[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]

 
PROVIDING AMOUNTS FOR EXPENSES OF INVESTIGATIONS AND STUDIES BY CERTAIN 
                          STANDING COMMITTEES

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on House 
Administration, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 369) providing 
amounts from the contingent fund of the House for the expenses of 
investigations and studies by certain committees of the House in the 
session of the 2d 103d Congress, and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 369

       Resolved, That there shall be paid out of the contingent 
     fund of the House in accordance with this primary expense 
     resolution not more than the amount specified in section 2 
     for investigations and studies by each committee named in 
     such section, including expenses--
       (1) in the case of a committee named in section 3, for 
     procurement of consultant services under section 202(i) of 
     the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946; and
       (2) in the case of a committee named in section 4, for 
     provision of assistance for members of professional staff in 
     obtaining specialized training under section 202(j) of such 
     Act.
       Sec. 2. The committees and amounts referred to in the first 
     section are: Committee on Agriculture, $2,257,937; Committee 
     on Armed Services, $2,669,197; Committee on Banking, Finance 
     and Urban Affairs, $4,188,650; Committee on the District of 
     Columbia, $342,035; Committee on Education and Labor, 
     $4,238,064; Committee on Energy and Commerce, $6,608,907; 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs, $4,145,214; Committee on 
     Government Operations, $3,282,875; Committee on House 
     Administration, $1,994,288; Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, $104,500; Committee on the Judiciary, 
     $2,734,853; Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 
     $2,395,679; Committee on Natural Resources, $2,243,095; 
     Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, $1,889,736; 
     Committee on Public Works and Transportation, $3,170,666; 
     Committee on Rules, $722,479; Committee on Science, Space, 
     and Technology, $2,959,438; Committee on Small Business, 
     $1,073,000; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
     $100,000; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $827,034; and 
     Committee on Ways and Means, $5,070,000.
       Sec. 3. (a) Of the amounts provided for in section 2, each 
     committee named in subsection (b) may use not more than the 
     amount specified in such subsection for consultant services 
     under paragraph (1) of the first section.
       (b) The committees and amounts referred to in subsection 
     (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, $12,000; Committee on 
     Armed Services, $40,000; Committee on the District of 
     Columbia, $8,000; Committee on Education and Labor, $100,000; 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, $25,000; Committee on 
     Government Operations, $10,000; Committee on House 
     Administration, $225,000; Committee on Natural Resources, 
     $2,500; Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, $60,000; 
     Committee on Public Works and Transportation, $50,000; 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, $25,000; 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $45,000; 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $18,750; Committee on Ways 
     and Means, $10,000.
       Sec. 4. (a) Of the amounts provided for in section 2, each 
     committee named in subsection (b) may use not more than the 
     amount specified in such subsection for specialized training 
     under paragraph (2) of the first section.
       (b) The committees and amounts referred to in subsection 
     (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, $2,000; Committee on Armed 
     Services, $8,000; Committee on the District of Columbia, 
     $1,000; Committee on Education and Labor, $10,000; Committee 
     on Government Operations, $2,000; Committee on House 
     Administration, $20,000; Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, $5,000; Committee on the Judiciary, $5,000; 
     Committee on Natural Resources, $100; Committee on Public 
     Works and Transportation, $30,000; Committee on Rules, 
     $2,500; Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, $19,032; 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,000; and 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $1,500.
       Sec. 5. In addition to any other activity referred to in 
     this resolution, the Committee on House Administration, using 
     funds from the amount specified with respect to that 
     Committee in section 2--
       (1) shall, through House Information Systems, develop, 
     operate, maintain, and improve computer and information 
     services for the House, including direct computer and 
     information systems support for Members, committees, 
     administrative offices, and other governmental entitles, and 
     shall conduct necessary investigations and studies of such 
     services;
       (2) is authorized to oversee any reimbursement for services 
     described in paragraph (1) and any expenditure of amounts so 
     reimbursed; and
       (3) is authorized to provide for professional development 
     programs, office and personnel management consultation 
     services, and periodic publication of handbooks, guides, 
     bulletins, and other items necessary for the House.
       Sec. 6. Payments under this resolution shall be made on 
     vouchers authorized by the committee involved, signed by the 
     chairman of such committee, and approved by the Committee on 
     House Administration.
       Sec. 7. Amounts shall be available under this resolution 
     for investigations and studies carried out during the period 
     beginning at noon on January 3, 1994, and ending immediately 
     before noon on January 3, 1995.
       Sec. 8. Amounts made available under this resolution shall 
     be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
     Committee on House Administration.

  Mr. FROST (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. de la Garza). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.


           committee amendment in the nature of a substitute

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
     That there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the 
     House in accordance with this primary expense resolution not 
     more than the amount specified in section 2 for 
     investigations and studies by each committee named in such 
     section, including expenses--
       (1) in the case of a committee named in section 3, for 
     procurement of consultant services under section 202(i) of 
     the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946; and
       (2) in the case of a committee named in section 4, for 
     provision of assistance for members of professional staff in 
     obtaining specialized training under section 202(j) of such 
     Act.
       Sec. 2. The committees and amounts referred to in the first 
     section are: Committee on Agriculture, $2,190,199; Committee 
     on Armed Services, $2,500,427; Committee on Banking, Finance 
     and Urban Affairs, $3,953,784; Committee on the District of 
     Columbia, $328,354; Committee on Education and Labor, 
     $3,955,526; Committee on Energy and Commerce, $6,349,077; 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs, $3,800,113; Committee on 
     Government Operations, $3,184,389; Committee on House 
     Administration, $1,902,621; Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, $104,500; Committee on the Judiciary, 
     $2,465,860; Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 
     $2,229,175; Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 
     $1,871,039; Committee on Public Works and Transportation, 
     $2,922,324; Committee on Rules, $708,029; Committee on 
     Science, Space, and Technology, $2,870,655; Committee on 
     Small Business, $1,002,250; Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct, $90,000; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
     $746,402; and Committee on Ways and Means, $4,826,844.
       Sec. 3. (a) Of the amounts provided for in section 2, each 
     committee named in subsection (b) may use not more than the 
     amount specified in such subsection for consultant services 
     under paragraph (1) of the first section.
       (b) The committees and amounts referred to in subsection 
     (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, $12,000; Committee on 
     Armed Services, $40,000; Committee on the District of 
     Columbia, $8.000; Committee on Education and Labor, $100,000; 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, $25,000; Committee on 
     Government Operations, $10,000; Committee on House 
     Administration, $225,000; Committee on Natural Resources, 
     $2,500; Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, $60,000; 
     Committee on Public Works and Transportation, $50,000; 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, $25,000; 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $45,000; 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $18,750; and Committee on 
     Ways and Means, $10,000.
       Sec. 4. (a) Of the amounts provided for in section 2, each 
     committee named in subsection (b) may use not more than the 
     amount specified in such subsection for specialized training 
     under paragraph (2) of the first section.
       (b) The committees and amounts referred to in subsection 
     (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, $2,000; Committee on Armed 
     Services, $8,000; Committee on the District of Columbia, 
     $1,000; Committee on Education and Labor, $10,000; Committee 
     on Government Operations, $2,000; Committee on House 
     Administration, $20,000; Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, $5,000; Committee on the Judiciary, $5,000; 
     Committee on Natural Resources, $100; Committee on Public 
     Works and Transportation, $30,000; Committee on Rules, 
     $2,500; Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, $19,032; 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,000; and 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $1,500.
       Sec. 5. In addition to any other activity referred to in 
     this resolution, the Committee on House Administration, using 
     funds from the amount specified with respect to that 
     Committee in section 2--
       (1) shall, through House Information Systems, develop, 
     operate, maintain, and improve computer and information 
     services for the House, including direct computer and 
     information systems support for Members, committees, 
     administrative offices, and other governmental entities, and 
     shall conduct necessary investigation and studies of such 
     services;
       (2) is authorized to oversee any reimbursement for services 
     described in paragraph (1) and any expenditure of amounts so 
     reimbursed; and
       (3) is authorized to provide for professional development 
     programs, office and personnel management consultation 
     services, and periodic publication of handbooks, guides, 
     bulletins, and other items necessary for the House.
       Sec. 6. Payments under this resolution shall be made on 
     vouchers authorized by the committee involved, signed by the 
     chairman of such committee, and approved by the Committee on 
     House Administration.
       Sec. 7. Amounts shall be available under this resolution 
     for investigations and studies carried out during the period 
     beginning at noon January 3, 1994, and ending immediately 
     before noon on January 3, 1995.
       Sec. 8. Amounts made available under this resolution shall 
     be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
     Committee on House Administration.
       Sec. 9. The Committee on House Administration shall have 
     authority to make adjustments in amounts for investigations 
     and studies under section 2, if necessary to comply with an 
     order of the President issued under section 254 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 or 
     to conform to any reduction in appropriations for the 
     purposes of such section 2.

  Mr. FROST (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be 
considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] is 
recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the 
ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Accounts of the 
Committee on House Administration, pending which I yield myself such 
time as I may consume, with the understanding that any additional time 
which I may yield will be subject to the specific limitation, for 
debate purposes only.
  Mr. Speaker, before explaining this amendment, I wish to thank all of 
the Members of the subcommittee on accounts for their hard work in 
considering each committee's budget request. Attendance at each session 
was excellent. In particular, I wish to thank the gentleman from 
Washington, [Al Swift] who is retiring after 15 years of dedicated 
service on the committee. Finally, I wish to thank all of the chairmen 
and ranking minority members from the respective committees and their 
staffs. Their cooperation enabled us to evaluate all budget requests in 
a through and timely manner.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporates 
all of the subcommittee's determinations on each original primary 
expense resolution from the customary 20 standing committees and the 
permanent select committee on intelligence for the 2d session of the 
103d Congress. It does not include the Committees on Appropriations and 
Budget. The proposed amendment was adopted by the subcommittee at its 
markup on March 8 by a rollcall vote of 8 to 5, after completion of 
hearings on each individual resolution. The amendment was subsequently 
adopted without change by the full committee on March 9, by a vote of 
12 to 7.
  This year the subcommittee had the very difficult task of continuing 
the process of reducing the cost of Government. When we commenced the 
hearings, I stated that the subcommittee had two major 
responsibilities. First, we had to ensure that the committees of the 
House had adequate funds to discharge their legislative and oversight 
responsibilities. Second, we had to make certain that the authorization 
of committee funds was fiscally responsible in an climate of declining 
resources. In my judgement, we have discharged both of these 
responsibilities in a manner which attempts to be reasonable and fair.
  Regarding the subcommittee's work product, the amendment provides a 
total authorization which represents a 5-percent reduction from 1993's 
level. The total authorization for 1993 was $52,774,866. This amount 
represents the sum of funds authorized by House Resolution 107, the 
omnibus primary expense resolution for 1993, and funds authorized 
pursuant to House rule XI, clause 5(f) to continue the four defunct 
select committees for 3 months of 1993. Both of these amounts were 
charged to the applicable fiscal year 1993 appropriations line item, 
for standing committees, special and select. Therefore it is reasonable 
to include both of these amounts in the 1993 baseline as part of the 
total authorized amount.
  As was the case in 1993, funds saved from entities which have not 
been reauthorized were not redistributed to other committees.
  Instead they were set aside as genuine savings. In addition, further 
reductions were achieved, from every remaining committee under our 
jurisdiction. This was done in keeping with the commitment of the House 
Democratic leadership to cut the cost of Congress.
  For the purpose of comparing the 1994 funding level with the funding 
level for 1993, we have utilized the previously mentioned 1993 
authorization as the baseline. The total amount recommended by the 
committee amendment for 1994 is $50,128,299. This amount is $2,646,637 
below the total authorization of $52,774,866 for 1993. Therefore, the 
recommended amount for 1994 represents a 5.01-percent reduction from 
the 1993 authorized level.
  Furthermore, the committees under our jurisdiction were frozen in 
1992, cut by 5 percent in the aggregate in 1993, and we propose an 
additional 5-percent reduction for 1994. It is difficult to see how 
anyone could argue that we have not actually cut the cost of Congress 
in very real terms.
  The subcommittee's amendment cuts every committee in a manner which 
attempts to be rational and fair. We applied such relevant criteria as 
each committee's jurisdictional responsibilities, projected 1994 
workload, and historical funding patterns to determine the level of 
cuts. However, we rejected the single criterion which was suggested by 
our minority colleagues, that is, that reductions should be tied to a 
committee's alleged treatment or mistreatment of its minority members.
  This single predetermined standard seems to be driven by the 
Republican leadership. Most of the ranking minority members who 
appeared before the Accounts Subcommittee indicated that they were 
satisfied with their treatment by their respective chairmen. Yet I 
doubt that we will get a single Republican vote in support of these 
genuine cost reductions. The minority leadership has adopted the 
position that we should reduce overall funding for the committees 
further, while increasing the minority portion of the remainder to at 
least 33 percent on all committees. We have to ask ourselves if this is 
a genuine effort at cost reduction or an attempt to gain partisan 
advantage.
  The subcommittee also resisted attempts to gridlock the process by 
focusing on matters which are clearly beyond our control. I am 
referring to funds provided in appropriations for the so-called 
statutory account and the operation of the Committees on Appropriations 
and Budget. The consideration of these matters by the Accounts 
Subcommittee would require changes to House rules and statutory law. 
These proposals were considered and rejected by the final report of the 
House Members of the Joint Committee on the Reorganization of Congress.
  It is my opinion that the historical rationale for the distinction 
between these accounts should be maintained. In any event, as I stated 
previously, these matters are beyond our control.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to expose the 
persistent myth that the legislative branch is continually getting 
larger and more expensive.
  Since 1979, appropriations for the entire legislative branch have 
actually declined by 1.7 percent after adjusting for inflation [AFI]. 
In contrast, funding for the executive branch has increased by 30 
percent [AFI] during this time period.
  As the first chart shows, during the Reagan-Bush years civilian 
executive branch employment grew at an alarming rate--from 2.8 million 
in 1981 to a high point of over 3.06 million in 1987. This increase 
under Republican administrations, represented the addition of 
approximately 250,000 workers to the Federal pay roll. Therefore, I ask 
you, which party should be labeled ``The Big Government Spenders''? It 
is no wonder President Clinton wants to reduce the executive branch by 
a quarter million workers. He inherited a lot of left-over fat to trim. 
This same chart shows, in contrast, that both the legislative branch in 
general, and the House and Senate in particular, remained static in 
terms of employees from 1981 to 1993. Committee investigative 
employees, have actually decreased by 2.47 percent, from 1,013 in 1983, 
to 988 as of January of 1994.
  Clearly the Democratic controlled legislative branch has done a 
better job of curtailing expenses and staff, than the Republican 
controlled executive branch did when they had the White House.
  The Founding Fathers envisioned the House of Representatives to be 
the first branch of our National Government. Yet for fiscal year 1994, 
the appropriations for the entire legislative branch totalled $2.3 
billion. This might sound like a lot of money, but it amounts to less 
than one-fifth of 1 percent of the overall Federal budget.
  In terms of employment, the second chart shows that in 1993 there 
were 2.9 million civilian executive branch employees to 37,000 
legislative branch employees. In other words, in 1993 there were 79 
civilian executive branch employees, for each legislative branch 
employee. Frankly, in terms of cost, we are extremely small in 
comparison to the executive branch. I ask my colleagues, how are we to 
continue to effectively legislate and oversee the vast Federal 
bureaucracy if we continue to cut the budget of Congress just for the 
sake of cutting?
  Concerning the investigative account, which is before you today, the 
third chart shows that from a high point of approximately $60 million 
in 1991 we have reduced this account steadily to our current proposal 
of $50 million dollars contained in the committee amendment. The 1994 
recommendation is actually $45 million in 1991 constant dollars. 
Therefore, the resolution is a 24.6 percent reduction from 1991's 
authorized level after adjustment for inflation.
  Finally, I urge all Members to vote for the adoption of this 
amendment, even though I think that it is fair to say that no one is 
truly happy with it. Certainly committee chairmen do not like having 
their budgets cut when they have increasing work loads. The minority is 
not happy either; but they would have us fire Democrat staff and hire 
Republican staff and claim that they are reducing spending.
  Although no one is satisfied, I urge your support for this reasonable 
proposal. Tough choices were made and no committee remained untouched; 
but, we have clearly heard the call of our constituents and our 
President to reduce the cost of Government.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by Chairman Frost.
  I appreciate the comments of the Accounts Subcommittee Chairman 
Martin Frost regarding the majority's proposed committee funding 
resolution, our subcommittee hearings and the efforts of the minority.
  First, I wish to thank all the members for their participation, in 
particular Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn, Congressman John Boehner, and 
Congressman Bill Thomas. I appreciate the professional manner in which 
the majority, in particular Mr. Frost, has illustrated through our 
hearings.
  Throughout our subcommittee hearings, the minority focused on the 
growth of committee spending, majority and minority staffing ratios and 
the historical treatment of the minority. As well, the minority raised 
issues outside the immediate scope of our committee funding resolution 
regarding the need to reform the committee funding process and a 
mandated 4-percent reduction in congressional staff. I know these 
issues will not be settled today by this debate, but I believe they 
should become bipartisan concerns and goals for our leadership to 
resolve.


                     investigative funding/baseline

  For the record, I believe it is important that we all share an 
understanding of Congress' spending on House committees.
  House Resolution 369 is not representative of the entire funding 
provided committees for 1994. Rather, the resolution only illustrates 
roughly 41 percent of committees entire spending--or an estimated $51 
million of the more than $120 million that will be spent on House 
committees in 1994. The other funding source, known as statutory 
funding, is provided directly in the legislative branch appropriations 
bill and does not have to be annually authorized in this resolution. In 
addition, committees' investigative resources are provided on a 
calendar year and statutory resources are provided on fiscal years--a 
timetable that only confuses the best financial managers and making it 
impossible to accurately determine a committee's resources.
  The minority has developed an alternative to the current system (H. 
Res. 383) to require annual authorization in an effort to increase 
oversight and consistency in the committee funding process. I 
anticipate this will be further discussed later in the debate.
  Now, as to the baseline or if a cut is really a cut.
  Chairman Frost has indicated that the majority views the baseline for 
1994 to be equal to the House's 1993 committee authorization level.
  In 1993, the House authorized $52,774,866 in investigative funding 
for the 21 committees authorized in House Resolution 369, as well as 5 
other committees that are no longer in existence, the Joint Committee 
on the Organization of Congress and 4 select committees--Aging, 
Children, Narcotics and Hunger.
  The majority has calculated the past spending on these five now-
defunct committees as part of their 1994 baseline of $52,774,866, a 
$1,492,475 exaggeration in the actual resources provided 1993 when 
compared to 1994. Smoke and mirrors to claim a cut that is not a cut.
  The minority recognizes that the majority resolution is providing 
real reductions in committee spending for 1994 beyond the $1.5 million 
cushion, but these reductions are not at the rate being claimed by the 
majority. Overall, the majority reduction is a 2.3-percent cut, not the 
5 percent that has been asserted.


                            MINORITY RATIOS

  Further, it is important to understand the use and allocation of 
resources. House rules provide that the chairmen of committees 
determine the amount of investigative funding provided the minority. 
The majority determines our minority funding, thus controlling the 
ability of the minority to respond and develop alternative positions. 
Such power has lead to long-term understandings and comity between the 
majority and minority, but this has not been the case on many 
committees and in some committees the minority has been denied a fair 
share of the resources.
  In response to this concern, an alternative position has been 
developed that the minority should be provided at least one-third of 
the investigative funds provided a committee. This figure is in line 
with the current Senate understanding and previous House votes have 
supported this guaranteed allocation formula. However, today the 
minority continues to receive only 21.5 percent of 
investigative resources. Only 4 of 21 committees provide a figure at or 
above the 33 percent goal.

  Five years ago, Tony Coelho and Newt Gingrich were part of the House 
Administration Committee membership that developed a longterm 
understanding and agreement on the future investigative funding. The 
Coelho-Gingrich agreement recognized that minority one-third goal and 
stated that we would work to reach the one-third goal over the next 
several years through attrition and increased funding. In 1989, the 
minority received 16.5 percent of investigative staff compared to the 
1994 level of 21.5 percent.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, progress has been made. But, it has been slow. It 
is estimated that it would be the year 2010 before the one-third goal 
would be achieved at this rate. This situation only continues to 
frustrate the minority and we again urge the Democratic leadership to 
act in helping to resolve this matter. Support a one-third guarantee 
for the minority.


            minority alternative committee funding amendment

  Under the direction of the Republican leadership, a Republican 
alternative to Mr. Frost's proposal was offered to reduce committee's 
investigative funding by 7.9 percent or $4,051,387--this cut is equal 
to a 4 percent reduction in entire committee funding--the combination 
of investigative and statutory funding.
  The Republican alternative was developed after considering the 
mandated reductions agreed upon during debate on the fiscal 1994 
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act and its accompanying House 
report. The act requires a 4 percent staff reduction in the House of 
Representatives by September 30, 1995. The majority has failed to 
recognize this requirement with their proposal and we now face 
uncertainty in how, where and when additional staff cuts will be 
achieved.
  Specifically, the minority alternative provides a 2.5 percent across-
the-board reduction for all committees. The remaining impact to achieve 
a total 7.9 percent reduction is distributed among committees based 
upon historical staff ratios between the majority and minority, in an 
effort to reward committees with ratios closet to the one-third 
minority goal.
  The minority alternative was offered a an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute at both the subcommittee and full committee meetings. Both 
times this measure failed on a party-line vote.
  I intend to offer this same proposal as a motion to recommit and 
solicit my colleagues support.


                               conclusion

  Mr. Speaker, during these days of deficit spending and budget 
cutting, we believe Congress should not be an exception. The House of 
Representatives has seen considerable staff increases in both committee 
and administrative offices. It is only fair to see these areas reduce 
spending to assist in achieving responsible reductions in Federal 
spending.
  In addition, the minority is not making an unreasonable request of 
the majority to terminate staff in order to provide additional slots 
for minority positions. In fact this goal has been met on several 
committees through attrition and total committee reductions. Instead, 
the minority is only trying to highlight a longterm difficulty between 
the majority and minority. The minority is asking for a commitment that 
progress will be made in this area.
  I appreciate having the opportunity to work with my colleagues on 
this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose], the chairman 
of the Committee on House Administration.

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on House 
Administration, and as an ex-officio member of the Subcommittee on 
Accounts, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Texas--
Chairman Martin Frost--for the excellent work he did in producing this 
1994 committee funding resolution.
  At a time when we have been directed by our leadership to continue 
the task of reducing the cost of Congress, the Accounts Subcommittee's 
final recommendation achieves that objective. It is based upon real 
reductions, and it cuts every committee.
  The aggregate decrease for committees, under the resolution before 
you today, is 5 percent below 1993's authorized level.
  These reductions were accomplished in a rational manner, taking into 
consideration such factors as jurisdiction, oversight responsibilities, 
and projected workload for 1994.
  Every Member who votes for this resolution, can honestly say that his 
or her vote reduced the size and operating cost of the House.
  I would remind my colleagues that, of the committees which come under 
this resolution, aggregate spending was frozen in 1992. The following 
year, in 1993, the House cut that aggregate by five percent. This 
resolution continues the process by cutting another 5 percent.
  I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to recognize the 
need for rational--and measured--steps in the downsizing of Government. 
This resolution recognizes that need, and provides that balance.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], an extremely important member of the 
subcommittee and a gentleman who has pressed for reform in the way we 
can better control our overall committee funding resources.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I come to the floor today to oppose 
the committee funding resolution as presented by the majority.
  As the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] has pointed out, what is 
portrayed as a 5-percent cut really in fact is a 2-percent cut, and we 
can quibble over the amounts.
  But let us all be honest. There was $996,000 included in the baseline 
from select committees that had been eliminated before last year's 
resolution came to the floor. We have also included in the baseline 
some half-million dollars that was spent for the Joint Committee for 
the Reorganization of Congress, which went out of existence. So to 
include $1.5 million in the baseline that was never intended to be 
there this year anyway, I think, stretches the truth just a bit.
  So the fact is it is a 2-percent cut. It is a step in the right 
direction, but, oh, so modest of a step in the right direction.
  The second point that I would make is the point that the gentleman 
from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] pointed out, and that is this committee 
resolution deals with 41 percent of the total committee finances. Total 
committee funding this year will be $129,927,000, in round numbers, 
$130 million. The $50 million requested is only 41 percent of those 
resources.
  The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] did a very good job in 
pointing out that this process ought to be controlled. These funds, 
these 41 percent, are on a calendar-year basis. The 38 percent are on a 
fiscal-year basis. And yet after all of the chairmen and the ranking 
members have come before the committee to justify why they should get 
the amounts that they requested, the Committee on Appropriations never 
came before our committee, nor did the Committee on the Budget, which 
brings me to my third point, which is the amount of money that is spent 
on committees.
  We have got some very large committees in the Congress, the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce that spends about $9.6 million, and we have got 
the Committee on Ways and Means that spends about $7.9 million, Foreign 
Affairs almost $7 million, and the Committee on Appropriations is also 
a large committee.
  But it costs $21.2 million dollars to fund the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Now I would suggest that because they do not have to go through this 
committee funding process, it makes it very easy for them to put the 
amount of money that they want directly into the legislative 
appropriations bill and never having to come before the committee to 
justify their budget. The other point I would make is that last year 
during the legislative appropriation debate, the Congress voted to cut 
our staffs by 4 percent. The Congress voted. It was not a proposal from 
this side or that side. The Congress decided we are going to cut 4 
percent of our staff.
  We are still groping how we are going to do that. In that request 
last summer, in that vote, the report language says, and I quote,

       The Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services, a 
     de facto budget officer, 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, majority leader, and 
     the minority leader and the Committee on House Administration 
     and the House Committee on Appropriations.

  Now, I will bring to the Chamber's attention the fact that our 
chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose], of the 
Committee on House Administration, brought forth a proposal that was 
voted on in committee several weeks ago, never having been shared with 
the minority, never having consulted the minority leader, and you want 
to talk about a sham for cutting 4 percent of our staff, look what we 
are going to do.
  We are going to contract out the House restaurant system and take the 
188 employees who work for us, and we are going to shift them to the 
outside contractor. We are really cutting staff, I can see. We are also 
going to count them as part of our 4-percent reduction.
  Now, I would say to my colleagues that this is not what we committed 
to when we cast our vote to reduce our staff by 5 percent, and the fact 
is that we ought to take our time. We ought to bite the bullet and 
carry out these reductions.
  So the Republican Members today are going to offer a 7.9-percent cut 
in the investigative funds, the 41 percent of the budget, to try to 
achieve the 4-percent overall reduction.
  I feel bad that we have got to ask the 25 standing committees who 
have taken a hit last year and who are going to take a hit this year, 
that we are going to ask them to bear the whole brunt of this. This 
process does not allow us to cut the Committee on Appropriations or the 
Committee on the Budget.
  So the fact is, support the Republican alternative today.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 369, 
the committees' funding resolution for 1994. I do want to thank and 
commend the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, Mr. 
Rose, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Accounts, Mr. Frost, the 
distinguished members of the committee and their staff for their 
diligence and hard work in bringing forward this resolution today. 
Striking a happy balance with committee budgets is a difficult and 
thankless job.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution--not enthusiastically--
but I will vote for it, not because I support the degree of budget 
cutting we are into now, or even because budget cutting is the 
politically correct thing to do. I am deeply concerned that if this 
resolution does not pass, the cuts to committees will be larger, and we 
will have succeeded in making a disastrous predicament even worse.
  Historically, the work of the Congress increases in direct proportion 
to the enormity of the challenges facing this Nation. Getting more work 
done with less is quickly becoming one of the greatest of our 
challenges.
  The Committee on Public Works and Transportation, for example, is the 
largest authorizing committee in Congress, and we have a heavy 
legislative schedule this session: the Clean Water Act, enactment of 
the National Highway System, an airport and airway reauthorization 
bill, and the Water Resources Development Act, just to name a few. Yet, 
as chair of that committee, I am reduced to operating a major 
congressional committee by scavenging for used equipment, borrowing 
staff from agencies and outside organizations, and using volunteer 
interns. We have eliminated practically all of our travel budget, 
seriously hampering our oversight operations. My staff works long 
hours, and I can't even pass along a cost-of-living allowance, much 
less a merit increase.
  I can tell you as a committee Chair, there are countless challenges 
and frustrations in my job, but few more exasperating than trying to 
stretch and make do with resources that long ago passed their day. In 
our committee, we are having to accept that it will be nearly 
impossible to handle our full agenda on our present budget. Each 
successive cut just makes our predicament more desperate.
  The Constitution provides that we are a co-equal branch of 
Government. Yet, the 1994 appropriation for the legislative branch is 
less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget--one-
fifth of 1 percent. I cannot imagine that would even be visible on a 
pie chart. As we continue to chop away at our one-fifth of 1 percent 
share, what are we doing to our Government's system of checks and 
balances?
  Matching executive branch cost-cutting targets is going to be 
extremely difficult because the legislative branch has not grown as 
fast. In trying to keep up with their pace, I fear we will find that 
while the executive branch is streamlining, we in the legislative 
branch are self-destructing. Clearly, we are saving money. But at what 
cost? We are progressively undermining our ability to make in-depth, 
informed legislative judgments and to vigorously pursue our oversight 
responsibilities.
  In my view, we have to take a serious look at what we are doing to 
this institution. It is time to rethink the size of budget cuts in the 
legislative branch. In answering to the American people, I would much 
rather defend funding we truly need, than try to explain that our job 
did not get done for lack of resources.
  There is no doubt we have to pass this resolution, and we should. 
While it does not go as far as I had hoped in providing the support we 
need, it does represent a good-faith effort under very difficult 
circumstances. Accordingly, I will vote for this resolution and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Ms. Dunn], who has made a most valuable contribution to our 
subcommittee's efforts.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding 
this time to me.
  First I want to thank the ranking members of our committee, the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Thomas] for their leadership, and I also appreciate the manner in 
which Chairman Frost conducted the subcommittee hearings.
  We had a good series of hearings and discussions held in our 
subcommittee, and I believe that this drove the final decision on 
funding in the right direction, in the direction of cutting the 
committee funding.
  First, let me say that I am pleased that my Democrat colleagues on 
the Committee on House Administration now support cutting overall 
committee funding. Personally, I wanted more cuts. In fact, my freshman 
Republican colleagues have called for more dramatic cuts; last year 25 
percent, and this year it was 10 percent.
  This call for dramatic cuts is in direct response to the directive of 
our constituents for more responsible government.
  Thus I suppose that the big question is how much should the cut be? 
According to the Republican baseline, House Resolution 369, passed on a 
party-line vote, results in a reduction to committee funding by 2.3 
percent, a minor cut but still a cut.
  The Republican baseline adds up the funds received by the 20 standing 
committees and the permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is 
fairly simple. We have said here are the remaining committees, what do 
they need to effectively function? Here is my concern, Mr. Speaker, 
with the argument put forth by my Democratic colleagues on the 
committee: They use a baseline that adds in the amounts funded last 
year for the four select committees and the Joint Committee on the 
Organization of Congress. Why is that a problem? Let me give you an 
idea.
  As a result of the efforts of the freshman Republican class, the 
select committees were killed last year, and as a member of the Joint 
Committee on the Organization of Congress, I can tell everyone that it 
too is defunct at this point, dead, kaput, finished, over.
  In fact, it was created with a explicit 1-year lifespan so it sun 
setted on 31 December, 1993. Yet the Democrats have added those five 
dead and buried committees into their baseline before they made their 
cut. That is why I am amazed that my Democratic colleagues are claiming 
that they are proposing a 5-percent cut. They are not.
  What the majority is proposing is a 2.3-percent reduction in total 
committee funding and of this 2.3-percent cut, I say be proud of it; it 
is a minor cut, but it is a cut and it is a start in the right 
direction.
  It is not as much as I wanted, but the majority should be somewhat 
commended for their efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, by claiming a much larger percentage reduction, in 
reality they are again reinforcing the image in the public minds that 
Congress just will not level with people. So once again we are 
strengthening the hands of those who say the Congress is a den of the 
disingenuous. This is especially ironic when we see the budget of the 
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, since one of its 
primary missions was to improve public understanding of the Congress, 
yet here we are using 1993 budget numbers to inflate and create a bogus 
baseline and thereby confuse the public rather than increase public 
understanding.
  Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers of America want to know why a cut is not a 
cut; why increases sometimes are called cuts; but why these misleading 
baselines are used to make the public think that bold action is being 
taken when plainly it is not.
  We have many honorable men and women in this body, Mr. Speaker, yet 
we do a disservice to each and every one of them when we try to shave 
the issues. For the good of the institution and for the sake of 
clarity, let us be candid. Republicans want a 7.9-percent cut in 
committee funding, and Democrats want a 2.3-percent reduction. Fair 
enough, Mr. Speaker, let us state the facts, vote the issues, and then 
take it to the American people.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], a member 
of the subcommittee.
  (Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the Accounts 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], for the way he has 
managed the course on which we have embarked--which is a gradual and 
rational reduction in committee funding as part of an overall effort to 
streamline the congressional branch of Government.
  Last year, as we have heard, committee funding was cut by 5 percent, 
and again this year the Accounts Subcommittee presents the House with 
another 5-percent reduction overall. Some committees were cut more than 
others for a variety of reasons including their 1994 projected 
workload, but the important point is that no committee escaped the 
knife--all committees were cut. I do not believe these cuts are 
painless. Rather, I believe they will have some negative effect on the 
ability of committees to function and will require some adjustment by 
the chairmen and ranking minority members of the committees. That is 
why I do not support any deeper cuts and hope the House would 
overwhelmingly reject any such suggestion.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to note for the record that 
in 1987 the subcommittee began to suggest to the committees over which 
it has jurisdiction that there was need to improve the number of women 
in top jobs within the committee structures. Since that time, the 
number of women staff directors has risen from zero to seven, and the 
number of women counsels, staff directors, and staff within 75 percent 
of the pay cap has increased by 25 percent. This is a good trend, and I 
think we will improve in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution and oppose the motion 
to recommit.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica], who is not a member of the subcommittee but who 
made a valuable contribution during our hearing process.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman from yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on 
this issue.
  I am here really to speak about unfairness in this resolution and 
also unfairness in this process. If we could take just a minute, I 
would like to tell you I am a member of the Committee on Government 
Operations. The House Government Operations Committee is one of the 
oldest committees in this Congress. In fact, in the history of the 
Congress it dates back to 1814 and it broke off from the Committee on 
Ways and Means. In 1814 our predecessors and Founders had the wisdom to 
see that we should have oversight and investigations of how the 
taxpayers' money is spent and how Government is operated here. That is 
the important task of the House Government Operations Committee. It is 
different from almost any other committee, maybe, with the exception of 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, dealing with ethics.
  Let me say that the unfairness that we see is demonstrated purely by 
the facts and statistics.
  Look at the distribution of the investigative staff for the 
Government Operations Committee. The minority has 14 percent, the 
majority has 58 percent. As far as the dollars--and I am not here 
asking for a penny more in dollars or a penny more in staff for this 
committee--I am saying what is unfair is the distribution.

                              {time}  1700

  The expenditures:
  The Republicans will get $594,000; the Democrats, $2.1 million, and 
then just look at the graphic illustration. Nine minority staff 
investigators, and that is only because I have raised Cain on this 
issue from the first day we came here, and now we have 52 in the 
majority.
  Is that the proper distribution of staff and taxpayer funds?
  And what is most important is this is really a question of the 
integrity of this process. It is not just a question of fairness. We 
are dealing with a committee that deals with the investigation and 
oversight of the executive branch of government.
  Is this fair?
  This actually again deals with the integrity of the process. The 
minority does not have the tools, the staff or the financing to conduct 
a fair oversight, to conduct fair investigations and to participate in 
the process in a fair and equitable manner.
  What is even more disconcerting to me today is that the other party 
controls the White House, the executive branch, all the legislative 
branches, and here we are responsible for investigations in oversight.
  Not only is the minority being cut off from staff now, we have seen a 
very dangerous precedent with the Whitewater investigations. We are 
also being cut off from information.
  So, my colleagues, I talk today about a question not only about 
fairness, but a question of integrity of the very process where the 
Committee on House Administration is not funded under this resolution. 
It is unfair, and I ask my colleagues to vote against it, and I ask my 
colleagues to join me in bringing fairness and integrity to this 
process.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] who 
has served valiantly on this subcommittee for many years.
  (Mr. SWIFT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Frost] as well as the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts]. I think 
of them as the chairman and ranking member on the thankless task force 
which is the Subcommittee on Accounts.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, there is a game that children 
play, probably been playing it since Og came out of a cave and hit 
something with a rock. I call it the ``My daddy can beat up your 
daddy'' king of game, and it sometimes is played this way, although one 
could use a whole bunch of different ways of playing it, but sometimes 
one kid will say, ``My daddy makes a million dollars,'' and the other 
kid will say, ``My daddy makes $2 million,'' to which the response is, 
``My daddy makes $5 million,'' to which, of course, the response is, 
``My daddy makes $10 million.''
  Then, Mr. Speaker, someone always finds the capper, the one that wins 
the debate: ``My daddy makes a million dollars more than whatever your 
daddy makes.''
  No response; somebody loses.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, we play that game here in this 
institution, only it goes more like this:
  What if we cut that appropriation 5 percent?
  No, I want more.
  What if we cut it 7\1/2\ percent?
  No, I want to cut it more.
  What if we cut it 10 percent?
  Then, Mr. Speaker, if they are real candid, they will say, ``No, you 
don't understand. No matter what you want to cut, I want to cut it 
more.''
  That is the game that we are playing here, Mr. Speaker, but in this 
particular instance they are bringing new meaning to the word more 
because not only do they want to cut more, but they also want to spend 
more on themselves.
  I say to my colleagues, That's a great game if you can get away with 
it, and I do not blame anybody for trying that.
  Here we have a proposal before us which has a 5-percent cut below the 
spending that the House had in the last Congress, and every single 
committee of this House participates and has its share of that cut. But 
what they say is that they want to cut more and spend more, and how do 
they do that? They cut the Democrats more, and they spend more on the 
Republicans, and if I could get away with that, I think we might try 
that over here sometime. It is a bait and switch kind of game. They do 
not use the same argument to rationalize the two actions they are 
taking. For cutting the Democrats, Mr. Speaker, they use the standard 
reduce government spending argument. To justify their increases they 
use a different argument, namely an argument that we need more in order 
to do the job.
  That is great. I admire the audacity. But I urge all of my colleagues 
to vote for the real, no-gains, everybody-contributes, cut in 
congressional spending, and that measure is the majority proposal. Vote 
against the motion to recommit, and vote for the committee proposal.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay at this pint in the debate a tribute 
to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] 
who is not running for reelection and who has a long record of service 
to the Committee on House Administration and to this Congress. It is 
tough duty being on the Committee on House Administration. He referred 
to the job I have and the job that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] 
has as a thankless task. I have known Mr. Swift on a personal 
friendship basis and on a working colleague basis for 12 of the 14 
years I have been here and working on the Committee on House 
Administration. I want to wish him well.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] is usually in 
good spirits. Reform sometimes is in the eyes of the beholder, and 
there are occasions when we have had strong differences of opinion as 
to what is a cut, what is the baseline, what is an appropriate figure 
for the minority, is the minority truly saying, ``We will cut, but, 
yes, we would like some more for our side,'' and that is certainly 
true, but we can do it in a different way, or, as has been said in the 
gentleman's profession: There is another side to the story.
  Mr. Speaker, I had meant to give the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Swift] a happy pill before we started this debate in the hopes that we 
could achieve the continued bipartisan dialog that we have always 
enjoyed, and he has not really tossed a lemon into this debate because 
between us both we have always been able to make lemonade out of a 
lemon.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, having said that and wishing him well----
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that the gentleman 
from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and I happen to park our cars next to each 
other, and, as tough as it sometimes gets on the Committee on House 
Administration, neither of us has ever come back and found a dent 
kicked in the side of our car. It says something, I think about our 
character.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Swift] for his observation, and I have been very careful to look in the 
rear view mirror when I want to reverse the course of the majority in 
this Congress.
  Let me quote from a study conducted by two gentlemen that are 
preeminent in their profession, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein ``A 
Second Report of the Renewing Congress Project,'' where they say:

       But the recommendations of the Joint Committee in this area 
     are too limited in particular, we believe that the House must 
     address the issue of inequity in staff resources by 
     guaranteeing the minority party one-third of the 
     investigative staff on committees, just like the rules that 
     now guarantees the minority one-third of the statutory staff. 
     The majority party in Congress has unique responsibilities, 
     including administrative ones, but there is no good reason to 
     deny a reasonable share of the institution's resources to the 
     minority.

  That is all we are asking. Part of what we are is what they allow us 
to be, and we have moved from 16 to 21 percent, but it is going to take 
us to the year 2010 before we get adequate resources at least to the 
level it was agreed to 5 years ago. That is why we are upset. That is 
why we have a little blood pressure about this.
  Now in relation to the so-called cuts where there are no cuts, since 
1984 to date we have increased per year in committee funding, with the 
exception of some committees who have had freezes, and I am privileged 
to serve on one, but the average increase the last 10 years: 4.71 
percent. The total, that is a 55-percent increase total.

                              {time}  1710

  Now, it is true that the majority party has a 2.3-percent decrease in 
funding. It is not 5 percent. Oh, it is 5 percent if you add in the 
select committees that you have already cut, and it is 5 percent if you 
add in the Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress. This is 
not really cutting off our nose to save our face. You missed the nose. 
It is 2.3 percent.
  Having said that, let me point out the longstanding increases since 
1947. That goes back a long ways.
  The committee investigative funding authorizations have gone up 6,458 
percent. Members' clerk-hire authorizations, 5,767 percent; legislative 
branch, 3,625 percent. Yes, I am saying thousand. U.S. per capita 
income, 1,401 percent; House committee staff employment, 1,133 percent 
up; the Consumer Price Index, only 533 percent; Members' clerk-hire 
employment, 398 percent.
  I think you can see over the long term the Congress has really not 
been suffering too much in regard to adequate funding.
  So during these days of deficit spending and budget cutting, we 
obviously believe on our side that Congress should not be an exception. 
As I have indicated, the House has seen considerable staff increases in 
both committees and in administrative offices. I believe it is only 
fair to see these areas really reduce spending to assist in achieving 
responsible reductions in Federal spending.
  I do not think the minority is making an unreasonable request of the 
majority to reduce staff in order to provide additional slots for the 
minority position. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] has the unique 
notion that the staffing should reflect the actual ratio of Democrats 
and Republicans in the House. What could be more fair than that?
  Instead, the minority has only tried to highlight a long-term 
difficulty between the majority and the minority, and the minority is 
asking for a commitment that real progress will be made in this area.
  In fact, this goal has been met by several ways, not asking the 
majority to cut back, but through attrition. In some cases on 
committees that I know of, they have made joint efforts to reduce, and, 
in so doing, raised the minority ratio. So it is not only that we ask 
the Democrats to cut to simply increase the Republican staff.
  At this juncture, Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. I appreciate having the 
opportunity to work with my colleagues on this resolution. I am going 
to reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. de la Garza). The gentleman from Kansas 
[Mr. Roberts] has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Frost] has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  (Mr. FAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Accounts on the fine work that he has done.
  Mr. Speaker, the funding resolution we are considering today provides 
authorizations to expend funds appropriated by the House for the 
investigative activities of 21 standing committees of the House.
  The resolution provides $50.1 million for the investigations and 
studies during 1994 of those 21 committees, excluding Appropriations 
and the Budget Committees.
  The Appropriations Committee also has an investigative budget. For 
our surveys and investigations staff we have appropriated $6.4 million 
for the salaries and expenses in fiscal year 1994 for the 
investigations and studies conducted by the Appropriations Committee. 
In calendar 1993, 67 staff years of activity produced 38 reports and 76 
supplemental memorandums.
  Those funds were provided as authorized by law, in the fiscal year 
1994 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act.
  The funds were contained in a single line item in the appropriations 
bill and were subject to the will of the House when we considered that 
bill last June.
  The bill also contained $389,000 for similar activities of the Budget 
Committee.
  So there is a comparable procedure to what we are doing today for the 
other committees. The difference is that the Appropriations and Budget 
Committees investigative funds are separated out--and are therefore 
more vulnerable to amendments.
  I think any criticism of this procedure is unfounded. The process is 
straightforward. There is not additional protection given to our 
investigative funding.
  If the minority wants to reduce the funding for the so-called rule XI 
committee employees--the professional staffs of each standing 
committee--including Appropriations and Budget--they can do so by 
offering an amendment on the legislative appropriations bill. The 
salary funds for those employees are carried in one line item in that 
bill. If you want to reduce that budget, do it on the actual funding 
bill--legislative appropriations.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 369, the 
committee funding resolution for 1994. I want to thank and commend the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Accounts, Mr. Frost, and all the 
members of the subcommittee and the full House Administration Committee 
for the fairness and courtesy with which we have been treated in this 
process.
  This resolution represents a responsible approach to the matter of 
committee funding. While it imposes discipline, it will also allow our 
committees sufficient resources to fulfill their responsibilities to 
the full membership of the House. Some of the more important measures 
to be considered by the 103d Congress fall within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, foremost among them health care 
reform. We are also working on reform of our telecommunications 
regulatory system, as well as reauthorization of Superfund and the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
  This resolution wisely and prudently acknowledges the need for fiscal 
responsibility with the American public's demand that we complete our 
work, and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
committee funding resolution. Funding resolutions used to be worked out 
with compromise and trust. However, these two qualities have 
deteriorated more and more with the passage of time.
  After 3 years on this committee, my frustration with the committee 
grows. The partisan gamesmanship that pervades the committee has 
created an atmosphere of inefficient government. Our constituents 
deserve better. When Republicans drafted their proposal for committee 
funding they did so with the intent of meeting several goals. First, we 
wanted to remain committed to providing adequate investigative funding, 
while also substantially reducing the spending by the committees. 
Second, we wanted to meet the House's overall target of a 4-percent 
reduction in staff positions by fiscal year 1995.
  This goal would have been much easier to achieve with the Republican 
alternative than with House Resolution 369, because the funding 
reductions in this resolution are not serious enough to mandate any 
further staff reductions.
  Third, Republicans had requested funding amounts for the committees 
to reflect a fair allocation for the minority, by allocating one-third 
of committee funds to the minority party. In the end, as is the case 
most of the time with this committee, the decisions were made along 
party lines.
  At our last committee meeting, this frustration came to a head. A 
committee resolution that concerned the contracting out of the House 
restaurants contained a provision I had dealt with as a member of the 
bipartisan Administrative Oversight Subcommittee. This provision was 
taken out of the bipartisan structure and installed in a resolution at 
the partisan level and rammed down on the minority. This was a complete 
breech of trust as to how the Administrative Oversight Subcommittee 
works and functions.
  I had been under the impression that, in the wake of the House 
scandals of the past, this bipartisan committee was created to deal 
with nonlegislative and financial issues in a fair and impartial 
manner.
  What is the purpose of even having this bipartisan subcommittee if 
every issue that the majority can't pass at the subcommittee level goes 
to the full committee and passes along a party-line vote?
  While I do not expect the minority party to get equal treatment with 
respect to the majority, I do think that we deserve a fair treatment. 
Asking for fair treatment is not an unreasonable request.
  But today, we are presented with a funding resolution that makes 
minimal reductions in committee spending. The resolution also 
diminishes the bipartisan goal, to allocate one-third of investigative 
funds to the minority party.
  Madam Speaker, the whole process of committee funding is in need of 
reform. This resolution only authorizes 41 percent of total committee 
funding. The other 59 percent is directly appropriated with no review 
by the authorizing committee.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure and send it back to 
the committee where comity and bipartisanship can perhaps begin anew.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute and the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute amendment was 
agreed to.


               motion to recommit offered by Mr. Roberts

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I am, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    H. Res. 369. Motion To Recommit

       Mr. Roberts moves to recommit the resolution H. Res. 369 to 
     the Committee on House Administration with instructions to 
     promptly report back to the House a resolution identical to 
     the text of H. Res. 369 as amended by the House, except for 
     the following: Strike Section 2 and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following:
       Section 2. ``The committee and amounts referred to in the 
     first section are:
       Committee on Agriculture, $2,201,489.00, 33% of such 
     amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed to by the 
     Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at the 
     direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on Armed Services, $2,462,542.00, 33% of such 
     amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed to by the 
     Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at the 
     direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, 
     $3,864,598.00, 33% of such amount, or such greater percent as 
     may be agreed to by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, 
     to be paid at the direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on District of Columbia, $333,484.00, 33% of such 
     amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed to by the 
     Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at the 
     direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on Education and Labor, $3,798,387.00, 33% of 
     such amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed to by 
     the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at the 
     direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on Energy and Commerce, $5,677,655.00, 33% of 
     such amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed to by 
     the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at the 
     direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on Foreign Affairs, $3,627,960.00, 33% of such 
     amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed to by the 
     Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at the 
     direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on Government Operations, $2,899,495.00, 33% of 
     such amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed to by 
     the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at the 
     direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on House Administration, $1,755,956.00, 33% of 
     such amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed to by 
     the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at the 
     direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, $104,500.00, 
     33% of such amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed 
     to by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at 
     the direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on the Judiciary, $2,154,583.00, 33% of such 
     amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed to by the 
     Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at the 
     direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, $2,154,439.00, 
     33% of such amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed 
     to by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at 
     the direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on Natural Resources, $1,973,273.00, 33% of such 
     amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed to by the 
     Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at the 
     direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, $1,708,533.00, 
     33% of such amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed 
     to by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at 
     the direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on Public Works and Transportation, 
     $2,823,263.00, 33% of such amount, or such greater percent as 
     may be agreed to by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, 
     to be paid at the direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on Rules, $622,242.00, 33% of such amount, or 
     such greater percent as may be agreed to by the Chairman and 
     Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at the direction of the 
     Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on Science, Space and Technology, $2,748,494.00, 
     33% of such amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed 
     to by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at 
     the direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on Small Business, $1,001,233.00, 33% of such 
     amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed to by the 
     Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at the 
     direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $97,500.00, 33% 
     of such amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed to 
     by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at 
     the direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on Veteran's Affairs, $715,203.00, 33% of such 
     amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed to by the 
     Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at the 
     direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
       Committee on Ways and Means, $4,507,185.00, 33% of such 
     amount, or such greater percent as may be agreed to by the 
     Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, to be paid at the 
     direction of the Ranking Minority Member.
  Mr. ROBERTS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The Chair announces that under the appropriate rule, if necessary, he 
will reduce the vote on final passage to 5 minutes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 172, 
nays 251, not voting 10, as follows.

                             [Roll No. 79]

                               YEAS--172

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--251

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Clay
     Gallo
     Gillmor
     Grandy
     Hastings
     Herger
     Maloney
     Natcher
     Quillen
     Sundquist

                              {time}  1737

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Quillen for, with Mrs. Maloney against.

  Mr. GEPHARDT and Mr. BROWDER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. de la Garza). The question is on the 
resolution, as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 250, 
noes 172, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 80]

                               AYES--250

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Washington
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--172

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Clay
     Gallo
     Gillmor
     Grandy
     Hastings
     Herger
     Maloney
     Natcher
     Quillen
     Sundquist
     Waters

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. LEWIS of California changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution, as amended was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________