[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.

                          ____________________