[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3163-H3172]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 PROVIDING AMOUNTS FOR EXPENSES OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF 
                 REPRESENTATIVES IN THE 104TH CONGRESS

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on House 
Oversight, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 107) providing 
amounts for the expenses of certain committees of the House of 
Representatives in the 104th Congress, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The Clerk will report the 
resolution.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 107

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. COMMITTEE EXPENSES FOR THE ONE HUNDRED FOURTH 
                   CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--With respect to the One Hundred Fourth 
     Congress, there shall be paid out of the applicable accounts 
     of the House of Representatives, in accordance with this 
     primary expense resolution, not more than the amount 
     specified in subsection (b) for the expenses of each 
     committee named in that subsection, including--
       (1) the expenses of all staff salaries;
       (2) the expenses of consultant services under section 
     202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 
     U.S.C. 72a(i)); and
       (3) the expenses of staff training under section 202(j) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 72a(j)).

[[Page H3164]]

       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $7,590,139; Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 
     $8,786,054; Committee on the Budget, $10,038,000; Committee 
     on Commerce, $15,648,577; Committee on Economic and 
     Educational Opportunities, $9,687,275; Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight, $13,639,857; Committee on 
     House Oversight, $6,394,121; Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, $4,622,090; Committee on International 
     Relations, $10,551,875; Committee on the Judiciary, 
     $9,683,190; Committee on National Security, $9,981,615; 
     Committee on Resources, $10,926,383; Committee on Rules, 
     $4,435,817; Committee on Science, $8,642,826; Committee on 
     Small Business, $3,812,580; Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct, $2,090,150; Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, $12,414,469; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
     $4,341,605; and Committee on Ways and Means, $10,338,340.

     SEC. 2. FIRST SESSION LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Of the amount provided for in section 1 
     for each committee named in subsection (b), not more than the 
     amount specified in such subsection shall be available for 
     expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
     January 3, 1995, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 1996.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committee and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $3,961,388 (of which $30,000 may be used for consultant 
     services and $1,000 may be used for staff training); 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services, $4,286,579; 
     Committee on the Budget, $5,013,000; Committee on Commerce, 
     $7,625,910 (of which $25,000 may be used for consultant 
     services); Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities, $4,815,332 (of which $5,000 may be used for 
     staff training); Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight, $6,618,689 (of which $25,000 may be used for 
     consultant services and $5,000 may be used for staff 
     training); Committee on House Oversight, $3,250,783 (of which 
     $500,000 may be used for consultant services and $20,000 may 
     be used for staff training); Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, $2,277,210 (of which $3,200 may be used for 
     staff training); Committee on International Relations, 
     $5,097,254 (of which $10,000 may be used for
      consultant services); Committee on the Judiciary, $4,672,187 
     (of which $8,000 may be used for staff training); 
     Committee on National Security, $4,769,362 (of which 
     $40,000 may be used for consultant services and $12,000 
     may be used for staff training); Committee on Resources, 
     $5,210,815 (of which $45,000 may be used for consultant 
     services and $1,000 may be used for staff training); 
     Committee on Rules, $2,200,567 (of which $500 may be used 
     for staff training); Committee on Science, $4,211,654 (of 
     which $20,000 may be used for consultant services and 
     $15,800 may be used for staff training); Committee on 
     Small Business, $1,873,290; Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct, $1,063,650 (of which $50,000 may be used 
     for consultant services); Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, $6,057,934 (of which $5,000 may be used 
     for consultant services and $5,000 may be used for staff 
     training); Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $2,084,500 (of 
     which $10,000 may be used for staff training); and 
     Committee on Ways and Means, $4,976,231.

     SEC. 3. SECOND SESSION LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Of the amount provided for in section 1 
     for each committee named in subsection (b), not more than the 
     amount specified in such subsection shall be available for 
     expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
     January 3, 1996, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 1997.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $3,628,751 (of which $15,000 may be used for consultant 
     services and $1,000 may be used for staff training); 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services, $4,499,475; 
     Committee on the Budget, $5,025,000; Committee on Commerce, 
     $8,022,667 (of which $25,675 may be used for consultant 
     services); Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities, $4,871,943 (of which $5,000 may be used for 
     staff training); Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight, $7,021,168 (of which $25,000 may be used for 
     consultant services and $5,000 may be used for staff 
     training); Committee on House Oversight, $3,143,338 (of which 
     $130,000 may be used for consultant services and $22,000 may 
     be used for staff training); Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, $2,344,880 (of which $3,200 may be used for 
     staff training); Committee on International Relations, 
     $5,454,621 (of which $10,000 may be used for consultant 
     services); Committee on the Judiciary, $5,011,003 (of which 
     $10,000 may be used for staff training); Committee on 
     National Security, $5,212,253 (of which $40,000 may be used 
     for consultant services and $15,000 may be used for staff 
     training); Committee on Resources, $5,715,568 (of which 
     $1,000 may be used for staff training); Committee on Rules, 
     $2,235,250 (of which $500 may be used for staff training); 
     Committee on Science, $4,431,172 (of which $20,000 may be 
     used for consultant services and $16,500 may be used for 
     staff training); Committee on Small Business, $1,939,290; 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,026,500 (of 
     which $50,000 may be used for consultant services); Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure, $6,356,535 (of which 
     $5,000 may be used for consultant services and $5,000 may be 
     used for staff training); Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
     $2,257,105 (of which $10,000 may be used for staff training); 
     and Committee on Ways and Means, $5,362,109.

     SEC. 4. VOUCHERS.

       Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
     authorized by the committee involved, signed by the chairman 
     of such committee, and approved in the manner directed by the 
     Committee on House Oversight.

     SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.

       Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
     expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
     Committee on House Oversight.

  Mr. THOMAS (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. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute: Strike 
     out all after the resolving clause and insert following:

     SECTION 1. COMMITTEE EXPENSES FOR THE ONE HUNDRED FOURTH 
                   CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--With respect to the One Hundred Fourth 
     Congress, there shall be paid out of the applicable accounts 
     of the House of Representatives, in accordance with this 
     primary expense resolution, not more than the amount 
     specified in subsection (b) for the expenses of each 
     committee named in that subsection, including--
       (1) the expenses of all staff salaries;
       (2) the expenses of consultant services under section 
     202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 
     U.S.C. 72a(i)); and
       (3) the expenses of staff training under section 202(j) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 72a(j)).
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $7,406,899; Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 
     $8,645,054; Committee on the Budget, $9,912,000; Committee on 
     Commerce, $13,686,823; Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities, $9,621,539; Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight, $13,520,037; Committee on House Oversight, 
     $6,177,608; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
     $4,519,890; Committee on International Relations, 
     $10,028,093; Committee on the Judiciary, $9,553,190; 
     Committee on National Security, $9,085,743; Committee on 
     Resources, $9,588,953; Committee on Rules, $4,433,817; 
     Committee on Science, $8,411,326; Committee on Small 
     Business, $3,791,580; Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct, $1,981,150; Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, $10,878,981; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
     $4,220,605; and Committee on Ways and Means, $10,219,358.

     SEC. 2. FIRST SESSION LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Of the amount provided for in section 1 
     for each committee named in subsection (b), not more than the 
     amount specified in such subsection
      shall be available for expenses incurred during the period 
     beginning at noon on January 3, 1995, and ending 
     immediately before noon on January 3, 1996.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $3,866,148 (of which $30,000 may be used for consultant 
     services and $1,000 may be used for staff training); 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services, $4,161,579; 
     Committee on the Budget, $4,940,000; Committee on Commerce, 
     $6,663,227 (of which $25,000 may be used for consultant 
     services); Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities, $4,777,196 (of which $5,000 may be used for 
     staff training); Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight, $6,576,369 (of which $25,000 may be used for 
     consultant services and $5,000 may be used for staff 
     training); Committee on House Oversight, $3,092,920 (of which 
     $400,000 may be used for consultant services and $20,000 may 
     be used for staff training); Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, $2,226,210 of which $3,200 may be used for 
     staff training); Committee on International Relations, 
     $4,953,472 (of which $10,000 may be used for consultant 
     services); Committee on the Judiciary, $4,577,187 (of which 
     $8,000 may be used for staff training); Committee on National 
     Security, $4,245,134 (of which $40,000 may be used for 
     consultant services and $12,000 may be used for staff 
     training); Committee on Resources, $4,795,970 (of which 
     $45,000 may be used for consultant services and $1,000 may be 
     used for staff training); Committee on Rules, $2,199,567 (of 
     which $500 may be used for staff training); Committee on 
     Science, $3,991,154 (of which $20,000 may be used for 
     consultant services and $15,800 may be used for staff 
     training); Committee on Small Business, $1,863,290; Committee 
     on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,009,450 (of which 
     $50,000 may be used for consultant services and $500 may be 
     used for staff training); Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, $5,386,171 (of which $5,000 may be used for 
     consultant services and $5,000 may be used for staff 
     training); Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $2,024,500 (of 
     which $10,000 may be used for staff training); 
     [[Page H3165]] and Committee on Ways and Means, $4,916,740.

     SEC. 3. SECOND SESSION LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Of the amount provided for in section 1 
     for each committee named in subsection (b), not more than the 
     amount specified in such subsection shall be available for 
     expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
     January 3, 1996, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 1997.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $3,540,751 (of which $15,000 may be used for consultant 
     services and $1,000 may be used for staff training); 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services, $4,483,475; 
     Committee on the Budget, $4,972,000; Committee on Commerce, 
     $7,023,596 (of which $25,675 may be used for consultant 
     services); Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities, $4,844,343 (of which $5,000 may be used for 
     staff training); Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight, $6,943,668 (of which $25,000 may be used for 
     consultant services and $5,000 may be used for staff 
     training); Committee on House Oversight, $3,084,688 (of which 
     $130,000 may be used for consultant services and $22,000 may 
     be used for staff training); Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, $2,293,680 (of which $3,200 may be used for 
     staff training); Committee on International Relations, 
     $5,074,621 (of which $10,000 may be used for consultant 
     services); Committee on the Judiciary, $4,976,003 (of which 
     $10,000 may be used for staff training); Committee on 
     National Security, $4,840,609 (of which $40,000 may be used 
     for consultant services and $15,000 may be used for staff 
     training); Committee on Resources, $4,792,983 (of which 
     $1,000 may be used for staff training); Committee on Rules, 
     $2,234,250 (of which $500 may be used for staff training); 
     Committee on Science, $4,420,172 (of which $20,000 may be 
     used for consultant services and $16,500 may be used for 
     staff training); Committee on Small Business, $1,928,290; 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $971,700 (of 
     which $50,000 may be used for consultant services and $600 
     may be used for staff training); Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure, $5,492,810 (of which $5,000 may be used 
     for consultant services and $5,000 may be used for staff 
     training); Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $2,196,105 (of 
     which $10,000 may be used for staff training); and Committee 
     on Ways and Means, $5,302,618.

     SEC. 4. VOUCHERS.

       Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
     authorized by the committee involved, signed by the chairman 
     of such committee, and approved in the manner directed by the 
     Committee on House Oversight.

     SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.

       Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
     expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
     Committee on House Oversight.

     SEC. 6. ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY.

       The Committee on House Oversight shall have authority to 
     make adjustments in amounts under section 1, 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 1.

  Mr. THOMAS (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 California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] 
will be recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor], pending which I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, all time yielded will be for debate purposes 
only.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to come to the floor of the House 
with a resolution to fund the committees of the 104th Congress. Anyone 
who has been in previous Congresses knows we have had a relatively 
difficult time in the past of deciding on what would be appropriate 
funding for committees.
  At the beginning of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority 
cut committee staffs by one-third.
  Not all committees were cut equally. Some committees have new 
assignments because we eliminated certain committees and restructured 
other committees. But on average, the staffs of the committees were cut 
by fully one-third.
  Since most of the committee funds go to staffing, it seemed 
appropriate that we should make, then, commensurate adjustments in the 
funding of committees. The successor to the old House Committee on 
Administration, the Committee on Oversight, is charged with that task. 
In the 104th Congress, the Committee on Oversight received the budget 
of one additional committee of the House, that being the Committee on 
the Budget.
  So, as of today, all standing committees of the House, save one, the 
Committee on Appropriations, have their funding resolutions go to the 
Committee on Oversight.
  Similarly, we changed the way in which committees were funded. In the 
past, the process looked like this column on the left on this chart. 
This is from the 103d Congress. The blue portion was that portion 
subject to public hearings in the Committee on House Administration at 
the time.
  The portion of funding subject to House hearings and public hearings 
was less than a majority of the funding, $101 million. The red portion 
was known as the statutory funding that was moved through the Committee 
on Appropriations, kind of an automatic funding under the law.
  The yellow portion is generally headed as other, and that is 
primarily legislative supplies, and detailees, those individuals from 
other agencies that were assigned to committees for a brief period of 
time.
  The total of the so-called investigative, statutory, and other 
funding was $223 million. As chairman of the committee, I bring to you 
a resolution which passed unanimously, no ``no'' votes.
  I want for the Record to indicate that the Republicans on the 
committee are Mr. Vernon Ehlers of Michigan, Mr. Pat Roberts of Kansas, 
Mr. John Boehner of Ohio, Jennifer Dunn of Washington, Lincoln Diaz-
Balart of Florida, and Robert Ney of Ohio.
  The Democrats--and I am sorry to say that the ranking minority 
member, Mr. Fazio, is not with us today because of concerns over his 
wife and a hospital question.
  But Mr. Fazio of California was supportive. Mr. Sam Gejdenson of 
Connecticut was supportive. Mr. Steny Hoyer of Maryland was supportive. 
And Ed Pastor of Arizona was supportive.
  What is so significant about a unanimous vote on a bipartisan basis 
out of the Committee on House Oversight is that the funding resolution, 
for all but one of the committees of the House, is $156 million. That 
is a 30-plus percent cut from the 103d Congress.
  On a bipartisan basis we said we can live with less. We can live 30 
percent less. We can do the job for American people by tightening our 
belts here in this institution in the funding of our committees.
  Staff has been reduced by one-third. Committee funding has been 
reduced by more than 30 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend all the members of the Committee on 
Oversight for a job well done.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, all time yielded will be for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging the absence of our 
distinguished ranking minority member, Mr. Fazio. Unfortunately, Vic is 
with his wife, Judy, who is undergoing surgery. Our prayers go out to 
Judy and Vic for a speedy recovery.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 107 is a much different committee 
funding resolution from those this House has considered in the past, 
and I applaud many of the changes contained in the measure. Later 
today, we will be considering a rescissions package that will cut over 
$17 billion from a number of Federal agencies and departments. It is 
only fitting, Mr. Speaker, that we consider this funding resolution 
first. For before we seek to make those cuts, it is only proper that we 
look to ourselves first.
  This biennial resolution, the first of its kind, reduces spending for 
21 House committees and the Select Committee on Intelligence, in the 
aggregate, by 30 percent from the 104th to the 103d Congress. Including 
committee franked mail allocations, funding has been reduced by $67 
million, from $223,335,419 in the 103d Congress to $145,332,129 for the 
104th Congress. While three committees from the 103d Congress have 
[[Page H3166]] been abolished, this is nonetheless a significant 
reduction in spending that tells the American people that Congress is 
ready, willing, and able to tighten its belt and function more 
efficiently with less money. What is a loss, Mr. Speaker, in committee 
funding is a gain for the American taxpayers. I commend Chairman Thomas 
and Mr. Fazio for working to make these very difficult cuts a reality.
  I know that there may be some committee chairman and ranking minority 
members who feel their committee is deserving of more dollars. Frankly, 
Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree. We in Congress have a tremendous 
responsibility to ensure that the work we do on behalf of the American 
people is of the highest quality. The livelihood of our constituents 
can, and does, literally depend upon what transpires within this 
Chamber and the walls of committee rooms. In this regard, we must be 
careful to ensure that in our efforts to reduce the House's budget, we 
do not sacrifice the quality of work that is performed here. To the 
credit of Chairman Thomas, Mr. Fazio, and the rest of the House 
Oversight Committee, I believe this funding resolution strikes that 
necessary balance.
  As you have heard already, and I am sure you will hear again, this 
resolution does allot to the minority a greater percentage of resources 
than have been historically apportioned. For many years, my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle passionately argued for a one-third 
allocation of committee resources, including staff, to the minority. 
The report accompanying House Resolution 107 notes that progress has 
been made in this area--nine committees in the 104th Congress have now 
achieved this goal. While this is a fine start, we are still far short 
of reaching the one-third goal for all the committees of the House. I 
know that Chairman Thomas is committed to this goal, and I look forward 
to working with him to see it realized as soon as possible. In 
addition, Mr. Speaker, we will work to ensure that all ranking minority 
members have complete latitude in determining how their allocations of 
committee resources are to be used.
  Mr. Speaker, as I noted, this is the House's first attempt at 
implementing a biennial funding resolution. It is indeed difficult to 
project funding needs for 1 year, much less 2. With this biennial 
measure we are literally traveling into unknown territory. I know that 
the committee chairman and ranking minority members had a particularly 
demanding time estimating their needs over the course of 2 years, a 
task whose difficulty was compounded by the 30-percent overall 
reduction in committee funding. Many items in committees' budgets were 
necessarily estimates, that will undoubtedly undergo revision as we 
experiment with this new budgeting process.
  In this regard, I was particularly struck by the wise variation in 
funds the committees had alloted for overtime pay. As you know, Mr. 
Speaker, with the signing into law of the Congressional Accountability 
Act, Congress is now subject to the same provisions of laws governing 
overtime pay as other governmental agencies. As a result, there is an 
expectation that many committees will have increased expenditures in 
this area. Yet, committee budgets for overtime pay vary from tens of 
thousands of dollars to no money at all. Mr. Speaker, this great 
variation points to what may be considerable inconsistencies among 
committees in abiding by the Congressional Accountability Act. It is my 
hope that the Oversight Committee will look at this area closely to 
guarantee that all employees of all committees are treated in an 
equitable manner under the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the hard work and fine efforts of 
Chairman Thomas, Mr. Fazio, my colleagues on the House Oversight 
Committee, and the committee's staff in developing this committee 
funding resolution. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
House Resolution 107, the Omnibus Committee Funding Resolution for the 
104th Congress. For the first time, this resolution authorizes for the 
2-year term of the 104th Congress all committee salaries and expenses 
for the 20 standing committees of the House of Representatives, except 
for the Committee on Appropriations.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], 
the chairman of the Committee on House Oversight, for the forthright 
manner in which the committee compiled, evaluated, and adjusted the 
committee budget submissions. As the new ranking minority member of the 
House Oversight Committee, I want to especially acknowledge the good 
faith strides the new Republican committee chairmen have made in 
allocating an increased proportion of committee resources to their 
committee ranking minority members. This constructive legislative 
climate led to the unanimous bipartisan approval of this resolution by 
the members of our committee.
  For the first time, this resolution consolidates the former 
statutory, investigative and other funds into a single biennial 
authorization process to achieve greater public accountability. For 
example, the primary Expenses Resolution providing for investigative 
and other expense of committees in the 103d Congress accounted for only 
45.4 percent of total committee expenditures. The remainder was granted 
by statutory formula and other legislative accounts.
  The resolution under consideration today provides for total committee 
funding for the 104th Congress of $156,332,129. This amount represents 
a $67,003,129 cut from the 103d Congress funding level of 
$223,335,419--a 30 percent concrete reduction. This $67 million savings 
has been realized from primarily two organizational reforms: a 13 
percent reduction in the number of standing committees, and a 33 
percent reduction in the number of professional committee staff.
  With the beginning of the 104th Congress, the jurisdiction and 
related functions of Committees on the District of Columbia, Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries, and Post Office and Civil Service were 
consolidated into the remaining 20 standing committees. In the 103d 
Congress, the budgets for these three committees amounted to over $24 
million. This current committee streamlining process builds on the 
initiatives of the Democratic leadership when in 1993, the Select 
Committees on Aging, Children, Hunger, and Narcotics were eliminated. 
This first step yielded a savings of over $3.5 million.
  The bulk of the reduction in Committee funding levels is a direct 
result of reducing committee professional staffs by one-third. In 1994, 
the aggregate number of committee staff equaled 1,845. Today, that 
number is 1,233. Over 600 professional staff members have been 
terminated in this institutional downsizing.
  Mr. Speaker, today's resolution builds on efforts launched by Speaker 
Foley and the Democratic leadership to reduce the costs of operating 
the People's House. Reforms made since 1991 to Member franking 
allowances will yield savings by the end of this year estimated to be 
over $190 million--a savings representing more than a 50 percent 
reduction of franking costs without the 1991 reforms.
  In 1992, the Democratic leadership directed that committee budget 
levels be frozen at their 1991 amounts. Thereafter, the aggregate 
authorization for the primary committee expense resolution was reduced 
by 5 percent for both 1993 and 1994--yielding savings over $5 million.
  Mr. Speaker, as you may remember, President Clinton, Speaker Foley, 
and Senate Majority Leader Mitchell announced in February 1993, a 
concerted policy to reduce executive and legislative branch full-time 
personnel. Accordingly, in correspondence dated April 22, 1994, 
Chairman Rose and myself informed Speaker Foley that we jointly 
recommended five directives to reduce the House payroll by 387 full-
time equivalents . Clearly, today's resolution is consistent with the 
policies advocated by the President and congressional Democratic 
leadership to streamline and realign all branches of the U.S. 
Government.
  One issue I would like all members to take particular note of is the 
question of fairness to the minority party, whichever party that may 
be, in the allocation and control of resources.
  As the new ranking minority member on this committee, I do want to 
acknowledge that this funding resolution, in the aggregate, allots to 
the minority an overall greater percentage of resources than have been 
historically apportioned. This is certainly true for the budget 
authority for this committee, as well as several others. In fact, the 
minority have been allocated 27 percent of aggregate committee staff 
slots. These improvements are welcome but still short of the overall 
one-third goal for which the Republicans have emphatically and 
consistently argued was the sine qua non of fairness and equity between 
majority and minority.
  In preparation for this funding process, I have reviewed, among other 
things, the verbatim comments of those Republican members of this 
committee who served on the Accounts Subcommittee during the 
consideration of the primary expense resolution for the second session 
of the 103d Congress. In doing 
[[Page H3167]] so, it was our belief that we could determine--based on 
their prior statements what the present majority defined as a fair and 
just approach to this issue.
  For example, during consideration of the funding resolution last 
Congress, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and others offered 
thoughtful, and instructive, amendments regarding the allocation of 
committee resources. Yes, I know, these amendments were defeated on a 
party line vote. However, with regard to providing the minority with a 
one-third allocation of all resources, Mr. Roberts said last year, ``if 
lightening strikes and the sun comes up in the West and Republicans 
take over the Congress, we are going to do that for you. If I am here, 
we are going to try it, make that recommendation; you will at least get 
one-third.''
  With the Republicans now in the majority, I had intended to give them 
the opportunity to make good this pledge and consecrate their prior 
commitments with another affirmative vote on a motion to recommit 
identical to that offered by Mr. Roberts and others last year.
  Instead, I would ask that a March 30, 1993 letter addressed to the 
co-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress and 
signed by Speaker Gingrich, and virtually every Republican leader and 
committee chairman in the 104th Congress be entered to the record 
following my statement. This letter represents the ``Minority Rights'' 
policy articulated by the Republicans when they were in the minority. 
This ``Minority Rights'' policy is the benchmark against which all 
budget submissions in the future will be judged. In the interim, I will 
be monitoring the degree to which the minority is allowed to exercise 
autonomy over the direction and control of those committee resources 
allotted to each ranking minority member.
  Finally, I would like to acknowledge that the chairman of the 
committee, Mr. Thomas, at my request, will convene a hearing at the 
beginning of the second session of this Congress to review with all the 
committees the progress of operating under biannual budget 
authorization.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to cast an 
affirmative vote for House Resolution 107 to continue the bipartisan 
commitment to reducing the costs of operating the people's House of 
Representatives.
                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, March 30, 1993.
     Hon. Lee H. Hamilton,
     Co-Chairman
     Hon. David Dreier,
     Co-Vice-Chairman
     Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, U.S. House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Co-Chairman and Mr. Co-Vice-Chairman: If 
     congressional reform means anything, it means fairness to the 
     Minority in allocation and control of resources. Reform 
     without fairness is merely shuffling the cards in a marked 
     deck.
       There is no justification for the unfair disparity between 
     Majority and Minority committee staff. Our colleagues in the 
     Senate, under both Democratic and Republican majorities, have 
     managed quite well with a staffing ratio of one-third/two-
     thirds. That, after all, is how we in the House apportion, by 
     law, statutory staff.
       The problem is that we do not so apportion investigative 
     staff. We estimate that there are currently 947 investigative 
     staff in the House, of which the Minority is allocated only 
     170, a mere 18 percent of the total. In past years, some have 
     tried to justify that overwhelming disproportion by claiming 
     the Minority could rely on the then-Republican Executive 
     Branch to make up the difference. Whatever the accuracy of 
     that argument then, it certainly no longer applies.
       There are currently 175 Republicans serving in the House, 
     more than 40 percent of total membership. Despite that, the 
     Minority holds only 24 percent of total committee staff. 
     Indeed, on several committees, the percentage is much lower 
     than that. According to the Committee on House 
     Administration, there are currently 1,131 Majority committee 
     staff and 367 Minority counterparts, exclusive of the 
     expiring select committees, the Committee on Budget and the 
     Committee on Appropriations. The situation on those last two 
     committees is equally flagrant: the Budget Committee boasts 
     50 Majority and 10 Minority staff while the Appropriations 
     Committee has a professional staff ratio of 95 to 10 and an 
     associate staff ratio of 74 to 46.
       A ratio of one-third/two-thirds for all committee staff, 
     investigative as well as statutory, is a sine qua non for 
     bridging the institutional animosities that now poison our 
     policy debates. We therefore urge the Joint Committee on the 
     Organization of Congress to recommend, in your final report, 
     this more equitable allocation of resources.
       We would welcome the opportunity, as a group, to present 
     and expand upon these views in a public hearing of the 
     Committee.
           Sincerely yours,
         Robert H. Michel, Minority Leader; Dick Armey, Conference 
           Chairman; Duncan Hunter, Research Committee Chairman; 
           Tom DeLay, Conference Secretary; Gerald B.H. Solomon, 
           Ranking Republican, Committee on Rules; Joseph M. 
           McDade, Ranking Republican, Committee on 
           Appropriations; Newt Gingrich, Minority Whip; Henry J. 
           Hyde, Policy Committee Chairman; Bill McCollum, 
           Conference Vice-Chairman; Bill Paxon, NRCC Chairman; 
           Bill Archer, Ranking Republican, Committee on Ways and 
           Means; John R. Kasich, Ranking Republican, Committee on 
           the Budget.
         Pat Roberts, Ranking Republican, Committee on 
           Agriculture; Jim Leach, Ranking Republican, Committee 
           on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs; William F. 
           Goodling, Ranking Republican, Committee on Education 
           and Labor; Benjamin A. Gilman, Ranking Republican, 
           Committee on Foreign Affairs Operations; William M. 
           Thomas, Ranking Republican, Committee on House 
           Administration; Hamilton Fish, Jr., Ranking Republican, 
           Committee on the Judiciary; Floyd Spence, Ranking 
           Republican, Committee on Armed Services; Thomas J. 
           Bliley, Ranking Republican, Committee on the District 
           of Columbia; Carlos J. Moorhead, Ranking Republican, 
           Committee on Energy and Commerce; William F. Clinger, 
           Jr., Ranking Republican, Committee on Government; Don 
           Young, Ranking Republican, Committee on Natural 
           Resources; Jack Fields, Ranking Republican, Committee 
           on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
         John T. Myers, Ranking Republican, Committee on Post 
           Office and Civil Service; Robert S. Walker, Ranking 
           Republican, Committee on Science, Space, and 
           Technology; Fred Grandy, Ranking Republican, Committee 
           on Standards of Official Conduct; Bud Shuster, Ranking 
           Republican, Committee on Public Works and 
           Transportation; Jan Meyers, Ranking Republican, 
           Committee on Small Business; Bob Stump, Ranking 
           Republican, Committee on Veterans' Affairs; Larry 
           Combest, Ranking Republican, Permanent Select Committee 
           on Intelligence.
                              {time}  1115

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Pastor] for the kind words.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Boehner], a valued member of the committee and chairman of the 
Republican caucus.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] for allowing me to speak on this very important 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very important day here in the U.S. House of 
Representatives because today we are going to reduce spending on 
committee staff by 30 percent, saving $67 million over the next 2 years 
on behalf of our constituents and the taxpayers around this country.
  Over the last 4 years, Mr. Speaker, many of us have come to the floor 
during the debate on this resolution in past Congresses calling for 
smaller committee staffs, calling for smaller committee budgets, and in 
most cases we were rebuffed, and last summer, Mr. Speaker, House 
Republicans decided that we would include in our Contract With America 
the fact that we would reduce committee staff by one-third, and on 
January 4 we kept our promise. We reduced the staff by one-third. In 
1994, Mr. Speaker, the average number of employees working for 
committees was 1,854. The 1995 ceiling for employees for committees in 
this House will be 1,233, a reduction of just slightly over one-third.
  In order to really bring home the savings, Mr. Speaker, the committee 
in a bipartisan way worked with our committees to come up with a 30-
percent reduction in terms of the cost of running those committees 
because most of the costs of the committees is staff. We, in fact, were 
able to achieve the 30-percent reduction which is going to result in a 
$67 million savings on behalf of the American taxpayers.
  As my colleagues know, the American people sent a very loud and clear 
message on November 8 that they wanted a smaller, less costly, less 
intrusive Government. I think they also said that they wanted a more 
open, more accountable, more responsible Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the effort here today is a bipartisan effort because 
there has been a great deal of help from Members on both sides of the 
aisle in order to come up with these savings. But Congress is more 
accountable, it is more responsible, it is more open to the American 
people, and that is important if we in this Congress are to deliver on 
our much longer term vision of downsizing and reducing the size and 
scope of the Federal Government.
  We are beginning to change the way this Federal Government works, but 
these efforts would not happen unless 
[[Page H3168]] Congress continues to change. But these are needed and 
necessary reforms in this Congress. They have been done in a bipartisan 
way, as has almost everything in the Contract With America thus far 
this year. It has virtually all passed in broad bipartisan support.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Thomas], I want to congratulate our committee chairmen, the 
ranking members on all the committees, and certainly I want to thank my 
colleagues on the Committee on House Oversight for their help in 
bringing this resolution to the floor today.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther].
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 
107, the committee funding resolution. As a new Democrat, first-term 
Member of this body, I can tell my colleagues that the people of my 
district in Minnesota are very pleased that we are starting the budget 
cutting process right here in our own operations by saving $67 million 
over 2 years.
  I ran for Congress to change the way Washington operates. Now that I 
am here, I have learned that over 50 percent of our Members have been 
here less than 5 years, and, like me, many Members are committed to 
reforming Congress and focusing on the need to make the tough decisions 
necessary to balance our Nation's budget.
  Fighting for change is not a partisan issue, and this committee 
funding resolution is an excellent example of that. This $67 million 
cut is a very good beginning, and it represents a 30-percent reduction 
from the funding levels in the 103d Congress.
  It is critical, as we make tough decisions about cutting spending, 
that the American people be assured that we are looking at our own 
operations first. The public deserves to have a Congress that keeps 
pace with the changes taking place in America, a Congress that is not 
wasteful or inefficient. Enacting this committee resolution and 
tightening our belts before we ask the rest of the American people to 
tighten theirs is a good step toward building confidence with the 
American people.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy].
  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I am heartened by the committee funding 
resolution before the House today. First and foremost, it demonstrates 
once again that, when Democrats and Republicans work together, the 
American public benefits. This bill is important because it 
demonstrates bipartisan fiscal responsibility. Adoption of this 
resolution will mark the first installment of a promise many of us made 
to reduce the size of the Federal Government and make it more 
efficient. By eliminating 3 standing committees and cutting funding for 
all committees by 30 percent, we are assuring the people back home that 
reforming Government begins right here in this body.
  As we begin the budget and appropriations process, I would like to 
reaffirm that the healthy debate we are having today on this funding 
resolution should act as a model of how we should proceed on future 
budget and appropriations bills. While we may not share similar view 
points on our Nation's spending priorities, I hope we share the desire 
to have all those view points heard on this floor.
  Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Democrat, I commend the committee on its 
work and the model of bipartisan cooperation it has provided.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts], a long and valued member of the committee in its 
various ramifications in previous Congresses, not the least of which 
was as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Accounts that used to 
do this work first for us. It is exciting as a chairman to yield to a 
member of the committee as valuable as this gentleman is.
  (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution offered 
today by the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas]. Most of it has 
been said before by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Pastor], and my other colleagues, but it bears repeating because it is 
such good news. It is progress. It is something that has been done that 
we can all be proud of, and I want to thank all the Members on both 
sides of the aisle for their participation and their cooperation, but 
especially the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], our chairman, 
and also the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] on the minority 
side, but more especially, Bill.

                              {time}  1130

  The chairman of the committee has persevered time after time after 
time. We have been present during the process of the Subcommittee on 
Accounts and tried to institute reform and real cuts and bring sunshine 
into the process. The chairman has approached it in a professional 
manner, and lo and behold, this year we have been able to achieve true 
bipartisan reform.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] has also illustrated the 
same school of thought and leadership all throughout our hearings.
  We have a resolution before us that, as I said, represents real 
progress. Since the opening day of the 104th Congress, the House has 
been really working to fulfill our pledge that we made to the American 
people. We have cut the committee staff by one-third. For the first 
time we are consolidating the committee spending or the funding into a 
single 2-year funding resolution. That is reform. This new process 
includes both statutory and investigatory funds, as well as below-the-
line costs, the hidden costs, the costs that were always hidden before. 
I am talking about office supplies and long-distance telephone charges 
that have never before been included in the committee budgets.
  This resolution represents a total of a 30-percent cut in committee 
funding. That is a real cut. That is compared to the 103d Congress, 
from $223 million down to $156.3 million. That is a real cut.
  In previous years the committees were funded on a yearly basis, 1 
year, not 2, and they received funds from two sources--as I said 
before, statutory and investigative. I know that is an inside-the-
Beltway term, and it is an inside-the-House Administration Committee 
term, but the statutory budgets, which total over 50 percent of the 
committee costs, what we are spending on committees, were allocated 
through a nonpublic process. It was behind closed doors. It was 
administered by the Finance Office. The investigative sources, which 
total only 45 percent of the total, were the only funds authorized 
through a public process, and that is where Chairman Thomas, when he 
was the ranking minority member, and Yours Truly labored so long trying 
to institute the reforms. It included hearings, as I have indicated, 
before the previous House Administration Committee.
  In addition, the committees received funding from other sources for 
such things as legislative office
 supplies, long-distance phone calls, and franked mail. These cost a 
total of 4.1 percent, but they were not available. The new majority in 
the Congress has finally shed the light of public disclosure on this 
process. House rules adopted at the beginning of the 104th Congress 
state that the Congress must, for the first time ever, publicly state 
all committee spending every 2 years and fund all staff salaries out of 
a single unified account.

  Our committees must also include all the below-the-line costs, the 
hidden costs, in their budgets. The House Oversight Committee has taken 
further steps by establishing the franked mail allocations for each 
committee. Last year the House overspent the franked mail 
appropriations by over $2 million. Let me repeat that. They overspent 
the franked mail allowance by more than $2 million. The separate 
franked allocations included in this resolution will control the 
overspending and keep a lid on the excess mailings.
  One of the biggest accomplishments has come in the area of minority 
resources. According to the House rules, the majority has the 
responsibility of determining the funding level of the minority. In the 
past many committees were denied a fair share of the resources. In the 
103d Congress the minority was allowed only about 21\1/2\ percent of 
the investigative resources. 
[[Page H3169]] Under the resolution we are considering today all 
committees will be treated fairly. All committee chairmen will treat 
the minority the same or better than the minority was treated in the 
past allocation of resources. In fact, 13 committee chairmen are 
increasing the allocations of staff or resources to the minority. In 
the last Congress only 4 of 21 committees were actually provided a 
figure at or above the 33-percent goal. Nine Republican chairmen will 
allot one-third of the committee staff and of the resources to the 
minority.
  So I am calling this the Bill Thomas 15-year Great Leap Forward. It 
is a reform. Progress is being made.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The time of the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts] has expired.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ additional minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time last year I estimated, along 
with the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], with the progress we 
were making as we were calling forth the incremental reforms--and it 
was a slow call--that by the year 2010 we would reach our long-held 
committee funding goals. Well, we did it in 1995. That is 15 years 
ahead of time. As I have indicated, it is the Chairman Thomas 15-year 
Great Leap Forward.
  The resolution we are considering today has really been created in an 
open public process. It includes all funding. It takes into account 
every dollar that will be spent by the committees. It is more fair than 
any funding resolution ever considered on this floor. It represents a 
savings of $67 million to the American taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to rise in strong support of 
this resolution. I truly appreciate having had the opportunity to work 
with my colleagues on this bipartisan resolution. Hey, it is progress. 
Vote for it. It is time.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Baldacci].
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, as a Democratic freshman I rise today in 
strong support of this resolution. On the first day of the 104th 
Congress, I voted for congressional accountability. This bill replaces 
rhetoric with action.
  It cuts House committee funding by more than $67 million, and 
eliminates 620 committee staff positions, a 30-percent reduction. It 
also institutes a 2-year budget cycle for committee funding. This will 
help to ensure long-term planning and force committees to spend wisely. 
Finally, the legislation provides for greater oversight and disclosure 
of committee spending. All committee spending will be fully and 
completely disclosed so that the public can be assured that its tax 
dollars are being well spent.
  This move to cut spending and streamline the process obviously is not 
going to balance the budget by itself, but it takes an important step 
in the right direction. We must begin to restore the trust and faith of 
the American people in their Government, and we must make sacrifices if 
we are to get our fiscal house in order.
  Our single most important effort in this congress will be that to cut 
Government spending and reduce the deficit. We must do this in a 
careful, considered manner, not by taking a ``slash and burn'' approach 
or extreme approach.
  This legislation is just one of many steps that the Congress, working 
together with the President, must take if we are to continue to move in 
the right direction to control spending and reduce the deficit. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Democrat I rise today in strong support of 
House Resolution 107, which is a bold first step in making this 
institution and Government as a whole more efficient, more effective, 
and in fact more truly representative of the people.
  We as an institution cannot request families and businesses to make 
sacrifices and hard choices unless we are also willing to make those 
sacrifices. I am proud to support this resolution to cut funding for 
committees by over $67 million, a 30-percent reduction from the last 
Congress.
  Under this resolution committee staffs will be cut by more than 620 
staffers, which also represents a 30-percent reduction from the last 
Congress.
  My support of this resolution is a natural extension of my support 
for the Congressional Accountability Act, which will force Congress to 
comply with the same laws it imposes on the rest of the Nation. We had 
a House rules package which I supported which reduced the number of 
House committees from 21 to 18. This resolution has broad bipartisan 
support and will set an example of how both sides of the aisle can come 
together. I believe that this resolution is an example of the bold, 
decisive measures which must be enacted in order to restore the faith 
of the American people in this great legislative body and put people's 
trust back in Government and in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the resolution.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Democrat who ran unchallenged and 
supported the package of reforms which began this 104th Congress, I am 
pleased to rise in support of this bill.
  One of our primary tasks in this Congress will be to rebuild the 
trust of the American people in this body. I believe that this proposal 
is a good first step. The American people want us to work smarter, work 
more effectively, and work more economically. I believe this bill, 
which reduces committee funding by over a third, which reduces staff by 
over 620, which consolidates 3 separate committees, which requires a 2-
year budget cycle in long-term planning, and which ensures that 100 
percent of committee spending is justified and approved by Members of 
the House, is just the sort of reform we need.
  I pledge to work with my constituents and the staff of my office to 
do the people's business in a more frugal manner. I believe this bill 
is a concrete first step to that end, and I am proud to be a part of 
it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a member of the committee who 
has been of invaluable aid in making these adjustments in committee 
funding.
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for 
me to offer support for this resolution and to make a couple of brief 
points.
  This bill is another small example of the historic positive changes 
the 104th Congress is making to this great institution. It is another 
example of how the new majority in this House is keeping its promises, 
and I am especially pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see how the minority side 
is giving support to this initiative that we have begun.
  It is important to point out that in bringing this resolution to the 
floor, Chairman Thomas has done a great service on behalf of the 
American voters. Congress is being told to reduce the deficit and to 
cut spending.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a very popular theme around this place these 
days. This bill offers proof to the taxpayer that we are starting out 
by saving them money and cleaning up our own house. During our opening-
day reforms we voted to reduce committee staff by one-third. This bill 
acts as a companion piece to that measure. It makes an additional 
reduction in committee funding for staff and expenses by over $67 
million, a 30-percent reduction from last year's provision.
  This resolution reflects true reform, Mr. Speaker, in the entire 
legislative budget process by which committees ask for and receive 
funding. Prior to this Congress hundreds of millions of dollars in 
funding for salaries and below-the-line costs, an amount that made up 
over one-half of the total committee costs, was something that we did 
not even see. It escaped the scrutiny of the public hearing process.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this resolution sets a good, solid 
precedent for allocating a third of the resources to the minority. I 
have served for the last 2 years on this committee as a minority member 
and was vocal in insisting on fair treatment of the minority. I am 
still insistent on that fair treatment, and, Mr. Speaker, I am very 
pleased to 
[[Page H3170]] see that the number of chairmen allocating at least one-
third of their committees' resources to the minority has increased by 
over 50 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill establishes accountability and sunshine in the 
committee funding process. I commend Chairman Thomas for his hard work 
and for his leadership, and I encourage my colleagues to support this 
resolution.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I also am a freshman Democrat, and I rise 
in strong support of House Resolution 107.
  Some of us came here with the contract for America, and some of us 
came here with just straight talk and common business sense about how 
we should approach the business of the House. During the first days of 
the Congress we began reducing the size of Government, and we started 
from within by cutting congressional staffs. We eliminated three 
committees and reduced committee staff by a third, for a total cut of 
620 positions.
  House Resolution 107 will cut congressional expenditures by more than 
$67 million. It proves to the American people that we mean business.
  I intend to go further to demonstrate to my constituents a commitment 
to a smaller, more efficient Government by cutting my own personal 
staff, as I said during my campaign, long before there was any 
discussion of the contract for that matter.

                              {time}  1145

  Coming from the private sector, I learned that you cut expenditures 
and you try and create efficiencies when you run a deficit, or you do 
not stay in business very long. This is a simple, commonsense business 
approach to government. We must be more efficient and must be more 
responsive to the people, and our budget cutting must begin at home.
  We must create a bond with the American people if we are going to be 
serious about addressing the budget. We can all talk about less 
government, but today we can vote for less government. I further 
encourage my colleagues to join me in putting their money where their 
mouth is by downsizing their own offices and returning the unused funds 
in their clerk hire to the Treasury for deficit reduction.
  I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to bring up after we pass this bill, H.R. 
26, introduced by my colleague the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], 
to prove to the American people that we really are serious about 
deficit reduction.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
his hard work and leadership, along with Chairman Thomas and Ranking 
Member Fazzio.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is time that we in the U.S. Congress 
announced to the American people that this Congress is ready to tighten 
our very own belts. We are prepared to do no less than what we have 
asked the small businesses around this Nation to do, and I am proud to 
join in in support of this resolution to emphasize that this Congress 
stands for sound fiscal policies and that we understand that as we move 
toward the 21st century in this budgeting process, we too have to look 
inside and establish guidelines to make sure that this Congress works 
well and works efficiently.
  I am very proud of this resolution because it was a bipartisan 
effort, and I am glad to have joined in support of this resolution, 
like I supported the congressional resolution that dealt with 
congressional responsibility.
  The important aspects of this particular resolution, I think, will 
sound like music to the ears of businesses across this Nation. One, 
there will be
 a 2-year budget cycle to ensure long-term planning. No guesswork in 
this Congress.

  Two, it ensures that 100 percent of committee spending is justified 
and approved by the Members. The buck stops here. We understand what is 
going out, we understand the needs, we have to take the responsibility 
for improving it and approving it. We will have to have the 
responsibility for sound fiscal policies.
  Then, No. 3, we ensure that 100 percent of committee spending is 
fully and completely disclosed. No less than what has to be done by the 
American people in running their businesses.
  This is the way this Congress should operate. I am proud to be a part 
of it. I salute the focus we are taking, and I say to the American 
people, this resolution clearly states we are tightening our belts, we 
are looking to support sound fiscal policies.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will take only a minute in introducing the next 
gentleman, because frankly, the committee budgets could not have been 
cut without the full cooperation, understanding, appreciation, and hard 
work of the committee chairmen and the ranking members. This was an 
extremely difficult thing to do, and it was done in such style and 
willingness that, as chairman of the Committee on House Oversight, I 
have to congratulate all of the chairmen in the way in which they went 
about this difficult task.
  Mr. Speaker, no one personifies it more than the chairman of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump]. 
I yield to him such time as he may consume.
  (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time and 
for those kind remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 107.
  Our committee has cut its staff by one-third--this contributes to the 
overall 30-percent cut in committee funding from last Congress.
  I would also like to thank the chairman of the Committee on House 
Oversight, Mr. Bill Thomas, for his assistance and leadership in 
marshaling all of the committees through a difficult process.
  I also appreciate Mr. Thomas' attention to the special needs of 
smaller committees as well as all of the help and assistance provided 
by the Oversight Committee's staff to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs in this process.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, there will be precious little bipartisan agreement in 
the House today as we begin the upcoming rescission debate, so it is 
very appropriate we recognize our bipartisan moments as we find them. 
The proposal before us to reduce committee staffs by one-third clearly 
represents one such moment. We in the 104th Congress must show that 
when it comes to reducing Government spending, the cuts start here.
  Last session, as a freshman in this body, I fought for reductions in 
the legislative branch appropriations. While some headway was made, 
frankly I did not feel the cuts went far enough.
  Today, in a new Congress, I am happy to be part of an effort to make 
meaningful reductions in the amount Congress spends on itself. I 
particularly want to commend my friend, Chairman Bill Thomas, and the 
majority caucus, for their support and leadership on making these 
reductions. Quite clearly, we could not have done it without you.
  I also commend Ranking Member Vic Fazio and my colleagues in the 
minority caucus for supporting these reductions. It is time to make 
these cuts. I urge all Members to join me in supporting these cuts.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. Speaker, when we got here, in fact way back in November right 
after the election, we talked about the part of the contract that said 
we were really going to clean house and really reduce spending for this 
Congress. I started hearing some whining and started 
[[Page H3171]] hearing some people say, ``But we cannot do that,'' from 
both sides of the aisle eventually.
  Standing here today to see that we really can do it, the money is 
gone, and you add that to the fact that we reduced our own franking, I 
am now convinced, as well as the American people should be convinced, 
that this Congress is serious about cleaning house.
  We are going to go into a budget cycle that is going to be hard, 
because we are going to have to make a lot of hard decisions, and every 
patriotic American is going to sacrifice something as we work to reduce 
a nearly $200 billion overspending problem a year. But, first of all, 
we stood and we did it ourself.
  I think this is a good faith effort, but a very deep cut to this 
body, that the American people will appreciate us taking, and I want to 
commend the Chair and the bipartisanship of this group, because we
 really did it, and it shows again that you can trust this Congress to 
do what we promised. We keep our promises.

  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan resolution. 
It is very important that we cut where we can, and we should start 
cutting here where we work.
  I think it is great that we have this resolution, but I want to ask 
the American public to look at some other cuts that are coming later 
today. The Republican majority is bringing us some cuts, and I want to 
look at those and say I do not know that they are such a good idea.
  A cut of 180,000 jobs for our youth this summer. I ask you, what are 
we going to do? What do we plan for them to do this summer? Join gangs 
perhaps? And what about the cuts in senior housing we are going to see 
later, $2.7 billion in assistance. Where will those seniors live if we 
cut this assistance?
  What about veterans? We are cutting $206 million on veterans. Do you 
know, that is a contract we made with the men and women who joined the 
armed services. Then there is one that is very close to my heart, the 
Coast Guard, $28 million. They protect our fishermen on the Oregon 
coast, and they do all that hard work in drug interdiction. Mr. 
Speaker, they also want to make a very tough cut, $47 million from 
student loans.
  But do you know what? There is not one cut, not $1 dollar, from the 
pentagon in this rescission bill. Not $1 dollar. And I know, because I 
offered that as an amendment.
  I support cuts in this resolution, but I ask the American people, 
were we sent here to cut the money from seniors, from students, from 
youth in our summer jobs programs? Were we sent here to do those kinds 
of cuts? I do not think so, and I do not think those are the cuts we 
should be voting on on floor today.
  So I support this resolution, but I do not support the cuts that are 
coming later today.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, but I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I commend 
Chairman Thomas and ranking Member Fazio for the fine work they have 
done, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Fazio]. This was a new process for all of us, and, 
quite frankly, he made it much easier than it could have been. I also 
want to thank all of the Members of the committee who worked with us.
  But remember, the Committee on House Oversight is new in this 
Congress. All of the Members on the majority side were appointed by the 
Speaker. The Committee on House Oversight works the will of the 
leadership, and the resolution before us here today reflects, more than 
any one individual, the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich]. It was his guidance and leadership that focused 
on what could be done.
  Frankly, as the gentlewoman from Washington indicated, a number of 
folks on both sides of the aisle did not think it could be done. We cut 
the staffs by one-third opening day, and we stand before you with a 
better than a 30-percent cut in resources, without a diminution in our 
ability to do the job.
  I said earlier, and I will repeat it, without the committee chairmen 
and the ranking members' cooperation of each of the committees, it 
could not have been done. I want to take a moment and thank the staffs 
on both sides of the aisle, because in putting these numbers together, 
and they changed over time and, sometimes, very brief periods of time, 
they were taxed to the limit. They did an excellent job, and I want to 
thank them at this time for that.
  Let me close with this: When I was a member of the minority, I did 
not think the minority was treated fairly. Now that we are in the 
majority, I want to pledge to the minority that, as soon as possible, 
they will have a full one-third of the resources, if I have anything to 
do about it. I have pledged to them and I will tell them again we will 
work together to make sure that both sides of the aisle have resources 
adequate and fairly distributed to do the job.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I would ask all Members to support this 
resolution.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is keeping a 
promise to the American people to cut Congress' work force. During last 
fall's election campaign, we told the voters that if we became the 
majority we would reform Congress and no longer exempt this institution 
from the belt tightening actions the rest of America is facing. The 
American people want accountability and they want more bang for their 
taxpayers' buck. That is what we are doing in this resolution. When 
compared to what was spent in the previous Congress, this funding 
proposal represents a 30-percent cut, and a reduction of $67,003,290.
  The House Oversight Committee deserves credit for the way it went 
about making these cuts. It was done very carefully, with full 
recognition of the importance of sustaining every committee's ability 
to operate effectively. Moreover, it was done with sensitivity to the 
needs of the minority party. Indeed, a close scrutiny of this budget 
reveals that the Democrat minority is treated comparatively better than 
their Republican predecessors were in previous Congresses. Moreover, to 
bring this about the new majority, on a number of Committees, 
substantially reduced the size of their own staffs to help the 
minority.
  The House Oversight Committee must also be commended for developing 
an entirely new accounting system in which all of the House Committees' 
operational expenses are consolidated in a single account. Such 
streamlining will make auditing expenditures much easier to track. 
Thus, the taxpayers will be able to determine quickly how their tax 
dollars are being spent.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, this responsive and responsible Congressional 
cost-cutting measure deserves the support of everyone in this House. I 
urge its swift passage.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
amendment and on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
  Mr. PASTOR. 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 421, 
nays 6, not voting 7, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 236]

                               YEAS--421

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     [[Page H3172]] Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--6

     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Jacobs
     Moran

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Barr
     Cubin
     Dicks
     Fazio
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Pelosi

                              {time}  1216

  Mr. ROTH and Mr. WAXMAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.
  

                          ____________________