Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman has argued the points. None of the points that the gentleman has argued are in the House package, so I guess the concern of the gentleman is that this conferee and other House conferees, having gone through the legislative process on this side, not putting any of that material in the bill would now somehow think that it makes sense. Is that the concern of the gentleman from California?

Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, all I am saying is if the gentleman did not understand the point, let us see whether or not there is a recorded vote.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, is he concerned about the conferees not holding the House position? Is that his concern?

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

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, I want to thank him for the cooperative effort in producing this House product and we will continue to make sure that the House product survives in conference. I will commit to the gentleman that we will do everything we can to deliver the product. It is just a shame that we wind up with a political charade. If it is a voice vote, I understand the gentleman's and the others' concern. If it is a recorded vote, it is clear that these are political shenanigans.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased that the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] pretty well laid out the game plan here. He talked about the structural changes that the Republicans made in the balanced budget amendment in terms of Medicare changes. Most of those frankly are in this bill. They were voted on unanimously in subcommittee. The point that the gentleman was making on the structural age change from 65 to 67 was not in our program. It was not in the plan. If you are going to offer a motion to instruct which is not theater, the gentleman from California then went on to discuss the medical savings account provision and a number of other provisions. If you want a contest, you want to lock in positions that are important, that are of substance, that should have been your motion to instruct. Something of substance would have been worth this debate. The gentleman says we should have a recorded vote on the motion to instruct. The gentleman well knows the motion to instruct carries exactly the same weight whether it is passed by a voice vote or by a recorded vote. It is obvious in the debate that they want to make points not included in the motion to instruct. The motion to instruct is theater, and the recorded vote that will be insisted on by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is theater as well. Welcome to the grand theater of the absurd.

Mr. THOMAS. The question is, and I'll reclaim my time. If the gentleman wants to answer it, I'll give him another chance. If he chooses not to, that is fine. The question is, does the gentleman have confidence in the House conferees upholding the House position? Yes or no.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both the chairman and ranking member for taking the time that they have in looking at this obviously unique situation. I think all of us want to underscore the hours consumed in dealing with this issue is because it is a unique situation. It probably will remain unique, given the definition of unique, and it will not set a precedent. The people in the small community of Tulare in the central valley of California have got to feel comfortable that people who represent American Samoa and Utah, in their subcommittee duties, took enough time to understand the uniqueness of this situation that would allow what would if it were precedent-setting be an extremely unusual situation to go forward. I want to thank both of you for their willingness to work with my office and my constituents. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased that the House is considering my bill, H.R. 960, today because the bill is an essential step toward giving the city of Tulare, California's Tulare Redevelopment Agency the tools with which to end a blight in the city's downtown area. This bill will give local people control over Federal reversionary interest in railroad rights of way bisecting the very heart of the city, allowing a rural community with high unemployment to bring in new jobs. H.R. 960 takes a new approach to the complicated field of Federal land grants because of the unusual problem confronting the city of Tulare. Our Resources Committee colleagues passed the bill by voice vote on June 25, 1997, because they saw the need to foster redevelopment in this community. So does the Bureau of Land Management. In fact, the Bureau's full support of H.R. 960 is expressed in a letter I am submitting for the Record. We were able to reach agreement on the legislation because of the widespread agreement on the very unique setting H.R. 960 will address. Tulare, a city of 40,350 located in California's Central Valley, has an unemployment rate of over 15 percent. The surrounding county has a similarly high-unemployment rate and residents of the area have median incomes that are 30 percent below the rest of California's. City of Tulare leaders have been looking for ways to bring more jobs to the region for years. Tulare's Redevelopment Agency has been working on a redevelopment program as part of that process and the agency needs H.R. 960 to carry out its program. H.R. 960 is a very limited proposal intended to meet unique needs. It transfers the Federal reversionary interest in 12 parcels of land in the middle of the community to the city of Tulare's Redevelopment Agency so that the agency can pursue a 10-year program to finance and market a redevelopment program intended to help bring retailing opportunities and jobs to the community. There is no reason for the lands covered by H.R. 960 to be retained at the Federal level for recreational purposes. The parcels are in the midst of an urban, largely industrial area. The Bureau of Land Management [BLM] does not want these properties back and that the agency would seek some way of getting the land to Tulare if the railroad ever relinquished control. In similar circumstances, BLM has found these urban settings to be a drain on its resources because the unoccupied properties become casual dumping grounds which cost BLM money to clean up. If allowed to redevelop land adjacent to the rail line, the people of Tulare believe that it could generate more than 350 jobs in 6 years because of the agency's plan to create a retail shopping area. The city cannot gain control over the core of this corridor without a change in Federal law. In the last century, Congress extended rights of way to railroads in order to encourage the creation of a rail transport system. The Southern Pacific Railroad received rights for tracks and land adjacent to those tracks within what is now Tulare. Because the Federal Government has a reversionary interest in the right of way and surrounding properties, the redevelopment agency cannot obtain control of all the 12 parcels of land along the rail line that the city wishes to redevelop. The city cannot condemn the Federal interest and as a result, cannot make use of anything the community might secure from the railroad. The railroad and its successor, Union Pacific, run over 30 trains per day through the center of the city and as a result the tracks will probably never be abandoned under the law. The railroad will continue to argue that it controls the adjoining parcels of land because abandonment has not occurred. The Federal interest in these properties is at best a highly speculative, prospective one and that is the way things are likely to stay. That leaves Tulare with a problem. Most of the land along the tracks is empty. Small shops east of the rail line and a cotton seed mill and family homes on the other side look out on blighted property. There are a few small businesses operating on short-term leases and an abandoned gas station on railroad property along the corridor. For the most part, however, a visitor can see nothing but vacant lots that have cut off business growth from the east. The Tulare Redevelopment Agency's plan would preserve the railroad tracks while allowing some of this empty space in the center of town to be turned into more productive use. H.R. 960 clears the path for redevelopment. First, it gives the city clear title to one piece of property which Tulare already thought it had purchased from Southern Pacific before learning that railroad law clouded the title. Second, it transfers the reversionary interest in 11 other parcels so that the redevelopment agency can deal with the railroad and secure the remaining properties. It is essential that we pass this bill because the redevelopment plan cannot be made to work piecemeal. Following the practices of the past and ``confirming'' title in someone who has already bought a clouded title only solves part of the city's problem. To ensure coherent economic redevelopment, the redevelopment agency has to control all the parcels of land so planning, marketing and community financing of the development are possible. Giving the city title to one piece of property will deny the city resources to continue developing. Forcing the city to come back to Congress each time an interest is transferred is a waste of the city's time and ours. The bill is not intended by the Resources Committee or by me to be dispositive of the status of other rail properties not addressed in the legislation nor is it intended to set a general policy for the treatment of railroad grants. Because the city needs the redevelopment H.R. 960 will facilitate, our colleagues decided this unique approach should be adopted in this case. I urge my colleagues to join me passing H.R. 960 today. Tulare wants to take control over its own economic destiny by putting lousy land to better use. Unless this bill is enacted, Congress will be in the way of a city that badly needs our help. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC, June 24, 1997. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for this opportunity to comment on H.R. 960, a bill that will extinguish the Federal government's right of reversion to lands encumbered by a railroad right-of-way within Tulare, California. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), testified at a hearing on May 20, 1997, before the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands on this bill. It is my understanding that this bill will soon be marked up by your Committee and we would like our views included for the Record. The Administration supports the legislation as reported to your Committee. The BLM testified before the Subcommittee in support of H.R. 960 if certain changes were made to the bill. Those changes were made in Subcommittee markup and we now support this bill. H.R. 960 would eliminate all rights of the United States to land within a railroad right-of-way, granted by an Act of Congress on July 27, 1886, in downtown Tulare, California. The City of Tulare has requested this action in order to obtain clear title to those portions of the right-of-way within an Urban Redevelopment Plan adopted by the City. H.R. 960 would accomplish this by validating conveyances made prior to or after April 15, 1996, to the City of Tulare's Redevelopment Agency by the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, the holder of the railroad right-of-way (or its successor, presently Union Pacific Railroad). Currently, some 30 trains a day cross the tracks in the center of this right-of-way through downtown Tulare and the railroad owner has no plans to stop using the tracks. Therefore, until abandonment is legally determined, the property does not revert to the Federal government. Our understanding of the situation is that the City of Tulare attempted to acquire one parcel of land within the right-of-way for redevelopment purposes and was informed by their title company that it would not insure title because of the reversionary nature of the railroad's right-of-way. Because of this, the City did not attempt to acquire any of the remaining lands within its redevelopment area (encompassing approximately 60 acres) pending resolution of this issue. The right-of-way granted pursuant to the Act of July 27, 1866, is a grant of a limited fee, made on an implied condition of reverter in the event that the company ceased to use or retain the land for the purpose for which it was granted. By the Act of May 24, 1920 (43 U.S.C. 913), the railroad owners were authorized to convey to States, counties or municipalities the outer portions of the right-of-way for use as a public highway or street (such conveyances would still be subject to the possible future reversion to the United States). The 1988 National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1248(c)), provides that ``. . . all right, title, interest, and estate of the United States . . . shall remain in the United States upon the abandonment or forfeiture . . .'' of the railroad. BLM has examined the lands in downtown Tulare and has concluded that because of their location, and having reviewed the City's plans, the lands are best suited for local development as planned by the Redevelopment Agency. BLM is not interested in managing the lands involved even if they did revert to the Federal government. In the interim, the City of Tulare deserves to be able to plan for the development of its downtown and revitalize its business center. The only way that this public goal can be realized is for the Federal government to relinquish its interest in the property involved through legislation such as H.R. 960. We made several recommended changes which have been incorporated in the bill, including the deletion of the waiver of environmental laws and revised language clarifying that only conveyances from the railroad to the Redevelopment Agency would be validated. Finally, we requested that a map of this area be on file with the BLM and that we have an opportunity to see such a map before markup. We have reviewed that map and are satisfied with it. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this legislation. The Office of Management and Budget has advised us that it has no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the President's program. Sincerely, Piet deWitt, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and ranking member once again.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means for yielding me the time, but more importantly, for working cooperatively to produce a bill of which all of us can be proud. I have listened to this debate carefully, and frankly there are two themes that just baffle me. But that is okay. You folks baffle me often. One of them is that you have come to the floor and you have presented a number of charts which explain by graph lines that if you give more of the American people's money back to them, that is, leave it in their pocket, that somehow the Government is going to go into deficit. It is a very simple and fundamental question. What is the economic engine of this economy? Where are jobs created? We believe the economic engine is the individual, not the Government. It is quite clear when you make the argument that if you leave money in the pocket of citizens to invest, to grow, to create jobs, you are threatening the deficit of the Government. You are wrong. What that does is grow the economic pie. It means they are going to have a better life and there will be more revenue available to the Government. I know you do not believe that because you do not believe in leaving more money in the pockets of the citizens. The other thing that I have marveled about in terms of the presentation today is that there is one myth that you absolutely have to perpetuate. I was pleased yesterday on the front page of the Washington Post that the myth that there were aliens who visited the Roswell, NM, area 51, I apologize if some of you do not believe that it is a myth; if you believe it is reality, then it just proves my point even more, but I think we are beginning to realize that it is a myth. We have just recently realized that spicy foods do not cause ulcers. That is an old wives' tale. That is a myth, it is Bacteria. There is another other myth that is trying to be perpetuated on the floor of the House today. And that is if Republicans put together a tax cut, it must be for the rich. It cannot be any other way. They say aliens landed in Roswell, spicy foods cause you ulcers, Republicans' tax packages are for the rich. Let me give you an example of how far the Democrats have had to go to maintain the myth that this tax package is for the rich. Let us take a family that really has not had a very good year this year. It is the Smith family. There are three of them, Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their son, Tom, who is 16 years old. Mr. Smith worked in a foundry but because a lot of the work they are doing is being supplanted by imports, the job really has been threatened for some time. Mr. Smith was worried. He had an accident on the job and, as a matter of fact, the foundry closed down. He is getting workmen's comp because of his accident and he did get some severance pay from the company. They are fortunate, though, because over the years they have been able to save their money and they bought a modest home. They are living in the home. He has an insurance policy that is slowly getting bigger, like most of you have. And son, Tom, feeling pretty proud for a 16-year-old, works at a fast-food store to give himself some pocket change and help out around the house sometimes. He feels very good about it. In real life, that family profile produces no tax paid. As a matter of fact, they could earn another $10,000 under current law and there would be no tax paid. Look what the Democrats can do to this family, using their economic income profile. Do not look at the $70,000-a-year people. That is even worse. Look at the Smith family. All of a sudden in their family income profile, Mr. Smith must count his $5,000 of separation pay. Tom Smith's fast food money goes onto the ledger, $3,000, the $5,000 for workmen's comp, that is added to their income, and guess what, that modest home they live in that would after expenses rent for $500 a month, requires that you slap another $6,000 on their income. Under the Democrats' arguments about who is getting the benefits in this tax cut, the Smiths would have made $20,000 last year. And if you then take the current tax structure and impose it upon what they say the Smith family earned, under their economic income test, these poor folks, the fellow on workmen's comp who lost his job, whose kid felt pretty good about working, winds up owing $772 in taxes. That is what they do to reality to keep the myth alive that the Republicans have tax cuts for the rich. Real Life Gross income for Mr. and Mrs. Smith, $5,000 (separation pay). Standard deduction, ($6,000). Personal exemptions (for Mr. and Mrs. Smith and son Tom), ($7,950). Taxable income, ($9,850). In real life, the Smiths owe no tax.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman for yielding me the time. I talked earlier about the fact that the Democrats are just loath to have the myth of Republicans only cutting taxes for the rich and so they have had to create a ridiculous explanation of how much someone has to argue that this is for the wealthy. But I now realize that they have another problem; that is, they have tax package envy. It is amazing to listen to the Democrats put together a tax package. Is it not interesting in their tax package they have a child credit? We have a child credit; they have a child credit. But it is a whole lot like Hollywood, when you walk down the movie sets, they are a facade. It looks like a house but it is really just a fake front. They do not give $500 to families until 2001. We have capital gains. They have capital gains. There is that front, looks like capital gains. Walk through the door. It is not available to people who trade in public securities. There is a lifetime cap of $600,000, but they need that section for their tax bill. Education, there is no incentive here to save and to grow and to teach people that education is valuable, and we have a structure that will allow you to nurture growth for education. It is a 100 percent pass-through. Let me tell my colleagues, as soon as those institutions out there, in my background as a teacher, once you have a $10,000 checkoff spot on your income tax, do you know how much tuition is going to go up? Do you know what the argument is going to be? Just pass it through. Where is quality? Where is growth? Where is incentive? But they have got that facade. Estate tax, have to have the estate tax facade. It is there not for individuals, just small businesses. Expiring provision, got to have a section on expiring provisions. Read the fine print. It is only for 1 year. Why bother? Because they have tax package envy. We have expiring provisions. They have to have expiring provisions. And then to really show you the game, all day the gentleman from New York has been talking about giving hardworking people relief, not just those who pay income taxes, but those people who pay other taxes as well. Well, one of the biggest taxes that are paid are payroll taxes. If an employer pays a payroll tax, that is money not available to go to the worker. Guess what, in the fine print of their tax package is the perpetuation of a payroll tax, $6.3 billion over 5 years. While they are saying we ought to give some relief to those who pay payroll taxes, they are perpetuating a tax which guarantees workers will get less. Tax package envy, I am really surprised. It looks pretty good. It looks a lot like ours, but beware, it is a Hollywood set.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I tell the gentlewoman who just spoke that as a matter of fact, if she will examine the budget agreement in the area of children's insurance, the 16 billion which was required is part of the agreement; we met the agreement in that area. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller], a valued member of the committee. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland. It was a pleasure working with him. My hope is that I will have an opportunity to work with him again on important legislation. He may deny me that chance by a decision he may make in another political arena. But the thing I admire most about the gentleman from Maryland is that he deals from a basis of fact. We have heard a number of people repeat the $16 billion for 5 million children. For the last time, unchallenged, the Congressional Budget Office said the President's plan in his budget, $21.9 billion would produce only 830,000 children covered. If anyone stands up and says, there was a promise of 5 million children and someone reneged, they are playing fast and loose with the facts. The reason we were able to build the consensus was because members of Ways and Means did not do that. Shame on Members if they do it on the floor. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Medicare provisions in this mark are outstanding because of the cooperation on both sides of the aisle, and I want to thank all of the members and staff for helping put this magnificent product together.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the budget process provisions prospectively amend another bill; that is, H.R. 2014, the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997, specifically section 11204(c). It suspends provisions in the Internal Revenue Code that are added by H.R. 2014 and is, therefore, beyond the scope.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, as we carry on what I guess passes for normal debate around here, I think we probably ought to pause for just a moment and not let our partisan juices flow quite as freely as they do sometimes, because quite frankly, the Medicare provision in this bill is remarkable. It is remarkable for a number of reasons, but I think primarily because it sets a standard for what I believe ought to be the way in which we work public policy. The Medicare Program is as important as any policy that the Federal Government has. It is more important than cheap partisan shots. Trying to resolve one of the more difficult problems that faces all of us and, more importantly, the seniors in this country is important. I think we have all come to the general agreement that people will consume as much health care as other people are willing to pay for. If in fact that is true, and I think we believe it is, our Medicare Program is clearly in trouble. Bankruptcy was facing it: With an antiquated and out-of-date delivery system, especially with the rapid changes that are occurring in the private sector health care delivery system and the fact that some of the programs that we offer are as old as the bureaucracy that structured it; that is, we wait until people are sick before we deal with the problem instead of moving aggressively into preventive care and wellness. This measure, passed by the Committee on Ways and Means and by the Subcommittee on Health, unanimously by the Subcommittee on Health, moves, I think, aggressively in the area of prevention, aggressively in the area of wellness, aggressively to address the question of bankruptcy, and aggressively to open up the system to a choice for seniors. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark]), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health. (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. For the record, I would like to indicate that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] did support the Medicare section of the provision coming out of the Committee on Ways and Means and his remarks were focused on other portions of the bill. I am sure Members understood that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], a very valuable member of the subcommittee. (Mr. ENSIGN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I tell the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] that we have sat down with the Members from New Jersey. We believe we have addressed that problem. We have solved that problem just as we solved other problems, in concert with the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka], the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra]. Those are the Democratic members of the Subcommittee on Health who voted unanimously in support of the work product in front of us. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, we heard all day, speaker after speaker on the other side of the aisle go into the well and say that the provisions that the Republicans had structured were outside the scope of the budget agreement, that we had not lived up to the budget agreement, that oh, my goodness, how could you not live up to the budget agreement. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit, guess what, does not live up to the budget agreement. It clearly states in the budget agreement that there are two areas where money can be spent for children's health care. One is in Medicaid. The other one is in block grants. Other possibilities are available if mutually agreeable. Mutually agreeable. The fact of the matter is, this motion to recommit has mandatory language requiring private insurers to carry out the wish, yes, the demands of the Democrats. It is clearly beyond the budget agreement. How in the world can you folks spend all day telling us that provision after provision is unacceptable because it is outside the budget agreement and yet you offer a motion to recommit which is one, subject to a point of order, it is not germane, and, two, the entire rest of the context is outside of the budget agreement? Why do you not live up to what you preach. I would simply tell my colleagues, the simple answer is to vote no on the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], chairman of the Committee on Commerce, who has the specific jurisdiction of this matter, which is outside the scope of the budget agreement.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], a valuable member of the subcommittee.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, since the Portrait Monument was actually placed in the rotunda in the 105th Congress we had created an opportunity for a ceremony in the 104th. Given the rules since the 104th expired, there is no current ability to hold a ceremony. What we are asking for is to bring that ceremony authorized in Concurrent Resolution 216 into the 105th, based upon concurrence by the Senate.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the authorization contained in House Concurrent Resolution 216, which was passed in the 104th Congress, relating to the use of the rotunda for a ceremony to commemorate the placement of the Portrait Monument in the Capitol rotunda, be extended into this, the 105th Congress, subject to concurrence by the Senate.