[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 37 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1231-H1238]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 91, PROVIDING AMOUNTS
FOR THE EXPENSES OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES ON THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
IN THE ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 101 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 101
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 91)
providing amounts for the expenses of certain committees of
the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Fifth
Congress. The resolution shall be considered as read for
amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on House Oversight now printed
in the resolution shall be considered as adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution, as amended, to final adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) 1
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on House
Oversight; (2) the further amendment specified in the report
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if
offered by a Member designated in the report, which shall be
considered as read, shall be in order without intervention of
any point of order, and shall be separately debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). The gentleman from California
[Mr. Dreier] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order House Resolution
91, authorizing funding for all but one of the committees of the House
of Representatives for the 105th Congress under a modified closed rule.
It provides that the Committee on House Oversight amendment in the
nature of a substitute now printed in the resolution shall be
considered as adopted.
The rule further provides one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on House Oversight.
The rule provides the further amendment specified in the report of
the Committee on Rules, if offered by a Member designated in the
report, shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Finally the
rule provides one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, the process established by this rule for the
consideration of House Resolution 91 is no different than the process
established for previous committee funding resolutions.
Under clause 4(a) of rule XI, committee funding resolutions are
privileged
[[Page H1232]]
on the House floor and unamendable. A rule is unnecessary to bring up
the resolution unless there is a need to waive points of order that
could legitimately be sustained against the resolution. Such a waiver
is needed to address what I am sure the other side of the aisle agrees
is a technical violation of House rules.
Specifically clause 2(d)(2) of House rule X requires committees to
vote to approve their oversight plans for submission to the Committee
on Government Reform and Oversight and the Committee on House Oversight
by February 15 of the first session of each Congress.
The rule further prohibits consideration of a committee funding
resolution if any committee has not submitted plans by February 15 or
if the plans were not adopted in an open session with a quorum present.
As we know, certain committees were not able to organize before
February 15 because the committee assignment process was not complete
by that date. Therefore, these certain committees were unable to meet
and vote to approve their oversight plans on time. However, I am
pleased to report that every committee has submitted an approved
oversight plan to both the Committee on House Oversight and the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 91 is a responsible funding measure. I
would like to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] and
our colleagues on his committee for producing a balanced plan under
what are obviously challenging circumstances. It is clear that the
current level of resources available to House committees is
insufficient to meet their oversight responsibilities.
H. Res. 91 addresses the needs of committees while maintaining the
bipartisan commitment made by the House at the beginning of the 104th
Congress to reduce permanent committee staffs by a third and provide
more resources to the minority party. To ensure that these new
resources do not on their own result in increased spending on the
operations of Congress, the rule makes in order an amendment by Mr.
Thomas that requires any net increase in spending to be offset by
reductions in expenditures for other legislative branch activities.
In addition, to ensure that any additional staffing resources that
the committees may need during the course of the 105th Congress do not
become permanent staff, House Recolution 91 provides $7.9 million for a
reserve fund to cover the cost of any unanticipated needs.
This fund is in compliance with clause 5(a) of rule XI which
authorizes the Committee on House Oversight to include with its primary
expense resolution for committees a reserve fund for unanticipated
committee expenses. The actual allocation of any money from the fund is
subject to approval by that committee.
Contrary to charges that have been made, and I suspect will be made
by the minority, this is not a slush fund to be spent by the Committee
on House Oversight as it sees fit. As explained in the section-by-
section analysis of the resolution adopting House rules for the 105th
Congress, the funds will only be used in, and I quote, extraordinary
emergency or high priority circumstances. That is what the House rules
actually say. And, quote, any proposals for its allocation will be
carefully scrutinized and coordinated at the highest levels prior to a
vote by the Committee on House Oversight. Other committee requests
beyond their initial biennial budget authorization will still require a
supplemental expense resolution to be approved by the House. That is
what the House rules state.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 91 is a fiscally responsible committee
funding resolution. It maintains the commitment of this Congress to
lead by example when it comes to streamlining the Federal Government.
It also maintains the commitment of the Republican majority to provide
more committee resources to the minority than were provided to the
minority when Republicans held that status in the House.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this very fair and
balanced rule and this balanced approach to committee funding.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] my colleague and
very good friend, for yielding me the customary half hour.
{time} 1630
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member on the House
Committee on Rules, I have it pretty good. My good friend, the
gentleman from New York, Jerry Solomon, treats the minority as fairly
as he can. He gives us one-third of the committee's salary, and he is
just as fair to us as we were to him, and we really appreciate it.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], chairman of the Committee
on House Oversight, has always been gracious to us and has seen to it
that the Rules minority is treated fairly and also for that, Mr.
Speaker, we are very grateful.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, other committees are not quite as fair as
the Committee on Rules. Given the American people's obvious dislike of
partisan squabbling, given the promises of the collegiality retreat at
Hershey, PA, I would expect some of my Republican colleagues would see
the wisdom of bipartisanship. But, Mr. Speaker, the Republican members
of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, in a lack of
consideration for the needs and I believe rights of the Members of the
minority party, are not giving Democrats anywhere near their share of
the salary money.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the Republican side are operating with
the slimmest majority in history. Republicans outnumber Democrats 227
to 205. Mr. Speaker, that hardly justifies a 7 to 1 ratio of salary
money on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, whose
chairman is the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Burton].
To make matters worse, to make sure that the American people
completely lose their faith in the idea of cooperation in their Federal
Government, my Republican colleagues are about to spend $25 million
investigating the Democratic Party and the Democratic White House.
Now, this is not to say that I think it is impossible that there have
been occasions in which Democrats have engaged in questionable campaign
fundraising. I think it is entirely possible that there have. But it is
absolutely preposterous to suggest that there has not been one single
such time on the Republican side, particularly given the recent stories
about lobbyists in the news and the supposed use of congressional
buildings for Republican fundraising activities.
Even my Republican colleagues on the Senate side admitted that they
did not hold some sort of monopoly on perfect campaigning. They agreed
that to be fair they had better investigate everybody; that is, if the
U.S. Government is really going into the investigation business.
Because, if not, Mr. Speaker, if my Republican colleagues spend those
millions of taxpayers' dollars trying to dig up dirt on Democrats, I
doubt many people will be able to take it without a very large grain of
salt. About the size of a pillar.
Frankly, I do not think we should spend much money or time
investigating anyone. I think the reason we are here, the reason the
American people voted to send us to Washington is to make their lives
better, and I cannot think of a single person who will benefit from
more mud-slinging here in Washington.
Rather than sifting through people's garbage, we should be passing
campaign finance reform to clarify and also to strengthen the rules. We
should be expanding Head Start to more needy children. We should be
looking into ways to strengthen our Medicare and our Social Security
programs. We should be helping our police officers make America's
streets as safe as they possibly can be. We should be working as hard
as we possibly can to make a college education a reality for every
single American student. We should not be wasting our time on these
overpriced repetitive investigations.
Mr. Speaker, at the rate we are going, every committee in the
Congress is going to be issuing subpoenas. And on the issue of
subpoenas, I am sorry to see that the chairman of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight has issued over 30 subpoenas without
his committee's approval.
[[Page H1233]]
Mr. Speaker, it does not take this former chairman of the House
Committee on Rules to recognize these subpoenas are completely against
the spirit of House rules. The subpoena power of Congress is a very
sacred right given to us by the American people, and under no
circumstance should it be used in such a partisan or a capricious way.
To make matters worse, in the beginning of this Congress my
Republican colleagues changed the House rules and they created a
committee slush fund. This $7.9 million, I repeat it, this $7.9
million, which is a Republican fund, is financed by American tax
dollars and can be dipped into by any committee with a complaint. All
they need to do is get approval from the Committee on House Oversight.
For the first time, the House never gets a chance to vote on the
additional committee funding, and the American people's money will be
squandered on yet another witch hunt.
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the Congress has come to this.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Members who vote for this rule should not be
fooled into thinking that the amendment to pay for the bill with
promises of spending cuts will provide them any cover. A vote for this
$22 million spending increase will leave Members completely exposed,
and rightly so, to accusations of voting to waste exorbitant amounts of
taxpayer money.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, a vote for this rule and a
vote for this bill is a vote to increase the amount of money Congress
spends on itself by nearly $22 million. Let me repeat that, Mr.
Speaker. A vote for this bill is a vote to increase the amount of money
Congress spends on itself by nearly $22 million.
Mr. Speaker, I get a lot of letters and I get a lot of calls in my
office from people asking the Congress to consider funding this or
voting for that. They ask for all kinds of things, from saving Medicare
to money for Irish orphans. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that of
all of my letters and e-mails that come into my office every day, not
one single one of them has asked me to help vote for the $22 million
fund. Not one single constituent has asked me for this funding
increase, and it is an irresponsible waste of taxpayers' money.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. If we are
going to go into the business of investigations, if we are going to
assume the mantle of the FEC or the Justice Department, we need to put
on the same blindfolds that the statue of Justice wears and investigate
every potential violation, and not just the alleged Democratic ones. If
we are going to spend millions of tax dollars, then let us spend it on
something that helps somebody. Let us send some kids to college. Let us
find a cure for cancer.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Glens Falls, NY, [Mr. Solomon], my friend and the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Claremont, CA,
for yielding me this time.
Before I start off here, let me say it was nice to hear something
nice said about the Committee on Rules in the beginning of my good
friend the ranking member's testimony.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman that I
also said something nice about the chairman.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the
gentleman that that was very nice to hear, after the bashing we have
been going through here for the last few hours.
Second, let me say to some of the Members that may be around here,
however, I do not see them on the floor here, but I have been around
here for about 19 years, and I guess there is not anybody more fiscally
conservative than Jerry Solomon is, especially when I put my name on a
bill like this and introduce $800 billion in cuts. I say to the rest of
my colleagues that if they want to cut this budget and they want to
balance the budget, then they should come in here and take their pick.
That is fiscal conservatism with guts. So I will say, come over here
and vote for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, Members have two reasons to vote for it. One is because
it is the right thing to do, and the other is because if they do not, I
am going to tell them something right now: They will be back here
tomorrow, they may be back here Monday, they may be back here Tuesday,
because their staffs and their committee people do not get paid.
Members have an obligation to govern around here. And when I say
there is no increase in this bill, they can believe it.
Mr. Speaker, before I speak in support of the resolution any further,
I might point out that this measure is coming to the floor under a rule
that gives the minority an opportunity for more input in the process
than would normally happen in most cases.
Committee funding resolutions are typically privileged. They are
unamendable on the House floor. The rule before us allows for the House
to vote on an amendment to the resolution and allows a motion to
recommit to further study the issue in the committee, if Members want
to do that. That is their privilege. They would not have that privilege
if it were brought here under a normal privileged resolution straight
to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on House Oversight has produced what I
would consider, and I give the gentleman from California, Bill Thomas,
wherever he is here, great credit. This resolution is reasonable and it
deserves the support of this House. It keeps our commitment to
maintaining, and this is what some of the new Members should listen to
because they were not here 2 years ago, this resolution keeps our
commitment to maintaining a reduction in staff levels by one-third from
the 103d Congress.
That is right. We cut one-third of every single staff in this body,
and we reduced the spending by one-third of every committee in this
body.
The total authorization in this resolution is also 20 percent below
the levels in the 103d Congress, the last Congress controlled by the
other party, which represents a $45 million savings. That means we did
not spend $45 million more.
Mr. Speaker, the reductions that the Congress has made in
streamlining committees and the legislative branch budget overall
should serve as a model for the rest of the Federal Government. That is
why we slashed one-third in the last Congress.
We have made real cuts and we have saved real money in doing our part
to try to set the example to shrink the size of the power of the
Federal Government. That is what this is all about. That is what we are
doing here today, we are maintaining that philosophy.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules performed its function in the
House in the last Congress, living under the cuts we mandated. This was
extremely difficult, given the frenetic pace of legislation in the last
Congress. However, as partisan, and I will say to my good friend, the
gentleman from Massachusetts, Joe Moakley, and I will return the
compliment, as partisan and pressure-filled as the Committee on Rules
tends to be because of our institutional role, it is remarkable the
degree to which Mr. Moakley and I have worked together on our
committee's budgets over the years.
Mr. Speaker, when I was the ranking member and he was the chairman,
Mr. Moakley was eminently fair as the chairman, and I have tried to
return that favor and have had the same kind of ratios that we had
under his leadership. We are a model in terms of our treatment of the
minority.
The only increase that we ask for in our budget that is before us
today is for a well-deserved COLA for our staff, who work many long
hours into the night after the Congress has shut down and gone to bed.
An example being last night, when we convened a Rules meeting late in
the evening, and many of us stayed here until after midnight before we
finally closed up shop and went home. They deserve that COLA. They
deserve that little increase, cost-of-living increase.
[[Page H1234]]
Mr. Speaker, the other increases contained in the resolution, which
are absolutely necessary, are guaranteed offsets. Again I will say to
the Members back in their offices, these are guaranteed offsets through
an amendment that will be offered today by chairman of the Committee on
House Oversight, Bill Thomas, sitting over here, or his designee. That
amendment requires an offset, by reduction in expenses of other
legislative branch activities, for expenses of committees in the 105th
Congress that exceed the amount appropriated for the committees in the
104th Congress. That means there can be no increase in spending.
This amendment reflects the fiscally responsible policy of House
Republicans, and that is that authorization or appropriation increases
should be paid for, and we do that in this authorization bill.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but I simply want to urge every Member to
come over here. I want them to vote for this eminently fair rule, and I
want them to vote for this resolution. We need to get it done.
Additionally, House Resolution 91 provides funds for the campaign
finance investigation already underway in the Government Reform and
Oversight Committee.
Mr. Speaker, the revelations of wrongdoing among administration
officials and campaign staff, appearing on an almost daily basis, are
among the most serious I have seen in my time in public life.
The allegations involving economic espionage and national security
breaches are even more serious than mere campaign finance law
violations which are, in themselves, serious enough to warrant criminal
indictments. And the suggestion that American foreign policy may have
been directed by the flow of laundered money is absolutely appalling.
Mr. Speaker, this committee funding resolution provides the necessary
resources to investigate the burgeoning campaign finance scandal in the
Clinton administration.
The amendment that will be offered later today also ensures that any
committee expenses increased beyond the authorization in the last
Congress will be paid for. The rule allows the House to vote on these
important items today.
I urge strong support for the rule and the committee funding
resolution.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey, [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
The Republican majority running this House likes to portray itself as
the party of fiscal conservatism. However, I would like to know how
they can justify this expenditure of up to $12 million of the
taxpayers' money for a fundraising investigation of the White House.
The other body has already budgeted itself less money than this
House, and has broadened the scope of its investigation to include
congressional fundraising, fundraising abuses of both Democrats and
Republicans. I should also mention that every Republican in the other
body voted for a broader scope and a smaller budget.
Republicans in the House, however, have decided that they need
significantly more than their colleagues in the other body, but they
are going to investigate less.
I do not think the blatant partisanship of the Republican leadership
has been lost on anyone here. They are not looking for fairness, nor
are they looking to have a balanced investigation into campaign
wrongdoing. They are taking up to $12 million of the taxpayers' money
and wasting it on a political witch hunt.
If anybody is wondering why the House Republican leadership has
decided not to broaden the scope of the committee's investigation into
improper acts by congressional campaigns, one only needs to look at the
top.
{time} 1645
Indeed, if the scope of the committee was broadened to consider
congressional campaigns, I suppose the first witness to be called would
have to be the Republican committee chairman. Only yesterday the Nation
learned that the Republican chairman of the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight was appealing to a foreign ambassador for campaign
contributions. How can this gentleman hold an objective view and write
a committee report on the alleged abuses of the White House? Anything
that comes of the investigation headed up by the gentleman from Indiana
will be tainted. The Republican leadership of this House will better
serve the integrity of this institution if they remove the gentleman
from Indiana from the chair and broaden the scope of the investigation.
Without these actions, the country will rightly consider this
investigation a joke. I would point out, as others have already, that
already in the Washington Post today it was suggested, rightly I think,
that the chairman should step down from the investigation, and in the
New York Times it was very emphatically pointed out that the scope of
the investigation should be broadened to include congressional
campaigns, both Democrat and Republican. I think that the public is
crying out to action in that regard, and that is why we should vote
down this rule and we should vote against the resolution.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Albuquerque, NM [Mr. Schiff].
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal from our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle about fiscal responsibility, and they suggest
that the amount of money being appropriated for an investigation is not
fiscally appropriate. I respectfully suggest first that they never said
that when they appropriated funds for investigations conducted on
whatever subject while they were the majority.
Second, and I think more important, even if there were no setoff to
the spending proposed here and, as Chairman Solomon said, there will be
an amendment offered that will have setoffs, even if there were no
setoffs, the total funding for committees proposed in this bill is
$178.3 million for the 105th Congress. The total appropriation for the
103d Congress, two Congresses ago, under our Democratic colleagues'
majority was $223 million. So that is getting close to a $50 million
difference between what the majority spent in the 103d Congress and
what the majority proposes to spend in the 105th Congress for the
purpose of committees.
It will be interesting for our Democratic colleagues to explain what
they were doing with all of the money that they spent in the 103rd
Congress that came to $223 million. How are we able to function on
$178.3 million, even with an investigation? So I submit that we are
being entirely fiscally responsible.
Second, the average appropriation for the Democratic minority staff
is 29 percent in our bill. In previous Congresses, the average
appropriated to Republican minorities was 21 percent. So we are giving
the Democrats a larger percentage of the budget for committees than we
were given when we were in the minority. If one looks at all these
figures, I submit that everyone should support the rule and support the
bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, before I yield, I would like to just
correct a statement of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
There are no specific offsets in this bill. It is just general
language.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Waxman].
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. In
walking over here to speak on this matter, I wondered what the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] would have said when he was in
the minority if a Democratic majority brought a committee funding bill
to the floor under a closed rule, meaning no amendments allowed, a bill
that provided a record funding level, $12 million, for one committee
and created a mysterious $8 million reserve fund that was controlled by
the majority; a bill that provides this funding, even though the money
will be used exclusively to investigate the minority and the chairman
will unilaterally issue subpoenas and release documents, even
confidential information, as he sees fit. And that bill provided at
most 25 percent of the committee's resources to the minority?
Mr. Speaker, Newt Gingrich would have said that it was an arrogant
abuse of power, that debate was quashed, that the funding was an
outrageous waste of money, taxpayers' dollars, he would
[[Page H1235]]
have said it was an act of war against the minority, and he would have
been right.
No matter what other wrongs we may have done when we were in the
majority, we never went this far. Today, the Republican majority is
crossing the line. They are trying to jam a funding bill through
without any opportunity for an amendment, and they are authorizing an
investigation that is limited to Democrats, limited to the White House,
that is unwilling, at least at this point, to even examine what
campaign finance abuses took place by the Congress of the United
States. That cannot be interpreted as anything other than a coverup.
This bill would allow this investigation to be conducted under the
rules that the chairman of the committee seeks to impose, which is he
could act unilaterally. He can issue subpoenas everywhere. He can
compel information to be submitted to him, which is a very serious
matter. It involves people spending money, hiring lawyers, getting the
information together at expense to them and facing criminal penalties
if they do not comply. And this investigation, as the chairman of the
committee would envision it, would allow him to take that information
and release it as he sees fit, even if it involved national security.
This is a concentration of power that has never been given to any
chairman anywhere. And as far as the funding is concerned, the majority
would take 75 percent, leaving the minority with less, around 25
percent at best.
This is blatantly partisan and egregiously unfair. It poisons what
should be a bipartisan effort to investigate all fund-raising abuses
and reform the system. It is wrong, and I appeal to my Republican
colleagues to say no to this outrageous travesty.
There is an easy and obvious solution. Fund all the other committees
except the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. We have not
even had a meeting of our committee to decide the rules under which
this investigation will be conducted. We do not even know the scope yet
except what the chairman would have us believe is the scope that he
would want for this investigation. Fund the other committees, and allow
us to not have a disruption of them, and then leave the investigation
by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to be decided
later. Defeat this rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Winter Park, FL [Mr. Mica].
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I was elected to this body in 1992, and I have
been waiting for this day. You cannot imagine in your wildest
imagination, Mr. Speaker, the way our side was treated by the former
predecessor of this committee, the Government Operations Committee. We
now have the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
I pulled these charts out of the attic, but look at these charts. You
want to talk about fairness? In the 103d Congress, this is the
investigative staff that they gave the minority. This chart was
presented on this floor, and I came to this well and railed against
what was done to us. How dare they come here today and say we are
mistreating them when we offer such an incredible increase in
percentage. In fact, we are running Government Operations, we are
running the Postal and Civil Service Committee, the D.C. Committee, all
combined, for about half of what they were spending.
What this is about, is fairness and equity. We gave them in our
proposal 25 percent. It is higher than anything they ever gave us. So I
have been waiting for this day. I do not have enough time to go into
all the grisly details, Mr. Speaker, but I will present every one of
them when I get my full time when this rule is completed.
So do not come here and say this is unfair. In the 103d Congress, $25
million for Government Operations, Civil Service and Post Office. What
we are doing now, the 104th Congress, we spent $13.5 million for the
same task. This request if for $20 million. It is still almost $5
million less than what they expended.
Again, look at the distribution of what they did to us, and that is
when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House. There
was no oversight. We see the results of it. The results of it is the
scandal, the unprecedented scandal. I chair the House Subcommittee on
Civil Service. I have 7 staffers that replaced 54 Civil Service
staffers, 7 staffers. I have in my possession right now 1,000
documents, almost 10,000 pages, almost as much as we had in the
Filegate matter.
Mr. Speaker, this is about a scandal that is unprecedented in the
history of this Congress, and they are trying to blur the focus, they
are trying to make it look like a partisan attack, they are trying to
attack our chairman, they are trying to attack our Members and they are
trying to say, most unfairly, that we are being unfair. Mr. Speaker,
there could not be anything further from the truth.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, there has been so much talk about bipartisanship and so
much self-congratulation around here that until just now I was of the
opinion that momentum was building for a resolution for a joint session
of Congress to convene and hear an address from Mr. Rogers. But I
suppose that when we get down to substance, that the interest in
bipartisanship and fairness is a little weaker than when it is just ``I
smile at you and you smile at me. ''
I believe that the alleged improprieties at the White House deserve a
thorough investigation by this body. I think this should be adequately
funded and adequately staffed. But why just the White House and not
this House? Has this House been exempt from complaints about the
distribution of tobacco money right here on the floor of the House,
from complaints about the ``farsighted'' use of tax-exempt money to
fund campaign efforts, from one complaint after another? Why is it that
we look only to the White House and not to this House with reference to
the growing problem of members of any Federal position having to chase
money for the increasing cost of campaigns?
Well, certainly it is not because it is not a problem. If you turn
only to today's Roll Call, one finds a report of one lobbyist with
Republican ties who said that Members routinely shake down lobbyists
and foreign agents:
Are there shakedowns happening? Absolutely. Every minute of
every day with very rare exceptions on both sides of the
aisle, on both sides of the Capitol dome. It is a disgusting,
despicable scene.
And so it is. I do not say it is all a Republican problem or all a
Democratic problem, but that it is time to look not just at the White
House but at this House, and if you vote for this resolution, what you
are doing is voting to exempt this House from any investigation
concerning financial improprieties in the course of campaigns. Why not
look at the whole problem, not just to point fingers but to find
solutions? That is what this matter should be about.
You would think with so many shakedowns someone would be concerned
about shaking up the system and providing the American people a
solution. I maintain we need more than Hershey kisses. We need the type
of genuine bipartisanship the Senate finally engaged in to investigate
all manner of improprieties in any part of the Federal system. Only
then will the American people be adequately served.
{time} 1700
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Smyrna, Georgia [Mr. Barr].
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman
for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, were it not such a lengthy document and were it not also
residing in the office of every Member of this body, I would ask to
have the House Rules and Manual accepted into the Record at this point
because apparently, even though I have only been here a little over 2
years, I know just a tiny bit more about what those rules contain than
many Members of the other side who are out here blasting the resolution
before this body.
The fact of the matter is that the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight does not extend to Members of this
body. Regardless of what the Senate may or may not do, we still have to
abide not by what we see as press accounts, not by what the Senate
does, but by the Rules of the House of Representatives of the United
States of America, and
[[Page H1236]]
those rules provide very clear jurisdiction for the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, and it happens to be the executive
branch of Government.
Despite the fact that we may wish on the other side that these rules
said otherwise, despite the fact that Members on the other side who are
so partisan they do not even understand what the rules are, may want
the rules to say otherwise, they do not.
We have to abide by the rules, and the resolution before this body at
this time does indeed reflect the rules of this House and it reflects
the proper jurisdiction of each and every one of the committees,
including the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for which
funds are proposed through this resolution.
Now we heard a little bit ago that, I believe it was the gentleman
from New Jersey that seemed to feel that the scope of the investigation
proposed to be conducted by the House Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight was inconsequential. Well, it may be to the people of his
State but it is not to the people of the United States of America. They
are deeply disturbed by the mounting evidence of very, very serious
possible violations of law ethics and wasting government conducted by
this administration and by agencies of the U.S. Government executive
branch, and it does indeed fall within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to conduct an
investigation of those for the American people.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The statement of the gentleman is factually incorrect when it comes
to the duties of the House Oversight jurisdiction, Government Reform
rather. The argument is factually incorrect. The House gives House
Oversight legislative jurisdiction over all Federal elections, both
congressional and Presidential. Government Reform and Oversight has
oversight responsibilities that are extraordinarily broad, so broad in
fact that under House rules, Government Reform and Oversight may
conduct investigations on any matter with regard to any committee's
jurisdiction.
So what we have here is a situation where the Republicans on the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight are selectively
investigating some of the matters that fall within the legislative
jurisdiction of the House Oversight, but not others; the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton] saying, ``Well I think we should go and take a
look at the Presidential election. I know that's within the
jurisdiction of the House Oversight Committee, and I can do that under
the rules of the House.'' But when pressed to look at congressional
elections, Chairman Burton says, ``Oh, no, I can't do that. That is
within the jurisdiction of the House Oversight Committee.''
Mr. Speaker, that is not right, that is not fair, and I can only
conclude that this investigation is being conducted in a very partisan
way.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I checked with the House Parliamentarian on
this very issue, and he assured me that our committee does have
jurisdiction, Government Reform and Oversight Committee, over all
campaign finance issues. We need not be restricted only to the White
House unless it is being done for partisan reasons.
Mr. MOAKLEY. I think the gentleman that spoke before the gentleman
from California [Mr. Waxman] may have confused legislative and
investigative oversight. It does have the investigative oversight over
all committees.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Long
Beach, California [Mr. Horn], my very good friend.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult situation. What we
have, and it is the press that has done most of the work, the media, to
this point, we have major national scandals, clear violations of the
law, and the first emphasis, it would seem to me, would be to deal with
those.
Now I am fascinated by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
They are right, I think, on the jurisdictional point. We can go
anywhere and investigate, anywhere an authorization committee can go.
The question is what comes first?
What comes first is what bothered this Nation for the last 6 months
because these were slowly, slowly unfolding during the election period,
but mostly since the general election, and it seems to me we ought to
concentrate our resources at this time on solving that problem. And I
will tell my friend from California that as one that takes no PAC
money, I would love nothing better than to be involved in an
investigation of the fund-raising on both sides of the aisle. I do not
think the gentleman wants that to happen, but I would be glad to get
into that.
Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman for a question, but I have got a
few other things I want to cover. A 10-second question.
Mr. WAXMAN. The Senate voted unanimously to investigate the Congress
and the White House. I think we ought to do the same. There ought to be
Democrats and Republicans. If we are only going to investigate the
White House, it seems to me that the opens this up to the fact that we
are covering up what goes on in the Congress.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that if the Senate
is already investigating that area, and I know it is and that was my
second point, why are we spending resources to be diverted into the
area?
I hear a lot from liberals and a lot from conservatives about, ``Gee,
we have to save money on committee.'' Now frankly they are dead wrong
on both sides because what we need to do is make sure that the
prerogatives of the Congress of the United States can faithfully be
carried out. To skimp on that budget is just dead wrong. Frankly, it
means some people do not want the investigation to be carried out. We
should want it to be completed.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, you know one of the problems we have
here, there are a number of issues before us. First of all, if we fail
to pass this resolution, it does not stop the legislative process.
Frankly, when we came here in January we operated without a funding
resolution. The Congress then organized and we are able to continue.
If we do not pass this rule today, we can come back here on the 8th
or the 9th of April and pass a funding resolution that pays people for
the work they have done, and there is no crisis in government if we do
not pass this rule today.
One of the major issues as a Member of Congress, and we do not do
this for Federal agencies as a general rule, is we do not create slush
funds.
Now as my colleagues know, it seems the answer around here is, ``If
you put gates at the end of almost any term it becomes somehow
criminalized.'' So I guess we have to call this Slushgate. We are
bringing up here an amount of money that no Member of Congress in his
right mind would vote for investigations--the October Surprise spent
under $2 million; I think a million four. We are taking the committee
of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], and we are moving it from
about 6\1/2\ million to around 12 million, and then we have got
Slushgate. Then we got another 7.8 or $9 million sitting there in a
little pot that no Member of Congress on this floor is going to have a
chance to vote on on the floor. They are going to do it back in the
committee where there are no lights.
So we are taking almost $8 million more, and again the focus is very
narrow, but we are taking the committee that last year did three
political investigations, and I know the country is better off for
finding out what happened in the travel office and all the other things
that we spend tens of millions of dollars investigating, but we are
going to spend another 12 to $20 million now.
What is the goal of our oversight? The goal of our oversight ought to
be campaign reform. That is not the goal here. The goal here is to
spend as much money as you can with as little opportunity for any real
debate and looking at how we work.
We need to regain the confidence of the American people. We are not
going to do that going after the White House
[[Page H1237]]
or Congress. If my colleagues want to rebuild the confidence in the
American people, we have to pass campaign finance reform, and we have
to bring a budget here for the Congress that does not have an $8
million slush fund. We want to appropriate the funds as they are
needed. Our colleagues have not got guts enough to come here and ask
for 20 million bucks from the committee of the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Burton] so they are going to come here and say, ``We're going 6 to
6\1/2\, we're going to bring that to 12, and then we got 8 million over
here.''
They got a slush fund on the floor of this House. It is no way to run
this Congress. We ought to vote this rule down, we ought to come back
here after the recess and try to pass a budget that will really address
the issues we have to take care of as a Congress.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to inquire of the Chair
what the ground rules are on personal references to Members of the
House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members should avoid personalities,
derogatory personal references, to other Members of the House.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton], the very distinguished chairman and, I believe,
unfairly maligned chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding this time to me.
As my colleagues know, the founder of our party, Abraham Lincoln,
said one time, I hope I am quoting him correctly; he said, ``If I do
the wrong thing, a thousand angels screaming from the rooftops won't
make it right, but if I do the right thing, history will prove I did
the right thing.''
Mr. Speaker, I hope that is what happens with my committee and my
conducting of my committee's activities over the next few months.
I have been accused of some things that I think unfairly, but I
expected that to happen because when we start investigating the
executive branch of government that involves the President, we got to
expect that they are going to be firing back, and I fully anticipated
that. I did not think it would happen this soon, but nevertheless I
expected it.
But let me just say to my colleagues I still commit to my Democrat
friends that we are going to try to run this committee in as fair and
as bipartisan a way as possible.
I told the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] on three different
occasions when we had meetings that we would give him notice before we
sent out correspondence, he would have 24 hours notice before we sent
out subpoenas, we would not release documents without his approval or
give him 24 hours notice unless it was an emergency and we had to do
it, and so far we have released no documents.
Today many people are talking about us releasing documents. We have
released no documents. The White House has been doing that, and if
Members do not believe me, ask the media. We are keeping our word, and
our scope, the scope of our investigation, I want it to be relatively
narrow so we can get this thing over with in a quick and a short period
of time.
I want to investigate alleged illegal activities in the executive
branch, illegal activities. Were we selling foreign influence overseas
for campaign contributions?
This is something that is very important to the American people. Was
our national security jeopardized because we were selling our national
security for contributions? Were we selling business deals to
foreigners for campaign contributions that might hurt the economy of
the United States? These are things that we need to look into that are
alleged illegal activities.
Now I did not say that we would not look into the illegal activities
of Congressmen or Senators, or the DNC, the RNC, or the DCCC or NRCC.
What I did say was, if we found illegal activities or what appeared to
be illegal, we would turn them over to the committee of jurisdiction in
the Congress.
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct investigates
Congressmen. We knew that when Speaker Gingrich and Speaker Wright were
investigated; that is where we went when there was an alleged ethical
or illegal violation. That is what I intend to do; not sweep it under
the rug if it is a Republican, but turn it over to the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct with the information we have.
The House administration or the Committee on House Oversight, if we
find something going wrong with the RNC, or the DNC, we will give that
illegal information, or that information looks like it is illegal, to
that committee for proper work.
Let me just wrap up because we are running out of time. I want to
pledge to Members that this will be a fair investigation. I will be as
fair to the minority as I am the majority. But I want to tell my
colleagues this:
As long as I can stand on my two legs, I am going to do my dead level
best to get to the bottom of these scandals; make no mistake about it.
{time} 1715
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney].
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for
yielding me this time.
As a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, let
me say that I think that all of the Members of that committee would
wish that it were true that we had some indication that things were
going to be done fairly and justly on that committee. I am here to tell
you as a member that we have no indication that that is so.
It is very unique that we should have had a meeting called for last
week to discuss these very issues about process, to discuss the very
issues about funding, to discuss whether or not we would be
investigating all of the irregularities in campaign finance reform,
only to have that meeting postponed so that this issue could be brought
to the floor and rushed through without any debate and without dealing
with these matters.
The American public demands to know what went wrong with campaign
financing at all levels, not just at the White House if anything went
wrong there, but in Congress if something went wrong there and in the
Senate if something went wrong there.
There is no clamoring, no clamoring at all that I know of in the
public for us to duplicate the expenditure of funds on this
investigation. Nobody that I know of out there is saying, let us spend
$6 million in the Senate and another $6 million in the House, and oh,
yes, please, if you can, put an $8 million slush fund together so they
can hold that in reserve. There is none of that out there in the
public.
I think we should all take cognizance of the fact that we should have
one thorough, complete, nonpartisan and fair investigation, get it
done, have it done by a joint committee or by the Senate, because at
least the Senate indicates that it wants to do it right. If we insist
on having the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House
want to be partisan and want to be unfair, at the very least the
appearance of being unfair and partisan, then we ought to back off, we
ought to let the Senate do it and we ought to get on the with the
people's business. There are many things we could be doing in this
Congress; providing a slush fund is not one of them.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
I would like to join my colleagues and add my voice as a member of
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, speaking out against
the $7.9 million slush fund that will not go to the House floor. It is
really wrong. I also oppose the $12 million that they are asking for
for clearly a partisan investigation against the White House and the
Democratic party.
The committee has yet to reveal any information or any details about
how they intend to spend this slush fund or any of this money.
[[Page H1238]]
I would like to quote, please, Becky Cain, president of the League of
Women Voters. She said about this, ``The House investigation into
campaign fundraising should include a thorough examination of both
parties' Presidential and congressional practices, both improper and
illegal. A limited scope will turn the investigation into a partisan
charade.''
Today's Washington Post editorial goes even further. It warns that
this investigation runs the risk of becoming, and I quote, ``its own
cartoon, a joke and a deserved embarrassment.''
The New York Times editorial recommended today that the House should
follow the Watergate precedent and let the Senate conduct a single
investigation.
I would like to submit into the Record the editorials in both the
Washington Times and in the Washington Post against this investigation,
and also the Roll Call editorial.
Instead of using this money for the slush fund for a partisan
investigation of the House, we should be increasing funding for the
bipartisan agency that is charged with regulating campaigns: The
Federal Election Commission. The FEC has requested an increase of $8.2
billion for fiscal year 1998 to deal with its increasing caseload. In
the last 3 years the FEC's caseload has increased. I am opposed to the
slush fund. We should be funding the FEC instead.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, we have a job here and the job is to make
a decision as to what the proper method to proceed is.
Now, we are going to go back and see our constituents over this next
recess. The question as constituents meet us on the street, whether we
are on this side of the aisle or the other, is can we explain to them
an $8 million slush fund. That is the real question here. Are we going
to vote for a process, adding all of the other issues about fairness,
about how the investigation ought to proceed? Should we not really be
looking at campaign finance reform and not just more partisan battles?
Putting all of that aside, the question is, do we want to walk down
the streets of our hometown and have them ask, should Congress have a
slush fund? We do not do that for other agencies. If we think this
investigation warrants $8 million more, then put it in the committee of
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. My colleagues on the other
side do not have guts enough to do that. Frankly, I do not think we
should support that kind of process.
Let us vote this rule down, because we were not given any
opportunities to amend it; let us vote the rule down, let us continue
the regular order. We can either have an extension tonight by unanimous
consent, our side is ready to do that, or we can stay here tomorrow and
do it.
A lot of Members have plans. I think we can come back here on April 8
or 9 and deal with this properly. I do not think the American people
want us to have an $8 million slush fund in the budget. When we take a
look at how we operate here and how we ought to operate here, we have
never before put slush funds in. We have always come back to the
Congress. We come back to the Congress, we say there is a need, we have
a debate on the floor of the House, and when we complete that debate,
we make a decision.
Not this time. This time we double the funding of the committee of
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]; we come here, and on top of
that doubling of funding we have the slush fund in the budget. Vote
down this slush fund. Let us come back here and have campaign finance
reform. Let us come back here, examine the way we work, not with a
political motive, but a motive on how to rebuild confidence of the
American people in our system.
We have to have real reform that limits spending, that limits the
large amounts of money. That is what we have to do. But we are not
going to achieve that in this game. This is a political game. I say to
my colleagues, you are going to embarrass yourselves in this process.
Let us join together and vote this resolution down. Let us come back
with a fair resolution, without a slush fund, with a proper activity
legislatively that will give us the basis for coming together and
passing campaign finance reform. That is what we ought to be doing.
Join with us together, Democrats and Republicans, in rejecting this
proposal which has a slush fund in it, and come back here with a bill
that will make us proud to be Members of Congress.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________