Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Oh, good. Then I will use it in a minute. The idea here is to, first of all, ease the bureaucratic burden of trying to respond to millions of people who are inevitably going to call. I know the gentleman from Massachusetts believes he is of average intelligence, and, therefore, most other people would assume all of those things he assumed. All of us here on the floor know, and I will tell everyone else, the gentleman from Massachusetts is not of average intelligence; he is extremely intelligent and perceptive. And I guess the concern is that if not everyone matches his ability to understand, interpret and relate, that somehow it is a sinister political motive to notify people of the consequences, the time and the amount of the check return. It is not a rebate. It is money which is a lump sum payment in lieu of withholding adjustment. So people would kind of wonder, what is it that I am getting? And, gee, this letter says that it is in fact not something that you will have to worry about. You will not be required to report the amount of this as taxable income on your Federal tax return. And, by the way, it provides a convenient receipt for you if in fact your State or lesser municipality has tax consequences in terms of Federal money.

Mr. THOMAS. Do I get the 3 minutes? Could I have the 3 minutes? I thought you were going to give me 3 minutes.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment everyone who worked on this particular bill. For a long time, the quote/unquote, SEC user fees were actually taxes, and there is a long record of the fact that it was a revenue raiser. In fact, it was a tax on investing. For some time, there has been a history of the Committee on Ways and Means using a constitutional provision in dealing with taxes called blue slipping legislation that moves from the Senate, since they do not have the ability to originate revenue, and the SEC user fees clearly fit the pattern of taxes. With this bill, that is no longer the case. With the adjustment in the user fees, what they actually are going to be are user fees. If someone wants to mark progress in the Federal system, the idea of having legislation to call something what it actually is is a blue ribbon day. So I want to thank the committee in terms of producing a product in which the phrase ``user fee'' is used and it is, indeed, a user fee. I congratulate the chairman for this.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minority leader for providing us with a defining statement. I think it can be made no clearer in terms of the difference here on the floor today. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) said, mark my words, this is the last tax bill. He said this is the last tax bill. He must know something we do not. Obviously, he is consulting with the new majority leader of the Senate, Tom Daschle from South Dakota; and apparently the new majority leader has assured him this will be the last tax bill. If one wants to know the difference, the defining statement between the two sides, we think there ought to be more tax relief bills. Clearly the statement indicates there will not be any more. He knows more than we do about the way the Democrats are going to run the other body. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), chairman of the Committee on the Budget and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, someone who created the structure which allowed us to provide this kind of legislation to come to the floor. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, the day has arrived. There was a contest for President last year. There were very clear and particular themes underscoring the candidacies of each of the gentlemen running for President. One of them said he wanted to bring a different atmosphere to Washington and he wanted to return some of the taxpayers' money. Governor George W. Bush became President. There is a different climate in Washington, and this morning we are returning some of the taxpayers' money. The conference agreement on H.R. 1836 is clear evidence of that different environment. I want to thank the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). Without his ability to focus, guide, support and nurture, this conference report would not be before us. I want to thank the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), for his willingness to stand shoulder to shoulder in trying to produce a responsible product. But probably more important than that, I want to thank the chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, and the ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Finance, the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Baucus, because they decided that the only way legislation as significant and sweeping as this could pass the Senate would be if from the beginning it was a bipartisan effort. It does not take too much analysis to realize that if you have a Committee on Finance divided evenly between 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats, you are not going to be able to move anything unless it is bipartisan. But they were committed to returning the taxpayers' money enough that they built a bipartisan product from its instigation in the Senate, carried it through the floor and into conference. And along with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), we put together a bipartisan product coming out of the conference. Now, I know there is some consternation because not every member of the conference signed the conference report. What is important to note is there was a bipartisan signature structure because the underlying legislation is bipartisan in itself. There have been a number of statements about this piece of legislation which I do think need to be addressed. There are individuals who are still using a statistical analysis of a fictitious piece of legislation in terms of the distributional effects on the taxpayers based upon the tax changes. I would urge my colleagues in a number of places on the floor to pick up the material entitled Distributional Effects of the Conference Agreement for H.R. 1836 prepared by the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to give you some feeling of the way this bill has been constructed. Notwithstanding the rhetoric you are going to hear once again about how this goes only to the wealthy, if you will simply look at the change in Federal taxes and the percent of the benefit going to particular income groups, for example: in those income categories between $10,000 and $20,000, in this calendar year, 11.5 percent of the benefits go to the $10,000 to $20,000; $20,000 to $30,000 9.4 percent; $30,000 to $40,000, 6.4 percent; $40,000 to $50,000, 5.4 percent; $50,000 to $75,000, 4.5 percent; $75,000 to $100,000, 3.5 percent; $100,000 to $200,000, 2.6 percent; $200,000 and over, 1.3 percent. In other words, those who have the lowest income get the greatest benefit. In other words, if your income category is $10,000 to $20,000 a year, you get 11.5 percent of the benefit. If it is $200,000 and over, you get 1.3 percent. In fact, it is a numerical cascading structure in which every increment moves in the direction you would expect if it is a fair distributional structure. In addition to that, I have heard statements about the fact that this particular package will destroy Medicare, that once again Social Security is under threat. I wonder how long the bumper sticker political rhetoric is going to be continued. The Senate Budget Committee, the House Budget Committee, those responsible for examining the budgetary structure, say in every year of this agreement, the HI or the Medicare Trust Fund is fully protected and the Social Security Trust Fund is fully protected. This agreement meets the requirement of the budget that we passed to protect Social Security and Medicare in every year of the 10 years of the agreement. Now, let me address the 10 years because that clearly was one of the most popular themes during the rule. I am sure there will be a number of speakers to take the well to say, hey, this agreement is phony because it only lasts 10 years. This legislation was considered under the budget reconciliation rules that apply to the Senate. Under budget reconciliation, it is possible to pass legislation limiting the rules of the Senate in terms of debate and hours to debate a subject normally unlimited and only require 51 votes to do so. It was created because it was almost impossible to move legislation just like this through the Senate without the limitations that are currently available in the reconciliation structure. It is a two-edged sword. It means you are able to get through the Senate legislation like this, but under the rules of the Senate it can only be for 10 years and that if any revenue bill extends its effect outside the 10-year window, it is, as we say, subject to a point of order and, therefore, the entire package fails. I will tell my colleagues that if you want permanent tax change, it requires 60 votes in the Senate to accomplish that. I have before me what a 60-vote bill would look like. It is, if you notice, a blank piece of paper, because that is what the tax bill would be if it were to be permanent. You would not have $1.35 trillion of tax relief for hardworking American taxpayers. You would not have a lump sum payment in lieu of withholding adjustment of almost $40 billion going out to Americans to help stimulate the economy this year. You would not have permanent rate reduction. You would not have the refundability for child credit that is in this bill. You would not have anything. So I appreciate the wringing of the hands and the concern that this only lasts 10 years. I tell my colleagues, every one of you who are worried about this only lasting 10 years, join with me, let us walk across the Capitol, and you produce 60 votes. If you produce 60 votes, you will have it permanent. If you do not, it is as simple as that. Unfortunately, under the rules in which the Senate must operate to have a clear majority express its will, it can only be done within the 10- year framework. So we will hear the argument that all of this is only for 10 years. But if it is only for 10 years, what a 10 years it will be. More than $1.3 trillion in a time of surplus will be returned to the hardworking taxpayers. I know some of you are concerned that it is not going to be available to continue to feed the Federal dog. The problem, of course, we know is that when you start one of your programs, it is a cute little puppy but as you continue to feed it with hardworking taxpayers' dollars, it grows into an enormous, large dog that eats almost all the resources. We have seen it over and over again. That is why we were in deficit year after year after year. What we have, courtesy of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), is a budget under which we are required to work with, yes, provides this kind of taxpayer relief but also provides a responsible, over-the-cost-of-living growth structure for the Federal Government. I know you are used to unrestrained growth. A little discipline is not necessarily a bad thing. Frankly, a little relief for the American taxpayer is not necessarily a bad thing, either. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 153, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1836) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 104 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House. Without his focus, attention, and diligence we would not have had the atmosphere to bring this accomplishment to fruition.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I want to thank the Speaker and my colleagues for the opportunity and privilege of serving. H.R. 1836 was created by a bipartisan team following President Bush's blueprint. There is a new direction in Washington, both in substance and in bipartisan cooperation. For a decade of growth and for some relief to the American taxpayer, let us vote ``yes'' on 1836.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof). (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, and a colleague and a companion on the conference committee that produced this document.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman that the Speaker will close, but he has honored me with just a statement at the end which would take 10 seconds, so it is a closing on this side.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who certainly, over the course of the rest of this session of Congress, is going to have something to say about whether or not this tax bill will encroach on Social Security or Medicare.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) control the remainder of time on our side.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) who, on a bipartisan basis, was responsible for a major portion of this bill, the pension and IRA area.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

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 the conference report on H.R. 1836.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland was not in the room when it was pointed out, notwithstanding his eloquence on the provision, that the phase-in should not exceed longer than 5 years. I do want to remind the gentleman that three times on the floor of the House the Democrats presented a tax plan, and I can provide my colleagues, for example, with some of the numbers. Under the estate tax relief, the language of the Democratic plan said in 2002, relief would be at $2 million; in 2003 and 2004, $2.1 million; in 2005 and 2006, $2.2 million; in 2007 and 2008, $2.3 million; in 2009, $2.4 million; and in 2010 and thereafter, $2.5 million. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman asking us to meet a standard higher than they impose on themselves. I happily accept that challenge. But to indicate that we should meet a standard that the Democratic party did not meet in the Democrat's own program is just a little much to take; and, frankly, it brings into question the sincerity of the motion to instruct and the criteria that are placed in that motion to instruct, which is in fact to hold us to a standard the Democrats chose not to hold their plan to.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, continuing on my time, if the gentleman would look at the Democratic tax plan presented on the floor on three different occasions, the single largest dollar amount under one of the major provisions occurred in 2010; the second largest amount in 2009; the third largest amount in 2008, et cetera. The point is the Democratic substitute is structured similar to everyone else's. The motion to instruct requires us to meet a standard the other side of the aisle chose not to meet themselves on virtually every one of the items they have in their bill. Mr. Speaker, I understand their desire and what they want. All I am saying is when the other side of the aisle chooses to impose a standard on the majority, I would hope that the minority would have already honored that standard. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would like to be refreshed on what the Democratic tax plan is, it is here and available.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the majority is always willing to look at motions to instruct if they are, in fact, useful and appropriate. What we have seen during the course of this debate is that the motion to instruct offered by the other side attempts to hold the conference to a time-year standard that they would not hold themselves to, and that beyond that the requirements stated of having to be in this particular tax package are items that they did not hold themselves to. So it would seem to me that one of the basic standards in examining a motion to instruct to see if it, in fact, is serious and ought to be considered by the majority is to contain provisions which the minority lived up to in its own measure presented on the floor. We found it to be deficient in a number of areas; and, therefore, I would reluctantly urge my colleagues, notwithstanding, I am sure, the meritorious and positive attempt to provide a help to the conference, that we reject this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the unanimous consent request.