Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I will restrain myself and tell the gentleman I have no further speakers if he wishes to yield back the balance of his time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as was just discussed, Mr. Speaker, this resolution allows us to, notwithstanding the law requiring enrollment bills on parchment, to enroll any bill or joint resolution in such form as the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives certifies to be a true enrollment. That is the sum and substance of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 580 just passed, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 131) waiving certain enrollment requirements for the remainder of the One Hundred Fifth Congress with respect to any bill or joint resolution making general or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1999.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Pursuant to House Resolution 575, I announce the following suspensions to be considered today: H.R. 2675, Federal Employees Life Insurance and S. 2561, Fair Credit Reporting.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Oversight be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 577) permitting official photographs of the House of Representative to be taken while the House is in actual session, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, apparently there is a long list of people who want to get their licks in, so we apparently have only a brief period of time. The one thing that I enjoy almost as much as anything since I came to Congress with Jerry was to indicate that he is leaving with my ability to say Mr. Chairman. When we first came, we were not completely believing that we would ever, ever be able to be in the majority. It was a long difficult haul. But Jerry was key to making it happen. There are a lot of people around here who hold a lot of opinions and we never really know where they stand. Neither of those are a problem with Jerry. He believes certain things. He believes them very strongly. He will let us know exactly where he is on those issues. That means that it is a joy to work with him--if we are on the same side. If we are not, it is full combat. Since we are almost always on the same side, it has been an absolute pleasure to work with him. Just one short vignette to give my colleagues the feeling of how wonderful it has been over these last 2 decades. We were freshmen, and there were 35 of us meeting out at the Marriott for our orientation. I came late actually. I replaced a Member who had died after the primary in 1978. On my left was Dan Lundgren as a freshman Member now running for Governor of California. On my right was Jerry Solomon. Jerry leaned over and talked to Dan and said, ``Dan, I really admire you. You ought to run for freshman president.'' Dan felt pretty good, so he stood up and said I am announcing for freshman president. I did not say anything and moved to Jerry, and Jerry stood up and said ``I am announcing for freshman president.'' With Jerry, we know exactly what we get; and the saddest thing of all is we are not going to get him anymore.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am sure some people are a little bit confused about this debate, and I will try to explain why. It is kind of like in physics, where what we are discovering simply cannot be explained in the language that physicists now have. For example, you talk about matter, but because of the way the world works, they have to talk about antimatter, and it just does not seem to make sense, matter, antimatter. We just had the gentleman from Michigan in the well being forced to quote a conservative in support of what they were talking about. It is because the Democrats in their rhetoric just cannot deal with the world that the majority of Republicans have created, and that is a budget surplus. The Democrats are now arguing that it makes no sense whatsoever to adjust the Tax Code in any way until the Social Security trust fund is sound. For how long? Seventy-five years. How long was the trust fund sound every year they were in the majority, and they made tax adjustments? The answer is simple: Never. They are having difficulty dealing with a world in which the budget structure provides a surplus in which we can lay aside $1.4 trillion this year, more next year, more the year after, to save Social Security and provide people with a reasonable tax cut. The other problem they are having is criticizing our tax cut. Usually it is ``tax cuts for the rich.'' The gentleman from Maryland was in the well having to smile at the kind of tax cut Republicans are providing. People between zero and $75,000 income, that is couples, a man and a wife, say each one earns $35,000, I would not exactly call those folks rich, get 55 percent of our proposal. They are a majority of those who file taxes, but they are only about 34 percent of the revenue collected. Interestingly enough, about 34 percent of the revenue collected comes from individuals who make more than $200,000. They are getting 4 percent. So if you back away from all the particulars in this bill, which is certainly a bill for the various particular groups, sometimes we get too close to the painting and all we can see are brush strokes. Take a couple of steps back and, by and large, look what we are doing. We are moving 1 million people from having to file income taxes at all. We are moving more than 10 million people from having to fill out all of the deductions and the itemizations necessary to maximize your ability to pay fewer dollars. More than 10 million people can now move to the 1040-EZ form, one page, because we have simplified. This is not only relief to middle income, it is simplification of the Tax Code. Listen to the rhetoric. They cannot deal with the new world. Just vote yes on the chairman's proposal.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is always dangerous around here to read legislation that you are looking at, but if you were to look at the substitute that the gentleman from New York is offering, it says on the first page, line 15, ``If the Secretary of the Treasury determines that there is a Social Security surplus for any fiscal year, such Secretary shall transfer''--transfer--``during such year from the general fund of the Treasury an amount equal to the surplus to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.'' Transfer. If there is a surplus, take the money and transfer it to the Federal Reserve Bank. The Social Security surplus is to be transferred. I would ask my colleague, the gentleman from New York, if he is going to transfer Social Security surplus monies, and we have been talking about the trust fund involving billions and trillions of dollars in terms of obligations. The Congressional Budget Office, is the facility that we use to estimate the cost of legislation, therefore I would ask the gentleman from New York, does he have a cost estimate of this transfer?

Mr. THOMAS. It does not respond to a yes or no answer. I will tell the gentleman why, because the Congressional Budget Office said this has no budgetary consequence. It is an intergovernmental transfer. The gentleman's argument is they are saving the Social Security trust fund by shipping off, according to the Treasury's recommendation, an amount equal to the Social Security surplus to New York City to a Federal Reserve Bank, and that they are lockboxing, saving Social Security, removing the money so it cannot be spent and sending it to New York City. And the Congressional Budget Office, the agency we use to determine the costs of these actions, says there is no cost. There is no cost because it is an intergovernmental transfer. This is hogwash, vote no.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this, but some of the examples are just getting absolutely ridiculous. The gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) has cautioned a number of folks that they really ought to deal with a debate about the facts and not about some political rhetoric that they wish to argue. The reason we have a surplus right now is because people are paying more in income taxes, the economy is doing well, and inflation is lower than anticipated. It is always relative to what people said was going to happen. And what is happening today is that people are better off than the projections and inflation is lower. So, more money is coming in than anticipated. The Social Security trust fund does not go bankrupt until 2030. We have a few years to be prudent about the way we spend our money. And I would tell the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the $9 he counted out is not money that is in the trust fund. It is money that people paid in income taxes beyond what the government's current obligations are. The point that needs to be made repeatedly, and I know folks on the other side know it but will not admit it, but what the American people need to understand is that all 10 of those dollars are theirs. All we are proposing to do is to give them back one of them, as the gentleman indicated, and set the other nine aside for the ongoing obligation for Social Security leading toward the year 2030. Now, what we propose to do is have a surplus every year, not just this year. This is not a unique event. In 1999, in 2000, in 2001, in 2002, on and on and produce a surplus, every year. We want to make sure if we miscalculate on collecting revenue that we set aside a reasonable portion to deal with tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, till 2030. But there is no reason whatsoever why people who are overcharged by this government on their income tax cannot get a small portion of it back, whether it is the first day of a Congress or the last day of a Congress. Mr. Speaker, what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continually forget is that the money is the people's in the first place.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman have a cost estimate? Yes or no? I am asking a question. If the gentleman has a response, I would like to hear it. I have very few seconds left here. Does the gentleman have an estimate, yes or no?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 4567. He was inadvertently placed on that bill through clerical error.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to begin this by saying that everything I have heard does not sound very familiar because I know Vic Fazio, and Vic Fazio is a friend of mine. I first got to know Vic Fazio before he was in elective office. Then when he was first elected in the California Assembly, I served with him as a colleague. We were both a little bit younger then, and we actually could play basketball as an exercise. He and I have been on the opposite side of a number of issues over the years, and we both came back to Congress in the 96th Congress in 1978, he, as he was in the California Assembly, a member of the majority, and I was a member of the minority. For 16 years, that relationship continued. During the 16 years, when he was in the majority and I was in the minority, he was always fair. We could always get the straight story. He would tell us what he could and then tell us, sometimes, if he could not tell us. But if he could, he would. In this business that is as good as gold. He was and is a professional. Then in the 104th Congress something happened that probably neither he, nor I, if you really pushed me, thought would ever occur. He became a member of the minority, and I became a member of the majority. I became the chairman of a committee, and he was the ranking member, and I tried to treat him as fairly as he had treated me, and I hope he believes that in the sharing of information which was fairly volatile at the time when we were the new majority, I indicated to him that I trusted him implicitly, and of course I had no worry about that trust because he continued to carry himself as a professional. It has been a pleasure, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from California and I have not been on the same side on too many noninstitutional issues; I think on every institutional issue we have been on the same side. I had not thought that the gentleman would leave at this time. He is a valuable resource to this institution. He has decided to leave and the institution is a lesser place for it. I look forward to seeing the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) in our different capacities, Mr. Speaker, but I just want to say that, notwithstanding our inability to work together on a number of issues, our ability to work together as professionals in this body has been a very rewarding experience for me.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Southwest Defense Complex, a proposal to consolidate defense research, development, testing, evaluation, and training in the Southwest United States. This proposal links 12 bases in 5 states (California, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona) and will focus on addressing two of the challenges facing defense in the future: the use of communication technology to transfer information across great distances in order to attack efficiently and with higher success rates and the ability to use resources to their maximum in a time of decreasing defense budgets. This consolidation is vital to the future of U.S. national security and for the Department of Defense to achieve optimum use of its facilities. The Southwest is ideal for defense research and training because of the large amount of land, air, and sea space in the region. Future warfare promises to be very different from war in the past. Dependence on technology is steadily increasing; as such, the ability to manage information will be the key to battle. A futuristic attack may play out like this: knowledge about the enemy and targets to be hit are obtained from large distances. Then the armed services evaluate targets based on priority and decide what resources to use against them. Decisions about each step may be made by individuals who are thousands of miles away from each other: the soldier on the ground who obtains the information about possible targets, the commander who decides which targets to hit, and the pilot who fires the weapons. The effect of the attack can be assessed within moments and the pilot can be updated as he travels. The coming dependence on technology that provides fast, accurate transmission of information will cause the coming years to be unlike any other era in history. The Department of Defense is reevaluating how it researches, develops, and tests new technologies and trains personnel. We are developing tactics to use our superior information systems to maximize use of equipment and fighting personnel, thus decreasing costs and human risk. As technology becomes cheaper and more accessible, we must be ready to confront others with sophisticated technologies. Lastly, our need to adapt our defense strategy and structures comes at a time when our military budget is decreasing. This change makes it even more critical for the Department of Defense to find a more streamlined way to squeeze the maximum out of its resources. These challenges require our military to respond with increased integration and consolidation of research, development, testing, and training, and the Southwest provides the perfect opportunity to perform these activities. Multiple use of resources between branches of the service is necessary in order to make sure that precious resources are used to their fullest. For example, it makes much more sense to develop missiles in one place instead of in five different locations. Bases in the Southwest have already begun to share resources and cooperate in testing. Navy and Air Force facilities in California share the use of optical sensors for visual tracking of aircraft, so that each service does not have to duplicate investment. The western range bases have a common data display format so that they may easily share information. F-15 aircraft stationed at Edwards Air Force Base are flown against unmanned drones at the Naval Air Warfare Center at Pt. Mugu, both in California, so that they do not have to fly cross-country. We need to encourage the services to continue taking such efficient and cost- effective steps. This resource use is the foundation of the proposed Southwest Defense Complex and is the reason that the Complex is critically important. The Southwest provides a great deal of space to test new technology and train soldiers to use it, both of which are vital to the successful defense of our nation in the future. In order to develop technology in the most cost-effective manner, lab and field-testing need to be in close proximity to each other. Technology can then be developed, tested in the field, and sent back to the lab in order to be adapted further to the battle environment. Commercial technology can be quickly adapted to military uses in order to decrease costs. The most cost-effective way to test and train commercial technology is to have the lab that is adapting it in the vicinity of the field where it is being tested. On the human side of the operation, in order for operations to run smoothly, military personnel need to train as they expect to fight. Soldiers should practice and train maneuvers using technologies in a real-world environment. In this way, both the technology and the people that use it will be as prepared as possible for future threats to national security while utilizing military resources to their maximum. Physical space is vital to the type of testing and training just described. A single open-air test range requires nearly two million acres of open land. The Southwest is the only region of the country that offers land of this size, as well as air and sea space needed for other kinds of testing. The Southwest offers over 335 million acres of federally owned land. Over 490 thousand square miles of air space is available in the Southwest, and 484 thousand square miles of sea are open for training activities. This land can be used without the interference from civilians or substantial electromagnetic interference--both of which are a problem in the rest of the country. Climate and weather considerations are also critical to testing and training under the most efficient conditions. The Southwest's weather and climate are ideal for these purposes. For example, China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center in California has 260 clear days per year and has very low levels of atmospheric distortion. Visibility at China Lake is frequently over 100 miles and seismic activity is very low. However, there are a variety of climates in the Southwest Complex: arid deserts, cold and icy climates, and mildly humid and moist seashores. These conditions provide optimum circumstances for training and testing since the region combines a variety of climates for real-world testing with optimum weather for maximum efficiency in use of time. Thus, the Southwest offers advantages that no other area of the country can. We have large amounts of open air, land, and sea space for testing and training, particularly of new and commercially-adapted technology. We offer existing facilities with personnel with experience in sharing of equipment in order to have maximum benefits from scarce resources. These assets make the Southwest Defense Complex critical to the future of defense and national security and they allow the Department of Defense to thoroughly prepare for future threats using state-of-the-art technology while decreasing costs. This is an opportunity that the United States cannot afford to pass up. I thank my colleague, Rep. McKeon for his support of the Southwest Defense Complex. I especially want to thank those in my district who have put forth great efforts to advocate this proposal such as Steve Perez, Ken Peterson, and John McQuiston of the Kern County Board of Supervisors. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Southwest Defense Complex in order to enhance our national security for the future.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the innuendo, I believe it is completely factual to say that no Member of the House of Representatives has seen the documents. As a matter of fact, we are not going to open them until the House votes on this resolution. My assumption, having heard the minority leader and others speak, is that the resolution will pass. When the resolution passes, the box that contains the overview will be opened. The two original copies will then be copied, and those two original copies will be presented to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. They will be first to receive the copies. Only after they have received the copies will it then become available, when it is electronically possible, on the web sites listed here. It is the House web site, the Library of Congress web site, the Government Printing Office web site and the Committee on the Judiciary through the House web site. In addition to that, I would urge my colleagues to look for a ``Dear Colleague'' provided to them by the Clerk of the House, which provides an intranet capability for Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, let me also say that a request for an electronic version of the report was requested yesterday in a letter signed by the general counsel to the Office of the Speaker and the counsel of the Democratic Leader, and I include this letter for the record. The letter referred to is as follows: Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, September 10, 1998. Mr. Robert J. Bittman Deputy Independent Counsel, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Bittman: As you know, the Independent Counsel transmitted material to the House of Representatives on September 9, 1998, pursuant to section 595(c) of title 28, United States Code, involving a determination in accordance with his responsibilities under chapter 40 of title 28, United States Code. We anticipate that the House will consider a resolution authorizing the printing and public dissemination of the portion of such material consisting of approximately 445 pages comprising an introduction, a narrative, and a statement of grounds. In order to facilitate the expeditious, electronic dissemination of such material, we hereby request on behalf of the Speaker and Minority Leader that copies of such material be provided to the Clerk of the House in a suitable electronic format (i.e., computer diskette, CD-ROM, etc.). We further request that such electronic copies be made available to the Clerk within the timeframe necessary to facilitate electronic dissemination by the Clerk immediately after the House approves the anticipated resolution. Sincerely, Daniel F.C. Crowley, General Counsel, Office of the Speaker. Bernard Raimo, Counsel, Office of the Democratic Leader. I would also like to indicate that when the President's rebuttal through his private attorney or any other transmittal is made to the Committee on House Oversight, we will, as soon as possible, and if it is given to us in electronic form, virtually immediately post on all of these web sites on the same page the President's rebuttal. Not only will it be fundamental fairness, but it will be an ability for those who wish to access this site to take a look at the Independent Counsel's report and then, when the President or his attorney's report is made available to us in electronic form, it will be made available as well. I hope Members will appreciate and in fact all Americans appreciate that this will be the most widely disseminated, most rapidly available public document in the history of the United States.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce three bills which will reform the Endangered Species Act and restore sensibility and reasonableness to a system that has run amok. Each bill is targeted toward narrow problems of the Endangered Species Act. The Fair Process Reform bill will ensure open and equal access to information relied upon by Federal agencies when making decisions on endangered species. Perhaps the single worst complaint I have heard about the current Federal system is that the people who are directly affected by government decisions and bear the burden and cost of compliance are left out of the decision process. From their point of view it is ``taxation without representation''. Landowners are now stuck with paying the cost of preserving species; yet, they do not have access to the same information held by the Federal government and their input is ignored. My bill includes provisions for an open access to the public for scientific studies and underlying study data. It also replaces the secret listing process with an open hearing so landowners can participate in the decision making process, and landowner representatives can cross-examine agency personnel and experts. My bill also includes provisions to improve the scientific basis of government decisions such as a minimal information requirements for petitioners, peer review of multiple scientific studies used to support listing or government action, and economic impact analysis of its actions required for listings. The Fair Land Management Reform bill will ensure that the government pays for obligations it imposes on landowners. This bill includes a provision to compensate landowners for significant government takings. Rural landowners like farmers bear most of the burden for protecting species that society wants to protect; yet, these landowners are the least able to bear that burden. It has become too easy for so-called environmentalists to make ``someone else pay'' for environmental causes. It's time for society to step up and pay for environmental causes. It's time for society to step up and pay for what it wants. I also include a provision that limits the mitigation requirements that can be imposed by government. Without proof of any actual species on the land, the Federal government can and does routinely require a landowner to ``mitigate'' for land use by purchasing other land to relocate or otherwise create habitat for species. Often, several acres of land must be bought for every one acre a landowner wants to use. It doesn't stop there. A landowner must often manage the new ``biology project'' for the government by putting up fences and hiring biologists for years to look after the habitat. My bill would limit how much mitigation the government can require. The Liability Reform bill will stop unfair government penalties against landowners. Rural landowners are frustrated enough at having their lands confiscated for government use. it adds insult to injury when no species are even on the land, yet the government continues to impose these onerous burdens and even the threat of penalties of landowners. Criminal and civil penalties should be limited to actual and intentional takings of an endangered species, not accidental or hypothetical ones. Moreover, if the government knows of a violation occurring, it should warn landowners and give the opportunity to correct the violation through mitigation or repair. My bill includes provisions to do this. My bill also includes ``Safe harbor'' and ``No surprises'' provisions to end the string of broken promises and added obligations put on landowners by the government. The Endangered Species Act needs to be reformed now. My bills are a fair and balanced response to the tragic failures of the current system. I look forward to presenting my bills at House hearings and rapid passage of these bills.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address an issue of paramount and long-term importance to California and the nation--Official English legislation. Nothing unites a people as effectively as a common language; it is especially important when members of society, often immigrants, do not necessarily share a common heritage. The common ground which language provides has led many nations to declare an official language. The fact that America does not have an official language makes us unique among the world's leading nations. At the same time, the United States does have a common language, English. This dichotomy results in today's Americans being subjected to a barrage of language issues. For California, bilingual education is immensely important. There are 1\1/2\ million California school children whose primary language is not English. These children need to be equipped with the absolutely essential skill of English fluency while they are at a young age and are more naturally able to learn language. It is important that the education program functions efficiently and successfully to fully integrate non-English speaking children into an English-speaking society as quickly as possible. Without this basic skill, these children will most likely remain outside mainstream society, politics, and the economy. The bilingual education policy began in the 1970's with good intentions but has become a failure. Only 6.7% of limited English students going to school in California have been mainstreamed into English Only classrooms. California voters passed Proposition 227 last June by an overwhelming \2/3\ of the vote. Proposition 227 replaces the current system that allows a slow phasing in of English into one where the curriculum supports a faster one-year English immersion program. Such a program is designed to teach children English as quickly as possible in order to help them open doors of opportunity and reach their full potential in an English speaking society. Besides failing students, the bilingual education program is also costly. The California Department of Education reports that limited English proficiency programs received nearly $3 million in special funding, over and above the base funding amount of $5,000 per student in 1997. The same amount of public funds could have paid a year's tuition at UCLA for almost one thousand students! With similar goals to fundamentally reform bilingual education programs on a federal level, H.R. 3892 is expected to be considered by the House this fall. This bill, known as the English Language Fluency Act, would give parents the authority to refuse enrollment or remove their child from a bilingual education program; give states, municipalities, and schools the power to create individualized English language instruction programs specific to community needs; and create accountability measures to ensure federal funding is given only to programs which are effective in teaching English to children. By these measures, H.R. 3892 hopes to reform a failing bilingual education program. Bilingual Education has failed those it was intended to help. It has been costly to taxpayers, has hurt those children who want to be fully prepared to take part in America's economy, and has forced us to lower our standards in education. Official English legislation would provide a means to deal with these and other English issues. More importantly, establishing English as the official language of the United States sends a powerful message to all Americans and those wishing to become American citizens. Designating English as the nation's language makes it clear that proficiency in this common language is absolutely critical for those who wish to fully participate in America's unlimited economic and social opportunities. I believe this legislation may go a long way in helping us achieve these goals.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the achievement of a group of young people in my District. On the weekend of August 22, 1998 in Purcellville, Virginia, the Bakersfield Southwest baseball team completed a remarkable season and captured the 16-year-old Babe Ruth World Series championship. We are thrilled with the great feats accomplished by this Bakersfield Southwest team. In the past four years, the Southwest team posted an amazing 55-4 record in the Babe Ruth league. In this year's World Series, Bakersfield was undefeated in winning the championship, which included a pair of two-hitters and a masterful shutout in the finale. Bakersfield Southwest also became the first team to win back-to-back World Series championships in their age group! All of this was done in a particularly special year for Babe Ruth baseball since 1998 is the 50th anniversary of the Babe's death. But amidst all of these accomplishments, I am most proud of this team for the dedication and effort that they put into winning this second title. After winning the first, day in and day out, this team worked to correct mistakes and enhance skills. When I think of the way this team worked together, I remember the words of the immortal Babe Ruth: ``The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club won't be worth a dime.'' Bakersfield Southwest had its collection of individual stars, but the team worked together, maximizing its many strengths. In all their effort and hard work, they epitomized the great American pastime we call baseball; they worked together, played together, and had fun together. I am sure that the skill and determination exhibited by this team will carry over to make them winners in life as well. I would like to express my appreciation to Manager Dave Hillis for guiding this team, as well as Coaches Bob Soto, Ben Bradford, Mark Parker, and Ken Miller for all their fine work. Most importantly, I would also like to congratulate Spencer Bailey, Brian Bock, Clint Bradford, Tommy Brast, Travis Hamlin, Tony Hillis, Shaine Jensen, Darrin Levinson, Derick Martin, Ryan Mask, Soctt Mawson, Todd Sachs, Sean Sorrow, Ty Soto, Brent Warren, and Josh Wyrick for an outstanding season and a string of masterful years in the Babe Ruth League. Although I did not dye my hair blonde as was the team's trademark, I, like many others from my District, salute Bakersfield Southwest and thank the team for representing Bakersfield with extreme honor, dignity, and sportsmanship.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 2183, pursuant to House Resolution 442, which will be the first order of business tomorrow, that the amendments described in this unanimous consent request, that is, the substitute by Mr. Tierney, would be debated for 40 minutes; by Mr. Farr for 40 minutes; by Mr. Doolittle for 40 minutes; by Mr. Obey for 40 minutes; by Mr. Hutchinson for 60 minutes; that there be no amendments to those substitutes; and that would conclude campaign reform.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, would all of the Members for just a minute return with me to 1770? This is not the District of Columbia, it belongs to the State of Maryland. We operate under the Articles of Confederation, and a ship that moves along the Potomac stops in Maryland and has a set of rules. It crosses the river, and it has an entirely different set of rules, because the States set the rules. The gentleman who spoke earlier said, let the people decide. Excuse me? They did, in 1789. They said, ``We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union.'' We all agreed to form a more perfect union. Part of those rules are, in Article I, Section 8, ``The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States.'' When we deal with foreign nations in Article II, it is done by treaties. It says, ``The President shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties.'' We are dealing with an international organization which the United States relates to through treaty. The WTO cannot make the United States do anything the United States, or a subunit, does not want to do. Let us look at the tenth amendment: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved respectively to the people.'' Foreign relations by treaty, the people of the United States said belong to the Nation. These Members are talking about returning to the Articles of Confederation, and I cannot believe the gentleman from Vermont quoted a number of States, including the author of this amendment, that had people fight and die to preserve this Union. Take a look at the Constitution, I say to the Members, if they have not looked at it recently. What they are advocating is the failure to honor the specific language of Article I, Article II, and the tenth amendment. The preamble is not binding, but it starts out, ``We, the people.'' The decision was made a long time ago. This is an absolutely ridiculous amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, no, I do not have time to yield. I do not even have enough time to go through the points that I think absolutely need to be made. If my colleagues will examine what they are asking to do, contrary to current law, is to poll. They use the term ``sampling.'' Sampling is polling. It is creating a piece and then extrapolating to the whole. Their argument is that is more accurate than counting. Have we had infallible counts in the past? No. Are we bound and determined to do a good job? Yes. Is there disagreement right now? Yes. Will we have more information in February and March? Yes. Should we make a decision now? No. When we take a look at polling, sampling simply fills in the blanks. Probably my colleagues saw Jurassic Park, in which they had most of the DNA code, but they had to fill in the blanks with what they thought was the appropriate profile on the DNA code. What these people are asking us to do is to count some Americans and then fill in the rest. But it is more insidious than that, because sampling does not just do that. It is not like normal polling, where they take a random sample and assume the universe from that random sample. What they actually are going to do is count people and then not count them. They are going to replace people who have actually been counted with virtual people that the statisticians make up. And that is not political? Let me talk about politics. We created a bipartisan census oversight board to assist us in trying to come to a very difficult, very complex constitutional decision. Guess who they appointed? They appointed a fellow by the name of Tony Coehlo. A lot of people do not know Tony Coehlo. In 1988, a book was written by Brooks Jackson, who was then a Wall Street Journal reporter, called Honest Graft. What he did was follow Tony Coehlo around for a year and then wrote a book about what he saw. He says in the introduction, ``Congressman Tony Coehlo runs a modern- day political machine, a sort of new Tammany Hall, in which money and pork barrel legislation have become the new patronage.'' Tony Coehlo did it better than anyone else. He moved rapidly through the ranks of Democratic leadership, became Majority Whip; and then in the words of those famous poet songwriters, Paul Simon & Garfunkel, he was ``one step ahead of the shoe shine, two steps away from the county line; he was just trying to keep his customers satisfied, satisfied.'' He resigned from the House of Representatives. He is the one that they chose out of everybody in the world to be the key person on this oversight board. Talk about politics. What the chairman is advocating in this proposal, fund it for a year, fence it for the last 6 months, get better information, and then make a solid constitutional decision is exactly the right thing to do. Vote down the Mollohan amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the only way in which anyone can have a disagreement on the question of the census is that Republicans are purely political and the Democrats take the usual high moral ground, they are right and we are wrong. That is interesting. I love the quote about ``telling the truth is a political, not a moral matter,'' which was in today's Washington Post, and I think that sums up a lot of the response of my colleagues on the Democratic side. We are playing politics, they are not. The Chief of Staff sent a letter saying, ``There is no need for a Government shutdown. But if there is one, it will be because Republicans have either not done their job on time and finished the budget or have decided to short-change critical investments in our Nation's future.'' The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) clearly outlined the President's position. That is, he wants to shut the entire Department of Commerce, Department of State, Department of Justice down over this vote. Now, I can understand why he wants to shut down the Federal Judiciary. We know that when he reappointed Janet Reno that the Department of Justice was pretty well shut down. But clearly, the Department of State, the first department created, that department which deals with international relations, ought to at least extend the full year given the President's emphasis on international relations. Now his statement and White House Chief of Staff Bowles' is not a political statement that he wants to shut those down for 6 months. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) I am sure offers a well-intentioned amendment. If you have read it carefully, what it does is it locks in the sampling position. Why does he have to lock it in in his amendment? Because, frankly, the Constitution is on our side, the laws are on our side, history and precedent are on our side. But, no, the Democrats cannot make this an argument over the Constitution, article I, section 2; it has to be about race baiting, it has to be about political advantage. It is not possible that Republicans believe the Constitution says what it says.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the order of the House just adopted be elaborated as follows: In consideration of H.R. 2183, pursuant to House Resolution 442, (1) no further amendment shall be in order except those amendments described in this request, which may be offered only in the order stated and shall not be subject to amendment; and (2) the additional period of general debate prescribed under House Resolution 442 shall not exceed the time stated for each amendment in this request, and each amendment shall not otherwise be debatable. The amendments described in this request are amendments in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII and numbered: 15, Mr. Tierney, 40 minutes; 7, Mr. Farr of California, 40 minutes; 5, Mr. Doolittle, 40 minutes; 4, Mr. Obey, 40 minutes; and 8, Mr. Hutchinson, 60 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. That is correct. There are clear limits in the law on what individuals can give to political parties. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) who has made enormous contributions to the House's ability to weigh options in the area of campaign finance reform, one of the principal authors of the underlying bill which Shays-Meehan hopes to substitute for and we hope it does not, the major sponsor of the freshman coalition bill.