Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 55 (Thursday, May 1, 1997)

[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.

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 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.

____________________