Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the outstanding work of a member of my staff. Brigen Winters, tax counsel to the Committee on Ways and Means, has worked long and hard on this pension reform legislation. His knowledge, his diligence, and his judgment have been of tremendous assistance to me and the other Members of the Committee. Brigen could not be with us today. He is presently at the hospital with his wife, Jennifer, and his newborn son, John Brigen ``Jake'' Wiinters. Jake was born early yesterday morning. Both Jennifer and Jake are doing well. I congratulate Brigen and his growing family. Brigen has not only helped us improve retirement security for working Americans, but also provided us with future funding for the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, today, I join my colleagues in commemoration of the 86th anniversary of beginning of the Armenian genocide. On April 24, 1915, under the direction of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, a campaign of Armenian extermination began. Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders from Istanbul were arrested and exiled--silencing the leading representatives of the Armenian community in the Ottoman Empire. From 1915 until 1923, 1.5 million Armenians were murdered, with another 500,000 forced into exile in Russia, ending a period of 2,500 years of an Armenian presence in their historic homeland. Today we remember this terrible period in human history, and commend the Armenian people for their ongoing struggle to live peacefully in their historic homeland. Like the Jewish and Cambodian holocausts, and more recently, the Serbian ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, the Armenian genocide stands out as one of the world's most morally reprehensible acts. Unfortunately, some American Presidents have chosen not to recognize this atrocity as what it truly was--the attempted extermination of an ethnic group. Continuing our good relationship with Turkey has repeatedly been cited as the reason not to use the word genocide. Mr. Speaker, there is no word other than genocide to describe the systematic murder of a million and a half people. Earlier this month, I joined 107 of my colleagues in asking President Bush to properly recognize the Armenian Genocide by using the word genocide, and I hope that Mr. Bush will become the first American president in 20 years to do that. On this day, we remember those Armenians who died 86 years ago and send a message to the world that we will never forget what happened during that terrible period in history and that we reaffirm our resolve to ensure that no nation will ever again have the opportunity to participate in mass genocide.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to honor three students, Zach Vanderham, Jessica Parks, and Darren Mann, who are seniors at Mt. Whitney High School in Visalia, California in my district. These three young people have developed an anti-smoking program aimed at their peers that I hope will serve as a model for other schools throughout the country. They have created a CD ROM titled ``Teens Kick Ash'' that explains the dangers of smoking in a manner to which other young people can relate and understand. As part of a competition organized by a national student marketing organization, Zach, Jessica, and Darren developed this CD in order to dissuade their fellow students from taking up this destructive, dangerous habit. Their project has proven so effective that the CD's have been distributed to dozens of other schools in the Visalia Unified School District, which have incorporated the project into their curriculum. Mr. Speaker, all Americans now know the dangers that smoking presents, and realize that we must do more to prevent our young people from starting this destructive habit. I am very pleased that these three students from Tulare County, California have had the good sense and initiative to educate their peers on smoking's dangers and to do their part to keep the next generation of Tulare County citizens from starting to smoke. I have an article from the Visalia Times Delta newspaper that I ask unanimous consent be included in the Record in its entirety. Students Describe Smoking Dangers La Joya shows project created by three Mt. Whitney DECA students (By Melinda Morales) Twenty three seventh-grade students sat in the dark in Dave Rodgers' health class at La Joya Middle School Tuesday, waiting not for the lights to come on but for the show to begin. They would be the first group of students to view a CD-ROM production called ``Anti Tobacco Education 2000, Teens Kick Ash,'' created by three Mt. Whitney High School students. The students, members of DECA--an association of marketing students--had taken on the job of creating the CD-ROM as part of a marketing project for the annual DECA competition in Jan Jose next month. They wanted to see how other students would react to what they saw. ``We felt smoking was a big problem in our community and we wanted to produce a CD about it,'' said Zach Vanderham, a senior and DECA member. ``They seemed to really enjoy it.'' What captivated the students were the video vignettes, produced by drama students at Mt. Whitney, interspersed throughout the disc. One that got a reaction from the class showed students coughing and choking as they smoked for the first time and asked why anyone would want to continue smoking after that kind of reaction. The CD-ROM presentation is the first of its kind, produced by students in the Visalia Unified School District. Rodgers, a health education specialist, said getting information to students in the middle schools is a priority for him. ``Any opportunity I get to have someone come in from the outside and talk to my students about drugs and the dangers they present, I jump on it,'' he said. When they get to high school, sometimes it's too late.'' He said the combined video and audio presentation in CD form, organized format and worksheet for the lesson are easy to use. ``We try to incorporate technology as much as possible,'' Rodgers said. ``And kids like visuals.'' Beatrice Mejia, 12, said the facts and grim photos on the effects of chewing tobacco made an impression on her. ``I didn't know that the tobacco could do so much damage,'' she said. The project was the brainchild of Mt. Whitney DECA adviser Stephen Rogers, who worked with the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency to get the money for the project. ``We got a $5,000 grant to buy the equipment for the project,'' Rogers said. He made arrangements with a production company in Los Angeles to show his students how to use the equipment and create their own story. Then he let them go. ``They really did it all themselves,'' he said. The grant enabled them to buy the equipment and produce 350 copies of the disc that will be used in schools throughout the district. The grant came from the state's Tobacco Use Prevention Education fund which is to be used strictly for educating kids about the dangers of tobacco. Lucinda Mejdell-Awbrey, coordinator of student support services for health and human services, said the tobacco education money was used last year to put on health fairs in the middle schools in the district. ``The money comes from the tax on tobacco sales, and the amounts have been dropping each year because tobacco sales are going down,'' Mejdell-Awbrey said. Most of the money is used to purchase educational materials for health teachers of fourth-through eighth grades. Jessica Parks, a junior, helped Vanderham lead the presentation to the class, guided the students through the worksheets and answered questions. Darren Mann, senior, operated the computer and navigated the course for Parks and Vanderham. He also did much of the hands-on computer work for the project. The three students, who began working on the project in November, will now complete the written requirements for the presentation and submit it for the competition in March.

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 H.R. 8, the bill just passed.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I think the debate today has been very good. H.R. 8 seeks repeal of the death tax, and the substitute by my friend and colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), sought relief. If one listens to my two colleagues discussing this motion to recommit, one would have thought that that debate was continuing; their motion to recommit is for relief, and the underlying bill is for repeal. I want my colleagues to be very, very careful. I apologize to my colleagues; once again, I read their motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, in looking at the particulars, in the first particular it says it provides immediate relief. There is no repeal in any of the four items. One would think we are continuing the debate that we have had all afternoon, relief versus repeal. If my colleagues wanted to support our friends on the other side of the aisle, like the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) or the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), my colleagues would have voted no on the gentleman from New York's substitute because it was only relief. H.R. 8 is repeal. But under the rules of the House, my colleagues ought to read the first paragraph, because what the first paragraph says is: Mr. Speaker, I move to recommit the bill, H.R. 8, to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions that the Committee report the same back to the House promptly. Normally when we see these motions to recommit, the word that is normally used is ``forthwith.'' A motion to recommit forthwith is immediate. It has a time certain to it. For those of us who have been around awhile, we have had a motion to recommit when, forthwith, it is brought right back to the floor, and we discuss the change that is in the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, this is a motion to recommit promptly. When is promptly? No one knows. It is not a time certain. It is uncertain. The motion to recommit kills the bill. What does that mean? It is not an argument between relief and repeal. It is between killing this bill, having no change whatsoever, or repeal. Mr. Speaker, I think the choice is clear. Vote no on the motion to recommit so my colleagues can vote yes on H.R. 8, and repeal the death tax.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, folks have heard a lot of numbers here today in the debate. The one that is real, 1998, in the States of the last 3 speakers, Texas, California and New York, those families had $7.9 billion taken from them in the death tax. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time on this measure to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) to tell another one of those very real-world stories.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my colleague and friend, said, she is just flat out wrong. The joint tax on our plan is $185 billion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. THOMAS. Not on my time. If the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) wants to yield some time, he can.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, just in case anybody believes any of those figures that were mentioned by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Joint Committee on Taxation places a $185 billion price tag on the bipartisan H.R. 8 proposal. The Democrat substitute costs $160 billion over 10 years to just reduce the death tax. They do immediately repeal the State estate tax credit, an immediate hit on the States of $122 billion, which produces the net that the gentlewoman mentioned.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the conference chairman of the Republican Conference.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my friend from North Dakota for clarifying the issue for us. It is now very clear. They want reduction. We want repeal. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I tell the gentleman from the State that we shared in 1998, $4.1 billion those families did not get because of the failure to repeal the death tax. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it might be useful to put on the record that in a single year alone, in 1998, the people of Florida lost $2.7 billion to the death tax. Multiply by 10, it goes away. Under the Democratic proposal, it does not. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I note that the gentleman, in his exuberance, might have left a false impression that under the Democrat substitute every American has a $4 million exemption in their bill. That is not the case. In fact, it is far from it. In addition to that, the gentleman apparently left the impression that we do not do anything about easing the relief of the death tax during the 10-year phase-down period. The gentleman knows full well that is not the case either. So as we carry on our discussions, I do hope that, to the best of our ability, we stick to the facts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I wish to tell my friend from Indiana that I ran 10 times before I was given the ability to vote on a measure to repeal the death tax. So it took us a long time to get here. I might say it also required a change in the majority in the House of Representatives to reach this point. I also want to note for the record that the Chronicle of Philanthropy found that the elimination of the death tax would result in a 63 percent increase in charitable giving because people would be willing to donate more if the tax man took less. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who wants to have repeal of the estate tax rather than something less.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from California (Mr. Waxman), who has come up with a clever idea of awarding a pot painted gold, for whatever particular reason, that he believes serves his particular purposes. However, what I did hear the gentleman say, though, was that he rose in opposition to the Republican measure. I am sure the gentleman, who is not on the floor now, was probably not on the floor earlier when the cosponsor of H.R. 8, a Democrat, spoke in opposition to that. There are a number of other Democrats who are interested in the repeal of the estate or death tax, not in some modification. Mr. Speaker, to make sure that Members understand that this is a bipartisan proposal, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues and I get into this discussion of H.R. 8 and the Democratic substitute, we ought not to lose sight of the fundamentals in this debate. H.R. 8 repeals the estate or death tax; and the Democratic substitute does not. I was interested in the minority leader's discussion under the rule in which he quoted David Stockman, a former Member, Chief of the Office of Management and Budget under President Reagan, in his book Triumph of Politics. I found it interesting because I was in the minority at the time, and the minority leader was in the majority. I was mentioned in Mr. Stockman's book, and so I am very familiar with the context and the times in which that took place. The one point that I think needs to be referenced was the fact that it was a Democratically-controlled House and a Republican Presidency. Mr. Speaker, that is entirely different than the situation that we find here today with a Republican House and a Republican President. Mr. Speaker, then-Speaker Tip O'Neill ordered his lieutenants, chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means Danny Rostenkowski and others, to win at any cost was the approach to legislating. It was to make sure that you are not second in spending or in tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, when you have that kind of a climate of win at any cost, it is no wonder that we had an enormous increase in spending and significant tax cuts at the same time. That was the problem from the early 1980s. And the reason I say that historical reference is absolutely useless today is because we have a Republican House and a Republican President. Contrast the win-at-any-cost strategy of then-Speaker O'Neill to the current strategy under the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), and that is orderly movement of the President's program through the Committee on Ways and Means, that I am privileged to chair, onto the floor and off the floor, at the same time that we just passed the budget, which was prudent in the way in which it allowed discretionary spending to increase at about 4 percent a year. Mr. Speaker, we are now at the stage of presenting to you a piece of legislation which passed the House with significant bipartisan support last year. The argument will continue to be we cannot do it, it is too much, the future is not clear, do not do it. Not once did the majority use that argument when they were in the majority, enormously increasing spending and increasing tax cuts, when, in fact, we were in a deficit structure. Now that we are in a surplus, those words ring rather hollow, unless, of course, your argument is defeat at any cost, which apparently appears to be the approach the Democrats are taking today. What we saw last week on the floor with the marriage penalty reduction and child credit is that it just does not work because, I am pleased to say, most of the Members look at the content of the legislation and make up their minds. Mr. Speaker, that is the way that decisions ought to be made in the House of Representatives, and I hope that is going to be the case on this piece of legislation. If Members look at the fact that H.R. 8 repeals the estate or death tax, and the Democrat substitute does not, at the end of the day what you will see is a bipartisan vote, a majority bipartisan vote, in favor of H.R. 8. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) control 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, pursuant to House Resolution 111, I call up the bill (H.R. 8) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phase out the estate and gift taxes over a 10-year period, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to my friends on the other side of the aisle, because I have the unfortunate habit of actually reading their motions to recommit. So, first of all, I would call the attention of my colleagues to the fact that the motion to recommit says, ``Strike all after the enacting clause.'' That means, number one, no marriage penalty relief and no child tax credit. But what they are offering instead is the idea that we can have an immediate stimulus. Okay, let us talk about that trade-off. Keep reading, Mr. Speaker. By the time we get to page 5, after we go to page 4 of the motion to recommit, on which there is a kind of a homemade attempt to make this motion in order, with handwriting in the margin and the rest, but when we get through with that, we actually get to the heart of the proposal. The gentleman from New York said we get an immediate stimulus of $50 billion. Now, remember, with the ``Strike out all after the enacting clause'' we have given up the marriage penalty and the child credit. But if we read what the motion to recommit actually does, it says, ``In fiscal year 2001, no more than $15 billion.'' No matter how impassioned they say now, $35 billion comes out of next year, 2002. Fair enough. In 2001 and in 2002, we get the $50 billion stimulus. Hang on. This House has already passed H.R. 3, and we are going to pass H.R. 6. Let us take a look at what those two provisions do in fiscal year 2001 and 2002. Quite ironically, when we combine H.R. 3 and H.R. 6 and look at the effect in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, we get a $54.6 billion permanent tax reduction. Here is the choice: Vote for the motion to recommit, and we do not get marriage penalty relief, we do not get the child credit doubling, we do not get permanent marginal relief, but we do get $50 billion of one-time money. If we vote against the motion to recommit, we get marriage penalty relief, we double the child tax credit, we get permanent marginal rate relief, and we get $54.6 billion worth of relief. I think this motion to recommit is easy. If Members vote for them, they get $50 billion. Vote for us and Members get $54.6 billion plus marriage penalty relief, child credit, and permanent rate reduction. This one is easy. Vote no on the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion to recommit. The previous question was ordered.

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