Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10790-H10793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM THE LIMITATION OF CLAUSE 6(d) OF RULE X
FOR THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 326 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 326

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the
Committee on Government

[[Page H10791]]

Reform and Oversight may have not more than eight
subcommittees for the duration of the One Hundred Fifth
Congress, notwithstanding clause 6(d) of rule X.

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 gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter],
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. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for an exception from the
limitation of clause 6(d) of House rule X to permit the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight to temporarily establish an eighth
subcommittee for the remainder of the 105th Congress.
When the House adopted the opening day rules package for the 104th
Congress, it amended clause 6(d) of House rule X to require that no
House committee shall have more than five subcommittees. As a result of
this change, the number of subcommittees of standing committees fell
from 118 in the 103d Congress to 84 in the 104th Congress.
However, the rule made an exception for the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight. The panel was authorized by the rule to have no
more than seven subcommittees. The committee was granted the exception
because it absorbed the functions of two standing committees, the
District of Columbia Committee and the Post Office and Civil Service
Committee, which the House also abolished as part of the opening day
package of reforms.
The issues which were consolidated in the government reform panel are
important, complex, and often contentious. This is particularly so with
respect to the Census Bureau's plans for conducting the year 2000
decennial census. It is an issue that is so complex and contentious
that it has held up passage of the Commerce, Justice, State
appropriations bill until the very last day of this session.
The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight believes that the
type of oversight that is needed over issues such as sampling,
questionnaire content, and continuous measurement cannot be done
effectively by the full committee or by its other subcommittees. Thus,
the resolution will allow the committee to establish an eighth
subcommittee to accommodate the need for extensive oversight over the
census.
I share the concerns of some in the minority that we resist the
temptation to expand the number of subcommittees in the House. Some
will suggest that oversight of the census can be achieved by
transferring that responsibility to another subcommittee, or by
consolidating subcommittees to make room for a census subcommittee
under the existing limit.
As I mentioned, the committee feels that effective oversight cannot
be conducted under the existing subcommittee structure, and I am
inclined to give the committee the benefit of the doubt.
But to protect against a permanent expansion of the committee
bureaucracy, this resolution does not change the limitations of clause
6(d) of rule X. It simply provides for what will essentially be a 1-
year exception for the purposes I just outlined.
I also believe that, irrespective of this temporary exemption,
additional subcommittee downsizing is achievable, and that it would
facilitate more integrated approaches to policymaking and oversight.
Further, it is my hope that the expenses needed to establish this
temporary new subcommittee will, to the extent possible, be derived
from the existing resources of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight.
Given the unique nature of the request for this additional
subcommittee and the safeguards against a permanent increase in
committee bureaucracy, I urge the adoption of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in the 103d Congress, as the chair of the Democratic
caucus committee on oversight, study, and review, I was responsible for
drafting the Democratic caucus rules that implemented most of the
current limitations on the number of subcommittees that any committee
may have. While working on this issue, I had the opportunity to review
the history of the House on the issue of the number of committees and
subcommittees. I found that in each major reorganization, the number of
committees and subcommittees was reduced. However, in each case soon
thereafter the number of each began to creep upward again. Therefore,
it is of little surprise to me that the majority is beginning to
retreat from its self-proclaimed reforms. What I do find surprising is
that they are making this exception with so little thought and
displaying a notable lack of planning and foresight.
At last night's Committee on Rules meeting, only the chair of the
subcommittee that currently has oversight over the census testified. He
was unable to tell us how much the additional subcommittee would cost.
He was unable to tell us where the extra funds would come from. He was
unable to tell us why the committee chose not to reorganize their seven
subcommittees so that the subcommittee with the census would have fewer
other areas of jurisdiction. He did not tell us why the committee's
leadership when organizing the subcommittee for this Congress did not
take into account the increased activity on the census. The decennial
census does not take any of us by surprise. As my friends in the
majority often remind us, the census is mandated in article I, section
2 of the Constitution. Did the committee leadership forget the census
was coming up in the year 2000 when it organized? Or do we have a
multitude of new issues regarding the conduct of the census?
Mr. Speaker, I testified at a 1989 hearing on the census. My
testimony centered on the problems of the census undercount and its
implications for a representative government such as ours. And what was
the controversial topic at that time? This is 1989. Whether sampling
should be used to correct the undercount.
Mr. Speaker, as Members can see, these issues, while very important,
are neither new nor unable to be anticipated when the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight organized earlier this year. Perhaps
the committee is forming an eighth subcommittee to request more
resources from the House. If this were the case, one would hope that
they would at least know how much they would need. But last night's
testimony was that they did not know. We should remember that this
committee, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, already
has the largest budget and the largest staff of any of the committees
funded through the legislative appropriations bill. Surely within its
more than $20 million budget, which is an increase of 47 percent over
the 104th Congress, and within its more than 134 employees, it could
simply reallocate resources to the effort. But, no, we are told that we
must make an exemption from the subcommittee limitation rule for the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, a committee that already
has two more subcommittees than most legislative committees. As the
Member who for 4 years had the responsibility of reviewing changes in
caucus and House rules, I know that sometimes flexibility is required.
Exceptional, unforeseen circumstances can and do occur. However, this
proposal does not meet any of the criteria that might warrant a rules
exception. The census was clearly foreseeable. The committee has both
the ability and the resources to reallocate jurisdiction among its
current seven subcommittees to adjust for the increasing census
workload. A proposal worthy of a change in House rules would include a
proposed budget and staffing needs. From testimony at the Rules hearing
last night, this proposed change has not been thought out even as to
those basic, minimal requirements.

Mr. Speaker, this rules change itself is not that important. However,
it does reveal the propensity shown by this supposedly conservative
majority to simply change the House rules or, for that matter, the U.S.
Constitution for convenience or for politics. A true conservative would
join me in demanding a rigorous analysis of the need to change either.
Certainly this proposal

[[Page H10792]]

does not meet that test. I ask my colleagues to reject this hasty, ill-
conceived exemption from the House rules.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If it is
defeated, I will offer an amendment to guarantee the House a separate
vote on additional funding to what already is the most expensive
committee in this House. I ask that the amendment be printed
immediately before the vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to live up to their promises of
accountability. Do not tap the slush fund. Vote ``no'' on the previous
question so that the House will vote on additional funding.
Mr. Speaker, I include material on ordering the previous question, as
follows:

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan.
It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
The vote on the previous question on a rule does have
substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

The text of the proposed amendment is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 326--Amending Clause 6(d), Rule X--Adding
an 8th Subcommittee

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
``Sec. . Any funding provided pursuant to this resolution
must be approved by the House.''

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 867, the Adoption
and Safe Families Act of 1997 because I believe it can improve the
lives of many children who find themselves in foster care.
Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly and Congressman David Camp deserves our
thanks for pulling together a bill that enjoys broad bipartisan
support--and for negotiating a good compromise with our Senate
colleagues.
H.R. 867 makes commonsense improvements in our child welfare and
foster care laws. It makes clear that, in making a reasonable efforts
to reunify a family, the child's is paramount. It reauthorizes the
capped entitlement funds that we have set aside to preserve and reunify
families and promote adoption. It extends health insurance to those
children with special needs who cannot be adopted without such
coverage. And, it creates an incentive system that will reward those
States that increase the number of children who are adopted out of
foster care. These are all good reforms, and long overdue.
H.R. 867 may have an even more dramatic effect on the lives of
children in foster care. Its success depends, in large measure, on how
the States implement the provisions of this new law. It can reduce the
number of children in foster care if State's take seriously our
instruction to begin proceedings to terminate parental rights sooner
under certain circumstances. But, handled the wrong way, this new
requirement could just as easily spell disaster.
If the end result of this requirement is to flood the courts with
requests to terminate parental rights, we will have done little to help
these children. And, if States make excessive use of their authority to
ignore these requirements when there is a compelling reason to do so,
little will have been accomplished. A delicate balancing act is
required, for each and every child, to make certain that we have done
all that we can to assure that these children have the happiest,
healthiest home environment possible.
Let me also comment on the provision of the bill that addresses
adoption of children across State lines. The folklore would have it
that States hold on to children who could otherwise be adopted out of
State because they don't want to give up the Federal foster care
payment. More likely, they fear that they cannot adequately monitor
these placements. Whatever, the reason, this bill makes clear that
geographically alone should not be a barrier to adoptive placement.
This provision deliberately does not mirror the language of the
Multi-Ethnic Placement Act--which calls for States to follow a first
come, first served approach to adoptions, turning a blind eye to race
and ethnicity. My views on that act are clear. Our paramount concern
should be what is best for the child, not what is best for the adults
who may be waiting to adopt that child.
H.R. 867 makes clear that we are not applying this shortsighted,
first come, first served approach to adoptive placements across State
lines. We leave in the hands of the professionals decisions about what
the best placement is for the child and instruct States to take steps
to eliminate any arbitrary barriers to adoption across State lines.
This, in my view, is a far more responsible, and practical approach
that was taken in the Multi Ethnic Placement Act.
Mr. Speaker, more than half a million of our children are in foster
care today, twice as many as were in care in the mid 1980's. With a
little support from us, most of these children will return home. For
those that cannot, the adoption provisions of H.R. 867 can make a
difference. A happy, healthy permanent home is our goal--for every one
of these children.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 194, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 633]

YEAS--220

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

NAYS--194

[[Page H10793]]

Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--18

Combest
Cubin
Flake
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Houghton
Johnson, E. B.
Matsui
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Pelosi
Riggs
Riley
Schiff
Scott
Smith (OR)
Stark
White

{time} 1147

Mr. SHAYS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on
the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces that this will be a 15-
minute vote, and, without objection, the vote on the motion to suspend
the rules and agree to House Resolution 327 will be a 5-minute vote.
There was no objection.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219,
noes 195, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 634]

AYES--219

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

NOES--195

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

NOT VOTING--18

Bartlett
Buyer
Combest
Cubin
Flake
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Houghton
Johnson, E. B.
Matsui
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Riley
Schiff
Scott
Smith (OR)
Stark
White

{time} 1205

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

____________________