[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7990-7994]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       PROVIDING FOR EXPENSES OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES OF HOUSE OF 
             REPRESENTATIVES IN ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 224) providing for the expenses of certain 
committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Ninth 
Congress, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 224

       Resolved, 

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

       (a) In General.--With respect to the One Hundred Ninth 
     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 
     such subsection.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $11,257,009; Committee on Armed Services, $12,826,208; 
     Committee on the Budget, $12,026,478; Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce, $15,493,286; Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce, $19,925,687; Committee on Financial Services, 
     $15,203,100; Committee on Government Reform, $20,497,085; 
     Committee on Homeland Security, $14,000,000; Committee on 
     House Administration, $9,554,568; Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence, $9,527,870; Committee on International 
     Relations, $16,299,018; Committee on the Judiciary, 
     $15,312,992; Committee on Resources, $14,520,962; Committee 
     on Rules, $6,365,600; Committee on Science, $12,327,996; 
     Committee on Small Business, $5,586,973; Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct, $4,290,536; Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure, $18,108,082; Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs, $6,474,418; and Committee on Ways and 
     Means, $17,819,494.

     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, 2005, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 2006.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $5,495,805; Committee on Armed Services, $6,292,249; 
     Committee on the Budget, $6,013,239; Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce, $7,705,970; Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce, $9,812,619; Committee on Financial Services, 
     $7,427,648; Committee on Government Reform, $10,121,443; 
     Committee on Homeland Security, $6,100,026; Committee on 
     House Administration, $4,648,683; Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence, $4,500,653; Committee on International 
     Relations, $7,946,084; Committee on the Judiciary, 
     $7,461,565; Committee on Resources, $7,178,224; Committee on 
     Rules, $3,074,229; Committee on Science, $6,101,648; 
     Committee on Small Business, $2,721,600; Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct, $1,891,890; Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure, $8,856,869; Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs, $3,075,732; and Committee on Ways and 
     Means, $8,674,514.

     SEC. 3. SECOND SESSION LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Of the amount provided for in section 1 
     for each committee named in

[[Page 7991]]

     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, 2006, and ending 
     immediately before noon on January 3, 2007.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $5,761,204; Committee on Armed Services, $6,533,959; 
     Committee on the Budget, $6,013,239; Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce, $7,787,316; Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce, $10,113,068; Committee on Financial Services, 
     $7,775,452; Committee on Government Reform, $10,375,642; 
     Committee on Homeland Security, $7,899,974; Committee on 
     House Administration, $4,905,885; Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence, $5,027,217; Committee on International 
     Relations, $8,352,934; Committee on the Judiciary, 
     $7,851,427; Committee on Resources, $7,342,738; Committee on 
     Rules, $3,291,371; Committee on Science, $6,226,348; 
     Committee on Small Business, $2,865,373; Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct, $2,398,646; Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure, $9,251,213; Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs, $3,398,686; and Committee on Ways and 
     Means, $9,144,980.

     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. REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF FUNDS FOR MASS MAILINGS.

       (a) In General.--None of the amounts made available under 
     this resolution may be used by a committee for the production 
     of material for a mass mailing unless--
       (1) the mailing is of a press release to the communications 
     media, a notice of the schedule of a hearing or markup of the 
     committee (the content of which shall be limited to date, 
     time, location, topic, witness list, and ADA services), a 
     committee document printed pursuant to the applicable 
     provisions of title 44, United States Code, or a request for 
     the views of the public or the views of other authorities of 
     government essential to the conduct of the study, 
     investigation, or oversight of matters within the 
     jurisdiction and related functions assigned to the committee 
     under rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives;
       (2) prior to mailing, the chairman or ranking minority 
     member of the committee (as the case may be) submits a sample 
     of the material to the House Commission on Congressional 
     Mailing Standards and the Commission determines that--
       (A) the mailing is ordinary and necessary to the conduct of 
     the normal and regular business of the committee, and
       (B) the mailing would be in compliance with the 
     requirements of subsections (a)(3)(A), (a)(3)(C), (a)(3)(C), 
     (a)(3)(G), (a)(4), and (a)(5) of section 3210 of title 39, 
     United States Code, if mailed by a Member of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (3) the mailing would not be prohibited under section 
     3210(a)(6)(A) of title 39, United States Code, if mailed by a 
     Member of the House of Representatives; and
       (4) the aggregate amount that will be spent in franking 
     costs by the committee for mass mailings during the session 
     involved, after taking into account the franking costs of 
     such mass mailing, will not exceed $5,000.
       (b) Mass Mailing Defined.--In this section, the term ``mass 
     mailing'' has the meaning given such term in section 
     3210(a)(6)(E) of title 39, United States Code.

     SEC. 6. REGULATIONS.

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here to consider H. Res. 224, an omnibus funding 
resolution providing for the expenses of certain committees of the 
United States House of Representatives in the 109th Congress.
  In February of this year, the chairman and ranking member of each 
committee presented a budget request to the Committee on House 
Administration and introduced individual resolutions, as is our 
process, to support their funding request.
  H. Res. 224, the Omnibus Primary Expense Resolution, combines all of 
the individual resolutions into one bill, including our new permanent 
committee, the Committee on Homeland Security.
  I am pleased to put before the House a bipartisan resolution that can 
be supported by a majority of Members on both sides of the aisle. I 
feel that both chairmen and ranking members will agree that this 
carefully crafted agreement will provide sufficient funding for them to 
carry out the duties and responsibilities with which they are charged. 
As we all know, the Committee on Homeland Security was created at the 
beginning of this Congress, making it a permanent standing committee of 
the U.S. House of Representatives. The committee will provide an 
important oversight function overseeing the Department of Homeland 
Security and ensuring that the combined agencies are doing the job we 
all expect of them with regard to protecting our homeland.

                              {time}  1300

  The inclusion of the Select Committee on Homeland Security and the 
permanent committee funding process significantly raises the funding 
levels needed for committees to operate. Their budget alone increased 
funding for this resolution by 1 percent. Protecting our homeland is 
now a reality, and the funding needed to run the committee is also a 
reality that we dealt with and came to a conclusion that I think is 
good for the committee and the entire process here in funding.
  During this cycle, committees requested a total of $273.4 million in 
spending. This is approximately $40 million more than what was 
authorized in the 108th Congress and represented a 17.1 percent 
requested, and I stress ``requested'' increase. Removing homeland 
security from the equation, the request by committees totaled $257.8 
million, which is a $35 million increase over the 108th authorized 
levels and a 15.7 percent increase. This resolution reduces, I am 
pleased to say, the amount requested by committees by $16.2 million, or 
a 5.9 percent decrease.
  H. Res. 224, as amended, provides for expenses of all committees and 
authorizes $257.4 million, a 10.1 percent increase. This is a $23.7 
million increase over the 108th Congress authorized levels.
  It should be noted that the 109th Congress funding level of $257 
million in this resolution is still lower than the funding levels in 
the 103rd Congress when adjusted for inflation. The mark for the 103rd 
Congress was $223.3 million, which adjusted for inflation amounts to 
$296.4 million in 2005 dollars. That means in real terms we have held a 
reasonable line of expenditures for the committee; but we are able to 
still carry out the tasks of these committees, which is so important to 
constituents across the United States who depend on these committees to 
be able to produce public policy and to do their work for the people of 
the country.
  I am proud of the numbers we are putting forward with this 
resolution, Mr. Speaker. As I stated earlier, I feel that most Members 
will be able to widely support this measure.
  This resolution also carries forward a goal that we reached in the 
107th Congress whereby committees allocated at least one-third of their 
resources to the minority. Since the 104th Congress, we have strived to 
reach the goal of dividing committee resources on a two-thirds/one-
third basis between the majority and the minority of each committee. I 
am proud to say that committee chairmen have worked with their 
respective ranking members and vice versa and produced agreements that 
provided for a two-thirds/one-third split of resources agreements that 
have been reached between the Chairs and the ranking members to their 
satisfaction.
  I want to note that it is important that under the leadership of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), who runs the House, and the 
goal that he set when the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) was 
chairman and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) was the ranking 
member, they set the two-thirds/one-third allocation and did a 
wonderful job to get to that. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson) was our ranking member, and the Speaker held to the same 
tenacity to reach that deal, and we reached the two-thirds/one-third.
  I am pleased today our ranking member, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), is here

[[Page 7992]]

and has carried on to make sure that has stayed intact and refined it 
and has pushed for the minority in a marvelous way. This goal would 
never have been reached if it were not for our ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  This ensures a fair division of the resources. I want to thank the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) for their work on this issue and the previous assignments, 
and I want to thank the chairman of each committee and their ranking 
member for their cooperation with each other on this matter.
  Mr. Speaker, when I speak again, I will have some ending thanks for 
some staff on both sides of the aisle. I will save that until after our 
ranking member speaks.
  Let me just say, I am so proud. We might have differences in the 
House, but we come together for the institution of the House today. I 
am so proud of our ranking member for working through the issues, of 
expressing for her membership for the ranking members of what they 
wanted to see in this document.
  I want to thank again the Chairs and the ranking members. It is truly 
a document that will receive, I believe, wide bipartisan support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this committee's funding 
resolution. For the past 6 years, the Speaker and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Chairman Ney) have labored in the House service to the benefit of 
both the majority and the minority. They have firmly established the 
fairness principle in the committee funding process. By doing so, they 
have benefited this great institution and have brought civility to the 
House regarding the fair allocation of committee resources.
  While many others have also worked to bring this about, including the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and my predecessor ranking 
members, especially the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), it is the 
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) and the Speaker who must be credited 
with greatly diminishing this source of continuing tension between the 
majority and the minority.
  But the most important consequence of the application of the Speaker 
and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) of the fairness principle 
today is that the principle is now firmly established as an operating 
standard within the House; and I believe it will be applied from this 
point forward, no matter which political party is in the majority.
  The fairness principle, simply stated, is that the minority is 
entitled to a minimum of one-third of the staff and committee resources 
and control over those resources. The fairness principle has been 
embedded in House rules for many decades under both Republican and 
Democratic majorities. It is currently reflected in the House rule X, 
clause 9.
  Six committees unconditionally operate under the fairness principle 
today, with the remainder operating on a version of the fairness 
principle agreeable to the respective chairmen and ranking members. We 
must anticipate that as committee leaders' positions change hands, old 
compromises and accommodations will yield to the universal and 
unconditional application of the fairness principle. Only then will the 
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Speaker Hastert) have fulfilled the worthy objective of securing 
civility between the majority and the minority regarding the division 
of committee resources.
  Mr. Speaker, we also would like to compliment the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Ney) on another matter of great importance to this 
institution. It involves the self-initiated mass mailings on behalf of 
committees, which could have undermined public support for the franking 
privilege.
  The Committee on House Administration has taken a very enlightened 
approach to these taxpayer-funded mailings. The resolution before us 
clarifies the existing rules regarding committee-initiated mass 
mailings and prohibits the use of committee funds to prepare mass 
mailings once a committee has expended $5,000 in mass-mailing costs in 
a session.
  Mass mailings by committees would have to be approved by the 
bipartisan Franking Commission and would be subject to the 90-day 
cutoff that individual Members are subjected to. This clarifying 
language and the limitation provide guidance which will allow 
committees to strategically plan their franking use during each session 
of Congress.
  By a separate action of the Committee on House Administration, we 
adopted a committee resolution setting an overall committee limit for 
all forms of franked mail, including committee-initiated frank 
mailings, of $5,000 per session. Again, this gives committees a 
planning tool. And we recognize that a committee might find itself in 
crisis due to exigent circumstances.
  During the markup of this resolution, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Ney) expressed clearly and unequivocally that any committee 
needing additional franking authorization above the $5,000 must return 
to the committee to request and justify the needed increase. Such an 
increase would be adopted by the full committee in the form of a 
committee supplemental resolution, and the increased funding could not 
be used for mass mailings.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert a chart in the Record at this point.

                                       COMMITTEE FRANKED MAIL EXPENDITURES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2000         2001         2002         2003         2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture....................................      $691.91      $578.90      $521.92      $645.20      $384.52
Armed Services.................................     5,640.99     6,300.05     7,312.99       673.37       470.97
Budget.........................................     1,232.48       285.20       129.48       133.25       252.44
Education and the Workforce....................     1,665.49     1,458.71     1,515.39     1,345.59     4,839.41
Energy and Commerce............................     3,937.66     2,737.09     1,772.19     1,838.59     1,673.53
Financial Services.............................     1,617.51     1,025.71       733.41     1,078.74       856.10
Government Reform..............................  ...........     4,776.00     4,689.00     3,767.09     9,700.46
Homeland Security..............................          n/a          n/a          n/a       909.01       783.89
House Administration...........................     1,381.12       688.07     2,606.07       756.20     7,883.31
Intelligene....................................       342.16       248.10       146.46       353.99       190.26
International Relations........................     5,041.04     1,730.78       834.57       739.27       724.38
Judiciary......................................     6,866.53     4,530.67     4,422.33     2,957.02     2,956.42
Resources......................................     1,563.89     2,882.59     2,081.58    51,123.13    53,917.29
Rules..........................................       241.19       257.14       222.97       924.33       958.19
Sciences.......................................     2,810.99     1,974.97     1,874.39     1,739.34    14,122.29
Small Business.................................     3,292.73     2,214.66     3,502.11       897.88     1,623.39
Standards......................................    17,016.88     1,126.46     4.640.89     3,133.07     1,016.13
Transportation.................................     1,824.82     2,254.39     1,264.35     1,624.70     1,156.61
Veterans.......................................     2,206.75     2,037.79     1,656.58     1,200.22     1,694.77
Ways and Means.................................     4,372.19     2,958.93     1,959.06     1,640.67     1,156.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. Speaker, the chart details aggregate franked mail expenditures on 
behalf of committees during the last 5 years. As you can see, few 
committees will have any difficulty operating within the limit 
established by the Committee on House Administration based on spending 
levels prior to the 108th Congress.

[[Page 7993]]

  This is a great resolution because it really does continue the 
fairness practice that has been put forth by the Speaker, but 
especially by this chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney); 
and it has been my privilege to work with him on this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I wanted to mention a few thanks that we need to say. The minority 
leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and also her 
counsel, Bernie Raimo; the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), 
of course, for his diligence on this issue and fairness with the 
committee funding structure; Scott Palmer with the Speaker and Ted Van 
Der Meid, who provided constant assistance to us on the issues; also 
our staff, Paul Vinovich, Jeff Janas and David Duncan; and the 
minority, George Shevlin, Charlie Howell, and Catherine Tran.
  Let me also thank the members of our committee, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers), the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Reynolds), and our newest member, the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  As we have opened up the House, and it is a wonderful thing, to the 
age of the Internet, where Americans can actually see what is going on 
in their House, in the committees, as we have done that, more people 
are writing than ever before, more people are wanting answers than ever 
before; and that is wonderful open structure in this House. But that 
has caused, obviously, extra work; and we have staff of these 
committees, both minority and majority staff, that are doing a 
wonderful job to respond to citizens across the country and crafting 
laws.
  We can argue about the laws, whether they are good or bad, or make 
amendments; but if we did not have the committee structures of all of 
the committees of this House, we would not be able to craft the law; we 
would not be able to carry out lawmaking.
  So, again, I want to especially thank our ranking member for doing a 
wonderful job, giving us her views, and giving wonderful input into the 
system.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank again the chairman for his 
leadership in drafting this resolution and also would like to ditto 
what he said in terms of the staffs on both sides working diligently to 
ensure that we had this type of resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address just one aspect of the 
funding resolution. I have come to this floor before with my concerns 
that mass mailings have been sent by a particular committee. We as 
Members of the House have constituents that we need to keep in touch 
with, but a committee has as its constituents only the members of that 
committee. A committee does not answer to the whole people of the 
United States; it answers to this House and to its Members.
  This funding resolution makes it clear that the mass mailings of any 
committee cannot exceed over $5,000 in postage in any year. Basically, 
that means no effort to reach out to an entire community, an entire 
congressional district, with an ideological message.
  For that reason, I want to commend the ranking member and the Chair 
for putting to rest that issue, at least for as long as this funding 
resolution is operative.
  I would also point out that it is my understanding that this funding 
resolution calls for any mass mailings sent by a committee to go to the 
Franking Commission. I want to thank the leader of our party for 
appointing me to that commission, where I will serve with our ranking 
member (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and others.
  So I am confident that the mailings of committees will be limited to 
committee business, will not be so massive as to try to affect the 
views of an entire congressional district, and will follow the rules of 
the House as to manner and content.

                              {time}  1315

  So I once again commend the chairman and commend the ranking member.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I do have a speaker who has arrived, so I yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for yielding me 
this time and congratulate the chairman of the committee, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and his ranking member and the leadership on both 
sides for coming together on this funding resolution.
  I could take Members back 12, 14 years ago when this committee 
funding resolution every year was a brawl. Having sat on the Committee 
on House Administration with some of my colleagues, there were times 
when the majority was getting 82 percent of the budget, sometimes 78 
percent of the budget, and I always believed that it was fair for the 
minority to get at least one-third of the resources. It has really been 
a long struggle in bringing that about. I thought that when we were in 
the minority, I believed the same since we have been in the majority, 
and over these years I think we have accomplished an awful lot in terms 
of funding committees at a reasonable level, bringing comity and 
stability to the House.
  I just want to say to my two colleagues who brought this resolution 
to the floor today that they deserve the congratulations of all of the 
Members and the leadership on both sides as well.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do not believe that I have any further speakers on this issue, but 
I did forget to mention the franking issue, and I agreed with that 
amendment. What we did is we changed the rules. We did not clarify the 
rules, but we changed the rules. Previously, committee mailings were 
not covered by the same regulations that apply to individual Members. 
This was the case in the 108th and the previous Congress. This rule 
change will treat committee mailings the same as individual mailings 
with respect to the blackout and the preapproval.
  So we have I think made a change in the rules that, as I said, I 
agreed with is good, and all the chairs of the committees and the 
ranking members agreed with the change.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the 
House Committee Funding Resolution for the 109th Congress as approved 
by the House Administration Committee on Thursday, April 21, 2005. This 
Resolution assures that the Minority will be treated fairly in regard 
to both committee budgets and staff. It abides by the 2/3-1/3 principle 
in which the Minority receives 1/3 of the staff, 1/3 of the budget, and 
control over that budget. It is my understanding that every Chair and 
Ranking Member in the House have come to an agreement on their 
individual budgets, and all treat the Minority in a fair and respectful 
way. I commend Chairman Ney and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald for 
their hard work on this Resolution.
  During markup of the Committee Funding Resolution, Congresswoman 
Millender-McDonald offered an amendment regarding House Committee's use 
of the Frank. Under this amendment, Committees will be limited to a 
$5,000 franking budget per year, and Committees will need to abide by, 
and receive approval from, the House Franking Commission for any mass 
mailings. This is an important proposal that I strongly support. This 
amendment assures that House Committees will only use the Frank for 
official purposes, and stem the questionable franking practices that 
developed at the end of the 108th Congress.
  Finally, I must comment on the controversy surrounding the budget of 
the Resources Committee during the 108th Congress.
  My colleague Chairman Ney was elected to Congress in 1994, the same 
year as me. As

[[Page 7994]]

you will recall, 1994 was the year that the Republicans took control of 
Congress for the first time in 40 years.
  Led by Newt Gingrich, the incoming members of the House promoted the 
Contract with America. The Contract promised that under Republican 
rule, the House would pass a number of resolutions and bills within the 
first 100 days of the 104th Congress.
  One of the promises made by the Republicans was to pass a resolution 
on the first day of the 104th Congress that would provide for the 
selection of a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a 
comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse. Republicans 
were concerned that tax dollars were being misspent by the House of 
Representatives. Chairman Ney signed the Contract with America, and I 
can only assume that he supported this provision.
  It seems odd to me now that a little over 10 years later, my friend 
Bob Ney and his Republican colleagues do not seem to have the same zeal 
for investigating waste, fraud and abuse here in the House.
  During the Committee Funding Resolution hearings in March, I posed 
several questions about the budget and policies of the Resources 
Committee during the 108th Congress to Resources Committee Chairman 
Richard Pombo.
  On October 6, 2004, The Hill reported that Chairman Pombo planned to 
close the Resources Committee for a month leading up to the November 
2004 elections. It went on to state that the staff would receive a 
month of vacation time and Chairman Pombo's spokesman stated on-the-
record that some staff may choose to go and work on campaigns during 
their time off.
  During the hearing, I posed several questions about the vacation 
policy of the Resources Committee to Chairman Pombo and gave him the 
opportunity to clear up the confusion about the events leading up to 
the 2004 elections.
  Chairman Pombo welcomed the opportunity to address the issue. He 
answered some of my questions at the hearing, and said he would need to 
get back to the Committee regarding others.
  In an effort to get to the bottom of this issue and clear up any 
confusion, I put my questions in writing for Chairman Pombo. The 
record, at the direction of Chairman Ney, was held open so Chairman 
Pombo could respond to the House Administration Committee within 30 
days. Chairman Pombo did respond to some, but not all, of my questions 
in writing on April 13, 2005.
  Both Chairman Ney and representatives of Chairman Pombo have 
categorized these ordinary and routine inquiries as something 
extraordinary. Mr. Pombo's spokesman has actually compared me to 
Senator Joseph McCarthy. While I find that comment to be a bit weird, I 
am prepared to state unequivocally that I do not believe Chairmen Pombo 
or Ney are communists!
  So the record is totally clear, I have included in the Committee 
Report accompanying this resolution all of the correspondence between 
myself, Chairman Ney and Chairman Pombo on this issue as well as the 
transcript of our discussion at the committee hearing. This report 
should be posted on the House Administration Committee Web site. I will 
also note that at this time, Chairman Pombo has still not answered all 
of my written questions.
  It is the job of the House Administration Committee to oversee all 
operations of the House of Representatives, including the approval of 
taxpayer-funded committee budgets. Under this Committee Funding 
Resolution, the Resources Committee will receive a 7.5 increase in 
their operating budget in the 109th Congress.
  It is only appropriate that the House Administration Committee 
confirm that the money spent by the Resources Committee during the 
108th Congress was done so in a proper way. Chairman Pombo still has 
the ability to quickly clear up this confusion. I remain hopeful that 
Chairman Pombo will take the time to answer all the written questions 
in detail about the policies and practices of the Resources Committee 
to reassure that tax dollars are being spent in a legal, fair, and 
ethical manner. Chairman Ney, signers the Contract with America, and 
anyone else that believes in good government, should demand nothing 
less.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) that the House suspend the 
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 224, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution, as amended, was 
agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________