Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 253, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 244) demanding that the Office of the United States Attorney for the Central District of California file criminal charges against Hermandad Mexicana Nacional for failure to comply with a valid subpoena under the Federal Contested Elections Act, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. The Los Angeles Times, May 22, 1997, I quote, ``In an apparent violation of Federal and State tax laws, Hermandad was also found in the audit to have spent $107,184 that it withheld from its employees' wages to satisfy Federal income taxes. Its director admitted that withholding the taxes was against the law.''

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I will try to explain some of the arguments that have been made, because frankly, they have been factually wrong. I do not want anyone who is listening to the debate to believe that the statements that have been made, because they are not challenged, means that they are correct. They are not. Mr. Speaker, the Orange County district attorney subpoenaed the Hermandad records, but as we know, when that subpoena is used as a criminal subpoena there is a fourth amendment search and seizure right, so you have to specify exactly what it is that you need. As a matter of fact, the Orange County district attorney has indicated that not all of the records and not all of the materials were obtained with the subpoena that he placed. The reason that the committee placed a subpoena on top of the Orange County district attorney's subpoena was that that subpoena was being challenged. We wanted to make sure that those records were not lost. There are additional records out there. This subpoena, under the civil section of the statute, can obtain that additional material. Our job is to get to the bottom of it. We want to know everything that Hermandad was involved with. Obviously, during debate on the resolution, I believe when I describe Hermandad, it will be a slightly different organization than has already been explained. These people have violated the law. The Federal and the State government has revoked their charters. They have taken money from them. These people are criminals. What we are trying to do is find out the extent of their activity. We need to have as many subpoenas as possible. This resolution, after this rule passes, is not about the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Loretta Sanchez], it is not about Bob Dornan. It is about people obeying the law, and it is about the House of Representatives demanding that the law be obeyed. That is what it is about.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, up until the last speaker, I thought we were doing pretty well focusing on the issues in front of us. A lot of people think the census, and I quote from a letter that I got, the census is the only source of reliable, comparable, small-area data on income, occupation, and labor force participation, educational attainment, household structure, and other key demographic and economic data. And many Members have said, I think quite correctly, there is only one reason why we have the census constitutionally. It was that grand experiment the Founding Fathers decided to try: government by the people. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman, Mr. Watts, indicated and others propounded on, the fact that the actual enumeration in article I, is the manner by which Congress shall pose. I say, ``It's how you do it, not what you do,'' and I noticed every one of those individuals did not then turn to the 14th Amendment, as has been done on this side. After that great conflict it was determined that all people, I tell my friend and colleague from Georgia, that all people were to be counted, not three-fifths of a person, when all people were to be counted. The second clause of the 14th amendment says ``whole number of persons,'' ``whole number of persons.'' I noticed also that as the minority side propounded its constitutional arguments; that is, that it is constitutionally permissible to sample, I never heard the Supreme Court mentioned once. I heard the Department of Justice under Democrats, I heard the Department of Justice under Republicans. I never heard the Supreme Court. What we are proposing to do is to say all right. Now I tell my friend from West Virginia, the problem is not bad science the folks are concerned about, it is science. When we statistically sample, we must necessarily adjust. Adjustment means changing the numbers. Inevitably when we adjust, we take numbers from real people that were counted and substitute them for people who have not been counted. The Constitution does not say that can be done. We will be subtracting real people and counting people who have not been counted. That is the fundamental basis of adjustment. Frankly, to tell me that professional statisticians are in favor of statistical adjustment is like going to a cattlemen's association annual convention and having two items on the menu, beef and fish. Guess which one they will choose? Statistically, I guess we could say this is a bipartisan amendment; three Republicans will support it. That is the problem with statistics. But, as my colleagues know, we do concede that America is a mobile society and that information that we were talking about is useful and valuable. What we find, as has been pointed out by colleague after colleague, in the statute in section 195 says, ``You can sample. You can statistically adjust. You can over that 10-year period attempt to make the numbers reflect where the people are.'' But it says, ``When you count for enumeration, you count, you do not estimate.'' Technology can help us and creativity can help us be a lot more effective in our count. The gentleman from West Virginia and the gentleman from Ohio said, correctly, the 1990 census was only 1.6 percent off. Why in the world, if we were only 1.6 percent off, do we back up to count, as the gentlewoman from New York said, only 90 percent? Why do we not focus on that 1.6 percent that we did not count? We have been told who was not counted. Great. Let us go count the ones we are told were not counted. If it takes more money, put more money in. Every day somebody visits those households, they know where they are. Why have people who do not know the neighborhood do the counting? My colleague from Illinois mentioned mail carriers. Those people are available. We should use them. How about this: Create a lottery. The ticket for the lottery is one's filled in form. I think we will have a couple of drawings that will increase the numbers significantly. Educate. School kids, ``just say no on drugs,'' was a very useful message started in the schools. Let us get some programs going about how important it is to count. It just seems to me that there are any number of ways that we can assist. But I want to spend the final minute or 2 on this business of politics. This amendment offers us a board of observers to ensure fairness. Now remember, under the Constitution, the only reason we have the census is to make sure that the People's House is based upon people, that it is the House of Representatives. The proposed board of observers says the President gets one vote, the House and the Senate together get one vote, and the Presidential appointment gets the third. Hey, we do not have the President, that is OK. In the next census, if we are lucky, we will be able to elect a President, and we might have the 2 to 1 ratio. Read the fine print. This board dissolves itself in 2001. After it is done, they are dissolved. But fundamentally, my colleagues, the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. They knew what politics was all about. They knew what power was. Go back and reread Federalist 10. They knew perfectly well the use and abuse of power. That is why they said, with clear intent, an actual enumeration. A noble experiment, government by the people, this is embodied in the Constitution. Count whole people. The fundamental distribution of power in this society is to be based upon real people, not estimated people, but less than 10 years after that was propounded and agreed to, then Gov. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts figured out a way to beat the system. They went ahead and took the census, and then they drew districts that were not fair, and I guess as a place in history, it is now known as the gerrymander. For more than 150 years, when we did a fair census, it was taken away from the people by politics. For more than 150 years, we did not have real representation by the people. And then the Court acted. The Court said one man, one vote. How ironic. When we finally have buried the gerrymander, the census 2000 proposes to leave us, if the Mollohan amendment is adopted, the Clintonmander. Honor the Founding Fathers' wisdom. For representational purposes. Count. Do not estimate. Vote ``no'' on the Mollohan amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, in the gentleman from California's background, as an information to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, he stated a number of factual errors, and I do think the record should be accurate rather than the representations that were made. The committee did not issue a subpoena to the organization that he referred to. It was issued under the statute of the Contested Elections Act. It was disputed as to its constitutionality. House counsel indicated it was constitutional. The judge who issued the subpoena in a recent opinion indicated that it was constitutional. The gentleman indicated that we have transmitted 500,000 names to somebody. That is absolutely factually untrue, and I understand it was mentioned at a press conference. It is repeated here on the floor of the House. I would tell the gentleman he had better get his facts straight before he continues to repeat them.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the committee met yesterday and passed the resolution. I have submitted a letter to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and Rules, I assume, under normal order of business will examine the resolution and will act on it as the Committee on Rules does. I do not know where the gentlewoman gets her information, but the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and he will check with his staff, has found out that it is being handled in the normal procedure. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand that, but the gentleman's argument is one that poses a dilemma which is not there. I happen to believe that the standards of official conduct, it is not called ethics, is for peer group review. And I have in the past examined materials brought to me, and when I thought it reached a particular level I sent it on to the committee. That is part and parcel of our responsibility. Any reasonable proposal will not stop prior to reaching the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. My only response was to the gentleman in his hypothetical dilemma, I thought he needed to know that at the beginning of last Congress, when Republicans took control, we solved his problem.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I will take only a brief period of time to point out to the gentleman from Maryland in his argument that, in fact, the hypothetical that he presented does cause some concern. That is, for example, a staff member having some concern about the activities of the Member, up to and including, we hope not, some type of sexual harassment. But the dilemma that the gentleman placed us in is simply not there. Perhaps the gentleman does not realize that when Republicans took majority control the very first act, the Congressional Accountability Act, 104th Congress--Public Law 104-1--set up the Office of Compliance so that the staff and the Member would not have to deal with this at the ethics level. The act deals with the professional employment relationships and Republicans will not tolerate a Member treating an employee in that fashion, nor should they have to go to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to get a solution. It is the Office of Compliance that would deal with employee complaints.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the Shafter Cotton Research Center, in Shafter, CA, is celebrating 75 years of research for California cotton production and this month becomes a State registered landmark. The designation recognizes the important research contributions this center has made to the California cotton industry. We also recognize the historic relationship between California cotton growers, the University of California, Kern County and the U.S. Department of Agriculture that has made the Shafter Cotton Research Center so successful. This center got its start in 1922 and has been in the forefront of efforts to buck common wisdom ever since. At that time, many people in the cotton industry thought California was too far from the mills in the eastern United States for California to ever become a cotton powerhouse. The work done in cooperation between Federal, State and local government and private industry that led to the ACALA cotton variety developed here proved the skeptics wrong. Since then, work on the 120-acre center grounds has produced innovations in labor-saving mechanization, pest control and other farm practices. The California industry made possible by the Shafter Cotton Research Center contributes over $1 billion to the California farm economy and $340 million to Kern County. California cotton's quality is so well known around the world that 80 percent of the cotton grown here goes into export markets. The Shafter Cotton Research Center continues to lead in cotton industry research. Today's research is looking into ways to reduce tillage in cotton production, potentially valuable to farmers faced with clean air requirements to reduce airborne dust. The center is also doing work on sophisticated means of monitoring crop health, means which could allow farmers to reduce applications of pesticides and other chemicals. It is still a cooperative venture. Under an agreement struck in 1991, the Department of Agriculture, the University of California, Kern County and the cotton industry are cooperating to keep the research center in operation so that this unique facility will continue to produce cutting-edge technology for the California cotton farmer of the 21st century. The Shafter Cotton Research Center is a landmark in California to the creative energies of generations of farmers and scientists because of the way everyone has rolled up their 100 percent cotton sleeves to work together. We recognize that cooperation's key role in the center's historic and future importance.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time. I want to thank my colleague from California for his comments. Obviously Jay Egan was the choice of a professional search team, an extensive review by staff and then a review by a panel of Members consisting of two Democrats and two Republicans: the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney], and myself. I believe that we obviously got the pick of the lot, and the professional organization that did the searching brought us a number of people who had been in public administration positions and, as a matter of fact, in the private sector across a broad region of the United States. It is not in my opinion accidental that we have found what we believe to be the highest caliber person laboring here in the House. It was important, I think, to look outside to give a comfort level for us in making the decision that we made. It was an open, fair competition. And Jay won. He won by unanimous vote of the panel. That tells you a lot about the qualities that he is going to bring to this job. But I also want to say that I enjoy very much the working relationship with the gentleman from California. This could have been a process which could have deteriorated fairly rapidly if in attempting to hold confidences, discussions that were had in private were leaked to the press or announced prematurely. I do want to say, the gentleman from California over the two Congresses that I have enjoyed working with him in a distinctively reversed role from previous Congresses, has been absolutely honorable in all of the commitments that he has made as we made some very, very difficult decisions. This was not a difficult decision. The process whereby we arrived at the requirement to make this decision was at times very difficult. But the decision to pick Jay Egan as the chief administrative officer of the House was a pleasure.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I do not wish to revisit the distant past, a time when there were no independent audits, and the first ever chief financial officer on the first decision he made was not backed up and, therefore, resigned because he could not be independent. I wish to revisit the recent past, the past between the resignation of the first CAO and today because frankly someone who has not yet been recognized has performed yeoman service for the House. Jeff Trandahl, who has been the acting CAO for a period longer than he had anticipated, I believe now has a high comfort level as he leaves this temporary office and moves back to the Clerk's office where he is the Clerk's right arm. I just think it is appropriate, as Jay Eagen comes in as the new CAO, for the House to recognize the extraordinary service of someone who was asked to help and who has never said no, and for, as I said, a longer period than anticipated has helped and helped willingly in making sure that the transition to the new CAO is as smooth as it has been, and I want the House to recognize the contribution made by Jeff Trandahl.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by complimenting everyone. We have a portion of the balanced budget bill in front of us, and it is amazing what has occurred in a relatively short period of time in terms of everyone's reaction to making changes in the Medicare portion of the package. One of my favorite old songs is a song by Dinah Washington: What a Difference a Day Makes. What a difference a year makes, what a difference a willingness to sit down and fundamentally address the problem makes as well. I am very pleased to say that my ranking member, friend, and colleague from California [Mr. Stark], and his chief of staff Bill Vaughan have been with us on this journey from the beginning, through subcommittee, full committee and during conference to make sure that although at times they may not have been in agreement with what we were talking about doing, they were at least informed. And I cannot help that the gentleman's President did not do what he believes he should have done during the conference. I want to thank not only the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, but the members of the subcommittee on Health of the Ways and Means Committee who worked long hours to make sure on a bipartisan basis they understood not only what needed to be done, but just as importantly what could be done, and I think the package we have in front of us today, with the able help of the staff headed by Chip Kahn, is the most fundamental reform in the history of Medicare. I know we have some friends on the other side of the Capitol who are disappointed that we did not go farther, but we have to appreciate how far we have gone. Oftentimes we judge ourselves by our failures rather than our successes. Before we started this process we had a Medicare system which was a fee for service when someone who was sick. When this measure is signed by the President, we will have a Medicare which is a preventive and wellness structured Medicare. It will provide choices for seniors that are available in the general health area. It provides, as was indicated, a preventive package which will be expanded, when science tells us to expand it and not politics. It provides opportunities for choice over a broad spectrum so that people do not have just one other option, they have a number of options, and to help them in those choices we have a handsome educational package long overdue. So I am here basically not to talk about what is in the bill, but to thank all those people who worked with us to put together a Medicare package in which no one will be afraid to run on in the next election. We will all embrace it and say this is a handsome first step, obviously we need to do more, we have a commission built in to do more, but before that commission even triggers we are going to sit down and continue to build a Medicare Program which is based upon prevention and wellness. The seniors deserve nothing less.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] for yielding me the time. I find it almost fascinating that the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative of the Committee on Appropriations is offering an amendment to allow no additional staff. The gentleman indicated that perhaps this particular committee could learn from what occurred to other committees. Let me recite some dollars and cents and numbers for my colleagues. There is one committee in the House of Representatives that is not responsive to House Oversight and the rest of the Members in determining its budget. It is not the Joint Committee on Taxation. It is not the Committee on Ways and Means. It is not the Committee on Agriculture. It is not the Committee on Commerce. It happens to be the Committee on Appropriations. That committee alone determines its own staff and its own budget. Let us return to 1994. The budget for Appropriations was $14.7 million. The budget for the Committee on Ways and Means was $8.1 million. The budget for the Joint Committee on Taxation is $5.7 million. Let us leap ahead 4 years and look at the fiscal year 1998 budget of Appropriations, $18.2 million. From $14.7 million to $18.2 million. That is a 25-percent increase in the budget that the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], behind closed doors, determines what is appropriate to do their job. The Committee on Ways and Means, at $8.1 million in 1994. In 1998, it is $5.5 million. In 1994, Ways and Means, $8.1 million. In 1998, $5.5 million. That is a decrease of 32 percent. The new majority willingly took on themselves savings of taxpayers' dollars. The Joint Committee on Taxation goes from $5.7 million to $5.9 million. That is an increase. That is a 3-percent increase. The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] focuses on staffing. In the 103d Congress, the Joint Committee, under Democratic leadership, had 77 staff. Currently there are 59. On the Committee on Appropriations, there are 60 members. There are 155 staff; 52 of them are called associate staff. They get a staffer for virtually every member of the committee. The Committee on Ways and Means, we do not get that kind of staffing. We have to rely on the Joint Committee on Taxation. Why is it called the Joint Committee on Taxation? Because that committee serves not only the 39 members of the Committee on Ways and Means, but it serves the 20 members of the Senate as well. There are 59 members who utilize the services of the Joint Committee on Taxation. Is it not interesting there are also 59 staffers? That means, on the Joint Committee on Taxation, there is one staffer for every member. On the Committee on Appropriations, on the committee that the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] believes should not get even five new staffers, the ratio for staffers is 2.6; 1.0 for the Joint Committee; 2.6 for Appropriations. But frankly, the Joint Committee should not be compared to any committee here in the House. We have to go down and look at Treasury and we have to look at the Office of Management and Budget, because the Joint Committee is for Congress. The Office of Management and Budget, for the President, has 503 staff. The Treasury, focusing on the issues that the Joint Committee focuses on, has 113. Get your translating dictionary. When they were in the majority, the staff was bipartisan. When they are in the minority, the staff is partisan. Understand, the Joint Committee works for all of us. They need five new staffers to do our work. Vote down the Fazio amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, following the statement of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], some of my colleagues might be surprised to find out that I was an original cosponsor of the motor- voter bill, and in fact we think it is a good idea to reach out and get as many people as we can on the rolls. But they fail to understand one fundamental point. Get all the people on the rolls who legally should be on, get all the people off who should not be on. What we are doing now in Orange County, and the attorney for the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] has finally admitted, there were people who voted in that contest who should not have voted. They were registered illegally, and they participated in the election illegally. The question is not if; the question is how many. We are in the process of determining how many. It is interesting that the minority already knows there were not enough to make a difference in the election. What we try to do on our side of the aisle with the new majority is investigate the facts and then come to a conclusion rather than coming to a conclusion based upon what they want the end result to be. We are working with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It has been very difficult. We had to subpoena them to go through their records to provide us with the thousands of names. We will determine how many people voted illegally, not in an attempt to deal with this election, but in an attempt to get every American who casts a vote legally to have a comfort level that their vote would not have been canceled by someone who voted illegally. We believe it is fundamental. We believe we have to get to the bottom of it. No amount of protesting on their side will deter us from making sure that every legal voter believes no illegal vote canceled them out.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Oversight be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res 123) providing for the use of the catafalque situated in the crypt beneath the rotunda of the Capitol in connection with memorial services to be conducted in the Supreme Court Building for the late honorable William J. Brennan, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, apropos the gentleman's earlier comments to the majority leader, it is unfortunate that Associate Justice Brennan has passed on. The administrative assistant to the Chief Justice has asked the Architect of the Capitol, as they did with former Chief Justice Warren Burger, if they might use the catafalque in the basement for memorial services over at the Supreme Court building. It is entirely appropriate, given the former career of the gentleman from Florida, because he fully appreciates the focus of the Lincoln catafalque for an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and especially a Justice like William J. Brennan, appointed by a Republican President, with a very distinguished career in first amendment freedom protection.

Mr. THOMAS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has eloquently indicated the reason why with pleasure, although with sadness, we will allow the Supreme Court to utilize the Lincoln catafalque.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] for his continued vigilance. Amendments made in the last Congress have moved us much along the path of making sure that the former tactic of having a sawed-tooth pattern of mail, oddly enough, the greatest expense during election years, has been smoothed out significantly. No longer is the old partisan pattern being followed. It is largely due to the continued vigilance of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio very much for yielding me this time. I want to start by complimenting the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh]. As the new chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, he is, in this proposal, building on the excellent record laid down by the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], which showed between the Democratically controlled 103d Congress and the Republican-controlled 104th a dramatic reduction in expenses. After the dramatic work of Mr. Packard, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Walsh, follows him by additional reductions. Anyone who needs to know what the Democrats did when they ran this place simply has to go out and look at the Botanical Gardens. It was falling apart for years. They would not fix things. What we have done is come in and in a businesslike way know that deferred maintenance is going to eventually cost us. It cost us. There is no roof on the Botanical Gardens. They were here for 40 years and the building collapsed. Come back in 3 years and under Republican control, you will see a rebuilt Botanical Gardens. We go to the foundation and build it back up. I want to compliment the gentleman from New York for doing that. In terms of amendments, first of all, let me say that I am very, very saddened by the comments of the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]. He has an amendment that has been made in order by the Committee on Rules. The gentleman's amendment seeks to cut staff. I will have to tell Members that in the years the gentleman from California was chairman of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, he never ever offered an amendment to cut staff. In fact, he is known as a champion of making sure that there are enough helping hands around here to do the job. His amendment clearly is out of character. The reason, of course, is because his status changed from majority to minority. But I cannot understand, unless it is the demands of leadership and the pressure put on him by the outrageous elements within his party for him to come to this well and use the ethnic card, to try to argue that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] and her election is being investigated because her name is Sanchez. I would ask my colleagues to reflect on the fact that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] is a Member of the House of Representatives. She had a certificate of election. When the Democrats ran the place, if your name was McIntyre and you had a certificate of election, you were not allowed to be seated. What the Democrats did was go in, set up a phony way of counting votes and then did not even follow the way they said they were going to count the votes to make sure that they stole that election. What are we doing right now in the contested election? My colleagues heard all the racist comments from the Democratic side of the aisle. I will tell my colleagues what is going on. In Orange County today the District Attorney of Orange County is carrying out a criminal investigation preparatory to a trial against an organization called Hermandad Nacional because these people abused and misused Americans who wanted to become citizens. Legal aliens were used in illegal activities. That is the basis for our requiring by subpoena the Immigration and Naturalization Service to take those core names that Hermandad used for illegal purposes and put on the voter rolls without complying with the law. The labor card was played once again. I just find it ironic that if one's party affiliation is Democrat, somehow you are with working people. Contrarily, if one's label is ``R'' you are somehow against working people. My father, his lifetime job was a plumber. He belonged to Local 582, Plumbers and Pipefitters, and he went out and worked as a plumber his entire life. I was the first member of my family to complete college. My colleagues should look at some of their backgrounds. What they do is exploit the labor union movement. These people never belonged to labor unions. All they do is play that cheap labor card over and over again. Let me tell my colleagues about this investigation, this oversight vote that we are looking at. It was voted in committee. We have a 2- year budgetary process. When needs come up, we will vote the money, this time, $1.4 million. They get $433,000 out of that money. They have not mentioned that. We play a fair share game, $2 on our side, $1 on their side. Mr. Speaker, they get $1 for every $2 that we have. When they ran the place, we got 10 cents on the dollar. But what they need to do is to hide behind racial epitaphs and abuse-of-class arguments to try to carry the day. I know those people are upset they are not the majority anymore, but come on, grow up. More important, do not let the American people think that the way we are supposed to win is to not deal with facts, not face reality, but hide behind scapegoats and epitaphs which may allow them to get elected when they can sway people in their district but should not be allowed to be the basis for discussion on the floor of the House of Representatives. So I would tell my colleagues as we examine this rule and the vote for the legislative branch appropriation that the work that the new majority is doing to continue to build to make sure that roofs are on buildings, that people who obtain the franchise illegally are not able to use it. Black, white, red, yellow, Hispanic, Welsh; illegal voters should not be on the rolls. If illegal voters participate in an election, the American people have a right to know that their legal vote counts and illegal votes have to be removed from the rolls. Support the rule, support the legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget is absolutely correct, this is frankly a theater. I am a little disappointed that the minority did not go after some really important stuff to try to protect in terms of a motion to instruct. Actually we do not need all the verbiage that is on the page. The motion to instruct can be put in basically four words, that is, support the House positions. Now let us look at the irony. We are wasting time on the floor of the House of Representatives in talking about a motion to instruct which says ``support the House positions.'' I am here to tell my colleagues as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, I did not work all those long hours to produce a 13 to zero vote, a unanimous support position in the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means, to run over to the Senate and fold. I did not work hard to maintain the subcommittee's position on a 36 to 3 vote in the full Committee on Ways and Means to simply collapse in the face of the Senate. I do think it would be appropriate, since the Senate apparently feels fairly strongly on this issue, having voted on the floor of the Senate by better than two to one to include this, that we probably ought to listen to their arguments. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, I think makes the cogent point, we are going to have to engage. Is this the appropriate time? Is this the appropriate arena? Probably not. But my colleagues should watch because this motion to instruct should be a voice vote. There is no reason whatsoever to have a recorded vote on a position ``support the House positions.'' So if the Democrats call for a recorded vote, it is a feeble opportunity on their part to try to catch someone who believes that we should not engage in these kinds of tactics so that a campaign position, if there is a recorded vote and they do not support this position, for them to put out a statement that the person who did not vote for this is in favor of increasing eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 67, shame on them. Can they not come up with a real issue so that we can have a real discussion on substance, instead of putting together a package which is ``support the House positions.'' The answer is, you bet we are going to support the House position. My challenge to them is to let it go on a voice vote and do not record the vote.