Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if the Speaker takes the Member at their word, obviously we are dealing with either confusion or some other circumstance.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, as the world now knows, early Saturday morning in his sleep, Buck Owens let go of the tiger's tail. What people probably do not know was what happened on Friday night. Because as Buck usually did, he acted naturally. He went to his Crystal Palace, his dance hall and dining room, had his usual chicken-fried steak Friday evening, and told the staff he did not feel very good and he was going to go home and miss the Friday night performance. In going out to his car, a car full of people from Bend, Oregon, saw him, and they ran over to him and they said, Buck, we came all of the way down to see you. He turned around and went back in and played the complete first set because he could not disappoint a fan. He went home and never woke up. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my friend and country music legend, Buck Owens, who passed away on Saturday, March 25, 2006. With 25 No. 1 songs, Buck had one of the most successful country music careers in history. Known for his trademark red, white and blue guitar, he was on stage nearly every Friday and Saturday night with his band, Buck Owens and the Buckaroos, at his Crystal Palace in Bakersfield. In fact, just hours before he passed away, he had spent the evening performing at the Crystal Palace, closing his portion of the show with his 1969 hit ``Big in Vegas.'' Alvin Edgar Owens was born to Texas sharecroppers in 1929 and became known as ``Buck'' at the age of 4 when he nicknamed himself after a mule on the family farm. In 1937, after their trailer hitch broke during their move west, Buck and his family ended up in Phoenix, where they remained for more than a decade. During that time, Buck and his siblings worked in the fields picking cotton and potatoes, which Buck later said, ``was where my dream began to take hold . . .'' Buck began regularly playing music in local pubs when he was 16 and, when he moved to Bakersfield in 1951, he quickly found work playing with steel guitarist Dusty Rhodes and then Bill Woods and the Orange Blossom Playboys. While Buck at first played a hollow-body Gibson guitar, after a pawnshop sold his Gibson before he could redeem it, Buck began using a Fender Telecaster electric guitar that made his music unique and eventually became known as the ``Bakersfield Sound.'' In 1957, Buck signed a recording contract with Capitol Records and in 1958 he cut four original songs, including ``Second Fiddle,'' which eventually reached No. 24 on the Billboard charts. During this time, Buck acquired a one-third interest in a Tacoma, WA, radio station and he remained in the radio business for the rest of his life. In 1959, Buck began doing his own live television show and his television career ultimately included 16 years as a co-host of ``Hee-Haw.'' Throughout his career, Buck earned the respect of musicians from all different genres of music. In fact, even the Beatles recorded a cover of one of his songs, ``Act Naturally,'' in 1965. In 1996, he was recognized for his accomplishments and was inducted to both the Country Music Hall of Fame and the Nashville Songwriters Hall of Fame. Buck was truly a Bakersfield institution, and his No. 1 hit, ``Streets of Bakersfield,'' has become our town's unofficial anthem and our favorite of Buck's songs. However, in addition to our pride in his accomplishments as a performer and businessman, we appreciated Buck's generosity, including his support for Bakersfield College's music program as well as his annual Toys 4 Tots event, Buck Owens Rodeo, and celebrity golf tournament. Bakersfield will not be the same without Buck Owens. He was the heart of the town and will truly be missed.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4944) to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to modify temporarily certain rates of duty, to make other technical amendments to the trade laws, and for other purposes.

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, this is generally known as the miscellaneous trade bill. We do this virtually every year. It consists primarily of those bills that, on their own, don't have any opposition, but standing alone, would have a difficult time in the legislative process. They are important in terms of their particularities, but taken as a whole, it represents an opportunity to put together, in a bipartisan way, those requests by Members in bill form to do what is absolutely the right thing to do, and, that is, those products not available in the United States and which are primarily materials used in making goods in the U.S. that do produce value added are subject to a tariff. So all it does is add costs. It is not in competition with anything in the United States, and so to help reduce costs we put together every year this list of trade bills. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee. But prior to yielding, I would request unanimous consent that the remainder of my time also be controlled by the Chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1053) to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of Ukraine, as amended.

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, this is really an exciting time in which we recognize the continuing maturation and involvement of a new nation, yet a nation of people who have deserved better over many decades and are now beginning to see the fruit of their struggle manifest itself. We are asking today in this legislation to recognize that the country of Ukraine that has entered into a series of agreements with the United States and other countries, and I include an exchange of letters between the United States Trade Representative Rob Portman and myself as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, indicating some certainties as to that agreement, and to anxiously await the comments by my colleagues as we recognize that the Ukraine, through very difficult economic and political transformations, has reached the point of integrating itself into the world economy. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, March 6, 2006. Hon. Rob Portman, U.S. Trade Representative, Washington, DC. Dear Ambassador Portman: I understand the United States and Ukraine have concluded the bilateral negotiations on market access issues related to Ukraine's World Trade Organization (WTO) accession. The Committee has received the confidential documents related to the accord, and I congratulate you and your negotiators on a very strong agreement. The commitments that Ukraine has made related to market access for goods and services, as well as on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) obligations and intellectual property rights, are very important for U.S. exporters and to Members of Congress. It is essential that Ukraine comply fully with all of its WTO commitments. To that end, I write to seek your assurances that you will be steadfast in confirming that Ukraine fully implements all of its commitments as scheduled, and that you will not support its accession unless that is the case. I look forward to moving legislation through Congress to grant permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to Ukraine quickly after the bilateral agreement is signed. Unconditional normal trade relations is a basic tenet of WTO membership, and granting PNTR to Ukraine will allow the United States to benefit from the WTO commitments made by Ukraine. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Bill Thomas, Chairman.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased by the statement of my friend from Maryland, and am also pleased to underscore the fact that my colleague and friend from California and I will stand together all the time in making sure that the conditions under which we examine and approve normal trade relations follow what should be a model. But, indeed, if you have to make sure it is followed, it will be followed. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the chief sponsor of H.R. 1053, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach). Mr. Speaker, prior to recognizing him, I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), and ask unanimous consent that he control the remainder of the time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would feel a whole lot better about this debate if it were being carried out in October or November and we had a chance to actually make some permanent changes in pension law prior to the first of the year. We are now in March. Frankly, we have been very lucky that the real world hasn't reacted in a way that would make our job even that much more difficult. The gentleman from New Jersey, in his usually scholarly fashion, has laid out what we ought to do. I would like to remind the gentleman that the House bill contains the Savers Credit. We put it in. We obviously support the Savers Credit. Why there is a need now to reaffirm the fact that we support the Savers Credit is beyond me. The House has voted for it. It is the House position. Do you need to then put another nail in it? But, interestingly, you only mentioned that. You didn't mention the other really good provisions that are in there. I think they all should be given equal weight and we should support it. In terms of the airlines, the House bill is silent on airlines. I think that is, frankly, the smartest position we should be in. Do you think that based upon the conferee, the gentleman from Michigan's statement, that we aren't vitally concerned about airlines? I think what we ought not to do is to begin drawing lines in the sand. And, by the way, they aren't even lines in the sand, because this particular bill has no bearing of any meaning to the conferees. It is basically a political statement on the part of the minority in which they wish to select certain provisions and highlight those over others. You have every right to offer it, we have every responsibility to reject it, because it means then other provisions that you chose not to pick, which you were not successful on, should not be dealt with in conference, and that isn't the way the world works. The majority will carry forward, not just the Savers Credit, but the other good components in the bill. You can be assured that we are very, very concerned about airlines. We are so concerned that we didn't spend time spinning our wheels on the floor trying to determine who should be rewarded and who should not. We are going in there with total flexibility to try to solve the problem, and we will do the best we can to address the problem. I will just have to tell you that to the degree we play political games, as indicated by the gentleman from Massachusetts' speech in terms of class warfare, once again we may run the chance of failing in the conference. We cannot afford that chance. And if we are successful in conference, we are going to have to convince the administration to sign the bill. This is the time to be prudent, to turn down that wick of partisan rhetoric, get serious about trying to begin to solve an institutional, demographic, and economic structural problem. I want to go to conference with maximum flexibility in taking the House position and solving the other problems that need to be solved. Please. You have every right to offer it. We should reject it. Let us get on to the conference so we are dealing with real issues instead of imagined political ones that continue to seem to be the primary motivation of the minority party in this House.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We actually could solve a lot of our problems if we would tax all the people in the world. Clearly, what I said was the people in the United States. Those of us among us. I cannot speak for the gentleman in terms of how he casts votes. I know he was on the losing side when we voted to extend the dividends and capital gains relief in the tax reconciliation package that just a few days ago passed the House with 239 votes. My vote in insisting for alternative minimum tax outside of reconciliation was an honest vote, and I intend to help those people. Reconciliation is a process that is used by the Senate, not by the House. In terms of the number of votes necessary to pass legislation, the House always passes legislation by a majority vote, and it is always permanent. What we did with the minimum alternative tax vote, which with the help of the gentleman from New York passed by 414 votes, is exactly the same thing as far as the House is concerned that we did with the dividends and cap gains under tax reconciliation. It is the Senate that utilizes reconciliation to pass measures by only 51 votes, albeit not permanently, for only a decade; and it is the Senate that needs 60 votes to make things permanent. So far as the institution of the House and the rules of the House and the votes that were cast, both on tax reconciliation and on the alternative minimum tax vote, the effective result of the House vote is absolutely the same. All I am pointing out about the strangeness of this motion to instruct is that it is a request for the House to reverse itself, albeit nonbinding, from the very vote that we took, and that is that the gentleman from New York and others who were on the losing side on the vote for tax reconciliation want to be on the winning side by offering a motion to instruct. I guess it is okay. I will trade substance for appearance any day of the week. But Members need to know what they are voting on, and what they are voting on is to reverse themselves from the substantive decision they made earlier. I have never seen a motion to instruct that completely flips the legislation that had been presented. That is what I meant by strangeness. And the argument that the gentleman from New York has just made in terms of the comparisons kind of equals that level as well. It is pretty simple. The economy is moving because we are investing in the economy through the reduction of tax on dividends and capital gains. If you were to give money to people, although the consumer helps, you simply do not get the benefit. And the people who make the most money, who are subject to the alternative minimum tax, deserve help. They do not deserve help in reconciliation, which the Senate needs to be able to make law. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a valuable member of the committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4297) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(b) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do have to say this is one of the oddest motions to instruct that I have seen in my multiple decades in the House for basically one reason: just a few short days ago the House passed by a vote of 234 to 197, a tax reconciliation package which extended the dividend reductions and the capital gains reductions. On the same day, the House passed, outside of reconciliation, the alternative minimum tax assistance that the gentleman has pleaded for by a vote of 414 Members of the House of Representatives, I believe, to 9 in opposition. That was the substantive action of the House on the floor. This motion to instruct, which is nonbinding, requests that the House completely reverse itself from the vote we had just a few days ago, and that is, we do not include dividends in capital gains in tax reconciliation, but we include the alternative minimum tax which was voted outside of reconciliation. And I guess I would just ask my Members whether or not it is more important to hang on to the substantive action of the House or the symbolic gesture on the part of the Democrats. That is not the only strange thing about this motion to instruct. You heard my colleague from Massachusetts and you will soon hear from other Members of very large urban States asking for tax relief for the very richest Americans. After all, by definition, the alternative minimum tax is not applied to the lowest. It is not applied to the 10 percent bracket. It is not applied to the 15 percent bracket. It is applied to the richest among us. And although it is refreshing, it is just ironic that we are going to have Democrats going to the floor pleading to relieve the wealthiest among us from an alternative tax burden. And to do that, they want to deny, the number 17 million was mentioned, as those who were affected by this. That is everyone who has even a dollar affected, as opposed to 14 million who would get total relief on the basis of this if it were substantive, which it is not. But what my colleague fails to recognize, or chooses not to mention, is that with the reduction for dividends and capital gains, we also provide for significant tax relief in the investment aspect of dividend in capital gains for those in the 10 and 15 percent bracket going to zero before it expires. On capital gains that benefits 14 million alone; on the dividends, that benefits 27 million Americans. They want to take those people who want to invest, who are in the 10 and 15 percent bracket, and deny them the opportunity to bootstrap themselves so they can give the richest among us a little bit of relief because large States that have high State income taxes and high State sales tax want to live off the rest of the Federal taxpayers in getting relief from alternative minimum tax. And let me say about the gentleman's example about how we do not seem to be able to figure out how individuals can live if they followed the Federal example of tax cuts, it is very simple. The alternative minimum tax that they ask for in terms of relief are dollars to the richest among us who will spend, who will spend it on consumption. You get a one-time benefit on consumption. In that example, there is no question that American families could never survive tax cut after tax cut if all you did with the money was feed consumption. But what the history of the investment of dividends and capital gains meant is that people were able to invest money going to jobs and to productivity which has given us a bonus back. And if the individual family took that money and invested it, that is the smartest thing, deferring current gratification for future reward. That is exactly what we are doing with the dividends and capital gains. So I am a little startled that my colleagues are bewildered, the difference between a consumption-insisting tax or an investment insisting tax. One consumes, the other one grows. That is why we are able to continue to see the economy improve as we continue to cut taxes. It depends on which taxes you cut, where you cut them, and how you cut them. What my colleagues are asking for in this motion to instruct is to give more money to rich people to spend and deny those people even in the 10 and 15 percent tax bracket a chance to invest and grow wealth. One is the American way. I do not know what the other one is. So all I would tell my colleagues is, please, we acted substantively. We passed tax reconciliation. I know this motion is not binding, but please make sure you understand what you are doing. You would be reversing investment in favor of consumption. If you come from a rich urban State, it probably makes sense to you. If you are from the rest of America, it certainly does not. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If it is going to tax 17 million new people, why do they call it the alternative minimum tax? These people are already being taxed. It is an alternative way to tax them and was actually put in place when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were in the majority. The gentleman from Napa Valley, in pleading for some of the richest Americans to get some relief from an alternative system of taxation they put in place when they were a majority and could have dealt with it, literally wants to take money from the 10 and 15 percent bracket, people who are trying to invest and grow a nest egg so that they can have a piece of America like the people in Napa Valley. The people in the 10 and 15 percent bracket for the first time actually can figure out a way to invest in America, to grow a nest egg, and to see the ability to have a better tomorrow. But they want to take the money from these people and ease taxes on those people in the upper tax brackets who have now triggered the alternative minimum tax. I said I am in favor of helping relieve the alternative minimum tax, but the plan we have proposed is not trading one for the other. It is not denying the 10 and 15 percent bracket a piece of America. We passed assistance to the alternative minimum tax. It was outside of tax reconciliation. What they want to do is shove that nest egg-building approach out of tax reconciliation and move the alternative minimum tax in its place. That is what we are opposed to. We are not opposed to assisting the alternative minimum tax. We are opposed to denying the 10 and 15 percent bracket a chance to invest in America at the lowest possible cost. That is what this is about.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and his party had every opportunity when they were in the majority to index that. And in fact they had every opportunity to remove the credits and deductions which allowed those people not to pay any taxes. Instead, they took the easy way out of offering an alternative minimum, and you have gotten bitten. I find it is ironic that the people in New York, New York City, and other areas are now asking relief for very wealthy people. I do not have a problem with that. We passed 414-4 relief for that on the floor. At the same time, within tax reconciliation, a structure which assists the Senate, we placed our highest priority, investment to creating nest eggs for the 10 and 15 percent brackets. That is where we decided to place our priorities. Your attempt here is to reverse that. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the chairman of the Select Revenue Committee of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan control the remainder of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record. Mr. Speaker, we are here once again to pass the Deficit Reduction Act. The House approved it in December, but another vote is required due to technical changes made in the Senate. This bill is an important step in removing wasteful and unnecessary spending from the budget. Certainly, more can always be done, but this compromise legislation is a first step on what will be a long road of getting our mandatory spending programs under control. The Conference Report reduces the deficit by more than $35 billion over the next five years, nearly $8 billion of which falls into the Ways and Means Committee's jurisdiction. Under this Conference Report, the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, commonly known as the ``Byrd amendment,'' will be permanently repealed, after a brief two-year phase out. The Byrd amendment is not a trade remedy; it is corporate welfare which benefits very few companies and results in negative consequences for many domestic manufacturers--as recently identified by the Government Accountability Office. In addition, it is inconsistent with U.S. international trade obligations. Repealing the Byrd Amendment is the only way to end retaliation against U.S. exports resulting from this violation. This legislation will reduce wasteful federal spending by eliminating a loophole that currently allows states to claim federal matching funds for spending federal child support incentive funds. The incentive payments will continue, providing states a total of $2.4 billion over the next five years. But states won't get additional federal funds when they spend these federal bonuses, thus ending this double dipping. It is also important to note that this conference agreement maintains the current generous federal matching rate of 66 percent for child support administrative expenditures. This Conference Report would also address some of the wasteful spending in Medicare while improving quality in the program. For instance, under the legislation, Medicare will pay for service and maintenance of beneficiary-owned durable medical equipment when repairs are actually required, as opposed to current law, which pays regular service payments regardless of whether the equipment is actually serviced. The bill also allows beneficiaries to own their oxygen equipment after 36 months of rental, while still providing coverage of necessary service and maintenance of that equipment. To improve quality, the legislation includes provisions to encourage hospitals to follow evidence-based guidelines that can reduce the incidence of preventable hospital-acquired infections. To explore ways to improve cooperation between health care providers and achieve savings in the health care system, the legislation provides for six gain sharing demonstration projects. As a conferee, I intend that these projects be tested broadly in order to produce valid results and policy recommendations. Also, I intend that these projects not be limited to six individual hospitals and that hospital chains and associations are eligible to apply and participate. To ensure accurate payment for Medicare Advantage plans, the legislation codifies the phase-out of the budget neutrality factor for risk adjustments for those plans. This change will ensure that traditional fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage plans are being compared and paid accurately. This provision requires adjustments for differences in coding patterns, and the intent of that section is to include adjustments for coding that is inaccurate or incomplete for the purpose of establishing risk scores that are consistent across both fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage settings, even if such coding is accurate or complete for other purposes. Other common-sense reforms in the Medicare program will add up to billions of dollars in savings, while improving quality and service for beneficiaries. Finally, this Conference Report will extend and improve the 1996 welfare reform law for the next five years. It continues current funding for the nation's welfare to work program, despite a 60 percent welfare caseload decline since 1996. And it includes provisions encouraging more work and self-sufficiency, promoting healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood, and increasing child care funding by $1 billion over the next five years. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, once again, to support this legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume to ask a rhetorical question. If the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) voted yes on this alternative minimum tax bill yesterday he either was protecting the very rich in Massachusetts.

Mr. THOMAS. No, it is a rhetorical question.

Mr. THOMAS. Whose time is it, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. THOMAS. Either he was voting to protect the incomes of the very rich in Massachusetts or he exercised a futile procedure. There were four Members of his party who voted no. He had an opportunity, if he believed it was not real to vote no. He voted yes. The problem is they always want it both ways. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a member of the committee.