Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 48 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)

[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.

[[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.

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.

____________________