Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to yield 4 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee who has been a stalwart on this issue, who has been in the forefront and is one of those who not only knows this issue from an intellectual point of view, but who has lived it with his family, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof). (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I yield 2 minutes to a colleague, someone who understands the reason we are here today, a cosponsor of H.R. 5638, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I believe I will be the last speaker.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of democracy and in opposition to aristocracy, and simply and humbly request I have the same clock that was just used. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I also want to be on record as being opposed to a theocracy. And I will tell you that today, shortly, democracy will be demonstrated when the House of Representatives determines whether or not it sends this compromise measure over to the Senate with a majority vote. I know it is a mystery to some people. And I found it most revealing in a poll when Americans were being polled as to whether or not you supported either repeal or making smaller the estate or death tax. One gentleman responded to the poll that he was in favor of repeal, and if he couldn't get repeal, he wanted it smaller. And given the location in which the question was asked, in the home which the gentleman lived, the questioner said, ``But you aren't currently in a position to benefit from the estate tax, whether it's repealed or not.'' And he said very simply, ``But I want to have the opportunity to be able to.'' That is really the American dream. It really is what democracy is all about. It really is keeping more of your hard-earned efforts at the end of your life, or, if this bill becomes law, the amount that is legally appropriate, $5 million per individual, to be given while you are alive or after you pass or partially when you are alive or partially when you have passed. As one of my colleagues said, after all, it is your money. The estate tax does deal with progrowth or antigrowth because it is simply a tax on capital and savings. The lower the tax on capital and savings, the greater the opportunity for growth. We have heard the argument that this really is not a compromise. I believe it is a compromise. I said why. But I think the real test as to whether something is or is not a compromise is what I like to call the Goldilocks test. The Wall Street Journal thinks this is too cold. An individual representing the richest people in America, Dick Patten of the American Family Business Institute, says, ``We flatly oppose the Thomas plan. It just isn't good enough.'' The gentleman from North Dakota says, This is virtually repeal. It is just way too hot. Well, for some it is too hot; for some it is too cold. It sounds to me like that we have got a compromise that has a chance to pass the United States Senate. We know it will pass the House of Representatives. Mr. Majority Leader, you asked for a bill that should become law. Mr. Majority Leader, the House is sending you the bill you asked for. I urge support of H.R. 5638. I urge the Senate to take up the compromise as soon as possible. And when that bill is sent to the President, the American people, those who work hard and expect to retain or pass on at the end of their lives a portion of their earnings during that life, will have achieved a significant victory, not in a theocracy, not in an aristocracy, but in a democracy.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman supposed to respond to the point of order, or is he allowed to make a partisan political speech which is not germane to the point of order?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. Beginning your statement with ``this is why it is germane'' is not addressing the germaneness question.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit and believe the point of order is in order because this supposed motion to recommit is not germane.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, under the rule in consideration of this bill, the minority was allowed a motion to recommit. A motion to recommit was offered. It was clearly on its face nongermane. The Chair has just ruled that that so-called motion to recommit was nongermane. However, under the rules, that nongermane bill was read. It amounts to a political pamphlet.

Mr. THOMAS. Yes. The offer of the motion to recommit would have been exhausted, and I would simply say if that is not the case, they could offer another 10 partisan tracts on the argument that it is a motion to recommit, make the same arguments, and never violate the rules, and that is not under the spirit of the rules.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was not timely in his request to appeal the decision of the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to apologize to the Members for the wasted time based upon the obvious partisan motion to recommit which was not germane. The best thing I can say about this one is it is germane. It is an index. We have no score, nothing from the Joint Tax Committee. You will be pleased to know I will yield back the balance of my time. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to Recommit and in favor of the Pomeroy Substitute to H.R. 5638, the ``Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act of 2006.'' The GOP bill is fiscally irresponsible, costing $762 billion over 10 years--heaping even more debt onto our children and grandchildren. At a time of record deficits, the bill would cost about $290 billion from fiscal years 2006-2016. The estate tax provisions do not take effect until 2011. Thus, the actual cost of H.R. 5638 over the period from 2012 until 2021 shows the impact that the bill will have in the first ten years it is in effect. This more accurate 10-year cost would exceed three-quarters of a trillion dollars when interest payments on the debt incurred are included according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' estimates. Already, the GOP has squandered $5.6 trillion in 10-year surplus and turned it into a $3.2 trillion 10-year deficit. Congress just raised the debt ceiling to nearly $9 trillion, in March-- amounting to about $100,000 of debt for each tax paying family. The Pomeroy Substitute provides estate tax relief for 99.7 percent of all estates. The Pomeroy Substitute offers more estate tax relief sooner, and is a simpler and more responsible solution over the long- term--raising the amount of an estate excluded from taxes to $6 million per couple and increasing this to $7 million by 2009. Not only did this provide relief for small businesses and family farmers, but it would not have heaped more debt onto our children and grandchildren--costing only 60 percent of H.R. 5638. The Pomeroy Substitute is paid for by closing the gap in unpaid taxes, but Republicans are refusing to allow these provisions to be considered. It would also simplify estate tax planning for married couples who could carry over any unused exemption to the surviving spouse assuring that the full $7 million would be available. Furthermore, the Pomeroy Substitute transfers the estate tax revenue tax receipts to shore up the Social Security trust fund, and the Social Security Actuary has calculated that this action would solve one quarter of the trust fund's shortfall. Last year, Democrats voted for a similar measure. Almost no working farmers ever pay the estate tax. Under the $3.5 million exemption to take effect in 2009, the number of family farms required to pay any taxes would have been just 65 in 2000, along with 94 small businesses. Support the Pomeroy Substitute. Vote ``aye'' on the Motion to Recommit.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a concurrent resolution recognizing the accomplishments of the American Council of Young Political Leaders (ACYPL) as the organization celebrates its 40th anniversary this year. Since 1966, ACYPL has provided bipartisan international exchange programs, educational forums, and leadership training in order to better prepare young political leaders for future positions of responsibility in local, state, and federal government. ACYPL's programs offer young leaders, some who may have never traveled outside the United States, the opportunity to enhance their awareness and understanding of other cultures through in-depth study tours. Founded during the Cold War, the organization's efforts initially focused on Western Europe. Over the past four decades, however, ACYPL programs have expanded to include over 90 nations throughout the world, including the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the Western Hemisphere, East Asia, and the Pacific Rim. Many of ACYPL's more than six thousand alumni worldwide have risen to positions of great responsibility. In the United States, alumni include members of Congress, the Cabinet, ambassadors, and many senior level officials who serve in local, state, and national government. Internationally, past participants of ACYPL programs now serve as cabinet members, ambassadors, parliamentarians and as other senior level policymakers. Establishing early relationships among such future leaders helps facilitate international dialogue and strengthen and promote U.S. policy objectives. As an alumnus of an ACYPL program to the then Soviet Union in the 1970s, I can attest to the effectiveness of citizen-to-citizen exchanges in fostering cross-cultural understanding and cultivating international ties among young political leaders. I applaud ACYPL's work over the past decades and wish them continued success in future efforts.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 206 of this bill, H.R. 5576, on the grounds that this provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI, because it is legislation included in a general appropriations bill.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5403, the Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2006. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, which is sponsored by Mr. DeLay. There are approximately 518,000 children currently in foster care. The legislation before us today is an important first step in our efforts to improve the structure that exists to find a family for these children in order to prevent them from needlessly lingering in foster care. Specifically, H.R. 5403 would encourage states to expedite the safe placement of foster and adoptive children into homes across state lines. The data suggest that it takes 2 years on average for foster or adoptive children to be placed in homes across state lines. That is longer than the average time frame for placing children in homes within the same states. Under this legislation, states would be required to establish procedures to ensure interstate placements occur within 60 days. The legislation also would authorize incentive payments to states that place children in safe homes within 30 days. Since we first began providing incentive payments to promote adoption in 1997, the number of adoptions of children from foster care has almost doubled. We expect this new incentive program will help expedite the safe placement of children lingering in foster care, especially when relatives or others have expressed an interest in providing a loving home. Almost 20,000 children age out of foster care every year at age 18 without the benefit of a family to call their own. This legislation will improve that situation and ensure that more children are raised in loving families instead of waiting needlessly in temporary homes. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss the important issue of dam safety work at Isabella Dam, located in Kern County, California, which I represent. On April 27, 2006, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers declared an emergency pool restriction at the Lake Isabella Dam due to concern over increased seepage at the base of the auxiliary dam. On May 1, the Corps began releasing water from the dam to relieve pressure on the dam, until the pool level at the dam reached only 63 percent of capacity. This restriction will remain in place until the Corps can take permanent corrective action at the dam, which may not be until 2012, which is 6 years from now. The Corps of Engineers has named Isabella Dam as their top dam safety concern in the Nation as a result of the Corps Screening Portfolio Risk Assessment done last year, due to seepage, seismic concerns, and spillway deficiencies. Nonetheless, their estimated time for taking permanent corrective action is 6 years. Because of this significant concern, I am working with Energy and Water Appropriations Chairman Hobson to secure the additional funding needed for the Corps to continue important drilling, sample collecting, economics modeling, and environmental studies at Isabella in order to expedite this multi-year process. Isabella Dam protects a population of 300,000 in the Bakersfield area and about 350,000 acres of highly profitable agricultural land and oil fields. Kern County's evacuation plan notes that should Isabella Dam fail, within three and a half hours portions of the city of Bakersfield would be under as much as thirty feet of water. Loss of life and property, including agricultural land, which annually produces crops with a $3.5 billion farmgate value, would be tremendous. Likewise, there would be tremendous damage to oil infrastructure and significant impact to the entire Nation because Kern County annually produces more oil than Oklahoma. I am also concerned about the considerable economic hardship that has already occurred as a result of the Corps' pool restriction at Isabella. Water agencies and the City of Bakersfield who have water rights on the Kern River have already lost 77,000 acre feet of water since the pool restriction was put in place. This is precious water, with a conservatively estimated value of over $2.5 million. Allowing water to be lost simply because there is no place to store it is an immense problem in a State like California, which has limited resources. Given the immediate and considerable safety and economic concerns surrounding Isabella Dam, I will continue to work with my colleagues and the Corps to resolve the problem as swiftly as possible.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank my friend for the time. Mr. Chairman, as you know, Lake Isabella Dam in my district as of April is under a significant capacity restriction due to major concerns about the level of seepage at the base of the dam. The Army Corps of Engineers has rated Isabella Dam its top dam safety concern in the Nation. But even with that designation, the corps has informed me it would take as many as 6 years to create a permanent solution. The dam protects a half a million people as well as valuable agricultural and oil fields. I appreciate the fact that the chairman has provided report language urging the corps to expedite the process, but I would like to discuss with the chairman what that means.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman and look forward to working with him to find additional funding for this critical dam safety issue. If the corps has rated this their top dam safety concern, their behavior should reflect that in expressed concern. And I look forward to working with the chairman in conference to produce that, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.