Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), a member of the Committee on House Administration. (Mr. DAVIS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend in Hershey, many of us implicitly pledged to rise above our party labels and work as one when issues of right and fairness demanded it. Today, just 2 days later, after Hershey, we face the first test of that premise. If we pass the test, I have no doubt that the 106th Congress will take a step in reducing the air of animus and acrimony. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the motion to recommit that I will offer at the conclusion of this debate. Without altering the funding totals in House Resolution 101, my motion provides for a fair, one-third/two-thirds division of total committee resources between the majority and minority, and the complete discretion over the use of these resources. I offer the motion, Mr. Speaker, because House Resolution 101 does not treat 212 Members of this body fairly, and, therefore, contravenes all that Hershey symbolizes. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this minority is the largest minority in this century. It was not that long ago that I could have counted on the current majority to support my motion to recommit. In a March 30, 1993 letter, signed by 31 Republican leaders, 17 of whom still serve in this body, they wrote then and I quote: ``If congressional reform means anything, it means fairness to the minority in allocation and control of resources.'' I ask my majority colleagues to consider that language of 31 of their leaders. They went on to say that ``reform without fairness is merely shuffling the cards in a marked deck.'' Their letter went on to say further, and I quote, ``A ratio of one- third/two-thirds for all committee staff, investigative as well as statutory, is a sine qua non, an absolutely essential component of, the effort for bridging the institutional animosities that now poison our policy debates.'' It was that criteria of fairness, that Pat Roberts and Jennifer Dunn included in their amendments, and in their motions to recommit on the floor, for which every Republican, save one, Don Young of Alaska, voted in 1993 and 1994, of those Republicans who still serve in this body. Now let me make it very clear to my colleagues on my side of the aisle. To his credit, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has fully adopted the one-third/two-thirds principle for the Committee on House Administration. I have thanked him for that, and I admire him for that. Since 1995 he has given our side one-third of the total funds, one-third of the staff, and control over our share of the resources. Unfortunately, no other committee chairman has fully followed his lead. Frequently the chairman will speak of 30 percent as though it is the same as one-third. It is not. One-third equals 33.3 percent, not 30 percent, not 29.8, not 31. The 3.3 percent difference can add up to thousands of dollars in lost resources for the minority. Again, I call my colleagues' attention to the definition of ``fairness'' incorporated in this statement, a definition that was then adopted by every Republican, save one, who was a Member of this body in 1993 and 1994, and is a Member today. However, when the chairmen talk about ``fairness,'' they fail to explain why the minority does not control one-third of the nonsalary budget. That means whenever the minority staff needs to purchase a computer or a copy machine or a box of paper clips, it must ask the chairman for the money to make the purchase, a situation of which the then minority in 1993 and 1994 bitterly complained. Often chairmen will claim that the minority receives one-third of the committee staff slots. That may in some instances be true, but if the minority does not also receive one-third of the total committed funding, the staff slots may be irrelevant. And if a chairman arbitrarily exempts any portion of a committee staff as nonpartisan administrative personnel even though these employees work full-time in the majority office, then the claim has been inflated. Another refrain we hear to justify a less than perfect implementation of the one-third principle is that Democrats on some committees did not respect it when they were in the majority, and therefore it has taken time to ``grow'' their budgets to the full one-third. That argument may have worked in the 104th, and perhaps in the 105th, but very frankly it is time to do, Mr. Speaker, what they said on the minority side was fairness. That is the criteria that they set; that is the motion to recommit that I will offer. It is exactly like that offered by Pat Roberts in 1993 and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) in 1994. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) used the word ``disingenuous,'' and then she changed it. I know she did not mean to cast any aspersions, nor do I. The gentlewoman from Ohio, like 109 of her colleagues who were here in 1993, voted for the motion to recommit that I will offer. She voted that one-third of the resources represented fairness. I will tell the gentlewoman from Ohio that, notwithstanding the representations of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the committee, he and I disagree on the assertions. There is but one committee that provides one-third of the resources and control to the minority--just one. To his credit, it is the committee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). No questions asked. As the gentleman from California has pointed out, it is really more than one-third of the resources, because we divided equally a staffer on the Joint Committee on Printing. My friends, if we want fairness, we need to give fairness. It has been said that we did not do right. Let me accept that premise. Is it, therefore, to be like the Hatfields and McCoys--that you did not do right, so we are not going to do right, and we will continue to fight? We will continue to create a poisonous atmosphere, of which the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) spoke, and of which 30 other Republican leaders in their letter spoke, when they--not the Democrats--but the Republicans said ``one-third of the resources, not just staff, but of the resources available is fairness.'' I am offering a motion to recommit, which was offered by the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and Mr. Roberts. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) said, and I will not quote it all, for my colleagues can see it here on the chart, ``The American people have been clear about something else, as well, Mr. Speaker. They want fairness, bipartisanship, and responsibility in spending from their Congress.'' She went on to say, ``I want to use my time, Mr. Speaker, to talk about how, even at this 11th hour, the House could move toward fairness and reform taxpayers so earnestly desire.'' She said, therefore, among other things, ``that we achieve the goal by limiting the majority to a 2 to 1 staff advantage.'' One-third/two-thirds. I am going to offer that motion to recommit. I will pass out a sheet that will show my colleagues how they voted on it before. Only one Republican voted against that, and that was the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). Mr. Roberts said in 1994, and I want all my colleagues to see this. This is Mr. Roberts. ``If lightning strikes, and the sun comes up in the west, and Republicans take over Congress, we are going to do that for you. You will at least get one-third.'' The Sun came up in the west, much to the chagrin of my side of the aisle, my colleagues. And my Republican colleagues said when it did, we would get one-third. It is time to redeem that promise. Vote for the motion to recommit that I offer, as previously offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jennifer Dunn) and Senator Pat Roberts, then Congressman Pat Roberts.

Mr. HOYER. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. My understanding is, Mr. Speaker, that we have 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), one of our Members who I think has demonstrated a commitment to fairness throughout his career here.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, what I told Roll Call, and what I repeat now, is that we are not whining. We are reminding our Republican colleagues, who said when they were in minority, that fairness was one-third of the resources of the committees. We are now reminding them of their statement and saying, if they want fairness, do fairness. Do it tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), the President of the incoming freshman class. (Mr. BAIRD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. John Conyers), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and one of the senior members of the Congress of the United States. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. I will tell the gentleman that it was considered twice, on a motion to recommit by Mr. Roberts, and a motion to recommit by the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), and the chairman of the Committee on Rules voted for it twice. He will have the opportunity to vote for it a third time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary talked about the necessity for resources. Also included in that motion to recommit was a cut of 25 percent of the resources available to the committees. We did not think that was wise at that time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, on March 30, 1993, as I said earlier, 31 Republican leaders wrote to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and Mr. Hamilton in their capacity as cochairs of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. The gentleman heard the ``sine qua non'' quote, that one-third of the resources were necessary to overcome the poisonous atmosphere that existed. Did the gentleman agree with that premise?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) who explained this bill. It is hard for me to thank Mr. Nesterczuk, but I want to do that--I say that facetiously--for his efforts on this legislation as well. This obviously is a position that our Federal employees found themselves in not through their own fault but through the administrative oversight of their employer. Obviously we ought to act to make them whole. I appreciate the action of the committee.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi and Susan Brita in particular, not because the gentleman from Mississippi is not the most important as the ranking member but Susan Brita has been at this forever. We have worked closely with her and she knows much more about the soap box derby, I think, than anyone else on our side of the aisle. I know on the other side of the aisle there is great knowledge about it. I want to thank the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure committee for bringing this bill forward. Mr. Speaker, the soap box derby is a tradition in America. It has become a tradition on Capitol Hill. Because it is Capitol Hill, we need to give authorization. Allowing this to occur on Capitol Hill is an appropriate action that we take every year, because this is the kind of event that makes Americans proud, it gives young people a sense of responsibility and enterprise and it gives them also a sense of competition, all of which will redound to their benefit and redound to the benefit of the Nation. Again, I thank the committee for reporting this bill out in such a timely fashion, and I thank in particular Susan Brita who does such an extraordinary job for all of us. Mr. Speaker, for the last eight years, I have sponsored a resolution for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby to hold its race here on the Capitol grounds along Constitution Avenue. Two weeks ago, I proudly introduced H. Con. Res. 47 to permit the 58th running of the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby, which is to take place on July 10, 1999. This resolution authorizes the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol Police Board, and the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to negotiate the necessary arrangements for carrying out the running of the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby. In the past, the full House has supported this resolution once reported favorably by the full Transportation Committee. I ask for my colleagues to join with me, and Representatives Albert Wynn, Connie Morella, Jim Moran, and Frank Wolf in supporting this resolution. Each year since 1992, the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby has welcomed over 40 contestants which has made the Washington, DC race one of the largest in the country. Participants range from ages 9 to 16 and hail from communities in Maryland, the District of Columbia and Virginia. The winners of this local event will represent the Washington metropolitan area in the national race, which will be held in Akron, Ohio on July 31, 1999. The soap box derby provides our young people with an opportunity to gain valuable skills such as engineering and aerodynamics. Furthermore, the derby promotes team work, a strong sense of accomplishment, sportsmanship, leadership, and responsibility. These are positive attributes that we should encourage children to carry into adulthood. The young people involved spend months preparing for this race, and the day that they complete it makes it all the more worthwhile. I would like to thank Bob Franks, the chairman of the Public Buildings Subcommittee, and Bob Wise the ranking member for moving this legislation. Much credit also goes to Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar for being so supportive over the years. Finally, I would like to recognize Susan Brita who is such an asset to us all at the Public Buildings Subcommittee.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from California, chairman of the Committee on House Administration, for the purpose of explaining the resolution.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, proceeding under my reservation, we obviously will not object. We support not only this resolution but the next two resolutions that will be offered for the purposes of accomplishing the objectives set forth by the chairman. I will not object to the next two and will allow them to pass simply by unanimous consent immediately upon being read. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.