[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 22, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
           COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLU- TION SCHEDULED FOR TODAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, later on today the House will consider the 
Committee Funding Resolution. This is an annual event and this 
resolution before us this year will cover the period for the remainder 
of 1994.
  Many Members in this Chamber believe that this resolution covers all 
of the funding for committees when, in fact, that is not the case, not 
even close.
  Looking at the chart next to me, the total amount of funding for 
committees is not the $52 million that we will debate today but it is 
almost $130 million. Only 41 percent of the amount that is spent on 
committees is actually covered by the Committee Funding Resolution. 
That is referred to as investigative committee, where the majority 
controls some 80 percent of those investigative staffers while the 
minority controls roughly 20 percent of those staffers.
  So I bring to the attention of my colleagues that we have some 
problems, and I would like to point those out during the remainder of 
my time.
  The first is that I think it is time to change the funding process. 
If we are going to have a committee funding process, we ought to have 
all of the funds for all of the committees dealt with in this committee 
funding resolution, not just the 41 percent that we are going to debate 
today.
  I think it is also of note that if we look at this pie chart, we will 
see that the Committee on Appropriations gets 16 percent of the funds 
right off the top, some $21 million that we spend to fund the Committee 
on Appropriations. I think it might be of interest to my colleagues who 
sit on the other 26 standing committees when they realize that the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, who most of us thought was probably 
the most powerful committee here in the Congress, only receives $9.6 
million. The powerful Committee on Ways and Means only receives $7.9 
million.
  And at a time when we are trying to find ways to reduce spending, it 
is rather inconceivable to me and was shocking and a surprise to me to 
find out that the Committee on Appropriations takes $21 million.
  It is not part of the committee funding resolution; it is done in the 
legislative appropriations bill that will come to the floor later on 
this spring and it is merely a line item to take care of their own 
staffers.
  The third point I would like to make is last year during the 
legislative appropriations bill, the Congress voted to cut 4 percent of 
the staff here in the House and in the report language that accompanied 
the legislative appropriations bill last year where that vote occurred, 
it says, on page 28, and I quote,

       The Director of Nonlegislative and Financial Services, as 
     de facto budget officials, shall prepare a plan for achieving 
     the necessary reductions. This plan should be developed in 
     consultation with and with the approval of the bipartisan 
     leadership, consisting of the Speaker, the Majority Leader 
     and the Minority Leader, and the Committee on House 
     Administration and the House Committee on Appropriations.

  There is quite a debate going on about how we are going to achieve 
this 4-percent reduction here in the House.
  The Committee on House Administration has come to some agreement that 
it should not occur in Members' offices or in Members' offices staffs 
but should occur in committees and/or other nonlegislative areas of the 
House.
  The reason I bring this issue to the attention of the Members is that 
as we look at committee funding, we see that the amount we are spending 
on committees has grown increasingly over the years. I believe we can 
cut 4 percent of our staffs and we can do it in the committee area.
  I would also bring to the attention of the Chamber the plan that was 
brought to the Committee on House Administration by our chairman, the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose], in consultation with the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], and say that it really makes a sham 
of this process. They want to take the House restaurant workers as an 
example and contract the House restaurant system out and take those 188 
full-time equivalent positions in the House restaurant and say they no 
longer work for the House and it is a reduction in the number of 
employees in the House.
  That is just not being honest with our colleagues here in the 
Chamber, and it is not being honest with the American people. I think 
we have to look at ourselves in the mirror and say it is time to cut 
and it is time to find real savings in slots here in Congress.
  We can do it, and we must do it, so let us not kid ourselves.
  Later on this afternoon, when the committee funding resolution comes 
to the floor, I urge my colleagues to look closely at this chart that I 
have next to me and realize that only 41 percent of the cost of the 
committees is going to be dealt with in this committee funding 
resolution.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to oppose that 
resolution as well.

                          ____________________