadership's decision.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As was indicated by the content of the resolution, the resolution is necessary to return to the Senate, unfortunately, the Commerce-State- Justice appropriations bill because there is a provision, section 404 of the Senate amendments, that is an import ban. This, therefore, is a revenue measure and contravenes the Constitution, article 1, section 7, clause 1. Notwithstanding the meritorious nature of the amendment, the idea of trying to deal with importation bans on diamonds from certain African countries that are used to finance rebel causes, the underlying constitutional question of the Constitution's statement that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives transcends any particular issue, no matter the merits of a particular issue. Therefore, I am asking the House that it insist on its constitutional prerogative as the sole originator of revenue measures, notwithstanding the meritorious aspects of any particular desired piece of legislation. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that this is not necessarily, unfortunately, a novel or new conflict between the House and the Senate. As recently as July 14, and then again on August 12, 1994, on the Treasury-Postal, appropriation bill and then on the Agriculture appropriation bill, just such a blue slip was requested and granted. This is another indication of the difficulty of wanting to move legislation but understanding that there is a process constitutionally required. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 240) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for the question, and the substance of the bill has been under discussion at the United Nations level on an international discussion. The United States Trade Representative has indicated that a unilateral sanction by any particular country is in violation of the World Trade Organization rules, but an ability to move under the United Nations' auspices is not. We would obviously all like to see an international agreement under which these kinds of diamonds could be banned. If, in fact, observing that process it does not appear that it is going to reach any reasonable or positive conclusion in the timeframe within which we could act legislatively, I will tell the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) as well, that we would then bring up legislation. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) already has a bill in the hopper. We would examine that bill, if necessary, make the appropriate changes and look forward to moving that bill out of committee in a timely fashion.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. If the gentleman will yield further, and if the commitment from the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is that he will not support the bill if that language is not in the bill coming back from conference, if he agrees to that, is that a comfort level?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman from Texas misspeak? Did he in fact ask to continue to reserve?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. My understanding is that there was a language change in which the language in the bill in front of us says, ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President is authorized from funds made available in subsequent acts,'' which would protect the gentleman in terms of his concerns about the act passed today. I believe the gentleman's concern is that it may go over to the Senate and that language may not remain. It seems to me the appropriate commitment, if the chairman of transportation is willing to make it is, that this is the language that they commit to and that if it comes back differently, then they will not push it.

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 on H.R. 2884, the bill presently under consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a document prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation staff in regard to this bill just passed be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Today is today and tomorrow is tomorrow, and we will move forward. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) is correct. There are a number of activities going on. There is a supplemental that is being put together. A number of the Members from New York are involved in that. There are briefings going on at the Pentagon. There are a number of people who would have wished to have taken time on this measure. In a very short time, we have produced more than a hundred and a half cosponsors on this measure, and the Members who are not here speaking on the bill in no way indicates their feelings about the bill, and I believe it is entirely appropriate that those Members who were able to make it have had an ability to speak. General Leave

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to mourn the victims and as the rescue operation turns to recovery, one of the things that I think the American people perceived fairly early, and that its elected leaders are beginning to come to consensus on, is that this was an act of war. Although we have not formally declared war, I believe the mental framework of dealing in a wartime situation is one that will serve this country well, one, in terms of pursuing the perpetrators as combatants in a war and using military rules of engagement, but, secondly, on the home front, understanding that what occurred in New York and what occurred in the Pentagon and, to a lesser extent, in Pennsylvania were acts of war. It would be ironic if we did not have this bill in front of us today, because what this bill basically does is take those provisions of the Tax Code already on the books which apply to the military and combat zones overseas or to private citizens who are attacked or are the subjects of terrorist attacks overseas and say, clearly, New York, the Pentagon, the Washington area, were combat zones, and that, therefore, it seems entirely appropriate that those provisions of the Tax Code which relieve tax responsibilities for individuals meeting a profile overseas ought to be brought here to our shores, and that, not just figuratively but literally in the Tax Code, the terrorist victims should be considered as though they were in a combat zone, which they were, and that they were subject to terrorist attacks, which they were. That basically was the genesis of the bill. It provides, then, specifically a reduction in the estate tax similar to what happens to members of the armed services, who are killed while serving in a combat zone or die as a result of injuries suffered while serving in a combat zone. And, in addition, there is a Tax Code provision, as I said, that exempts Federal military and civilian employees from paying Federal income taxes in the year of their deaths based upon their condition of dying. That should be extended to the victims of the September 11 attacks as well. In addition, there are technical clarifications, which I believe are very important to make sure that there are no tax consequences for any awards provided by third entities such as airlines or others. And, in addition to that, I want to make sure that, as the President declares these areas disaster areas, that anyone who avails themselves of the tax consequences by virtue of that designation of a disaster area does not later find out that they have tax consequences as a result of their decision to avail themselves of loans to rebuild property, dollar amounts to bury loved ones, or other financial inducements available by virtue of the declaration by the President of a disaster area. It is the least that we can do before we adjourn for this week to put on record that Members of the House of Representatives, in a bipartisan way, believe that those victims of those attacks on September 11 were in a combat zone and should be afforded the privileges and protections that are in the code for military personnel and for civilian personnel because, clearly, this is the first, I believe, substantive reflection of the fact that we are at war. Therefore, I want to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle for the kindnesses that they provided to us to move legislation relatively quickly. While it is as much a gesture and an indication of our desire to help these people in a small way, it certainly will not be the last. But people who are now going through the personal suffering that they are going through should not also have to face the consequences of an insensitive government not looking at the fact that what we provide to people overseas, we would not provide to people here at home. I believe this bill rectifies that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that this legislation is meant to be inclusive and not exclusive, and the initial response is to take those provisions already in the Tax Code applying to combat situations and terrorist attacks overseas, and bringing them home. That was the very least in the short time that we had that I thought would be at least a minimum appropriate response. As the gentleman indicated, we will have additional responses as we move forward. It is clear that whatever folks think about New York in terms of its role, importance, significance, et cetera, there is no question that the City of New York and the surrounding area took it on the chin for the rest of the United States, and I think we will find that there will be additional ongoing responses to make sure that not just the victims, but those who by their own decisions in carrying out heroic acts and became accidental victims, are going to be taken care of. All of us want the gentleman to know that we share the concern, not just as Americans, but as people who have been brought to the scene in no physical way, but certainly in mental ways, based upon the horrific scenes that have been broadcast to us.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) for his statement, and I do thank our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, beginning with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) who was in the epicenter, the ranking member, and all of the other Members who are currently carrying out their directed activities in assistance, and what we are seeing is a societal response to a societal attack. It is all for one and one for all, and it is a curious aspect of America's nature that it does sometimes take these kinds of very tragic events to get us to set aside some of the secondary issues that preoccupy us. This is not just America's fight. This is the civilized world's fight. As we have done in a number of other engagements involved with anti-democratic forces around the world in previous generations, we are once again engaged in a struggle to protect freedom. It is not against any particular individuals. It is not against any particular groups. It is not against any particular religion. It is not against any particular countries. It is against all of those who would harbor individuals, who believe that barbaric acts against individuals somehow further their interests and causes. To do nothing is to reinforce that belief. One of the reasons that I thought it would be appropriate to structure this immediate response in taking what we already provide to combatants overseas and to victims of terror overseas, in bringing it home, is to underscore the message that a number of us have repeated, and that is, we are at war. It is as though we have declared war, and that our society needs to respond on a wartime footing. The benefits that folks get in combat zones are now available through this legislation here at home. Make no mistake about it, we are at war. When we are at war, it requires societal mobilization. It means that, yes, in terms of a moral resolve, which this Nation has clearly indicated; yes, in terms of a military resolve, which we will be moving additional legislation to clearly indicate that we are ready for; but probably first and foremost, a mental wartime condition is that this society will do what is necessary to win this fight we did not choose. It means, first and foremost, that the society needs to be strong, but it needs to be strong in a number of ways. One of the ways we need to be strong is economic. We will continue to examine measures or options available to us to make us strong. The infrastructure of the financial structure of this country was struck a significant blow, given the role and the importance of lower Manhattan to the financial institutions of this country. They were struck a significant blow, but clearly, not a mortal blow. We will overcome this, as we have overcome other adversities. However, I believe it is appropriate and incumbent upon the people's government to examine ways in which we can assist our overcoming these difficulties, not just in terms of a moral position, not just in terms of a victims' tax provision, but also a societal response to make sure that the economy is strong. We will pursue the combatants. We will be strong. We will show through our resolve that this kind of effort, as in the past, will be unsuccessful. So for a very, very small portion of the outpouring of support this bill is offered today, both in terms of its timely context and also in terms of its content, it is the beginning to let people know that if we are at war we will respond, not just in terms of a combatant response for the military engagement of any group, or indeed, any country that has been a part of the enablement that allowed that terrorist act to occur; but that this society is ready to face whatever obstructions necessary, and we will overcome them, so that people who dedicate themselves to the kind of democratic and libertarian philosophy of allowing people to choose the way in which they wish to live in peace and freedom will be reinforced. This is a very small token in the ongoing gesture of this society.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.