[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.
____________________