Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would take my own time to mention briefly that I have listened to several Democrats, and I assume we will hear from several more. Their basic message is: You woulda, coulda, shoulda. I just find it totally ironic. All you have to do is just come with me 3 short years ago. I was not the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment then. I was the ranking member. The gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] was the chairman. What the Democrats did when they had a majority in the House and the Senate and had a member of their own party in White House is put absolutely nothing on the floor of this House; absolutely nothing on portability; absolutely nothing increasing penalties on waste, fraud, and abuse. The Democrats talk woulda, coulda, shoulda, about a product. I want to address myself to my Republican colleagues here. I do not want us to vote against the conference report because minority leader Daschle joined us in a press conference praising the work product working positively between the House and the Senate. And I do not want my Republican colleagues to vote against this conference report because the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] signed the conference report and said some very nice words about all of us working very hard to produce a good product. I do want my colleagues to vote for this conference report because a name has not been mentioned on this floor who not only deserves to be mentioned but deserves to be praised. That is the senior Senator from Kansas, the chairwoman. Nancy Kassebaum is who this legislation belongs to. I think it is a very appropriate capping of an illustrious career to take this positive document and place it before us. So despite all of the rather petulant-sounding woulda, coulda, shoulda from those people who owned the House, the Senate and the presidency and put nothing on this floor, I would just like to say it was a real pleasure working with chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], and the staff members on that committee who worked extremely hard: Chip Kahn, Kathy Means and Elise Gemeinhardt. It was a real pleasure working with the Committee on Commerce, Chairman Bliley, Subcommittee Chairman Bilirakis, with Howard Cohen and Melody Harned. It was a real pleasure working with Chairman Goodling, Subcommittee Chairman Harris Fawell, and Russ Mueller as a hardworking staff; with Chairman Hyde of the Committee on the Judiciary, and Diane Schacht working very hard. All of those people should be proud. They delivered. We delivered. We have on this floor a conference report that makes a real change in the lives of millions of Americans. We make health care more affordable, more available, and we did it without a government takeover of health care, which was what they were trying to get on the floor. Thank goodness enough Democrats, who made up the majority at that time, said no. And thank goodness enough Democrats today will support this excellent conference report, we will send it to the President, and the president will sign it.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, we know to err is human, to forgive divine. I am going to try to elevate the gentleman. I thank him for his vote on the conference report, and in the 105th Congress this new majority will work with him to remove and eliminate those errors that we know he will point out to us, and we appreciate his presence.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am using this time during debate because, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] said, there is no time to debate the motion to recommit. I have just seen the motion to recommit, and he was speaking about the mental health provision. I do think Members need to understand just what has gone on here, notwithstanding the absolutely outrageous statements that the gentleman from California made, and perhaps he got carried away with his own ``eloquence.'' To review the bidding, there was no mental health provision in the bill that passed the House. We tried to work it out. There was no compromising. Folks were not willing to give on the Democratic side. On the Senate side, there was an amendment that was accepted by a voice vote and immediately following the passage of the bill, 100 to nothing, the chairwoman and the ranking member, Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy and others, went to the mike and said, ``We are probably going to take this out in conference.'' Because everyone knew the amendment that was passed was simply an unworkable piece of legislation. We sat down in conference and read it and realized it was totally unworkable. However, the House, not having any provision, said, ``Senate, work it out. We will accept whatever you can work out. It was your provision; you folks come to an agreement. We will accept what you can work out.'' One of the major discussions throughout the conference was the Senators talking among themselves about what the mental health provision was going to be. The chairwoman from Kansas offered Senator Domenici the agreed-upon mental health provision and the Senator said, ``I choose nothing.'' It was the Senate's choice, notwithstanding the vitriolic statements from the gentleman from California. What is in the bill is the Senate's choice. It was a Senate provision. The conferences said, let the Senate work its will. What is before this House is a conference report containing the Senate's will on mental health. That is what is in front of us. The motion to recommit to change the Senate's will is opposed by this gentleman and opposed by everybody on this side because that is not everything that is in the motion to recommit. The gentleman has other provisions he chose not to speak about. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, On Wednesday, July 31, 1996, I missed vote No. 384, the Studds substitute to the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act. Had I been present I would have voted ``no''. I was detained as I was taking part in the public announcement with all of my colleagues who negotiated the final agreement on the health care reform bill.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2739) to provide for a representational allowance for Members of the House of Representatives, to make technical and conforming changes to sundry provisions of law in consequence of administrative reforms in the House of Representatives, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, 1 million acres of farmland in the United States will be eaten up by parking lots, freeways, and suburban growth this year. In fact, within the hour, one acre of precious farmland in the Central Valley of California will be taken out of production. The Central Valley of California currently produces over $13 billion in agriculture produce and feeds millions in the United States and around the world. Farmland in areas surrounding cities is being displaced by urban development at one of the fastest rates in history and for this reason our farmers have been placed under new pressures. A time can be foreseen in which an area like the Central Valley may not even be capable of feeding itself because of urban outgrowth. When the great cities of our country were settled, they were developed near rich agricultural land to assure an adequate food supply. As urban areas continued to sprawl, many fertile acres were consumed and many more were placed at risk. Over the past 10 years, urban sprawl has eaten up over 26 million acres of productive farmland: an area the size of Kentucky has been displaced by urban development. Most of the farmland lost in the country has been located in urban influenced counties--where the density is at least 25 persons per square mile. A recent study by the American Farmland Trust estimated that the farmland in the urban influenced counties was 2.7 times more productive than the remaining U.S. counties. Eighty seven percent of our domestic fruit and nut production is also grown in these threatened counties. Every citizen should be concerned with a secure U.S. food supply and preservation of productive lands because the loss of farmland affects more than family farmers. Others affected by the land loss include the large agriculture support sector that ranges from fertilizer and equipment suppliers to fruit and vegetable processors. The general public could also face grocery counters half-full of not so fresh, costly produce imported from around the world. Agriculture is a basic and fundamental part of life from the food we eat to the clothes we wear. It is important that during times of fast growth we take a closer look at how our land is being used and how we can protect those that are being displaced by the urban community. Farming has been placed under new pressures that are coupled with the rising costs of this capital intensive business. For example, farmers putting in a wine grap vineyard will encounter 4 years development costs over $17,000 dollars per acre above the land acquisition costs. Pistachio farmers should expect at least $7,000 dollars in preproductive costs per acre and olive growers $5,000 dollars an acre. These costs could literally double or triple dependent on the value of the land. Aside from the high start up costs of crops such as orchards and vineyards U.S. farm real estate values also continue to rise. According to statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture the value of U.S. farm real estate has risen 6.4 percent over the past year to $832 per acre. This $832 figure may be rising, but it still does not nearly reflect the cost of acquiring a prime piece of farmland in highly productive, urban-influenced states like California and Florida. An average piece of farmland in California and Florida is worth over $2,000 and can be worth as much as $17,000. Along with high costs farmers continue to be plagued with storms, disease, and pests that destroy many acres of orchards and vineyards annually. Some of this costly acreage has not even reached a productive state. Crops like tangerines and cherries can take 5 to 6 years to reach productivity. In a natural disaster a farmer with a crop in a preproductive state may have trouble sustaining large losses because he does not have a return on his investment. Most farmers do not realize an actual profit for many years after a productive state is achieved. Natural disasters particularly impact small family farms that already have a small profit margin. As a witness to the rate of urbanization in my own district, I have developed two incentives that would amend the 1986 tax code and keep families in farming and land in rural uses. I recently introduced H.R. 3749 to amend the tax code to promote replacement of crops destroyed by casualty. This bill will provide an incentive to replant by allowing them to deduct the cost of replanting their destroyed crop in the event of freezing temperatures, disease, drought, or pests, all events that cannot be controlled. It allows farmers to deduct the costs of replacing key infrastructure. I have also introduced H.R. 520 to make it easier to tranfer farms from generation to generation. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture the average size farm in the United States is 469 acres. The land alone of an average farm in California is worth over $1 million and can be worth as much as $8 million on prime farm land. These numbers are the primary reasons that I have introduced H.R. 520 to double the current maximum benefit under the estate tax special valuation deduction. A farmer can be worth millions in terms of acreage but that does not necessarily mean that there is cash to pay estate taxes, or--during his life--other unexpected costs. This results in many farmers splitting their land up into parcels and selling out to developers just in order to cover their costs. Current tax law that allows for $750,000 in maximum benefits is outdated in accordance to the cost of farming today. After you figure in the value of crops, irrigation systems, improvements (buildings, etc.), and equipment, the value of today's farm may be worth almost twice as much. The bills proection of $1,500,000 would allow for more continuity in farm acreage when transferring land between generations, avoiding the need for families to split up their land to pay off the estate tax. Prime agriculture land is being authorized as we speak. Providing these small incentives to America's farmer would encourage families to stay in farming and secure an abundant food supply for the 21st century.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, in the 20 years since its inception, the implementation of the Endangered Species Act has undermined the rights of private landowners and is jeopardizing the Nation's food supply. The people of the Central Valley of California, in which my district is located, have on more than one occasion been penalized for simply trying to irrigate, cultivate, or otherwise use their own property. This illustrates one fundamental flaw in the Endangered Species Act: one section of the population is paying a disproportionate share of the cost of protecting endangered species. We, the people of the United States, decided to protect endangered species. Yet, while the farmers and business people of the Central Valley pay the cost of administering endangered species habitats on their property, those Americans who do not own and work the land are exempted from the cost of protecting endangered species. A second, and more disturbing, result of the implementation of the act is that it threatens America's food supply. Tulare and Kern Counties, both located within my district, are the second and third largest agricultural producing counties in the United States. Tulare County annually produces over 260,000 bales of cotton, over 1 million tons of citrus, over 340,000 head of cattle, and over 568 million gallons of milk. Kern County produces over 730,000 tons of grapes, over 590,000 bales of cotton, over 600,000 tons of citrus, and over 104 million gallons of milk. The Central Valley of California feeds the Nation. In enforcing the Endangered Species Act, the Government is not only acting against the property rights of private landowners, it is also hindering the production of the Nation's food. Let me give some examples. Federal and State agents force landowners to pay outrageous fees and penalties in order to resolve concerns for the well-being of endangered species, including various rodents and lizards, living on private property. One farmer who tried to build a turkey ranch had to forfeit some of his land to the Government and pay $50,000 for the management of a habitat for the Tipton Kangaroo Rat, among other species. One farmer, hoping to build a dairy, plowed 160 acres of his own land. The Fish and Wildlife Service did not approve, fearing for the kangaroo rat, and the farmer was forced to sell the Government 112 acres of his land and provide $14,000 for the area's management. On yet another occasion, an environmental assessment was required during the sale of land in southern Tulare County. The assessment team found no endangered species on the property in question, but, as they were returning to their car, they spied a Swainson's Hawk, a threatened species, flying overhead. The hawk never landed on the property, but the team still believed it might feed on rodents living on the property. As a consequence, the farmer who owned the land had to pay an outrageous $165,000 in mitigation fees. These fees not only represent an exorbitant cost for the farmers involved, they also show how a small group of citizens are paying for a solution to a problem we as a society decided to address. In reforming the Endangered Species Act we must balance the rights of landowners with the rights of threatened animals, and we must ensure that society as a whole contributes to the cost of protecting such animals. The Endangered Species Act not only poses a threat to the California farmer and businessperson, it poses a threat to all citizens. Production in the richest agricultural region in the United States has time and again been obstructed by overzealous Government agents enforcing the act. In 1991 California farmers were in the middle of a 6-year drought, and the Kern County Water Agency proposed drilling emergency wells to irrigate crops. Before it could begin to recover much-needed groundwater, however, the Water Agency was forced to complete surveys for the presence of the kangaroo rat, at a cost of over $27,000. Not a single endangered species was ever identified. The environmental assessment caused a delay of 3 months in the drilling of the wells, and thousands of acres of valuable crops were put in jeopardy. In another incident, the Kern County Water Agency, along with the State of California, purchased 20,000 acres of land to construct an underground reservoir. ``Water banks'' such as these are a very cost- effective way of collecting water for irrigation, and California taxpayers invested close to $60 million in the project. The Water Agency, regardless of the fact that it spent over $100,000 on a comprehensive conservation plan for the area, was told it must set aside 12,000 acres for an endangered species habitat, leaving only 8,000 acres for the water bank. The Water Agency understandably believed this was unreasonable and abandoned the project. I support H.R. 2275, the Endangered Species Conservation and Management Act, which says those who enforce the Endangered Species Act must consider economic impacts and property owners' rights when taking action to protect endangered species. The bill would require the Government to pay landowners fair market value when, in creating and administering habitats for endangered species, it causes the value of the property to diminish. H.R. 2275 also requires that the Secretary of Interior use only the best scientific or commercial data in determining which species are threatened or endangered, delegates authority to the individual States to protect endangered species that reside within each State, and establishes a National Biological Diversity Reserve to help preserve the existence of threatened and endangered species. Effective reform of the Endangered Species Act should be on our agenda. I urge support for the Endangered Species Conservation and Management Act to better protect the property rights of landowners and preserve agricultural production in the Central Valley, while accommodating the society-wide goal of preserving truly endangered species.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman correctly described the Democratic bill. What it does is coerce people to provide subsidies so that government can attempt to convince people they should not exercise their free speech rights. That is the typical approach that the Democrats use in the use of government; that is, coercion, control, and limits. But I really would like to focus on the bill itself. If anyone is interested, section 304 says, merchandising and affinity cards. We have heard the term ``true reform.'' We have heard common sense in terms of the way the Democrats are approaching this. Take a look at section 304. It says, Notwithstanding the provisions of this section or any other provision of this Act to the contrary, an amount received from a corporation shall be deemed to meet the limitations and prohibitions of this act if such amount represents a commission or a royalty. True reform or a scam?

Mr. THOMAS. No. I do not have the time. I will not yield on my time. I would be more than happy to yield on the gentleman's time.

Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman says taking money from corporations on under the guise of hard dollars is a de minimis issue. I think the American people would differ with him. That is why he is not talking about that section.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] to conclude the debate both on the Republican bill and on the Farr substitute, a gentleman who prior to becoming Speaker was the ranking member on the House Administration Committee that oversees all of the Federal election laws, someone who is very familiar with this area. It is my pleasure for our side to yield to the Speaker of the House.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is correct. Those people who are urging support for the Farr bill and oppose the Republican bill are the people who believe that government should be used to impose controls on people and to limit and coerce them into giving up their free speech rights. What we do is empower individuals.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, some people will say, how in the world can anyone stand up and oppose that? The fact of the matter is, Members really need to know the whole story. This is not about disclosure. If it were about disclosure, we can deal with that in any number of statutes. The gentleman from California said this is sunlight. Let me tell the gentleman, if we pass this, what will happen. He will think it is sunlight. Someone else will think it is a grow light. Somebody else will think it is a 100-watt bulb. Somebody else will think it is a 300- watt bulb. What is it? The Supreme Court, not a lower court, not some district court, the Supreme Court said free speech is so fundamental to a free society that we have got to let people express themselves. Advocacy is a fundamental right. If you express support for someone, that is express advocacy. What they have not told us is that their amendment contains this, on page 3 of the amendment: The term ``express advocacy'' means, they want to say, when taken as a whole. The Court in Buckley said it means when you use the words expressly, vote for, elect, support, cast your ballot for, not when taken as a whole. They said when it is sunlight, it is sunlight and everybody knows it. Do not give in to the urge to take the freedom of speech away from people. Justice Potter Stewart said, ``I can't define obscenity but I know it when I see it,'' these people want to take the definition ``I know it when I see it'' and suppress free speech. The Supreme Court in Buckley said no, it is not your judgment as to whether or not it is free speech. It is the words as they are stated. When they are stated, it is. When we think they are, it is not. If you believe in a free society, if you believe in the Constitution, you do not take the words taken as a whole, you take the words. Reject their motion to recommit.

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

Mr. THOMAS. I will yield on the gentleman's time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, this is always a very difficult time for Members because we are dealing with something which affects every one of us. It is also especially troublesome because we are dealing with an attempt to write law in an area where the Constitution is fairly clear and the Supreme Court, periodically and most recently, reclarified where we are dealing with people's fundamental first amendment right of freedom of speech. But I do have to say that the gentleman from West Virginia and several other speakers have certainly exercised their free speech rights in characterizing and perhaps overzealously characterizing provisions in both bills. These bills do in fact limit. Ours limits, it limits in a different way. When we get into discussions about the bills and their substance, we obviously will have a lot of time to talk about the new way in which wee limit. I am going to spend some time talking about the common way in which both bills limit and reform. It just seems to me that as we discuss what we are doing here, we do have to keep in mind that there is a Constitution, that there are rights. The Supreme Court has corrected the overzealousness of Congress in the past. We should move reform. It should be done carefully. We will talk about the substance. But as we deal with the rhetoric, and it appears that we are warming up on the rhetoric, we really ought to try to stick to the facts and the substance, because, frankly, some folks are getting just a little carried away. For example, the gentleman said that there were no limits whatsoever on the amount that individuals could give to parties. There is. There is an aggregate limit in the Democrats' bill and in our bill, and it is the same amount.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. THOMAS. Yes. In our bill we take that money which can now be spent, the money which national parties can now spend in mixed activity in which they can utilize all soft money, and say, any time the national party is involved with Federal candidates, it must be so- called hard money, you cannot use soft money. That is a change.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, yet another example of overzealousness. The gentleman said that what we do is allow more folks to shovel in even more special interest money. Special interest money is usually defined as political action committee money. Our bill cuts political action committee contributions by 50 percent, far more than the Democrats' bill provides. We had testimony in front of the committee that labor unions are now involving themselves in the political process to the tune of $300 to $400 million. That amount is not disclosed. The provisions that we have in the bill requires that union political money to be disclosed. What we do is empower the rank and file to say, if you want your money spent for those political purposes, by all means, tell the unions to go ahead. But if you do not, following the court's decision, you can say no. We allow the rank and file to say no to the unions if they want to. It is their choice. That is the kind of positive reform many Democrats are afraid of.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill just considered.