Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS of California

Mr. THOMAS of California. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is not germane. point of order

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I would tell the gentleman that, as the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration in the last Congress, I have worked over the years to make sure that the Members' accounts were not only more flexible but that there was not more spending than was necessary. As the chairman of the Committee on House Oversight, which is the continuation of the former Committee on House Administration, your concern about Members' accounts is going to be addressed by this new majority, and legislation is being drafted as we speak to get to a problem which we have both shared under the previous majority, we tried to get them to change over and over again and they would not. We are going to.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that as the new minority the Democrats, in terms of complaining about process, have failed to really address one of the more fundamental reforms which is clearly in front of them. Long before we wound up winning we said that this institution should give first, that one of the things we should do is cut back on the size of committees. We tried a number of initiatives when you folks were in the majority and we failed miserably. We simply said we are going to cut staff by one-third. Is one-third a rational number? Is it going to cause real problems? We have discovered that it is not very difficult to cut by one-third. We are cutting staffing by one-third. We are probably going to do better than that, actually, as we assign the numbers to the various committees. We also shrank the number of committees. Did we shrink enough committees? Did we eliminate enough committees? We do not know. What we said was at the outset we would cut them by one-third. That is our initial offer. I believe by the end of the 104th we are going to find that we can do better than that. Democrat Members are complaining because we do not do more. Why did they not do it when they had the chance? The gentleman from Indiana mentioned the contingent fund. He needs to know his party eliminated the contingent fund as an appropriation item several Congresses ago. The rules changes in this section as well as in the section regarding the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Oversight. No change, however, is intended regarding the Committee on Oversight's jurisdiction over the accounts that comprised the contingent fund. Similarly regarding privileged reports, the Committee on Oversight will continue to have leave to report at any time on matters of expenditure of the accounts that comprised the contingent fund, such as the committee funding resolution. The gentleman from Indiana wanted to know why if he saved money out of his account it could not be returned to the Treasury. I will tell the gentleman that I am sympathetic with that position, but it is much more difficult than that, because in the past the Appropriations Committee did not fund 100 percent of the expenditures available to Members. They funded about 90 percent of it, assuming Members would not spend the 100 percent amount. If the gentleman spent 85 percent, he was funding those who spent 95 percent, and therefore if every Member spent the maximum amount available to them, in fact, that fund would be overspent. So in reality the Member does not get a pile of money out of which they spend. There is a general amount available. The Members draw on that amount, and that amount is significantly less than the total amount available for all Members to spend. I am more than willing to work with the gentleman in trying to resolve the problem of Members who husband their resources in a meaningful way, having it go to a worthwhile cause more so than someone else who is more profligate with the taxpayers' money. I am open to any suggestions and am more than willing to work with the gentleman from Indiana to carry out the goal and the thrust of his concern, and that is to make sure that Members who husband the taxpayers' resources somehow get rewarded instead of being fodder for those who overspend.

Mr. THOMAS. If the gentleman gets time on his side, I will be happy to respond, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California deserves an answer and he will get one. Under H. Res. 429 which was supported bipartisanly, we created the Oversight Subcommittee. We also created an Inspector General. The very first time the Oversight Subcommittee had to support the new chief executive officer, the Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services, the Democrats refused. There was a 2-2 tie. It did not work. The Inspector General needed assistance. The Democrats would not provide him with any. The Democrats only allowed 3 total employees to the Inspector General. We are now honoring the Inspector General's request of 18 employees to carry out the audits. In a letter dated December 21, 1994, the Office of Inspector General in responding to a letter about going forward with these audits said this: ``Therefore, the Office of Inspector General is very willing to accept this responsibility (i.e. the audits) and will perform the associated tasks in a totally professional and nonpartisan manner.'' What we are asking for, and getting, is professional management of the House. What the American people are getting is transparency of that management. The old system would not open up. The new system will. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letters: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, December 12, 1994. Mr. John Lainhart, Inspector General, House of Representatives,

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. THOMAS. One of the difficulties on some committees, I would tell the minority leader, is we do not yet know the minority composition of the committee. I was wondering if the minority leader would indicate when I might know the makeup, for example, of the minority members of the Committee on Oversight.