Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I would tell Members that most of the amendments we are going to be looking at over the next hour or so are really ill-advised. It is ironic that at a time we have a bill on the floor in which we are finally phasing out Agriculture subsidies, that people want to jump in, and for whatever reason they are offering these amendments, to score points somewhere for somebody. The only factual statement I have heard since I have been on the floor was the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] admitting that he did not understand farming. That I will agree with. Everything else I have heard is absolutely ridiculous. This is a program tied to the world price of cotton. It is a 5-year loan structure. Drop the high year, drop the low year, and average the rest. It was revolutionary when it was presented. What it does is guarantee that we can compete in the world marketplace. We had no bale carryover last year because we were successful against the other subsidized countries in a product that is fought over in the world. This program is going to be phased out. Just sit back and watch it, something that the Members on the other side of the aisle never ever delivered when they were in the majority. Mr. Chairman, what this is, is an attempt to go after one particular commodity when all the other commodities have loans as well in a phase- down period, and what we ought to do is let the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture's program work. This is an ill-advised amendment. It is an opportunity to utilize a lot of loaded words to characterize a program which, frankly, has been very beneficial to the United States in the world market.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor an outstanding individual, Harvey Hall, who is celebrating over 25 years of providing ambulance service to the people of Kern County. Harvey accepted his first job as an ambulance driver in 1960 because he thought it might be interesting. Little did Harvey realize that his interest in riding along for the night in his buddy's ambulance would lead to a job offer, 11 years with the Flinn Ambulance Co., and then 25 years as the owner of Hall Ambulance. Mr. Speaker, for his serendipitous ride, the residents of Kern County are grateful. The first location for Hall Ambulance was in a house that also doubled as the living quarters for Hall, his wife, and their two children. Five years later Hall and his family moved down the street, but his work was never far as Harvey brought an ambulance home with him at night. Today, the dedication to service that caused Hall to take an ambulance home with him has helped create a business that services the cities of Bakersfield, Arvin, Oildale, Tehachapi, Lamont, Mojave, Boron, California City, Rosamond, and Taft. The list of firsts for Hall Ambulance is impressive: 1975--the first mobile intensive care paramedic service in Kern County; 1975--first nonemergency transportation for wheelchair bound; and 1985--first private mobile medical communications unit for mass casualty incidents. But before Harvey achieved this stellar record, his beginnings were rather meager. For his service, Harvey was designated in 1990 as one of the top three ALS providers in the United States by the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians and was awarded the 1991 Paramedic EMS Service of the Year award by the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians and the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. In 1987, he offered basic life support training throughout Kern County and as a result 2,000 people were trained to help save lives. In 1992 he put in place one of the most sophisticated state-of-the-art computer- aided emergency communication centers in the country. If this were not enough, Harvey also sponsors an Explorer Scout troop and he is involved in fundraising for the Boys and Girls Club of Bakersfield, the Police Athletic League, the Friendship House, and the Bakersfield College Foundation. In addition, Harvey has been the chairman of the Bakersfield Christmas parade for 11 years and has served on the Coalition to Protect Private Property Rights. So Mr. Speaker, on the 25th anniversary of Hall Ambulance, congratulations and job well done to Harvey Hall for all his service to the people of Kern County.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Do you have a letter?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, the letter that I indicated from the Senate was dated November 17. It has been more than 3 months. It has been almost a month since the law went into effect. Does the gentleman from Colorado have in his possession a letter from any other organization indicating a failure to carry out a contractual obligation with the Federal Government because of this legislation?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions in this area. The gentleman well knows that this problem was brought to our attention when the lobbying bill was moving through the Senate, as a matter of fact, and the cosponsors on the Senate side, Senator Simpson and Senator Craig, had attempted to correct it at that time. It is not that we are responsive to a narrow segment of those who are affected by the lobbying bill. It is that this was an area which is in clear conflict because of the unique history of this particular group. Blue Cross/Blue Shield associations were classified as 501(c)(4)'s back in the 1930's. Usually if you are classified under the Internal Revenue Tax Code as a 501(c)(4), for example, you are tax exempt in your activities. Ironically, in 1986 in the tax bill Congress placed the selfsame organizations in a taxable category, so they are now classified as 501(c)(4)'s, but they are, in fact, paying taxes, so they do not get a tax-free benefit from the classification. In addition to that, the Blue Cross/Blue Shield associations have been carrying out on a contractual arrangement the financial management servicing for Medicare, 40 percent of the recipients of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program under the U.S. operation, CHAMPUS, and a number of other areas. This is a real problem faced now by virtue of a letter, and I would like to place it in the Record, and if you have not seen it, I want to share it with the gentleman from Colorado, dated January 16, in which the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, rightly, in trying to carry out the law as written, has sent out notices asking a series of questions, ``Please fax immediately to your contract specialist those who are contractees with FEHBP,'' and question one, ``Is the organization tax exempt?'' This group would say no. Question two, ``Is the organization considered a 501(c)(4)?'' This group would say yes. What we have here is a situation in which with full knowledge we went ahead and passed a law that would put these people in a very narrow timeframe, in significant jeopardy of continuing to run the Medicare, CHAMPUS, and FEHBP program. This group means to comply with all of the lobbying disclosure and reporting requirements. This is not an attempt to create a loophole. If people are receiving grants, then that is what we want to focus on. If they are receiving awards, we want to focus on it. But our failure to understand the complexity of the history of certain organizations and the interaction that would be triggered immediately and our inability to carry out needed functions brought about this technical amendment. I would tell the gentleman if he identifies other groups that fall in the category of 501(c)(4) and are, in fact, taxable and would stop a significant portion of the Federal Government's ongoing contractual obligations and does not fit into this particular amendment, we may have to look at another one. This one is real, it is now, and it needs to be fixed. I commend the chairman for understanding that this is a real problem. A technical correction solves it.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Regular order.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Are you going somewhere?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. The Clerk says in her letter, ``First, contrary to media reports by an `unnamed source', let me clearly state that at no time in the last week has the integrity of the House floor or the quality of the work produced by the Offices of the Clerk suffered.'' The Clerk goes on to say that, ``I, obviously, evaluated the work load of my offices prior to taking these personnel actions and I was confident that we would be able to maintain the timeliness and quality of Clerk operations. Although inaccurate press accounts and hallway gossip would suggest otherwise,'' she says, ``I believe it is clearly evident that the House's ability to function did not rest solely on the shoulders of these nine individuals.'' I agree with her completely. As a matter of fact, very few of them were directly involved in the legislative process. The letter goes on to analyze arguments that have been made about the inability to get the job done around here. Interestingly enough, one of the problems was a printing error on the part of the Government Printing Office. It was, of course, discovered prior to consideration of a House resolution, and it was corrected. We are in the latter days of the first session, and there is always a crunch-time involved and decisions hastily made, notwithstanding the number of employees that have to be reviewed periodically.

Mr. THOMAS. That is not the model that we are using in organizing this place.

Mr. THOMAS. I will tell the gentleman that he well knows, conjunction or not, that for business decisions, you can, without cause, dismiss people.

Mr. THOMAS. No, I will not yield, and the gentleman can continue to say that and I will not yield. Mr. Speaker, based upon the CRS request that we have some modicum of decorum on the floor, can I continue my statement without the harassing yielding requests from the gentleman from Maryland?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, we currently have a discrimination procedure available to us under the Office of Fair Employment Practices. If it was for discrimination, title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies. I do not believe anyone is arguing that there was discrimination. I cannot believe the gentleman's argument about a Vietnam vet and someone who has permanent residence who is seeking United States citizenship deserves to even be responded to. It is that kind of pejorative placement, of course, not on his own hands, but on others and through the media, that is exactly the kind of argument that the American people are fed up with. As the new majority, we intend to run this place in as lean a fashion as possible. There will be additional dismissals, I will tell you that right now. They will be because we are restructuring this place. It is not because someone is not doing the job that they used to have here as well as they could do it; it is that probably that job does not need to be done. There are a number of people, I have to tell you, that are still employed here who are doing jobs that should not be done, and they will be dismissed and the job will be ended. That was the commitment the American people said they wanted out of this new majority, and we are doing it. It seems to me that if the gentleman from Maryland has any facts based upon all of the innuendo about politics in terms of evidence to indicate that someone was not professionally prepared to do the job, notwithstanding the fact that they may happen to be a Republican. Since the old test under their majority was whether they were a Democrat or not, not whether or not they could do the job, it seems to me that if he has any evidence whatsoever, we would certainly like to take a look at it, that people were hired for partisan reasons, rather than for their professional competency, I say notwithstanding the fact that they were Republicans. So, Mr. Speaker, what we have in front of us, once again, is a resolution that was passed by the committee for the interim approval of regulations which we believe will go into effect while we are in adjournment, and I would ask that we move on to the next resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize briefly in the letter to Mr. Hoyer the Clerk indicated, ``These positions were contained within my reorganization proposal adopted by the Committee on House Oversight and implemented on July 1, 1995.'' The Clerk says, ``I have yet to determine whether to fill these positions with new candidates, hold them as vacant positions, or forward a proposal to the Committee on House Oversight for their elimination.'' Again, this is a business reorganization decision on the part of the Clerk. She goes on to say, ``You have also raised questions regarding the personnel manual I have provided my staff on the operation of the offices of the Clerk.'' The letter states, ``The manual clearly outlines procedures and guidelines for disciplinary actions and dismissals for cause. In no way does the manual prohibit dismissal without cause or in the category of at-will employment. In fact, contrary to various media reports, the enactment and implementation of the Congressional Accountability Act will not end at-will employment in these offices.'' Mr. Speaker, I would to on to tell you that it will not end the reorganization of this institution, and that there will be individuals who will no longer have jobs, through no fault of their own, other than the fact that this place was padded with scores of people who should never have been on the payroll in the first place, and who had jobs which did not make a lot of sense. We will continue to restructure this place until it makes sense. We will do it with as much reasonableness as we can, but we will do it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Reviewing some of the statements that have been made. The letter referred to is as follows: Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, December 18, 1995. Hon. Bill Thomas, Chairman, Committee on House Oversight, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: In light of inaccurate media reports that suggested various personnel actions of recent weeks have jeopardized or impacted the performance of the House floor, I am writing to clarify the current situation. I hope you find this information of assistance. First, contrary to media reports by an ``unnamed source'', let me clearly state that at no time in the last week has the integrity of the House floor or the quality of work produced by the Offices of the Clerk suffered. Between November 30 and December 7, nine individuals in the various offices of the Clerk were informed that their services were no longer needed and that from the day forward they would be placed on Administrative Leave until January 16, 1996 and in addition provided payment for their accrued annual leave for up to 30 calendar days. While these individuals were relieved of service and their responsibilities assigned to other current personnel, at no time have these actions influenced or threatened the work of the floor or the internal administrative activities associated with the legislative process. In fact, only three of the nine individuals were employed in the Office of Legislative Operations and only one of them worked directly on the House floor. I, obviously, evaluated the workload of my offices prior to taking these personnel actions and I was confident we would be able to maintain the timeliness and quality of Clerk operations. Although inaccurate press accounts and hallway gossip would suggest otherwise, I believe it is clearly evident that the House's ability to function did not rest solely on the shoulders of these nine individuals. The Clerk employees have and will continue to provide the high quality of service needed to support the House's legislative functions. Over the last week, all systems and procedures of the Office of Legislative Operations have performed successfully. No irregular delays in the handling of legislative papers and no errors in the final recording of votes have occurred. Further, while a printing error on the part of the Government Print Office was discovered prior to consideration of a House Resolution, the Office of Legislative Operations was able to assist interested parties to ensure that no disruption occurred in the House's legislative schedule. Let me stress, it is a regular occurrence, particularly during the closing days of a legislative session, for the administrative procedures related to the legislative process to play ``catch up'' in light of the multiple legislative actions that are occurring in a compressed period on both the House and Senate floors. The legislative schedule of last week, despite our preparations for increased activity, was relatively calm and routine. The Clerk's offices have performed well during this busy session, but can certainly handle even more activity. In particular, during this time of budget negotiations, individuals have raised concerns about the enrolling of appropriations measures. I am aware it has been suggested that the enrolling of the FY97 Interior and VA-HUD Appropriations Bills were somehow delayed in my offices and could not be forwarded to the President on Friday. In fact, the VA-HUD bill was completed and forwarded to the Speaker's Office for signature on Friday evening. That same evening the Office of Legislative Operations completed its work on the Interior Appropriations Bill and forwarded it back to the Committee for final actions. The Committee completed its work on the morning of Saturday, December 16, and I understand that both bills were delivered to the President at that time. I stand ready to discuss any of these issues with you in more detail if you would find it useful. With warm regards, Robin H. Carle.

Mr. THOMAS. I believe the gentleman, if he checks the Record, will find out that several times he referred to stories in the media. I believe the Record will show that. We will find out about it after the fact. But I would ask unanimous consent to place in the Record a letter that I received from the Clerk of the House, Robin Carle----

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Although the argument of the gentleman from Maryland is not on the measure in front of us, I think, based upon the innuendo, the qualifiers, the rumor and gossip, the straw man argument that he constructed needs to be responded to. Frankly, his statements are inaccurate, factually as well as in the innuendo, suggestions, and qualifiers. There were 9 individuals involved, not 10. They were employed by the Clerk in a number of activities. The Clerk continues to rethink the structure under her auspices, and, as in any business, there are restructurings that take place from time to time. This is one of those restructurings. I find it interesting that the gentleman from Maryland indicated that he was the floor leader in the passage of the legislation that the resolution actually deals with. I am pleased to say he was the floor leader on the minority side. His party had 40 years to pass this kind of legislation. They never did. They talked a lot about it. They made innuendos at that time that it was a fair system. In fact, it was a plantation run totally by patronage. What we did was say that that was to stop. What we are doing is restructuring this House, as we have from day 1. We continue to restructure it. We probably will not get it all done by the end of the 104th Congress, and we will probably continue as the majority in the 105th to continue to restructure. The gentleman used a number of phrases and then couched them that that is not really what he meant, but there were rumors and gossip, and according to the media that certain things were going on. I will tell the gentleman that he ought to rely on something other than unnamed sources in the media.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I concur with the gentleman's conclusions and obviously we share jurisdiction. The Committee on House Oversight, primary jurisdiction; the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, sequential jurisdiction. Neither one of us want to delay putting these into effect. I will support the gentleman's jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Accountability Act, which was passed on the first day of this Congress, created an Office of Compliance. It is to become effective January 23, 1996. The board of directors of the Office of Compliance have issued notice of proposed rulemaking and is in the process of reviewing those comments on the proposed regulations. Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the board is scheduled to make final those regulations on January 8, 1996. It is our fervent belief that we are going to adjourn sine die prior to that time and not reconvene for the second session of the 104th Congress until January 23. Therefore, this resolution provisionally adopts the anticipated regulations that are applicable to the House and at the next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be as soon as possible upon reconvening, we will review the final regulations and make a recommendation as to their final approval to the House. Obviously, in that interim period between January 8 and January 23, we do believe it is appropriate to offer provisional approval, whatever those regulations may be. That is the intent and purpose of House Resolution 311. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record a letter to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] from the Clerk.

Mr. THOMAS. I am not going to yield at this time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, if the Chair lays before the House a veto message from the President on the bill, H.R. 1058 today, that the objections of the President be spread at large upon the Journal and that the message and bill be ordered printed as a House document; and that consideration of the veto message be postponed until tomorrow, December 20, 1995.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the week of April 14 to 21, 1996, has been designated as the Days of Remembrance by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council. This particular week is chosen to commemorate the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp by American troops on April 19, 1945. I believe it is entirely appropriate for a society, indeed, societies around the world and cultures to remember the pleasant human experiences, the triumphs and the achievements of mankind. I think it is also important that we remember man at his basest hour so that we will not repeat, but that the memories will be held forever in terms of how man can degrade his fellow man. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 106) permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to commemorate the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust, as amended.

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

Mr. THOMAS

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