Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to do two things: one, to respond to the offer of a wager of the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), and I would tell the gentleman that I would be more than willing to risk $1,000 a year over the next 10 years with one proviso. The gentleman is concerned about whether or not we will honor our budgetary numbers and live within our means. I will tell the gentleman that if he makes sure that the Republicans are in the majority for each of those 10 years, I have no question at all that the gentleman would owe me $1,000 a year. If, however, included in his wager that the gentleman's party regains the majority, I can assure him the American people are going to lose far more than $1,000 each for the rest of their lives. So, if the gentleman will assure me of a continued majority of the responsible party that has produced a surplus that we have now, that is not a wager; that is an investment. I will also tell the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), who has repeated this several times, that he is pleading on the floor to stop the bleeding in California, I have to tell my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), it is pretty hard to do it from here because, frankly, the bleeding is a self-inflicted wound. The gentleman ought to go to Sacramento. His party controls the lower house of the legislature, the upper house of the legislature, and the gubernatorial mansion; and if his party would address supply and demand rather than assuming it is a rock and roll band on the question of delivering energy, California can address its significant level. If California wants to maintain air standards higher than the national level and plead for us to assist them when, in fact, the national level is unsatisfactory for Californians, then I would tell the gentleman once again that this bleeding he cries out for in California is self- inflicted.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, to show my colleagues the seriousness of the minority's offer on the motion to instruct and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), in terms of the statement that he just made, especially in dealing with the part A provision that says that it shall not include a phase-in longer than 5 years, I think it would be instructive if some of my friends on the other side of the aisle would revisit the Democrat tax plan which was offered on three separate occasions on the floor of the House which contains on its estate tax structure a 10-year relief period. So I find it interesting that they are attempting to impose on the conference a standard of time limit which they chose not to impose on themselves in bills that they offered. That should give my colleagues just one example of the seriousness of the approach of our friends on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, I appreciate the presentation of my colleague from Texas. It is always enjoyable. There were 62 votes for that tax package today. There were 12 Senators of the gentleman's party who voted for it. And I would urge my friends from California, who just made an impassioned plea about dealing with energy in California, perhaps they should spend a little more time with their Democratic Senators on the other side of the aisle, holding their hands, because the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, voted in favor of the package. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. No, I have no interest in yielding.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for that explanation. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to instruct be considered as read and printed in the Record.

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

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 142, I offer a motion.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have no problem at all debating the issue of energy. My understanding was we had an agreement in which one individual and then a second individual was going to be allowed to participate. No one communicated to this side of the aisle that there were going to be additional people participating. My understanding is that this place can only function when people operate on the agreements that they reach. Mr. Speaker, I have more than a willing opportunity to discuss any issue under the motion to instruct in which time is divided equally on either side, but under a reservation on a unanimous consent, the agreement that we had reached was violated by the other side. I believe we should move forward.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as is usually the case with motions to instruct, it contains a number of phrases which seem controlling in nature. For example, under the first point and the A section, ``shall not include''; B, ``shall include provisions''; C, ``shall adjust''. The fact of the matter is that the motion to instruct has no binding capability whatsoever. In fact, if one goes up to the very first line and reads the motion to instruct it says, ``Mr. Stark moves that, to the maximum extent permitted,'' which means any time one reads ``shall'' under here, it has no consequence whatsoever. However, we should not let this opportunity go by without correcting some of the factual misstatements that have already occurred, not just about the bill that we have in front of us, but about the bills that the House has voted on in terms of modifying the tax obligation of citizens of the United States. In the bill that the House passed dealing with the child tax credit, which seems to be the thrust of point number three of the listed points in terms of providing benefits to every family with children that has income tax on payroll tax liability, the answer is simple. The bill that passed the House provided for the ability to utilize a refundable credit to cover payroll taxes beyond income taxes. I would also tell my colleagues it is a factual statement that, on the Senate finance bill which just passed the floor of the Senate by a vote of 62 to 38, not only did they provide a tax credit on a refundable basis to those individuals who do not have income tax liability, but who have also exceeded their payroll tax exposure. So notwithstanding the statements that this is not being done, the fact of the matter is it simply is not true. As we go through and examine the other structures, we have to remember that this tax conference is being conducted under the budget resolution which passed both the House and the Senate, which said we must pay down the public debt, we must protect the Medicare or HI Trust Fund, we must protect the Social Security Trust Fund, and we are to set aside $300 billion for a prescription drug modernization in Medicare, and there is an additional $500 billion fund which is available for other discretionary programs as the Congress may determine. All of that with an inclusion of a $1.350 trillion tax bill that is the reason for us being here tonight. So not withstanding the lamentations, the concerns and the wringing of hands, this motion to instruct, which has no binding effect whatsoever, outlines a number of concerns that have already been taken into consideration and are being dealt with. I believe that the concern of many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is to see the Senate move in a bipartisan way with 62 Senators supporting the Senate product and are moving now to a conference. I am reminded of our days in the minority when the phrase is risky or rushing to judgment, because, frankly, if anybody has bothered to turn on the TV and watch the Senate floor, to describe the Senate rushing to judgment with more than 100 amendments over the last 4 days in which every item was examined and voted on could hardly be described by most people being neutral as rushing to judgment. Conferences are a unique animal around here. When the House passes a bill that is different than the Senate and the Senate passes a bill different than the House, under the Constitution we are required to reconcile the differences in the bill. That is called going to conference. If it takes an hour, it takes an hour. If it takes a week, it takes a week. The job of the House and the Senate conferees is to reconcile the two bills to be presented back to each House in the same form to be voted up or voted down. I will tell my colleagues that, if one does not like the product produced out of the bipartisan bicameral conference committee on permanently reducing taxes of hard-working Americans by a $1.350 trillion over the next decade, one has every right and obligation, I believe, to vote no, just as some of your colleagues on the other side of the aisle did. So let us wait until we have a product before we condemn it; for example, the argument that we do not supply tax relief to those individuals who have no income tax obligation or payroll tax obligation. The product that came from the Senate in fact meets both of those criteria. The product that came from the House met one of them. Let us kind of turn the flame down until one has an honest actual target to shoot at. This motion to instruct is a gun with no bullets. Wait until we have the product in front of us. If my colleagues do not like it, they can vote no. I think they will find, based upon the House and the Senate coming together, the product will be overwhelmingly accepted, voted on, and signed by the President. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. If the gentleman would indicate his intention on the vote on final passage, we might be able to anticipate a comparison between what his Senators did and what the gentleman is doing.

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

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 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. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentleman, I am not yielding. I am trying to make a statement in conclusion.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1836) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 104 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 141, I call up the bill (H.R. 622) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the adoption credit, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before us today is H.R. 622, the Hope for Children Act. Most importantly, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for their leadership in moving this piece of legislation forward. But as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I also want to congratulate Members on both sides of the aisle on the Committee on Ways and Means. The bill before us today is not as the bill was introduced. It was amended in committee to bring together both the idea of the Tax Code assisting in adoption and the President's proposals as outlined during the campaign. This bill may, in fact, be changed as it moves through the legislative process with the Senate; but the heart of the bill, the fundamental purpose of the bill, will not change; that is, that the dollar amounts currently in law, some of them subject to termination, will be made permanent and increased in the hope that adoption will be utilized more frequently in this country. Mr. Speaker, I have a Statement of Administration Policy that I would like inserted in the Record. The heart of the Statement of Administration Policy is ``H.R. 622 is consistent with the President's priorities, which include permanently extending and increasing the adoption tax credit.'' That is the focus that we should place on this bill, and this is one of those opportunities to engage in a discussion and debate on the floor of the House in a way that we do not do it as often as we would like; but joining together on this particular bill, it will be a very rewarding morning. Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, May 17, 2001. Statement of Administration Policy (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned agencies) The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 622, the Hope for Children Act, as an important pro-family and pro- adoption tax relief initiative. H.R. 622 is consistent with the President's priorities, which include permanently extending and increasing the adoption tax credit. The Administration looks forward to working with Congress through the legislative process to achieve a result that best embodies the objectives of the President's plan. Pay-As-You-Go Scoring Any law that would reduce receipts is subject to the pay- as-you-go requirements of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. Accordingly, H.R. 622 or any substitute amendment in lieu thereof, that will also reduce revenues, will be subject to the pay-as-you-go requirement. The Administration will work with Congress to ensure that any unintended sequester of spending does not occur under current law or the enactment of any other proposals that meet the President's objectives to reduce the debt, fund priority initiatives, and grant tax relief to all income tax paying Americans. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, in part to respond to my colleague from Maryland. In terms of his concerns about finding money to pay for this particular program or, indeed, any other program, because notwithstanding the budget reconciliation numbers, there is included in that budget reconciliation an estimated revenue stream outside of reconciliation of more than $18 billion over 10 years, more than enough to pay for this particular program, and for a number of others that I would say the Committee on Ways and Means will probably be looking at. These are not large amounts of money, and they can be accommodated. The question is ordering our priorities; and it seems to me that based upon the support of this bill that this ought to be very high on our priority list to claim its fair share of that revenue outside of reconciliation. Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) be permitted to control the remaining time, someone who has been instrumental in helping us shape this legislation and move it forward.

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 therein extraneous material on H.R. 1836.