Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I appreciate his at least being honest, indicating that I told you privately and this gentleman certainly appreciates the way in which you honor private conversations, and it will be remembered.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], a valued member of the Committee on House Oversight.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2527 changes both the way in which candidate committees and other committees can file with the Federal Election Commission and it removes an impediment to the public's right to know as soon as possible the information surrounding a candidate in that candidate's report if the candidate is running for the House of Representatives. H.R. 2527 passed the Committee on House Oversight unanimously. What we did was to examine the current way in which candidates and incumbent Members of the House file their campaign reports with the FEC. First of all, they do not file the reports with the FEC, they file them with the Clerk of the House. The Clerk of the House then forwards the reports of all of the candidates, incumbents as well as challengers, to the FEC. What occurs is a delay of up to 3 days where the public does not know what is in those reports. H.R. 2527 does away with the requirement that candidates for Congress, both incumbents and challengers, file with the Clerk of the House. Under H.R. 2527, candidates will file directly with the FEC as other committees are required to file. In addition to that, it seems to me that campaigns are now run sufficiently using electronic technology that candidates who so choose--there is no requirement--but if candidates choose to file with the FEC, the FEC should accept those filings electronically, beginning in 1997. This reform continues to update the capabilities of the FEC so that as more and more campaign information is stored electronically and reported electronically, the information in those candidates' reports can be turned over to the public more quickly. It seems to me that the FEC should be, first of all, given the opportunity to allow people to file electronically and the Committee on House Oversight will then review how successful that procedure has been. Since we are allowing the FEC to require candidates to file records with the FEC electronically, we also then waive the requirement that committees file with a State that also files electronically, since that would duplicate materials. So H.R. 2527, although not a comprehensive piece of legislation, I think nevertheless begins the 104th Congress as the new majority's examination of the way in which we run campaigns. Although the committee is continuing to hold hearings on a larger issue of candidates and their running for office, in this particular area, with the ability to file electronically, to waive duplication where filing electronically is involved, and to remove an impediment to the public's right to know, it seems to me that we have taken a modest, but positive, step forward, and I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2527. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] indicated that perhaps there had been some difficulty in communication between the policy committee, which is the Committee on House Oversight, and the Committee on Appropriations. I would say to the gentleman that perhaps the confusion was more in the eye of the beholder, and in listening to various dollar amounts that we are discussing vis-a-vis the FEC, I do think we would be remiss if we do not put on the record that by closing down the House Clerk operation for review of all of those campaign reports, we are going to be saving more than half a million dollars a year. Although we certainly do want to look at savings in any particular one area, we also have to look at the larger picture. Mr. Speaker, I believe practice that cost the Clerk's Office a half a million dollars per year for a needless and unnecessary slowdown in the public's access to the information that is in campaign reports is a practice that needed to be ended for a long time. With this new majority, we are ending that practice. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Maryland did not mean to misspeak in his concluding comments, but this is not an additional responsibility for the FEC. The FEC now has the responsibility to receive and record all campaign reports. This is a timing question. Because, notwithstanding current procedure, where the campaign reports are filed with the clerk of the House first, they are nevertheless still eventually transferred to the FEC. So this is not, I repeat, not an additional responsibility for the FEC. It is merely a question of timing. The FEC enjoyed, as we say, the float. The fact that the clerk was the one who received at the appropriate deadline the reports, enabled the FEC to buy some time to do other work that was required under the law by the deadline and then begin to receive, 1 to 3 days after the deadline, the materials from the clerk. This procedure could have been changed in any previous Congress. But it was convenient for folk. It was useful to have a system for holding reports in an area where that report could be retrieved by candidates, to be changed, to be reviewed, and then submitted to the FEC. It seems to me the fundamental responsibility is the deadline and the public's right to know. The practice that H.R. 2527 eliminates is that float time. It does away with the convenience that the FEC had for a number of years of not having to deal with its responsibilities at the given deadline. So when we talk about costs to the FEC, quite frankly this is something that should have been corrected a long time ago. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2527, the bill just passed.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am more than willing to do this over and over again. I apologize for not being here. We were in conference trying to move forward, as Members seemingly have asked us to do. But obviously when they misrepresent facts and obstruction the way you have. Everybody in the United States knows, except those of you who are willing to admit you also know, Medicare is in trouble. Not on a partisan basis, on a bipartisan basis. It is an entitlement program that has to be checked, controlled and curbed. And it has to be done in a way that takes into consideration the interests of the beneficiaries who are receiving the benefits today and the people who are going to receive the benefits tomorrow. No one should argue that point. It is perfectly legitimate to how you solve the program. There are a lot of different ways to solve it. I will tell you one way that is pure, unmitigated political hypocrisy. And that is to pander to seniors and say the way we are going to save Medicare is to reduce your premium. That is absolute pandering. You folks have done that for so many years, it is hard to break old habits, and we understand that. But let me tell you what we have to do is every one in this society share in the problem. No one group can evade sharing in the problem. You folks have asked people who are working over and over again to bear virtually the total cost of the program. Six times in the last 10 years you either increased the payroll tax or you increased the percentage that people have to pay into the payroll tax to cover up the problem in Medicare. Finally, in 1993, you blew off the lid. No person in America makes enough money to evade the payroll tax that you increased to 1.45 percent on those individuals. My colleagues' answer would be more of the same. If my colleagues do more of the same, it takes two to three times the increase on that payroll tax just to get us to the year 2002, the year in which the trustees said part A is going bankrupt, and my colleagues cannot tolerate a 10-percent-plus-a-year increase in part B, they cannot tolerate it. If they do, even their honorable Senators on the other side, Kerrey, said it is unsustainable, and they are going to give the seniors a reduction in the premium. Absolute pandering. What we have to say is, ``Seniors, will you bear your fair share?'' And what is the seniors' fair share? Keep the premium where it is today. That is all we ask. I am over there right now telling the Senators where they wanted to increase the deductible on seniors from $100 to $150 that that is unacceptable, where they said, ``Let's index it,'' that that is unacceptable, where they wanted copays, that that is unacceptable. What we have said is all we ask of seniors is to keep the premium where it is, and my colleagues come down to this floor and pander: Hey, we want to reduce the premium for seniors. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues do not have any solutions; we do. Guess what it is? It is to take a look at what is going out in America every day today in health care. They are not paying 10-percent-a-year increases. What they are doing is saying create a choice structure that allows people through choice to get some of the benefits that the children and the grandchildren of today's beneficiaries get. They cannot do that right now because we have a closed government system that operates one way basically, and that is a fee-for-service system. What we are saying is, ``Let's open up the fee-for-service system.'' What has happened in the private sector when it opened up the fee-for- service system to choice? That fee-for-service system is withering away, it is disappearing. It is no longer the predominant health care delivery system in California. It is 75 percent managed care. What the Speaker said was that what is going on outside in the real world, [[Page H 12122]] the fee-for-service system withering away, should happen to Medicare if people choose to have it happen, and what we hope is that we create a program successfully enough to attract people to a positive program in terms of the growth so that the old-fashioned system that was increasing at 10 percent a year will not be the dominant system. My colleagues better hope we are successful. I know they do not want to help us, but my colleagues better hope we are successful because, if we are not, this entitlement program is going to eat us all alive. We do not want to tell seniors they cannot have the old system. Mr. Speaker, we do not want to tell the seniors that they have to do something. We want to work together to create a positive structure where young people and seniors sharing in the responsibility stave off bankruptcy and reduce the cost of the Federal budget so we can balance our budget. What we want out of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, is to simply join us and tell seniors, ``Share, help us solve the problem, stay when you are on your premium, and we can solve the problem.'' What is their answer? Pander to seniors and reduce the premium. My colleagues are not only in the minority, they are outrageous.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Congress' decision to conduct a comprehensive overhaul of an archaic export policy. Today I am speaking in support of S. 395, which includes provisions to end the ban on exports of Alaskan North Slope crude oil. This is an opportunity to enhance the ability of the U.S. energy industry to compete in the arena of international trade. The ANS ban has been in effect for over 20 years, and was supposedly created to, among other things, ``safeguard our energy security.'' During this 20-year period, there has been no evidence to support this hypothesis. In fact, the evidence clearly demonstrates that our dependence on foreign oil has increased over this period. Domestic production is declining as a result of this export ban, while demand for oil continues to increase. The shortfall can only be met through increased imports, which helps to explain why we now import around 50 percent of all energy consumed in the United States. Perhaps the supporters of the ban could try to explain to the American people how a continued decline in domestic production, coupled with increasing consumer demand, has safeguarded our energy security? It is critical that we recognize the importance of the ANS issue. Do we want to sell the naval petroleum reserves or increase its value? Do we want to help heavy oil producers maintain their economic viability through royalty relief proposals such as those offered by the Bureau of Land Management? Whatever options we choose with regard to these issues, we must repeal the ANS ban first, to ensure that we are dealing with the cause of the problems, and not just the symptoms. This issue has been debated at length on the floor and in the Resources Committee. The Resources Committee passed the bill on a voice vote and the bill enjoyed wide bipartisan support in committee and on the floor, where it passed by a vote of 324 to 77. In addition, over 75 of my colleagues have already cosponsored H.R. 70, 23 Democrats and 55 Republicans, including 23 Californians. Recently, there has been discussion in Congress of the possible sale of the naval petroleum reserves [NPR] at Elk Hills, CA. With the current price of crude artificially depressed due to the ban on the sale of ANS crude, eliminating the ban would greatly enhance the value of the facility and its return to the taxpayer would be subsequently enhanced. With the Defense bill resolution which included the sale of NPR having already passed the House and Senate, it is imperative that we move to reform this artificially distorted market to project the true value of this crude oil. This bill truly has value in closing the deficit, for in addition to the $55 million in reduced Federal outlays which CBO has predicted over the next 5 years, the taxes payable on the 15,000 to 20,000 oil production jobs and increased oil production created through the repeal of the ban would be significant. Government interference in this market has not worked and must be ended. Our economy is based on the operation of the market, and there is no economic argument that can be advanced to justify the continued market-distorting ban on exports of ANS crude. The market can and should dictate where this oil goes and the price for which it is sold. Additionally, lifting this ban would lead to a reduction in the number of tankers, loaded with crude oil, traveling along nearly the entire Western coastline of the North American Continent. By allowing the export of ANS crude, some amount of this oil will be shipped to markets in the Far East. As a result, fewer tankers will make the trip along our coast to their current destinations in Washington and California, and it will eliminate movement of ANS crude oil to the gulf coast that involves multiple loading and unloading operations. This clearly translates into a reduced risk of oil spills, small and large, along both Canadian and United States coastlines. For years, efforts to repeal the ban have been met with opposition from maritime unions, who were concerned that the repeal of the ban would adversely affect U.S. merchant fleet jobs. Now, a compromise has been reached which accomplishes the goal of lifting the ban while ensuring the interests of the maritime unions. The unions now agree that ending of the ANS crude ban is consistent with the economic security and defense interests of the Nation in that it provides employment opportunities for American citizens and ensures the Nation a fleet of American-flag tankers. Given the current declining North Slope production, the independent tanker fleet and the men and women who crew the vessels face a bleak future. By encouraging oil production, ANS exports can help secure their future and preserve jobs that otherwise would be lost. On March 1, the administration announced that it was ``convinced that there are economic and energy benefits that can be gained from permitting exports of ANS crude.'' In setting forth requirements for inclusion in the final legislative language, the administration stated: All ANS oil must be exported in U.S.-flagged and U.S.- crewed vessels. Reforms should not transfer existing seafarer employment abroad. Legislation must provide substantial protection of seafarer employment opportunities for American workers. As introduced, S. 395 satisfies this condition. Under the bill, ANS crude may be exported only if ``transported by a vessel documented under the laws of the United States and owned by a citizen of the United States * * *'' In addition, our government's own energy experts have recently confirmed the substantial benefits to be gained in lifting the ban; 10 months ago, the Department of Energy [DOE] released a report, outlining the effects of lifting the current Alaskan North slope (ANS) crude oil ban. The report confirmed: There would be a net increase in U.S. employment of up to 16,000 jobs. By the end of the decade, job increases could reach 20,000. Oil production in Alaska and California could be increased by as much as 100 to 110 thousand barrels per day by the end of the decade. Reserve additions in Alaska alone could be as large as 200 to 400 million barrels of oil. Increased federal receipts related to royalties and sales of oil would total between $99 and $180 million. All of these benefits would occur without any significantly negative environmental implications. All of the issues have been settled: The unions have agreed that this legislation will ensure an independent tanker fleet; the trade [[Page H 11880]] issues have been addressed, and the U.S. Trade Representative has noted that the U.S.-flag requirement does not present any legal problems to international trade; producers will benefit as increased revenues from marginal wells are realized. Mr. Speaker, who can argue against national security, increased jobs, more domestic oil production, increased Federal revenues and reduced environmental danger? I urge my colleagues to give this issue careful consideration and not overlook the fact that our domestic oil industry is being harmed by this knee-jerk political reaction over 20 years ago. If we are truly serious about encouraging domestic production and exploration of our natural resources, we should pass S. 395 and end this market-distorting ban on the export of Alaskan oil.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman fro Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the committee, for this time and for his help over the years frankly. I guess I am going to do something radical. I am going to talk about the legislation itself. I tell my colleagues I have to have a very high comfort level when the former chairman, the ranking member, says the underlying bill is not at issue, that it is, in fact, an item that was attached in the Senate that seems to be generating all of the debate. Well, I tell my colleagues that for a long time the underlying bill was the issue. In the end of May 1986 I introduced a bill because I tried to understand the logic of having the No. 1 oil-producing State in the Union by Federal law required to ship all of its production to the lower 48 States, which meant by virtue of the west coast, the population, the consumption of the oil, that the vast majority of that oil would come to California. Since I have been in Congress I have represented Kern County. Kern County, if it were a State, would be the No. 4 State in oil production. Only Alaska, Texas, and Louisiana would produce more oil. By Government edict all of that Alaskan North Slope oil was required to come to the lower 48, the vast majority to California, depressing California oil prices. Now I tried to understand the logic of those people who were here in the 1970's as to why you would require all of that production to be put in tankers, come down the coast of Alaska, the coast of Canada, the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California, in tankers jeopardizing that entire pristine coastline arguably to make sure that we were energy self-sufficient. When we depress a market, we do not get the production we would have gotten out of it, and in fact that California oil production has been depressed for years. So I introduced a bill that said let Alaska North Slope oil find its economic home. If it is California, bring it to California, but if it is someplace else, let it go someplace else. In May of 1986, I introduced a bill with one sponsor: me. The gentleman from Connecticut, in one of the subsequent Congresses, was the chairman of a subcommittee which basically told me to take a hike. So it is with some pleasure that I come to the floor with a bill in the 104th Congress that had 75 cosponsors, two dozen of the Democrats, and the Clinton administration in support of allowing Alaskan North Slope oil to find its economic home. Why? Because it will make us more energy independent if we allow our Alaskan North Slope oil to find its economic home. It will produce more jobs, not just in the oil patch but in other areas as well. It is more environmentally sound to allow Alaskan North Slope oil to find its economic home, and on and on and on, including the maritime unions supporting what we are doing. Frankly, I take the floor with some degree of satisfaction, knowing that a number of myths are being destroyed today. I also take the floor with some satisfaction, knowing that if the new majority was not the majority in this House, I would probably be in a subcommittee, bumping up against a subcommittee chairman telling me to take a hike. So it is with great pleasure that I come to the floor in support of this conference report, which finally after more than 20 years has decided that perhaps, to a small measure, economics ought to dictate what we do in the oil industry. Mr. Speaker, It seems to me if we allowed economics to dictate more of what we do in the oil industry, we, frankly, would be less energy dependent, we would have more jobs, it would be more environmentally sound. Today, I think ought to go down as a red-letter day that we finally corrected one of the mistakes of more than 20 years ago. There is a series of legislation working its way through the Committee on Resources and other committees which revisit those ill-conceived positions from the 1970's, and I hope we are able, on a bipartisan basis, to correct those ill-conceived pieces of legislation as well. Mr. Speaker, I would ask all my colleagues to support the underlying measure that we have before us in the conference report.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding time to me. I had not planned to talk during the rule debate. I will talk on the continuing resolution. But I do have to say that the continued outbursts from the gentleman from Florida have to be answered. What he did not mention, of course, in this continuing resolution was the fact that we discovered that Medicare does not pay for orally ingested drugs for certain types of breast cancer. If you inject it, it can be paid for. If it is taken orally, it does not. Why should we wait for a provision that fits it in a more general structure to move a decision and tell Medicare to provide those oral drugs for certain types of breast cancer? First, it will save lives. Second, it actually saves $157 million over 7 years. I will confess, that is on this CR. We thought it made sense. In addition to that, for men who suffer from prostate cancer, and in fact it is incurable, there is a procedure, a medical procedure, which significantly eases the pain and prolongs life. It is a combination of injectable hormone drugs and orally taken hormone drugs. Medicare similarly will not pay for the orally taken drugs. Why? Because it is an old-fashioned system that needs to be updated. Again we could wait for the updated procedure and have some people needlessly die. What we have done is included it on this CR so that we will tell the doctor that, if the program is a combination of injectable and orally taken hormone drugs to assist in easing the pain and prolonging someone's life who is suffering from prostate cancer, let us not wait around, let us move it on the first available product. That is in this CR. In addition to that, we have said that it makes no sense whatsoever to blindly let law go forward, reduce the premiums to seniors, and then increase them later when we have to pay the piper. The argument that somehow Republicans are heartless because we have a program to save Medicare and part of the solution is asking seniors to stay with the current premium payment on part B; the seniors' groups themselves have said it is not an issue. As a matter of fact, in September in front of the subcommittee in many, many of the hearings, more than a dozen and a half that we had, the President of the AARP, Mr. Eugene Lerman, said: The House leadership proposal indicates that Medicare's part B premium would be set at 13.5 percent of the program costs. That's the current rate. Maintain the current rate. And the new affluence test premium would be imposed on higher income beneficiaries, meaning those people who can pay who are wealthy. This is a volunteer program, ought not to continue to be subsidized by young people who are paying taxes into the general fund, that if these people are wealthy enough to pay for this voluntary premium, they ought to pay for it. He goes on to say-- The outline goes on to say there would be no change in Medicare copayments and deductibles. We held the line. Just keep them at the current premium. That would be the fair- share responsibility of seniors in solving the bankruptcy question under Medicare. What they said was, ``AARP is pleased that the proposal would limit these direct increases in beneficiary out-of-pocket costs.'' Now what the Democrats want to do is be irresponsible, and demagog the issue, and get people to believe that they can in their old- fashioned way tell seniors they can pay less and they can keep the program. The program is going bankrupt. We have got to change the way we do business. The way they did business has bankrupted the program. We have to change the way we do business. It makes no sense whatsoever to sit blindly by waiting for the right vehicle to lock in the current rate that the seniors themselves have said is an acceptable rate. Instead it will blindly go down, and no one believes that we can reduce the premium to seniors and save the program. What we have said is it is a fair-share responsibility structure, no copayments, no increase in the deductibles, but hold the line. Even the seniors say this is reasonable, but the Democrats, looking for arguments, looking for issues, say this is unfair. What is unfair is the irresponsible way Democrats continue to pander to seniors thinking that somehow will put them back in the driver's seat. Do my colleagues not understand they wrecked the car when they were in the driver's seat? Mr. Speaker, what we have got is a solution to the program, and the seniors are agreeing it is a fair-share responsibility.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I take the well only to try to keep some semblance of factualness to the discussion that we have here. That is the second or third Member of the minority party that has taken the well and said that we will increase the cost on seniors on the part B premium in the continuing resolution. Somebody has to get a calculator. First of all, at a 25-percent premium under the President's program, the cost in 1995, $46. Current program, under our program, $46. What this does is increase it to $53. Now, during the rule I went into the explanation that the seniors have agreed that keeping the premium where it is is a reasonable share of the seniors' responsibility in trying to fix Medicare. AARP testified in front of my subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means, that that was a reasonable compromise. They are not opposed to what we are doing. If we take a look at what the President proposed at a 25-percent premium, that 1996 figure, President Clinton's fiscal year 1996 budget submission on page 108 would make the difference $9. I do not care how many times you multiply 12 times 9, it does not come out $150. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] is wrong. Those who have used that figure before are wrong. It is not my inclination to come to this well every time they misstate or try to create the impression different than what is in this bill. If that were the case, unfortunately, I would be on the floor every other speaker.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I guess we really do have to go back and take a look at history, because frankly it is irresponsible to pander to seniors, as the minority seems to need to do, without a truth-in- packaging. Mr. Speaker, it is true, this year it is a $46.10 amount. That is because in 1990, Democrats said over the next 5 years there would be a fixed-dollar amount. The program, beginning in 1965, was a 50-50 split. In 1974, my colleagues on the other side would not do what they should do, and that was begin to reform the program to reflect the commitment of equal share. Mr. Speaker, they let it slide at the Social Security inflation rate down to a 25 percent contribution, versus a 75 percent contribution of government money by young people who are also paying taxes. Now, what they are doing is after this agreement which produces the 31.5 percent figure, which is the $46.10, when everybody knows the program in Part A is going bankrupt and the program in Part B is going sky high, they honestly think they can take the floor continuing to pander to seniors and say the way to solve the problem is to have the premium go down next year. Mr. Speaker, that is absurd. I will tell my colleagues, and I will repeat, all of the senior groups that came before us said: We are not opposed to holding the line on premiums. It makes no sense, at a time when we need to begin solving the problems, to go back to the old way my Democrat colleagues tried to maintain their majority. That is, pandering to seniors. That is why we are in the problem we are in today. Mr. Speaker, it is minimally responsible to say to the seniors we are going to hold the line on the premium that is their fair share of responsibility as we reform the program. My colleagues on the other side do not seem to get it. People are not buying the idea that we will charge them less and they can keep the program. That is why it is going bankrupt. Mr. Speaker, we are honest. We say, ``Hold the line on premiums. That is your fair share responsibility.'' We will restructure the rest of the program to let the market forces that are reducing the cost of health care in the private sector into the government-run program.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 111) providing for the appointment of Anne D'Harnoncourt as a citizen Regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and that sounds like we have at least one more object to add to the Smithsonian's collection coming soon. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support House Joint Resolution 69. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 69 which provides for the reappointment of Homer Alfred Neal to the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents. The Smithsonian is governed by a 17-member board composed of the Chief Justice, the Vice President of the United States, three Members of the House of Representatives, three Members of the Senate, and nine citizen members. Homer Neal will complete his first 6-year term as a citizen regent on December 6. His extensive knowledge about science and his expertise as vice president for research and professor of physics at the University of Michigan have provided a significant contribution to the Smithsonian as a regent. Mr. Neal is being renominated for an additional 6-year term. Mr. Speaker, regents oversee America's preeminent cultural institution. the Smithsonian's museums preserve, study, and present our cultural and scientific heritage through the vast collections that they hold in trust for the Nation. The Smithsonian is also a leading research center for the arts, history, and science, with facilities, as we know, here in the District of Columbia along the Mall but also in eight other States and in the Republic of Panama. We are most familiar with the Smithsonian based upon its exhibitions, 16 museums, galleries, and of course the National Zoo. They receive 29 million visitors every year, and every one of those visitors visit for free. The Smithsonian is in essence the Nation's attic. They preserve unique records of art, history, plant and animal life. The total number of objects is estimated at more than 140 million. Some 120 million of those objects are specimens in the National Museum of Natural History, and there are more than 16 million postage stamps and related objects at the National Postal Museum. The Smithsonian is a unique American institution. The Board of Regents are an important functioning aspect of the Smithsonian. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], one of the regents of the Smithsonian Institution of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 69) providing for the reappointment of Homer Alfred Neal as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 110, which provides for the appointment of Howard Baker, Jr., to the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Citizen Regents. I do not have to tell anyone that Howard Baker has had a long and distinguished career in public office. He served in the U.S. Senate from 1967 to 1985. He was President Ronald Reagan's Chief of Staff from February 1987 to July 1988. Mr. Speaker, rather than go into a more detailed background, it is my privilege to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary], who represents the once and current home of Howard Baker. (Mr. HILLEARY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I think all of us know that Howard Baker is also an avid photographer and I look forward to being able to view future pictures of the Smithsonian from the inside out. I urge Members to support House Joint Resolution 110. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 House Joint Resolution 69, House Joint Resolution 110, House Joint Resolution 111, and House Joint Resolution 112, the resolutions just considered.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have moved to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 112) providing for the appointment of Louis Gerstner as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Joint Resolution 112, which provides for the appointment of Louis Gerstner to the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents is, I think, equally luminous. Louis Gerstner's impressive credentials begin with his current position as chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the IBM Corp. Prior to his work at IBM, Mr. Gerstner has held top positions at RJR Nabisco, American Express, and the management consulting firm of McKinsey & Co. While Mr. Gerstner obviously offers a diverse and impressive business background, I think it is especially significant with his appointment as a regent of the Smithsonian to emphasize that Mr. Gerstner, throughout his lifetime, has had a continuous commitment to improving our system of education, and this seems to be an excellent appointment as a citizen regent. I urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 112. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.