Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) that we are beginning in the name of Hershey, to call out. Perhaps we can bring it a little closer to home. I have a Roll Call editorial from earlier this month, March 4, which I think is quite succinct in summing up much of the debate that we have heard so far. The editorial says, ``Quit Whining''. It says, ``The more we look at history, the less it appears the Democrats have much basis to whine.'' 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 would tell the gentleman from Washington that in the spirit of Hershey, when a gesture is made, that gesture ought to be returned. Now, I would tell the gentleman that if he would examine the committee funding, there are a number of committees that exceed that one-third request that is being made: The Committee on House Administration, the Committee on the Budget, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Science, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Small Business, the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. One hundred sixty-seven Democrats sit on a committee that now meets the two-thirds/one-third ratio. So I am not looking at the past, I tell my friend, the gentleman from Washington, I am looking at today. One hundred sixty-seven Democrats are now sitting on committees that meet that figure. The reason the other committees have not moved is that they had such an egregiously low base. We have made progress every Congress so that no committee is less than 25 percent, and we will continue to make progress. It would seem to me that as a new Member, in the spirit of Hershey, if we reach out to one hundred sixty-seven Members of the Democratic Caucus, at least one would reach back and say, thank you, the two- thirds/one-third is appropriate, it is necessary. The one hundred sixty-seven Democrats, by their vote, can prove that what we are choosing to do is right and proper. It will be quite surprising to me if not one Democrat out of the one hundred sixty-seven reaches his or her hand across the aisle to say, you are doing what you committed to do, that which we never did. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) who just spoke is on the Committee on the Judiciary now. I indicated that the ratio at that time was 82 percent majority to 18 percent minority on the Committee on the Judiciary, but actually, it was the Committee on Government Operations at that time, and that ratio was 85 percent majority and only 15 percent minority. Let me also say that the Committee on the Judiciary is getting 10 new staff in this Congress. Rarely does a committee get double-digit increases in their staff, but the Committee on the Judiciary is getting 10 new staff. What is the split? Is it like it was in the old days, eight and two? No. Is it seven and three, the request that they are making? No. Is it six and four? No. Unprecedented in the history of this House, the majority is dividing 10 new staff, five to the minority and five to the majority, a 50/50 split. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), a member of the Committee on House Administration who has now spent enough years in the process of listening to this case to have that kind of institutional knowledge that so many of the Members do not share.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, in 1999, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) indicated that there was an accounting gimmick which was being used to distort the percentages. In 1992, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means at that time, Mr. Rostenkowski, stated that the committee had 14 shared administrative staff. In 1994, in the markup, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said it is inconceivable that other committees have no nonpartisan staff such as the receptionist, the calendar clerks, et cetera, who serve both the majority and the minority. Many committees have reported them to us. The Democrats when they were in the majority routinely used the allocation of shared administrative staff. The problem is now, when we in the majority use it, it is somehow an accounting gimmick. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), a very valuable member of the committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the new chairman of the Committee on Rules in the 106th Congress.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I know there are a lot of Members who have not been here long and therefore their history is not as deep or as long as some others. I am going to introduce the new chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary. This is a headline from Roll Call, March 27, 1989. The headline says: ``Six Committees Fail to Meet the New 20 Percent Minority Ratio Test.'' The Democrats were using a 20 percent goal. On the Committee on the Judiciary the ratio in 1989 was 82 percent to the majority, 18 percent to the minority. That is clearly unacceptable. But when we have to move funding of a committee the size and scope of this one, and this one was not alone, we have got to move over time. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, who is here to tell us what we are doing in the 106th Congress. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a member of the Committee on Rules and also a member of this new majority leadership team, to discuss this resolution.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, for purposes of debate only, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this funding resolution, House Resolution 101, for the 106th Congress is the fairest and the most equitable in distributing the resources to the committees in the recorded history of the House. More resources, staff, equipment and dollars are being provided to the minority in this resolution than in any other Congress. Speaker Hastert has provided more resources than former Speakers, including Speaker Foley, Speaker Wright, Speaker O'Neill, Speaker Albert, Speaker McCormick, Speaker Rayburn. I think you have got the idea. That also includes Speaker Gingrich in the 104th and the 105th Congress. Our commitment to the goal of two-thirds for the majority and one-third to the minority is closer than at any time in the recorded history of the House. And it is deserving of the Members' support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on House Administration, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 101) providing amounts for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the 106th Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The gentleman from Maryland noted that that was former Representative Pat Roberts. He is not here to vote on the resolution or the motion to recommit. As a matter of fact, when the motion to recommit was presented previously, as has been indicated by the gentleman from Maryland, not one Democrat voted for the motion to recommit. Not one. Had they been prescient about the sun coming up, maybe some of them would have, and then, of course, we would have accomplished our goal. It would have been locked in. But since they did not have the foresight, since they left us with 12 percent of the resources, 15 percent of the resources, 18 percent of the resources, when we became the majority we had to start building toward that one-third. We have built toward that one-third in every Congress we have been in the majority. Under the leadership of the Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), this majority, in House Resolution 101, is not repeating the mistakes of the past. This committee resolution is the fairest and most equitable in the recorded history of the House. One hundred sixty-seven Democrats sit on a committee that divides the resources two-thirds, one-third. I would think that if my colleagues missed their opportunity on the motion to recommit to lock in two- thirds, one-third, some of my Democratic colleagues would be smart enough to lock in the two-thirds, one-third on those committees. Give us some votes so that I can say yes, the Democrats get it. The more we work together, the more we are able to give my colleagues the two-thirds, one-third. Instead, my colleagues say we have to deliver all the votes. The next time we do the committee resolution, this majority, in the 107th Congress, I am going to turn to these people and ask them what they need. Because we reached across the aisle in the spirit of Hershey and said 167 Democrats have got what they want. Give us one vote; we will return the gesture on the motion to recommit, just as my colleagues did on ours. But, please, on final passage, on this House Resolution, the fairest and most equitable in the history of the House, give us at least one Democrat. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: [From Rollcall, Mar. 4, 1999] Quit Whining The evidence suggests that Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) really does mean to reach out to Democrats and make the House a less ferocious place than it was under ex-Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA). We suggest that Democrats stop grousing and meet him halfway--at least to the extent of not boycotting this month's Hershey, Pa., civility retreat. Hastert is meeting regularly with Democrats on budget issues and is promising to permit votes on raising the minimum wage and campaign finance reform. Meanwhile, House Administration Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) may help Democrats gain a larger share of the budgets on the Judiciary and Government Reform Committees. Democrats have been loudly complaining about membership ratios of committees and about committee budgets and some ranking members have cited the disparities as reasons they refuse to co-operate with leadership efforts to bring GOP and Democratic Members and their families together for the weekend of March 19-21 at Hershey. The more we look at history, the less it appears the Democrats have much basis to whine--although they should note well how ill-used they feel and vow to do better by the Republicans should Democrats be returned to power in the House. In 1993, when Democrats last were in the majority, Republicans held 41 percent of House seats, but Democrats accorded them an average of 24 percent of committee staff positions--falling to 13 percent on the old Government Operations Committee and 11 percent on Judiciary. Democrats now are complaining that they only control 25 percent of the resources on Government Reform and 23 percent on Judiciary. Back then, Republicans complained that fairness demanded they get at least one-third of committee budgets and staff slots rather than less than one-fourth. By this standard, Democrats have little to which they can object--except on Judiciary and Government Reform where they get just a quarter of committee resources. Funding ratios meet or nearly meet the one-third majority standard on Budget, Education and the Workforce, Rules, Veterans' Affairs and House Administration. On most other committees the GOP-Democratic ratio is nearly 70-30--not up to the ideal, but better than the 76-24 average back when Democrats ruled the House. As we've noted before, the same basic situation prevails with committee assignments. Democrats say that they should have something like 48.5 percent of committee slots, reflecting their strength in the House, but actually have between 41 and 45 percent on major committees. In 1993, though, Republicans averaged 38 percent of the slots on major committees, not their 41 percent in the House. We suggest that Democrats and Republicans talk about these problems, among others, at Hershey. Now that the Gingrich era is over--and in spite of the recent impeachment unpleasantness--it ought to be possible to begin solving them. MINORITY RESOURCE COMPARISON--103rd CONGRESS VS 106TH CONGRESS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Democratic Republican Majority, 103rd Majority, 106th Congress Congress ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 33% or more..................... 2 9 25% to 32%...................... 12 8 Less than 25%................... 5 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committees with non-partisan staff, Armed Services and Standards of Official Conduct, are not listed. Authorized by the Committee on House Administration. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this Resolution, which sets the funding for our Committees here in the House. This resolution is an important one, because in many respects, with its passage, we begin to erode the spirit of bipartisanship that I had hoped would permeate the work of the 106th Congress. When the Majority first took control of the House, we had expected that they would still respect the views, if not the voting power, of the Minority. Yet that has not been the case. Here, half a decade down the road from the ``Contract with America,'' we see that the Minority is limited to just 28% of the House budget. This is appalling in light of the fact that we are just five votes short of holding a majority of our own. In fact, this resolution takes away almost half the value of our vote--and the value of the resources that we have for the constituents that we represent. For those of you who believe that Committee funding makes little difference in how the policies of our country are forged I must note that the two Committees which reported the most partisan legislation, the Committee on Government Reform and the Committee on the Judiciary, have the worst funding ratios. As it stands in the current form of the resolution, the Judiciary Committee on which I sit, has approximately three-quarters of its resources dedicated to the Majority. As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, I find that deeply disturbing because it means that theoretically, my staff is outnumbered three to one as it regards my Republican counterpart. The Democratic alternative to this bill is much more palatable to our common sensibilities--although it still does not do all that it could to recognize our small numeric deficit. It simply asks that one-third of all Committee funds are designated for Minority use. The difference between the two resolutions is a mere 5%, surely a small price to pay to guarantee a more cooperative environment here in the House of Representatives. I would hope that all of my colleagues would vote to defeat H. Res. 101, and for the Democratic alternative. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is in fact an appointment of regents of the Smithsonian Institution. There is a 17-member board. It is composed of the Chief Justice and the Vice President of the United States, three Members of the House of Representatives, three Members of the Senate, and nine citizens who are nominated by the Board and approved jointly in a resolution of Congress. This is the first of three joint resolutions that we will present, and as was indicated, this provides for the reappointment of our friend and former colleague, Barber Conable of New York.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 26) providing for the reappointment of Barber B. Conable, Jr. as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 27) providing for the reappointment of Wesley S. Williams, Jr., as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 27) providing for the reappointment of Dr. Hanna H. Gray as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allow all Members 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 101, just agreed to.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for yielding. This is a serious occasion when an Associate Justice of the United States, after 24 years of service, passes away, and it is entirely appropriate that the catafalque reserved in the basement of the Capitol, known as the Lincoln catafalque, since he was the first to use that catafalque, be provided for the Supreme Court for this occasion. It is always a sad time when the catafalque is used, but the memories and the history of this country, intertwined with the catafalque, I believe, carry with it the appropriate seriousness and ceremonial nature of recognizing one of America's finest former Justices of the Supreme Court. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 45) providing for the use of the catafalque situated in the crypt beneath the rotunda of the Capitol in connection with memorial services to be conducted in the Supreme Court Building for the late honorable Harry A. Blackmun, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is my pleasure to announce that the Committee on House Administration now has its full complement of members on both sides of the aisle, and this resolution constitutes the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library, consisting of the chairman and ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis); and the Joint Committee on Printing, the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 87) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 88) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my friends in Kern County who share a mutual goal of improving educational opportunities in our schools, as we honor one of our finest friends, Fred Starrh, a man devoted to helping his neighbors, a man always willing to do the hard work, a man who pride in his country is visible to everyone he meets. Tonight we honor one aspect of this man's accomplishment--his achievements and commitment to thousands of Kern County high school students during his tenure as a trustee of the Kern High School District. As a trustee and Past President, Fred Starrh has devoted a tremendous amount of time and effort to preparing Kern County's children for their future. Those who have worked with Fred know he puts his all into every project he takes on. His service on the Board of Trustees is a testament to his character and devotion to all the families in Kern County who have sent their children to Kern high schools. Fred Starrh served us all well by watching over the myriad issues that come before those entrusted with the management of the education provided to our kids during the critically important four years of high school study. I know people from all over the United States who rely on Fred Starrh's advice and counsel. Fred has friends everywhere, and years of working together make me honored to be included among them. Few people are as dedicated and as much fun to work with as we all know Fred Starrh to be.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation to extend the placed in service date for the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind power for an additional 5 years. The present credit will expire on June 30, 1999. Wind equipment installed after that date will not qualify for the credit unless we act to extend the PTC now. My bill will allow new high technology wind turbines installed during an additional five years to qualify for the 1.5 cent per kilowatt-hour PTC created under the bi-partisan Energy Policy Act of 1992. The wind power industry's potential in the United States is enormous. Wind generating costs have fallen 80% over the past decade and further efficiencies are achievable. States like the Dakotas, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Texas and Colorado offer enormous generating potential. Americans are developing new wind technologies that will give us a competitive edge as this market expands. In addition, wind offers one technology we can promote to achieve reductions in climate- changing emissions. The America Wind Energy Association has estimated that under an extension of the PTC, working in conjunction with a set of policies aimed at further reducing costs, wind energy can achieve 30,000 megawatts of generating capacity in our country by 2010. Doing so would reduce CO2 emissions by up to 100 million metric tons, contributing 18% of the reduction that the electric industry must achieve to reduce emissions back to 1990 emissions levels while producing new jobs. That is a goal we can support.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. One of the focal points obviously at the beginning of this, the 106th Congress, is the Medicare Commission which is scheduled to make its report, if we can get 11 of the 17 members to agree on a plan, in early March. I would tell the gentleman that the things that have taken place recently, primarily on the executive side of Washington, have made it immensely more difficult for us to try to come together. In the context of trying to get 11 of 17 people who are very knowledgeable, who have been experienced, four of whom were appointed by the President, four by the Speaker of the House, the majority leader of the Senate, two by the minority leader of the Senate and minority leader of the House, to come to agreement is difficult in the best of times. But when the President, in his State of the Union message, pulled like a genie out of the bottle, I am willing to put $700 billion on the table, and by the way, I will bring the drugs in, throwing a party, the difficulty of coming to agreement in the Medicare Commission was blurred. It sounded as though there was more money available than anyone thought, and that it is relatively simple to move prescription drugs into a Medicare solution. The folks who are the participants in Medicare, the providers, the taxpayers, and the beneficiaries, all had a sigh of relief that the problem has been solved, when in fact, as we are now discovering, as Samuelson's excellent guest editorial in the Washington Post today spelled it out, that there was a lot more smoke and mirrors in the President's budget than anyone anticipated. Just a couple of examples of the difficulty. When the President said that he was going to put $700 billion on the table, that is not the case. When the President said we should have a prescription drug benefit in Medicare, everyone nods their head yes, and we are in agreement that that should occur. But what is not explained, and what most people do not realize, I would say to the gentleman from Georgia, is that 65 percent of the seniors on Medicare have some sort of prescription drug program. What we need to do is examine the 35 percent who do not and create a program that brings them into a protective structure to shelter them from the full cost of prescription drugs, without driving out those other 65 percent who do have a drug support program in some way. It just seems to me that for the President to make the statements that he did in January and February, when we are on the verge of having to make an agreement in March, that advertently or inadvertently he has created a far more difficult problem for us than we had prior to what he considered helping statements. That is exactly the wrong kind of approach to solving a very difficult problem in terms of the kind of help the President could give. If the President showed leadership, if he brought ideas to the table, if he empowered his appointees to sit down and work with the Senator from Louisiana, the chairman of the committee, Senator Breaux, all of those would be positive. Our hope is that in the remaining weeks of February, the President will engage, he will lead and assist us in reaching a solution that all of us want: a better Medicare for our seniors.