Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thought it was a request unanimously to speak out of order.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the exchange, but go ahead.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I could not hear you nor the exchange. What has occurred?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if we would listen to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly), who just spoke, what we would have to believe is that the business world did not exist prior to the invention of the Internal Revenue Tax Code; that corporations offer health care only because they get a tax deduction; without the tax deduction, there would be no compassion on the part of the owner to the worker; and that all of the complications that a CEO would have to deal with, in fact jeopardizing their job, are essential to running a business. What in the world did business do before there was an Internal Revenue Service?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell you about a child in my congressional district in Bakersfield, California who is battling chest and lung cancer at the young age of eleven. His name is Trevor Olson. Trevor's parents, John and Karen, and younger brother and sister, Taylor and Leanne, have been a special source of love and support during this ordeal. However, it is Trevor's courage and heroism that provide an example to all of the people that know him and learn his story, that even the youngest of us can respond to extraordinary circumstances with bravery. I believe this young American's story needs to be shared. On June 13th the people of Bakersfield will respond to Trevor's battle by granting a wish Trevor has had for a long time. That wish is to ride in a race car. Hospice, a local health-care clinic for the critically ill, and Young-Woolridge, a local law firm, will sponsor the televised event. Gary Collins, an internationally known race car driver, will drive Trevor. I am pleased that Hospice, an organization known for their compassion and assistance to those who are critically ill, is the organizer of this event. To Trevor, we all hope as your wish comes true, that it is everything you dreamt it would be. God bless you.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on July 2nd, the United States will lose 30 years of defense research experience and program management skills when Mr. Sterling Haaland, the Executive Director of the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, takes retirement. His knowledge and experience are going to be sorely missed. If you consider the measure of our nation's ability to defend us to be an ability to accurately deliver force, Sterling Haaland's work stands out. His expertise and accomplishments have produced more accurate weapons systems, better flight software for pilots and state of the art facilities for weapons development and testing at the Navy's China Lake and Pt. Mugu ranges into the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division. More than senior executive, program manager or researcher, Sterling Haaland's work embodies the skill and dedication this country has come to depend on getting from its defense professionals in times of crisis. When called upon to ensure our troops in Desert Storm had the best equipment we could provide, Haaland's organization made critical improvements to the AIM-9M Sidewinder missile, adapted the HARM anti- radar missile to Persian Gulf conditions, adjusted fuzes, missiles and bomb subsystems to meet new conditions and delivered improved electronic warfare systems to Navy and Marine pilots. The legacy Sterling Haaland leaves behind him is one of accomplishment. A new generation of professionals is assuming the responsibilities he has carried. His example and the premier defense research organization he leaves behind are blueprints his successors will be able to follow in keeping the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, in the forefront of defense technology development and testing.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. from the Committee on House Oversight, reported that that committee did on this day present to the President, for his approval, a bill of the House of the following title: H.R. 824. An act to redesignate the Federal building located at 717 Madison Place, NW., in the District of Columbia, as the ``Howard T. Markey National Courts Building.''

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, last month we observed Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Week, seven days set aside to honor the courageous men and women who gave their lives protecting us and upholding the law. Last month, I was proud to vote for House Resolution 422 which states that law enforcement officers who have died in the line of duty should be honored, recognized, and remembered for their great sacrifice. Today I rise to help pay tribute to the law enforcement officers who died while serving Bakersfield, California. With all of the advances that have been made in the field of American law enforcement this century, one sad and sobering fact remains the same: police officers are often killed in the line of duty. On May 15, the Bakersfield Police Department dedicated a monument to honor the law enforcement officers who sacrificed their lives for the safety and well-being of the people of Bakersfield over the past century. Of great men, Ralph Waldo Emerson once said ``brave men who work while others sleep, who dare while others fly . . . they build a nation's pillars deep and lift them to the sky.'' The names which have been etched on this memorial will be an eternal reminder of the seven brave men who lost their lives daring to protect the people of Bakersfield. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I pay tribute to the law enforcement officials in Bakersfield who died in the line of duty: T.J. Packard, Frank Sparks, Aaron A. Trent, Floyd B.D.W. Cummings, William L. Rucker, Patrick D. Vegas, and William L. Sikola. The somber black granite monument will be a lasting tribute to these individuals who put the safety of the community ahead of their own. I am proud to live in a town which has chosen to honor its fallen police officers in such a fitting and lasting manner.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), another member of the freshman class.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 2 minutes. We have heard the general debate on campaign reform; and true to form, it is an attempt to move the discussion to class warfare and righteous indignation. I would like to bring some of the fundamentals in focus, if I might. We have heard a piece of legislation referred to on our side of the aisle as Shays/Meehan. We have heard that same legislation referred to on the other side of the aisle as Meehan/Shays. I think that pretty well sums up how significant the substance is. These people are so desperate in terms of the need to package this in a way that, their reform, that they actually reverse the name of the legislation. In that CRS booklet that I provided my colleagues, I do apologize to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is listed as Shays. He is the principal author. It is Shays/Meehan. But we will hear them repeatedly say Meehan/Shays. So much for substance. This is all about style on their part. We are concerned about the First Amendment, and we guarantee it will be protected. For those of my colleagues who do not have the CRS copy, I am pleased to announce that by the end of business today, for those on the web, the cite is www.house.gov/cho. That is www.house.gov/cho for the Internet copy of the Congressional Research Service's factual analysis of the various substitutes that will be in front of us. Madam Chairman, I look forward to a substantive debate over the specifics of these issues, especially in regard to the constitutionality of the measures that we will be looking at.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), who has been involved extensively in the area of campaign finance reform.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), a member of the Committee on House Oversight.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to a freshman, the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northrup), someone who has just recently been on the front lines.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Chairman, someone earlier made the statement that they saw an educational ad and it did not play by ``our rules.'' The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), is obviously sincere in offering his package, and we will look at it in more detail later, and he is proud to say that it has spending limits in the bill. If my colleagues will recall my opening comments about the concern that we have to have in passing legislation in which the Supreme Court has already rendered an opinion, my colleagues will recall that in Buckley v. Valeo the Court sustained contribution limits that were in the 1971 law, but it held unconstitutional the expenditure limits, and yet we still continue to try to go down that path. The gentleman from California said that, in terms of millionaires spending their own money, we ought to tell them that they should not be able to do it. I remind my colleagues that the Court has said that that is supposed to be a fundamental first amendment right. I will also remind my colleagues that the Farr bill has a severability clause. That means that if the Court rules one portion of it unconstitutional, the rest of it will stand. In other words, if he believes he has crafted a careful, comprehensive plan and the Court throws out a portion of it, what we wind up having is the same situation we are in today. What the Congress wanted, if, in fact, that is what Congress wants, will be done only in piecemeal, hit-and-miss fashion. As we look at these various proposals, look to see whether they have severability. Look to see if they address what we should be doing under constitutional amendments in a statutory form when we are running directly into the face of the Supreme Court saying certain aspects of people involved in expressing their own positions politically have a guarantee under the first amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the freshman bipartisan group.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), a Member who has been involved in this for some time.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), one of the authors of a major substitute that we will be looking at later in the process.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, how much time does the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) have remaining?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, frankly, as a Member of this side of the aisle, to say that the President said we should take this money away from veterans certainly is no reason to do so as far as I am concerned.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee has indicated that he is not supporting this piece of legislation. I heard my colleague say that this is a social safety net. Well, what we need to know that just got paved over are low-income, disabled veterans who had a funding in this bill. It was only $500 million, but it was a chance to create a permanent program for low- income, disabled veterans to get what we said they deserve. Mr. Speaker, the reason I wanted to enter into a colloquy is that if they are not allowed to use the tobacco money, is it not true that there are a number of excess acres and VA sites around the country, my understanding is, on Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills? How ironic that this land is not being used for the veterans, but they want to preserve it for a greenbelt, and yet we are taking veterans' money to pave over areas for highways. Would the Chairman look at the excess acreage in veterans' holdings to try to provide money for long-term care for veterans?