[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 38 (Friday, March 21, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1264-H1279]
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 105TH CONGRESS

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 105 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 105

       Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the House shall consider without the intervention 
     of any point of order 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. An 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of House Resolution 102 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) one 
     hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
     Oversight; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 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 once again makes in order House 
Resolution 91 authorizing funding for all but one of the committees of 
the House of Representatives for the 105th Congress, but this time 
under a closed rule providing 1 hour of debate divided equally between 
the chairman and ranking minority of the Committee on House Oversight.
  The rule provides for consideration in the House without intervention 
of any point of order, it provides that the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute consisting of the text of House Resolution 102 shall be 
considered as adopted. It further provides for one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, the new funding resolution that is made in order by this 
rule is a reasonable compromise. I applaud the work of Chairman Thomas 
and others who helped put this compromise together.
  It will allow our committees to continue operating until May 2 while 
freezing funding levels for all committees covered by the resolution 
except the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight at the 104th 
Congress levels. This will also allow us to maintain our commitment to 
take the lead in downsizing and streamlining Government.
  More important, Mr. Speaker, it will allow the Government Reform and 
Oversight Committees's investigation into campaign fundraising abuses 
by the Clinton administration to proceed despite the best efforts of 
our colleagues in the minority to cover up those abuses and undermine 
our constitutional responsibility to investigate wrongdoing in the 
executive branch.
  The resolution also maintains a $7.9 million authorization for a 
reserve fund for unanticipated expenses of the committees of the 105th 
Congress because it makes sense. As my colleagues know, at the 
beginning of the 104th Congress, three annual funding sources for 
committees consolidated into one biennial calendar year funding 
resolution to make our committees fully accountable for what they 
spend. So a small reserve fund fully accounted for and open to public 
scrutiny to cover unexpected funding emergencies in the second session 
makes sound business sense.
  Virtually every well-managed business in America has a reserve fund 
for unanticipated contingencies. We can benefit from implementing sound 
business practices in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, 
failure to pass this rule and the funding resolution it makes in order 
would leave our committees without funds to operate after March 31. 
That is the reason I suspect many of our colleagues in the

[[Page H1265]]

minority oppose this resolution, but it is an irresponsible position 
and it damages the integrity of the whole institution, not just the 
majority or minority.
  I urge my colleagues to do the responsible thing. We are trying to 
move along as expeditiously as possible because we know many Members 
want to leave town. I will assure my friends on the other side of the 
aisle that we hope that we will not consume the entire amount of time 
here. I hope they will do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hinojosa] for the purposes of a unanimous-
consent request.
  (Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)


   removal of name of member as cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 1

  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name 
as cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 1.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, this is take two. I thank my dear friend, 
David Dreier, the gentleman from California, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this rule, and I 
must say that I am very disappointed in my Republican colleagues for 
bringing this matter up again. Yesterday's rule was defeated for three 
reasons: My Democratic colleagues and I were opposed to the 
ridiculously large investigative budget for the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight. The budget will be only used to investigate 
Democrats, despite the many Republican campaign problems reported in 
the papers.
  And we, like most American citizens, could not believe that our 
Congress was proposing creating a brand new $7.9 million slush fund for 
itself. As I understand it, my Republican colleagues, along with my 
Democratic colleagues, objected to the large increase in overall 
spending contained in this resolution because, Mr. Speaker, Members who 
talk about cutting Medicare, Members who talk about cutting school 
lunches in order to give tax breaks to the rich will have a very 
difficult time explaining a vote to spend millions of dollars of 
taxpayers' money for Congress to dip in whenever it wants.
  None of this should have been news to the Republican leadership. For 
days the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], and the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], have been trying to work with their Republican 
counterparts to work out a way to temporarily fund committees so that 
negotiations could begin on the size, the scope and the expense of the 
investigation by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. But, 
Mr. Speaker, their overtures were ignored, and this is very 
unfortunate.
  Furthermore, after the rule was defeated yesterday, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Armey], said on the floor of this House that he was 
going to talk to the Democratic leadership about the situation. We 
waited, we waited, we waited, and nobody came. Instead, Republicans 
retreated to their conference and came up with a solution that I 
imagine will only get Republican votes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not one to begrudge the majority party the right to 
run this House as it sees fit, but this latest episode makes me 
question the sincerity of the Republican leadership's commitment to 
bipartisanship on the part of the House, especially on the heels of the 
retreat at Hershey.
  First, the bill will increase the amount of overall funding that 
Congress gives itself. Second, unlike the Senate investigation, the 
House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is only going to 
look at allegations of Democratic campaign problems, despite the many 
Republican campaign issues surfacing these days. Third, Mr. Speaker, we 
objected to the $7.9 million slush fund that my Republican colleagues 
are creating for undisclosed purposes.
  Given these problems and the subsequent defeat of the rule, I would 
have expected my Republican colleagues to have gone back to the drawing 
board and fixed their mistakes. But late last night, Mr. Speaker, after 
waiting for that call that never came, we learned that they are only 
going to make the mistakes worse.
  Today's resolution cuts only $500,000 from yesterday's $22 million; 
$22 million increase, rather. It fully funds that partisan witch hunt 
in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and it does not 
change the scope of the investigation one iota. It does not say, OK, we 
will look into our own garbage while we are looking into everybody 
else's, and it fully funds that $7.9 million Republican slush fund.
  Mr. Speaker, when I first saw this resolution last night in the 
Committee on Rules, I really thought it was a joke somebody was playing 
on me. This resolution spends a total of $6 million on all the House 
committees except one, and that one is the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight.
  That committee, the committee that decided it wants to spend its time 
and taxpayer money digging up dirt on Democrats, gets $20 million. Let 
me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. One committee gets $20 million and all the 
other committees, totaled together, get $6 million. Even the Republican 
slush fund gets more money than all the other committees in the House 
combined.
  Mr. Speaker, I was in the House Chamber during every minute of 
yesterday's debate on this resolution and I did not hear one single 
person complain about the money the committees of the House received 
except the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. So in response 
to that, my Republican colleagues increased the amount of money the 
committee gets and cut the amount that the rest get. Does not make any 
sense to me.
  Yesterday my colleagues complained long and loud about the $7.9 
million slush fund but they did not make a peep about the other 
committees. But this resolution cuts all the other committees instead 
of the committee that everybody complained about.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine why my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle who opposed the rule yesterday because the bill spent $22 
million over last year's level would vote for a resolution that saves 
only $500,000 while it still increases the spending of hard-earned 
taxpayers' dollars by over $20 million.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it looks like the Republican leadership 
is not interested in a bipartisan solution. If they were, they would 
have called to talk and they would have asked us for our input on 
committee funding and they would have tried to work together. Instead, 
they are giving us a proposal that ignores the concerns expressed by 
our side and puts into stark relief the Republican leadership's 
priorities: pure, partisan politics.
  The only thing kept whole in this resolution is the one-sided, 
politically motivated, partisan investigation at the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight. And to ensure the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight has enough money, as I said before, 
$7.9 million set aside in a slush fund just in case.
  Mr. Speaker, in the Republican Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, the new star-chamber of campaign finance issues, there has 
been no input from the Democratic Members on the size and scope of this 
investigation; no input from Democratic Members on the issuing of 
subpoenas; no input from Democratic Members on how documents are to be 
handled in the committee; and, Mr. Speaker, it is not because the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], has not tried.
  The Senate was able to handle this issue in a bipartisan fashion. It 
is a shame their Republican counterparts in the House have not followed 
their example.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of the mud-
slinging and the cynical partisanship that is being carried on by the 
Republicans in this one-sided investigation. I call on my Republican 
colleagues to put an end to it. Everybody knows there are many better 
ways for this House to vote and spend millions of taxpayers' dollars 
that would make our constituents proud, Mr. Speaker. This is not one of 
them.

[[Page H1266]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Grand Rapids, MI [Mr. Ehlers], a member of the committee.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  The previous speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts, has so 
totally mischaracterized the issue before us that it is necessary for 
me to run through it once again and outline precisely what this 
resolution will do.
  First of all, it will establish funding for all committees, other 
than the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, until May 2, 
1997. This interim funding is to permit the committees to operate 
during the next month while we resolve some of the questions which were 
raised yesterday.
  Furthermore, it establishes for the entire 2-year cycle the funding 
for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight at a 2-year 
funding level of $20 million, including $3.8 million for investigative 
purposes in 1997 alone. Furthermore, it authorizes a reserve fund of 
$7.9 million for the entire 105th Congress.
  I also have to respond to the characterization of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts that this is a slush fund. I am from Michigan. I know 
what slush is. It is dirty, it is messy and it gets splashed all over. 
That may accurately characterize the way the Members on the other side 
of the aisle handled the money under the jurisdiction of the Committee 
on House Administration during their tenure, but this reserve fund is 
not a slush fund.
  This is going to be a tightly controlled reserve fund. It will be 
under the control of the Committee on House Oversight and it will be 
parceled out only when necessary and for appropriate purposes. That is 
certainly not a slush fund. It is out in the open. All decisions will 
be in the open, widely publicized, and not a slush fund of the type 
that we are familiar with from Congresses prior to the 104th.
  This resolution also provides that any increase in spending in the 
105th Congress, as compared to the 104th Congress, must be offset by 
spending decreases in other legislative branch activities. In other 
words, this is a zero sum in terms of funding. It is a very important 
provision, and that helps us fulfill our commitment to balancing the 
budget.
  Under this resolution, committee staff levels remain at one-third of 
the levels of the 103d Congress, continuing to fulfill the promise we 
made in the Contract With America more than 2 years ago.
  It is a good resolution. It freezes the current committee funding at 
its current level, which is also the level we had in the 104th 
Congress, and which is substantially below the level of the 103d 
Congress when the gentleman across the aisle was in charge.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge we adopt this resolution. It is fair, it is 
proper, and it will get us on the track to better government in this 
House and in this Nation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that if that $7.9 million is not a slush fund, I do not know 
what it is. It will be used for undisclosed purposes. It will be a fund 
that Members of this House will not be able to vote on. I note the 
Democrats never pocketed money away like that in this kind of 
legislation.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, if he can deny that charge.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
that if he looks at the National Taxpayers' Union ratings, he is listed 
as one of the biggest spenders in the Congress. And the same people are 
arguing this point?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, evidently, the 
gentleman just showed he has no answer.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I would have thought there would have 
been additional funds in this bill for medical needs of Members on the 
majority side who had their arms twisted yesterday. I have not been 
able to find that.
  They have done a fine job of it, I understand. They marched them in, 
they had them explain why they voted against it yesterday, and then 
they brought them back here all united. But let us make sure that the 
other side understands what they are united on.
  This is not a freeze. What this is is an increase over last year's 
spending. They can be for it or against it, but they cannot call it a 
freeze.

                              {time}  1045

  You increase spending on Mr. Burton's committee by $4.8 million, you 
increase with a slush fund of $7.9 million, and you have increased 
funding for the other committees in this bill before us today of $5.8 
million. So what you have here is an increase in funding. You can bring 
them home to your caucuses and tell them they have got to stay with the 
party line. You can tell them not to talk to the Democrats and try to 
work anything out, but you cannot call it a freeze.
  Now, you may be able to argue for the other committees in this 
Congress that they need those funds. I do not have a problem with that. 
Where we do have a problem is on a rogue operation that is being put 
together here to spend at least $4.8 million and possibly another $7.9 
million without dealing with the issues that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman] has raised.
  So let us get straight where we are today. You are going to vote for 
the same thing you voted for yesterday, minus half a million, because 
what it does is it continues the funding for the next several months, 
and if you follow that pattern you are not freezing spending.
  Now, if you want to be for an increase, vote for an increase. If you 
want to be for a slush fund, stand up and admit that you think you need 
a slush fund. But do not fool yourselves. This is not a freeze. What 
you are doing is you are taking yesterday's bill, you are moving the 
numbers around, and at the end of the day you are increasing spending 
over last year.
  Ask your own guys before you come up to vote. If you follow through 
the numbers that are in this program, if you continue what you have set 
up between now and May 2, will you spend the same amount of money as 
last year or will you spend more money than last year? And the answer 
is, you are spending more money than last year.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, for the new Members on both sides of the aisle, I am not 
one that demagogs this institution. As a matter of fact, I am very 
definitely opposed to demagoging this institution, on either side. 
Unfortunately, in the past we have seen that. It has denigrated the 
image of this institution with the American public.
  I will tell my colleagues on either side of the aisle that all of us, 
every one of us, is adversely impacted by that kind of debate, but we 
ought to be honest in the debate. And I want to say to my friends on 
your side of the aisle, particularly as you attacked or raised in 
pointed terms how we were not accurately funding the committees, and 
say to my friend from Michigan who says this is a freeze. It is not. 
There is $8,170,000 that under the Contract With America would have to 
have been included in this budget, because you said that what Democrats 
were doing were taking detailees from the Department of Energy, the 
Department of Defense and having them on committees and not accurately 
reflecting the expenditures of the committee.
  I will tell my friends, particularly those of you who voted ``no'' 
yesterday and who are for honesty in budgeting and putting before the 
American public what the expenses of the committee are. We have changed 
that policy just 22 months after it was so proudly adopted, where the 
committee last Congress said that committees would have to fund their 
detailees. We have now included back detailees off budget, so your 
committees that you are going to fund in this bill can spend $8,170,000 
beyond what is in this budget.
  If that is what you meant by reform, if that is what you meant by the 
Contract With America, I think some of us

[[Page H1267]]

were deceived, and frankly I think some of you were deceived. For that 
reason this is clearly not a freeze.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time and closing on that 
point, you are spending $18.5 million more than last year.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Winter Park, FL [Mr. Mica], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil 
Service.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the other side would have you believe that we are being 
unfair in this process as far as funding. I serve on the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight. I came to the floor back in 1993 and 
1994 and asked for fairness. We were given initially 5 investigative 
staff, and this is when they controlled the White House, the House and 
the other body, 5 investigative staff to their 55 staffers. It was 
finally brought up to 12. But let me tell my colleagues that we provide 
for 25 percent staffing for the minority under our proposal. Is that 
fair? I just ask, are we being unfair?
  They would also have my colleagues believe that the reason for last 
night's delay was that some of us were opposed to the investigation or 
that we caused these problems by investigating. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. This is the responsibility of the House and 
this House Investigations and Oversight Committee to do this task. It 
has been that task since the early 1800's, when the predecessor of this 
committee was formed.
  Let me read you this morning's paper about why we need these funds 
and what these funds will be used for. And this is not what I say. This 
is what is in the paper this morning:

       The Clintons and their administration are submerged in what 
     one Democrat activist has called a scandal of unprecedented 
     proportions: China-gate, Lippo-gate, Campaign-gate, File-
     gate, Travel-gate, Whitewater-gate, the illegal 
     naturalization of alien criminals in order to swell 
     Democratic voter rolls, IRS-political-auditing-gate, Waco, 
     Ruby Ridge, Reno-gate, Espy-gate, Ron Brown-gate, Paula 
     Jones-gate, Lincoln-bedroom-gate, an FBI director who admits 
     he lied to Congress, special prosecutors, congressional 
     investigations, disgrace Presidential appointees, and 
     innumerable first couple utterances of ``I don't recall'' 
     swirl in such profusion around the Presidency that only 
     rocket scientists can keep up with it all.

  That is why we need these funds. To accuse us of creating a slush 
fund, when I saved over $200,000 in my first 2 years and it went into a 
fund that we never saw again, not to mention the banking scandal, the 
post office scandal, I mean this other side of the aisle created the 
term ``slush funds'' with their actions.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what we are here for.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to ask my colleague from Florida what paper he is 
quoting.
  Mr. MICA. If the gentleman will yield, I am quoting columnist Paul 
Craig Roberts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. What paper?
  Mr. MICA. I do not have the title of the paper. It was just given to 
me.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. The Washington Times. A very liberal newspaper, very 
well read, well accepted.
  Mr. SOLOMON. It happens to be a very good newspaper, too, my friend.
  Mr. MICA. At least someone tells the truth.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have seen the last 2 days unfortunately seems to 
be a metaphor for what this term in Congress is going to be like. You 
have a small group on the extreme right of the Republican Party 
dictating policy to everybody else. We had a proposal last night. 
Eleven people, twelve people said, do it our way or no way, and you 
succumbed.
  Now, what is it that united this party? Well, if you take the 
rhetoric of this budget, what you are saying, and the gentleman from 
Florida corroborates it, you do not want to legislate, you do not want 
to get things done, you do not want to come to the center and try and 
deal with the problems of America. All you want to do is investigate.
  When a party is divided, when you cannot come to any substantive 
agreements on virtually any issue, haul out a whole bunch of 
investigative committees. That is what you have done. That is the only 
thing that can bring the votes here. We are going to see that, my 
colleagues, again and again and again. And then even worst of all, it 
is hypocritical, because you know you cannot budget with a freeze. You 
know you cannot do the job. So you tell those Members it is a freeze, 
but it really is not, as has been pointed out before.
  I am afraid we are in for 2 rough years of sledding. I am afraid, 
seeing what I have seen here, that we are going to have an extremist 
small group dictate policy on the floor of the House, that there will 
be no interest in coming to the center and legislating and that to 
cover up the fractured differences of the other party, we are going to 
spend a lot of time doing a lot of dances about investigation, 
investigation, investigation when we all know the Congress is the worst 
place to investigate these kinds of things because partisan clouds hang 
over every investigation.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Falls 
Church, VA [Mr. Davis].
  (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. If Congress is not the one to be investigating 
this, maybe some of my colleagues would join with us in calling for a 
special prosecutor on some of these areas, that we clear that up 
instead of Congress having to do the work. But let me make a couple of 
points.
  The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, which I think has 
been greatly maligned this morning. Under the 103d Congress, when we 
were still in a minority, it then comprised one committee. In the 104th 
Congress we combined it into three committees from the old Congress, 
the Post Office and Civil Service and the District of Columbia 
Committee. Under the funding currently proposed, we are at 75 percent 
for the committees of what the funding was in the 103d Congress, even 
with all of the additional money that is being given for 
investigations; on a trail, I might add, that leads to China, to Cuba, 
to Guam, to Hawaii, to Hong Kong, to Indonesia, to Paraguay, to South 
Korea, to Taiwan, to Thailand, to the Ukraine and Vietnam, very 
extensive investigation, multilanguages involved. Still even with these 
and the combining, 75 percent of the level that was funded in the 103d 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak in favor of the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, 
the gentleman from Poland, OH [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I voted with the Democrats yesterday and 
most Republicans toed the line and we are seeing party discipline, but 
we are not seeing the Congress governing. $7.9 million, I do not know 
if it is a slush fund or an investment. But let me remind Congress as 
we speak that China got a sweetheart deal in Long Beach, CA; China is 
getting a United States guaranteed, Government backed loan of $138 
million in Alabama; a Chinese company was just awarded a $250 million 
contract even though they have been convicted of smuggling AK-47's into 
America; and as we speak, a company with ties to China will operate 
both ports on each end of the Panama Canal that United States taxpayers 
built. Personally, I think both parties are debating a fly on their 
face while a Communist dragon is eating our assets here.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for the rule today. I am going to 
vote for the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, $7.9 million is nothing compared to a $20 billion trade 
deficit last month in manufactured goods and products. China in the 
last 2 months has amassed $10 billion in trade surpluses. Enough is 
enough. Look at the impact in our State alone. Two thousand five 
hundred workers are being laid off by Ford Motor Co. in Lorain, OH. 
They have cited imports.

                              {time}  1100

  Goodyear Tire Co., Akron, OH, cutting 150 workers and moving their 
plant to Chile. Enough is enough.

[[Page H1268]]

  And the Department of Labor, they tell us, ``Don't worry; there's 
high tech jobs there.''
  Look at the Department of Labor manual for new jobs:
  Handkerchief folder;
  Corncob pipe assembler;
  Hooker inspector; and
  Pantyhose crotch closer.
  And if they get a degree, they could become a pantyhose crotch closer 
supervisor.
  Enough is enough.
  Let me say this to both parties: I think there are more Americans 
that are tired of the Democrat-Republican business. They want us to 
vote for what they think is best for the country. What I think is best 
for the country is to give a bull dog, rather than demean him, a bull 
dog like the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the opportunity to 
get to the bottom of this Chinese mess, regardless who is in the White 
House, Democrat or Republican.
  Now that may not make friends, but I appreciate the time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier] if he has any speakers.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we are looking for speakers to counter all 
the speakers that the gentleman has. There are Members who are anxious 
to talk only if they are.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I think we could have saved a lot of time, Mr. Speaker, 
if the Democrats were allowed into the Republican caucus yesterday 
because that convincing argument that changed those 11 Members may have 
changed all of us.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, ``If you want 
peace, seek justice. The wisdom of that ancient maxim seems to have 
been completely lost on the Republican leadership of this House. They 
want peace, they want smiling Democrats at peace on this floor as 
accomplices to most any injustice that they want to promote. They 
wanted peace on the opening day of this Congress when instead of 
adopting a democratic proposal to ask the committee to come back on 
April 7 with a proposal to reform the campaign finance system, they 
rejected that, and indeed that committee will not even begin its work 
by April 7 on doing something about the money chase. They wanted peace 
on the opening day of this session when they demanded that their own 
Members elect the Speaker who was himself a ``pioneer'' in tax free 
campaign finance. And of course they wanted peace, indeed they want a 
pat on the back, . . .
  Yes, this Republican leadership tells us today----
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Member's words 
be taken down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. [Mr. LaTourette]. A point of order has been 
raised. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] will please resume his 
seat, and the Clerk will report the words objected to.

                              {time}  1107

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the Parliamentarian that 
there can be no reference . . . and so I withdraw that part of my 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaTourette]. Is there objection to the 
request?
  There was no objection.
  The gentleman from Texas may proceed in order and he has 1 minute 
remaining on the time yielded to him.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is against this background of false 
peace that today we are asked to focus entirely on alleged wrongdoing 
at the White House. For myself, I want a thorough and complete 
investigation of that alleged wrongdoing at the White House. In fact, 
we can investigate until our heart's content, so long as we apply the 
same level of scrutiny to this House that we apply to the White House.
  Indeed, I suggest to all of my colleagues that they remember the 
injunction that is found in chapter 6 of Luke when it was said, ``How 
canst thou say to thy brother, `Brother, let me pull out the mote that 
is in thine eye,' when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in 
thy own eye. Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own 
eye and then shall thy see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy 
brother's eye.''
  The problem today is that there seems to be a little bit more 
interest in pulling out ``motes'' than in focusing on the ``beams'' 
that are a little closer to home. Instead of building on the legitimate 
public concern on what happened on both sides of the political process 
in the recent election, that election and that public concern is being 
used to block and prevent any real reform. That is what this 
investigation is all about.
  Do not legislate reform, investigate and point fingers at the other 
side. We need thorough scrutiny, but it needs to be scrutiny aimed at 
peace and justice. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, true peace 
is not merely the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice, 
and until we get justice, there will be tension.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
controls 17\3/4\ minutes; the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] has 10\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise just to see if I got this straight. Yesterday we 
heard some very interesting arguments about interpreting the rules of 
this House so broadly that the potential scope of the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, according to folks on 
the other side, knows no bounds whatsoever and that the committee 
should, indeed can and indeed should, as they say on the other side, 
investigate all sorts of things. We have heard additional ones this 
morning perhaps that they want the committee to go into.
  I think I have that right on their side, and I think also I have 
right their position on the other side that the modest increase in 
funds that we are proposing in funds on this resolution to the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is too much money. So on 
the one hand, they want the most expansive reading of the jurisdiction 
of this committee, and on the other hand, they do not want the funds to 
do it. Something is not right here, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] did not really 
have it right. We were not concerned that the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight should not investigate everything, but the excuse 
was being made that the reason they did not go to certain areas is 
because they did not have jurisdiction. I just wanted to point out in 
the law that they did have investigative jurisdiction to where they 
were asked to look. That is all.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, to my distinguished member of 
the Committee on Rules, I think what we are trying to do here on the 
Democratic side is just to provide a little light and a little 
education on what my colleagues may have gleaned from their meeting 
yesterday. I wish, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] 
had said, we might have been flies in the room possibly to understand 
why this overall change of mind.
  I have several points to make. One, I believe the gentleman who 
talked about creating jobs in America, that is an important issue, and 
I will simply ask my colleagues to think about the kind of money that 
they are giving the chairman to investigate the President of the United 
States and the abuses that they say have occurred, and yet not putting 
on the floor of the House real campaign finance reform.
  If they take the $15 million that they are now spending, and I might 
say, I thought my colleagues on the other side would come back and at 
least bring that number down, but that is $1 per 15 million people in 
the United States of America. If they take 30 million people in the 
United States of America, they have to pay 50 cents for this one-sided 
investigation.

[[Page H1269]]

  Then we find out that the Senate spent only $1.8 million for White 
House, $5 million was spent on the House and Senate Iran-Contra 
investigations, and $6.9 million was spent on the Senate Watergate 
investigation.
  I cannot understand why we have an investigation where there is no 
due process, where the chairman can unilaterally issue subpoenas, where 
the chairman can unilaterally secure documents and then issue the 
documents publicly. There is no protection, there is no committee 
oversight, there is no combined effort, and we are giving $15 million, 
$15 million. United States citizens must pay $1; 30 million citizens 
must pay 50 cents in order to create this slush fund.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply say we can solve all of the problems, create 
jobs, by bringing real campaign finance reform to the House, 
investigating all of us, and making sure that the abuses against the 
American people are not rendered by one person, subpoena power 
unilateral, document issuers unilateral.
  Where is the due process in this whole process? Where are the 
American people in this process? Real campaign finance reform is the 
real issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 91, the 
committee funding resolution, because it is fatally flawed and grossly 
biased in four fundamental areas: First, the chairman's authority to 
issue subpoenas without a committee vote; second, the chairman's 
authority to release privileged and confidential documents; third, the 
scope of the investigation; and fourth, the budget allocation of the 
committee.
  On the chairman's authority to issue subpoenas: Never before in the 
history of the Government of the United States of America, neither in 
the Senate, nor in the House, has a chairman of a standing committee, 
or any other committee, ad hoc or otherwise, exercised the power to 
unilaterally issue subpoena, without a vote of the committee or the 
approval of the ranking member.
  The power to issue a subpoena is one that should be held by the 
entire committee, not just the chairman. There is a reason that several 
members from both sides serve on a committee. The purpose is to allow 
for a balanced, fair representation of issues and views.
  Mr. Speaker, the model for our system of Government is that of a 
democracy, not a monarchy. Democratic principals should be reflected in 
every aspect of our governmental systems and should be reflected in the 
way in which Congress does the business of the American people. Thus, 
the decision to issue a subpoena should be reserved for the several 
members of the committee, not just the chairman.
  The potential for abuse of this increasing power is enormous. No less 
than 30 subpoenas have already been unilaterally issued by the 
chairman. There are no safeguards in place to check the abuse of this 
roaming power. The unilateral issuing of these 30 unnecessary subpoenas 
clearly shows that there is no doubt that the chairman will abuse this 
unfounded privilege.
  No established rules of congressional precedents have been followed 
in the issuing of upward of 30 subpoenas. We must not allow a chairman 
to randomly issue subpoenas.
  The nature of the subpoenas issued is most troubling. They seek to 
compel the production of extraordinarily sensitive national security 
and foreign policy documents that have absolutely no bearing on the 
substance of the committee's work and oversight.
  This is a gross abuse of power. This is a witch hunt in the making 
with no end in sight. Chairman Burton has issued subpoenas for all 
phone records from Air Force One and Air Force Two, which include phone 
calls made by the President and his national security team to heads of 
state on sensitive foreign policy negotiations.
  Additionally, the chairman has issued subpoenas for all records of 
visitors to the White House residence for the past 4 years. This is a 
gross invasion of privacy which makes no exception for Chelsea 
Clinton's friends, relatives of the first family, or visits by doctors 
or clergy.
  The chairman has issued subpoenas for the production of documents 
from the Democratic National Committee. This shows the pure partisan 
motives of the chairman and amounts to nothing more than an abuse of 
power. The chairman has requested the production of documents that have 
no place within the scope of the committee's scope of investigation.
  If we allow the chairman of a committee to issue subpoenas solely on 
his own authority, then it will amount to nothing more than a witch 
hunt and a gross waste of time for the Congress and the people of the 
United States.

  No one would be safe. There is no doubt that it would return us to 
the infamous days of the Red scare McCarthy hearings. The entire 
country was held hostage by misplaced power. But even then, it was not 
the chairman who acted alone in acting, it was a committee. How much 
more would the lives of hard-working Americans be violently disrupted 
by a power hungry, overzealous chairman of a committee who has the 
power to drag Americans before a committee.
  On authority to unilaterally release documents: The chairman wants 
the power to unilaterally release these documents once he gets them. 
This is, without question, an abuse of power and a violation of the 
longstanding customs of the House. No committee chairman has ever been 
given the power that Chairman Burton seeks.
  This will allow the chairman to release documents, without anyone 
else's consent, that are submitted to the committee. This includes 
confidential financial records and trade secrets, medical histories and 
other personal records of individuals.
  If given the inordinant power that the chairman seeks, he will be 
allowed to release the names of confidential FBI informants and other 
confidential law enforcement information, as well as privileged 
attorney-client communications.
  Neither in Whitewater, nor in Iran-Contra investigations did a 
chairman have this type of unilateral authority. The sensitive nature 
of privileged documents demands that they be kept secret.
  On the proposed budget for the investigation: One of the most 
ridiculous aspects of this resolution is the proposed budget for the 
Committee on Government Reform, which is over $20 million. This is 
nearly a 50-percent increase of $6.5 million from the budget in the 
104th Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this legislative session, the word 
bipartisanship was promoted by both Democrats and Republicans alike.
  Eighteen standing committees of the House and the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence each depends upon this resolution for its 
funding authorization.
  The Government Reform and Oversight Committee's reserve funds will 
weigh in at between $12 to $15 million for one purpose and one purpose 
alone--to waste the taxpayer money and time on bogus hearings on 
Democratic fundraising activities for last year's election. These 
hearings will be nothing more than Gestapo tactics and Red scare 
threats to try and hang all of the problems of campaign fundraising on 
the backs of hard-working Democrats.
  The Government Reform Committee proposes that it will only use $3.8 
million for the investigation of Democratic fundraising. It does not 
make a difference if it is $15, $3, or $1 million. It is still a gross 
waste of taxpayer money.
  In comparison to other investigations, the $12 to $15 million 
available to the Government Reform Committee for the campaign finance 
investigation also far exceeds the $1.8 million spent on the 
Senate Whitewater investigation, the $5 million spent on the House and 
Senate Iran-Contra investigations, and the $6.9 million spent on the 
Senate Watergate investigation. after adjusting for investigation.

  The official policy of the House Oversight Committee is that ``all 
committees should allocate at least one-third of the resources to the 
minority.'' This particular allocation is not being met in the 
Government Reform Committee.
  To add insult to injury, the rules of the Government Reform Committee 
require that the committee budget be prepared in consultation with the 
minority. However, despite repeated requests, the majority did not 
consult with the minority in preparing the proposed committee budget. 
In fact, the minority was not provided a copy of the budget until 2 
weeks after its submission to the House Oversight Committee.
  Scope of Investigations: If we are to hold the executive branch to a 
standard of conduct then we should hold this Congress to the same 
standard of conduct. This includes both parties--not just the 
Democrats.
  The limited scope of the investigation proposed by this resolution 
prevents any scrutiny of campaign finance abuses in Congress. Under 
this approach the committee would be precluded from investigating 
illegal or improper fundraising activities such as: The use of 
congressional buildings or telephones for nonprofit organizations to 
circumvent ``hard money'' limits, the solicitation of illegal ``hard 
money'' corporate contributions, the use of congressional campaign 
committees to transfer improper campaign contributions, and improper 
foreign contributions to Members of Congress, among others. There are 
grounds for investigating this area of the House.
  House Resolution 91 states that the scope of the investigation will 
be limited to fundraising improprieties and possible violations of law 
by executive branch officials and the Government agencies in the 1996 
Presidential campaign.
  In stark contrast, the Senate voted 99 to 0 in favor of an 
investigation of illegal or improper activities in connection with 1996 
Federal election campaigns. Unlike the proposed

[[Page H1270]]

House investigation, the Senate investigation is not limited to alleged 
abuses by the executive branch, but will also examine abuses in 
congressional campaigns. Also real campaign finance reform can be done 
by passing bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation this year.
  In opposing House Resolution 91--this is our opportunity to do what 
the American people sent us here to do--act in their best interest and 
make laws that improve the lives of Americans. To do otherwise, is to 
levy a gross injustice on the backs of the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the passage of this resolution 
and protect the American people. House Resolution 91 violates the 
spirit of bipartisanship and fairness that the Republicans were so fond 
of promoting just a few weeks ago; it is a divisive partisan effort 
that will only result in gridlock; and because it is a gross waste of 
taxpayer money that could readily be spent on the children or the 
disenfranchised in America.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good 
friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].
  (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would submit that campaign finance 
reform is not the issue. One of the previous speakers said, if we want 
peace, seek justice. Justice is exactly what we intend to seek.
  The question is, why is the Democrat leadership trying to turn the 
investigation away from the Clinton administration? Here is what they 
are trying to divert our attention away from.
  The President held 103 fund-raising coffees and 58 receptions and 
dinners at the White House. Here are a few of the disreputable 
individuals they invited:
  Wang Jun, the director of a Chinese arms trading company under 
investigation for illegally shipping 2,000 fully automatic, Chinese-
made AK-47's to the United States, a guest at the White House.
  Jorge Gordito Cabrera, a convicted felon currently serving 19 years 
in prison for conspiring to smuggle 6,000 pounds of cocaine into the 
United States, another guest of the President and Mrs. Clinton at the 
White House.
  Eric Wynn, another convicted felon whose company, Wireless Advantage, 
gave $25,000 to the Democratic National Committee 2 days before Wynn 
had coffee at the White House. Wynn, who had already served 2 years in 
prison for a scheme that may have benefited the Bonanno crime family, 
is reported to have been seeking a pardon from the President. He was at 
the White House.
  Gregori Loutchansky, chairman of NORDEX, an Austria-based company, 
``associated with Russian criminal activity,'' according to former CIA 
director, John Deutch, who refused to further discuss the company in an 
open hearing. He was at the White House.
  Mr. Speaker, everybody was not doing this. Let us not get distracted 
from where the real scandal is. Mr. Speaker, we ought to vote to fund 
the investigation led by a valiant, honorable, courageous, fearless 
man, Chairman Dan Burton, who will get to the bottom of this. I fully 
support this rules resolution, and the resolution to come after it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I understand that everybody is racing to get 
out of here, but I have to think that this is going to be one of the 
most fateful votes that we are going to cast today; I have a feeling 
that in years to come, there are many in this Chamber that are going to 
rue the day that this vote was cast.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been a Member of this body and the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight for 14 years. I am proud of that, and I 
am proud of the bipartisanship that has always characterized the 
investigations of that committee.
  However, with this resolution what happens is, as I understand it, 
all committees but one come back in 30 days and the Congress acts on 
their resolution again. There is only one that gets clear sailing, gets 
its amount, and that is the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight.
  No one disagrees with the need of the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight, which is an investigative committee, to do the 
investigation that needs to be done, whether it be the White House, the 
DNC, or Congress. Well, no, we all agree that there needs to be an 
investigation; whom it covers is something else.
  I am sad for another reason, because when this resolution passes, Mr. 
Speaker, there is given to the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight unbridled authority, authority that I have never seen, never 
seen exercised. Certainly in 14 years I have never seen the unilateral 
issuance of subpoenas, not even the consultation of the minority, much 
less a vote of the full committee. I have never seen the kind of 
trickling out in release of documents at the authority of the Chair of 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. I have never seen a 
committee so eager to investigate one group of alleged abuses, those at 
the DNC and White House, perhaps, but yet at the same time refuse to 
investigate other alleged areas.
  Make no mistake about it. In the flood of allegations of campaign 
improprieties, the waters do not stop at the White House porch. They 
are also lapping at the steps of Congress, and yet this committee, the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, will be given the 
authority to do one and not the other.
  Yes, I have heard about how it does not have the authority. It has 
the investigative authority to conduct a full investigation. And even 
if it does not in some people's minds, will somebody tell me what the 
schedule for investigations into congressional improprieties is? There 
is no other committee that intends to get into that.
  MR. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer].
  (Mr. ARCHER asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)


          Removal of Name of Member as Cosponsor of H.R. 1055

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be 
removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1055. By clerical error in my office, my 
name was unfortunately added to that bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, can the Speaker notify the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier] and myself of the remaining time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
has 14\1/4\ minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] 
has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague from California [Mr. 
Doolittle] say that campaign finance reform is not the issue here. I 
think the issue is campaign finance reform. What is happening here with 
this funding resolution is essentially that the Republican leadership 
is coming up with a great diversionary tactic where they will spend a 
year or perhaps 2 years at great expense to the taxpayers, essentially 
to do a probe of the White House, but at the same time they are not 
willing to open up this investigation to Democrats and Republicans in 
Congress.
  There is no question in my mind about why this is happening. For one, 
we have the chairman of the committee, the chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, who should be stepping aside. Many of 
the newspapers, the Washington Post: ``Mr. Burton Should Step Aside.'' 
But he does not want to open it up to a full investigation that would 
look at congressional campaign practices, because the first person they 
would have to investigate is himself.

                              {time}  1120

  So do not tell me that campaign finance reform is not the issue. They 
do not want to bring up the issue of campaign finance reform.
  Day after day on the floor of this House, Democrats, including 
myself, have asked the Republican leadership to bring up campaign 
finance reform, to have a debate on campaign finance reform, and so far 
there has not even been a hearing in this House on campaign finance 
reform. But we can spend the next year or two looking and investigating 
the White House in a blatant partisan way at tremendous cost to the 
American taxpayer.

[[Page H1271]]

  I just want to say, many of the Republicans who will vote for this 
resolution today came to Congress promising to shake up the institution 
and change the way this House does business. How can they vote for this 
resolution that throws up to $11 million to an investigation that no 
one can claim is credible, due to the fact that the chairman of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight now has his own 
fundraising controversy that needs to be investigated?
  If Members vote yes on this resolution, they are voting to waste 
millions in taxpayer dollars. They are voting to support the chairman 
of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, who all but 
admitted to appealing to the Ambassador of Pakistan for campaign 
contributions. They are voting for business as usual.
  If Members vote for this resolution, I would say to my colleagues, 
congratulations, because they become part of the problem.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Del Mar, California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would think that my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle would like to at least take a look at this in the committee 
of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. Maybe we can do it a 
different way.
  In my State, Cosco, a Chinese-owned and operated shipping company, 
has just been awarded to take over the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. Cosco 
is the same company that just took out the pier in New Orleans. It is 
the same company, I would say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer], who passionately believes against assault weapons, and that 
we have too many weapons in this country, which we do; it is the same 
company that smuggled in the AK-47's, 2,000 of them, the same kinds of 
fully automatic weapon that was used in the Los Angeles bank robbery 2 
weeks ago.
  We have M-2's and grenade launchers that are going down to Mexico 
City out of Long Beach and could affect, in the next 90 days, the 
elections to put an anti-United States legislature within the Mexican 
Government and destroy anything, or the gains we have made.
  The Coast Guard has violated Cosco six times this year and designated 
them unsafe. Yet both the arms dealer and Cosco gave money to the DNC, 
the President went along with Long Beach to go ahead and certify them, 
and at the same time this is the same company that is going to occupy, 
as of last week, both ends of the Panama Canal.
  Remember last year when the Chinese went after Taiwan and shot 
missiles? They made this statement: Do you prefer Los Angeles or 
Taiwan? I think that is a national security interest that my friends 
would want to look into. That is why we are asking to take a look at 
this, because we feel it is a very important national security issue, 
not even a campaign issue.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, so much for Hershey. The wisdom of the Constitution has 
been the division of powers between judicial, legislative, and 
executive branches of Government into separate and distinct parts. 
Congress has always had broad investigative powers, but these powers 
have been tempered by the hard-earned lessons of the judicial branch 
enshrined in the traditions of the grand jury.
  A grand jury looks at an event, the evidence, and facts surrounding 
it. It has no presumptions. It is impartial. Releasing information 
presented to a grand jury is a felony. No special prosecutor, no 
attorney, no local prosecutor has the authority to issue subpoenas, 
investigate individuals, and then release this information without 
bringing criminal charges. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] 
should not have that power either.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for millions of taxpayers' 
dollars to invoke powers and authority not even sought by Joseph 
McCarthy of Wisconsin, who has not brought credit to this institution 
by his investigative practices. The concentration of such power and 
authority is unwise and impairs the ability to judge fairly. It is an 
abuse of power.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution exceeds anything that the Founding 
Fathers contemplated as far as the appropriate investigative role of 
the Congress. We do not allow prosecutors to destroy individual rights 
of privacy, to publicize sensitive information. We certainly should not 
give millions of dollars to a congressional committee to do so. If 
Members are going to give such expansive powers, why are they so afraid 
of including themselves in such an investigative oversight?
  Republicans do not seek justice in this process, as we have heard, 
they seek retribution. This is not about prosecution, this is about 
persecution. A government of the people and by the people must have 
certain controls. Let us not make this investigation into one in which 
the integrity of the House is at stake.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman 
from Stephensburg, Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to just say to my colleagues across the 
aisle that in defense of their party, they remind me of the fox coming 
out of the chickenhouse with chickens all under his arms and getting 
caught, and saying: We have to do something about that lock. But in the 
meantime, we have to investigate the farmer, because he has been 
getting chickens out of that henhouse, also.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the way it is. Get real. There are problems that 
stink to high heaven in the DNC and in the White House, and we need to 
get to the bottom of it. When there are problems like that on this 
side, let us know and we will try to do something about it, also.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaTourette]. The gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. MORAN) is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it is wrong for the House to give 
the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton, twice as much to conduct a 
partisan investigation of one branch of Government as the Senate has 
provided Senator Thompson to look at both branches of Government in a 
bipartisan manner. That is our objection.
  Mr. Speaker, I served with my friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Burton] 5 years ago when he was the ranking 
Republican on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. We were 
looking into the fact that the Bush White House had spent millions of 
dollars on Air Force One and staff to do partisan fundraising around 
the country.
  The American taxpayers were supposed to be reimbursed. They were not. 
We had one trip down to Florida that cost the taxpayers hundreds of 
thousands of dollars to campaign for Republican candidates. The 
Republican National Committee reimbursed the taxpayers $316. We had 
another one up and down the west coast, for Republican Senate 
candidates that cost nearly $1 million. The RNC reimbursed about $600 
to the taxpayer.
  We asked for the official travel logs to do an adequate 
investigation. The gentleman from Indiana said no, he did not want the 
White House to release any such information. At the time, he said, ``If 
you suggest that the White House has done anything wrong, you should 
bring charges, not hold partisan hearings.'' That is the quote from my 
friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. He also said later on 
when we exposed even worse abuses on the part of the Bush White House, 
that the Congress should investigate its own problems before launching 
a fishing expedition on the executive branch.
  I would suggest the gentleman from Indiana should take that statement 
to heart, to investigate the serious improprieties that were alleged in 
the Washington Post this week, where a current committee chairman, Mr. 
Burton, shook down a lobbyist for campaign money and retaliated against 
that person when he did not raise enough. We have allegations that the 
Republican leadership is making a friends and enemies list of lobbyists 
they will and will not talk to.


[[Page H1272]]


  Roll Call reports that the House Republican leadership is retaliating 
against groups and individuals who contribute to Democrats. We have a 
systematic process by which the Republican leadership has intimidated 
and retaliated against people and organizations who don't contribute 
enough to them.
  To put a stop to such abuses this committee need not look down the 
mall at the President, but at themselves in the mirror.
  We have a chance to forever change the system and enact campaign 
finance reform. Instead, this resolution will perpetuate the poisonous 
atmosphere that only contributes to our own demise and the cynicism of 
the voters.
  We must vote this resolution down and place our priorities where they 
belong--in legislation and working to improve the lives of our 
constituents rather than finger pointing and partisan warfare.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not fair. It is not right. Reject this 
resolution.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have come to what I think is a very fair and balanced 
compromise on this issue. We have tried not to consume our entire 
amount of time because we know both Democrats and Republicans are 
anxious to get moving, since we have already gone beyond the target 
adjournment date of yesterday.
  Mr. Speaker, to close our debate, but not to use the entire amount of 
time, because I know he will not do that, I am very pleased to yield 
such time as he may consume to my dear friend, the gentleman from 
Bakersfield, CA [Mr. Thomas], chairman of the Committee on House 
Oversight.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, where was I? Yes, I remember, I was talking 
about democracy and majority rule. As a matter of fact, that is the way 
we make decisions in our constitutional Republic.
  I did not realize how prophetic the introduction of my friend, the 
gentleman from California, yesterday was in talking about the 
opportunity to explain the Connecticut Compromise, that great 
compromise that allowed this Government to actually begin to function. 
The ability to create a more perfect union was based upon compromise.
  To differ is human, but the genius of American politics is that we 
have created a system that allows us to resolve those differences. It 
is compromise. Yesterday we tried and we failed. Trying and failing is 
not failure. Failing to try is failure.
  Mr. Speaker, the other side used some relatively harsh words today. 
We know the system that they created in trying to fund and run this 
institution, in which half of the money for funding committees was 
never looked at in a public hearing so that the American people knew 
what was going on. We are offering a more perfect system. The reserve 
fund is that.
  But they have used harsh words today: ``Slush fund,'' ``hypocrisy,'' 
``extremist.'' I could go on. My friends say they want to work 
together, but their choice of words really makes it harder to do so. 
But as they say, tomorrow is another day, and we look forward to 
working with them tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, for those colleagues on my side of the aisle 
who, as individuals, reminded us that we all have to work together to 
be a majority, I thank the gentlemen for reminding us that we do have 
to include individuals. This system was created on the basis of 
individuals, and a majority comes together as a collection of 
individuals. I want to thank them for allowing the American system to 
work.
  Mr. Speaker, I will ask for the support of the previous question and 
a ``yes'' on the rule. The majority is working. The Republic is safe.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 179, not voting 35, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 69]

                               YEAS--218

     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
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     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
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     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
     Neumann
     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
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schiff
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--179

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Condit
     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
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

[[Page H1273]]



                             NOT VOTING--35

     Andrews
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Buyer
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Flake
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Lipinski
     Meehan
     Nadler
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Rothman
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Stark
     Thornberry
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Wexler

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. BROWN of California and Mr. POMEROY changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 105, the House will now consider the resolution (House 
Resolution 91) providing amounts for the expenses of certain committees 
of the House of Representatives in the 105th Congress.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of House Resolution 91 is as follows:

                               H. Res. 91

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. COMMITTEE EXPENSES FOR THE ONE HUNDRED FIFTH 
                   CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--With respect to the One Hundred Fifth 
     Congress, there shall be paid out of the applicable accounts 
     of the House of Representatives, in accordance with this 
     primary expense resolution, not more than the amount 
     specified in subsection (b) for the expenses (including the 
     expenses of all staff salaries) of each committee named in 
     that subsection.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $7,792,162.00; Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 
     $9,414,784.53; Committee on the Budget, $9,940,000; Committee 
     on Commerce, $14,671,538; Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce, $10,569,157; Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight, $20,020,572; Committee on House Oversight, 
     $6,160,946; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
     $4,939,526.00; Committee on International Relations, 
     $11,150,892; Committee on the Judiciary, $12,037,046; 
     Committee on National Security, $10,668,640; Committee on 
     Resources, $10,418,537; Committee on Rules, $4,649,102; 
     Committee on Science, $9,128,727.44; Committee on Small 
     Business, $4,099,817; Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct, $2,439,300; Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, $14,096,282; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
     $5,744,757; and Committee on Ways and Means, $11,163,529.

     SEC. 2. FIRST SESSION LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Of the amount provided for in section 1 
     for each committee named in subsection (b), not more than the 
     amount specified in such subsection shall be available for 
     expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
     January 3, 1997, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 1998.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $3,851,039.00; Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 
     $4,568,817.48; Committee on the Budget, $4,970,000; Committee 
     on Commerce, $7,179,440; Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce, $5,227,342; Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight, $11,702,573; Committee on House Oversight, 
     $3,133,200; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
     $2,420,040.00; Committee on International Relations, 
     $5,433,555; Committee on the Judiciary, $5,732,403; Committee 
     on National Security, $5,145,928; Committee on Resources, 
     $5,058,524; Committee on Rules, $2,306,407; Committee on 
     Science, $4,519,172.00; Committee on Small Business, 
     $2,014,818; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
     $1,237,300; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
     $7,042,725; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $2,744,855; and 
     Committee on Ways and Means, $5,472,622.

     SEC. 3. SECOND SESSION LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Of the amount provided for in section 1 
     for each committee named in subsection (b), not more than the 
     amount specified in such subsection shall be available for 
     expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
     January 3, 1998, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 1999.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $3,941,123.00; Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 
     $4,845,967.05; Committee on the Budget, $4,970,000; Committee 
     on Commerce, $7,492,098; Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce, $5,341,815; Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight, $8,317,999; Committee on House Oversight, 
     $3,027,746; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
     $2,519,486.00; Committee on International Relations, 
     $5,717,337; Committee on the Judiciary, $6,304,643; Committee 
     on National Security, $5,522,712; Committee on Resources, 
     $5,360,013; Committee on Rules, $2,342,695; Committee on 
     Science, $4,609,555.44; Committee on Small Business, 
     $2,084,999; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
     $1,202,000; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
     $7,053,557; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $2,999,902; and 
     Committee on Ways and Means, $5,690,907.

     SEC. 4. VOUCHERS.

       Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
     authorized by the committee involved, signed by the chairman 
     of such committee, and approved in the manner directed by the 
     Committee on House Oversight.

     SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.

       Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
     expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
     Committee on House Oversight.

     SEC. 6. RESERVE FUND FOR UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES.

       There is hereby established a reserve fund for 
     unanticipated expenses of committees for the One Hundred 
     Fifth Congress. Amounts in the fund shall be paid to a 
     committee pursuant to an allocation approved by the Committee 
     on House Oversight.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 105, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] and the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a continued discussion about the way the House 
should be run. If you will recall in our discussions yesterday and 
today on the rule, the last time the Democrats controlled the House, 
the funds for the committee total were about $223 million. 
Notwithstanding the more than $220 million, the resources available to 
the minority and the total number of staff were always an argumentative 
point.
  One of the concerns that a number of us in the minority had was 
Congress after Congress, when the ranking member would appear before 
the then-Committee on House Administration, the chairman of the 
committee would say: Well, I would like to give my friend on the other 
side of the aisle what he is asking for, but of course it cannot come 
out of our resources. The only way the Members of the minority would be 
able to get the one additional staffer which would then raise the 
number that the minority would have from five to six, would be to 
increase the committee budget so that they could pay for that staffer.

  What happened over a number of Congresses was that the staff on the 
committees grew. Ostensibly to provide the minority with some 
assistance, but for some reason, Congress after Congress, with the 
exception of just a couple of committees, notably Transportation, 
Agriculture, and several committees, Armed Services historically, in 
which it was a pooled staff rather than a majority-minority staff, the 
resources available to the minority crept, if at all, very, very slowly 
up the ladder.
  I told Members yesterday that the Committee on the Judiciary in the 
103d Congress provided the munificent percentage of 11 percent to the 
minority. Then House Committee on House Oversight provided 15 percent, 
on and on and on of percentage of the staff in the teens. But the staff 
continued to grow.
  Now, Members need to know that of a committee budget, 85 to 90 
percent of the funds of the committee are invested in the staff. And so 
no one wants to hold their staff at no increase. So you ask for a cost 
of living. A cost of living was voted by the committee. But then that 
was used to hire more staff, so you increased your base and you came 
back the next year and asked for more money. You increased the base. 
What happened was, we had a bloated staff structure on the committee 
but an enormously inequitable distribution of the staff. We asked the 
Democrats, would they please begin to address it.
  In 1990, the Democratic Caucus met, discussed, and in their caucus, 
without any Republicans to discuss how much we would like to make a 
change, the Democrats, on their own, behind closed doors voted that the 
ceiling, the ceiling for Republicans on investigative staff would be 20 
percent.

                              {time}  1200

  And yet there was committee after committee that never even came 
close to the 20 percent.
  So when we became the majority in the historic 104th Congress, we 
said we would do at least two things: First, cut

[[Page H1274]]

the committee staffs. We believed we could do the job, and I think we 
proved it in the 104th with the unprecedented pieces of legislation 
that were moved through the committees and our continued ability to do 
the committee work with significantly reduced staffs.
  What we see on this chart, portrayed graphically, is what we did. We 
went from more than 1,600 staff down to less than 1,100. More than 600 
staff, in one day, lopped off of the committee structure. We reduced 
committee staff by one-third.
  Mindful of when we were in the minority, however, and our desire to 
have a sufficient number of staff to do the job in a fair way, we said 
notwithstanding this red line, being the Democratic caucus' agreement 
to have a ceiling on Republican investigative staff at 20 percent, and 
notwithstanding this line, which was the historic percentage of the 
Republicans' share of that bloated staff, we said we are going to cut 
the staff by one-third.
  But we wanted to commit ourselves to a goal of sharing not just the 
staff but the total resources of the committees. So, once again in the 
104th Congress, we said we wanted to set a goal of one-third of the 
resources of the committees that would be provided to the minority.
  We wanted to accomplish in a relatively short period of time what we 
wanted them to provide us when we were in the minority, and so in 1 day 
the resources to the minority, as a share of the committee funding, 
went from here to there. It is fairly easy to see that that is 29 
percent. It is not one-third.
  There were some committees that made it very easy to achieve one-
third. The Democratic chairman moved over to the ranking member and the 
ranking member became the chairman. The Committee on Agriculture became 
a good example. It was one-third before and it is one-third now. But 
those committees that provided resources to the minorities of 11 
percent, of 12 percent, of 14 percent, we have to grow that amount.
  We have provided unprecedented percentages. In the committee that we 
were discussing, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
prior to the Republican majority it was 15 percent. Today it is 25.
  They are complaining, of course, that 25 is not 33\1/3\. Had, in 
previous Congresses, the chairmen of those committees provided the 
minority with one-third, they would have one-third today. Our crime is 
not making every committee, at the same time, one-third.
  Can my colleagues imagine the kinds of comments we would hear on this 
side of the aisle in terms of increasing the funds to do that? We are 
committed to it. We are moving every Congress in that direction. We are 
growing the minority's share, and we will continue to grow it until it 
is one-third for every committee of all the resources.
  Let me spend just a minute, because the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Davis], used this, and I want to make sure my colleagues understand 
what it represents, because it is a classic example on the part of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle of bait-and-switch.
  In the 103d Congress we had the Committee on Government Operations, 
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, and the Committee on 
the District of Columbia. Those were three separate committees with 
bloated staff. When we added up the budgets of those committees, it 
equaled $26.6 million.
  When we, as the new majority, collapsed committees and shrank the 
staff, these three committees became one, the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, and it was funded at $13.5 million. Fifty percent 
of the previous Congress.
  My good friend from Pennsylvania, our former colleague, Bill Clinger, 
became chairman, and he said, ``I just do not have enough resources. I 
have to deal with all these jurisdictional areas and I just do not have 
enough helping hands.'' We listened. We watched. We believed that to be 
the case. So what we decided to do in this Congress was to increase the 
amount that the committee was to receive. That is the $2.7 million.
  We said we will go up to 61 percent of what the committee used to 
have. Not even three-quarters of what the committee had, not even two-
thirds of what it had, but only 60 percent of what it had. Then, not at 
our doing, not at our doing, we began to discover what had been going 
on during last year's election; at the White House, in the Democratic 
National Committee, and in other areas.
  There was a clear call for an investigation. There was even an 
editorial in Roll Call last January, which said although they are 
hearing cries of campaign finance reform, it is probably a good idea to 
investigate first to find out what happened so that, with knowledge, we 
have the ability to legislate.
  So we said, all right. We do not know how long this will go on. We 
will take $3.8 million for 1997 alone and provide it to the committee 
with the jurisdiction overseeing the executive branch, which is the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
  So, my friends, the complaints on this side of the aisle are that we 
are taking three committees who would have shared that jurisdiction, 
which in the 103d Congress was provided with $26.6 million, and we are 
in the 105th Congress providing that collapsed new committee with $20 
million. That is still only 75 percent of the resources, when they have 
been asked to take on this much larger job, than was available in the 
103d Congress.
  My colleagues are complaining that we are increasing a committee. 
Yes, we are increasing a committee over the 104th because we 
underfunded it. We are new to this job. We will admit we are going to 
make mistakes occasionally. I will tell my colleagues what we have 
pledged. When we make mistakes, we will admit it, and when we correct 
it, we will correct it in public. Then we will go on, and if we make 
mistakes again, we will admit them and then we will correct them.
  What we are admitting is that we underfunded this committee. We are 
going to put a little more money in it and we are going to make sure 
they have minimum dollars to go ahead and carry out an investigation 
with which they have been charged.
  What we have before us today is a funding resolution that makes this 
change; that, as I said, instead of putting moneys into committees to 
have staff, it creates a reserve fund, so that if we have a job that 
was not anticipated at the beginning of the Congress and we did not 
fund for it, that money could be moved to that committee to do the job.
  When the job is finished, they will not get to keep the staff, they 
will not get to grow their bloated committees, and that money comes 
back to the reserve fund so it can be spent somewhere else when needed. 
And if not needed, it is not spent.
  Now, that is a more perfect system, so that we do not let the 
committees grow themselves but that we do have enough money to meet the 
needs of a Congress over a 2-year period. That is what we are voting on 
today.
  The other 18 committees that we have as standing committees now are 
going to be retained at their previous funding level. We will come back 
in 30 days and we will examine how we fund those for the rest of the 
105th.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, before yielding to the gentleman from California, [Mr. 
Miller], to say that we will give our colleagues on the other side an 
opportunity to vote for a real freeze that freezes spending at last 
year's budget without any games. A straight simple freeze. That will be 
our motion to them, and they will have a chance to choose between about 
a $20 million increase and a freeze.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and I appreciate the explanation of the budget of 
all of the committees of Congress, but what I would prefer to hear is a 
discussion about how we are going to deal with campaign finance reform.
  We have tried on the floor of the House now for many months to get 
the majority party to tell us when they are going to bring a campaign 
finance reform bill to the floor. Their suggestion is that they have to 
investigate first and the investigation takes the place of campaign 
finance reform; that they

[[Page H1275]]

only want to deal with those matters that are illegal.
  The question I ask is: Is it legal and does the system condone the 
majority whip to let lobbyists sit in his office and write legislation 
and offer amendments?
  Is it legal and does the system now allow for the Republicans to 
threaten lobbyists if they do not direct more of their contributions to 
Republican Members of the House?
  Is it legal for the Republican leadership, including their party 
leadership, to berate 20 top executives from the Business Roundtable, 
telling them that they will have no access to the Republican Party, to 
the Republican leadership in this House, if they do not give more of 
their campaign contributions to Republicans?
  Is it legal for the majority leader of the Senate to offer 
contributors access to the offices of the Senate?
  Is it legal to start drafting up lists of trustworthy friends, those 
who can donate more to Republicans than to Democrats?
  Is it legal for Members of this House to berate lobbyists because 
they have not come through with enough money, to tell them that they 
will be persona non grata; to call their boss and tell them that these 
people are done, as far as he is concerned, and they are going to tell 
their friends?
  If that is legal, my colleagues, that is a system that must be 
changed. That is a system that cries out for change. That is a system 
that says money equals access. The American people can sit in the 
galleries but they cannot get access to the office of the majority 
leadership because they did not bring the money. They did not bring the 
money in the proper proportion. They did not bring the money in a 
sufficient amount.
  That is what we are listening to day in and day out, day in and day 
out, are threats and intimidation against business leaders, against 
organizations and community activists; that if they do not bring the 
money they cannot have the access.
  Now we have increased the budgets of the committees of jurisdiction, 
but no discussion of campaign finance reform, no discussion about how 
to give this institution back to the people of this country, no 
discussion about providing equal access for all the people of this 
country, no discussion about how decisions are made around here.
  It is a money chase, it is a money chase that is corrupting the 
democratic principles upon which this institution was built. It is 
corrupting of the process and it is corrupting of how we make 
decisions. It must be changed, and I want to hear from the majority 
when will they bring a campaign finance bill to the floor.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. [Mr. LaTourette]. The Chair would advise all 
Members that the rules of the House require Members to refrain from 
personal references to Members of the Senate.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Barton].
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is the body constitutionally 
that is closest to the people. We are the only Federal officials that 
have to be elected by the people. Therefore, we have the responsibility 
to conduct the oversight for the people more than any other body of the 
Federal Government.
  I would like to point out that the resolution before us today is to 
give some additional assets for oversight, not just the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight but some of the other committees.
  I am the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
for the Committee on Commerce, and I would point out that in the last 
Congress, in a bipartisan way, we did oversight over the Food and Drug 
Administration, the Department of Energy, and other Federal agencies 
that resulted in significant cost savings; that resulted in significant 
policy changes.
  Let me give my colleagues an example. One of the leading causes of 
death among American women is breast cancer. The FDA has had under 
consideration for 10 years, for 10 years, a sensor pad device that a 
woman can use in the privacy of her home to see or give increased 
sensitivity to determine if there is a lump in her breast. FDA refused 
to approve that for over-the-counter dissemination. Because of 
investigations and oversight in the last Congress, in a bipartisan way, 
we were at least able to get the FDA to approve that for use by a 
physician; by a physician.
  There is much more that needs to be done. This is not just a debate 
about one specific committee. It is a debate of whether the House of 
Representatives is going to use its constitutional authority to 
represent the American people across the breadth and scope of the 
oversight responsibilities. I would hope we will vote for this bill so 
we can move forward.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman].
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to address my remarks to my 
Republican colleagues. What we are considering today is raw and ugly 
but, as Dizzy Dean said, ``It ain't bragging if you can do it.''
  But why do we want to do it? Let us be clear on the situation here. 
For the last 3 months House Democrats have repeatedly supported a 
broad, aggressive investigation and the immediate consideration of 
campaign finance reform legislation.

                              {time}  1215

  This is not a case where the minority is trying to hamstring a 
majority investigation. We have been ready to step up to the plate and 
investigate no matter what the consequences. Yet today the Republican 
leadership brings to the floor a bill that funds the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight and the Burton investigation at a 
record level with no amendments permitted.
  This is an investigation where the chairman is insisting on a 
blatantly partisan scope, a scope limited exclusively to Democratic 
fund-raising practices, an investigation where the normal procedures 
are suspended because the chairman insists on issuing subpoenas and 
releasing confidential information without committee debate or vote, an 
investigation where the most the minority will receive is 25 percent of 
the committee budget.
  That is what your leadership is bringing to the floor today. They are 
asking you to approve a record $12 million budget for an investigation 
limited to Democratic practices and led by a chairman who insists on 
wielding unprecedented powers. No matter how hard you work at it, you 
could not make this more partisan or less fair.
  Have we lost all perspective? The 1997 Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight budget virtually matches the combined budgets of the 
Committees on Commerce and Ways and Means.
  There was a different way for past investigations. In Watergate the 
majority and minority jointly hired staff. In Iran-Contra the House 
majority and minority staff worked in the same offices together, and 
yet here we have a blatantly partisan scope, procedures and funding 
allocation.
  Before it is too late, you might want to rethink what your leadership 
thought was a good idea last night. When the Senate faced this issue 
last week, Republican Senators at least had the good sense to say wait 
a minute before approving the investigation. Here we are rushing to a 
vote despite the fact that the committee has never even voted on the 
investigation's scope or procedures. The committee has never met on 
this issue. Think how this is going to look. You are jamming a funding 
bill through without debate or votes on the investigation's most basic 
foundations.
  Yesterday the Washington Post, which wants an investigation, an 
aggressive one, warned that if we do not postpone this vote, the 
investigation runs the risk of becoming its own cartoon, a joke and a 
deserved embarrassment.
  The only thing that I would add is that it would be a joke that cost 
over 6 million taxpayer dollars, and that is a high price for 
partisanship. What the Senate did should be our model. They set forth 
fair rules, and yet the House leadership asks you to vote for more 
money than the Senate on a narrower scope that is focused just on 
Democrats and extraordinary power in one Member.
  Mr. Speaker, there is an alternative. Vote against this bill, bring 
to the

[[Page H1276]]

floor a simple extension for all committees and when we return, we can 
at least vote on the scope and procedures before setting the funding. 
If you care about campaign finance reform, if you care about an 
aggressive, comprehensive and fair investigation, if you care about our 
credibility as an institution, then you will vote against this bill.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, I accepted my responsibility with 
great enthusiasm as our leader appointed me to this committee. Now that 
I have sat in those committee meetings for the last two or three times 
now, I am wondering why I am there.
  I come from a legislative body in Michigan, of serving 18 years 
there. I understand power in politics and when you are in charge and 
have the majority, you rule. What I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, is 
how we cannot allow those of us who have been elected by the people who 
sent us here to be involved in the process.
  It is amazing to me, and I served on the Committee on the Budget in 
that House for 14 years, and I understand budgets. The committees of 
this House deserve adequate budgets. I would be the first to say that. 
But I am troubled by a committee that would need $15 million over and 
above, or should I say $7.9 million over and above their committee 
allocation, with no parameters, where they investigate just the 
President, not the entire Congress.
  I am in favor of the investigation, but I want it for the President, 
for the Congress, for Democrats and Republicans. I think the American 
people deserve that. The last election said the American people want 
campaign finance reform. I do not think they said they want $15 million 
in a slush fund, as someone said earlier. For 15 million Americans, 
that would be $1 an American; for 30 million Americans, they would pay 
50 cents an American, to go after the President. Let us investigate the 
entire Congress, Republicans and Democrats.
  I take my assignment on the House Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight very seriously. I want us to get down to the business of the 
people, which is good jobs, a clean environment, health care, Medicaid, 
and pensions. That is what the American citizens want, and that is what 
I hope this Congress will get to.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Cummings].
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I travel throughout my home district of Baltimore, 
MD, I am often asked by my constituents what are some of the greatest 
challenges we face as Members of Congress. There is one issue they seem 
to approach me about now more than ever, the absolute lack of a 
bipartisanship spirit in this Congress.
  I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I agree wholeheartedly with my 
constituents. Today we are considering a measure to fund the standing 
committees of the House for the 105th Congress, and the ugly specter of 
partisanship has once again raised its head. We are poised to approve a 
budget for the committee on which I serve, the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, that is larger than any other committee's budget, 
and all in the name of a highly partisan investigation of the executive 
branch. By contrast, the Senate is appropriately looking at all abuses, 
both by Republicans and Democrats.
  The greatest travesty of all is the waste of taxpayers' dollars. Last 
night this House said no to increases in funding for House committees, 
and I commend my colleagues on the other side of this aisle who voted 
against this resolution.
  This morning we are considering a compromise that the majority 
crafted late last night. But I am puzzled. How can my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle who joined us in voting against the resolution 
last night vote to freeze committee levels for 1 month and grant the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight the entire extraordinary 
budget that they desire and still contain an $8 million slush fund.
  If there have been fund-raising abuses, let us explore the charges in 
a bipartisan fashion. We need a balanced, fair investigation that will 
produce answers rather than more controversy. I do believe I am not 
overstating the matter when I say that the integrity of this House is 
at stake. If we are to be taken seriously, we need to conduct and set 
budget parameters that reflect the bipartisan effort.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are the real losers in this process. 
I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution and call for a 
budget that is fair and just and results in a meaningful bipartisan 
investigation.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are committed to offering with our motion to recommit 
a real motion of a freeze, and that is what we are going to do here. 
Hopefully, as soon as we get through these speakers, we can do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Lampson].
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I would like to say good afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and good afternoon 
to my colleagues assembled here today. At this very moment I am 
supposed to be addressing a group of eighth graders in my district and 
after last night's debate and subsequent floor maneuvering, I cannot 
help but wonder if they would be a more mature audience.
  I returned from the retreat in Hershey optimistic that the rhetoric 
of bipartisanship would become a reality. Well, this afternoon I 
ascribe that optimism to my naivete as a freshman Member of the House.
  The majority is determined to spend an exorbitant amount of money 
through the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to 
investigate alleged fund-raising improprieties by the White House last 
year. My question, Mr. Speaker, is, Why do we not investigate alleged 
improprieties that occurred in campaigns in this body?
  In late October 1996, vicious television advertisements attacking me 
personally were purchased by a group calling itself Citizens for the 
Republican Education Fund. Similar ads appeared in the final days of my 
December runoff election as well. This group, along with Citizens for 
Reform and Coalition for Our Children's Future, purchased 
advertisements attacking Democratic congressional candidates across 
this land. These front groups were used to dump anonymous, unregulated 
money into these races on behalf of Republican candidates.
  On the board of directors of Citizens for the Republican Education 
Fund is former Reagan White House aide Lyn Nofziger, a man indicted and 
convicted of influence peddling.
  We all know that too much money was spent on campaign 1996. It is 
ridiculous that I personally raised and spent $1.6 million to win my 
election. If we are going to spend millions of taxpayer dollars 
investigating campaign finance improprieties, then let us investigate 
everyone. Let us be comprehensive. Let us be bipartisan, and let us 
bring campaign finance reform to the floor of this House.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution for 
three important reasons. First, the funds requested by the majority are 
three times the amount authorized by the other body. We could match the 
other body's authorization and still provide 4,500 kids in this country 
with health care insurance next year with the funding that this 
resolution would provide.
  Second, the scope of this investigation makes it clear that this 
committee plans to conduct a blatantly partisan probe. My colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle have refused to let this investigation 
examine any Republican fundraising practices. Again, I advocate that we 
follow the example of the other body and vote to look into improper 
fundraising activities by members of both political parties. No one is 
challenging the right to investigate.
  Finally, the chairman of this investigation has requested 
unprecedented unilateral power to issue subpoenas without the 
consultation of any other member of the committee. No Member should be 
granted such unilateral authority, much less a Member who has

[[Page H1277]]

himself engaged in very questionable fundraising practices.
  Spending taxpayer money on blatant partisan politics and partisan 
probes will further erode the reputation of this body with the American 
people. Vote against this resolution.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Ryun was allowed to speak out of order.)


           Removal of Name of Member as Cosponsor of H.R. 586

  Mr. RYUN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be 
removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 586.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaTourette]. Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we only have a couple of speakers and try to 
keep people on their schedule. I would just say that we are going to 
offer a motion to recommit. We are going to give both Democrats and 
Republicans an opportunity to vote for a freeze at last year's levels, 
to get rid of the slush fund. If you really want to have a freeze, 
which is what a lot of your people thought they were voting on when 
they came here today, we are going to give you a real freeze. That is 
going to be our motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1230

  We can come back here and work on ground rules for real, a proper 
investigation, but as far as the funding, our proposal will be a real 
freeze. Instead of going out and borrowing $8 million and putting it 
aside for a slush fund, we are going to get rid of that, we are going 
to have a real freeze, and give the people of this country a chance to 
see a House work together to come up with a process by which we can 
have an investigation that Mr. Miller indicated will hopefully lead to 
real campaign finance reform.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I believe I only have one additional speaker. 
The gentleman has two, I believe, and he gets to close. Would he like 
to take one of them?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe there are two issues here. The first issue is 
the amount of money that will be spent on committees, including the 
investigation in this proposal.
  The amount we are proposing is still, even with the investigation, 
even with the reserve fund, at least $45 million less than our 
Democratic colleagues spent for committees in the 103d Congress when 
they were the majority, and I think those Members who have been saying 
money should be spent elsewhere than on committees should come up here 
and explain what they did with $223 million in the 103d Congress.
  Second, the allegation has been made that this is an investigation of 
Democrats only. No, it is not. It is an investigation of illegal 
activity involving campaign fundraising in executive branch agencies, 
because our committee, the Government Reform and Oversight Committee 
and its predecessor, the Committee on Government Operations, of which I 
was a member for 6 years under our Democratic colleagues' majority, 
only investigated executive branch agencies. I do not remember any 
investigation of the Congress for any purpose.
  Now there is room, first of all, to look at Republicans, if there is 
an area where the committee believes any agency under the Clinton 
administration or any individual has engaged in illegal activity, if 
that individual agency says, well, the Reagan or Bush administrations 
did the same. I think that is a fair inquiry for the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight in this investigation.
  Second of all, if there is any allegation, any serious allegation, 
that any Member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, has committed 
illegal acts in terms of fundraising, I believe that that can be and 
will be and should be investigated through the appropriate committee of 
the House of Representatives.
  But given the fact, given the fact that we have individuals taking 
the fifth amendment, which is their privilege, about executive branch 
fundraising, that apparently we have individuals fleeing the country, 
that we have questions about the FBI advising the White House of 
certain matters that the White House denies, that we have possible 
compromise of the Central Intelligence Agency, I submit it is time to 
get on with this investigation.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
because our final speaker is not here, and I guess I will just close at 
this stage and say that again my colleagues are going to have a choice 
in the motion to recommit whether they want to spend an additional 
$18.5 million this year or do they want a real freeze. That is going to 
be the choice in the motion to recommit. We could not get any 
amendments; debate here has been limited by the rule. We are going to 
give the people of this institution an opportunity to really freeze 
spending.
  My colleagues can talk about what happened in history, but what we 
are offering is a freeze from last year's levels. Save the taxpayers 
$18\1/2\ million when it is offered; vote for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say that there has been some discussion on this 
side of the aisle, and if my colleague from Connecticut is willing to 
amend that to include a hard freeze across all Government spending, I 
might have trouble holding my troops over here. But since it is 
directed only at this particular area, we may not.
  Mr. Speaker, we understand the issue, and, with that, I would ask for 
an ``aye'' vote on House Resolution 91.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 
91, a resolution which funds the operations of the committees of the 
House through May 2.
  Clearly, we must provide the moneys necessary to allow this House to 
do the people's work. I support that section of this funding 
resolution. My objections are to the size of the funding being 
presented to the Government Reform and Oversight Committee and the 
scope of its pending investigations.
  The reports of campaign fundraising irregularities and scandals 
coming from the White House are serious and must be investigated fully. 
In fact, Congress has a constitutional imperative to do so.
  However, since we are not establishing a joint House-Senate 
investigative committee, we should be taking the lesson of the Senate 
and widening the scope of this oversight work to include illegal and 
improper activities in congressional campaigns as well.
  Yet, this resolution provides the Government Oversight Committee 
twice the moneys that the Senate has given to its committee for an 
investigation of wider scope--a probe that will look at improper 
activity at the White House and congressional campaigns. Is this not a 
violation of prudent fiscal practice?
  Also, in my opinion, the chairman has been exercising unprecedented 
and imprudent authority in issuing subpoenas.
  Mr. Speaker, as a fiscal conservative, I cannot vote to throw money 
at any investigationary committee. As a government reformer, I cannot 
vote to limit the scope of this investigation when I know improper 
activity stretched beyond the White House.
  This whole episode is proof positive of the need for genuine, 
comprehensive campaign finance reform. Without it, the foundations of 
our democracy will continue to be eroded.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 91 to 
authorize temporary funding for the basic operations of 18 House 
committees and funding for the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee's investigation into possible illegal campaign fundraising.
  As Congress continues to wrestle with the important issue of campaign 
finance reform it is imperative that we provide constructive 
contributions to this debate. The investigation proposed by Chairman 
Burton will accomplish this endeavor by focusing on possible abuses of 
the White House and executive branch agencies and resources for 
political gains.
  As chairman of the International Relations Committee it is, I 
believe, appropriate for Congress to determine how sensitive foreign 
policy matters may have been impacted by the unusual access of campaign 
contributions to executive branch officials and resources.
  Moreover, as a senior member of the Government Reform Committee, I am 
confident that the findings of our committee's investigation will lead 
to a more positive and constructive approach to campaign finance 
reform.
  As Chairman Burton has made clear time and time again, any and all 
information obtained during our investigation will be shared with other 
committees of jurisdiction over campaign finance reform and ethics 
matter.

[[Page H1278]]

  Accordingly, I urge all of our colleagues to support this important 
resolution.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Speaker, why are we wasting time and resources on 
this duplicative, one-sided investigation? Fred Thompson and John Glenn 
are conducting a broad investigation in the Senate, but, for purely 
political purposes, we are insisting on this off-off-Broadway show.
  Let's think about the important things this Congress and members of 
the Government Reform Committee could be doing, instead of this rerun, 
retread sideshow.
  Our distinguished ranking member, Henry Waxman, a respected expert on 
health care, could be helping us devise ways to make Medicare more 
effective and cost efficient and how to provide health care for the 
kids who don't have it.
  Chris Shays could be concentrating on the issue of genuine campaign 
finance reform.
  We could be focusing on our consensus agreement that we must balance 
our budget and provide a balance of Federal aid to help the most 
vulnerable people in America.
  We could be taking up President Clinton's challenge to all of us that 
we make America's schools the very best they can be as we head in the 
next century.
  But instead we'll be wasting precious resources of time, money, and 
congressional expertise on this partisan, one-side investigation that 
won't look at Members of Congress who aggressively exact contributions 
from lobbyists and raise money using the rooms of this Capitol.
  Let's do what the people sent us here to do. Let's stop fighting one 
another and fight for them.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 105, the resolution is considered read 
for amendment, and the text of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed as House Resolution 102 is adopted.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. CONTINUING EXPENSES OF STANDING AND SELECT 
                   COMMITTEES.

       There shall be available from the applicable accounts of 
     the House of Representatives such amounts as may be necessary 
     for continuing expenses of standing and select committees of 
     the House (other than the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight) for the period beginning on April 1, 1997, and 
     ending on May 2, 1997, on the same terms and conditions as 
     amounts were available to such committees for the period 
     beginning at noon on January 3, 1997, and ending at midnight 
     on March 31, 1997, pursuant to clause 5(f) of rule XI of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 2. EXPENSES OF COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND 
                   OVERSIGHT FOR ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--With respect to the One Hundred Fifth 
     Congress, there shall be paid out of the applicable accounts 
     of the House of Representatives, in accordance with this 
     section, not more than $20,020,572 for the expenses 
     (including the expenses of all staff salaries) of the 
     Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
       (b) First Session Limitation.--Of the amount provided for 
     in subsection (a), not more than $11,702,573 shall be 
     available for expenses incurred during the period beginning 
     at noon on January 3, 1997, and ending immediately before 
     noon on January 3, 1998.
       (c) Second Session Limitation.--Of the amount provided for 
     in subsection (a), not more than $8,317,999 shall be 
     available for expenses incurred during the period beginning 
     at noon on January 3, 1998, and ending immediately before 
     noon on January 3, 1999.

     SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

       Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
     authorized by the committee involved, signed by the chairman 
     of such committee, and approved in the manner directed by the 
     Committee on House Oversight.

     SEC. 4. REGULATIONS

       Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
     expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
     Committee on House Oversight.

     SEC. 5. RESERVE FUND FOR UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES.

       There is hereby established a reserve fund of $7,900,000 
     for unanticipated expenses of committees for the One Hundred 
     Fifth Congress. Amounts in the fund shall be paid to a 
     committee pursuant to an allocation approved by the Committee 
     on House Oversight.

     SEC. 6. ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY.

       The Committee on House Oversight shall have authority to 
     make adjustments in amounts under section 2, if necessary to 
     comply with an order of the President issued under section 
     254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985 or to conform to any reduction in appropriations for 
     the purposes of such section 1.

     SEC. 7. OFFSET OF INCREASE IN COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

       Any net increase in the aggregate amount of expenses of 
     committees for the One Hundred Fifth Congress over the 
     aggregate amount of funds appropriated for the expenses of 
     committees for the One Hundred Fourth Congress shall be 
     offset by reductions in expenses for other legislative branch 
     activities.

  Pursuant to House Resolution 105, the previous question is ordered on 
the resolution, as amended.


              motion to recommit offered by mr. gejdenson

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Gejdenson moves to recommit the resolution to the 
     Committee on House Oversight with instructions to report a 
     resolution promptly back to the House which: Freezes the 
     funding for each House Committee at 1996 levels; and does not 
     include a ``Reserve Fund for Unanticipated Expenses''; except 
     as may be subsequently ordered by the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device, if ordered, will be taken on agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 176, 
nays 214, not voting 42, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 70]

                               YEAS--176

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--214

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot

[[Page H1279]]


     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     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
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     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
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schiff
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--42

     Andrews
     Barcia
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Deutsch
     Flake
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Lipinski
     Meehan
     Norwood
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Riggs
     Rothman
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Spratt
     Stark
     Thornberry
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Wexler

                              {time}  1251

  Messrs. QUINN, BONO, and GREENWOOD, and Ms. MOLINARI changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. DELAHUNT, HOYER, and DINGELL changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          pesonal explanation

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 70, recommital motion, I was 
unavoidably detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on agreeing 
to the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 179, not voting 40, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 71]

                               AYES--213

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     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
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     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
     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
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schiff
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--179

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--40

     Andrews
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Deutsch
     Everett
     Flake
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Lipinski
     Meehan
     Norwood
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Rothman
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Spratt
     Stark
     Thornberry
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Wexler

                              {time}  1301

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Bunning for, with Ms. Kaptur against.
       Mr. Oxley for, with Mr. Deutsch against.

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________