Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Select Revenue Subcommittee, and ask unanimous consent that Mr. Camp control the remainder of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 588, I call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Well, I guess we are going to be telling Christmas stories. Rather than fiction, I would rather deal with fact. Yesterday 414 Members of the House voted to assist a group who, on average, are far richer than those who receive dividends and cap gains. There were four no votes. All four of them were on the Democratic side of the aisle. And I respect those people for casting what I believe was a sincere vote. But out of the 188 Democrats who voted aye, I just have to point out that my friend who just finished speaking, who is on the Ways and Means Committee, protesting the amount in this vote, voted aye. Some of the other folks, just let me run down the list alphabetically, which tends to touch on Lowey, Lynch, Maloney, Markey, you heard him, Marshall, Matheson, Matsui, McCarthy, McCollum, McDermott, all of them voted to assist those individuals in this society that are far richer, on average, than many of those seniors who, investing prudently over the years, receive dividends and capital gains on their investment in deferred consumption that they need, in their senior years. So as we listen to the rhetoric and the term ``millionaire'' is repeated over and over again by my friends on the other side of the aisle, it begins to be a question of whose millionaire are they talking about. If one is a millionaire in Massachusetts, it seems, we want to protect them. If one is a millionaire in New York, we want to protect them. At some point the rhetoric, the fiction, has to be compared to the truth. The truth is 188 Democrats, every Democrat member of the Ways and Means Committee, voted to assist people yesterday that are far richer on average than the individuals who receive dividends and cap gains. That is not a Christmas story. That is the truth.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? I thought the gentlewoman from New York indicated she had one final speaker, and that final speaker spoke, Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. THOMAS. I was asking the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. THOMAS. Notwithstanding the equal time, Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman says it is a final speaker, we normally honor that.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that does not deserve the kind of rhetoric that is being delivered so far, at least that which I have heard on the rule. This bill consists of extending current tax provisions. It virtually breaks no new ground. It merely retains those structures supported in committee, for example, in a bipartisan way, to allow people to continue to utilize current tax privileges. I have a hard time when I listen to the rhetoric associated with the description of this bill when one of the provisions, for example, is the authority to issue qualified zone academy bonds for school modernization, equipment in high-poverty areas. I cannot believe my colleagues on the other side of the line are opposed to that. Above- the-line deduction for higher education expenses, in opposing this bill, I guess they are opposed to that. Continue the deduction for State and local sales taxes due to expire, I guess they are opposed to that. I could go through and point out a number of items. For example, the work opportunity tax credits for hiring individuals who face barriers to employment, in addition to the extension. The age limit for eligible food stamp recipients is increased from 25 to 35. Maybe they are opposed to that. I guess when we go through and examine these various provisions, if those are items that are reserved for the rich, the millionaires and the privileged, I guess I just do not understand it. But they are required to attack any bill that allows Americans to hang on to their own hard-earned money. That is just kind of fundamental, I guess. My concern is if they are going to produce the kind of rhetoric they are producing on a piece of tax legislation which simply extends current law, what are they going to do when we have to rethink the way in which we tax people today to make sure that we do not destroy the economic engine in this country that produces the quality of life-style for each and every American? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is not aware that the Senate has included the alternative minimum tax in their reconciliation tax package. They have already voted on it. So there is no need to provide any assurance from the House side, because the Senate has already included it. But, again, that is reality. The economy is not good because the President told us so. Leading economic indicators tell us so: the unemployment numbers, the productivity numbers. The real problem with my friends on the other side of the aisle is that if reality does not coincide with their rhetoric, they choose rhetoric rather than reality. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) to explain to the gentleman from Washington that it is not a zero sum game that is what has made the American standard of living.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, actually, I do not need 12 minutes, I only need 10 seconds. This bill is a----

Mr. THOMAS. No.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, who has the time?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the gentleman from New York wants to make sure you do not hear this. As I said, you do not need 12 minutes to say this: If you vote ``yes'' for the Democrat substitute, you are increasing taxes over 5 years by $40 billion. That is the single largest tax increase since they were in the majority in 1993.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I do not need to mention yesterday or the 414 who voted to fix this problem. I would tell my friend from New York that you only need 60 votes outside of a reconciliation to pass this. But I do want to mention 1985. The Tax Reform Act of 1985, under their watch, said this: ``Other regular tax itemized deductions such as those for State and local taxes paid and for certain investment expenses, are not allowed for minimum tax purposes.'' I assume they did that knowingly. They were the ones who did it. In 1993, they passed the largest tax increase on the American people and had a chance to adjust it again then. I will say that we have made progress today. This is an appropriate motion to recommit. It does not kill the bill. The gentleman from Massachusetts said this is about upper income groups. In fact, there was an editorial recently that said it is between the rich and the very rich. But I do want to mark the landmark comment of the gentleman from Massachusetts who said this was about middle income people. And on page 2 of the motion to recommit, ``For purposes of this paragraph, the term `threshold amount' means $100,000 and $200,000 in the case of a joint return.'' So $200,000 is now middle income. I believe that is correct. They are the ones who have always said those are the very rich. Now, the other thing you need to understand, it is this business of how many people are going to fall under the alternative minimum tax. Do you know why? The reason, in 1994 that there were so few people who fell under the alternative minimum tax is because the regular tax was so high. What has happened in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 we have driven down the rates. And because we have lower taxes, there are more people who fall under the alternative minimum tax. Do we need to address it? Of course. But the vote today is far more fundamental than that. This vote, if you vote yes, gives money to rich people to spend on consumption. Surely, you know that pure consumption does not move the economy very much. What they want to do is deny people the opportunity to invest and to save to supply fuel to the engine of the economy so we can continue with the lowest unemployment rate and the highest productivity rate than we have seen in years. This vote is very simple. A yes vote, consumption, not much bang for the buck. A no vote, investment and savings and a lot of bang for the buck. Vote no on reconciliation, yes on the bill. If we have limited dollars to spend, spend them for the highest and best purpose.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Economic Opportunity Commission of San Luis Obispo County (EOC), which will be celebrated on December 9th. I would like to congratulate the board members, staff and volunteers of the EOC for all they have accomplished and wish them well as they continue to serve the residents of San Luis Obispo and nine other counties in California. The EOC is a private, nonprofit public benefit community action agency (CAA) that was designated by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors as the CAA for the County in December 1965. The EOC strives to address and alleviate poverty in San Luis Obispo County, in part through community-based programs designed to help individuals and families develop the skills needed to enhance their stability and economic independence. In addition, the EOC also uses strong community partnerships with churches, county government, and other service providers to assist the local community. I appreciate the assistance the EOC provides to the residents of San Luis Obispo County. Its Board of Commissioners, employees, and volunteers are to be commended for their efforts, which have helped thousands of people over the past 40 years. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the EOC as they celebrate their 40th anniversary.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following correspondence for the Record. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, November 17, 2005. Hon. Michael G. Oxley, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Oxley: I am writing concerning H.R. 4337, the ``Gulf Opportunity Zone Public Finance Relief Act of 2005,'' which passed the House last night by unanimous consent. Section 4 of the bill allows for the Federal guarantee of certain State bonds. I recognize the Committee on Financial Service's jurisdictional interest in Section 4 of the bill, and agree that by allowing the bill to be passed, the Committee on Financial Services does not relinquish any jurisdiction over H.R. 4337 or similar legislation. I would also support your request to be represented on a conference on H.R. 4337, if one should become necessary. Finally, I will include this letter and your response in the Congressional Record under the portion for floor consideration of this measure. Best regards, Bill Thomas, Chairman. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC, November 17, 2005. Hon. William Thomas, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Thomas: I have received your letter concerning H.R. 4337, the ``Gulf Opportunity Zone Public Finance Relief Act of 2005,'' which the House passed last night. The bill was also introduced yesterday and was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. I appreciate your recognition that the Committee on Financial Services has a jurisdictional interest in section 4 of the bill. This section allows for the Federal guarantee of certain State bonds. However, I understand that the need to move this bill expeditiously did not permit consideration of the bill by this Committee. It is my understanding this procedure will not prejudice the Committee on Financial Services with respect to its prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I appreciate your support for a request for conferees from this Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference. I hope that this exchange of correspondence will appear in the Congressional Record. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Your truly, Michael G. Oxley, Chairman.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to finally bring this bill to the floor because it puts a closing note on what was to a very great extent my upbringing in California with personal friends through the 40s and the 50s. In addition to that, I had the honor and pleasure of serving in the California Assembly with Floyd Mori. As was mentioned by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), Norm Mineta and Bob Matsui, and Floyd were Nisei, American born, first generation. Their parents are known as Issei, those who came over from Japan. Their grandchildren are Sansei. And it does mark a period in our history where native-born American citizens were in essence rounded up. I got to know it personally, but as I went through school and I went through constitutional law classes and looked at Korematsu v. United States, I realized that the majority's opinion in Korematsu was written by Justice Hugo Black, who is known probably as one of the premier First Amendment-freedom Justices on the Court; and it underscored the extent that this concept permeated American society. I am very, very grateful to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and his committee that voted this bill out unanimously, notwithstanding the fact that we have created a separate fund which will help pay for, in a public-private match, to preserve what is rapidly slipping away since these internment camps were for obvious reasons in rural areas across mostly western United States. I am most familiar with Manzanar which is in Inyo County, and I have represented Inyo County for more than a decade in the Congress. And we were able to preserve that in a location fairly close to Southern California. But in working with my friend and former colleague, Floyd Mori, in looking at where these locations are in Utah, Wyoming, other States, we realized that just the ongoing growth and partial urbanization of these areas would forever cover up these particular sites. It is not so much that I think people are ashamed of them. I think they are principally ignorant of them. And whether it is desire to forget out of knowledge or ignorance, neither one is acceptable. So I am very pleased that Leadership has allowed us to move today a very modest approach, quite rightly unifying public and private where appropriate under what circumstances, working with those people who are in the area, and in some instances Indian tribes, to allow those who are still alive and have memories to pass them on to the young ones. And for those of us who take trips across the country to visit sites, there are several different reasons, but probably first and foremost is that great people, and I believe Americans are great people, can make mistakes. What you need to do is admit it and remember it and do not make it again. And for that reason it is very fulfilling that this bill is before us. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1492. I greatly appreciate the House's consideration of this important legislation as well as the assistance Chairman Pombo, Representatives Doris Matsui, Mike Honda, and Devin Nunes have provided to develop it and bring it to the floor today. Very simply, this legislation is a modest effort to provide the structure and resources necessary for citizens, schools, communities, and others to undertake projects in order to preserve and interpret an aspect of American history that many, quite frankly, would much prefer to ignore or never know. Nations, as do people, have the opportunity to recognize their mistakes and use the lessons learned from those mistakes to improve themselves. However, to do so, the mistake must not only be recognized, the lesson must be learned and remembered. The United States of America has recognized the terrible mistake it made between 1942 and 1945, when pursuant to Executive Order 9066, over 120,000 Japanese Americans were forcibly removed from their homes and detained in government assembly and then relocation centers. Moreover, this mistake taught the United States that racial prejudice and wartime hysteria do not justify the denial of human dignity and the fundamental freedoms afforded by the U.S. Constitution. Thus, the legislation before the House today is designed to help ensure the United States and, more importantly, its citizens, never forget the lesson learned from this mistake. Those who do not know the facts of this aspect of American history are undoubtedly quite surprised to learn that the U.S. Government, while rightly fighting to preserve freedom throughout the world, on March 2, 1942, wrongly declared over 100 areas in the States of Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington as ``prohibited areas'' to those of Japanese ancestry. While thousands of people voluntarily moved out of these prohibited areas, thousands more who wanted to voluntarily leave the prohibited areas could not, either because their assets had been frozen at the beginning of the war or because other States were unwilling to accept them as residents. On March 24, 1942, the U.S. Army began to evacuate residents of the prohibited areas; the evacuees included newborns, children, even those who had been adopted by non-Japanese parents, and the elderly. Sadly, those being evacuated were given just 6 days notice and, as they could only take those items the family could carry, were forced to dispose of nearly all of their possessions, often for ridiculously small sums. In addition, and of particular importance in California, people were not given the opportunity to harvest their crops; in fact, the only act of ``sabotage'' by a Japanese-American occurred when a farmer plowed his strawberry crop under when his request for the opportunity to harvest it was denied. As they waited to be transported to one of 10 ``relocation centers,'' the evacuees were temporarily housed in 17 assembly centers in Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington, 12 of which were in California. One of those 12 was located at the Tulare County Fairgrounds in Tulare, CA, which I formerly represented. The assembly centers were surrounded by barbed wire fences, which were patrolled by military police, and consisted of hastily constructed military barracks, with separate communal bathrooms and dining halls. However, thousands of people, including 8,500 at Santa Anita alone, lived in horse stables at the Santa Anita and Tanforan assembly centers in California. By the end of October, the evacuees were moved by train into one of the following 10 relocation centers or internment sites: Jerome and Rohwer in Arkansas; Colorado River--Poston--and Gila River in Arizona; Tule Lake and Manzanar in California; Granada in Colorado; Minidoka in Idaho; Heart Mountain in Wyoming; and Central Utah--Topaz. Like the assembly centers, the relocation centers were surrounded by barbed wire fences but also had guard towers. The centers were designed to be self- contained and self-sustaining communities, and like the assembly centers, they primarily featured barracks-type housing. In addition, the relocation centers were dusty, muddy, and often subject to extreme temperatures. Finally, the use of the Japanese language was restricted. In December 1944, the U.S. Government announced the relocation centers would be closed within a year. While nine closed before the end of 1945, Tule Lake was not closed until May 1946 because it continued to hold those who had renounced their U.S. citizenship. Unfortunately but not surprisingly, the Government provided only minimal assistance to those who it had wrongfully detained as they left the centers to rebuild their lives. As I have stated, the U.S. Government has admitted its mistake in this instance. It has sought to make some degree of recompense to those evacuated by paying reparations and issuing a formal apology; a memorial has been constructed in Washington, DC, within sight of the Capitol. In addition, six of the relocation centers are listed on the National Register, Manzanar and the cemetery at Rowher are National Historic Landmarks, and Minidoka is a National Monument. As a result of legislation--P.L. 102-248-- I cosponsored and worked with my former colleague Representative Mel Levine to enact, Manzanar, which I formerly represented, has been established as a National Historic Site. With regard to the assembly centers, seven, including the one in Tulare, do not have some form of marker or plaque to remind future generations of our past wrong. While the legislation before the House today certainly is designed to authorize the funding necessary to facilitate projects that involve bricks and mortar--for example, the construction of a museum at Granada or the stabilization of a hospital chimney at Heart Mountain--its intent is not to completely reconstruct or restore the infrastructure at every relocation site or assembly center for the sake of show and tell. Rather, the legislation is designed to be as flexible as possible in recognition of the wide differences in the current conditions at the pertinent sites of historic significance, as well as to allow for grantees to conduct a wide variety of projects in many different forms to ensure the lesson taught by the sites is preserved forever. For instance, a project could be as simple as a citizens' group buying and placing a plaque on a stable; another could involve an effort by students to collect, preserve, and interpret the memories of surviving evacuees, a generation we are rapidly losing. This flexibility is necessary and recognizes that the only common thread that binds the sites related to the confinement of Japanese- Americans is Executive Order 9066. As with each of the 50 States, which are bound together by the U.S. Constitution, each of the sites has its own unique history and characteristics. Thus, the preservation projects needed that would be undertaken with monies authorized under H.R. 1492 necessarily must be unique to the individual sites. The legislation provides the U.S. Secretary of the Interior with the flexibility to approve projects related to sites other than the 10 relocation and 17 assembly centers. An example of such a site is the Crystal City World War II Alien Family Internment Camp in Texas, which was run by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and which housed Japanese immigrants and nationals sent to the United States from Latin America. It is important to note that, upon request, I have included limitations in this legislation. Specifically, the legislation contains a 25 percent non-Federal match requirement, a cap on the amount of monies authorized, and a sunset. The legislation also limits the use of these Federal funds to acquire private property to just four locations--Jerome, Rohwer, Topaz, and Honouliuli--and further requires the written consent of the pertinent private property owners. Finally, it is fitting that we are considering this legislation as we return from observing Veterans Day as the segregated Japanese-American 100th Infantry Battalion and 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which had a total of 25,000 men during the war, together became the most decorated combat unit for its size in U.S. history. In fact, the men who served in this unit were awarded 8 presidential unit citations, 9,486 Purple Hearts, and 18,143 individual decorations, including 52 Distinguished Service Crosses, the second-highest award for valor. Moreover, the only Japanese-American World War II veteran awarded the Medal of Honor during the war, PFC Sadao Munemori, earned his citation on April 5, 1945, when he dove on a hand grenade to save the lives of two of his comrades during the Po Valley Campaign in Italy. Poignantly, at the time of his death, Munemori's mother and brother were interned at Manzanar. Accordingly, I now ask that you join with me to pass this important legislation, not just to honor Private First Class Munemori, not just to honor those interned, but to ensure that the United States does not forget and repeat the grievous mistake it made.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following correspondence for the Record. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, September 29, 2005. Hon. Jerry Lewis, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Lewis: I am writing concerning H.J. Res. 68, making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes, which is currently scheduled for floor consideration today. As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over matters concerning Medicare. There are two sections within the introduced resolution that are within the authorizing jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Section 118 of the resolution allows the Social Security Administration to continue hearing Medicare appeals pending the transfer of that authority to the Department of Health and Human Services. Secondly, Section 121 extends for one year the availability of an appropriation provided to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Social Security Administration under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this resolution. This is being done because of the agreement reached by our respective committees' staff. An e-mail on this issue, sent by the committee, states, ``We are happy to concede your jurisdiction in this matter, and included the language solely because of OMB's [Office of Management and Budget] request that we do so. We don't believe that it prejudices any future action on your part.'' I will place a copy of this letter in the Congressional Record during floor consideration. Best regards, Bill Thomas, Chairman.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend and former colleague from California, Christopher Cox, for his excellent service as a Member of the House of Representatives and to wish him well in his tenure as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC. I commend the President for selecting Chris to serve in that capacity because Chris has the proven leadership ability, intelligence, fairness, and experience necessary to successfully manage the SEC, which has an integral role in ensuring our Nation's continued economic growth and prosperity. I have had the great pleasure of working with Chris as he exhibited his leadership abilities in the House through his service for over a decade as the Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee and most recently as Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security. As many of you know, Chris has impressive academic credentials, which include earning both an M.B.A. and law degree from Harvard, where he also served as an editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. These credentials were supplemented through his service as a Federal appellate law clerk and as Senior Associate Counsel to the late President Reagan. Moreover, Chris' experience has provided him with a broad and deep understanding of how our Nation's capital markets operate. As an attorney with an international law firm, Chris specialized in venture capital and corporate finance, and in his 18 years of service as a Member of the House, Chris served on the Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, and Government Reform Committees. During his House career, Chris was an ardent proponent of legislation to improve the budget process, eliminate the double tax on shareholder dividends, reform medical malpractice litigation, and repeal the estate tax. I worked with Chris on these issues and I am pleased that we were able to enact legislation to address capital gains, dividends, and estate taxation. While I will miss working with Chris in the House, I look forward to working with him in his new role. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him well as he continues to serve as a free-market advocate in his new capacity.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I submit the following correspondence for the Record. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, September 15, 2005. Hon. Jim Nussle, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Nussle: I am writing concerning H.R. 3768, the ``Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005,'' which is scheduled for floor consideration today. Section 2 of the bill designates that any provision affecting receipts, budget authority, or outlays in the bill will be for emergency purposes pursuant to H. Con. Res. 95, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2006. Thus, the Committee on Ways and Means shares jurisdiction with the Committee on the Budget on this provision. I recognize the Committee on the Budget's jurisdictional interest in Section 2 of the bill, but ask that you allow H.R. 3768 to go forward. I agree that by allowing the bill to be considered, the Committee on the Budget does not relinquish any jurisdiction over H.R. 3768 or similar legislation. I would also support your request to be represented on a conference on H.R. 3768, if one should become necessary. Finally, I will include my letter and your response in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of the measure. Best regards, Bill Thomas, Chairman.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. I just want to remind Members, as we move forward with yet another piece of legislation which has taken a little longer to craft because it becomes more structural in dealing with the Tax Code, as we had indicated when we came back from our summer district work period, we will probably have another piece of legislation which will deal with more additional structural assistance that takes a little longer to craft dealing with the reconstruction portion of assistance. I took the time at the microphone this morning to indicate to my colleagues how frustrating this process has been. More than a week ago, this House moved swiftly, in a bipartisan way, to simply open up the pipeline that had money already in it as direct assistance to individuals under the targeted assistance for families, or the TANF program. That bill moved off the floor of the House without even a recorded vote, and it has not yet been taken up by the Senate. The procedure of putting a hold on legislation, which is an individual or a group of Senators' way of stopping the process, has been exercised by Members of the Senate. And I want to indicate to people how outrageous that procedure is on a bill which should have been moved last week to assist people. I take the time on this floor to say this particular legislation, a bit more structured, we had an extra week to think it out, being moved again on a bipartisan basis should not be subject to a hold in the Senate. If the Senate cannot get its act together to move legislation, then simply allow the House's bipartisan effort to go forward. These people need help. That area needs help. The House has moved in a bipartisan way and the Senate has obstructed the movement of needed legislation by allowing even in normal times the somewhat unseemly procedure of holds by individuals or groups of Senators, but on this legislation it is unconscionable.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), the committee members of the Committee on Ways and Means who are obviously dealing with that very difficult situation in their districts, for their input on this emergency legislation. This is the first response from the Committee on Ways and Means, and it is designed to deal with immediate relief. We will have additional pieces of legislation that we will work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle dealing with recovery and reconstruction, and these will come in a timely fashion over the next several weeks. The reason we want to move this legislation as quickly as we can is because it will provide immediate payment of TANF's funds. We have included the extension of TANF to the first quarter of 2006, which immediately frees up $4.2 billion in flexible funds to assist those families affected by the hurricane. In addition, it makes additional TANF funds available to the States devastated by the hurricane. We have a de facto contingency fund, and we have a loan fund. This turns the loan fund into, in essence, a contingency fund to provide even additional money. Also, we do not want anyone worried about costs that are incurred as States adjacent to the disaster areas are providing assistance, and we are going to hold States harmless for costs incurred to immediately assist evacuees. There are additional funds that are unused, and we make sure we maximize the flexibility available to States for providing assistance to families impacted by the hurricane. In addition to that, although there are specific rules for receiving the funds, we want to make sure that during this assistance period that those rules do not become a barrier and that we will waive program rules for hurricane victims receiving the short-term TANF assistance. Especially, for those States who do provide various supports, we want to make sure that where there may have been penalties triggered by decisions made, those certainly would not be applicable either. We believe that with expeditious movement by the Senate and not extended debate on what we do or do not do, this will free up literally billions of dollars available to assist those people directly affected by the hurricane and those States and others who are assisting them with funds otherwise unavailable to them. As I said, this is the first step. We will look at the recovery and the reconstruction phases, which will entail a more detailed examination of the Tax Code and assistance in a timely fashion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3672) to provide assistance to families affected by Hurricane Katrina, through the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families, as amended.