[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5322-5334]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING AMOUNTS FOR EXPENSES OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF 
                 REPRESENTATIVES IN THE 106TH CONGRESS

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on House 
Administration, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 101) providing 
amounts for the expenses of certain committees of the House of 
Representatives in the 106th Congress, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 101

       Resolved,

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

       (a) In General.--With respect to the One Hundred Sixth 
     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, 
     $8,564,493; Committee on Armed Services, $10,599,855; 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services, $9,725,255; 
     Committee on the Budget, $9,940,000; Committee on Commerce, 
     $15,537,415; Committee on Education

[[Page 5323]]

     and the Workforce, $12,382,569.63; Committee on Government 
     Reform, $21,028,913; Committee on House Administration, 
     $6,307,220; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
     $5,369,030.17; Committee on International Relations, 
     $11,659,355; Committee on the Judiciary, $13,575,939; 
     Committee on Resources, $11,270,338; Committee on Rules, 
     $5,069,424; Committee on Science, $9,018,326.30; Committee on 
     Small Business, $4,399,035; Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct, $2,860,915; Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, $14,539,260; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
     $5,220,900; and Committee on Ways and Means, $11,960,876.

     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, 1999, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 2000.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $4,175,983; Committee on Armed Services, $5,114,079; 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services, $4,782,996; 
     Committee on the Budget, $4,970,000; Committee on Commerce, 
     $7,597,758; Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
     $6,427,328.22; Committee on Government Reform, $10,301,933; 
     Committee on House Administration, $3,055,255; Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence, $2,609,105.06; Committee on 
     International Relations, $5,776,761; Committee on the 
     Judiciary, $6,523,985; Committee on Resources, $5,530,746; 
     Committee on Rules, $2,488,522; Committee on Science, 
     $4,453,860.90; Committee on Small Business, $2,094,868; 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,382,916; 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, $7,049,818; 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $2,497,291; and Committee on 
     Ways and Means, $5,833,436.

     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, 2000, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 2001.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $4,388,510; Committee on Armed Services, $5,485,776; 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services, $4,942,259; 
     Committee on the Budget, $4,970,000; Committee on Commerce, 
     $7,939,657; Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
     $5,955,241.41; Committee on Government Reform, $10,726,980; 
     Committee on House Administration, $3,251,965; Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence, $2,759,925.11; Committee on 
     International Relations, $5,882,594; Committee on the 
     Judiciary, $7,051,954; Committee on Resources, $5,739,592; 
     Committee on Rules, $2,580,902; Committee on Science, 
     $4,564,465.40; Committee on Small Business, $2,304,167; 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,477,999; 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, $7,489,442; 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $2,723,609; and Committee on 
     Ways and Means, $6,127,440.

     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 Administration.

     SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.

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

     SEC. 6. RESERVE FUND FOR UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES.

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

     SEC. 7. ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY.

       The Committee on House Administration 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.

  Mr. THOMAS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the resolution and the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.


           Committee Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute

  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

       Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute:
       Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:

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

       (a) In General.--With respect to the One Hundred Sixth 
     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, 
     $8,414,033; Committee on Armed Services, $10,342,681; 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services, $9,307,521; 
     Committee on the Budget, $9,940,000; Committee on Commerce, 
     $15,285,113; Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
     $11,200,497; Committee on Government Reform, $19,770,233; 
     Committee on House Administration, $6,251,871; Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence, $5,164,444; Committee on 
     International Relations, $11,313,531; Committee on the 
     Judiciary, $12,152,275; Committee on Resources, $10,567,908; 
     Committee on Rules, $5,069,424; Committee on Science, 
     $8,931,726; Committee on Small Business, $4,148,880; 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $2,632,915; 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, $13,220,138; 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $4,735,135; and Committee on 
     Ways and Means, $11,930,338.

     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, 1999, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 2000.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $4,101,062; Committee on Armed Services, $5,047,079; 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services, $4,552,023; 
     Committee on the Budget, $4,970,000; Committee on Commerce, 
     $7,564,812; Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
     $5,908,749; Committee on Government Reform, $9,773,233; 
     Committee on House Administration, $2,980,255; Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence, $2,514,916; Committee on 
     International Relations, $5,635,000; Committee on the 
     Judiciary, $5,787,394; Committee on Resources, $5,208,851; 
     Committee on Rules, $2,488,522; Committee on Science, 
     $4,410,560; Committee on Small Business, $2,037,466; 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,272,416; 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, $6,410,069; 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $2,334,800; and Committee on 
     Ways and Means, $5,814,367.

     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, 2000, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 2001.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $4,312,971; Committee on Armed Services, $5,295,602; 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services, $4,755,498; 
     Committee on the Budget, $4,970,000; Committee on Commerce, 
     $7,720,301; Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
     $5,291,748; Committee on Government Reform, $9,997,000; 
     Committee on House Administration, $3,271,616; Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence, $2,649,528; Committee on 
     International Relations, $5,678,531; Committee on the 
     Judiciary, $6,364,881; Committee on Resources, $5,359,057; 
     Committee on Rules, $2,580,902; Committee on Science, 
     $4,521,166; Committee on Small Business, $2,111,414; 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,360,499; 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, $6,810,069; 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $2,400,335; and Committee on 
     Ways and Means, $6,115,971.

     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 Administration.

     SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.

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

     SEC. 6. RESERVE FUND FOR UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES.

       There is hereby established a reserve fund of $3,000,000 
     for unanticipated expenses of committees for the One Hundred 
     Sixth Congress. Amounts in the fund shall be paid to a 
     committee pursuant to an allocation approved by the Committee 
     on House Administration.

     SEC. 7. ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY.

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
is recognized for 1 hour.

[[Page 5324]]


  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the 
Committee on House Administration, for purposes of debate only, pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this funding resolution, House Resolution 101, for the 
106th Congress is the fairest and the most equitable in distributing 
the resources to the committees in the recorded history of the House. 
More resources, staff, equipment and dollars are being provided to the 
minority in this resolution than in any other Congress. Speaker Hastert 
has provided more resources than former Speakers, including Speaker 
Foley, Speaker Wright, Speaker O'Neill, Speaker Albert, Speaker 
McCormick, Speaker Rayburn. I think you have got the idea. That also 
includes Speaker Gingrich in the 104th and the 105th Congress. Our 
commitment to the goal of two-thirds for the majority and one-third to 
the minority is closer than at any time in the recorded history of the 
House. And it is deserving of the Members' support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this past weekend in Hershey, many of us implicitly 
pledged to rise above our party labels and work as one when issues of 
right and fairness demanded it. Today, just 2 days later, after 
Hershey, we face the first test of that premise. If we pass the test, I 
have no doubt that the 106th Congress will take a step in reducing the 
air of animus and acrimony.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the motion 
to recommit that I will offer at the conclusion of this debate. Without 
altering the funding totals in House Resolution 101, my motion provides 
for a fair, one-third/two-thirds division of total committee resources 
between the majority and minority, and the complete discretion over the 
use of these resources.
  I offer the motion, Mr. Speaker, because House Resolution 101 does 
not treat 212 Members of this body fairly, and, therefore, contravenes 
all that Hershey symbolizes. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this 
minority is the largest minority in this century.
  It was not that long ago that I could have counted on the current 
majority to support my motion to recommit. In a March 30, 1993 letter, 
signed by 31 Republican leaders, 17 of whom still serve in this body, 
they wrote then and I quote: ``If congressional reform means anything, 
it means fairness to the minority in allocation and control of 
resources.''
  I ask my majority colleagues to consider that language of 31 of their 
leaders. They went on to say that ``reform without fairness is merely 
shuffling the cards in a marked deck.''
  Their letter went on to say further, and I quote, ``A ratio of one-
third/two-thirds for all committee staff, investigative as well as 
statutory, is a sine qua non, an absolutely essential component of, the 
effort for bridging the institutional animosities that now poison our 
policy debates.''
  It was that criteria of fairness, that Pat Roberts and Jennifer Dunn 
included in their amendments, and in their motions to recommit on the 
floor, for which every Republican, save one, Don Young of Alaska, voted 
in 1993 and 1994, of those Republicans who still serve in this body.

                              {time}  1830

  Now let me make it very clear to my colleagues on my side of the 
aisle. To his credit, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has 
fully adopted the one-third/two-thirds principle for the Committee on 
House Administration. I have thanked him for that, and I admire him for 
that. Since 1995 he has given our side one-third of the total funds, 
one-third of the staff, and control over our share of the resources.
  Unfortunately, no other committee chairman has fully followed his 
lead. Frequently the chairman will speak of 30 percent as though it is 
the same as one-third. It is not. One-third equals 33.3 percent, not 30 
percent, not 29.8, not 31. The 3.3 percent difference can add up to 
thousands of dollars in lost resources for the minority.
  Again, I call my colleagues' attention to the definition of 
``fairness'' incorporated in this statement, a definition that was then 
adopted by every Republican, save one, who was a Member of this body in 
1993 and 1994, and is a Member today. However, when the chairmen talk 
about ``fairness,'' they fail to explain why the minority does not 
control one-third of the nonsalary budget. That means whenever the 
minority staff needs to purchase a computer or a copy machine or a box 
of paper clips, it must ask the chairman for the money to make the 
purchase, a situation of which the then minority in 1993 and 1994 
bitterly complained.
  Often chairmen will claim that the minority receives one-third of the 
committee staff slots. That may in some instances be true, but if the 
minority does not also receive one-third of the total committed 
funding, the staff slots may be irrelevant. And if a chairman 
arbitrarily exempts any portion of a committee staff as nonpartisan 
administrative personnel even though these employees work full-time in 
the majority office, then the claim has been inflated.
  Another refrain we hear to justify a less than perfect implementation 
of the one-third principle is that Democrats on some committees did not 
respect it when they were in the majority, and therefore it has taken 
time to ``grow'' their budgets to the full one-third. That argument may 
have worked in the 104th, and perhaps in the 105th, but very frankly it 
is time to do, Mr. Speaker, what they said on the minority side was 
fairness. That is the criteria that they set; that is the motion to 
recommit that I will offer. It is exactly like that offered by Pat 
Roberts in 1993 and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) in 1994.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I would only tell my friend from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that perhaps he 
should have had the foresight to vote for that motion to recommit. 
Since he did not and no Democrat voted for it, they sent a pretty clear 
message that that was not something that they were for. Notwithstanding 
that, I think my colleagues will find that the new Republican majority 
has moved in that direction significantly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Ehlers), a very hard-working member of the committee.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  First of all, I believe this is an excellent resolution. We, as my 
colleagues know, had some problems the last few years on this 
particular issue, but it is in much better shape now than it has been 
in the past, both in terms of a fair distribution and allocation among 
the committees as well as a modest overall increase which will better 
allow the committees to do their work.
  The remainder of my comments will deal with the issues raised by the 
previous speaker, which I believe are outlined the ideal that we are 
striving for. I have Several comments:
  First, I have a chart here which reviews the historical development 
of relative staff allocation between the majority and minority on the 
various committees. My colleagues will note, as they look at the blue 
line which denotes, on this chart, the staff levels for the minority 
that designates the number of minority staff slots that are assigned 
for the various committees. The minority party resources are shown as a 
percentage, plotted on the left side, and the red lines indicate 
resources allocated to the minority. My colleagues can notice here a 
great jump as one goes from the Democratic-controlled House to the 
Republican-controlled House.
  This jump is something that those of us in mathematics refer to as a 
step function. There is a discontinuity here. If any of my colleagues 
understand electronics, they will also recognize this as a diagram of 
the current flow through a transistor as a function of voltage. We can 
make a computer out of things like this! But that is not what

[[Page 5325]]

we are doing here. We are simply pointing out a tremendous dislocation 
of resources allocated to the minority, comparing the Democratic 
leadership to the Republican leadership.
  I think we deserve a great deal of credit for the improvement the 
Republicans made immediately upon assuming the majority, and for the 
continuous improvement we are making now, trying to reach the ultimate 
goal of 33 percent. We are actually getting fairly close.
  The other factor I note is that in doing some research on this, I 
discovered a Roll Call newspaper article from 1989. I discovered 
somewhat to my surprise that the Committee on House Administration at 
that time had set a 20 percent ratio for the minority, which is of 
course off the bottom of my chart here and does not even begin to 
compare with what the Republicans have done for the minority in this 
Congress.
  But what is really interesting in this article is a quote from the 
then-chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Brooks, who made the comment that he did not see why we even 
needed the 20 percent figure for the minority because, after all, the 
Democrats had no say in the staffing of the Republican-controlled 
executive branch. Following that argument, we of course should be below 
the 20 percent level now because we now have a Democrat President 
running the country, and why should we allow the Democrats more than 20 
percent? Mr. Speaker, I think that reasoning is faulty, but it is 
indicative of some of the attitude some Democrats had at that point.
  The point is simply that the Republicans have made a very good effort 
to achieve the goal of a two-thirds majority, one-third minority 
allocation of resources and staff slots. We are making good progress. 
Frankly, I hope we get there very soon, and we may be able to do that 
in the next funding cycle. But certainly no one can fault us for our 
efforts to achieve that goal. I am proud of what we have achieved, and 
we will continue to work in that direction.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), a member of the Committee on House 
Administration.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, our constituents sent us here to 
tend to their business and represent their views to the best of our 
abilities. This debate today is central to fulfilling that mission.
  We talk about committee funding. What we are really talking about is 
whether Members of Congress have adequate resources to represent their 
constituents in committees, and much of the most important work in 
Congress, the fact-finding, takes place in committee.
  The Democrat minority has made a very fair and responsible request. 
We make up 49 percent of the House of Representatives, and we are 
simply asking for one-third of the committee funding. As former Speaker 
Newt Gingrich once said, giving one-third of the funding to the 
minority is absolutely indispensable for bridging the institutional 
animosities that now poison our policy debates. We all know the damage 
this institution has suffered recently because of venomous partisan 
clashes. It is my sincere hope that these dark days are behind us and 
we can forge a stronger bond of trust to work together for the good of 
our Nation. A more just distribution of resources will take us down 
this path.
  Let me cite the work of one committee as an example of why it is so 
important that we have the one-third ratio. The performance of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight illustrates what can 
happen when there is nothing to rein in an overly zealous partisan 
agenda. The committee held few hearings, spent huge sums of money, 
duplicated resources available elsewhere, and even manipulated 
transcripts to advance their agenda. Had the minority had the 
opportunity and resources to participate more fully in the conduct of 
the committee's business, it might have been able to serve as a 
restraint on this committee's record.
  Despite its record, this committee has asked for a 7 percent funding 
increase while freezing the minority's resources at 25 percent. This is 
unacceptable.
  Back in 1995 the Committee on House Administration stated its goal 
was to have one-third funding, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) has lived up to that goal. Unfortunately, several committees 
have not.
  Let me close with two final points. There has been a lot of talk 
about what the Democrats did and what the Republicans have done. It is 
important to keep in mind that over 43 percent of the House Members 
serving here today, 189 Members, did not serve in this Congress prior 
to 1994. We are not so much interested in the history of who did what 
to who. We are interested in serving our constituents and moving 
forward.
  One of my favorite sayings is: ``Everybody is entitled to their own 
opinion, but not to their own version of the facts'' And we all know, 
Democrats and Republicans, that one of the places where we can come 
together and minimize disagreement is agreeing upon what the facts are. 
Unless the Democrats have the staff support they need to do their work 
so we can come together on the fact-finding in the committees, then we 
cannot truly do what we were sent here to do, which is debate our 
opinions.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution today and to 
support the Hoyer motion to recommit.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I know there are a lot of Members who have not been here 
long and therefore their history is not as deep or as long as some 
others. I am going to introduce the new chairman of the House Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  This is a headline from Roll Call, March 27, 1989. The headline says: 
``Six Committees Fail to Meet the New 20 Percent Minority Ratio Test.'' 
The Democrats were using a 20 percent goal. On the Committee on the 
Judiciary the ratio in 1989 was 82 percent to the majority, 18 percent 
to the minority. That is clearly unacceptable. But when we have to move 
funding of a committee the size and scope of this one, and this one was 
not alone, we have got to move over time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the House Committee on the 
Judiciary, who is here to tell us what we are doing in the 106th 
Congress.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  This institution is charged with a critically important function. We 
are elected to adopt policy and to oversee its implementation. The 
enormity of this responsibility is sometimes forgotten as we go about 
our day-to-day business, but we all know that without the assistance of 
experienced staff we could not possibly keep ourselves sufficiently 
informed on the workings of a government that will spend nearly $1.8 
trillion in the year 2000. The committees must be adequately funded and 
staffed if Congress is going to have any ability to make informed 
judgments as to the operation of that government or the existence of 
unmet needs.
  Given the enormity of this task, I believe that the $180.4 million, 
2-year budget that the Committee on House Administration has proposed 
for the 19 House committees will be money well spent. As chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, I can personally attest to the 
invaluable role that committee staff plays in advising and preparing 
Members to make difficult policy choices that will shape the laws of 
our country.
  But we cannot expect to attract and retain the high-quality, expert 
staff we need if we cannot afford to offer salaries that are 
competitive with the private sector. We must be able to reward good 
work with merit raises, and we must be able to pay cost-of-living 
increases when necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, that is largely what the modest 1.5 percent yearly 
increase in this resolution will be used to fund, but beyond that we 
must make sure that we have sufficient staff to undertake our 
legislative and our oversight responsibilities.

[[Page 5326]]

  In the 105th Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary was one of the 
most active committees in the House. We were referred over 15 percent 
of the total legislative measures introduced and were responsible for 
the enactment of 70 bills and 10 private laws. We anticipate the 
committee will continue if not increase this pace in the 106th 
Congress.

                              {time}  1845

  Statistics are not everything. Our charge is not to turn out 
legislation with the speed of light but to produce legislation that is 
thoughtfully and thoroughly considered so it will stand the political 
and legislative test of time.
  A short listing of the issues we deal with in our committee shows the 
complexity and controversy of our agenda. For example, in the 106th we 
will take up bankruptcy reform which failed to be enacted in the last 
Congress. Other high-profile legislation we anticipate handling 
includes juvenile justice reform and encryption export controls. 
Religious freedom legislation and a victims' right constitutional 
amendment, complex and volatile issues that will be on our calendar. 
Criminalization of partial-birth abortions, employment preferences and 
set-asides, civil asset forfeiture reform, intellectual property and 
other high tech legislation are topics we will revisit.
  The committees are constantly challenged with trying to stretch 
inadequate resources to cover all of these issues and more. If we are 
forced to spread our staff resources too thin, our work product will 
suffer. I am concerned that we do not have the resources both to 
continue our legislative pace and do meaningful oversight of agencies 
under our jurisdiction. That is why I have asked for additional staff 
to engage in comprehensive oversight of the $21 billion, 120,000 
employee Department of Justice.
  The Committee on the Judiciary's 2-year, $12.2 million budget 
allocation pales in comparison with the Federal resources we are 
charged with overseeing. The work of the committee is ultimately the 
work of the people, and we must not hamstring them by denying them 
adequate resources.
  I applaud the Committee on House Administration for the well-crafted 
budget package we are considering and I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. LaFalce), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Banking and Financial Services.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 101, 
and I urge support for the motion to recommit with instructions offered 
by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) to guarantee the minority 
control of at least one-third of the resources of all committees and 
one-third of disbursements from the reserve fund.
  One would think that it is fairly clear that if the ratio in the full 
House of Representatives is approximately 51 percent to 49 percent, 
that at the very least the 49 percent should have at least one-third of 
the human resource allocations and one-third of the funding, but that 
is not the case, and that is why this resolution is so inherently 
unfair.
  I think that my Committee on Banking and Financial Services is 
probably in better shape than most with respect to fairness, but even 
in my own case we have severe difficulties.
  For example, in 1994 our committee had 93 slots. The committee's work 
has increased exponentially and we have reduced the number of slots to 
65. Assume that we could understand and accept that, but there is a 
difficulty. Of the 65 slots, we who have 49 percent of the vote have 
but 19 of the 65 slots. That is not fundamental fairness. That is not 
fundamental fairness at all.
  It is very difficult to do the job if there are inadequate resources. 
What is the job that we have to do? Broad housing and economic 
development jurisdiction, expansive consumer jurisdiction, broad 
authority over the regulation of financial services firms, substantial 
economic policy responsibilities, broad authority over all of the 
international development institutions and global economic issues.
  We have one staff person who handles all consumer and community 
development issues; one detailee who handles international economic 
issues, since we cannot afford to actually hire appropriate staff.
  I recommend approval of the motion to recommit with instructions and 
defeat of the committee funding resolution.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the new chairman of the Committee on Rules in 
the 106th Congress.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to simply extend congratulations to 
the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, my very good 
friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and just say that he 
has led us very, very strongly in the direction of creating a very, 
very strong balance on this issue of minority representation.
  Having served in the minority for so many years, we are very 
sensitive to that concern on this side of the aisle. I believe that the 
balance that has been struck is a very healthy one, and I hope that the 
House will move and pass this resolution so that we can begin to 
address a lot of the concerns that are out there.
  Technologically, we need to make sure that the equipment is 
available. We need to have first class staff, and I think we have that, 
but we have to compensate them and I think that this measure does just 
that.
  I thank my friend and congratulate him for his fine work.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, on March 30, 1993, as I said earlier, 31 Republican 
leaders wrote to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and Mr. 
Hamilton in their capacity as cochairs of the Joint Committee on the 
Organization of Congress. The gentleman heard the ``sine qua non'' 
quote, that one-third of the resources were necessary to overcome the 
poisonous atmosphere that existed.
  Did the gentleman agree with that premise?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I did. The problem that we faced was that we 
were never able to get that measure even considered on the House floor, 
and that was very frustrating for many of us.
  Mr. HOYER. I will tell the gentleman that it was considered twice, on 
a motion to recommit by Mr. Roberts, and a motion to recommit by the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), and the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules voted for it twice. He will have the opportunity to 
vote for it a third time.
  Mr. DREIER. Did my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, vote for it 
at that time, is the question that we need to ask? We welcome the 
gentleman to the fold.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary talked about the necessity for resources. Also included in 
that motion to recommit was a cut of 25 percent of the resources 
available to the committees. We did not think that was wise at that 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, standing before the House today is like deja 
vu. Two years ago, as the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Government Reform, I argued that the House should reject the committee 
funding resolution because the majority allocated only 25 percent of 
the budget of the Committee on Government Reform to the minority.
  I could make virtually the same statement today. The work of the 
Committee on Government Reform last Congress was extraordinarily 
partisan. The committee's campaign finance investigation was widely 
acknowledged to be one of the most unfair, abusive and wasteful 
investigations since the McCarthy hearings, and the most expensive 
congressional investigation in history.

[[Page 5327]]

  As described by Norman Ornstein, a congressional expert at the 
American Enterprise Institute, and I am quoting him, the Burton 
investigation is going to be remembered as a case study in how not to 
do a congressional investigation.
  At the outset of this Congress I hoped that things would have 
changed. In early January I wrote the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman 
Burton) and asked for three things: Fair rules for issuing subpoenas; 
fair subcommittee ratios; and a fair budget. Unfortunately, the 
majority rejected each of these requests.
  The committee adopted rules that once again allowed the chairman to 
issue subpoenas unilaterally with no opportunity for the minority to 
appeal his decision to the full committee. The committee then adopted 
subcommittee ratios that once again gave the minority far fewer seats 
than we were entitled to, and today the majority is proposing another 
unfair budget.
  The majority falsely claims that it is substantially increasing 
minority funding over the last Congress, but that is just an accounting 
gimmick. As this chart here indicates, the indisputable fact is that 
the committee Democrats are being allocated only 25.9 percent of the 
committee's budget, an increase of less than 1 percent over the last 
Congress, less than 1 percent.
  It was 25 percent in the previous Congress; 25 percent in the 
Congress before that. In the year 2000, Democrats will receive 25.9 
percent of the committee's budget. That is not reasonable progress 
toward the third by anyone's definition. It is not the 33 percent of 
the budget the majority adopted as House policy. I urge my colleagues 
to vote against this partisan and unfair resolution.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1999, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
indicated that there was an accounting gimmick which was being used to 
distort the percentages. In 1992, the chairman of the Committee on Ways 
and Means at that time, Mr. Rostenkowski, stated that the committee had 
14 shared administrative staff.
  In 1994, in the markup, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said it 
is inconceivable that other committees have no nonpartisan staff such 
as the receptionist, the calendar clerks, et cetera, who serve both the 
majority and the minority. Many committees have reported them to us.
  The Democrats when they were in the majority routinely used the 
allocation of shared administrative staff. The problem is now, when we 
in the majority use it, it is somehow an accounting gimmick.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica), a very valuable member of the committee.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Thomas) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think tonight what we have to deal with in Congress 
are the facts. I think the American people and the Members of Congress 
and history are interested in the facts.
  The facts, my friend, are quite simple. In the 103rd Congress, under 
the Democrat majority, the Democrats expended $223 million to run the 
committees. The fact is, under the 106th Congress, we are expending 
$183 million, committee funding of $40 million less than when the 
Democrats controlled the House of Representatives.
  The facts are that the numbers of staff in the 103rd Congress under 
the Democrat majority were 1,639. The facts are in this budget, 
proposed by the Republican majority, the staff positions are 1,153; 30 
percent less staff.
  In addition to staff levels that have been reduced, the Republican 
majority in these 4-plus years have privatized the dining room, 
privatized the barber shop, privatized the printing office, provided 
public parking, which is a new thing that we provided the public, in 
addition to cutting staff, cutting funding.
  We even stopped the delivery of ice to Members' offices, long after 
refrigerators were instituted, with an additional 12 staff cuts. Those 
folks do not deliver ice anymore to us, even though we have 
refrigerators.
  We did all of this and we did it fairly, because I stood up here in 
the 103rd Congress and held up a chart similar to this that said 55 to 
5. We may recall, and history recorded it very well in the 
Congressional Record, and that was the staff ratios on the predecessor 
of the Committee on Government Reform, which was Government Operations, 
55 to 5. I just made a new one for tonight. This is the ratio accorded 
to us.
  In this budget, in fact, we give them 28 percent of the budget and 30 
percent of the staff. If we just take a minute and look at the minority 
resource comparison, and these are the facts, my colleagues, 33 percent 
more we are providing. In the 103rd, there were only two. In the 106th 
Congress, the number of committees provided are now 9 with 33 percent 
of the staff; 25 to 32 percent was 12, is now 8; and less than 25 
percent, in the 106th Congress, zero.

                              {time}  1900

  We are being fair. We are being evenhanded. We are equally 
distributing the resources in a very progressive manner. The score was 
5 to 55 giving the old minority this ratio, very unfair. Today we see 
an equitable distribution. These are the facts and these are the 
figures, and this is what we must deal with, Mr. Speaker.
  I believe the Republicans have done an excellent job in both 
allocating resources and at the same time addressing the concerns of 
the American people. That is cutting the staff and the expense and the 
bureaucracy in Washington and in this Congress.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. John Conyers), the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and one 
of the senior members of the Congress of the United States.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Steny Hoyer) as the ranking member for 
doing such an excellent job of studying where we are getting to, not 
where we have been. I love these allusions back into the past, as if 
they are some guide or reason for injustices to continue into the 
present.
  Now, as one of the most partisan--the ranking member of one of the 
most partisan committees in this Congress, I want to tell the Members 
that the funding and staffing problems go right to the core of many of 
our problems.
  I quote the present chairman of this Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Henry Hyde), who has said, ``Two-thirds 
and one-third ratios are used in the Senate, and I believe its 
realization in the House would enormously reduce the often acrimonious 
proceedings to which the House is subjected.'' And yet, and yet, even 
with some improvements at this late date, we are still trying to get 
somewhere near this goal.
  I am very disappointed. I have little else to do but to urge that we 
accept the alternative that has been put out that states what everybody 
keeps saying they support, and yet will not get to. This goes beyond a 
recommit and final passage, this is the matter of simple fairness.
  I, for one, am finding it more difficult to suffer through simple 
requests for publications, witness travel, stenographers, this is the 
Committee on the Judiciary, legal publications; no control over the 
funding. And here we now come, and even in impeachment it was the past 
Speaker that got us beyond the four out of 18 slots, if Members can 
believe it, for a committee on impeachment.
  I come here very disappointed and not happy at all about the position 
that we find ourselves in in the 106th Congress. It is unnecessary. 
This has gone on, this partisanship that affects our resource and staff 
allocations, and it is now affecting our ordinary work.
  For that reason, I am not able to support the proposal that is before 
us, and I really hope that we can turn this matter back until we get a 
further understanding of how we reach this very complex physicist's 
evaluation of one-third and two-thirds.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

[[Page 5328]]

  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) who just spoke 
is on the Committee on the Judiciary now. I indicated that the ratio at 
that time was 82 percent majority to 18 percent minority on the 
Committee on the Judiciary, but actually, it was the Committee on 
Government Operations at that time, and that ratio was 85 percent 
majority and only 15 percent minority.
  Let me also say that the Committee on the Judiciary is getting 10 new 
staff in this Congress. Rarely does a committee get double-digit 
increases in their staff, but the Committee on the Judiciary is getting 
10 new staff. What is the split? Is it like it was in the old days, 
eight and two? No. Is it seven and three, the request that they are 
making? No. Is it six and four? No. Unprecedented in the history of 
this House, the majority is dividing 10 new staff, five to the minority 
and five to the majority, a 50/50 split.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), a member of the Committee on 
House Administration who has now spent enough years in the process of 
listening to this case to have that kind of institutional knowledge 
that so many of the Members do not share.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of our committee, for the 
excellent work he has done in bringing this resolution to the Floor for 
this Congress that really does bring about a continued effort for 
fairness for both parties as we try to do our legislative job.
  Mr. Speaker, speaking of fairness, there has been an awful lot of it 
talked about on the Floor tonight. I have been here in the Congress for 
8 years. I have spent 6 years on this committee dealing with this 
issue. Thankfully, the last session of Congress and this session we are 
dealing with a 2-year budget cycle. We have to go through a lot of this 
rhetoric every year. It is always acrimonious, because when one is in 
the minority they always feel like they should have more.
  I think my friends on the other side of the aisle will acknowledge 
that we, the majority now, are treating the minority much more fairly 
than we were ever treated when we were in the minority.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I had this discussion in 
the committee last week. When we took control after 1994 there was a 
great debate, and there were some on my side in the majority who wanted 
to treat the Democrats the way they treated us when we were in the 
minority. Many of us argued that, no, we should treat the minority in 
the House the same way that we had asked to be treated.
  When we look at our efforts at trying to get committee funding for 
the minority up to the one-third goal, we have made a significant 
effort. So I think that as we now approach about 31 percent on average, 
with more than half of the committees at one-third or more, that we are 
making an honest effort and a good try toward the goal we set out.
  We should not forget what is really more I think at the base of the 
problem and the argument that we are having tonight. It goes back to 
1994, when we promised the American people in the Contract With America 
that we would cut committee funding by one-third.
  In 1995, we did cut committee funding by one-third, cutting over $50 
million out of the committees, reducing the number of slots. Even 
today, some 4\1/2\ years later, we are spending $40 million less this 
year than what was spent in 1994, the last year of the Democrat 
majority. So there is not as much money to go around.
  But I remember quite clearly on the opening day of this session of 
the Congress, when the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) 
offered the olive branch to the minority leader, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), saying, I think, I am going to do everything I 
can to go halfway, and maybe even more so at times.
  I think what we are asking the entire House to do is to do more with 
less, to live within the constraints that we promised the American 
people we would do when we took the majority. The budgets are cut. We 
are trying to pinch our pennies. If we look at the budget over the next 
2 years we will see that there is a 3 percent increase in total. That 
is 1\1/2\ percent per year, well below the rate of inflation.
  We made that commitment to the American people that Congress could do 
more with less. We are trying to make that commitment and keep that 
commitment, and also at a time while we are treating the minority with 
the fairness that we had asked for.
  Is it perfect? No, it is not. It was not perfect before and it will 
not be perfect even the next time. But our goal and our word to work 
towards that one-third goal is genuine, and I think that the minority 
understands as clearly as I do that we are doing much better in terms 
of the way we are treating them than the way we were being treated when 
we were in the minority.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird), the President of the incoming freshman class.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from Maryland, and speak today as someone who is new to this 
institution.
  I have been listening for the past number of minutes to people 
recounting old battles and old wars and old perceived injustices. We 
are new as freshmen to this institution, our first term. When we came 
here at orientation we pledged on both sides, Democrats and 
Republicans, to work together in a spirit of bipartisanship and a 
spirit of fairness.
  It is to that spirit of bipartisanship and fairness that I speak to 
my Republican colleagues today. I have to ask a simple question: If the 
ratio of Members in this House is divided 49 to 51, how is it possibly 
fair that the ratios in terms of funding for committees should be less 
than one-third to two-thirds? This is not, today, about injustices of 
the past. This is about a simple discussion of what is fair and what is 
right and how we should conduct ourselves.
  I am calling today on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
freshman Democrats and freshman Republicans, to ask a simple question: 
What is fair, and do we stand for fairness?
  I would submit that the request that has been made as a minimum of 
one-third to two-thirds ratio is perfectly fair. In fact, it is 
factually quite imbalanced, but we are only asking one-third to two-
thirds. I would call on my friends and colleagues from the Republican 
side to join with me and with the freshmen to achieve that balance 
which just a couple of years ago people asked to achieve, and which 
frankly is perfectly just, perfectly reasonable, and would set this 
institution on a true bipartisan course.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman from Washington that in the 
spirit of Hershey, when a gesture is made, that gesture ought to be 
returned. Now, I would tell the gentleman that if he would examine the 
committee funding, there are a number of committees that exceed that 
one-third request that is being made: The Committee on House 
Administration, the Committee on the Budget, the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Science, the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Small Business, the 
Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services. One hundred sixty-seven 
Democrats sit on a committee that now meets the two-thirds/one-third 
ratio.
  So I am not looking at the past, I tell my friend, the gentleman from 
Washington, I am looking at today. One hundred sixty-seven Democrats 
are now sitting on committees that meet that figure. The reason the 
other committees have not moved is that they had such an egregiously 
low base. We have made progress every Congress so that no committee is 
less than 25 percent, and we will continue to make progress.
  It would seem to me that as a new Member, in the spirit of Hershey, 
if we reach out to one hundred sixty-seven Members of the Democratic 
Caucus, at

[[Page 5329]]

least one would reach back and say, thank you, the two-thirds/one-third 
is appropriate, it is necessary. The one hundred sixty-seven Democrats, 
by their vote, can prove that what we are choosing to do is right and 
proper. It will be quite surprising to me if not one Democrat out of 
the one hundred sixty-seven reaches his or her hand across the aisle to 
say, you are doing what you committed to do, that which we never did.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I really would like to speak to my dear friends and 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle and state that, in the spirit 
of Hershey, a one-third/two-thirds split is totally fair, and builds on 
two votes that were taken on this floor that supported such action.
  As my dear colleague just pointed out, there has been some progress, 
but when the majority created a new committee, the Census Committee, 
this would have been a perfect opportunity, an absolutely perfect 
opportunity to put forward the fair two-thirds/one-third division.

                              {time}  1915

  But what happened when they created a Subcommittee on Census is they 
only provided the minority with 25 percent of the resources, not 33.3 
percent, but 25 percent of the resources. In the ratios of slots of 
Members assigned to the committee, it was terribly unfair, 11 to 4, 11 
Republicans to 4 Democrats in the allocation of slots.
  The census is supposed to be about fairness and fair counts. This 
would have been an opportunity to implement the one-third/two-thirds 
division. But my colleagues gave us 25 percent, the same as what my 
colleagues gave the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight over 
the past 6 years. There has been absolutely no movement.
  I must say that the Republican funding resolution, which does include 
a 3 percent increase, does nothing to guarantee the minority a fair 
one-third/two-thirds split in resources.
  The reserve fund is allocated at $3 million for the 106th Congress, 
but the Republicans are allocating $2.4 million to the Subcommittee on 
Census of the Committee on Government Reform, money that came out of 
the reserve fund in the 105th. Democrats are only getting 25 percent 
and again only four of the 15 slots.
  I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the spirit of 
Hershey to support fairness, the one-third/two-thirds split, the Hoyer 
amendment, and motion to recommit.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) that 
we are beginning in the name of Hershey, to call out. Perhaps we can 
bring it a little closer to home. I have a Roll Call editorial from 
earlier this month, March 4, which I think is quite succinct in summing 
up much of the debate that we have heard so far. The editorial says, 
``Quit Whining''. It says, ``The more we look at history, the less it 
appears the Democrats have much basis to whine.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, what I told Roll Call, and what I repeat now, is that we 
are not whining. We are reminding our Republican colleagues, who said 
when they were in minority, that fairness was one-third of the 
resources of the committees. We are now reminding them of their 
statement and saying, if they want fairness, do fairness. Do it 
tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez), ranking member of the Committee on Small 
Business.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the motion to 
recommit. We should not make this a Republican issue or a Democratic 
issue. It is a simple matter of fairness. By adopting this motion, we 
will help both parties to better serve the American people.
  I recently became the ranking member of the Committee on Small 
Business, and I must commend the gentleman from Missouri (Chairman 
Talent) for the bipartisan manner in which he has run the committee. 
Even though we do not always agree on policy, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Talent) has made every effort to accommodate both myself 
and my staff and to run the committee in a fair manner. Although we 
have had some difficulties with funding, once the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Talent) became aware of the problem, he worked to rectify 
it.
  We are now working out our problems through the committee process, 
and I would like to commend the gentleman from Missouri for working 
with me to solve this problem. The bipartisanship of our committee 
should serve as an example to the rest of Congress.
  However, too often committee funding has been used as a political 
tool. Too often the party in the majority has turned committee funding 
into a partisan issue. This must change.
  I have told the gentleman from Missouri (Chairman Talent) that the 
minority should control one-third of the committee's budget. This is 
only fair, and this is what this motion will do. As the ranking 
members, we are committing ourselves today to ensure that the minority 
party will be able to serve the Members and the American people.
  I for one do not believe that access to periodicals, journals, 
computer software and basic office supplies should be turned into 
political game. These things are needed to properly run any office and 
to provide a basic level of service to those Members serving on a 
committee.
  Six years ago, the Republican minority talked about using a one-
third/two-thirds ratio as a way to help bridge the institutional 
animosity which too often plagues this body. Today we are asking them 
to deliver on this promise. I urge both sides of the aisle to support 
the motion to recommit.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), one of our Members who I think has 
demonstrated a commitment to fairness throughout his career here.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland 
for yielding me this time, and I rise in favor of the motion to 
recommit.
  But first of all, I want to address what this debate is about. I do 
not need a chart. I do not need a graph. I do not need to put all kinds 
of statistics and facts and figures out there. This is very simple. It 
can be about one word, and that is fairness.
  It is the fairness, if the Democrats represent 49 percent of this 
Chamber, they should get 49 percent of the funding. If Republicans 
represent 49 percent of the Chamber, they should get 49 percent of the 
committee funding. It is so critically important to be fair on this 
funding resolution for committee work.
  Such scholars as Richard Fenno have said that the work of Congress is 
the work of its committees. We can have our partisan fights out here on 
the floor, and I hope we would be civil about it; but back in our 
committee rooms across the halls, I would hope that we could be 
bipartisan and fair about how we fund our committee staffs and our 
trips to our Districts and how we allocate funds to represent those 
Districts.
  Woodrow Wilson, who was a scholar and a President, talked about the 
importance of committee work in representing our constituents. I hear 
time and time again from the other side about 1989 and what the 
Democrats did, and they admit it was wrong; in 1992 what the Democrats 
did, and they say it was wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, we study history in order not to repeat the mistakes of 
the past and not to justify action today that is based on mistakes of 
yesterday.
  I would hope both sides could come forward and commit, whether 
Democrats or Republicans have the majority, after the year 2000 
elections, that

[[Page 5330]]

we would agree simply on fairness to fund these committee resolutions 
at the percentage of the respective bodies on both sides.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a member of the Committee on Rules 
and also a member of this new majority leadership team, to discuss this 
resolution.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the committee funding resolution as 
fair and responsible legislation that will allow our committees to 
fulfill their policy, legislative and oversight responsibilities to all 
the American people.
  I see no reason why any Member of the House should oppose this 
legislation.
  First of all, this committee funding resolution is fiscally 
responsible. It provides a modest 3 percent increase in overall funding 
for our committees. That is a mere 1\1/2\ percent increase each year. 
This increase recognizes some of the modernization needs of our 
committees, while adhering to the principle of doing more with less.
  This committee funding resolution is fair to the minority. It moves 
more committees toward the overall goal of allocating one-third of 
committee resources to the minority's control. In fact, nine committees 
of the 106th Congress will provide one-third or more of their resources 
to the minority. This compares to only two committees that met this 
goal in the 103rd Congress when Republicans were in the minority.
  Under the Republican majority, 31 percent of staff is allocated to 
the minority, and 32 percent of staff salaries go to the minority. So I 
think the cries from the other side of the aisle that they are being 
mistreated and misused are just disingenuous or, at the very least, 
some people have very, very short memories.
  Further, the committee funding resolution scales back the reserve 
fund to 62 percent. Instead of offering a tempting pot of overflowing 
dollars for committees to dip into, this reserve fund will serve as a 
true rainy day fund for the unanticipated needs that are likely to 
arise over the course of 2 years.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out how very far we 
have come since the Republicans took over control of Congress. This 
year's committee funding resolution is still $40 million less than the 
103rd Congress. The overall number of committee staff is still 30 
percent below the staff levels of the 103rd Congress. Again, we are 
doing more with less in the true spirit of government reform.
  Above all, Mr. Speaker, there is much work which we, in a bipartisan 
way, must accomplish for the American people. Much of this work is done 
in our congressional committees by very talented, very hardworking 
staff on both sides of the aisle. We should pass this committee funding 
resolution to ensure that that work gets done. I urge support of this 
resolution.
  Mr. HOYER. My understanding is, Mr. Speaker, that we have 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) used the word 
``disingenuous,'' and then she changed it. I know she did not mean to 
cast any aspersions, nor do I.
  The gentlewoman from Ohio, like 109 of her colleagues who were here 
in 1993, voted for the motion to recommit that I will offer. She voted 
that one-third of the resources represented fairness.
  I will tell the gentlewoman from Ohio that, notwithstanding the 
representations of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman 
of the committee, he and I disagree on the assertions. There is but one 
committee that provides one-third of the resources and control to the 
minority--just one. To his credit, it is the committee of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas). No questions asked. As the gentleman from 
California has pointed out, it is really more than one-third of the 
resources, because we divided equally a staffer on the Joint Committee 
on Printing.
  My friends, if we want fairness, we need to give fairness. It has 
been said that we did not do right. Let me accept that premise. Is it, 
therefore, to be like the Hatfields and McCoys--that you did not do 
right, so we are not going to do right, and we will continue to fight? 
We will continue to create a poisonous atmosphere, of which the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) spoke, and of which 30 other 
Republican leaders in their letter spoke, when they--not the 
Democrats--but the Republicans said ``one-third of the resources, not 
just staff, but of the resources available is fairness.''
  I am offering a motion to recommit, which was offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and Mr. Roberts. The gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Dunn) said, and I will not quote it all, for my 
colleagues can see it here on the chart, ``The American people have 
been clear about something else, as well, Mr. Speaker. They want 
fairness, bipartisanship, and responsibility in spending from their 
Congress.''
  She went on to say, ``I want to use my time, Mr. Speaker, to talk 
about how, even at this 11th hour, the House could move toward fairness 
and reform taxpayers so earnestly desire.'' She said, therefore, among 
other things, ``that we achieve the goal by limiting the majority to a 
2 to 1 staff advantage.'' One-third/two-thirds.

                              {time}  1930

  I am going to offer that motion to recommit. I will pass out a sheet 
that will show my colleagues how they voted on it before. Only one 
Republican voted against that, and that was the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young).
  Mr. Roberts said in 1994, and I want all my colleagues to see this. 
This is Mr. Roberts. ``If lightning strikes, and the sun comes up in 
the west, and Republicans take over Congress, we are going to do that 
for you. You will at least get one-third.''
  The Sun came up in the west, much to the chagrin of my side of the 
aisle, my colleagues. And my Republican colleagues said when it did, we 
would get one-third. It is time to redeem that promise. Vote for the 
motion to recommit that I offer, as previously offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jennifer Dunn) and Senator Pat 
Roberts, then Congressman Pat Roberts.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The gentleman from Maryland noted that that was former Representative 
Pat Roberts. He is not here to vote on the resolution or the motion to 
recommit. As a matter of fact, when the motion to recommit was 
presented previously, as has been indicated by the gentleman from 
Maryland, not one Democrat voted for the motion to recommit. Not one.
  Had they been prescient about the sun coming up, maybe some of them 
would have, and then, of course, we would have accomplished our goal. 
It would have been locked in. But since they did not have the 
foresight, since they left us with 12 percent of the resources, 15 
percent of the resources, 18 percent of the resources, when we became 
the majority we had to start building toward that one-third. We have 
built toward that one-third in every Congress we have been in the 
majority.
  Under the leadership of the Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert), this majority, in House Resolution 101, is not repeating the 
mistakes of the past. This committee resolution is the fairest and most 
equitable in the recorded history of the House.
  One hundred sixty-seven Democrats sit on a committee that divides the 
resources two-thirds, one-third. I would think that if my colleagues 
missed their opportunity on the motion to recommit to lock in two-
thirds, one-third, some of my Democratic colleagues would be smart 
enough to lock in the two-thirds, one-third on those committees.

[[Page 5331]]

  Give us some votes so that I can say yes, the Democrats get it. The 
more we work together, the more we are able to give my colleagues the 
two-thirds, one-third. Instead, my colleagues say we have to deliver 
all the votes.
  The next time we do the committee resolution, this majority, in the 
107th Congress, I am going to turn to these people and ask them what 
they need. Because we reached across the aisle in the spirit of Hershey 
and said 167 Democrats have got what they want. Give us one vote; we 
will return the gesture on the motion to recommit, just as my 
colleagues did on ours. But, please, on final passage, on this House 
Resolution, the fairest and most equitable in the history of the House, 
give us at least one Democrat.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

                     [From Rollcall, Mar. 4, 1999]

                              Quit Whining

       The evidence suggests that Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) 
     really does mean to reach out to Democrats and make the House 
     a less ferocious place than it was under ex-Rep. Newt 
     Gingrich (R-GA). We suggest that Democrats stop grousing and 
     meet him halfway--at least to the extent of not boycotting 
     this month's Hershey, Pa., civility retreat.
       Hastert is meeting regularly with Democrats on budget 
     issues and is promising to permit votes on raising the 
     minimum wage and campaign finance reform. Meanwhile, House 
     Administration Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) may help 
     Democrats gain a larger share of the budgets on the Judiciary 
     and Government Reform Committees.
       Democrats have been loudly complaining about membership 
     ratios of committees and about committee budgets and some 
     ranking members have cited the disparities as reasons they 
     refuse to co-operate with leadership efforts to bring GOP and 
     Democratic Members and their families together for the 
     weekend of March 19-21 at Hershey.
       The more we look at history, the less it appears the 
     Democrats have much basis to whine--although they should note 
     well how ill-used they feel and vow to do better by the 
     Republicans should Democrats be returned to power in the 
     House.
       In 1993, when Democrats last were in the majority, 
     Republicans held 41 percent of House seats, but Democrats 
     accorded them an average of 24 percent of committee staff 
     positions--falling to 13 percent on the old Government 
     Operations Committee and 11 percent on Judiciary. Democrats 
     now are complaining that they only control 25 percent of the 
     resources on Government Reform and 23 percent on Judiciary.
       Back then, Republicans complained that fairness demanded 
     they get at least one-third of committee budgets and staff 
     slots rather than less than one-fourth. By this standard, 
     Democrats have little to which they can object--except on 
     Judiciary and Government Reform where they get just a quarter 
     of committee resources.
       Funding ratios meet or nearly meet the one-third majority 
     standard on Budget, Education and the Workforce, Rules, 
     Veterans' Affairs and House Administration. On most other 
     committees the GOP-Democratic ratio is nearly 70-30--not up 
     to the ideal, but better than the 76-24 average back when 
     Democrats ruled the House.
       As we've noted before, the same basic situation prevails 
     with committee assignments. Democrats say that they should 
     have something like 48.5 percent of committee slots, 
     reflecting their strength in the House, but actually have 
     between 41 and 45 percent on major committees. In 1993, 
     though, Republicans averaged 38 percent of the slots on major 
     committees, not their 41 percent in the House.
       We suggest that Democrats and Republicans talk about these 
     problems, among others, at Hershey. Now that the Gingrich era 
     is over--and in spite of the recent impeachment 
     unpleasantness--it ought to be possible to begin solving 
     them.

     MINORITY RESOURCE COMPARISON--103rd CONGRESS VS 106TH CONGRESS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Democratic         Republican
                                     Majority, 103rd    Majority, 106th
                                         Congress           Congress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  33% or more.....................                 2                  9
  25% to 32%......................                12                  8
  Less than 25%...................                 5                  0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committees with non-partisan staff, Armed Services and Standards of
  Official Conduct, are not listed.
Authorized by the Committee on House Administration.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
this Resolution, which sets the funding for our Committees here in the 
House. This resolution is an important one, because in many respects, 
with its passage, we begin to erode the spirit of bipartisanship that I 
had hoped would permeate the work of the 106th Congress.
  When the Majority first took control of the House, we had expected 
that they would still respect the views, if not the voting power, of 
the Minority. Yet that has not been the case. Here, half a decade down 
the road from the ``Contract with America,'' we see that the Minority 
is limited to just 28% of the House budget. This is appalling in light 
of the fact that we are just five votes short of holding a majority of 
our own. In fact, this resolution takes away almost half the value of 
our vote--and the value of the resources that we have for the 
constituents that we represent.
  For those of you who believe that Committee funding makes little 
difference in how the policies of our country are forged I must note 
that the two Committees which reported the most partisan legislation, 
the Committee on Government Reform and the Committee on the Judiciary, 
have the worst funding ratios. As it stands in the current form of the 
resolution, the Judiciary Committee on which I sit, has approximately 
three-quarters of its resources dedicated to the Majority. As the 
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, I find 
that deeply disturbing because it means that theoretically, my staff is 
outnumbered three to one as it regards my Republican counterpart.
  The Democratic alternative to this bill is much more palatable to our 
common sensibilities--although it still does not do all that it could 
to recognize our small numeric deficit. It simply asks that one-third 
of all Committee funds are designated for Minority use. The difference 
between the two resolutions is a mere 5%, surely a small price to pay 
to guarantee a more cooperative environment here in the House of 
Representatives.
  I would hope that all of my colleagues would vote to defeat H. Res. 
101, and for the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute and on the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Hoyer

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

       Mr. Hoyer moves to recommit House Resolution 101 to the 
     Committee on House Administration with instructions to report 
     promptly back to the House a resolution identical to the text 
     of House Resolution 101 as amended by the House, except as 
     follows:
       (1) Strike sections 1, 2, and 3 and insert the following:

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

       (a) In General.--With respect to the One Hundred Sixth 
     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, 
     $8,414,033 (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage 
     as may be agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member 
     of the committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member); Committee on Armed Services, $10,342,681 
     (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be 
     agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member); Committee on Banking and Financial 
     Services, $9,307,521 (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater 
     percentage as may be agreed to by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the committee, to be paid at the direction 
     of the ranking minority member); Committee on the Budget, 
     $9,940,000 (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage 
     as may be agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member 
     of the committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member); Committee on Commerce, $15,285,113 (\1/3\ 
     of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed 
     to by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee, 
     to be paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce, $11,200,497 (\1/3\ 
     of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed 
     to by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee, 
     to be paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Committee on Government Reform, $19,770,233 (\1/3\ of such 
     amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed to by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the committee, to be 
     paid at the direction of the ranking minority

[[Page 5332]]

     member); Committee on House Administration, $6,251,871 (\1/3\ 
     of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed 
     to by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee, 
     to be paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, $5,164,444 (\1/3\ 
     of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed 
     to by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee, 
     to be paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Committee on International Relations, $11,313,531 (\1/3\ of 
     such amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed to 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee, to 
     be paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Committee on the Judiciary, $12,152,275 (\1/3\ of such 
     amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed to by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the committee, to be 
     paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Committee on Resources, $10,567,908 (\1/3\ of such amount, or 
     such greater percentage as may be agreed to by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the committee, to be paid at the 
     direction of the ranking minority member); Committee on 
     Rules, $5,069,424 (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater 
     percentage as may be agreed to by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the committee, to be paid at the direction 
     of the ranking minority member); Committee on Science, 
     $8,931,726 (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage 
     as may be agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member 
     of the committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member); Committee on Small Business, $4,148,880 
     (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be 
     agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member); Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
     $2,632,915; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
     $13,220,138 (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage 
     as may be agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member 
     of the committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member); Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $4,735,135 
     (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be 
     agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member); and Committee on Ways and Means, 
     $11,930,338 (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage 
     as may be agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member 
     of the committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member).

     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, 1999, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 2000.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $4,101,062 (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage 
     as may be agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member 
     of the committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member); Committee on Armed Services, $5,047,079 
     (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be 
     agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member: Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 
     $4,552,023 (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage 
     as may be agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member 
     of the committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member); Committee on the Budget, $4,970,000 (\1/3\ 
     of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed 
     to by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee, 
     to be paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Committee on Commerce, $7,564,812 (\1/3\ of such amount, or 
     such greater percentage as may be agreed to by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the committee, to be paid at the 
     direction of the ranking minority member); Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce, $5,908,749 (\1/3\ of such 
     amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed to by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the committee, to be 
     paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Committee on Government Reform, $9,773,233 (\1/3\ of such 
     amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed to by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the committee, to be 
     paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Committee on House Administration, $2,980,255 (\1/3\ of such 
     amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed to by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the committee, to be 
     paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence $2,514,916 (\1/3\ 
     of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed 
     to by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee, 
     to be paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Committee on International Relations, $5,635,000 (\1/3\ of 
     such amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed to 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee, to 
     be paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Committee on the Judiciary, $5,787,394 (\1/3\ of such amount, 
     or such greater percentage as may be agreed to by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the committee, to be paid at 
     the direction of the ranking minority member); Committee on 
     Resources, $5,208,851 (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater 
     percentage as may be agreed to by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the committee, to be paid at the direction 
     of the ranking minority member); Committee on Rules, 
     $2,488,522 (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage 
     as may be agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member 
     of the committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member); Committee on Science, $4,410,560 (\1/3\ of 
     such amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed to 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee, to 
     be paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Committee on Small Business, $2,037,466 (\1/3\ of such 
     amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed to by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the committee, to be 
     paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,272,416; 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, $6,410,069 
     (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be 
     agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member); Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $2,334,800 
     (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be 
     agreed by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member); and Committee on Ways and Means, $5,814,367 
     (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be 
     agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member).

     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, 2000, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 2001.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $4,312,971 (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage 
     as may be agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member 
     of the committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member); Committee on Armed Services, $5,295,602 
     (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be 
     agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member); Committee on Banking and Financial 
     Services, $4,755,498 (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater 
     percentage as may be agreed to by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the committee, to be paid at the direction 
     of the ranking minority member); Committee on the Budget, 
     $4,970,000 (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage 
     as may be agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member 
     of the committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member); Committee on Commerce, $7,720,301 (\1/3\ of 
     such amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed to 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee, to 
     be paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce, $5,291,748 (\1/3\ 
     of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed 
     to by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee, 
     to be paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Committee on Government Reform, $9,997,000 (\1/3\ of such 
     amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed to by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the committee, to be 
     paid at the direction of the ranking minority member): 
     Committee on House Administration, $3,271,616 (\1/3\ of such 
     amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed to by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the committee, to be 
     paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, $2,649,528 (\1/3\ 
     of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed 
     to by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee, 
     to be paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Committee on International Relations, $5,678,531 (\1/3\ of 
     such amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed to 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee, to 
     be paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Committee on the Judiciary, $6,364,881 (\1/3\ of such amount, 
     or such greater percentage as may be agreed to by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the committee, to be paid at 
     the direction of the ranking minority member); Committee on 
     Resources, $5,359,057 (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater 
     percentage as may be agreed to by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the committee, to be paid at the direction 
     of the ranking minority member); Committee on Rules, 
     $2,580,902 (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage 
     as may be agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member 
     of the committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority

[[Page 5333]]

     member); Committee on Science, $4,521,166 (\1/3\ of such 
     amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed to by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the committee, to be 
     paid at the direction of the ranking minority member; 
     Committee on Small Business, $2,111,414 (\1/3\ of such 
     amount, or such greater percentage as may be agreed to by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the committee, to be 
     paid at the direction of the ranking minority member); 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,360,499; 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, $6,810,069, 
     (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be 
     agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member); Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $2,400,335 
     (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be 
     agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member); and Committee on Ways and Means, $6,115,971 
     (\1/3\ of such amount, or such greater percentage as may be 
     agreed to by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     committee, to be paid at the direction of the ranking 
     minority member).
       (2) Strike section 6 and insert the following:

     SEC. 6. RESERVE FUND FOR UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES.

       There is hereby established a reserve fund of $3,000,000 
     for unanticipated expenses of committees for the One Hundred 
     Sixth Congress. Amounts in the fund shall be paid to a 
     committee pursuant to an allocation approved by the Committee 
     on House Administration. Of the amount allocated to a 
     committee from the fund, \1/3\ of such amount, or such 
     greater percentage as may be agreed to by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the committee, to be paid at the 
     direction of the ranking minority member.

  Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOYER. 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 205, 
nays 218, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 65]

                               YEAS--205

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--218

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Ackerman
     Brown (CA)
     Cardin
     Cox
     Ganske
     Goodling
     Myrick
     Neal
     Sanchez
     Saxton
     Stupak

                              {time}  1952

  Messrs. TOOMEY, BURTON of Indiana, and YOUNG of Alaska changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216, 
noes 210, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 66]

                               AYES--216

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

[[Page 5334]]


     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--210

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Ackerman
     Brown (CA)
     Cardin
     Cox
     Myrick
     Neal
     Saxton
     Stupak

                              {time}  2010

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

                          ____________________