[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 37 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1239-H1241]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING AMOUNTS FOR THE EXPENSES OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE 
          OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] be able to reclaim the 1 minute that 
he yielded back, and I ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield to 
him 2 minutes of the 5\3/4\ minutes that I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dreier] has 3\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit].

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I stand today opposed to the rule.
  Let me say that all of us in this body today are working frantically 
to try to do what we can to balance the budget of this country. Both my 
Republican colleagues and my Democratic colleagues are working very 
hard to do that. Yet today we stand here considering expending $15 
million to do an investigation in the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight, $15 million, when we are trying very hard to balance the 
budget of this country.
  This is confusing to the American people. We are spending $15 
million, or requesting $15 million, when in the Senate they are 
spending $4 million. They are spending $4 million to do a bigger and 
broader, more encompassing investigation than what we are considering 
here in the House. That does not make sense to the American people.
  I came here in 1989. I do not think there has been 30 days since I 
have been here that we have not been investigating someone or 
something. I will tell my colleagues, the American people are sick and 
tired of that.
  I think that we ought to have full disclosure. We ought to have 
investigations, but it makes no sense when the Senate or the other body 
has an investigation, asks questions, calls in witnesses, and then 2 
weeks later we are doing the very same thing over here. That is a show. 
That is a show, and we are doing it over here to the tune of twice, 
three times as much money as the Senate is spending.
  What we need to do is to change the process. We need to quit this. If 
we are going to have investigations, and we should, from time to time, 
we ought to clean the process up. We ought not to duplicate what the 
other body does. We ought not to spend money that we do not have to 
spend.
  This is about the process. This is about doing what is right and what 
is fair. We did not even have a committee hearing about this issue. We 
did not discuss it a bit. That is not right. We can do better than 
that. That is not the way to do the House's business. We, at a minimum, 
should have discussed this in a committee hearing.
  I want to tell my colleagues that out of the $15 million we have $8 
million in a fund that we do not even know what is done with it. What 
are the American people going to say about that, when we are talking 
about reducing the costs of Medicare and Medicaid? This is wrong. This 
is not right and we ought to reject this rule today.
  I say to my colleagues, if we want to do what we said we were going 
to do a couple of weeks ago, we ought to start today. We ought to start 
today by rejecting this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
inform my colleagues that on July 16th of 1787 we established the 
Connecticut compromise, a bicameral legislature.
  Someone who understands that is the very distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on House Oversight, my friend from Bakersfield, 
California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas].
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have to admit I am genuinely confused. It 
is indeed a rare occasion when I come to the floor and I find out that 
not only is my friend from Massachusetts saying good things about me in 
terms of the way I run a committee and the way we split funds, but I 
read the minority views from my friend from Connecticut, signed by all 
the members of the committee, about how fair I am and the fact that the 
distribution of the funds was reasonable. And my colleagues really 
ought to read it, it is almost embarrassing how flattering they are 
about the way I run the committee, and then they immediately turn 
around and talk about this slush fund and they are worried about the 
slush fund and what is going to happen with it.
  I am the same person who is chairman of the committee who is going to 
control the reserve fund. The reserve fund is just exactly that, 
reserve.
  Now, these folks ought to know what a slush fund is. In the 103d 
Congress they had $223 million to slush around. And what my colleagues 
need to know is that out of that $223 million, more than half was spent 
outside public scrutiny. More than $112 million was spent in the 
shadows, in closed door rooms.
  What we did in the 104th Congress was put it all together, let 
sunshine in, and what you see is what you get. What we are asking for 
for this Congress is $45 million less than they spent.
  Now, how about a slush fund for $45 million. Where was it? Soaked 
away in the committees. I just do not understand it, but we cannot have 
it both ways.
  My friend from California, Mr. Waxman, he does understand it, his 
concern is that we said the funds are controlled by the majority. That 
is true, majority rules. That is called democracy.
  He also said when we are in the majority we never went this far. That 
is a quote, and he is right. He is right. They never did go that far. 
He said, ``We only have 25 percent of the resources.'' My friends, the 
103d Congress, the minority, us at the time, had 14 percent of the 
resources in the Committee on Commerce. We had 15 percent of the 
resources in the Committee on House Oversight. We had 11 percent of the 
resources in the Committee on the Judiciary.
  I tell my friend from California, he is right, they never went as far 
as we have.
  My friend from Texas, Mr. Doggett, says we should not just point 
fingers, we ought to offer solutions. And then what he says is he wants 
more money to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, because Mr. Waxman has a letter 
from the Parliamentarian that says all they can do is investigate.
  What is investigating? It is exposing. They cannot offer solutions. 
They cannot have it both ways. The committee that has the jurisdiction 
to pass the laws is the Committee on House Oversight. We have what we 
believe is appropriate. We will do the job.
  Then I listened to a number of my friends in terms of how much money 
we are spending. My good friend from California, Mr. Condit, talks 
about how much money this is. In the 103d Congress they had $223 
million. We have passed welfare, we have passed reforming, we have 
ended patronage, and

[[Page H1240]]

we have audits with a whole lot less money.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the rule on House Resolution 91. In allocating a tremendous amount of 
money for an investigation of alleged fundraising abuses whose scope is 
restricted to the administration and the DNC, House Resolution 91 is 
overtly partisan and inequitable. It is amazing to me then, that the 
only amendment allowed under the rule, is the Thomas amendment. The 
rule allows the Thomas amendment, but denies important amendments which 
would have ensured that the investigation into alleged fundraising 
abuses, are conducted in as fair and nonpartisan manner as possible. 
These amendments would have moved House Resolution 91 closer to the 
broader, more bipartisan Senate bill. Now this rule allows the spending 
of up to $15 million wasteful dollars on a witch hunt.
  The Thomas amendment is meaningless. Its purpose is to provide 
Members who are squeamish about voting for the very large funding 
increase provided by House Resolution 91, a cover. In so doing, it will 
facilitate passage of House Resolution 91. What proponents of the 
Thomas amendment would have us ignore, however, is the fact that this 
amendment is utterly unenforceable. It is simply a promise, a 
nonbinding promise. We have far more important actions that can be 
taken. This Congress can pass real campaign finance reform. I am for 
that but not a misguided attempt at partisan politics at its worst.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, to oppose House Resolution 
91, and to oppose the Thomas amendment. And real debate on campaign 
finance reform lets Republicans and Democrats work to clean our own 
house without this enormous expenditure for the Republican House 
Oversight Committee to play politics.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, as the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Employment and Housing of the Government Operations 
Committee, I conducted an investigation of fraud, waste, abuse, and 
mismanagement of billions of Federal dollars at the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development during the Reagan administration. That 
investigation required almost 2 years to complete and involved the 
holding of some 30 public hearings.
  That investigation was carried out with the regular subcommittee 
staff, which was augmented for a portion of that time by two 
investigators from the General Accounting Office. I received no 
additional funding for my investigation. We conducted a serious and 
thorough investigation with no allocation of additional funds.
  Today, we are considering a Committee Funding Resolution that will 
provide some $12 to $15 million for the investigation Chairman Burton 
proposes to conduct in the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. 
This resolution includes a slush fund of an additional $8 million for 
this same investigation. The Government reform investigation is being 
allocated two to three times the amount which the Senate committee 
under Senator Thompson has received. Not only is Chairman Burton's 
investigation duplicating only a portion of that same Senate 
investigation, he is doing so at three times the cost.
  Mr. Speaker, the committee funding resolution is a serious waste of 
taxpayer dollars. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have given us lengthy speeches about the necessity to reduce government 
waste and reduce the deficit. Here we have an opportunity to avoid 
waste, duplication, and encourage efficiency--but my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are simply voting to spend taxpayer moneys 
wastefully and unnecessarily.
  The second concern that I would like to raise in connection with this 
legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the partisan nature of the Government 
Reform and Oversight Committee investigation that is being endorsed by 
supporting the committee funding resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, an investigation that is bipartisan has credibility with 
the American people. An investigation that is partisan will be 
dismissed--as it should be--by the American people.
  Again referring to the HUD investigation that I conducted earlier, 
our actions were totally bipartisan. Subpoenas were issued on the basis 
of the vote of the subcommittee--not by the unilateral action of the 
chairman--and every vote to issue a subpoena was unanimous. The 
direction and the details of that investigation were worked out with 
the active involvement and cooperation of my distinguished Republican 
colleague, Chris Shays of Connecticut. That investigation was taken 
seriously because it was bipartisan, that investigation had credibility 
with the American people because it was bipartisan.
  This resolution today provides excessive funding for an investigation 
that is partisan and wasteful and outrageous. Mr. Speaker, a vote for 
this resolution will come back to haunt those of my colleagues who 
mistakenly vote for it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210, 
nays 213, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 67]

                               YEAS--210

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schiff
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--213

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne

[[Page H1241]]


     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Andrews
     Flake
     Gillmor
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Oxley
     Sensenbrenner
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda

                              {time}  1822

  So the resolution was not agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________