Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2513, which would restore and modify the two tax provisions in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 that was subject to a Presidential line-item veto earlier this year. The first provision applies to the income earned abroad by companies engaged in providing financial services, and the second one that was line item vetoed applies to the sale of farmer cooperatives of stock in a corporation that owns agricultural processing assets. President Clinton, by virtue of his line item power, canceled these two provisions, stating several objections. In short, the committee, working with the administration, with groups who were affected on the outside, and with Members who thought these were worthy projects, have now corrected the concerns of the administration, and as modified and presented here today, the two incentives are supported by the administration and by all known interested parties. It should also be noted that in revising the two provisions, they have been narrowed, it will be significantly reducing their revenue cost. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we believe that in the changes that were made, since H.R. 2513 actually saves money, there is no need to have a revenue or a spending offset. Suffice it to say this is not the time, nor do we have the time, to argue the way in which we determined budgetary matters. So what we have done is made sure that there are some spending offsets which are available. We are indebted to the Committee on the Budget. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has graciously provided in the bill two offsets, as I understand them. One is the disposal of some palladium and platinum in the national defense stockpile, and second, the recovery of costs of health care services for foreign service personnel. That is about the limit of my knowledge of these offsets. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson], a member of the Committee on the Budget, to explain these offsets in some detail.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to congratulate my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], on his comments. We began our legislative careers together. We were both Members of the 96th Congress and shared Committee on Agriculture seats together. I believe his analysis is absolutely correct. My hope is that the process that produced this compromise also created a learning curve so that the need to be as innovative as possible in a market that has removed subsidies need not be hindered by the kind of activity that was engaged in by this administration and, indeed, any administration who now has the ability to go in and specifically make changes. That is a significant new power. I hope they understand it takes significant new knowledge and, hopefully, extensive consultation as well. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for the other portion of this combined bill dealing with financial services in companies that have income earned abroad. (Mr. WELLER 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 simply ask Members for their support on this bipartisan effort on H.R. 2513. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege, actually, to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hulshof], a freshman on the Committee on Ways and Means, who has now run the virtual gamut of emotions, as he was the original author of the provision which was line-item vetoed by the President, an historical point he probably does not wish to remember, and then worked diligently and, quite frankly, brilliantly to produce the compromise that now stands before us, moving from triumph to tragedy and soon to triumph.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I once again congratulate the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hulshof].

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2513.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for the time, and I would like to spend a portion of the time to briefly respond to my friend from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] because I do enjoy not only the content but the delivery of the information that he provides us, and I would like to point out just a couple of items within that delivery. He repeated several times that what we are doing is cutting off people in this particular resolution. Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the resolution is that it focuses, it in channels; that is, it does not cut off the right to offer privileged resolutions, it focuses the opportunity to offer a privileged resolution. And as a matter of fact, the focal point for the minority would be the minority leader. As I recall the debate on the contested election in California's 46th District, the first resolution that was fully debated for an hour and voted on, was offered by the minority leader. I understand, and I was not on the floor, but it has been represented to me, that there has been some criticism over this rule because we are attempting to cut off females and minorities from offering privileged resolutions. I find it interesting that the gentleman from Massachusetts is able to divine the motives of those on this side who want to perpetuate the contested election, as he divines, somehow based upon pressure from people who are supportive of the candidate who lost, and that we are not pursuing trying to get to the bottom line, but carrying out some other group's motives which are not of the highest intentions. I find it interesting he is able to divine those motives, but made no comment whatsoever about people who have picked particular people to offer those resolutions so that it would have the appearance of cutting off female Members and minorities. It seems to me that motives ought to go to both sides, and that if he is able to divine the motives on this side, yet unable to divine the motives on the other side that he is creating a false issue, that this somehow involves race or gender, I would tell the gentleman that there is either an overabundance of motives or an underabundance of motives on both sides, and I will yield to the gentleman with the final comment that it is not this gentleman who voted for a white male to be the minority leader.

Mr. THOMAS. I would guess then the gentleman would also say that the minority leader was not picked or was not self-chosen to begin the process, and I would end only by saying no one is cut off totally. The leadership is focused. It is the majority's responsibility to govern.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], majority leader, who happens to be part of the jury that constitutionally is the sole judge of its Members. When you have the constitutional power to judge, you have the right to get all the information.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to assist the gentleman in his math. The 1000 number were those that achieve a very high level check through the INS. The chairman failed to mention the 124 that the registrar has already discovered, the 305 that the LA INS and the Secretary of State have certified and the more than 1000 that were currently going through with the INS. Frankly, the number is far beyond the statement I have heard repeated over and over again of a number which simply is not creditable. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I would tell my friend from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] that we can make a comparison between the time when his party controlled the House and when our party controls the House now. The reality was, there was a gentleman who came to this body with a certificate of election. He was denied being seated. They counted the votes in his district under the rules created by the task force on a straight partisan vote, and he was denied his certificate of election. That is what happened under my colleague's majority. Under our majority, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] had a certificate. She has been seated. She is a full Member of this body. She has a full staff. She has a full budget. She carries out her duties every day. Rick McIntyre would have loved to have an opportunity to be treated the same way. And I will not yield. I will also say that I admire the gentleman's cleverness and his capability. He seems to think that it is important that members of the majority signed a confidentiality statement on October 27. We were working on our work product. We had full confidence we were not going to leak our own material. Leaking the names of people we were checking would have worked against our purposes of keeping things confidential. Once we agreed to a memorandum of understanding with the secretary of state when he said he was willing to sign it, our work product would no longer be protected by us alone. So as a gesture, we said, let us all sign a confidentiality statement. And so the gentleman's remarkable observation that once the product went outside the committee's jurisdiction, we asked them to do no more than what we did, signing the confidentiality statement somehow became a remarkable point to the gentleman. I think it would be common business. The gentleman also pointed out that this may be the longest contested election under the act. My colleagues might recall that the act was passed in 1969. Most of the cases were dismissed without ever looking at the question of fraud. This task force was presented with a criminal conspiracy case involving ongoing and clear evidence of fraud, and we are pursuing that based upon the election. The gentleman says that the filing by Dornan's attorneys that they are through means that the whole case would be through. What happens in the courtroom when the case is presented and the jury then goes to deliberate and has every right to ask for additional information as they make the decision? The gentleman believes that we should have half a case and then stop it before the opinion is rendered. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], who also happens to be a judge.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 9\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], chairman of the task force, to in part respond. Now that both sides have signed confidentiality statements, this information will probably be made available, and we would like to be the ones to make it available. (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his crosscheck with the INS. Apparently his request he believes to be more accurate than our request. Where we found citizens, for example, Mrs. Jones was removed, where we found duplicates, they were removed; where we find a Jane A. Jones with a date of birth that matches, first name, last name, middle initial, date of birth, with the same address on the INS records as on the voted list, we are pushing it to that level and beyond for accuracy. Those are the numbers that the gentleman presented us. It is my pleasure now to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a State which has a procedure on their voting records, their Registrar of Records, which I wish the Nation would emulate.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time we come together on the floor to provide an opportunity to respond to resolutions which, frankly, contain erroneous material, inflammatory material, material that simply ought not to be presented on the floor of the House, in this gentleman's judgment, in the way in which it is presented. I am quite pleased to announce to Members some developments that have occurred since the last time we were on the floor. If Members recall, I reported to them that in the months that they have outlined it has taken us to attempt to get to the bottom of this, I indicated to them that not one Democrat staffer had signed a statement of confidentiality. They had chosen not to participate in a meaningful way in documents that we wanted to make sure did not get out so that the charge that they make falsely, that we were attempting to intimidate individuals, did not get, quote-unquote, leaked. I am pleased to say that all of the key Democrat staffers, members of the Democratic staff, have now signed statements of confidentiality. That is a major step forward. I wish they had done it 9 to 10 months ago so we could share the information that we know. I will tell Members tonight, they are going to receive some of that information. But I think for just a minute or two, we need to understand how we got here. There were phone calls to the Orange County Registrar of Voters. People said they knew that people who voted were not citizens. There was a follow-up examination by the election authorities. There was sufficient and credible evidence filed with the Orange County District Attorney for the Orange County District Attorney to subpoena records of groups who were supposed to be educating documented aliens in the process to become citizens, the very process that the gentlewoman from Oregon indicated occurred to her. Of course, we know what happened in her case. She did it in the right order. She became a citizen, and then she voted. The record shows that there were people in the 46th Congressional District who voted before they became citizens. There were many people who did this on the advice of people who, frankly, chose to mislead these people when they had the solemn responsibility of providing them with the enormous and wonderful opportunity of becoming citizens. I will make one promise to Members tonight, that if anyone is discovered to have not voted properly, in no way should their citizenship be put in jeopardy if after the fact they became a citizen. I believe that we should make sure that amnesty is provided to anyone who may have technically broken the law, and especially if they broke the law at the behest of others, because right now there is an ongoing criminal investigation in Orange County that will work its way through the grand jury and may, in fact, present us with evidence before we are finished with our task as to exactly what happened for those who engaged in a criminal conspiracy of voter fraud. Based upon that evidence, a contested election contest was brought to us, and we have pursued, although argued unconstitutionally, affirmed by a district court, reaffirmed by an appellate court, that the process that we have been following is, in fact, according to the statute. It seems, therefore, somewhat incredible to me that one of the whereases is that we have requested the agency charged with monitoring documented aliens in this country, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, to assist us to determine if these individuals are, in fact, citizens. But, in fact, as Members may know from our previous discussion, the Department of Justice was unwilling to cooperate in the investigation. We were forced, on May 14, to subpoena the records. It was not until June 23 that the Immigration and Naturalization Service began responding to us. Notwithstanding the whereas that says that the INS has complied with the committee's request, the gentlewoman from Oregon needs to know that that whereas is simply wrong. The INS has not complied completely. There are hundreds of records that are still out that have not been presented to the task force. As we go through once again in terms of the whereases, the one that I hope we will put to rest tonight, and the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the task force, I believe, will provide more than adequate material to discredit once and for all, our goal, of course, would be to enlighten and to therefore not continue the process of repetition on the whereas that says that we failed to present credible evidence. Tonight Members will receive a substantial dose of credible evidence. But more important than that, I find it difficult for someone who was a citizen, whether naturalized or native born, to think that the effort to make sure that we are accurate, double-check, triple-check if necessary that no citizen is accused unfairly and that the documents of the task force checked by the appropriate officials, Immigration and Naturalization Service on citizenship and the Secretary of State on a valid voter registration, would not be completely accurate before we would make any assumption, any determination, any statement about a final number of people who, in fact, voted invalidly in the California 46th. Because I will remind all of us, it is not if there were people who voted illegally, it is the question of how many, and that the pursuit of how many has been made a difficult one by virtue of agencies of this government unwilling to cooperate unless their records are subpoenaed. And for a number of people to use such terms as ``a Republican campaign of intimidation'' when, unlike the former majority, we are trying to use California law to document, not something invented in the task force by a 2 to 1 vote, we are trying to determine with absolute accuracy who could and who could not have legally voted, and who did and who did not. Frankly, I am perplexed by your unwillingness either as a native-born citizen or a naturalized citizen to not want to know. I think it is important that if, in fact, there is a significant amount of people who are not citizens who are actually voting, we need to know now. We do not need to shut this investigation down. We do not need to pull the wool over the eyes of voters who now will not know whether their vote was canceled out by someone who should not have voted. Frankly, our goal should be the one stated by the gentlewoman from Oregon: Become a citizen first, and vote second, not the other way around. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule 11 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I hereby submit the Rules of Procedure of the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library for printing in the Congressional Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the new EPA particulate matter standards issued this summer, and I call on my colleagues to support H.R. 1984, which will delay these standards until data can be collected to support a balanced and rationale decision. Particulate matter or PM is very fine particles of dust or smoke which are created from various sources such as engines, crop burnings, dirt, or simple household dust. Farming can generate PM simply when tractors cross dry soil or by burning crops after harvest. One business in my district must routinely sweep the roads in its plant at the demand of regulators in order to minimize PM from being thrown up when vehicles pass, despite the fact that the plant is situated in the middle or arid, dusty land where the wind blows dirt around everyday. I often hear from my constituents that they would not mind the effort and cost if government requirements made sense and solve a problem. Often, as here, they do not. EPA frequently relies upon inadequate research to support its decisions as is the case of its new PM standards. In this instance EPA bases its decision on a very limited number of studies disregarding the ones that disagree with its decision. EPA makes sweeping statements that PM causes premature deaths, but none of the studies actually monitored the affected people for a link to PM. Factors like smoking history, physical fitness, and alternative causes of death were not taken into account by any study relied upon by EPA. Many current scientific studies say poverty and cockroach allergens, not manmade pollutants, have been the major cause of asthma. EPA's data is simply inadequate. Moreover, EPA poorly estimates the cost of these new standards. The EPA originally said $3 billion per year. Now that the regulations are promulgated, it claims $37 billion is more accurate--$37 billion every year. A George Mason University study says $80 billion is more likely for full compliance with PM. The EPA freely admits that no technology today exists to accomplish the mandate of the new standards, but it blithely believes that setting unrealistic goals is the way to force businesses to come up with new antipollution technology. On behalf of farmers in my district, however, I want to ask EPA what technology it expects farmers to use to stop the wind from blowing dirt around. We already limit agricultural burns and plowing/harvesting practices. Imposing onerous and flawed EPA standards on an already burdened public is wrong. I support clean air and the need for air regulations, even when it raises the price of goods and services in our economy. Clean air is a good that Americans want and are ready to pay for, but they want value for their dollar. I urge this Congress to reject these new EPA PM 2.5 regulations until more scientific data is available, data that is not rushed along by lawsuits, but is collected and analyzed in a careful, professional manner.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla]. (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I appreciate the machismo of the gentleman from New Jersey, and of course challenging us to provide names or to create some kind of a fatally flawed decision is something that is devoutly wished on his side. We will not. Our job under the Constitution is to examine the congressional race that came to us as contested. If in fact the results of that indicate that there are other races that come under question, then that should be dealt with by the proper authorities. That is never an argument nor should it ever be an argument not to find out who voted legally or who voted illegally. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Long Beach, CA [Mr. Horn]. (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].

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

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I tell the gentleman from New Jersey that in my term of ``machismo,'' being from the Southwest in terms of the way we describe feelings that in fact if that did come across, as someone came up to me and indicated, a remark that is not acceptable on your side, I would then substitute the words ``emotion'' and ``passion,'' because I rely on the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] to assist me at times in terms of sensitivity, and in my reaction if he would allow me I would not use the term ``machismo,'' I would use the term ``emotion'' and ``passion.''

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], a member of the committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell]. (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)