Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate, since it has been objected to, dispensing with the reading, to inquire how many pages there are that will be read?

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today which will allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture to continue publishing information on the American olive industry. The industry, composed of 1,000 olive growers and the olive processors in California, heartily supports this proposal and urges that we act upon it as soon as possible. Under federal law, the Department has allowed publication of information on olive crops and inventory for years. These statistics have given farmers, processors and food buyers critical information about the state of the industry. The statistics cover crop outlook, including expected production, inventories and carryover stocks, sales and other matters. These statistics are important for a variety of reasons. Farmers use them when they bargain collectively with processors to sell a crop. The crop information also helps set assessments growers will pay to support research, marketing and inspection in the industry. The inventory and quality information made available to potential buyers helps create a more efficient market for sales of processed olives. These figures are important because olives are an ``alternate bearing'' crop--every other year, crop size varies substantially. In some years, the crop will be double what was produced in the year before. When you consider that olive farmers may see crops vary by as much as 100,000 tons, you can see why farmers, processors and food companies would want accurate information about stocks and future supplies. We need to pass legislation to allow the statistics to be issued because California has seen the number of olive processors fall during the past decade. With only two processors left in the foreseeable future, the Department of Agriculture is unable to publish information as the law is written today. My bill will give the Department the authority to continue releasing information on the industry. The bill I am introducing offers a simple, targeted solution to the industry's trouble. The bill will permit the Department to release information if both the remaining processors (called ``handlers'' under the law) agree in writing that statistics on their operations may be released. The amendment would apply only to olives. The bill has the strong support of California and national industry groups. It has been endorsed by the Olive Growers Council, The California Olive Association, the California League of Food Processors and the National Food Processors Association. They hope as do I that Congress will complete action on the bill in the near future.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 97. I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on April 24, 2000, the Library of Congress will celebrate its bicentennial. With House Concurrent Resolution 269, we commend the Library and its staff for two hundred years of service to the Congress and to the American people, and encourage all Americans to participate in the Library's bicentennial activities. On April 24, 1800, President John Adams approved legislation appropriating funds for purchasing ``such books as may be necessary for use of the Congress.'' The first collection of 740 books and 3 maps arrived in 1801 and was stored in the U.S. Capitol, the Library's first home. On January 26, 1802, President Jefferson approved the first law which defined the role and functions of this new institution, creating the post of Librarian of Congress and creating the Joint Committee on the Library to oversee the Library's activities. Since then, the Library's collections have grown to some 119 million items, making it the largest library in the world. The Library's collections now consist of over 18 million books, 53 million manuscripts, 12 million photographs, 4.5 million maps, 2.4 million sound recordings, nearly a million moving images and millions of other items. Mr. Speaker, on April 24, 2000, the Library will begin a yearlong program of bicentennial activities, which will be a national celebration of all libraries and the important role they play in our society. The centerpiece of this effort is a project called Local Legacies, which created an opportunity for citizens to participate in the Library of Congress Bicentennial celebration. Senators and Representatives, working with their constituents and local libraries and cultural institutions, have selected at least one significant cultural event or tradition that has been important to their district or state. These events have been documented and forwarded to the Library to be added to the American Folklife Center's archives to provide a cross section of the grassroots creativity of America that will be preserved and shared with future generations. Members will be able to provide links on their webpages to the Local Legacies projects they have chosen and to the main Local Legacies Project page on the Library of Congress' website. Materials selected for Internet access will encompass the widest possible range of contributions, including video, sound, print, manuscript, and electronic formats. Several months ago, I requested that the Library consider further enhancing public participation in the bicentennial by holding an exhibit of the Library's top treasures during the summer when the greatest number of constituents visit our Nation's capital. I am pleased to report that some of the most exciting items from the Library's enormous holdings will be on display throughout the summer at the Library and I would encourage all Members to direct visiting constituents to this once in a lifetime exhibit. Mr. Speaker, I once again would like to congratulate the Library of Congress, the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, and all of the Library's staff on two hundred years of outstanding service to the Congress and the American people.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this has been a long, twisted road that really should have been a relatively short driveway in achieving today's presentation on the floor of the House. As was indicated, this was an attempt to resolve land use conflicts that developed over half a century. On the Valley floor near the Kern River, which is pretty much barren and rock strewn land, although above 4,000 feet in elevation, about half a century ago the county began developing a youth detention camp along the model with which most of us would be familiar. If one takes youths who really are not bad, but who have an over-abundance of energy, and direct it toward positive and useful activity in a rather hardy environment, then a number of them become very useful and model citizens. This has been successful for more than half a century. As one might expect, the uses of the camp, which were fairly rustic initially, have developed more into activities that would be meaningful to youth today: the building of a large garage facility in which they can rehabilitate cars; the development of a fish hatchery in which they can involve themselves in useful experiences that actually become quite useful when they are out looking for a job, all of this developed on land that was Forest Service land. Now, one would never recognize it as Forest Service land, but it was Forest Service land. At the same time, the County of Kern, one of the larger geographic counties in the United States, had, in a mountainous area about 7,000 feet high, county property covered with large conifers that had never been developed, which was immediately adjacent to Sequoia National Forest. It looked like Forest Service land. It was not used like a county parcel would ordinarily be used because of its remote location and the profile of the land itself. So we thought several years ago that it would be a very appropriate land swap. The idea that Kern County and the citizens of Kern County, taxpayers, would not want to ask the Federal Government to give us the land, but rather it was quite appropriate to trade that mountainous fir-covered land for the developed land, the county land for the Federal land. We then embarked on a process of trying to get the Forest Service to say yes. What happened over a number of years was that the Forest Service would not say yes. The Forest Service wanted us to give up the lion's share of the land and they would give us less. Kern County agreed. The Forest Service did not want any camp sites in that county land up in the mountains, so we shaped it to solve the Forest Service problems. The Forest Service said, even though there is a maintenance yard that has been used as the county and we are willing to give it to them, we want them to duplicate the facilities so that we can have our own. The county agreed. The Forest Service then said, if there were any environmental problems on this conifer-covered land, we certainly would not want to go through an environmental impact study like anybody else would, so we would like protection. We want to be indemnified from any case that might be brought against us. Kern County agreed. We finally came to the last piece of the puzzle and that was, notwithstanding all of these concessions, we do not know for sure whether the land in an accessible usable area is of the same value as land that is in an inaccessible area that is not going to be used. So Kern County, to try to end this process of the Forest Service never willing to say yes, said we will place hard-earned county taxpayer money on the table as well. How much? We do not know for sure. Maybe it was 40 thousand dollars. Maybe it was 50 thousand. The Forest Service could not come up with a firm number. So what Kern County has said was we will double it. We will say not more than $100,000, assuming it is going to be fifty cents or less on the dollar, to get this agreement culminated so that we can continue to develop this youth camp. I just want to say that four bills have passed Congress this year in which there have been absolute gifts of Federal land. We have an exchange with money in this bill, and yet it has been more than one Congress before we could reach this position. I just want to thank all of the folks who endured with us this inability of the Forest Service to say yes. We still have the provision in which they may say no, but at least, we are to the floor. At least, it has been a public process. At least, there has been public input. At least, there is a public record before we go forward in dealing with taking land that belongs to the public and doing something with it. So notwithstanding the tale that I just told, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we are at the point we are today and am very concerned about processes that have occurred in the past and may occur in the future when this administration, under ancient law passed in 1906, called the Antiquities Act, will be able to deal with public lands without the public hearings, without the public process, and without the public's representatives voting on legislation that is the Antiquities Act; and, believe it or not, there is a proposal that will deal directly with the same national forest this bill does, the Sequoia National Forest, with no requirement to follow the public process that this modest little bill deals with, 52 acres. The proposal is in the vicinity of 400,000 acres. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, if this process is good enough for me, it ought to be good enough for the President when he makes decisions about the public lands. So once again, I want to applaud those individuals who have brought the land swap to this position today, and I would urge all of us to be very, very cautious about removing public lands from public use without a public process.

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 and include extraneous material on Senate Concurrent Resolution 90.

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 and include extraneous material on the subject of S. Con. Res. 89, the Senate concurrent resolution just concurred in.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, no matter how cold that day was, the event certainly warmed the hearts of all Americans. We look forward to the ceremonies surrounding the next President of the United States, and it certainly will warm all of our hearts once again. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is obviously an adjoining resolution which, having created the structure of the committee to assist in this inaugural ceremony, the facilities of the Capitol Rotunda are made available. Oftentimes, the Rotunda is used for, in essence, social and ceremonial activities. However, those Members who were here might remember that January day of 1985 at the inaugural ceremony of the second term of then President Ronald Reagan. His 1980 election was a balmy spring-like day with the West Front being the focal point for the inauguration. In January of 1985, it was an extremely cold and bitter snowy January, and in fact, the swearing- in ceremony had to take place in that Rotunda, packed as tightly as I have ever seen it packed with people anticipating, once again, the inauguration of a president of the United States. This Senate concurrent resolution offered by the chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and the ranking member, as it states quite clearly, would be in connection with the ceremonies. Let us hope that it is, in fact, a social and ceremonial use of the rotunda rather than cover because of the kind of weather that no one wants to accompany an inauguration of the President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 90) to authorize the use of the rotunda of the Capitol by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice President-elect of the United States.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, everyone, I think, is becoming aware that this is a presidential election year, but it is not just a political event. It is, in fact, an important governmental institutional event. It is, in the long history of governments, the longest peaceful transition between those who hold the executive position in this government. Senate Concurrent Resolution 89 is the traditional start of this institutional process. The chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and the ranking member have cleared through the Senate and presented to the House this concurrent resolution, which will establish the Joint Congressional Committee on the inaugural ceremonies surrounding the selection of the President of the United States on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of the year 2000 for that ceremony on January 20, 2001. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate Concurrent Resolution (S. Con. Res. 89) to establish a Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies for the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice President-elect of the United States on January 20, 2001.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Lester S. Jayson, who passed away at the age of 84 on December 30, 1999. Lester Jayson served the Congress faithfully for over 15 years, first as a Senior Specialist in American Public Law Division and Chief of the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, then as Deputy Director of the Service and finally as the Service's Director from 1966 until his retirement in 1975. Mr. Jayson's distinguished record of public service also included an 18 year career in various capacities with the Department of Justice, including chief of the torts section of the Department's civil division. Lester Jayson served as CRS Director during the crucial period of the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act, which transformed CRS from its role as essentially a reference service to an analytical support arm of the Congress. This change was designed to provide Congress with the expertise it needed to effectively perform its legislative role. CRS became a source of objective non-partisan data analysis and information that was, and is, essential to the legislative process. Mr. Jayson's tenure as Director saw a doubling of the staff at CRS and the infusion of high level analytical expertise. His vision and leadership enabled that expertise to be put to use in the service of the Congress. When he retired in 1975, Lester Jayson left a transformed and potent Congressional Research Service. He laid the groundwork for the current infrastructure that provides close analytical support for Members and Committees. In 1936, Mr. Jayson graduated with honors from the College of the City of New York. After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1939, he went into private practice. His public service began in 1942, when he served as Special Assistant to the U.S. Attorney General and continued through 18 years at the Department of Justice, which he left in 1960 to join CRS. Four years after joining CRS, Mr. Jayson wrote ``Federal Tort Claims: Administrative and Judicial Remedies, considered the preeminent source on federal torts, which he last updated in 1997. In 1964, he also was supervising editor of ``The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation,'' published by the Government Printing Office. After retiring from CRS in 1975, Mr. Jayson was a professor of constitutional and American law at Potomac Law School. He continued to stay active in the Federal Bar Association, of which he was a past chairman of the federal tort claims committee. He was also active in the American Bar Association, the Cosmos Club, the Harvard Club of Washington, and American Friends of Wilton Park. Mr. Speaker, Lester Jayson was a man who was dedicated to public service and service to the United States Congress. This is his legacy, which we honor here today. To his wife Evelyn, his children Diane and Jill, his family, friends, and former colleagues, I extend our deepest sympathies.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the cosponsor of the legislation. And I would tell the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) that my point is substantiated by the next speaker. Most of us referred to that bill as the Dingell-Norwood bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), someone who has been involved extensively in this information, the chairman of a subcommittee which is crucial to the resolution of this issue.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if you listened to the debate today, virtually the first day that we are back, and the argument, as the gentleman from Ohio clearly pointed out, that for a majority of the days since this legislation passed we were not in session, it was over the holidays and we were in our districts working, that there really is only one purpose to this resolution. If my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) had presented a resolution with the first provision, as I said, it probably would have passed unanimously. If you are shopping for future motions to instruct after this one is defeated, I would suggest perhaps that you look at information that was made available to us during that period when we were in recess, information that hospitals and doctors today are killing close to 100,000 Americans. Now, if the Hippocratic Oath is ``do no harm,'' it seems to me not killing the patient falls in that category. I listened carefully until the time was yielded back to see if one Member on the other side of the aisle thought that we ought to try to speed up the process to get an ability to get a handle on almost 100,000 Americans being killed in hospitals and by doctors every year. If you are looking for a Patients' Bill of Rights, if you are looking for patient protection, it ought to start with the most fundamental protections, and that is do not kill anybody. But I listened in vain. All I heard was the usual rhetoric about taking their bill, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) said, the only bill that will be successful, and that it has to be done now ``on our terms,'' clearly underscores the fact that this is a political endeavor. Two of the cosponsors of the bipartisan bill, the two Republicans, said this is not the thing to do, not now, it is not appropriate. I would support their position. It is not the thing to do; it is not appropriate. Those gentlemen, understanding that they are in a very difficult situation, my father used to tell a story about a dog and fleas, but I do not remember the details so I will not be able to elaborate on it, but it seems to me that those of us who want responsible patient rights protection should do the responsible thing, and that is rather than vote present on this measure, vote no. I would urge everyone on both sides of the aisle who want to speed up this process, to reach a consensus, to reach something that looks like the Dingell-Norwood bill, to vote no. By voting no, you actually enhance the opportunity for a true bipartisan agreement. If you vote yes, you guarantee the atmosphere around here becomes more partisan. Let us lower the partisan rhetoric. Let us increase the accommodation and compromise, and we will deliver a reasonable and appropriate product. Mr. Speaker, I would urge all my colleagues to vote no on this motion to instruct.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would only note that the gentleman who just spoke said that he hopes the bill that comes out of conference resembles Dingell-Norwood. If this motion to instruct passes, it has to look exactly like it. So I think it is fairly clear that, just as the gentleman from Ohio holding up the Constitution said, that what we need is a consensus. I think if anybody looks up ``consensus,'' it means an agreement by all parties. This motion to instruct says Members can only vote the bill that came off the floor. The gentleman from New Jersey said that is the only bill that will go to the President, which means, I guess, that they are going to be opposed to any reasonable compromise, or something that resembles Dingell-Norwood. Once again, I think it clearly underscores what we are about is politics. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I tell my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee, that if this resolution was the first section only, which reads, ``Take all necessary steps to begin meetings of the conference,'' that would have been a voice vote and it would have been agreed to, in my opinion, unanimously. The concern obviously, as indicated by the two cosponsors of the bipartisan legislation, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), is that by adding the second provision, it clearly means there is more of an interest in politics than in getting the conference going. The gentleman himself has been ambivalent in terms of his statement as to whether he is really going to support this resolution or not. I think he and I would agree both of us could support the first item. It is the addition of the second item that makes it partisan, and indeed I will enjoy watching the gentleman from Tennessee's mental wrestling bout with himself as to whether he decides to make it partisan by voting ``yes'' or that his conscience controls and he votes ``no.''

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is, once again, the kind of political move that belies the argument that people want to come to a successful conclusion on a Senate-passed bill and a House-passed bill. We would have no ability whatsoever to reconcile the differences between the bills if the Senate were to insist on its position and, in fact, the House voted, as this measure indicates they want us to vote, to lock ourselves into our position. Now, first of all, we know that motions to instruct are not binding; that Members do not have to follow the vote one way or the other. But it is a clear indication that somebody wants political game playing rather than a solution. Mr. Speaker, I stand prepared as a conferee, as I am sure all the other conferees are prepared, to sit down and, over some very difficult subject matter, come to mutual agreement so that, as the Constitution requires, bills that differ in passing the House and Senate can be reconciled, repassed by the House and Senate so the legislation can actually go to the President for his signature. If somebody wants a patient protection bill with solid standards and with the acceptable practices that several years ago we voted very noncontroversially in the Medicare provisions, like emergency rooms, like no-gag rules, like the other provisions that we have already passed, then this is exactly the wrong motion to offer. If Members want to keep a football kicking even after the Superbowl, if they want to play politics with the issue, this is exactly the kind of motion that they would offer. So, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that we are beginning this year with this kind of deceptive action, and I certainly would urge Members that what they ought to do is allow the conference to do its work, come to a successful conclusion, and not inhibit it by making demands that on their face cannot be met. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my friend from Maryland by saying that the actual process is one of accommodation and compromise between the House and the Senate. And I certainly would concur if this resolution or motion to instruct had only the first section, which was to announce immediately a time for a meeting. But the gentleman well knows that the second section requires on the part of the House to, without change or amendment, accept the bill that was voted on the floor of the House. That is pure unadulterated politics. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a doctor himself and someone who has worked long and hard on this issue.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply say that I find it ironic that the gentleman from Texas used the phrase ``you Republicans,'' ``you Republicans,'' ``you Republicans,'' when, in fact, as the gentleman from Illinois said, this is a bipartisan bill. I also find it interesting that the two individuals on the bill who made it bipartisan, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) were our first two speakers, and they said this does not make a lot of sense. They are not going to vote for it. It seems to me that the bipartisan part of my colleagues' argument has been shattered. If we have a procession of Democrats offering 1 minutes saying this has to be passed now, but the Republicans who made it bipartisan say this does not make a lot of sense, it looks like politics is being played, then I think it is fairly obvious. The answer is, politics are being played. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), someone who has become very knowledgeable on this subject matter, has been a major contributor to the debate, and is a conferee.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I am here to point to that portion of the deal that deals with seniors and the disabled in the Medicare section. This would not have happened without a bipartisan, cooperative effort. I especially want to thank the staff: Ann Marie Lynch and the majority committee, Bill Vaughn, for his willingness to maintain confidentiality as we worked on this; the commerce staff, especially the members of the Subcommittee on both Ways and Means and Commerce; chairmen of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), who just spoke; my friends and colleagues, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), without which the congressional portion would not have been put together. I want to thank Chris Jennings from the White House, Nancy Ann MinDeParle at the Health Care Financing Administration and Bonnie Washington. Details of the Medicare measure can be found at TND.house.gov. This lays the groundwork for next year. Republicans brought prevention in Medicare in 1997. We brought refinement this year. And working in a cooperative way, as evidenced by my friend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), and other Democrats, we can move forward in modernizing Medicare next year as well. I want to thank them all. There is no reason in the world why my colleagues should not vote yes on this measure.