Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER 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, let us revisit the comments made by the gentleman from Washington, that he was required to utilize exactly the same tax provisions. Now, that is simply factually false. He could have changed the dollar amount to 50, 100, 250, 1,000. For him to wring his hands and say he was required to follow exactly to the word the majority's tax provisions is to simply say that the Demosaurus pile grows and grows. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I find it rather interesting that during the debate on H.R. 7, that there were statements made about the tax portion of the bill, especially in terms of title I, almost rising to the level of derision on the amount of money that was provided to individuals who did not itemize their tax deductions. One gentleman called it nonsense in terms of what, on a bipartisan basis, we are doing in changing the Tax Code. I do not know about you, but I have had some enjoyment watching, over these recent evenings, the programs on dinosaurs, ``When Dinosaurs Roamed America,'' on the Discovery Channel. Frankly, some of the facts that have been mentioned on the program are staggering. For example, in referring to the sauropods which were the largest dinosaurs to roam America and they were herbivores, to give some understanding, I guess, of the size of these beasts, it was indicated that, on a daily average, they left about 2,000 pounds of fecal material. I just pondered that fact, because in listening to my Democratic colleagues stand up and deride the tax portion of H.R. 7, I am fascinated to find that in their offering of their substitute, when they had a clean sheet of paper and, of course, if they deride the amount of money provided to nonitemizers, they certainly could have picked any number they thought was appropriate. If they thought those provisions to corporations were inadequate, they certainly could have picked any structure they wanted, and they are saying they are going to pay for their proposal, and, therefore, they had any amount of money that they chose to pay for any program they thought was appropriate for charitable giving. Do you know what that clean, white sheet of paper turned into? It turned into word for word, sentence for sentence, paragraph for paragraph the charitable giving portion of H.R. 7. Yes, my friends. The substitute's tax portion is absolutely identical, notwithstanding all of their criticism of the majority's bill. And so when I think back at that 2,000 pounds, I just wonder what Democratosaurus can produce. We have seen the first major installment. For them to stand up and ridicule the charitable tax provisions in the bill and then turn right around and word for word incorporate them in the substitute certainly is a really big pile. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This particular bill is shared in its jurisdiction between the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Ways and Means. The discussion that we have been hearing is over the second title of the bill. There are three titles. The first title deals with charitable contributions by individuals and businesses. The second title is that which has been under discussion. The third title deals with individual or independence accounts, which is a demonstration program that the Committee on Ways and Means addressed. I believe, and I hope it is true, that the debate about the constitutionality of this bill, which I do not believe to be meritorious, does not apply in any way to title I and title III discussions. It is well-established in terms of the charitable contribution aspect of the Tax Code. The committee examined these issues through subcommittee hearings, analyzed other Members' pieces of legislation and of course listened to groups who are involved in charitable activities, and then suggested a number of proposed tax changes that could create a more positive environment for giving. The cost of the bill, over 10 years, as determined by the Joint Committee on Taxation, is a little over $13 billion over a ten year period. About half of that is directed toward creating a greater opportunity for those income tax payers who do not itemize their income taxes. These individuals are then recognized for additional tax contributions to charitable organizations beyond that amount already incorporated into the determination of the standard deduction. It also addresses the fact that more and more seniors, through very prudent decisions, have individual retirement accounts that they put away for their senior years, and that some individuals, while in those senior years, have decided that they would be able to make additional charitable contributions. There now is a taxable consequence for directing those charitable contributions, and we eliminate that for seniors if they choose to use a portion of their individual retirement account for charitable giving. In addition to that, there are a number of industries who are involved in the food services business who contribute excess food to charity but who certainly would be induced to do so even more if there was a modest recognition in the Tax Code for the contribution of those foodstuffs. And we will hear more about that provision as we discuss the rest of the provisions. In addition to that, there are two rather arcane sections of the bill in which, based upon the structure of a corporation, that corporation either may be able to claim the full value of appreciable property or it cannot. The committee decided, listening to testimony, that it did not make any sense to differentiate between a so-called Subchapter S corporation or a C corporation; that a C corporation could donate property and get a deduction for the full appreciated asset and Subchapter S corporations could not. These are the kinds of changes that constitute title I. As I said, over 10 years, there are about $13 billion. Some may say that these are very modest. But if we examine especially the corporate provisions on foodstuffs and the manner in which appreciable property could be donated, I believe that we will have a significant impact, far more than the $13 billion over the 10 years; and it could amount to as much as several billion dollars the first year. So it may be called modest, but it is a step in the right direction; and I do hope Members, as they assess their vote on this bill, would look at the consequences of voting no, especially in regard to title I and to title III. These are sections of the bill that should be passed into law. And from my reading of the Constitution, section II should be as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Prior to that, however, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) be allowed to manage the remainder of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. THOMAS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) in terms of the statement of the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and ask unanimous consent that he may control that time. Prior to doing that, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) be recognized.

Mr. THOMAS. Continuing to reserve my right to object, Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that actually we have 2 hours of debate on this question. As the Speaker indicated in announcing the rule, there is an hour of general debate and an hour on the substitute. That means the Committee on the Judiciary, if the time is divided on the substitute, the same as was divided on general debate, would have 1 hour. That is the normal debate time. The Committee on Ways and Means would have 1 hour. The Committee on the Judiciary would have an hour. The debate is not necessarily narrowly directed to the subject at hand; i.e., if the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Conyers) has some of his members of the Committee on the Judiciary who wish to make general statements about the underlying legislation, they certainly are able to, and indeed, we often do that during the debate on the substitute. It seems to me that an extra 1 hour on this subject matter for a full 2 hours of discussion is more than ample. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of the House of Representatives.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 196, I call up the bill (H.R. 7) to provide incentives for charitable contributions by individuals and businesses, to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government program delivery to individuals and families in need, and to enhance the ability of low-income Americans to gain financial security by building assets, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. And the Democrats' sorrow pile grows and grows. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 House Joint Resolution 50.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be controlled by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement of July 17, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 50) disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the People's Republic of China, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 7, the bill just passed.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am sad to report that Kern County, California lost one of its most prominent and successful friends when Jimmie Icardo passed away. Few can or will match commitment to his family, his church and to Kern County. The businesses Jimmie developed are going to be models for young Californians for years to come. He built strong family farm operations that produced quality melons, tomatoes, peppers and other crops. He was active in the oil and gas, banking and real estate industries. Jimmie made his own successes through honest dealings with his neighbors and a tremendous amount of hard work. He was equally committed to his community. Jimmie Icardo will also be remembered for the tremendous support he has given the California State University at Bakersfield over the years, in particular the University's athletic programs. Jimmie ran barbecues to raise money for athletic scholarships, established a trust to benefit the program and supported the school in other ways. His strong support over several decades helped build CSU Bakersfield into the school it is today. The school's decision to rededicate its athletic center as the Jimmie and Marjorie Icardo Activities Center is only a start toward acknowledging how hard Jimmie worked over the years to support an important educational resource for Kern County. Jimmie Icardo was a person you asked for help to get things done. His strengths and sense of commitment to our community are going to be missed by those who now have to measure up to his example.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, actually, this would be a lot more fun if it was real. It is the phoniest debate I have heard in a long, long time. If we look at the amendment, this significant move on the part of Florida is going to last until April 1, 2002; maybe April 2001 is more appropriate than 2002. The fact of the matter is if they were serious, they would have made it permanent. They did not make it permanent because it costs money. We have heard about this particular area. It is in the Gulf of Mexico. The area looks like this. Why does it have this long neck? Because Florida said they did not want any drilling over there within 100 miles of their coastline. Frankly, most of the natural gas is probably in this area. So there was an agreement between Florida and the other States. Mr. Chairman, this literally is 200 miles from Florida there and 100 miles from Florida there. But here is the dirty little secret that no one in Florida will tell you. Guess what this line is right across the gulf? That is an already-agreed-upon pipeline 740 miles to supply oil and gas to Florida. No, they do not want to drill near you, but they want the oil and gas to use. How hypocritical can you be? How far is 100 miles? It is from New York City to Scranton, Pennsylvania. It is from Madison, Wisconsin, to Waterloo, Iowa. And if we cannot drill in an already-approved area in which the State of Florida was a negotiator and the lines were drawn to fit them, it really will be our Waterloo when we are trying to be self- sufficient for energy. Here is the question, Members, when my colleagues vote: If it was worth fighting for oil and gas in the Persian Gulf, why is it not worth looking for in the gulf near America?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I tell my friends briefly, in terms of a response, it is only 6 months, and the lines that are on the map are the lines that the Floridians agreed to. It is 100 miles from the Florida border, as agreed to by Florida's governor. So I understand my colleagues' concern, but as a matter of fact, what is going to be put in that pipeline? It is going to be some other State's gas. Come on.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chairman. Apparently the gentleman from New Hampshire is not the only one who understands the rules on the floor, or there was a willing abuse of the rules. I indicated that I would yield to the gentleman for a question. The gentleman then began continuing to make a statement. Therefore, in the remainder of my time, I will tell you this is a thinly veiled attempt to stop the Internal Revenue Service from making its job easier in informing taxpayers of money that is coming to them, in which a number of people who are now offering this amendment objected not only in substance, but in style. I understand that. Our purpose is to vote down this amendment so the American people can find out what they are getting from their government.

Mr. THOMAS. I certainly yield to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I will tell the gentleman I will reclaim my time if he does not have a question of me. He is just debating the point on his side again.

Mr. THOMAS. I thought you were going to give me the 3 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I can understand why some of the gentlemen on the floor are baffled. I am quite sure they were baffled as to why we would want to return some of the taxpayer money in the first place. That really is, I think, the fundamental argument. Let me say this: This letter simply does not meet the standards of the previous administration. I have to assure you, when you want to notify taxpayers of really important information you ought to look at the Health Care Financing Administration multicolored brochure, which, when you open the first page, had a large color picture of then Secretary of HHS Donna Shalala. Then you turn to the second page, and there was a large color photo of the gentleman who was then the Administrator of HCFA. Then you turn to the next page, and there was another photo. So, for someone trying to find out something about Medicare, they had to go through three large multicolored photos of people who were there not for political reasons. I can understand why some people are baffled, because actually people learned through the media that Congress was returning some of their tax money. The first assumption would be it is not true. The second assumption would be, if it is true, how much am I getting? The third assumption would be, where do I call to verify? One of the concerns was that, believe it or not, some people would like to verify that they are getting money. Can you imagine millions of people, a small fraction of the total who are getting the checks, trying to call the IRS to find out, one, if they are getting their money; two, if they are, when are they getting it; and, three, how much is it going to be? So what you have is a letter that provides that factual information, especially the question of when I am going to get it? Because if you only included the amount and a way to determine how much it was supposed to be and the fact that it was coming, they would still make a phone call to say when am I going to get it? So I think the real frustration is that this Congress passed and this President signed, one, tax relief for the American taxpayer; and, two, it was done in such a way that we are actually going to return some of the money to the taxpayers.