[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 55 (Thursday, May 1, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2098-H2106]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 136 and ask for its immediate consideration:
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 136

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 129) 
     providing amounts for the expenses of certain committees of 
     the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Fifth 
     Congress. The resolution shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on House Oversight now printed 
     in the resolution shall be considered as adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution, as amended, to final adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) 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 Georgia [Mr. Linder] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 136 is a closed rule providing for 
consideration of House Resolution 129, a resolution which authorizes 
funding for committee salaries and expenses for 17 standing committees 
of the House of Representatives and the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence for the 105th Congress.
  House Resolution 136 provides for consideration of the committee 
funding resolution without intervention of any point of order. The rule 
also provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on House Oversight will be considered as 
adopted.
  This resolution provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman of the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on House Oversight. Finally, the rule provides one motion to 
recommit, as is the right of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, the process established by this rule for the 
consideration of House Resolution 129 is not any different than the 
process established for previous committee funding resolutions. Under 
clause 4(a) of House rule XI, committee funding resolutions are 
privileged on the House floor and unamendable.
  As the minority knows, it is unnecessary to craft a rule to bring up 
the committee funding resolution unless there is a need to waive points 
of order that could legitimately be sustained against the resolution. 
In this case, such a waiver is necessary to address what is clearly a 
technical violation of the rules of the House.
  Specifically, clause 2(d)(2) of House rule X requires committees to 
vote to approve their oversight plans for submission to the House 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the House Oversight 
Committee by February 15 of the first session of each Congress.
  In addition, the rule prohibits consideration of a committee funding 
resolution if any committee has not submitted plans by February 15. The 
House rule also prohibits consideration if these plans were not adopted 
in an open session with a quorum present. It is quite well known to 
both sides that certain committees were unable to organize before 
February 15 because the committee assignment process had not been 
completed by that time. As a result, those particular committees were 
obviously unable to assemble and vote to approve their oversight plans 
in a timely manner.
  Today, I am pleased to report that each committee has submitted an 
approved oversight plan to the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee and the House Oversight Committee. I want to commend the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman, for working hard 
again to produce sufficient funding for House committees to complete 
their work.
  It is clear that he had to balance an assortment of concerns with 
limited funding at his disposal, and the product of his work under 
extraordinarily tight fiscal constraints will help guarantee that the 
available funding is spent where it is needed most.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with 
debate and consideration of the committee funding resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; 
and I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder], for 
yielding me the customary half hour.

[[Page H2099]]

  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the committee 
funding resolution for this Congress. On March 20, Mr. Speaker, we took 
up a rule for committee funding along with an enormous slush fund for 
political investigations; and a majority of my colleagues, in their 
wisdom, defeated it.
  Today's rule provides for an additional 5 percent increase in 
committee funding, which will bring the total increase in committee 
funding to 14 percent, an increase that I think is unjustified, 
particularly, Mr. Speaker, because most of it will be put toward a 
slush fund and a political investigation of Democrats. But today's bill 
contains only funding for committees not involved in extra 
investigations, and for some committees it contains a fair amount of 
money for the minority.
  As the ranking minority member on the Rules Committee, I would like 
to thank my chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], for 
his fair treatment of the minority. When I was chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, we also gave the minority one-third of the 
committee's salary money; and I appreciate the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon], the chairman, continuing in this fair tradition.
  I would like to encourage other committee chairs to follow the 
example of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman, and 
treat the minority members as fairly as he treats his majority members. 
The committee's report says that only 8 out of 17 committees follow the 
one-third allocation of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the 
chairman, and I believe all the committees should follow it.
  Mr. Speaker, normally our rule would be unnecessary because this 
resolution would be privileged. But the Republicans instituted a rules 
change requiring committees to vote on oversight plans and submit those 
plans to the House Oversight Committee. If committees did not get their 
plans in on time, their funding resolution would be subject to a point 
of order.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. Speaker, today we are seeing yet another Republican rule change, 
another Republican rule violated, another Republican rule violation 
waived.
  I am not suggesting that the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] 
is unjustified in asking for the waiver. After all, his committee is 
being held responsible for other committees' failure to comply with the 
new Republican House rules. But, Mr. Speaker, this making the rules and 
this breaking the rules is nothing new. It is another in a long list of 
Republican rules changes that prove too hard to follow, like the rule 
requiring a three-fifths vote for tax increases that my Republican 
colleagues have waived over and over and over and over again.
  So let me repeat, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from California is not 
responsible for the need for this waiver because of circumstances over 
which he had no control. His committee, the Committee on House 
Oversight, was forced to go up to the Committee on Rules and ask for 
this rule to waive points of order.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. 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 resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 136, I call up 
the resolution (H. Res. 129) providing amounts for the expenses of 
certain committees of the House of Representatives in the 105th 
Congress and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 129

       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, 
     $7,656,162; Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 
     $8,901,617; Committee on the Budget, $9,940,000; Committee on 
     Commerce, $14,576,580; Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce, $10,125,113; Committee on House Oversight, 
     $6,100,946; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
     $4,815,526; Committee on International Relations, 
     $10,368,358; Committee on the Judiciary, $10,699,572; 
     Committee on National Security, $9,756,708; Committee on 
     Resources, $9,876,550; Committee on Rules, $4,649,102; 
     Committee on Science, $8,677,830; Committee on Small 
     Business, $3,906,941; Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct, $2,456,300; Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, $12,483,000; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
     $4,344,160; and Committee on Ways and Means, $11,066,841.

     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, 
     $3,791,039; Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 
     $4,363,817; Committee on the Budget, $4,970,000; Committee on 
     Commerce, $7,122,959; Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce, $5,002,127; Committee on House Oversight, 
     $3,093,200; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
     $2,358,040; Committee on International Relations, $5,145,358; 
     Committee on the Judiciary, $5,054,800; Committee on National 
     Security, $4,729,454; Committee on Resources, $4,800,014; 
     Committee on Rules, $2,306,407; Committee on Science, 
     $4,263,672; Committee on Small Business, $1,936,471; 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,276,300; 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, $6,141,500; 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $2,084,368; and Committee on 
     Ways and Means, $5,387,934.

     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, 
     $3,865,123; Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 
     $4,537,800; Committee on the Budget, $4,970,000; Committee on 
     Commerce, $7,453,621; Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce, $5,122,986; Committee on House Oversight, 
     $3,007,746; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
     $2,457,486; Committee on International Relations, $5,223,000; 
     Committee on the Judiciary, $5,644,772; Committee on National 
     Security, $5,027,254; Committee on Resources, $5,076,536; 
     Committee on Rules, $2,342,695; Committee on Science, 
     $4,414,158; Committee on Small Business, $1,970,470; 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,180,000; 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, $6,341,500; 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $2,259,792; and Committee on 
     Ways and Means, $5,678,907.

     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. ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY.

       The Committee on House Oversight shall have authority to 
     make adjustments in amounts under section 1, 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 136, the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in House Resolution 129 is adopted.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

       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

[[Page H2100]]

     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, 
     $7,656,162; Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 
     $8,901,617; Committee on the Budget, $9,940,000; Committee on 
     Commerce, $14,535,406; Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce, $10,125,113; Committee on House Oversight, 
     $6,050,349; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
     $4,815,526; Committee on International Relations, 
     $10,368,358; Committee on the Judiciary, $10,604,041; 
     Committee on National Security, $9,721,745; Committee on 
     Resources, $9,876,550; Committee on Rules, $4,649,102; 
     Committee on Science, $8,677,830; Committee on Small 
     Business, $3,906,941; Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct, $2,456,300; Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, $12,184,459; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
     $4,344,160; and Committee on Ways and Means, $11,036,907.

     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, 
     $3,791,039; Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 
     $4,363,817; Committee on the Budget, $4,970,000; Committee on 
     Commerce, $7,122,959; Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce, $5,002,127; Committee on House Oversight, 
     $3,042,603; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
     $2,358,040; Committee on International Relations, $5,145,358; 
     Committee on the Judiciary, $5,054,800; Committee on National 
     Security, $4,719,454; Committee on Resources, $4,800,014; 
     Committee on Rules, $2,306,407; Committee on Science, 
     $4,263,672; Committee on Small Business, $1,936,471; 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,276,300; 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, $5,992,229; 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $2,084,368; and Committee on 
     Ways and Means, $5,366,700.

     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, 
     $3,865,123; Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 
     $4,537,800; Committee on the Budget, $4,970,000; Committee on 
     Commerce, $7,412,447; Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce, $5,122,986; Committee on House Oversight, 
     $3,007,746; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
     $2,457,486; Committee on International Relations, $5,223,000; 
     Committee on the Judiciary, $5,549,241; Committee on National 
     Security, $5,002,291; Committee on Resources, $5,076,536; 
     Committee on Rules, $2,342,695; Committee on Science, 
     $4,414,158; Committee on Small Business, $1,970,470; 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,180,000; 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, $6,192,230; 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $2,259,792; and Committee on 
     Ways and Means, $5,670,207.

     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. ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY.

       The Committee on House Oversight shall have authority to 
     make adjustments in amounts under section 1, 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, 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.
  House Resolution 129 is the second installment, if you will, of 
committee funding for the 105th Congress. If my colleagues will recall, 
in House Resolution 91, which the House passed a short time ago, we 
funded one of the standing committees, the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, and assisted in maximizing the utilization of 
staff with the creation of a reserve fund. The other committees were 
maintained at the then-current House rules provision until a second 
funding resolution could be created. House Resolution 129 is that 
second funding resolution. It contains funding for 18 standing 
committees of the 19 and the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  The dollar amounts funding these committees are roughly the same as 
in House Resolution 91. There are, however, in particular committees, 
various reductions which equal about $550,000 over the 2-year period of 
the 105th Congress. The total amount of increase for these committees 
from the 104th Congress to the 105th Congress is 4 percent. That is 2 
percent a year; 1997, 1998.
  The committees determine for themselves the distribution of the 
expenditure between the years, but in the aggregate, the amount of this 
resolution is a very modest increase of 2 percent a year for the 105th 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Our greatest frustration, of course, was not with this portion of 
committee funding. Many Members on the other side of the aisle, 
obviously, were upset and I think outraged by the amount of funding and 
the uncontrolled situation with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] 
and his committee. In some other matters in this area, frankly, there 
are some differences on this side, but generally there is not strong 
disagreement with what the committee is doing.
  We are glad to see in general that some of the things that were tried 
are now being returned to the way they had operated in the past, in a 
more regular order. This Congress does the people's business, and while 
great focus is placed on the numerical activity that will occur here on 
the floor in the budget sense, the real question is how well we are 
doing our people's business.
  There is a frustration there as well, not so much with what is 
happening in this committee but generally on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. Issues that need to be addressed, from campaign 
finance reform to children's health, do not seem to be moving. We are 
in danger in the budget process of not simply ignoring deadlines, which 
would sound somewhat arbitrary, but the pressure of tax cuts and other 
things there that may balloon the deficit in the out years loom once 
again.
  So our concerns here are to make sure that, not just in a budgetary 
sense but from an operational sense, are we doing the business of the 
people of this country? Are we trying to improve the standard of living 
for every working American to make sure they have health care, that 
their children can get a decent education? That is what the resources 
that are being discussed today are meant to do. And the real question 
in my mind is: Is this Congress leading the country in the right 
direction? There we have a very significant debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and say that I find it somewhat ironic that the gentleman from 
Connecticut cites a number of issues that he believes are overdue for 
correction, and he finds himself mentioning campaign finance reform 
when, in fact, in the 103d Congress the gentleman's party controlled 
the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and during that time nothing 
was presented to the President.
  In this particular congressional situation, Republicans have control 
of the House and the Senate and his party controls the Presidency. 
Notwithstanding that, we have moved fundamental welfare reform. We are 
on the verge of announcing a historic budget agreement. And if the 
gentleman mistakes the lack of movement in the committees for the lack 
of movement between the House, the Senate, and the administration, I 
can assure the gentleman that as the final touches are put on a budget 
package, the committees will be more than busy.
  That is one of the reasons we want to move the financing for the 
committees, so that when they get the budget specifics they will be 
able to move relatively quickly.
  I do think it is important to remind my colleagues and those who are 
watching and listening that at the beginning of the historic 104th 
Congress we cut committee staff fully by one-third. We maintain that 
one-third reduction. We cut by about a third the funding for the 
committees, and with

[[Page H2101]]

modest increases we retain that reduction.
  So instead of a meaningful comparison between the 104th and the 105th 
Congress, the most meaningful comparison would be between the 103d and 
the 105th. And if we compare committee funding under the last 
Democratic majority Congress and this, the second Republican Congress, 
we will find that funding has been cut by more than 20 percent.
  So although we sometimes get wrapped up on narrow numbers and talk 
about a modest 4-percent increase for these committees from the 104th 
to the 105th, we should not lose sight of the fact that there was an 
enormous reduction both of staff and of the cost of the committees. 
Major legislation has gone through the committees and, in fact, arrived 
on the President's desk and was signed.
  Not to mention the significant number of changes that were long 
overdue in the way in which the House has been run, including the first 
ever audit, the follow-up audit, and now audits becoming rather 
routine, when, in fact, in the history of the House there had never 
been a private-public audit before.
  So when the gentleman looks for arguments, I find it ironic that he 
focuses on the fact that while the President and the leaders of the 
House and the Senate are at this moment working to craft a historic 
document, he points to the fact that committees are not moving product 
for the sake of appearing to be busy.
  One of the things you will find under this majority in both the House 
and the Senate is that it is not necessarily quantity that counts, it 
is the quality of the work that we do that counts most.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to take my friend up on his discussion of campaign 
finance reform and say several things:
  One, in the two previous Congresses to the Republican majority, the 
House of Representatives did pass comprehensive campaign finance 
reform, which I led the effort in in the Congress. Prior to President 
Clinton's election, President Bush, at the behest of many of the 
Republican Members in this Congress, vetoed the bill.
  In the first term of President Clinton, where we finally had a 
President who said he would sign campaign finance reform and encouraged 
us to pass it, and indeed we did pass it in the House, and it violates 
House rules to mention a particular Senator in the other body, but 
there was a Senator from Kentucky who is still there who is threatening 
again to kill finance reform if it ever got out of this institution.

                              {time}  1100

  But there is an even more important issue at hand here. When we talk 
about campaign finance reform, the Republican majority does not believe 
in spending limits, does not believe in limiting the amount of money in 
campaigns, and fundamentally we cannot have reform unless we are ready 
to limit the amount of money in campaigns.
  As far as the operations of the House, there are certainly operations 
in the Clerk's office and in HIR that are not working as well as they 
were prior to all the reforms. We hope you get there and there are 
always some bumps in the road in going through this process, but it 
seems to me there are some things that still need to be fixed here.
  Again I think among the most important issues we could be discussing 
today would be campaign finance reform, and there are a number of very 
positive proposals out there. I am now working on a $100 spending 
limit, which I think would really give people confidence that they 
could be significant players in the political process, no more than 
$100, a $100 dollar bill would be the limit. We would not have $10,000 
or $100,000 contributions. But we cannot discuss that on the floor 
generally and move on it until the majority gives us a rule or allows 
us to bring the bill to the floor.
  So as happy as we are to see the committee moving, and they made some 
progress on the disbursement of funds, it seems to me that some of the 
fundamental issues not only are far from reaching the floor of the 
House but we find ourselves with a Republican majority not even 
believing in the basic principles that are necessary to move the debate 
forward. Are we ready to limit large contributions? Are we ready to 
limit it to $100 so that every American can participate on a relatively 
equal level, or do we want to keep those $10,000, $100,000 
contributions?
  When the Republican majority brought out a campaign finance bill in 
the last Congress, they took the limits off. They wanted to increase 
how much wealthy individuals could give to campaigns. If you believe 
the problem in the American political system is that wealthy people do 
not have enough access to government, you have been on another planet. 
What we need to do is find another way to make sure that every American 
has equal access to the political process, to make sure that we limit 
even the appearance of things that look bad, and that is why we are 
hoping to see that kind of bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Lampson].
  Mr. LAMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, when the majority party was in the minority, they did 
complain about the size of government. Now they seek an outrageous 
increase in the dollars spent on their own personal political fiefdoms. 
It begs the question of whether the majority's supposed concern about 
the size of government was a core belief or just political rhetoric, 
particularly after a promised freeze.
  Actions speak louder than words. I know there are uses for those 
dollars that can benefit working families. I find it difficult to 
believe that the committees need such an increase in staff. The 
majority's meager agenda so far in this Congress certainly does not 
warrant it, and I will vote against House Resolution 129.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney], the vice chairman of the Committee on 
House Oversight.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 129 authorizes $149.9 million over 2 
years for the basic operation of 18 House committees in the 105th 
Congress. I think it is important to note today that this is a $46.3 
million decrease from the authorized level in the 103d Congress, a 24-
percent reduction. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. This is a $46.3 
million decrease. This allows the U.S. House to continue officially to 
operate on behalf of the taxpayers the committees that are established 
here in Congress, but also due to the great guidance of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Thomas], our chairman, and the members of the 
committee, we have a fiscally responsible plan that provides a 
decrease, yet allows us to do our duties and to carry forth the process 
of the committee.
  Historically, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention this today, the 
minority party was funded far below the one-third targeted amount that 
we are trying to achieve in this new Congress. In 1991, the minority 
party was funded at 19 percent. In 1993, the minority party was funded 
at 18.5 percent. Beginning in 1994, with the 104th Congress, not only 
were we able to again decrease the amount of funding to the committees, 
but we were able to start the process of having the funding begin to 
rise for the minority on the committee. In 1994, the minority party was 
funded at 21 percent, and in 1995, the minority party was funded around 
29 percent. These are averages, Mr. Speaker, of the entire committee 
funding.
  Let me give just a few details. There are 7 committees that the 
minority staff is funded at 33 percent or more, far above the 19 
percent type of average that we were dealing with in 1993 and 1994. So 
there are 7 committees that the minority staff is funded at 33 percent 
or more. There are 7 committees that the minority staff is funded at 25 
percent to 32 percent funding. And there is one committee that the 
minority staff is funded at 20 percent to 24 percent. There are no 
committees that it is funded less than 20 percent.
  Our goal is to have the minority funded at one-third and we are not 
far from that goal. It has been hard in some cases to achieve it but, 
frankly, previous to the 104th Congress, the minority was so low in 
most of the cases that it is tough to build that base back up.
  What do we have? We have promises that we have made and promises that

[[Page H2102]]

we have kept. We promised to cut the committee staff, and we did that. 
In the 103d Congress, the approximate number of committee staff was 
1,645. In the 104th Congress, we reduced it by one-third, to 1,100. 
This is a good proposal we have today, and I would surely credit the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman, and the members 
of the committee for being so responsible and for also conducting the 
business of the House in a fiscally responsible manner.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick], a member of the 
committee.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Connecticut 
for yielding me this time to address our committee resolution.
  I do want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the 
chairman, and our ranking member for the experiences I have enjoyed as 
we worked through the committee resolution. I am very hopeful that as 
we move to our implementing of the resolution that the minority in fact 
will get the one-third that is necessary for us to carry out our 
business. It is important as I serve in this 105th Congress that we are 
all able to participate, that we are all able to represent those who 
have sent us here, and I am really anxious that the committees can get 
off and get into doing their work. We have got a lot of work ahead of 
us.
  I wish this bill were before us that would solve the problems of 
campaign finance, but the fact of the matter is it does nothing, it 
absolutely does nothing to change what we do need, which is a major 
overhaul in campaign financing. What it will do is provide committees 
the monetary assistance they need to carry on the business of their 
committees.
  I am hopeful that as we move into the Congress, we will again address 
the families first agenda. That will include good housing, adequate 
education, clean environment, water, air, all those kinds of things, 
good-paying jobs. I am anxious that this 105th Congress get into those.
  Today we will be debating H.R. 2, which is the new housing 
comprehensive legislation. It has a lot of problems. I hope that as we 
go into this debate, as we give the committees the moneys they need to 
do their work, that we remember, the American people want action from 
this Congress. They want us to provide the leadership that this country 
needs so that our children can be educated, our seniors can be safe, 
good jobs return to this country and that the environment is safe.
  Again I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] for 
his leadership and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], our 
ranking member, for providing us the opportunity. Let us move on with 
the work of the Congress and do what the people require it to do.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], a valued member of the Committee on House 
Oversight.
  (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address this topic. It is one that 
we have spent a good deal of time on in the Committee on House 
Oversight. As most of the Nation knows, when the Republicans took over 
the House of Representatives, we put in some drastic budget cutting 
measures. In fact, we saved $210 million from our congressional budget 
for the people of the United States of America in the last session. 
That is the larger cut than we applied across the board to any Federal 
agency.
  In other words, we felt we should lead the way in this Congress and 
in this committee by cutting our own budget first. We cut committee 
staff by one-third. I am pleased with the amount of work that we have 
been able to do in spite of that cut. I have heard the news media 
saying that the Congress is not doing anything. I do not know where 
they are. Maybe they are sitting in the coffee shops instead of coming 
to the committee meetings I am in. I have spent hours and hours in the 
Committee on Science, of which I am a member. I have spent hours in the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, where we are working on 
the formula for funding ISTEA, the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act, which is a major piece of legislation up for 
reauthorization this year. I just came to the floor to speak while 
sitting in a hearing in the Subcommittee on Aviation dealing with war 
risk insurance, something that must be addressed soon. But in the 
Committee on Science in particular, my schedule has been full, as has 
been the schedule of every member of the Committee on Science. We have 
reported out approximately 10 bills for action on the floor, most of 
which have been taken up on the floor, with one major piece still 
remaining to be considered. And we have been able to do all this and do 
quality work after having cut the staffs of our committees by one-
third. In other words, we have gotten rid of the fat and we are down to 
the bone, and we are doing good work with the bone that is left.
  In regard to the proposal before us, the committee funding proposal, 
we are talking about an average 2 percent per year increase, below the 
cost-of-living increase, below the increase that is being given to all 
Federal employees and Federal retirees, below the increase that is 
being given to Social Security recipients. I think it is remarkable 
that we would cut our staff by one-third in the last session, and have 
a below-cost-of-living increase in this session, and still be able to 
do the amount and the quality of work that we have been doing in our 
committees. They are receiving a lot of careful consideration. The 
floor action has been less than overwhelming, simply because so much 
work is being done in committees, but that work will come to the floor 
very shortly.
  I am very pleased to rise in support of this proposal and to 
recommend that the House adopt what is a fair funding proposal for the 
committees, one that conservatives and liberals alike should welcome as 
an example of how we can use the taxpayers' money to get the job done 
at much less cost than we had before.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Allen].
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the committee 
funding resolution. The majority seeks to increase committee funding by 
$22 million, or 14 percent over the level that was spent last year. Yet 
last week the majority cut $38 million from the President's budget 
request for Women, Infants and Children, one of our most successful 
programs. That $38 million reduction in the President's request 
essentially would deny 180,000 women and children the most basic 
nutrition and health assistance.
  These Republican priorities are embarrassing. Twenty-two million more 
for House committees and investigations, $38 million less than is 
needed for mothers and infants. Study after study has found that the 
WIC Program successfully increases low birth weights and reduces infant 
mortality and child anemia. The first 3 years of a child's life are 
critically important for a child's intellectual and emotional 
development. Good nutrition is a strong component of that equation. The 
GAO reports that each dollar invested in WIC prenatal care saves $3.50 
in later expenses in Medicaid. AT&T's CEO Robert Allen called WIC the 
health care equivalent of a triple A investment. It is. Millions more 
for House committees and investigations, millions less than is needed 
for 180,000 women and children. Those are the wrong priorities. That is 
deplorable.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the committee funding 
resolution.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow].
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I would rise also with grave concern today 
about the committee funding resolution that is before us. We are in the 
final discussions, I understand, concerning the budget. Very difficult 
decisions are having to be made, priorities are having to be set, and 
when I look at my constituents in the 8th District in Michigan, I want 
to be able to say that my priority was on the WIC Program that was just 
discussed by my

[[Page H2103]]

good friend from Maine on the opportunities for families to send their 
children to college, making sure that they have technology in their 
schools and they are prepared for the jobs for the future, have good 
jobs and that all families have opportunities to cover their children 
with health care.
  Mr. Speaker, my concern is that when we look at this funding 
resolution in total, we are looking at over a 14-percent increase in 
the amount of dollars going to fund our own committees. I would agree 
with my good friend from Michigan that we are working hard in the 
Committee on Science, we are working hard in a number of committees and 
reporting bills, but we have been doing just fine reporting those bills 
and working hard without a 14-percent increase in the committee funding 
bill.
  If I were to ask my constituents whether they would prefer that we 
hire more staff here at the Capitol or whether or not we provide more 
opportunities for their children to go to college, I know where the 
votes would be, I know where my constituents would be telling me to 
vote, and that is why today I cannot support this kind of a tremendous 
increase in this bill and I would strongly urge all of my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to take another look at what our real 
priorities are.
  This is not about the internal workings of Congress and increasing 
employees, increasing staff. If we have to work a little harder, fine. 
My constituents are working very, very hard every day working hard on 
behalf of their families, and my priorities are with them.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the last two speakers who 
both indicated that they were going to vote against the funding 
resolution are freshmen and therefore they have had no experience in 
what the Congress has looked like when their party was in the majority. 
I appreciate the gentlewoman from Michigan indicating that she is 
working hard in the Committee on Science, and there is a 14-percent 
increase. The record shows the Committee on Science has increased 3 
percent. It is 3 percent for the 105th Congress; that is 1\1/2\ percent 
a year.
  The cost of living, which is certainly not automatic, and although 
the chairmen will probably vote where it is appropriate for a cost of 
living for the employees is about 2.3 percent. So it is obvious that 
the employees working for that committee will not within the budget 
increase find enough money to cover a COLA.
  But what I would really like to remind the freshmen Members on the 
minority side is that when their party was in the majority the most 
recent Congress, being the 103d Congress, spent $223 million on staff 
and the committees. So if they are unwilling to support a $177 million 
cost for running the committees, I only wish my colleagues had been 
here in the 103d so they could have castigated their leaders at that 
time for wanting to spend and, in fact, spending $223 million. We are 
spending $45 million less than the amount that was spent when the 
gentlewoman's party was in the majority.
  So I understand they have to find some reason to oppose reasonable 
legislation, but it really does make it difficult when they have no 
historical perspective because frankly since the Republicans have 
become the majority in January 1995, if they want to look at the larger 
picture not in terms of a government program, but in terms of the 
economy which after all is the engine that makes this system go, the 
deficit has been cut in half from $203 billion in 1994 to about $70 
billion this year. Welfare rolls have been decreased by 20 percent. 
Violent crime has been reduced by 5 percent. Unemployment has dropped 
by 10 percent. The poverty rate has declined. And in the stock market, 
the Dow Jones average has almost doubled. It is not a coincidence that 
all this has happened since the Republicans became a majority in 
January 1995.
  It is always possible to find one specific reason to choose to vote 
``no.'' Actually the more responsible position in the opinion of this 
gentleman is to look at the aggregate and say what we have done with 
one-third fewer staff and one-third fewer resources is quite 
remarkable.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am just stunned to hear my friend from California 
endorsing President Clinton's agenda and his successes, and it is so 
nice to see him recite all the advances that have occurred under this 
Democratic President.
  Now he did not give the President any credit, but we cannot expect 
him to go that far. But it is at least a refreshing opportunity to hear 
him point out that under the Democratic leadership of President Clinton 
we have made tremendous progress from the setting of budget priorities 
that began with the Democratically-controlled Congress and the 
President's first day in office, and he has kept us on track. He has 
prevented some of the egregious kinds of policies that we found in the 
early Reagan years, which frankly some of this budget debate and the 
Republican demands seem to want to reinstate tax cuts that will cost 
the Treasury upwards of $250 billion in the outyears which will once 
again balloon the deficit. Their solution, of course, is to give the 
richest another tax break while the poorest and the working poor are 
once again disadvantaged.
  We are happy to see the Republicans recognize the wisdom of President 
Clinton's budget priority and policies today. We just hope that they 
would give up on some of their what I would consider foolish economic 
desires to balloon the deficit in the outyears and thereby again 
endangering our ability to educate our young, to give them proper 
health care, and to build the kind of road blocks to economy that we 
have had under President Clinton's leadership.
  There is one other area that I would like to bring us back to, and 
again as much as I enjoy the discussion here today, I think we ought to 
have meatier issues before us that have been avoided in this Congress. 
Campaign finance reform is still without a date to come to this floor. 
Under President Clinton's first year in office the Democrats brought 
campaign finance reform to the floor of this House and passed it. We 
had passed it, as I said earlier, through the House and Senate in the 
previous Congress, but it was vetoed by President Bush. Then we find 
ourselves in the next Congress under President Clinton's leadership; it 
is filibustered to death in the Senate. Now they will not even bring it 
to the floor.
  In the last Congress, when my friend brought a campaign finance 
reform bill to the floor, it had no spending limit. Ask anybody out 
there in America did they think the problem in campaigns is there is 
not enough money in it.
  I love my Republican friends. They talk about education; they say, 
well, we cannot throw money at it. They talk about health care and 
children in need; they say we cannot throw money at it. When it comes 
to campaigns, they say we need more money. The Speaker, the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] says I need more money. When they talk 
about reform they raise how much wealthy individuals can give. That is 
not reform. We ought to limit campaign spending. Nobody should be able 
to give more than a hundred dollars. We ought to do it by law; we 
cannot do it individually. We have got to find a way to deal with 
independent expenditures and issue advocacy. We have got to end soft 
money.
  But we cannot do any of that, Mr. Speaker, unless we have an 
opportunity to bring the bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], a member of the committee and one of our 
hardest working Members, I might add.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on what the gentleman said, because 
the chairman of our committee who works very hard and is very 
knowledgeable on this institution references the progress that has been 
made over the last 5 years, and I think that ought not to go without 
being referenced.
  When in 1993 we adopted the economic program of this administration,

[[Page H2104]]

to a person, to a person, the then-minority party stood and said the 
adoption of this program will lead effectively to the ruination of 
America's economy. To a person. The chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget now, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], stood and said this 
is going to lead to high unemployment, high inflation and a ruinous 
economy. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], who tells us repeatedly 
that he is an economist, said to the President and said on the floor of 
this House that the adoption of that economic program would lead to 
disaster for America's future.
  Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing and honest to hear in fact the opposite 
has occurred. The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], a member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, has just ticked off where this economy 
now stands, not because of anything that was adopted in 1995 or 1996. 
As a matter of fact, the now-majority party laments the fact that the 
President did not allow them, as a result of vetoes, to enact their 
program so that they cannot honestly claim credit for the performance 
of this economy.
  And in point of fact, as Alan Greenspan, appointed by George Bush, 
not by a Democrat, observed, this economy is in the best shape that he 
has seen it in in over 3 decades. He so testified before the Joint 
Economic Committee.
  Yes, we consider a budget resolution for the committees of this 
House. As my colleagues know, it is always in my experience somewhat of 
a political exercise; the majority party points out how fiscally 
responsible they are being, and very frankly the minority party says, 
``Well, you're being a little hypocritical.'' I really do not want to 
get too engaged in that debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that this funding resolution is relatively 
reasonable. I have disagreements with parts of it. Very frankly, I 
think we are substantially wasting the taxpayers' money, wasting the 
taxpayers' money by funding this investigation in the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight way over what the U.S. Senate said was 
necessary to come to grips with the facts, and in fact, unlike the 
Senate who more honestly wants to look at the generic problem, this 
study obviously is a partisan attempt to embarrass the President of the 
United States, not to come to grips with what the facts are, as the 
U.S. Senate studied much broader in scope and much cheaper in cost.
  Then, of course, we have this interesting device, the $7.9 million 
extra fund. Mr. Speaker, that does a number of things. No. 1, it allows 
committees to report that they are getting less money than ultimately 
they may get. No. 2, I would suggest to those who are very concerned 
about the reforms that have been brought to bear by the Republican 
revolution in 1995 when they said one of the things the Democrats are 
doing, my colleagues, is allowing agencies, horrors, to fund committee 
staff.
  Now what did that mean? That meant detailees from various agencies 
were sent to committees for the purposes of working on substantive 
issues of which they had knowledge.
  Well, lo and behold, the Republican revolution said that was wrong, 
it was obfuscation, it was hiding the actually costs. And so what did 
they do? They said we are not going to allow that anymore.
  Lo and behold, my colleagues of this House, particularly those who 
came as freshmen in the revolution; lo and behold, there is $5-plus 
million in this budget resolution which we do not see. It is not 
included, it is not computed in the figure. Why? Because we have now 
changed our policy and we have said well, maybe we will allow detailees 
to be funded by agencies but to be utilized by committees.
  My, my, my. Five million dollars in addition to the $7.9 million that 
does not show up in the committee budgets.
  Now, as I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, these funding 
resolutions can be demagogued on both sides, and are historically.

                              {time}  1130

  I do not like to participate in that. I think the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] has tried to come to grips, and from his side 
of the aisle, there are obviously disagreements within his own caucus. 
Some say that it ought to be far less and some say it ought to be more. 
That is the dynamics of funding enterprises where we are trying to come 
to grips with an administration, an executive department of government 
that has gotten at least $550 billion, which this Congress has the 
responsibility of overseeing.
  We suggest a budget over two years of about $180 million to do that. 
I do not think the taxpayer, when they relate that $540 billion or $50 
million of discretionary spending in the executive department, is 
taking that a coequal branch of government has the ability.
  I frankly want to tell the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], 
the chairman of my committee, the Committee on House Oversight, I 
thought $222 million was an appropriate sum. Was it exactly the right 
sum? I do not know that, but the fact of the matter is, I did not think 
it was out of line with this Congress's responsibility to oversee the 
operations of the executive department, Republican or Democrat.
  Our constituents expect us to know what is going on. Our constituents 
expect us to know what are the proper amounts that we ought to fund. 
Our constituents expect us to know what the authorizing committees 
should do in oversight, in exercising the appropriate amount of care 
and diligence in determining whether the executive agencies are, in 
fact, operating effectively, honestly, within their budget, and 
spending the taxpayers' money appropriately.
  That was a good investment. We can argue back and forth on the 
specific dollar amounts. But let us be clear: Irrespective of the 
amount in this funding resolution, the chairman did in fact point to 
what is important, and what is important is the policies adopted that 
have affected the quality of life in America.
  In 1993 President Clinton came forth with an economic program, very 
controversial, and opposed to a person by the now majority party, the 
then minority party, with the observation that it would lead to 
disaster. In fact, as the chairman has very appropriately noted, not 
only has it not led to disaster, it has led to high employment, low 
unemployment, low inflation, higher working standards, a better dollar; 
in fact, a dollar that is so strong that perhaps we are going to have 
to evaluate whether or not we made the economy too strong. I read in 
this morning's paper, those who have talked about growth over and over 
and over and talked last Congress about how slow the growth was, I am 
sure we are glad to see that we had a 5.6 or 5.1, I am not sure which, 
GDP growth in the last quarter.
  I say to my colleagues of this House, whether we adopt this funding 
resolution, and I presume we are going to, any funding resolution will 
be controversial. I know that there will be some of my colleagues, 
rightfully, who will want to make a statement that being penny wise and 
pound foolish by increasing spending on the operations of the House of 
Representatives, while at the same time reducing by a factor of $38 
million assistance to women, infants, and children, which every side of 
the argument agrees has a tremendously positive payoff for children and 
families and for America, is an appropriate debate. And some of my 
colleagues will want to vote ``no'' on this, to make that very point 
that our priorities are skewed.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that as we do vote on this funding 
resolution, let us on both sides of the aisle stop demagoguing this 
institution, stop belittling this institution. This institution has a 
critically important function to carry out. We are the people's House, 
elected every two years, closest to the people, to carry out the 
functions of adopting policy and overseeing its implementation. I think 
we have done that reasonably well; not perfectly by any stretch of the 
imagination.
  But as we move forward on the debate, which I guess now is going to 
conclude on this funding resolution, let us understand that under the 
Democratic administration and the democratically controlled House and 
Senate, America, in the last five years has seen its deficit come down 
dramatically to a third of what it was when we took over, and its 
economy grow substantially to the benefit of its citizens and indeed 
the world.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I will be very brief at this point and just close by saying that, in 
following

[[Page H2105]]

up on what my colleague from Maryland said, that what we do here is 
very important. Our responsibility here is to fight for the men and 
women back in our districts, many of whom are still going through very 
difficult times around the country, whether it is floods in one part of 
the country, or in my part still recovering from the economic pressures 
of the end of the cold war and reduced defense spending, trying to get 
through the change from defense to nondefense economic activities.
  We do have a serious responsibility here, and I cannot help but be 
reminded by again what the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] said: My 
parents left the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany to come to this country 
because of its Democratic institutions.
  While we have substantial differences on what we ought to do, new 
evidence, again as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] said, 
indicates how incredibly important nutrition and other health 
activities are in those first several years of life. Those fights are 
terribly important fights, and while we disagree with them on many of 
these issues on the other side of the aisle, it is not their honor we 
question.
  We question the policies that will make the country be the strongest, 
the most productive, and the fairest for all of its citizens, and that 
really is our job here, as well as making sure that we defend these 
institutions, not when we are wrong, but from the kind of easy attacks 
that undermine people's belief in Democratic government.
  There are still so many millions and, yes, over 1 billion people on 
this planet who would give their lives to have the Democratic 
institutions we have. We ought not squander the trust of the American 
people as we try to maintain this institution, which more than any 
other institution on the face of this planet represents the hopes and 
aspirations of free people everywhere.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Frankly, this gentleman from California is confused. I have to tell 
my colleagues on the other side, they cannot have it both ways. Either 
we are not doing the job that the people want us to do and we should 
fund the committees more, or we get criticized because we are funding 
the committees more because we are not doing the job that we are 
supposed to do.
  The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] wants us to move 
campaign finance reform. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] gets 
up and says ``the constituents want us to know what is going on.''
  Well, I think if anybody paid attention at all in the last election, 
there was a lot going on in the gentleman's party, in his national 
party and over at the White House, and that if we are going to write 
meaningful campaign reform, we ought to find out what was going on. But 
we are criticized because we do not rush to the floor with a solution 
to whatever the problem is, because we have not had a chance to examine 
it. But obviously the minority, which has no responsibility in dealing 
with this, loves to get up and say ``We want it both ways.''
  The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] criticized the fact that we 
have detailees. The problem, I would tell the gentleman, in the 103d 
Congress was that just one committee had more than 100 detailees. They 
also had more than 100 staff, and they had more than 100 detailees.
  The current policy is to limit the detailees to 10 percent of the 
staff, and so for that committee the detailees would amount to the 
munificent number of nine. If they do not see the difference between 
100 detailees and 9, then obviously the argument that we have 
detailees, without telling the whole truth about the kind of outrageous 
policies that were present in the 103d, means that they want it both 
ways.
  I read a list of achievements since January 1995, not for the last 5 
years, not for the last 10 years, not since F.D.R. was President, but 
only since Republicans have become the majority in the House and the 
Senate. One of the items I mentioned was the reduction of the welfare 
rolls by 20 percent. As a matter of fact, the Democratic President 
signed that bill, but I can assure you that many of the people who have 
spoken on the other side of the aisle did not vote for that bill. So it 
is with some degree of pleasure that I can indicate to my colleagues 
that a Republican House and a Republican Senate and a Democratic 
Presidency are working together to change America for the better.
  I only hope that as this President and this Congress come to an 
agreement on an historic package which will balance the budget, which 
will preserve and strengthen Medicare, that my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle will join with us, the majority, in supporting their 
President in making the kinds of budgetary and entitlement and tax 
changes with which our President agrees.
  So I fully understand the frustration of the minority, having been 
there myself for a number of years, they certainly have the privileges, 
to have it both ways. They praise on the one hand and condemn on the 
other. I certainly am more than willing to tell them that if they 
believe it serves a useful purpose, it is certainly their right to do 
so, but I would tell this House that House Resolution 129 is a prudent 
funding package. It is appropriate. It is necessary. I would urge a 
``yes'' vote on House Resolution 129.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Resolution 
129, the committees' funding resolution for the 105th Congress.
  I do want to thank and commend the members of the Committee on House 
Oversight and the Democratic and Republican leadership for their 
diligence and hard work in bringing forward this resolution today. 
Striking a happy balance with committee budgets is a difficult and 
thankless job.
  Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this resolution. It is a step in the 
right direction, allowing our committee to begin recovering from the 
large budget cuts of 2 years ago.
  Historically, the work of the Congress increases in direct proportion 
to the enormity of the challenges facing this Nation. Getting more work 
done with less is always one of the greatest of our challenges. The 
increased funding in the budget for the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure is fully justified.
  The committee is the largest authorizing committee in Congress. When 
I came to the ``Hill'' in 1963, the committee had 34 members. In the 
104th Congress, we had 61. Today we have 73--a 215-percent increase 
over 1963, and a 20-percent increase over the 104th Congress. This is a 
mixed blessing, but definitely an indication of the interest House 
Members have in the work of our committee. We welcome new Members, but 
also we need more resources to handle the increased workload.
  In the 104th Congress, for the first time one committee--
Transportation and Infrastructure--was given jurisdiction over all 
modes of civil transportation. Our new jurisdiction included the major 
areas of rail, Coast Guard, and maritime transportation.
  Now we can deal more effectively with the broader, intermodal picture 
which has a host of problems, many of which we hope to address in the 
reauthorization of ISTEA this session.
  Congestion has risen on our highways to a level that costs American 
businesses $40 billion each year. Americans waste 1.6 million hours 
every day sitting in traffic.
  Airport traffic delays have strained the capacity of 22 of our major 
airports, and within 10 years 10 more airports will be added to this 
list unless we modernize.
  More of our ports need dredging and expansion to compete in the 
international marketplace. Our railway system needs to be more 
integrated and accessible, and our only national passenger rail system 
needs the recapitalization long promised, but never received.
  Transportation policy decisions are very much a key factor to the 
standard of living for every American. At last count, our national 
transportation economy accounted for 10.8 percent of our gross domestic 
product.
  Transportation safety continues to be a serious problem. Since 1991, 
a staggering 200,000 Americans have died and more than 15 million have 
been seriously injured on our highways at a cost to society of more 
than $750 million. There has been no appreciable decline in highway 
fatalities in the past 10 years. Each and every day the equivalent of a 
major airline crash occurs on our highways in communities across the 
country. Nine out of 10 Americans want the Federal Government to play a 
strong leadership role in highway safety, similar to food safety and 
aviation safety.
  Aviation safety, itself, is increasingly a concern. Last month, the 
National Transportation Safety Board reported that in 1996, 380 people 
lost their lives in airline accidents, the highest level since 1985.

[[Page H2106]]

  Rail safety is also a serious problem. In the first 5 months of last 
year alone, there were 54 serious rail accidents, including 2 in which 
entire towns were evacuated for 3 weeks, 3 in which poison gas was 
released, and 1 in which a train carrying 750-pound bombs derailed. 
Three cases involving runaway trains might have been prevented had the 
Federal Railroad Administration acted promptly on Congressional 
directives to reform power brake rules.
  Safety is not a partisan issue. With added resources our committee 
can conduct the oversight and produce the legislation needed to reverse 
the disturbing increase in accidents in 1996.
  I have only touched on a sampling of transportation issues from our 
primary list. In this Congress we also need to be dealing with a number 
of intricate and technical matters in the areas of water resources, 
public buildings, and economic development. Obviously, this Congress 
will be an extremely busy one and we need solid and thorough staff work 
to support our efforts.
  In addition, at a time when the Federal Government is making drastic 
cutbacks, the need for close congressional oversight increases 
dramatically. Unfortunately, there are many issues that will receive 
less, or even no, attention simply because of the limits of our 
resources.
  I can tell you as the ranking Democratic member of the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee, there are countless challenges and 
frustrations in my job, but few more exasperating than trying to 
stretch and make do with inadequate resources. My budget, in 
particular, for Democratic staff on the committee is one-third of the 
total personnel budget for the committee. At current funding levels, we 
are unable to fill two vacancies or to grant staff a cost-of-living 
adjustment. This is not the way to attract and retain quality, expert, 
and experienced staff needed to accomplish the work before us.
  Our committee badly needs the increased funding provided by the 
budget resolution. It will enhance our ability to make in-depth, 
informed legislative judgments and to vigorously pursue our oversight 
responsibilities.
  In answering to the American people, I would much rather defend 
funding we truly need, than try to explain that our job didn't get done 
for the lack of resources.
  There is no doubt we have to pass this resolution, and we should. It 
represents a good faith effort under very difficult circumstances. 
Accordingly, I will vote for this resolution.
  Mr. Thomas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 136, the previous question is ordered on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question is on the resolution, as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 262, 
nays 157, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 98]

                               YEAS--262

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--157

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Andrews
     Becerra
     Davis (IL)
     Fattah
     Herger
     Istook
     Lewis (CA)
     Myrick
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pombo
     Schiff
     Stupak
     Yates

                              {time}  1206

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Ms. DANNER, Mrs. TAUSCHER, and Messrs. 
HEFNER, DIXON, LUTHER, CONDIT, BISHOP, and DAVIS of Florida changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. FLAKE, BARTON of Texas, MILLER of California, McHALE, SPRATT, 
MARTINEZ, and COSTELLO changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.

                          ____________________