[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9207-9213]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       PROVIDING FOR EXPENSES OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES OF HOUSE OF 
                   REPRESENTATIVES IN 111TH CONGRESS

  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
294, I call up House Resolution 279 and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the resolution is 
adopted and the resolution, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the resolution, as amended, is as follows:

                              H. Res. 279

       Resolved,

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

       (a) In General.--With respect to the One Hundred Eleventh 
     Congress, there shall be paid out of the applicable accounts 
     of the House of

[[Page 9208]]

     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, 
     $12,878,997; Committee on Armed Services, $15,842,663; 
     Committee on the Budget, $12,701,442; Committee on Education 
     and Labor, $17,571,062; Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
     $23,589,560; Select Committee on Energy Independence and 
     Global Warming, $4,167,500; Committee on Financial Services, 
     $18,315,034; Committee on Foreign Affairs, $18,847,305; 
     Committee on Homeland Security, $17,776,261; Committee on 
     House Administration, $11,069,489; Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence, $10,850,000; Committee on the Judiciary, 
     $18,837,171; Committee on Natural Resources, $16,567,929; 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, $22,343,273; 
     Committee on Rules, $7,141,021; Committee on Science and 
     Technology, $14,048,942; Committee on Small Business, 
     $7,236,082; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
     $5,577,169; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
     $20,874,154; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $7,668,691; and 
     Committee on Ways and Means, $20,634,454.

     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, 2009, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 2010.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $6,316,330; Committee on Armed Services, $7,769,820; 
     Committee on the Budget, $6,350,721; Committee on Education 
     and Labor, $8,617,490; Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
     $11,569,181; Select Committee on Energy Independence and 
     Global Warming, $2,096,900; Committee on Financial Services, 
     $8,982,361; Committee on Foreign Affairs, $9,243,406; 
     Committee on Homeland Security, $8,718,127; Committee on 
     House Administration, $5,428,881; Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence, $5,387,500; Committee on the Judiciary, 
     $9,238,436; Committee on Natural Resources, $8,125,517; 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, $10,957,956; 
     Committee on Rules, $3,538,663; Committee on Science and 
     Technology, $6,890,114; Committee on Small Business, 
     $3,548,839; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
     $2,735,247; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
     $10,237,447; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $3,761,006; and 
     Committee on Ways and Means, $10,119,889.

     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, 2010, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 2011.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $6,562,667; Committee on Armed Services, $8,072,843; 
     Committee on the Budget, $6,350,721; Committee on Education 
     and Labor, $8,953,572; Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
     $12,020,379; Select Committee on Energy Independence and 
     Global Warming, $2,070,600; Committee on Financial Services, 
     $9,332,673; Committee on Foreign Affairs, $9,603,899; 
     Committee on Homeland Security, $9,058,134; Committee on 
     House Administration, $5,640,608; Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence, $5,462,500; Committee on the Judiciary, 
     $9,598,735; Committee on Natural Resources, $8,442,412; 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, $11,385,317; 
     Committee on Rules, $3,602,358; Committee on Science and 
     Technology, $7,158,828; Committee on Small Business, 
     $3,687,243; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
     $2,841,922; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
     $10,636,707; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $3,907,685; and 
     Committee on Ways and Means, $10,514,565.
       (c) Review of Use of Funds in First Session.--None of the 
     amounts provided for in section 1 for a committee named in 
     subsection (b) may be available for expenses of the committee 
     after February 3, 2010, unless the chair or ranking minority 
     member of the committee appears and presents testimony at a 
     hearing of the Committee on House Administration held prior 
     to such date to review the committee's use of the amounts 
     provided for in section 1 during the first session of the One 
     Hundred Eleventh Congress and to determine whether the amount 
     specified in subsection (b) with respect to the committee 
     should be updated on the basis of the review.

     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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks on House Resolution 279.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  House Resolution 279 is the primary expense resolution to fund the 
standing and select committees of the House for the 111th Congress.
  Every 2 years, Congress must decide how much money its committees 
will spend. The Committee on House Administration holds hearings on the 
needs of the committees for the entire Congress. We then write a 
resolution to authorize funding for those committees. During our 
hearings on February 11 and 25, we heard from all the chairmen and most 
of the ranking members from other committees.
  Let me describe what we have done with this amendment to the funding 
resolution. Over the last Congress, the committees of the House 
conducted far more hearings and did far more work than in recent years. 
They did all this without an increase in funding. Last Congress we were 
not even able to keep up with inflation. All of the committees have 
been struggling to operate on limited funds, and they have even more 
work to do in this Congress because of the challenges of our economic 
situation and other legislative priorities.
  At the same time, we know that the economic status of the Nation 
means that we must do more with less. So we are not going to be able to 
give the committees all the funds they have requested, the amounts 
stated in the resolution as introduced.
  In general, this substitute gives each committee for 2009 the lower 
of either the amount they requested, or an increase of 4.78 percent 
over their funding in 2008. That percent equals the cost-of-living 
increase for Federal employees in D.C. for 2009.
  There are a few exceptions in this substitute. First, we have 
provided additional funds to the Judiciary Committee to undertake its 
mandated inquiry into judicial impeachment, which is not an ordinary 
cost of that committee. Next, the Energy and Commerce Committee, the 
Financial Services Committee, and the Small Business Committee have 
each undertaken extra responsibilities this Congress. These three 
committees have special legislative duties to deal with our financial 
situation, our health care, and our energy policy.
  The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct will receive 
additional money as well, reflecting their request and our commitment 
to ethics oversight.
  Finally, we have not increased funding over 2008 for the Oversight 
and Government Reform Committee. That committee had substantial funds 
left over in 2008. In addition, we have already expanded the oversight 
work of all committees in this Congress by amending the House rules in 
H. Res. 40.
  When you add it all up, this keeps the total committee funding for 
2009 at just 4.78 percent over the total funding from 2008.

                              {time}  1530

  In 2010, the committees will receive an across-the-board increase of 
3.9 percent which, in our estimation, an inflationary increase is 
needed to keep staffs paid in the coming year.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 279. It does 
provide funding for committees for the 111th Congress so that we might 
do the work that we're constitutionally required to do.
  I'd like to begin by thanking Chairman Brady and his staff for truly 
engaging in a collaborative process as we work towards our common goal 
of providing adequate and appropriate funding for committees. It is my 
belief the

[[Page 9209]]

legislation before us today does allow the Congress--the House--to 
carry out both its legislative and oversight functions while balancing 
those needs with the responsibility placed on us by the American people 
to spend their tax dollars wisely.
  During these difficult economic times we have a shared interest in 
making sure we're frugal and wise stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. 
However, this commitment to tighten our collective fiscal belts cannot 
come at the expense of our constitutionally mandated role of providing 
oversight over the Federal coffers.
  There's one complaint I've had about the Congress when I served here 
before--some two decades ago--and while I was gone and when I first 
returned, was that I think there was not the commitment to oversight 
that was necessary on both sides of the Congress and both sides of the 
aisle. I think there are many that have done a good job, but we can 
always do better.
  As we have seen recently with the reports of questionable uses of 
TARP funds, the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse is real, 
requiring us to be ever vigilant in performing effective oversight and 
making sure that that's done in a timely fashion.
  Just as these committees have a responsibility to conduct effective 
oversight over the matters under their jurisdiction, the House 
Administration Committee must ensure that expenses of the House are 
being used in a manner that prevents waste, fraud, and abuse as well.
  So I was extremely pleased that our committee's majority adopted our 
proposed amendment to have the chairs and ranking members of all 
committees appear before our committee after the first session to 
provide an update regarding the funding requests and operations of each 
respective committee.
  One of the things that we should understand is that the rules that 
we've adopted for the operation of the House in this Congress require 
that all authorizing committees take the responsibility to provide the 
vital oversight for those operations of the executive branch that are 
under their jurisdiction. I believe that we have made progress on that.
  The majority has worked with us to move towards the goal of making 
monthly committee reports available online. These reports are already 
required, but we will get them in a timely fashion. We will establish a 
template so that those committees will report and then we will move to 
make those available online so that we can in fact in the House of 
Representatives move further to transparency, as we are requiring 
transparency in the executive branch.
  The public can take a look at our work. It's all out there for them 
to see. They can see the work that we're doing. They can see the 
oversight that we're providing. They can see, most importantly, how 
their dollars are being spent in this, their House of Representatives.
  In addition to determining appropriate funding levels and ensuring 
that transparency in committee operations, one of my chief concerns 
during the committee funding process was that the precedent of 
allocating one-third of each committee's resources to the minority 
party was upheld.
  When Republicans assumed the majority in 1995, we started what has 
been an ongoing tradition of ensuring the minority party receives at 
least one-third of the committees resources, an amount I believe 
necessary to carry out the minority's responsibilities as the party of 
``loyal opposition.''
  I'm therefore pleased, Mr. Speaker, that Chairman Brady has not only 
honored this commitment, but has made very strong statements in the 
committee, on the Record, that he will be diligent to address any 
complaints raised by ranking minority members in this regard. For that, 
I thank him. I think this sets an excellent precedent for the future 
for all of us.
  I believe that both sides have worked well to improve this committee 
funding process. As the chairman has said, there were just a couple of 
exceptions where we did not grant the request made by the chairmen and 
ranking members for the increases as they came forward. We did give 
increases, but not in the numbers they talked about.
  When I look over the numbers, it looks to me like we cut in half the 
requests for increases that were asked for. I happen to think that that 
is a good thing here. We can go through the committees one-by-one. 
Luckily, my staff has printed it large enough so that I can read it 
now. When I was here 25 years ago, I did not need this large print. I 
was able to use smaller notes. That just shows the progress that we 
have made, Mr. Speaker.
  I would thank the chairman for working with me to advance this 
funding process. I would say that we brought this forward in as 
expeditious a fashion as we were able to.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I'd like to just tell my dear friend from 
California that I don't need glasses either. I just need longer arms.
  I'd like to recognize for such time as she may consume the chairwoman 
of the Standards of Official Conduct Committee, the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Thank you, Chairman Brady, for 
yielding. As vice chair of the Committee on House Administration, as 
well as chair of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I find 
myself in kind of a unique position of dealing with this funding 
resolution both as a member of House Administration, where we heard the 
testimony of every chair and ranking member, read the budgets of every 
single committee, but also as chair of the Committee on Standards, I, 
along with the ranking member, Congressman Bonner, gave testimony and 
made a budget request.
  So I am pleased to note that the committee funding resolution today 
is not just about how much money a committee receives, it's about 
resources necessary to meet and fulfill duties and obligations.
  Now when it comes to the so-called Ethics Committee, obviously, we 
know--and this is bipartisan--we have a very strong responsibility to 
ensure that the House adheres to and upholds the highest standards of 
ethics.
  To that end, the Ethics Committee annually produces thousands of 
written advisory opinions and informal opinions; it educates Members 
and staff and other employees of the House; it reviews annual financial 
disclosure filings; and, when necessary, conducts investigations into 
possible violations of the House rules.
  In the last Congress, the House greatly expanded the duties and 
responsibilities of the Ethics Committee. It has required that the 
committee conduct mandatory annual ethics training for every officer 
and employee of the House. That means we must train roughly 10,000 
employees each year.
  The House also requires that the committee review all staff and 
Member travel requests that are privately funded, which I can tell you 
is a voluminous task. In addition, the House voted to establish the 
Office of Congressional Ethics, which we expect will increase our 
workload.
  As you can see, the committee's mandate has grown significantly. The 
resolution before us does provide some additional funding for 
additional staff and for the adoption of new technologies to allow us 
to fulfill our expanded mandates.
  I very much support the resolution, not only for the Ethics 
Committee, but for the other committees. This is a tight budget. It's 
not everything that everyone wanted, but these are tough times as well.
  I think the chairman and the ranking member have done a marvelous 
job. I, for one, would like to thank them for listening to the plea of 
the Ethics Committee and our increased responsibilities.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. At this time, I yield 5 minutes 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. There's no words that can express how disappointed I was to 
see that the notable bottom of the funding once again went to 
Government Oversight and Reform.

[[Page 9210]]

  When Republicans took over the Congress in 1994, they dramatically 
reduced the size of Government Oversight. The following Congress, they 
did a 48 percent increase, which essentially put it back close to where 
it was. But not quite. After that time, increases under Republicans 
have been paltry--in some cases, negative.
  President Obama told us it was going to be different, Speaker Pelosi 
told us it was going to be different. They both said oversight was 
important.
  Now I come from a manufacturing background, and I understand what 
quality control is. Quality control is not in fact asking the worker if 
they did a good job. It's somebody independently checking, and when 
they find mistakes, failures, imperfections, design flaws, pointing 
them out and giving those on the line the opportunity to repair or to 
change in a way that gives real quality.
  There's only one committee in the Congress that has that task. It's 
not Energy and Commerce--the most-funded committee; it's not Financial 
Services--one of the other most-funded committees. It's not even the 
Rules Committee. It is in fact Government Oversight and Reform.
  With over 3,200 GAO individuals and hundreds of millions of dollars 
being spent there; with $800 billion in the stimulus package and one IG 
with a $450 million budget; with a $7 billion, and soon to be more, 
TARP, with virtually no rules and real questions about how much has 
already been lost, the very idea that, after President Obama includes 
in his inaugural address oversight, accountability, to defund that 
committee effectively by flatlining once again--something that, I must 
admit, I can see the record, and it's been done under both types of 
administrations, under both Congresses--clearly makes the statement 
that is the antithesis of what was claimed.
  There will be not be transparency in the Obama administration if in 
fact Government Oversight isn't properly funded to do its job.
  Now when I came with Chairman Towns before the committee, Chairman 
Towns made the request for the dollars. I didn't. Although I felt his 
request was modest and reasonable. I added while I was there the 
request for 30 more slots. Not more money, but more personnel. Because 
I was confident that America's volunteerism would include people 
wanting to come to our committees for just a stipend if we could give 
them a slot--an authorized-to-work-here position--and that we would 
find people within a limited budget. We'd be able to work within the 
small increase that Chairman Towns asked for.
  We didn't get those additional slots. And, notably, we are the only 
committee I can find that effectively asked for more and didn't get it.
  I'm sad to see that, because I think it is in fact an accountability 
of Speaker Pelosi for not keeping President Obama's promise and 
commitment to the American people.
  I appreciate the chairman of this committee doing what he can within 
the funds, but I realize he does not make the actual decision. He 
clearly couldn't be making this decision unless he made a decision that 
oversight was not important. And I don't believe he did.
  So someone, somewhere in this Congress has decided that oversight is 
in fact not important. That accountability of this bureaucracy--not of 
this President, as some would have you believe--but of the bureaucracy 
that we, the Congress, have created and maintained and fund at $3.8 
trillion, and growing, is in fact what we're charged to do.
  The very idea that chairmen of other committees will in fact do their 
legislation and then check their legislation flies in the face of 
experience. It takes a second set of eyes and a second set of hands 
that have no prejudice toward the original creation of the law.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would remind people that Oversight has no 
fundamental jurisdiction that is by any means broad. We don't. We take 
care of the post offices and we oversee Federal workers. What we do is 
research into waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government.
  We are highly limited by the lack of personnel and the lack of 
dollars to do it over a $3-plus trillion market and countless billions 
of dollars that have already been wasted under the last administration 
and continue to be wasted under this administration.
  I join with Chairman Towns in believing that you could have done 
better, you should have done better. It's not too late. Please consider 
doing better.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I yield such time as he may consume to a 
colleague on the Committee of House Administration, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
  Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I 
rise to respond to some of the things that have been said about 
Oversight and Government Reform. First of all, I want to make it very 
clear I think they do a great job. I think they've done a great job for 
years, even though, in my opinion, for a long time with the Bush 
administration there was virtually no oversight of any significant 
nature whatsoever, which is, I think, one of the reasons we are in some 
of the problems we're in now economically.

                              {time}  1545

  Be that as it may, people have to understand that, first of all, 
there is a limited amount of money. We are all trying to cut ends here 
and there. And in this particular case, this particular committee is 
still the second largest funded committee in Congress at almost, I 
think, $11 million or $12 million, if I remember correctly. And that is 
fine.
  On top of that, the committee turned back several hundred thousand 
dollars last year for reasons that are up to them, I assume it is 
sufficiency, but it just says that the budget should be sufficient.
  The most important thing that I want to comment on is the suggestion 
that somehow if this money isn't given, if the gun to our head is not 
answered appropriately, then oversight won't happen in this term. Well, 
that is patently ludicrous. And it is, because very simply the Speaker 
of the House, Ms. Pelosi, has specifically asked each and every one of 
the 20 standing committees to do more oversight on their own. Every one 
of those committees, to my knowledge, has submitted detailed plans on 
what they plan on doing this year. I myself am on three of those 
committees, and I can tell you from personal experience all of those 
committees are already doing more oversight this term than they have 
done in the past.
  Now, I understand that if there was no other oversight going on, I 
would be up here advocating the exact same thing. But if you have got 
20 other committees stepping up to the plate, doing more work--and I do 
disagree strongly that those committees somehow aren't capable of 
overseeing the administration, because that is effectively what we do. 
We are not overseeing Congress, that is what the Ethics Committee does, 
we are overseeing the administration. And to suggest that Members of 
Congress somehow can't read the laws that they are required to write 
and read and enforce, I find that a little bit insulting and a little 
bit difficult to believe.
  Of course, the Financial Services Committee is the best committee to 
oversee financial services matters. They understand the issues. They 
ask the right questions. They know the right people to talk to.
  I understand and accept and appreciate the fact that Oversight and 
Government Reform fills in the holes and does oversight of some of that 
oversight. I appreciate that, and I agree. That is why they still have 
the second largest funding of all the committees; otherwise, we 
wouldn't need them at all. We could just get rid of them. I don't think 
we should. I think they have a valuable part to play.
  I think the Speaker has an important and thoughtful and rightful 
approach to have everybody in Congress participate in oversight. I 
think that is the appropriate way to go.
  This particular authorization bill recognizes that, accepts that, and 
suggests that not just a few Members of

[[Page 9211]]

Congress can do oversight, but that every Member of Congress is 
responsible for some degree of oversight. That is why there will be 
over 200 additional hearings this year by various committees. Again, 
the committees I am on have already had some that have never had them 
before. I think the Speaker's approach is correct, and I think in the 
long run it will prove that every Member of Congress has a role to 
play, and every Member of Congress will participate, rightfully.
  And, I believe that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
number one, will continue to do a good job, will continue to fill in 
the holes that the other committees can't do, do the broader oversight 
that they have been so good at; and, I think in the final analysis the 
taxpayers will get more bang for their dollar, and I think they will be 
better served.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. There was one thing in the previous statement that I have 
to take some umbrage over. I only know about the minority of Government 
Reform. We returned $32,000, slightly less.
  Now, we returned it not because we couldn't use it, but because every 
committee has the reality that you can't spend the last penny. Also, 
because you are not allowed to go over. So the fact is we fully spent 
ours.
  I don't know if that $700,000 statement that is made includes our 
$32,000 or not. I don't even know if it is accurate. My understanding 
is that number can't even be asserted, really, yet, because in fact 
there is still spending going on.
  I would hope that the committee would make available the returns of 
all the other committees, because I rather doubt that Chairman Waxman 
failed to use his money. I can tell you that Ranking Member Tom Davis 
would have loved to have been able to do more investigation, more 
independent work than we already did.
  In closing, I would just mention that we have added in the last two 
Congresses over $4 million just for global warming, the junket 
committee. We clearly have enough money. I ask you to reconsider.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I recognize the gentlelady from New York, 
the chairwoman of the Small Business Committee, Ms. Velazquez, for such 
time as she may consume.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
  Today, the House is considering a resolution that many consider to be 
routine business with little effect outside of this Chamber. However, I 
believe this resolution will provide Congress with the resources we 
need to do the people's work.
  As we get to work, our main concerns need to be creating jobs and 
turning the economy around. An important component of this will be 
meeting the needs of small businesses so they can stay afloat, grow, 
and contribute to economic recovery.
  In good times, as well as bad, small businesses are the backbone of 
our economy. They create 60 to 80 percent of all new jobs. During 
economic downturns, like the one we are in now, they are even more 
important. Small firms generate the innovative ideas and new services 
that spur job growth. For example, following the recession of the mid-
1990s, small firms created 3.8 million new jobs. During economic 
downswings, many Americans venture out and start their own small 
businesses. For instance, in the 1990s, 25 percent of laid-off managers 
over the age of 40 went on to start their own firms.
  This kind of determination is the hallmark of the American 
entrepreneurial spirit. It has led us out of previous recessions, and 
it will lead us out of this one as well. However, for that to happen, 
we need to make the needs of our small businesses a priority.
  The resolution that we are voting on today will provide Congress the 
resources to undertake important work on behalf of small businesses. 
One of our first steps needs to be unfreezing the credit market so 
small firms can access the capital they need to expand, grow, and 
create jobs. We must also ensure small businesses receive investments 
that allow them to remain technological pioneers. Startup entrepreneurs 
often produce the new ideas that spark job growth and can even launch a 
whole new industry.
  Small firms will also play a key role in rebuilding our Nation's 
infrastructure. The Economic Recovery Act that was enacted earlier this 
year will mean an explosion of new public work projects. Small 
businesses are well positioned to do this work, but only if we ensure 
that they can compete for their fair share of these new contracts.
  Finally, a host of kitchen table issues very directly affect small 
business owners. As our Nation takes up matters like tax policy, health 
care, and energy, the needs of entrepreneurs must be part of the 
discussion.
  Mr. Speaker, since this economic downturn started, our committee has 
heard from a flood of small businesses calling for assistance to help 
them weather the current storm. This resolution will mean that we will 
have the ability to help as many entrepreneurs as possible. I am 
confident that, given the right tools, these same entrepreneurs will 
once again lead our Nation's recovery, creating opportunity in the face 
of adversity.
  For that reason, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in support of this resolution, and I 
continue to do so.
  I would just say with respect to the statements made about the Small 
Business Committee, it received the single largest increase of all the 
committees of the House of Representatives.
  I might say we actually managed for the Budget Committee to come in 
with no increase whatsoever. We had the Intelligence Committee come in 
with a 1.5 percent increase below inflation.
  I remember when we asked them why they were coming in for such a 
small request, they said: Well, we had to increase some of our things 
last year. We were moving into a new SCIF, we had a new meeting place, 
we had to have new computers. But we made those expenditures last year; 
we don't need them this year. It was refreshing to actually hear that 
sort of thing. And there is no indication that, by virtue of the fact 
that we are giving them but a 1.5 percent increase, that we are trying 
to short them in any way, form, or fashion.
  The Rules Committee also came in below 2 percent. And, again, they 
talked about the fact that they were trying to keep themselves within 
those limits.
  I would just say, however, with respect to some things that have been 
said on the floor, I just wish that in the stimulus package we passed 
it would have had as much in it for small business as we have for the 
Small Business Committee in this particular resolution relative to 
other things. I think we could have done far better than that, and 
particularly with the tax consequences of the President's proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, because of some of the questions brought up by Mr. Issa 
and others, we and our committee fought and we brought this up on our 
side of the aisle, it was supported by the chairman, that we would try 
and increase the transparency of the committees of jurisdiction so that 
in fact people could make judgments as to whether they were carrying 
out the oversight function, and we do it in two ways. Let me just 
underscore that.
  One is, there is already an existing requirement that every committee 
report on a monthly basis as to what they are doing. If you look at 
those reports now, sometimes they are kind of difficult to decipher. So 
trying to make it much more clear for both the committee and the 
public, we are working on a template so that information can be 
presented and easily accessible. We also are working then to put that 
on the committee Web site so that people can see and make judgments for 
themselves. That is one way in which we are trying to ensure that we in 
the Congress in our committees do the oversight, as well as the 
legislative work, that we are supposed to do.

[[Page 9212]]

  The second way we did it was to request--and it is part of this 
resolution--that the chairpersons and the ranking members of each 
committee come back to us at the end of the year. And it's not that we 
are going to question the subject matter that they are dealing with or 
question how they handle things, but rather we are going to just have 
some inquiries, looking at those reports, and seeing how what they are 
doing matched up with their budget request. One of the areas in which 
we are required to provide oversight of this House is to make sure that 
oversight is being done.
  So I think we have tried to answer the question of whether or not 
real oversight is going to be done by the way that we made these 
changes contained in this resolution. I would hope that people 
understand that I take oversight responsibility very, very seriously; 
the chairman has indicated that he does as well; and, this committee 
will do its work to ensure that the American public can make their 
judgments. It seems to me that is what we are supposed to be doing. If 
all we are is a rubber-stamp committee, the public can say we are not 
doing our job.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are a rubber-stamp committee with this 
chairman, and I am certainly going to work with him to ensure that is 
not the case. We are going to make sure that we do the people's work 
and that all the committees do as well. If, at the end of the year we 
can't prove it to ourselves, we are not going to be able to prove it to 
the public, and then it is on us. And I would hope that we will step up 
to the plate, take the responsibility, and do the job that we are sent 
here to do not only as individual Members but as the collective work of 
Members in committee.
  And if the chairman has no other speakers, I would say that we ought 
to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this is a tough bill. None of 
us on either side of the aisle want to tell our colleagues ``no,'' and 
we also have to have the responsibility of making sure that we can 
tighten our belt and let the citizens of the United States of America 
know that we are not out there just spending freely. It is a tough bill 
to calculate, it is a tough bill to come up with the right, proper 
figures that we need to make all our committees' work viable and do the 
job that they need to do. They do a tremendous job, and much more work 
than they had in the past Congress due to the economy of the United 
States of America that we are in right now.
  But we wouldn't be up here and be able to do this without 
cooperation, so I would like to thank my ranking member, my friend from 
California, for all the cooperation that he has given. It wasn't easy. 
It wasn't an easy fight. We do converse back and forth. We do talk. We 
don't always agree, but we are not disagreeable, and we made that pact 
and we are going to keep that pact. And not only with my colleague on 
the other side of the aisle, the ranking member, Mr. Lungren from 
California, but his staff and our staff.
  It is a tough thing to do, tough to crunch these numbers. Every time 
they show them to me, without a doubt when I am done looking at them I 
get a headache, and I give them back to them to give them more 
headaches, on our side of the aisle and on their side of the aisle.

                              {time}  1600

  It's a tough bill to do, but we had to do it. And we had to do it by 
today, or tomorrow it would really be April Fools for all of us because 
we would be out of business in our committees, which would essentially 
shut this House down.
  So, Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleague for his support and his 
cooperation, and I am looking forward to continued support and 
cooperation.
  I urge all Members to vote in favor of this resolution so the 
committees can continue to do the essential work of the Congress.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the previous question is ordered on 
the resolution, as amended.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the 
vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of 
order that a quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of 
House Resolution 279 will be followed by 5-minute votes on motions to 
suspend the rules on H.R. 151 and H.R. 1299.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 288, 
nays 136, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 172]

                               YEAS--288

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fleming
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--136

     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle

[[Page 9213]]


     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Luetkemeyer
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cole
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Miller, Gary
     Pascrell
     Westmoreland
     Wu

                              {time}  1625

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mrs. MYRICK, Mrs. BACHMANN, Messrs. OLSON, 
GERLACH, ROGERS of Kentucky, SCHOCK and BILIRAKIS changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ADERHOLT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________