COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION
(House of Representatives - March 08, 2007)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages H2309-H2321]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 219 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 219

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 202) 
     providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House 
     of Representatives in the One Hundred Tenth Congress. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on House Administration now printed in the 
     resolution, modified by the amendment printed in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall 
     be considered as adopted. The resolution, as amended, shall 
     be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the resolution, as amended, to final 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on House Administration; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit which may not contain instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 219 provides for consideration of 
House Resolution 202, the 110th Congress committee funding resolution. 
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate in the House, equally 
divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on House Administration.
  The rule makes in order the committee funding substitute adopted by 
the Committee on House Administration. It also provides for a new 
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, the text of 
which is printed in the Rules report accompanying the rule. The rule 
waives all points of order against consideration of the resolution and 
provides that the resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us would allow for the consideration of 
a bipartisan committee funding resolution. It was reported out of the 
House Administration Committee with the support of both Chairwoman 
Millender-McDonald and Ranking Member Ehlers.
  I want to take a moment to say how pleased I am with the way in which 
this bill embodies the spirit of fiscal responsibility that is so often 
advocated by this body.
  The financial pressures on our government are immense. Recent years 
have left us with an unprecedented amount of foreign debt. At the same 
time, my fellow Democrats and I are struggling to ensure the safety of 
tens and hundreds of thousands of troops abroad, while refusing to 
shortchange vital domestic programs here at home.
  The resolution reflects that reality. While not all committees have 
received the budget increases they hoped for, this funding resolution 
provides a bipartisan approach to ensuring that they can fulfill their 
duties and obligations without asking Congress to spend money we don't 
have. It includes only a 2.4 percent increase in funding from last 
year, one of the smallest increases in committee funding in the last 12 
years.
  As vital as it is to start bringing home some fiscal sanity back to 
Washington, there is another reason why the legislation is significant. 
As a result of actions taken by the Rules Committee yesterday, it now 
contains a provision that represents a profound departure from the 
approach that recent Republican Congresses have taken toward one of the 
most pivotal issues of our time, global warming.
  Global warming is not merely an environmental issue. It is also a 
social issue and an economic one. It affects all nations and all 
peoples, and its consequences, if left unchecked, could produce truly 
dramatic changes to human society the world over.
  For decades, evidence has mounted that our planet's temperature is 
rising, and that evidence has become so universally recognized that it 
is no longer in dispute. President Bush himself even used the phrase 
``climate change'' in his State of the Union Address this year, the 
first time he has acknowledged it.
  But the question raised today by some is a different one: Is global 
warming caused by human activity? Or is it merely a natural phenomenon 
akin to the last ice age, something that we have to adapt to but we 
cannot affect?
  Efforts to break the link in the public imagination between human 
activity and climate change are still ongoing. Doubt is still being 
seeded in the public mind. Sometimes these efforts are blunt. Despite 
the President's recent admission, his administration has also been 
accused of rewriting sections of impartial Federal scientific reports 
that tie human activity to global warming.
  Other times, the efforts are more subtle. We hear all the time 
Members of this body express their desire to, as they put it, ``get to 
the bottom'' of the problem of climate change so that we may come to 
understand its true cause.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I on the Democratic side of the aisle 
do not share this degree of doubt, nor do we seek to disseminate it. We 
have been convinced by numerous internationally recognized scientific 
studies, by years of careful analysis and by endless measurements taken 
around the world. We have been convinced, as have people the world 
over, by the overwhelming weight of available, impartial and scientific 
evidence. We have been convinced of a simple idea, that human beings 
are altering the planet's environment.
  And, as such, we have committed ourselves to being the party of 
personal, environmental responsibility. We have pledged to confront 
this great challenge before it is beyond our grasp, beyond our ability 
to change even if we wanted to.
  We have promised a strong path of action, and this bill represents 
the first steps along that path taken by this Congress in years, if not 
ever.
  The resolution will create a fully funded select committee whose sole 
purpose will be to focus on global warming. The committee will have 15 
members, nine from the majority and six from the minority. It will 
serve as a much-needed congressional forum for hearings, investigations 
and discussion, and will have the chance to make recommendations 
concerning climate change.
  Simply put, people all the world over can breathe easier because the 
resolution will institutionalize the commitment of the House of 
Representatives to confronting global warming.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment to address one of the 
criticisms of this rule that is likely to be voiced by the minority. We 
may be told that a hearing and markup process for the select committee 
did not take place before the rule was authored.
  But a question like this one, the question of whether or not we 
should address global warming, has had an ongoing public hearing for a 
generation. Numerous arguments on both sides of the question have been 
made. And at the end of it all, the overwhelming consensus, both among 
the public and among internationally recognized climate scientists, is 
that global warming is real; it is human influenced; and it is our 
responsibility to control.

[[Page H2310]]

  The creation of this select committee is a response to that 
international public hearing. Democrats have called for the need to 
fight climate change for years, and today we have the chance to turn 
that call into action, and we don't intend to waste it.
  Mr. Speaker, we can't forget that, in 1997, the Republican-controlled 
Senate rejected the Kyoto Protocol, a path-breaking international 
effort to control global warming. And we must not forget that, back in 
2001, one of the administration's first acts of international 
significance was the dramatic rejection of that same set of principles.
  It is time for this House to join the vast majority of the world 
community that recognizes the threat global warming poses and the role 
that our Nation plays in it. It is time for us to be leaders on this 
issue and to take responsibility for our actions.
  I urge the passage of this rule and of the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my great appreciation to 
my very distinguished friend from Rochester, New York, the Chair of the 
Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in strongest opposition to this rule 
and the underlying legislation, House Resolution 202, which provides 
for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives 
in the 110th Congress. While I consider the funding of the committees 
of the House a very, very important priority, I, unfortunately, Mr. 
Speaker, oppose this rule since the resolution goes far beyond, far 
beyond the very important task in one respect, and, unfortunately, it 
falls extraordinarily short in another task.
  Mr. Speaker, on March 1, the Committee on House Administration 
ordered reported House Resolution 202, a clean committee funding 
resolution. If passed by the full House, the resolution will provide 
approximately a 2.6 percent across-the-board increase in House 
committee budgets between the last session of the 109th Congress and 
the first session of the 110th Congress. While most committees can make 
do with that very modest increase, we have one committee that 
absolutely cannot. It is called the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct.
  Mr. Speaker, on the opening day of the 110th Congress, Ms. Slaughter 
and I both stood here as we debated and then ended up supporting a very 
important part of the opening day rules package. On that day, we asked 
the Ethics Committee to take on substantial new responsibilities.
  They are now responsible, Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Committee, based on 
what the passage of the opening days rules package imposed on them, 
they are now required to pre-approve all trips. They are required to 
issue guidance on rules that they were not involved in drafting at all. 
As I said, we imposed that on them. They are required to provide 
training for every employee of the House on the new ethics rules that 
we have just put into place and forced them to implement. And they are 
still in a position where they have to now provide timely advice to 
every single Member who makes a request for the application of this 
rule.
  On top of that, Mr. Speaker, they have the responsibility of 
investigating allegations of wrongdoing whenever they do occur.

                              {time}  1045

  Now already, I understand, the Committee on Ethics, the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct, is falling behind. Appropriation season 
is well under way, and we have absolutely no guidance whatsoever about 
the new ethics standards for earmarks. We have new travel and gift 
rules, but those regulations created as many questions as they 
answered; and the Ethics Committee is already months behind in its 
correspondence with Members.
  We are going to hear from a number of our colleagues who have been 
dealing with this very difficult situation. The chairman and the 
ranking member, the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on 
Ethics appeared before the Committee on House Administration. In fact, 
Ms. Slaughter and I were both there because our testimony followed 
them. Mr. Hastings and Mrs. Tubbs Jones, Republican and Democrat in a 
bipartisan way, they came to plead their case to provide an increase 
beyond that 2.6 percent so they can deal with this massive new mandate 
imposed upon them. It was a large request, but the members of the 
Ethics Committee need it because they want to do their job and they 
need the resources to do it.
  What the House Administration Committee did, and we were there during 
that testimony, they expressed great sympathy with their plight. And at 
the end, they felt they could do a little more. That decision leaves 
every single Member of this House in jeopardy, and it is one that we 
cannot let stand.
  That is why, as I said, Mr. Hastings, the former chairman of the 
Ethics Committee and Mrs. Tubbs Jones, the new chairman of the Ethics 
Committee, took the very unusual step of just yesterday appealing to us 
up in the Rules Committee to correct this problem.
  Now my Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Hastings, has the dual 
responsibility of serving not only as the distinguished ranking member 
of the Ethics Committee, but also he serves on the Rules Committee, and 
he sat before us and asked that we simply allow the House to debate 
this issue. He didn't argue that we have to do it. I happen to believe 
we do have to do it, but he simply was making the request that the 
Rules Committee make in order a chance for this House to discuss this 
very important ethics issue, one with which we are all very familiar. 
He was joined in this request by the distinguished Chair of the 
committee. She wasn't there, but I know she has supported his request 
for us to have an opportunity to debate this issue, and I know she 
strongly supports the effort, as she did in her testimony before the 
Administration Committee asking for the additional resources so the 
Ethics Committee, Mr. Speaker, can in fact do their job.
  This is particularly important given the other aspect of this rule. 
This rule self-executes an amendment establishing the new Select 
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, about which the 
distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee was just speaking.
  Without impugning the necessity or desire to establish that select 
committee, my colleagues got to hear me explain at the Rules Committee 
yesterday exactly why this process was so outrageous and why this is 
the wrong way to go about establishing a select committee.
  Mr. Speaker, never mind that the minority was never given the 
language creating this select committee until we literally walked into 
the room yesterday at 2 p.m., and never mind the fact the Democratic 
majority is denying us a motion to recommit with instructions which 
would have been made in order if the privileged resolution came to the 
floor, never mind that the Rules Committee never held a hearing or 
produced an original jurisdiction committee report on the establishment 
of this select committee, something I believe is totally unprecedented.
  With all of the committees established in the history of this 
institution, I am convinced that never before has this process been 
used, and never mind that the House is completely side-stepping regular 
order by self-executing this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, never mind all of those horrible procedural outrages 
that have been imposed. I am not going to talk about those. The most 
troubling part of this whole episode is that this self-executing 
amendment grants the new select committee some $3.7 million over the 
course of this Congress. So if we can find an additional $3.7 million 
to fund this new select committee that will have no legislative power 
whatsoever, I don't understand why we can't fund a mere $1 million to 
fully fund the bipartisan request that was made before the Rules 
Committee to provide the necessary funding for our very hardworking 
colleagues, Mr. Hastings, Mrs. Tubbs Jones and their colleagues on the 
Ethics Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate on this rule, I will be asking 
Members to oppose the previous question so I may amend the rule to make 
in order the bipartisan Tubbs Jones-Hastings amendment so that the 430 
Members that supported the new ethics rules may live up to the 
commitment that they made right here on opening day.

[[Page H2311]]

  Mr. Speaker, if you think we needed new ethics standards, if you 
believe that the Ethics Committee should do its job, then you have a 
moral obligation to defeat the previous question and allow the House to 
work its will by at least considering the chance to make sure that Mrs. 
Tubbs Jones, the distinguished Chair of the Ethics Committee, and Mr. 
Hastings, the ranking member, have the resources they need to do what 
we, 430 Members, told them they had to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me take 30 seconds to say to my good 
friend, Mr. Dreier, that while he has made much of the fact that a 
bipartisan group went before the committee to beg for money, that it 
was turned down by a bipartisan pair, the Chair and the ranking member 
of that committee, perhaps he should take up his complaint with Mr. 
Ehlers who was the Republican ranking member on that committee.
  Now I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, the issue here is global warming. 
There is a separate issue of Ethics Committee funding. It should be 
clear to all of us that we don't have to combine the two to let both 
defeat what is in the interest of this country to achieve. The crisis 
of global warming is real. It is urgent and it requires our immediate 
action. By embracing the challenge of global warming, we can open the 
door to innovative local approaches as we work towards solutions that 
are going to create jobs, improve the environment, and improve and 
strengthen our national security.
  This is a very critical issue in my own State, as it is in every 
State. Even in a small State such as Vermont, we realize that we can 
and we must make a contribution towards a more sustainable local 
economy, a more environmentally friendly future. Meaningful Federal 
policy must be part of that.
  I commend this House of Representatives' bipartisan action that in 
our first days we reversed those tax breaks that went to big oil 
companies and instead funded renewable energy. The leadership in this 
Congress has also set a priority on making a green capital initiative. 
We are going to work, I hope together with my friend from California, 
on greening this capital and putting our example forward as part of 
what can be achieved.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I would just like to say that I do look forward, Mr. 
Speaker, to working with my friend from Vermont on this very, very 
important issue. And we are at this moment, in fact, going through his 
legislative initiative. I hope to work closely with him on it.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank my friend from California. What that is 
about, we can take concrete steps. Last month my office introduced a 
bill that would allow us to be a carbon-neutral office by working with 
a couple of local initiatives in Vermont to offset the 54 tons of 
carbon pollution that turning on the lights in my office here in 
Washington and my office at home in Vermont and my travel back and 
forth around the State generates.
  What we can accomplish by working together requires us to take 
concrete steps together. This committee, this special select committee, 
is something in my view that deserves bipartisan support because we 
have to focus the attention of this Congress on the big issue of global 
warming, but also on the concrete and specific steps that we can take 
that will reduce the damage that we do to the environment by our 
activities by creating jobs that will increase wealth and economic 
security for our country, and absolutely take steps towards reducing 
the stranglehold that foreign oil has on limiting our foreign policy 
options.
  This is overdue and something that can be accomplished, and I commend 
the Speaker for her initiative in putting together this special panel 
that is going to help this Congress and this country make the overdue 
steps that are required.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to my 
very good friend, the former chairman of the Committee on Standards, 
the gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend 
from San Dimas for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Resolution 219. I am 
disappointed that a bipartisan amendment that I offered, along with the 
chairman of the Ethics Committee, Chairwoman Tubbs Jones of Ohio, to 
the Rules Committee was not made in order under this closed rule.
  The amendment that we offered would simply set the funding levels for 
the Ethics Committee at the level that was requested by Chairwoman 
Tubbs Jones and by me, the amount that we jointly determined was 
necessary to effectively carry out the Ethics Committee's 
responsibilities.
  Regrettably, the budget we requested was not provided by the House 
Administration Committee. Yesterday, the Rules Committee refused to 
allow the House to vote on whether the Ethics Committee will have the 
resources it needs to fully fund its responsibilities.
  Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Committee is responsible for two primary 
tasks: one, educating, informing and advising members and staff about 
their ethical responsibilities pursuant to the House rules; and, two, 
enforcing those rules firmly and fairly without regard to friendship, 
favor, or political party.
  Two years ago in a bipartisan fashion, I requested a substantial 
increase in funding to better fulfill these responsibilities, and I was 
pleased that 2 years ago the House Administration Committee supported 
and approved the full funding that was requested. However, as the 
Speaker and Members know, the 110th Congress passed significant changes 
to the House rules that we are living under in this Congress. Those 
rules require, Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat, require that our 
committee take on additional responsibilities that we haven't had in 
the past in areas of gift, private travel, mandatory ethics training, 
and public disclosure.
  Our budget request this year, $6.11 million, and it is the lowest of 
any standing committee in the House, would provide the additional staff 
to improve the quality of advice, authorize detailees from the 
Government Accountability Office to help process public disclosure 
office, increase ethics training for Members and staff throughout the 
country, and enhance the communication of the new ethics rules.
  Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the need to live under a tight budget. 
Yet the budget requested by the Ethics Committee for this Congress is 
not arbitrary. It is the amount of funds needed to do the work that we 
are asked to do by a vote of the House. Limiting the Ethics Committee 
budget limits the Ethics Committee's ability to do its job. I do regret 
that this matter has reached the House floor, and I know that the 
chairwoman and I seek simply to have the resources we need to serve 
Members of this House and to uphold the integrity of this institution.
  I am committed to working hand in hand with the chairwoman, and I 
know that she is sincerely dedicated to carrying out the committee's 
responsibilities. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I must ask my 
colleagues to join me in voting against the rule and against the 
previous question so that the amendment providing the Ethics Committee 
the necessary funding can be considered by the full House.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to enter into the Record a very important piece of information which 
has just come my way.
  Printed in the New York Times this morning: ``Internal memorandums 
circulated in the Alaskan division of the Federal Fish and Wildlife 
Service appear to require government biologists or other employees 
traveling in countries around the Arctic not to discuss climate change, 
polar bears or sea ice if they are not designated to do so.
  ``In December, the Bush administration, facing a deadline under a 
suit by environmental groups, proposed listing polar bears throughout 
their range as threatened under the Endangered Species Act because the 
warming climate is causing a summertime retreat of sea ice that the 
bears use for seal hunting.
  ``It remains unclear whether such a listing will be issued. Over the 
past

[[Page H2312]]

week, biologists and wildlife officials received a cover note and two 
sample memorandums to be used as a guide in preparing travel requests. 
Under the heading `Foreign Travel--New Requirement--Please Review and 
Comply, Importance: High,' the cover note said.''

                              {time}  1100

  `` `Please be advised that all foreign travel requests and any future 
travel requests involving or potentially involving climate change, sea 
ice and/or polar bears will also require a memorandum from the regional 
director to the director indicating who'll be the official spokesman on 
the trip and the one responding to questions on these issues, 
particularly polar bears.'
  ``The sample memorandums, described as to be used in written travel 
requests, indicate that the employees seeking permission to travel 
`understands the administration's position on climate change, polar 
bears, and sea ice will not be speaking on or responding to these 
issues.'
  ``Electronic copies of the memorandums and cover note were forwarded 
to The New York Times by Deborah Williams, an environmental campaigner 
in Alaska and a former Interior Department official in the Clinton 
administration.
  `` `This sure sounds like a Soviet-style directive to me,' Ms. 
Williams said.
  ``Limits on government scientists' freedom to speak freely about 
climate change became a heated issue last year after news report showed 
that political appointees at NASA had canceled journalists' interview 
requests with climate scientists and discouraged news releases on 
global warming.''
  Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a time for this Congress to take up 
global warming, and if there was ever a question that it was not the 
position of this administration to ignore it, I hope this puts it to 
rest.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say, we are all concerned about 
global warming. At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my 
very distinguished friend from Miami (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend 
from California.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that our colleagues that may be watching this 
debate realize what is being debated. That is, that at the beginning of 
this Congress, as we all know because we voted on it, the Congress, 
pursuant to the request of the new majority and the Rules of the House, 
significantly increased the responsibilities of the Ethics Committee.
  And yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the Ethics Committee and 
the distinguished ranking member sought to have an amendment made in 
order in this legislation before us today, which is funding of the 
committees, to sufficiently fund the Ethics Committee, especially now 
that it has new significant additional responsibilities. That amendment 
was not made in order.
  So what we are saying is, let's defeat the previous question so that 
the Ethics Committee, with all of its additional new responsibilities, 
can be funded because you can't have the newspaper article saying, oh, 
we're increasing all these requirements, ethics requirements, that are 
going to be supervised and executed by the Ethics Committee and then 
not fund the Ethics Committee sufficiently.
  That is what our distinguished friends in the majority are doing. 
They get the headlines, but then they don't want to fund the Ethics 
Committee sufficiently so it can do its job correctly.
  So what we are saying is, defeat the previous question and let's not 
support this rule because we need to fund the Ethics Committee 
sufficiently so it can do its job.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my 
very good friend from Dallas (Mr. Sessions), a hardworking member of 
the Rules Committee.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California 
giving me time.
  I rise in opposition to this closed rule and to the unprecedented 
creation of a new panel with no legislative jurisdiction and no 
authority to take legislative action. Mr. Speaker, it is like being 
air-dropped into this usually noncontroversial resolution without any 
committee oversight or consideration being given.
  The cost to the taxpayers for this lopsided new committee to study 
the serious issue of climate change but that is not given the power by 
the Democrat leadership of actually doing anything; yet it costs $4 
million.
  This resolution also represents an increase of 14.3 percent over last 
year's Congress, raising the funding levels for these committees and 
staff salaries from just over $250 million to just over $291 million, 
one Congress to the next.
  But with all of this new spending, the Democrat majority cannot find 
a way to adequately fund one of the most vocally stated priorities, at 
least on the campaign trail, the Ethics Committee.
  This lack of funding is hindering the committee's struggle to 
untangle the confusingly drafted new ethics package passed by the new 
Democrat majority and to provide the training mandated by House Rules.
  So, today, the American people can see where the Democrats' true 
priorities lie, in crafting and creating an unfunded mandate and 
leaving a campaign promise unfilled, while spending millions of 
taxpayer dollars on a new panel that has no authority to do anything.
  Mr. Speaker, I do encourage all my colleagues to hear the straight 
story, and I also encourage them to vote against this rule and to 
defeat it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the distinguished Chair of 
the Committee on Rules how many speakers she has remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have none. I am ready to close.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentlewoman like to yield me some of the time 
because we have got loads of people here who want to talk?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Go ahead and use it any way you like.
  Mr. DREIER. Well, I just wondered if you wanted to give us some of 
your time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am not giving you my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman reserves the balance of her 
time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in light of that, I am very happy to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Kiron, Iowa (Mr. King) who came before 
the Rules Committee offering a very thoughtful amendment last night, 
our good friend.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
and I am compelled to come to the floor and stand up and speak in 
opposition to this rule.
  The rules package that came before the floor of the House, an 
unamendable rules package, was amended before it came to the 109th, to 
the 110th Congress, eliminating the requirement that the Rules 
Committee and other committee votes be published when there is a 
recorded vote.
  Yesterday, before the Rules Committee, I brought an amendment that 
would require the Rules Committee to print recorded votes if they were 
to receive any of the funding that is authorized. I got about a third 
of the way through my presentation when I was interrupted by the chair, 
and the point was made that they have printed their votes to this date. 
The argument was made that since they have complied with my amendment, 
then there is no reason for my amendment, in fact, no latitude for me 
to continue my debate with regard to that and my presentation.
  So I rise in opposition to this rule because, first of all, we need 
to have sunlight on everything we do, and a requirement to provide to 
the public access to recorded votes is something that ought to be in 
the rule. It ought not to be an option. If it is the practice of the 
Rules Committee, then this amendment codifies the practice of the Rules 
Committee, and it should not receive objection, especially the 
vociferous interruption objection.
  I also object to the way I was treated before the Rules Committee. I 
will keep coming back regardless. I will not be intimidated, and I 
intend to raise the sunlight on everything we do in this Congress. I 
want to see all of our

[[Page H2313]]

work become available on the Internet, in a searchable, sortable, 
downloadable format. I want all the sunlight possible, so the bloggers 
can see, and I would love to see television cameras up before the Rules 
Committee as well, Mr. Speaker. I think that will help the decorum of 
the Rules Committee.
  But I intend to come back. Like the Governor from California, I will 
be back.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Iowa quoting 
Governor Schwarzenneger. He can do it any time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
former Governor of the State of Delaware, the gentleman from Wilmington 
(Mr. Castle), who is back.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California for yielding to me.
  I rise today in opposition to the previous question for the committee 
funding resolution. The resolution at hand underfunds our Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct, not compared to previous years but in 
light of problems that exist and the education that is needed.
  At a time crucial to restoring America's faith in our ability to 
govern ourselves, the Rules Committee dismissed an amendment offered by 
Chairwoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Ranking Member Doc Hastings which 
would have allowed us to equip the Ethics Committee with the resources 
necessary for enacting meaningful reform.
  Opposing this previous question will enable the House to consider the 
amendment to fully fund the Ethics Committee, which I believe will 
actually save us money in the long run, and I encourage my colleagues 
to allow us to debate and support this important amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, some will say that the increase to the Ethics Committee 
is already substantial. To those Members, I would like to remind them 
that when making their request, the chairwoman and ranking member took 
into consideration the past problems and the recent changes to our 
rules, and determined the staffing and resources necessary to provide 
training, oversight and interpretation of those rules to this body.
  We have rightfully tightened our travel rules, requiring preapproval; 
finally banned travel on corporate jets; and we have enacted specific 
restrictions on accepting food and drinks at briefings, and T-shirts or 
books from organizations or constituents. Some are allowed, and some 
are not.
  Mr. Speaker, more than a memo is needed to convey these guidelines. 
Members and staff should already be receiving training on the Rules 
governing the 110th Congress. Instead, we are beginning the month of 
March, and it is unclear even when the training could be available.
  On top of the new rules already adopted, there is more to be done, in 
my opinion. We need to have a permanent and professional committee 
staff, and we need to expand ethics training to lobbyists.
  How can we expect the committee to exercise duties of even the most 
minimum oversight and investigations with a budget that does not meet 
the stated needs of the chairwoman and the ranking member of that 
committee?
  As elected representatives, we come to Congress with the trust of 
those we represent. The poor decisions of a few have dishonored this 
great body and have challenged the faith Americans deserve to have in 
each of us. Enforcing high standards of ethics and civility may seem to 
be the responsibility of the majority party, but they are, in fact, 
essential within every one of us elected to hold the public trust.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this previous 
question to allow consideration of this amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to a 
thoughtful former member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from 
Moore, Oklahoma, (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the rule and the 
underlying bill as it is currently written. Frankly, my concerns are 
not about the global warming issue. It is about the ethics issue.
  As a former member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
I understand and appreciate the tremendously difficult job that we ask 
the staff and the members of that committee to face on a daily basis. 
It is common knowledge in this body that no one wants to serve on the 
Ethics Committee. It is a responsibility that no one seeks but, 
frankly, must be handled.
  I think, frankly, everyone understands that there have been ethical 
lapses by some of our colleagues in the last few years. That committee 
has dealt with those lapses as best it could, handling a workload that 
is unpredictable, and it is by its very nature highly charged and 
occasionally and unfortunately partisan.
  To do that job, the last Congress increased the funding for the 
committee by approximately 40 percent. Even that was probably not 
enough to handle the job which had been given to us by the House, but 
it is certainly not enough to deal with the new responsibilities that 
the majority has chosen to extend to that committee.
  The majority party ran on a platform of ethics and made it a major 
issue in the last campaign, and frankly, it passed with strong, 
bipartisan support an ethics package as the very first act that calls, 
again, on Members to do more in the committee to supervise and do more.
  Now the majority party is actually refusing to do what they promised; 
that is, they are refusing to fund the 41 percent increase in the 
underlying legislation that their own chairman of the Ethics Committee 
and the ranking member have jointly requested.
  We have been able to find millions of dollars to fund the global 
warming effort, a select committee, a committee, frankly, that has no 
duties, no responsibilities, no legislative priorities, but it is an 
important committee, and I recognize the importance of looking at that 
extremely important issue. At the same time, we will not fund a 
committee that already has the smallest budget of any standing 
committee, whose responsibilities we have magnified, compounded and 
increased greatly.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle again made ethics a 
major issue in the last campaign, and frankly, they have threatened to 
make it a major issue in the next campaign. Fair enough. I think 
everybody should be scrutinized that is privileged to serve in this 
body, but if you are going to do that, you have to give the committee 
the financial resources to do the job that it is charged to do, and 
frankly, you have to provide the Members of this body with the services 
that they need to avoid inadvertently breaking the rules and becoming 
the target for political cheap shots, whether they are launched by one 
side or the other.
  It is simply irresponsible to the Members of this body. I am not 
surprised that our friends on the other side of the aisle do not want 
to yield us some more time to talk about this simply because they are 
in an indefensible position.
  Do the right thing: Vote against this hollow rule and give the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct the funding it needs to get 
its job done.

                              {time}  1115

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the 
gentlewoman who chairs the Ethics Committee, the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I was 
actually in a Ways and Means hearing on waste, fraud and abuse in 
Medicare, and all of a sudden, someone called and said, they're using 
your name, they're using your name, they're using your name. So I 
turned on the television to see what was going on, and I was forced to 
come to the floor.
  First of all, let me say that I feel like I am blessed to have the 
opportunity to chair the Ethics Committee of the U.S. Congress. I come 
from Cleveland, Ohio. My father carried bags for 40 years for United 
Airlines, and my mother was a factory worker. To have the opportunity 
to sit in this seat, the seat that my predecessor, the honorable 
Congressman Louis Stokes, held for so

[[Page H2314]]

many years is indeed an honor and an opportunity.
  I am so pleased to have an opportunity to work with the committee of 
men and women who want to do the job of chairing and overseeing the 
Ethics Committee. I want you to know that Doc Hastings and I have 
worked together for the past 5 or 6 years on ethics, and we will 
continue to work diligently on behalf of the Members of Congress, the 
people of the United States, because it is through our responsibilities 
that we will be able to help people to understand how great the Members 
of the U.S. Congress are and how great we are at doing our job and 
taking our responsibilities seriously.
  I come to the floor reluctantly. I did, in fact, sponsor an amendment 
with Doc Hastings and both of us, in fact, believe that the Ethics 
Committee could use additional dollars; but I am not going to be used. 
I am not going to allow the process of a bill with regard to other 
issues to hold up the dollars that are available to other committees. 
We understand we operate within a framework of having only so much 
money.
  It was not the Rules Committee that had the responsibilities of 
granting additional dollars. It was the previous committee that 
previously said on a bipartisan basis, we are not going to give you any 
more money. So here comes the Rules Committee. We lost in the Rules 
Committee. I am a big girl, I lost that money, but it doesn't mean I am 
not going to do my job.
  Let me finish. Then you can jump up, and, Mr. Dreier, I will, in 
fact, yield you some of my time. I guarantee you that there may be 
another mechanism or another vehicle for us to be able to provide the 
support to the Ethics Committee.
  Understand, we are going to do our job. We are going to do our job, 
and I am not going to be used or my amendment to allow anyone to say we 
can't do our job. Guaranteed, I wouldn't have taken the job. Nancy 
Pelosi said I was tough and smart. I am both of those. Doc Hastings is 
tough, and he is smart. We will do our job.
  I thank you for elevating the Ethics Committee to a level where 
people think that we ought to have another opportunity.
  I am so happy to see the majority leader on the floor. We are both 
from Ohio. In fact, I am going to yield you some of my time. Come on, 
baby, let's talk. Let's interact.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Would the gentlelady yield?
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Absolutely.
  Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate the gentlelady yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentlelady from Ohio, knows I have 
deep respect for her and the other members of the Ethics Committee and 
Mr. Hastings. They do a good job on behalf of our Members, and it is 
thankful from the Members, but it is a very unwelcome job that you 
have; and we do appreciate your work.
  With what the House did in early January, in terms of adopting a new 
ethics package, it is clear that the responsibility of the Ethics 
Committee has expanded significantly. Members supported that, and I 
think it is long overdue.
  Now, we all know, and I am not going to talk about the amendment that 
was offered last night, but there is insufficient money in the budget 
for the Ethics Committee to do what we have charged them with doing.
  Now, we do this with Federal agencies all the time and can look the 
other way. If we want Members to abide by the rules that we have 
adopted, we have to have an Ethics Committee that can provide services 
to those Members so they understand the rules, they understand the 
limits, what they can and can't do. The concern that we have is that 
because there is insufficient money for the Ethics Committee in this 
resolution that Members are going to be charged with living under new 
rules and not having the service component necessary from the Ethics 
Committee to carry out our job.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Boehner, thank you very much, all of you. But 
let's find a forum to address this issue other than in this process. I 
guarantee you that our leadership can sit down and work this out. I'm 
not going to be used. I'm telling you, the Ethics Committee has to 
stand on its own. We are not going to be in this process. Let's find a 
way. There is a vehicle by which we can work on giving the Ethics 
Committee the money that they need without being caught up in this 
process.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Absolutely.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  First, let me say I have utmost respect for both Ohioans, Mr. Boehner 
and Mrs. Jones, as well as the ranking member of the Ethics Committee, 
Mr. Hastings.
  Mr. Speaker, on the opening day, we did, in fact, establish 
unprecedented ethics rules. Since that time, we have continued to hear 
complaints from Members about the lack of ability for the Committee on 
Standards to provide Members with information that is needed.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Dreier, I take my time back. You can continue 
to make those comments if you want to, but I guarantee you that the 
Members who needed to get information by a certain date got their 
information. You are not going to use my committee on the floor to be a 
battling horse for anybody. I tell you, I will live within the dollars 
I get. I want more. Get them for me.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we are trying to get the resources 
necessary.
  With that, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend, my 
California colleague who serves on the House Administration Committee, 
Mr. Lungren.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, at the time that the Ethics Committee came before our 
committee for their funding, I inquired as to what they needed, because 
I was concerned about the insufficiency of funds for that committee per 
the directions we had received from the leadership as to what we could 
actually give them.
  So during that presentation before our committee, the distinguished 
chairwoman of the committee said these words regarding her request: 
``These positions,'' that is the positions that will be funded by their 
additional money request, ``are needed to satisfy the mandates of the 
House Ethics Committee.'' She continued: ``Importantly, the figures 
presented today represent the collaborative efforts of my ranking 
member, Representative Doc Hastings, and I to advance,'' again, quoting 
her, ``the past needs of the committee and the current mandates of the 
House ethics rules.''
  That's the nub of this whole debate. That is why we ask that this 
rule be voted down and that we will be allowed to have an amendment 
dealing specifically with funding for the Ethics Committee.
  We have to understand, ``additional mandates,'' those are the words 
from the chairperson of the committee, current mandates of the House 
ethics rules. I am just asking Members on both sides of the aisle to 
think about this. We have said that we are going to be the most ethical 
Congress in history. We have adopted new rules that mandate new 
concerns with specificity as to conduct by Members and their staff.
  One of the enforcing mechanisms is guidance to be given to us by that 
very Ethics Committee. Therefore, we have imposed additional 
obligations, additional work on that committee; and yet we are not 
giving them the additional resources.
  Now, if I were a corporation having received the new mandate under 
Sarbanes-Oxley, and the first thing I told my employees and my 
shareholders is, I am not going to beef up our lawyers, I am not going 
to beef up our accountants to give us advice as to what we should do 
under the law, the shareholders would probably throw me out of my 
position because I would not be doing the job that is necessary.
  We on this floor in these committees have two shareholders. We have 
our peers, that is the other Members to whom we owe a responsibilities 
to give them that which they need to ensure that they follow those 
rules, and we have an obligation to our ultimate shareholders, the 
taxpayers of America, our constituents, who expect us to put our money 
where our mouth is to expect us to live up to our promises. May I just 
say, I thank the committee for the work they did.

[[Page H2315]]

  I had to make a specific request of the committee about a particular 
trip I was going on to visit a friend that I have known for 40-some 
years, before our last break, and I received oral assurance from the 
committee that it was appropriate. But, technically, I was supposed to 
receive written assurance, and I received that a week after the visit.
  Now, it turned out my wife slipped on the ice and we were not able to 
go on the visit, so I have to write a letter to the committee to make 
it clear I didn't do that, and that is why it will not be in my report 
at the end of the year. But the fact of the matter is, those technical 
violations that could occur because we don't give them enough in the 
way of personnel can come back to haunt us as individual Members, but, 
more importantly, to undercut, undercut the confidence the American 
people have in this place that we are ethical.
  All I am saying is, we can save money in a number of different 
places; but we ought not to skimp on this particular issue, this 
particular committee.
  Therefore, I would ask Members to vote down this rule so we can have 
this simple amendment brought forward.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the distinguished Chair of 
the Committee on Rules how many speakers she has remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York has 11 minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, obviously there has been a great deal of thought and 
talk, and it has been understandable about the issue of ethics and 
lobbying reform. Last year, Speaker Hastert and I initiated a package 
that we passed through the House but, unfortunately, we were not able 
to come to an agreement in the Senate. On the opening day, 430 Members 
voted to put into place unprecedented ethics reform, unprecedented 
ethics reform.
  Why? Because the American people know we should be held to the 
highest possible standards. Now, there is an expression that I think is 
a very important one, and that is ``put your money where your mouth 
is.'' Now the very distinguished Chair of the committee on ethics, my 
good friend Mrs. Jones, talked about the fact that she wants to address 
this as concerns come forward.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the committee funding measure that we are 
bringing to the floor. We are doing some other things to it, self-
executing establishment of a committee, but we are providing for that 
committee that will have no legislative authority whatsoever, $3.7 
million. All we are asking, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a chance, a 
chance to debate the issue of funding for the Ethics Committee here on 
the floor.
  That is why I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question. Why? Because while this new committee that will have 
no legislative authority whatsoever will receive $3.7 million, we are 
simply asking for what is being denied, and that is a chance for $1 
million to be provided so that our Members will not be facing the 
weekend situation that Mr. Lungren just described where he sent a 
letter to the Ethics Committee, asked for a response about going on a 
trip, and he didn't receive approval until a week after the trip was to 
take place.
  Mrs. Jones and Mr. Hastings came before the House Administration 
Committee and made this request for additional funding; and Mr. 
Hastings, representing Mrs. Jones before the Rules Committee, asked 
that this amendment be made in order.
  Mr. Speaker, any Member who votes for the previous question is 
denying this institution the opportunity to consider implementing the 
resources that are necessary to hold us to the highest possible ethical 
standards. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

     Amendment to H. Res. 219 Offered by Rep. Dreier of California

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, after conclusion of the time for debate on the 
     resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order to consider the amendment in section 3, if 
     offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington or his designee. The 
     amendment shall be considered as read, shall be separately 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to 
     amendment or demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:
       In section l(b), strike ``Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct, $4,994,181;'' and insert ``Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct, $6,119,301;''.
       In section 2(b), strike ``Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct, $2,460,915;'' and insert ``Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct, $2,996,561;''.
       In section 3(b), strike ``Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct, $2,533,266;'' and insert ``Committee on 
     Standards of Official Conduct, $3,122,740;''.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I just have one statement to say, that it 
is not the job of the Rules Committee to change the amounts of money 
given to various committees by House administration. Frankly, I am 
sorry Mr. Lungren missed his trip, and I do know the Ethics Committee 
is going to be very busy. We have been reading about it.

                              {time}  1130

  I want to say the same thing Mrs. Tubbs Jones said: our leadership is 
not going to let it go without the money that it requires.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. 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 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of 
the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 195, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 127]

                               YEAS--228

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter

[[Page H2316]]


     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bono
     Camp (MI)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Kanjorski
     Larson (CT)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     Pence
     Pitts
     Radanovich

                              {time}  1157

  Messrs. PETRI, SULLIVAN, TIAHRT and BARTON of Texas changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1200

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule previously 
adopted, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 202) providing for the 
expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the 
One Hundred Tenth Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration in 
the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 202

       Resolved,

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

       (a) In General.--With respect to the One Hundred Tenth 
     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, 
     $12,398,755; Committee on Armed Services, $15,469,004; 
     Committee on the Budget, $12,026,478; Committee on Education 
     and Labor, $16,334,250; Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
     $25,874,614; Committee on Financial Services, $16,575,710; 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs, $17,953,805; Committee on 
     Homeland Security, $16,511,877; Committee on House 
     Administration, $10,214,461; Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, $10,409,000; Committee on the Judiciary, 
     $16,657,587; Committee on Natural Resources, $15,581,951; 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, $22,876,214; 
     Committee on Rules, $6,781,540; Committee on Science and 
     Technology, $13,209,820; Committee on Small Business, 
     $6,257,410; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
     $6,119,301; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
     $19,724,511.24; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
     $6,933,319.44; and Committee on Ways and Means, 
     $20,059,513.60.

     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, 2007, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 2008.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $5,954,462; Committee on Armed Services, $6,883,959; 
     Committee on the Budget, $6,013,239; Committee on Education 
     and Labor, $8,025,500; Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
     $11,013,668; Committee on Financial Services, $8,029,517; 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs, $8,762,228; Committee on 
     Homeland Security, $8,132,028; Committee on House 
     Administration, $5,033,242; Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, $5,077,000; Committee on the Judiciary, 
     $8,165,484; Committee on Natural Resources, $7,638,213; 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, $10,790,667; 
     Committee on Rules, $3,357,198; Committee on Science and 
     Technology, $6,475,402; Committee on Small Business, 
     $3,009,086; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
     $2,996,561; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
     $9,528,749.39; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $3,398,686; 
     and Committee on Ways and Means, $9,785,128.60.

     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, 2008, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 2009.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $6,444,293; Committee on Armed Services, $8,585,045; 
     Committee on the Budget, $6,013,239; Committee on Education 
     and Labor, $8,308,750; Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
     $14,860,946; Committee on Financial Services, $8,546,193; 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs, $9,191,577; Committee on 
     Homeland Security, $8,379,849; Committee on House 
     Administration, $5,181,219; Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, $5,332,000; Committee on the Judiciary, 
     $8,492,103; Committee on Natural Resources, $7,943,738; 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, $12,085,547; 
     Committee on Rules, $3,424,342; Committee on Science and 
     Technology, $6,734,418; Committee on Small Business, 
     $3,248,324; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
     $3,122,740; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
     $10,195,761.85; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
     $3,534,633.44; and Committee on Ways and Means, $10,274,385.

     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. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the resolution, 
modified by the amendment printed in House Report 110-34, is adopted 
and the resolution, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the resolution, as amended, is as follows:

                              H. Res. 202

         Resolved,

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

         (a) In General.--With respect to the One Hundred Tenth 
     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, 
     $11,995,306; Committee on Armed Services, $14,618,946; 
     Committee on the Budget, $12,520,064; Committee on Education 
     and Labor, $16,213,840; Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
     $21,056,249; Committee on Financial Services, $16,189,138; 
     Committee on

[[Page H2317]]

     Foreign Affairs, $17,391,504; Committee on Homeland Security, 
     $16,448,403; Committee on House Administration, $10,214,461; 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, $10,467,084; 
     Committee on the Judiciary, $16,347,324; Committee on Natural 
     Resources, $15,288,192; Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform, $21,602,950; Committee on Rules, $6,852,908; 
     Committee on Science and Technology, $12,963,775; Committee 
     on Small Business, $5,965,945; Committee on Standards of 
     Official Conduct, $4,994,181; Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, $19,261,795; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
     $7,076,347; and Committee on Ways and Means, $19,040,609.

     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, 2007, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 2008.
         (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $5,910,765; Committee on Armed Services, $7,203,581; 
     Committee on the Budget, $6,169,343; Committee on Education 
     and Labor, $7,989,475; Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
     $10,375,603; Committee on Financial Services, $7,977,303; 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs, $8,569,776; Committee on 
     Homeland Security, $8,105,057; Committee on House 
     Administration, $5,033,242; Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, $5,157,724; Committee on the Judiciary, 
     $8,055,250; Committee on Natural Resources, $7,533,355; 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, $10,644,994; 
     Committee on Rules, $3,376,815; Committee on Science and 
     Technology, $6,387,984; Committee on Small Business, 
     $2,939,758; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
     $2,460,915; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
     $9,491,374; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $3,486,916; and 
     Committee on Ways and Means, $9,382,384.

     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, 2008, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 2009.
         (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $6,084,541; Committee on Armed Services, $7,415,366; 
     Committee on the Budget, $6,350,721; Committee on Education 
     and Labor, $8,224,365; Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
     $10,680,646; Committee on Financial Services, $8,211,835; 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs, $8,821,728; Committee on 
     Homeland Security, $8,343,346; Committee on House 
     Administration, $5,181,219; Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, $5,309,361; Committee on the Judiciary, 
     $8,292,074; Committee on Natural Resources, $7,754,836; 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, $10,957,956; 
     Committee on Rules, $3,476,093; Committee on Science and 
     Technology, $6,575,791; Committee on Small Business, 
     $3,026,187; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
     $2,533,266; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
     $9,770,421; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $3,589,431; and 
     Committee on Ways and Means, $9,658,226.

     SEC. 4. CREATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 
                   AND GLOBAL WARMING.

       (a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a Select 
     Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming 
     (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``select 
     committee'').
       (b) Composition.--The select committee shall be composed of 
     15 members appointed by the Speaker, of whom 6 shall be 
     appointed on the recommendation of the Minority Leader. The 
     Speaker shall designate one member of the select committee as 
     its chairman. A vacancy in the membership of the select 
     committee shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment.
       (c) Jurisdiction.--The select committee shall not have 
     legislative jurisdiction and shall have no authority to take 
     legislative action on any bill or resolution. Its sole 
     authority shall be to investigate, study, make findings, and 
     develop recommendations on policies, strategies, technologies 
     and other innovations, intended to reduce the dependence of 
     the United States on foreign sources of energy and achieve 
     substantial and permanent reductions in emissions and other 
     activities that contribute to climate change and global 
     warming.
       (d) Procedure.--(1) Except as specified in paragraph (2), 
     the select committee shall have the authorities and 
     responsibilities of, and shall be subject to the same 
     limitations and restrictions as, a standing committee of the 
     House, and shall be deemed a committee of the House for all 
     purposes of law or rule.
       (2)(A) Rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives shall apply to the select committee where not 
     inconsistent with this resolution.
       (B) Service on the select committee shall not count against 
     the limitations in clause 5(b)(2) of rule X.
       (e) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--There shall be paid out of the applicable 
     accounts of the House of Representatives not more than 
     $3,725,467 for the expenses (including the expenses of all 
     staff salaries) of the select committee.
       (2) Limitations.--Of the amount provided for in paragraph 
     (1) for the select committee--
       (A) not more than $1,666,667 shall be available for 
     expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
     March 1, 2007, and ending immediately before noon on January 
     3, 2008; and
       (B) not more than $2,058,800 shall be available for 
     expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
     January 3, 2008, and ending immediately before midnight on 
     January 1, 2009.
       (f) Reporting.--The select committee may report to the 
     House from time to time the results of its investigations and 
     studies, together with such detailed findings and 
     recommendations as it may deem advisable. All such reports 
     shall be submitted to the House by October 31, 2008.
       (g) Dissolution and Windup of Affairs.--The select 
     committee shall cease to exist on December 31, 2008.
       (h) Disposition of Records.--Upon dissolution of the select 
     committee, its records shall become records of such standing 
     committee or committees as the Speaker may designate.

     SEC. 5. 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. 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. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Millender-McDonald) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) each 
will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would like to thank the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers, and all of the 
members on the Committee on House Administration for their assistance 
in meeting a very tight schedule. We have been able to perform what 
normally takes many months in a much shorter time period. 
Unfortunately, that necessitated some quick decisions, which we would 
all have preferred more time to make.
  I would also like to thank the Chairs and the ranking members of the 
committees for meeting the deadline that I set forth. I know that there 
were concerns about foreshortening the process, but this resolution 
will provide for operating certainty.
  The committee's recommendations are driven by the amount of funds 
available to be allocated to the committees. The continuing resolution, 
the CR, funding all government operations contained a very modest 
amount for committees, and it is the CR funds which my committee had to 
work with.
  All committees which testified were treated in exactly the same way. 
At our hearing, the first question of each committee was, Is the 
minority satisfied with the allocation of funds for its operations? 
Almost without exception, Mr. Speaker, the minority expressed 
satisfaction. Even when there was initial disagreement, the chairman 
and ranking member found common ground before the House Administration 
markup.
  This committee recognizes that each standing committee carefully 
assessed its anticipated workload and requested all of its sums it 
considered necessary to discharge its responsibilities. Unfortunately, 
when the 109th Congress adjourned, the fiscal 2007 appropriations 
process was unfinished. That led to the CR, which greatly limited this 
committee's options in the authorization process for the 110th 
Congress. And with severely limited resources, my committee was able to 
recommend across-the-board inflationary adjustments of 2.6 percent for 
2007, and 2.94 percent for 2008. Without additional appropriations, no 
further adjustments were possible.
  My committee's amendment in the nature of a substitute authorizes 
$280,234,490 for the entire 110th Congress, and that includes funding 
for the select committee just added by the rule.
  The committee believes that the Chairs and ranking members will 
shepherd their resources carefully and despite the approximately $1 
million shortfall will still be able to fulfill their responsibilities 
to the House. The lone panel to receive a supplemental amount was the 
Armed Services Committee, which bears an exceptionally heavy burden and 
must be considered a special case.
  The war in Iraq has taken the lives of more than 3,000 American 
service personnel, wounded tens of thousands more, and consumed 
hundreds of billions of dollars over the last 4 years. The Armed 
Services Committee has an enormous responsibility going forward and 
must have the resources with which to oversee America's military policy 
in Iraq and around the world.

[[Page H2318]]

  Given the gravity of Armed Services' task, House Administration 
recommended an additional increase of $500,000 for 2007. While 
appropriations for 2008 have yet to be enacted, the committee's 
amendment reflects the best assessment by the appropriators and by the 
House financial managers of the amount that will be available to 
support committees during the second session.
  Committee workloads increase during the second session of any 
Congress, and I expect this pattern to continue as committees engage in 
the critical legislative and oversight work which the American people 
voted for last November.
  As I indicated earlier, every effort was made to ensure that the 
fairness principle was applied during the funding process. The purpose 
is to ensure that the minority party can serve as the loyal opposition 
and contribute fully to the legislative and oversight initiatives of 
each committee.
  The fairness principle takes the form of the one-third rule, which 
was advocated by both Republicans and Democrats when they served in the 
minority. The committee believes the principle has now become firmly 
established in the allocation of resources, committee by committee, and 
that irrespective of which party is in the majority, the one-third rule 
will be carried forward. Each committee must nonetheless implement the 
principle consistent with its own operating practices and procedures. 
As Chairs and ranking members change from Congress to Congress, the 
committee expects that the fairness principle will continue to address 
the needs of the minority.
  There were many concerns expressed during this year's truncated 
funding process, not the least of which was the overall inadequacy of 
funds to meet the collective needs of the committees. From the 
beginning of the Congress, even before the adoption of the CR, 
committees were counseled to operate on a flatline spending basis in 
order to avoid a shortfall later in the Congress. Most committees 
followed that guideline and many kept their eventual funding requests 
within a few percentage points of the flatline spending rate of the 
preceding session, one committee even restraining its request to 
preclude an inflation adjustment for both personnel costs and operating 
expenses.
  The committee appreciates the efforts of committees to keep their 
requests as low as feasible, given the backlog of the oversight 
responsibilities to be carried out and the legislative agenda set out 
by the House leadership. However, the committee recognizes the 
continuing needs of many committees to support and expand their 
agendas. As a result, both I and the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers, 
indicated that if additional funds became available for distribution, 
the committee would entertain future requests to supplement the 
authorized levels in this resolution.
  In addition to the Chairs' and ranking members' concerns about the 
overall spending shortfall and the impact on staffing levels, there 
were additional concerns expressed about the ability of committees to 
attract and maintain senior legislative and oversight professionals 
because the current salary cap is not competitive with the private 
sector. A few committees indicated that some new employees were 
accepting committee positions at salaries below their previous private 
sector levels based upon a desire to perform public service, and we are 
very grateful to those staff persons who have done that and will do 
that. While this is laudable, and some individuals may be willing to 
make such sacrifices, it remains imperative that committee salary caps 
become competitive or congressional oversight will suffer.
  Another theme carried forward from the 109th Congress committee 
funding process was crowding, insufficient office space to manage and 
maintain operations and adequately house the staff necessary to perform 
the legislative and oversight duties. While some committee have 
received additional work space, it is often in other buildings, and not 
even contiguous to other committee offices, making it very difficult to 
work. This broken-up space introduces operation inefficiencies, and we 
recognize that, Mr. Speaker. And while the committee does not assign or 
manage office space, it agreed to bring the committee's overall office 
space concerns to the attention of the House leadership in the hope 
that future building changes or innovations will take committee needs 
into consideration.
  Again, I thank all of the members on the Committee on House 
Administration. I thank the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers, and all of 
those committee members, both sides of the aisle, who partook of this 
extremely long hearing that we got all of the committees and the 
ranking members in, and I applaud all of them for their tolerance.
  And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of H. Res. 202, which provides approximately 
a 2.4 percent increase to committee budgets in the 110th Congress.
  I believe I speak for both myself and my colleague, Ms. Millender-
McDonald, when I say we would have liked to have seen a larger increase 
to relieve some of the financial constraints that have been placed on 
committees. I totally agree with her concerns, which she expressed a 
moment ago, about the salaries of staff members, both in personal 
offices and in committees, and several Members on our side of the aisle 
have raised that same concern with me.

                              {time}  1215

  We, of course, as Members of the Congress, will not receive any 
increase in salary this year, but we expected that, and we have no 
problem dealing with that. However, it is different for our staffs. 
They have lush fields of opportunity outside of this institution, and 
we hope that all staff members will bear with us during this lean time 
during the next year or two and not be attracted to these lush fields, 
but remain with us, so that the institution can continue to function as 
well as it has.
  The committee and ranking members alike face an increasing workload 
each year with limited resources and staff. Despite the funding 
limitations we have this year, it is my sincere hope that even a modest 
increase will be of use to committees in performing the important work 
that they do, and also my fond hope that through a normal 
appropriations process this year, there will be adequate funding to 
deal with the business of the Congress during the next fiscal year.
  My goal during the course of providing funding levels for House 
committees in the 110th Congress has been twofold: first, to maintain 
what has in the last few years been a relatively smooth committee 
funding process. Many of our chairmen and ranking members have 
established standing precedents about the operating practices within 
their respective committees and have functioned for many years in 
accordance with those principles. Based on the productive hearing we 
held last week during which the chairs and ranking members testified on 
their budget requests, I believe we have continued that smooth process 
following the pattern of the last several Congresses.
  Second, I wanted to ensure that an equitable division of funding 
continues. When the Republicans previously served in the minority, we 
were not provided with sufficient funds or staff. As an example, one of 
the major committees was given only 11 percent of the resources 
assigned to that committee, whereas the then majority, the Democrats, 
retained 89 percent for themselves. This is not appropriate or fair.
  During the course of the past 12 years, the Committee on House 
Administration has reached an agreement on maintaining two-thirds of 
the funding for the majority and one-third for the minority, and I am 
very pleased that every committee chairman who came before the 
committee promised to honor and continue that commitment, that 
allocation, and we are delighted that the new majority's continuation 
of that split will serve as good guidance for the future as well. It is 
vital to the strength of the House of Representatives as an institution 
that the minority, no matter which party it is, continues to be given 
adequate resources, and that each chairman and ranking member be able 
to come to an arrangement that is satisfactory for both parties.
  Adjustments to the two-thirds/one-third budget allocation have been 
made

[[Page H2319]]

in the past, for instance through the years of shared staff or a 
centrally managed budget for non-personnel expenditures. My goal is not 
to discourage these types of arrangements between the chairman and the 
ranking minority member. In fact, I admire the creativity and 
cooperation demonstrated by some of our chairmen and ranking members to 
establish a process that works for their particular committees. 
However, I do want to ensure that those in the minority continue to be 
given adequate resources and that each chairman and ranking member are 
able to come to an arrangement that is satisfactory for both parties.
  I conclude by thanking our chairwoman, Ms. Millender-McDonald, for 
conducting this process in an open and transparent fashion. While we 
were only able to provide a small percentage increase for each 
committee when compared to last year's budget, we are pleased that we 
have accomplished the goals of a smooth process that maintains the two-
thirds/one-third allocation.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), a junior member of our 
committee, but a very experienced junior member, one of the outstanding 
freshmen and a member of the steering committee.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I appreciate the work that he has done.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reluctantly oppose this. As a member of 
the House Administration Committee, I sat through the hearings that we 
had, where the chairmen and the ranking members came before us and 
talked about what they needed in funding, and it was our 
accountability, our role to oversee that. We went through the 
committees.
  But after this resolution was done and went to the Rules Committee, 
the Rules Committee created a new select committee, added $3.7 million, 
going beyond the jurisdiction of House Administration. Where is the 
accountability? Where is the approval process? Where is the role of 
this House and this committee to oversee that?
  If the Rules Committee felt we had $3.7 million more to spend, I 
think there would be other places to spend it. For one, when we look at 
the ethics and the changes in this House and what this House wants to 
accomplish, I am a new Member, I sat on this floor the day we were 
sworn in, and I listened to our Speaker when she said she wanted a new 
House, when she talked about changing partisanship and making it 
partnership.
  I do not see partnership with the Rules Committee overstepping the 
bounds of the House Administration Committee. I do not see partnership 
when we have put new rules on this floor, when the Ethics Committee 
needs to oversee them, when the Ethics Committee needs to be able to 
interpret them and bring them back to this floor so this floor 
understands it, is able to live by it and be the House that the people 
want it to be.
  So I stand before you reluctantly, because I voted for the version 
that went before the House Administration Committee, but I will not 
vote for the version that came back from the Rules Committee. I believe 
it is overstepping its bounds. I believe the jurisdiction, the 
accountability, rests in the House Administration Committee, just like 
every other individual when they were the chair or ranking member and 
had to stand before us and had to justify the money they were going to 
spend.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
for a brief comment.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his comments, 
and I certainly agree with him. It would have been much better had that 
special committee been processed through the Committee on House 
Administration, as all other committees are. I want to also let him 
know it is even worse than he said, because the total over the 2-year 
life of this special committee, the select committee that is being 
formed, is approximately, $3.7 million, which is a large amount of 
money for any committee to have.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 9 minutes to another gentleman 
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), who is also on our committee.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, at first I would like to congratulate both the 
chairwoman and the ranking member of this committee for the bipartisan 
way in which they have acted in bringing this bill to the floor, this 
funding resolution, which is part of the regular business of this 
House, making sure that we can do the people's business here in an 
organized fashion.
  We listened to all of the presentations made by the various committee 
chairs and ranking members. I was very pleased to see the agreement on 
the one-third/two-thirds funding rule. As one who served here in a 
prior life, I can recall when it wasn't so. I can recall at one point 
in time on one of the committees that I won't mention where I believe 
the difference in staff ratio at the time I served was something like 
7-to-1. I can recall when we got something like 11 percent of the total 
funding. That made it difficult.
  We used to encourage our people by saying you have to be that much 
better than the others. We have to be seven times better. You have to 
work seven times harder. You can only say that for so long, and you can 
only do so much with limited resources.
  So the rule that has been established over the last number of years 
that the minority receives one-third of the funding, approximately, is 
one that works well for both the majority and the minority. It is good 
for the minority to have sufficient resources so they not only can 
present their point of view, but also it keeps the majority on its 
toes. The direct result of that is better legislative product. So I am 
pleased that that came through.
  However, I must once again register my objection to our inability to 
give appropriate funding to the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct. As the chairwoman of that committee said when she appeared 
before our committee, ``Ethics is neither a Democratic nor a Republican 
issue. It is an American issue.''
  It is an issue that is essential to the proper functioning of this 
House, and it is something for which we have received black eyes of 
recent vintage and for which we deserve those black eyes because of the 
conduct of errant Members in this House. And to provide against that 
from happening again, to encourage that that does not happen again, we 
have adopted more stringent rules than we have had in this House, in 
recent memory at least.
  In order to assure that Members are able to follow the details of the 
rules that have been established, the Ethics Committee, or the 
committee properly understood as the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct, has been given additional responsibilities so that Members can 
rely on their advice in a timely fashion. They do great work. We have 
dedicated people there, but they will not be able to do the job we give 
them without additional resources.
  This should not be a partisan issue. I for the life of me do not 
understand the decision made not to give this money. I would have 
thought the leadership could have put a spotlight on this, given 
additional money to the Ethics Committee and issued a press release 
about how they were ensuring that we were going to actually put our 
money where our mouth was and we were going to have the adequate 
resources in order to make real the promise that we have given the 
American people on ethics.
  For the life of me, I don't understand why we couldn't find another 
$1 million for the Ethics Committee. I don't serve on the Ethics 
Committee, but I don't want to see a Member caught in technical 
violation of the rules we have adopted for lack of adequate information 
or available or timely information. I don't want to see a Member who 
has technically violated our rules because that Member couldn't get a 
timely response from the committee. Not because the committee doesn't 
wish to give them that, but because the committee essentially doesn't 
have the personnel to be able to do that.
  We may very well tie ourselves up in knots. Now, the American people 
probably aren't concerned about whether

[[Page H2320]]

we tie ourselves up in knots, but they are concerned about whether our 
actions reflect the best standards of ethics that we can have. So it is 
a question of maintaining the confidence of the American people in this 
institution.
  Mr. Speaker, I come here not to talk about a partisan issue and not 
to talk about an issue that just affects Members of Congress, but an 
institutional issue. If, in fact, we have created a bond with the 
American people, and part of that bond is a contract where we hold 
ourselves out to perform our duties at the highest level of ethical 
conduct, then in fact we should ensure that that is not difficult to 
do, but that is expected and easy to do because we have established the 
strictures in this House and we have established the resources to allow 
Members to perform within those ethical strictures.
  That is why I would stand on this floor today and say that the 
request of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for $6.1 
million, which would be an increase of $1.35 million, is absolutely 
necessary.
  I had every intention of supporting the committee's work on this and 
being able to recommend this to my fellow Members. I cannot do this.
  We have the argument about the other committee that came in with the 
funding that was put in by a self-executing aspect of the rule just 
adopted. But that is not what I am arguing about. I am arguing about 
the absolutely essential need for us to give sufficient resources for 
the Committee on Ethics to do its work.
  As the chairwoman of the committee said in testimony to us directly, 
these positions that are requested by the Ethics Committee for which 
they sought the funding that was denied them, these positions are 
needed to satisfy the mandates of the House ethics rule. She did not 
say it would be nice to have them. These are additional. These are 
surplus, to make sure we can do our job. The words were carefully 
chosen: These positions are needed to satisfy the mandates of the House 
Ethics Committee.

                              {time}  1230

  We need to continue talking about this. We need to work as a 
committee. If we can do anything about this, I would implore the 
leadership to take another look at this because it doesn't hurt a 
Democrat or Republican; it doesn't hurt one individual Member or 
another. It hurts us all collectively if we fail to give ourselves the 
best opportunity to show the American people not only are we doing the 
American people's work, we are doing it based on merit. We are doing it 
based on a system that is fully ethical, and we don't take this as a 
burden. We take it as a necessary responsibility, and we understand 
that not only are we doing the people's business, but we are in a real 
sense on a stage which requires us to be teachers for many people.
  Many young people look at this place and many young people have the 
opportunity to visit here, and many young people have the opportunity 
to see our workings here by way of C-SPAN, and I don't want them to be 
watching in the well of the House as we condemn a Member, as we expel a 
Member, or we reprimand a Member for inappropriate conduct, and have 
that Member stand here and say: if only you had given me the resources 
so I would have known what the rules really were.
  I don't want that to be the excuse. I want us to say that we stand 
here as an ethical, collective body, and that we will put our money 
where our mouth is. I would just end by saying this: we would not allow 
a corporation to say they couldn't comply with Sarbanes-Oxley and the 
new responsibilities under ethics and reporting because they couldn't 
afford to hire the lawyers and the accountants to do it. We would say 
that was your obligation.
  If we believe that is the obligation in the private sector, we ought 
to do the very same for ourselves as we stand here in the largest 
corporation in the world. As the members of the board of directors of 
the largest corporation in the world that spends more money in the 
world, we stand here saying we will be as serious about our 
responsibilities as we expect you to be about yours.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I agree with Mr. Daniel E. 
Lungren that we need to take another look at perhaps supplemental 
funding, and we welcome that thought and we will pursue that, Mr. 
Daniel E. Lungren, because there is no Member of this House who doesn't 
want to make sure that the voices of the American people last year will 
not be taken seriously and will be heard and responded to.
  I am so very happy, Mr. Speaker, that the chairwoman on the Committee 
on Standards and the Ethics Committee came to the floor during the 
rules deliberation, and she stated that while she would want additional 
funding, she will guarantee us that that committee will work 
effectively and efficiently to provide the type of service that is 
necessary to make sure that the Ethics Committee gives us what it wants 
us to have. And she said that the best standards of ethics will still 
be maintained irrespective of.
  Now, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren did say we need an extra million dollars. 
If you look at this, there is a possibility that half a million per 
session each year would perhaps be the type of funding that we need. If 
that is the case, Mr. Speaker, the supplemental expense resolution 
pursuant to House rule X for additional funding is where we will pursue 
that.
  I thank the gentleman, but we are complying with, and the Ethics 
Committee chairwoman said that there will still be maintained, the 
highest level of standards, and they will do their work efficiently.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield myself 
the balance of my time to conclude.
  I wish to make a few comments about some of the points raised by the 
members of the committee on our side of the aisle.
  First, I voted for this resolution as it came out of committee, 
without any dissent, because I thought we had done the best job we 
could, with both parties working together, to fairly distribute the 
limited funds that we had.
  What is upsetting our side of the aisle and upsetting a number of 
individuals are two things: first, the select committee apportionment. 
I can assure you I am not opposed to forming the Energy Independence 
and Global Warming Select Committee. It is a major issue, a major 
topic, which probably has to be studied by a special task force, a 
select committee, simply because the issue is so complex and cuts 
across so many committees' jurisdictions that this is the only way to 
effectively conduct the study and come to an answer.
  I do, however, strongly object to the process of adding this huge 
amount of money, $3.7 million, in the confines of the Rules Committee. 
That is something that I had hoped and expected would come to our 
Committee on House Administration so that the Chair of the committee 
and I could work on this issue with all of the parties involved and 
ascertain the needs of the select committee and determine the precise 
allocation needed.
  What particularly angers me about this is that we did not fully fund 
the Ethics Committee at the level it should be funded. The reason was 
we simply didn't have the money. Now, suddenly, there is an extra $3.7 
million. I would have much preferred to allocate part of that to the 
Ethics Committee and reduce the amount for the select committee. I am 
sure they would not have noticed the difference, whereas the Ethics 
Committee would notice a huge difference and would be able to do its 
work effectively.
  With those caveats, I want to express my disappointments with the 
process, not within our committee, but the process outside our 
committee. I wish it would have gone through our committee, and we 
would have dealt with it properly.
  My final comment is simply to say most Members of Congress do not 
realize what an incredible amount of work goes into this budget 
process. It took our committee a full day just to hear the testimony, 
but that was the easy part. The tough part is for the staff to assemble 
all of the numbers and get them in order, particularly when there is a 
transition from one party to the other. That adds complexity and 
difficulty to the task.
  I want to thank Peter Sloan and George Hadijski from our side of the 
aisle, who did an excellent, an outstanding job on this issue. But even 
though normally one only praises the

[[Page H2321]]

people on their own side of the aisle, I want to take special note of 
some individuals who worked very, very hard on the majority side, 
simply because their job was monumental having to do it for the first 
time.
  I particularly want to commend Charlie Howell, Janelle Hu and Matt 
Pinkus for their hard work. They worked closely with our team, and we 
were very happy to help them. But I can't emphasize enough what a 
horrendous task this is to put together all these budgets very quickly, 
and both sides did yeomen's work. I am very pleased.
  I think they set a pattern for the committee because they worked so 
closely together on this, both parties equally shouldering the burden 
and not worrying about how many hours they were spending on whose job; 
and I think that is a good pattern for us to follow for the next 2 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the 
ranking member again in thanking him for his forbearance during that 
very strenuous hearing process.
  I also join him in thanking the staff: Charlie Howell, who is just an 
extraordinarily effective person, and who worked very hard with me to 
make sure that all of the very thick material that was needed for this 
process of hearings was available. And also Matt Pinkus, Janelle Hu and 
Kristin McCowan, who all played an extraordinary part in making sure 
that the process went smoothly, although it was very long.
  I would also like to thank the minority staff because together they 
worked very well with the staff to ensure that this process went as 
smoothly as it could. So I thank all of these folks and the ranking 
member and all of the members of the committee, the Chairs and the 
ranking members of all committees, for bearing with us in a tightly 
budgeted Congress.
  I know that our resolution satisfies no one; however, I also know 
that when legislative and oversight agendas are set, they will be set 
with a keen eye to how to best use available funds. I want to assure 
all Chairs and ranking members that my committee will consider all 
requests for supplemental funding based upon whether or not additional 
funds are made available to the House. Right now, however, we must all 
live within our flatline budget constraints because, after all, there 
was no budget passed last year in the 109th Congress, and we are 
operating under a continuing resolution.
  Indeed, the American people have spoken. They spoke last year, and 
the Congress must respond to their demands. We all serve as trustees 
for their voices and their dollars, and I know that each committee will 
use the funds entrusted to it wisely.
  This committee recognizes that each standing committee carefully 
assessed its anticipated workload and requested only the sums it 
considered necessary to discharge its responsibilities. Nonetheless, 
with severely limited resources, the across-the-board inflationary 
adjustments share the pain equally.
  This resolution has the lowest overall committee expenditure 
authorization level in the last three Congresses, even including the 
new select committee. At $280 million for the entire 110th Congress, it 
is an overall decrease of approximately 2 percent, Mr. Speaker. And 
that is a reversal for which this House should take credit.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly commend Speaker Pelosi for 
showing tremendous leadership on this issue and creating the Select 
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. This committee 
will provide Congress the opportunity to conduct important and 
essential oversight that is long overdue.
  I remain deeply concerned about global warming and have been appalled 
by the Bush Administration's failure to provide any leadership on one 
of the most important environmental, economic, and moral issues of our 
time. As the largest producer of greenhouse gasses in the world, the 
United States must enact national emissions controls to curb our 
country's contribution to global warming.
  European Union leaders are meeting this week to consider plans to cut 
greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by the year 2020, a first step 
in a post-Kyoto global warming strategy that could lead to mandatory 
limits for cars and pollution allowances for airlines.
  While these actions are critical, the United States needs to lead in 
this area as Speaker Pelosi is working to achieve. It is high time for 
the Bush administration to stop questioning the science behind global 
warming and act to protect future generations.
  The Secretary General of the United Nations stated this week that 
``the danger posed by war to all of humanity--and to our planet--is at 
least matched by the climate crisis and global warming.''
  As a Representative of California, I am proud to be a cosponsor of 
the Safe Climate Act, which was introduced last year and will be 
offered again this year. The goal of the Safe Climate Act is to reach 
1990 emissions levels by 2020 and then to continue to cut emissions 
through 2050.

  In order to achieve these cuts, the Environmental Protection Agency 
would be instructed to set national standards for vehicle emissions at 
the levels mandated by California state law, which has the strictest 
vehicle emissions laws in the country. By focusing on an increased use 
of renewable energy and allowing the nation's largest polluters to meet 
new federal standards by buying and selling emissions allowances, the 
Safe Climate Act sets out effective common-sense energy policies that 
will reduce the United States' dependence on foreign oil while actively 
addressing global warming.
  Again, I praise Speaker Pelosi for drawing attention to this 
important issue and working toward a solution.
  I strongly support the passage of the Committee Funding Resolution 
for the 110th Congress and the authorization for the Select Committee 
on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNerney). Pursuant to House Resolution 
219, 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. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________