Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Resolution 129 is the second installment, if you will, of committee funding for the 105th Congress. If my colleagues will recall, in House Resolution 91, which the House passed a short time ago, we funded one of the standing committees, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and assisted in maximizing the utilization of staff with the creation of a reserve fund. The other committees were maintained at the then-current House rules provision until a second funding resolution could be created. House Resolution 129 is that second funding resolution. It contains funding for 18 standing committees of the 19 and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The dollar amounts funding these committees are roughly the same as in House Resolution 91. There are, however, in particular committees, various reductions which equal about $550,000 over the 2-year period of the 105th Congress. The total amount of increase for these committees from the 104th Congress to the 105th Congress is 4 percent. That is 2 percent a year; 1997, 1998. The committees determine for themselves the distribution of the expenditure between the years, but in the aggregate, the amount of this resolution is a very modest increase of 2 percent a year for the 105th Congress. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the last two speakers who both indicated that they were going to vote against the funding resolution are freshmen and therefore they have had no experience in what the Congress has looked like when their party was in the majority. I appreciate the gentlewoman from Michigan indicating that she is working hard in the Committee on Science, and there is a 14-percent increase. The record shows the Committee on Science has increased 3 percent. It is 3 percent for the 105th Congress; that is 1\1/2\ percent a year. The cost of living, which is certainly not automatic, and although the chairmen will probably vote where it is appropriate for a cost of living for the employees is about 2.3 percent. So it is obvious that the employees working for that committee will not within the budget increase find enough money to cover a COLA. But what I would really like to remind the freshmen Members on the minority side is that when their party was in the majority the most recent Congress, being the 103d Congress, spent $223 million on staff and the committees. So if they are unwilling to support a $177 million cost for running the committees, I only wish my colleagues had been here in the 103d so they could have castigated their leaders at that time for wanting to spend and, in fact, spending $223 million. We are spending $45 million less than the amount that was spent when the gentlewoman's party was in the majority. So I understand they have to find some reason to oppose reasonable legislation, but it really does make it difficult when they have no historical perspective because frankly since the Republicans have become the majority in January 1995, if they want to look at the larger picture not in terms of a government program, but in terms of the economy which after all is the engine that makes this system go, the deficit has been cut in half from $203 billion in 1994 to about $70 billion this year. Welfare rolls have been decreased by 20 percent. Violent crime has been reduced by 5 percent. Unemployment has dropped by 10 percent. The poverty rate has declined. And in the stock market, the Dow Jones average has almost doubled. It is not a coincidence that all this has happened since the Republicans became a majority in January 1995. It is always possible to find one specific reason to choose to vote ``no.'' Actually the more responsible position in the opinion of this gentleman is to look at the aggregate and say what we have done with one-third fewer staff and one-third fewer resources is quite remarkable. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Frankly, this gentleman from California is confused. I have to tell my colleagues on the other side, they cannot have it both ways. Either we are not doing the job that the people want us to do and we should fund the committees more, or we get criticized because we are funding the committees more because we are not doing the job that we are supposed to do. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] wants us to move campaign finance reform. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] gets up and says ``the constituents want us to know what is going on.'' Well, I think if anybody paid attention at all in the last election, there was a lot going on in the gentleman's party, in his national party and over at the White House, and that if we are going to write meaningful campaign reform, we ought to find out what was going on. But we are criticized because we do not rush to the floor with a solution to whatever the problem is, because we have not had a chance to examine it. But obviously the minority, which has no responsibility in dealing with this, loves to get up and say ``We want it both ways.'' The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] criticized the fact that we have detailees. The problem, I would tell the gentleman, in the 103d Congress was that just one committee had more than 100 detailees. They also had more than 100 staff, and they had more than 100 detailees. The current policy is to limit the detailees to 10 percent of the staff, and so for that committee the detailees would amount to the munificent number of nine. If they do not see the difference between 100 detailees and 9, then obviously the argument that we have detailees, without telling the whole truth about the kind of outrageous policies that were present in the 103d, means that they want it both ways. I read a list of achievements since January 1995, not for the last 5 years, not for the last 10 years, not since F.D.R. was President, but only since Republicans have become the majority in the House and the Senate. One of the items I mentioned was the reduction of the welfare rolls by 20 percent. As a matter of fact, the Democratic President signed that bill, but I can assure you that many of the people who have spoken on the other side of the aisle did not vote for that bill. So it is with some degree of pleasure that I can indicate to my colleagues that a Republican House and a Republican Senate and a Democratic Presidency are working together to change America for the better. I only hope that as this President and this Congress come to an agreement on an historic package which will balance the budget, which will preserve and strengthen Medicare, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join with us, the majority, in supporting their President in making the kinds of budgetary and entitlement and tax changes with which our President agrees. So I fully understand the frustration of the minority, having been there myself for a number of years, they certainly have the privileges, to have it both ways. They praise on the one hand and condemn on the other. I certainly am more than willing to tell them that if they believe it serves a useful purpose, it is certainly their right to do so, but I would tell this House that House Resolution 129 is a prudent funding package. It is appropriate. It is necessary. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on House Resolution 129.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to recognize someone who ordinarily is never recognized and, in fact, acknowledge that there are a number of people who do their jobs and do them well without which this House could not function. The particular individual is a gentleman by the name of Tim Sheane, who is in the Legislative Counsel's Office. He is retiring. For more than 20 years he has assisted the then-Committee on House Administration and the now Committee on House Oversight in putting together the legislation necessary to do the people's business. So on behalf of the members of the committee and the staff who have worked with Tim Sheane for endless hours in producing work product and for those like him, I would like to give the long overdue recognition to him and to all of those who do not normally share the spotlight in doing the people's work.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, along with Mr. Cardin, Mr. Bilirakis, and Mr. Stark, the Programs of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly [PACE] Act of 1997. Our bill would provide coverage of PACE under the Medicare Program and establish PACE as a Medicaid State option. As many know, PACE is a quality, cost-effective long-term care program that was pioneered by On Lok Senior Health Services in San Francisco, CA. The PACE program is a fully-capitated acute and long- term health care program in which all covered services are provided through a single organization or a single provider of care, including not only the long-term care services and inpatient hospitalization, but physician services, nurses, physical, occupational and recreational therapists, social workers, dieticians, home health aides and medical equipment suppliers. PACE programs receive capitation payments from Medicare and Medicaid, and in the case of individuals who are not eligible for Medicaid, private individuals. These payments provide payers savings relative to their expenditures in the traditional Medicare, Medicaid, and private payer systems. Finally, PACE programs are unique in that they assume total financial risk and responsibility for all acute and long-term care without limitation. PACE evolved in response to problems which exist in the current long- term care system, a system that is biased toward institutional care, leads to discontinuity and duplication in the provisions of services, and affords little control over utilization of services and costs. These problems can lead to fragmented care, repeated and lengthy hospital stays, family stress, premature nursing home placement, and impoverishment. By expanding the availability of community-based long-term care services, tightly integrating all aspects of their enrollee's care, and emphasizing preventive and supportive services, PACE programs have substantially lowered the utilization of high-cost, inpatient services. In turn, dollars that would have been spent on hospital and nursing home care services are used to expand the availability of community- based care which, again reduces the need for higher-cost institutional care. As a result, PACE enrollees are able to remain at home and enjoy a better quality of life. The PACE Coverage Act of 1997 offers an alternative to traditional long-term care which has been proven effective--both in terms of quality and cost. While we recognize that PACE is not the only solution to problems facing frail, older Americans, it is one solution that has withstood the test of time and the scrutiny which comes with being visible. On Lok, the first of the PACE programs, has been in existence since 1972 and began offering the full spectrum of PACE services in 1983. In 1986, Congress authorized demonstration waivers for up to 10, later 15, organizations seeking to replicate the achievements of On Lok in San Francisco. These programs have accumulated more than six decades of experience. Based on the success of these pioneers, it is time to make PACE programs available to eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries on a broader scale. The purpose of our bill is to make this important alternative available across the Nation. It is also urgently needed. As mentioned, 15 demonstration sites were authorized. Far more than that number are now waiting in the wings to serve our frail elderly citizens. By establishing qualified programs as providers, we also will facilitate the ability of the private sector to insure these services and to contract with PACE programs on behalf of individuals who would benefit from this type of care. Again, this, of course, would be voluntary. What we are doing here is providing another significant resource. As we examine the needs of the elderly, we need to look for ways to move beyond existing programs to make coordinated care networks a permanent competitive options for all beneficiaries, and the PACE model provides a strong foundation for us on which to build.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1001, to extend the term of appointment of certain members of the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission and the Physician Payment Review Commission.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1001. It is the bill to extend the term of appointment of certain members of the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission and the Physician Payment Review Commission. This is a noncontroversial bill; nevertheless, it is a necessary one because it is needed to ensure the continued operation of these two commissions. H.R. 1001 was introduced by myself and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis]. The bill was reported by both the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee and the full Committee on Ways and Means by a voice vote without amendment. Under current law the appointment of, we call it the PROPAC and PHYSPRC, the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission and the Physician Payment Review Commission, membership is made by the Director of the Office of Technology Assessment. However, because Congress has closed the OTA, there is no one to make these appointments. This bill would extend the members' terms which expire this year. It will provide the committees of jurisdiction time to consider the future structure of the two commissions in order to develop legislation that would first, reauthorize their activities, and second, put in place a structure for determining a membership appointment. Mr. Speaker, this measure received, as I said, the unanimous support of the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment and the full committee. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this noncontroversial but much-needed piece of legislation.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1001.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, today, we celebrate a milestone in the history of Bakersfield, CA, one that is of great importance. The Temple Beth El has been with us now for 50 years and with each passing decade its strength and enduring qualities have grown. It is fitting that with this anniversary we pause and reflect upon the many miles traveled and obstacles overcome. We look back and remember that the founding of Beth El coincided with the end of one of the saddest times in human history--World War II. Indeed, some of the veterans of that war were founding members of Beth El. I wonder if those founding families ever imagined that their small temple in Bakersfield would someday blossom into the revered institution Beth El is today. Temple Beth El has been ecumenical in reaching out to churches in the area, thereby strengthening the intangible ties that bind the fabric of Bakersfield. This task, while no small deed, has opened eyes and minds that were once closed and diluted the misunderstanding that flows through some, making Bakersfield shine more as a city. The contributions of Beth El to the community are numerous--the charities, the food drives, the commitment. One goal Beth El members have continually pursued is to make life better for others. This congregation has achieved that goal in many ways. They have given us hope for a better, fairer, safer, more tolerant, and caring would. As we approach the end of the century and look forward to the next, the current generations of members of Beth El are sure to pave the road to the future by continuing their efforts to make Bakersfield a better community. Again, I congratulate the congregation and look forward to Temple Beth El's many anniversaries in years to come.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton]. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, where was I? Yes, I remember, I was talking about democracy and majority rule. As a matter of fact, that is the way we make decisions in our constitutional Republic. I did not realize how prophetic the introduction of my friend, the gentleman from California, yesterday was in talking about the opportunity to explain the Connecticut Compromise, that great compromise that allowed this Government to actually begin to function. The ability to create a more perfect union was based upon compromise. To differ is human, but the genius of American politics is that we have created a system that allows us to resolve those differences. It is compromise. Yesterday we tried and we failed. Trying and failing is not failure. Failing to try is failure. Mr. Speaker, the other side used some relatively harsh words today. We know the system that they created in trying to fund and run this institution, in which half of the money for funding committees was never looked at in a public hearing so that the American people knew what was going on. We are offering a more perfect system. The reserve fund is that. But they have used harsh words today: ``Slush fund,'' ``hypocrisy,'' ``extremist.'' I could go on. My friends say they want to work together, but their choice of words really makes it harder to do so. But as they say, tomorrow is another day, and we look forward to working with them tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Finally, Mr. Speaker, for those colleagues on my side of the aisle who, as individuals, reminded us that we all have to work together to be a majority, I thank the gentlemen for reminding us that we do have to include individuals. This system was created on the basis of individuals, and a majority comes together as a collection of individuals. I want to thank them for allowing the American system to work. Mr. Speaker, I will ask for the support of the previous question and a ``yes'' on the rule. The majority is working. The Republic is safe.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a continued discussion about the way the House should be run. If you will recall in our discussions yesterday and today on the rule, the last time the Democrats controlled the House, the funds for the committee total were about $223 million. Notwithstanding the more than $220 million, the resources available to the minority and the total number of staff were always an argumentative point. One of the concerns that a number of us in the minority had was Congress after Congress, when the ranking member would appear before the then-Committee on House Administration, the chairman of the committee would say: Well, I would like to give my friend on the other side of the aisle what he is asking for, but of course it cannot come out of our resources. The only way the Members of the minority would be able to get the one additional staffer which would then raise the number that the minority would have from five to six, would be to increase the committee budget so that they could pay for that staffer. What happened over a number of Congresses was that the staff on the committees grew. Ostensibly to provide the minority with some assistance, but for some reason, Congress after Congress, with the exception of just a couple of committees, notably Transportation, Agriculture, and several committees, Armed Services historically, in which it was a pooled staff rather than a majority-minority staff, the resources available to the minority crept, if at all, very, very slowly up the ladder. I told Members yesterday that the Committee on the Judiciary in the 103d Congress provided the munificent percentage of 11 percent to the minority. Then House Committee on House Oversight provided 15 percent, on and on and on of percentage of the staff in the teens. But the staff continued to grow. Now, Members need to know that of a committee budget, 85 to 90 percent of the funds of the committee are invested in the staff. And so no one wants to hold their staff at no increase. So you ask for a cost of living. A cost of living was voted by the committee. But then that was used to hire more staff, so you increased your base and you came back the next year and asked for more money. You increased the base. What happened was, we had a bloated staff structure on the committee but an enormously inequitable distribution of the staff. We asked the Democrats, would they please begin to address it. In 1990, the Democratic Caucus met, discussed, and in their caucus, without any Republicans to discuss how much we would like to make a change, the Democrats, on their own, behind closed doors voted that the ceiling, the ceiling for Republicans on investigative staff would be 20 percent. And yet there was committee after committee that never even came close to the 20 percent. So when we became the majority in the historic 104th Congress, we said we would do at least two things: First, cut the committee staffs. We believed we could do the job, and I think we proved it in the 104th with the unprecedented pieces of legislation that were moved through the committees and our continued ability to do the committee work with significantly reduced staffs. What we see on this chart, portrayed graphically, is what we did. We went from more than 1,600 staff down to less than 1,100. More than 600 staff, in one day, lopped off of the committee structure. We reduced committee staff by one-third. Mindful of when we were in the minority, however, and our desire to have a sufficient number of staff to do the job in a fair way, we said notwithstanding this red line, being the Democratic caucus' agreement to have a ceiling on Republican investigative staff at 20 percent, and notwithstanding this line, which was the historic percentage of the Republicans' share of that bloated staff, we said we are going to cut the staff by one-third. But we wanted to commit ourselves to a goal of sharing not just the staff but the total resources of the committees. So, once again in the 104th Congress, we said we wanted to set a goal of one-third of the resources of the committees that would be provided to the minority. We wanted to accomplish in a relatively short period of time what we wanted them to provide us when we were in the minority, and so in 1 day the resources to the minority, as a share of the committee funding, went from here to there. It is fairly easy to see that that is 29 percent. It is not one-third. There were some committees that made it very easy to achieve one- third. The Democratic chairman moved over to the ranking member and the ranking member became the chairman. The Committee on Agriculture became a good example. It was one-third before and it is one-third now. But those committees that provided resources to the minorities of 11 percent, of 12 percent, of 14 percent, we have to grow that amount. We have provided unprecedented percentages. In the committee that we were discussing, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, prior to the Republican majority it was 15 percent. Today it is 25. They are complaining, of course, that 25 is not 33\1/3\. Had, in previous Congresses, the chairmen of those committees provided the minority with one-third, they would have one-third today. Our crime is not making every committee, at the same time, one-third. Can my colleagues imagine the kinds of comments we would hear on this side of the aisle in terms of increasing the funds to do that? We are committed to it. We are moving every Congress in that direction. We are growing the minority's share, and we will continue to grow it until it is one-third for every committee of all the resources. Let me spend just a minute, because the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], used this, and I want to make sure my colleagues understand what it represents, because it is a classic example on the part of my friends on the other side of the aisle of bait-and-switch. In the 103d Congress we had the Committee on Government Operations, the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, and the Committee on the District of Columbia. Those were three separate committees with bloated staff. When we added up the budgets of those committees, it equaled $26.6 million. When we, as the new majority, collapsed committees and shrank the staff, these three committees became one, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and it was funded at $13.5 million. Fifty percent of the previous Congress. My good friend from Pennsylvania, our former colleague, Bill Clinger, became chairman, and he said, ``I just do not have enough resources. I have to deal with all these jurisdictional areas and I just do not have enough helping hands.'' We listened. We watched. We believed that to be the case. So what we decided to do in this Congress was to increase the amount that the committee was to receive. That is the $2.7 million. We said we will go up to 61 percent of what the committee used to have. Not even three-quarters of what the committee had, not even two- thirds of what it had, but only 60 percent of what it had. Then, not at our doing, not at our doing, we began to discover what had been going on during last year's election; at the White House, in the Democratic National Committee, and in other areas. There was a clear call for an investigation. There was even an editorial in Roll Call last January, which said although they are hearing cries of campaign finance reform, it is probably a good idea to investigate first to find out what happened so that, with knowledge, we have the ability to legislate. So we said, all right. We do not know how long this will go on. We will take $3.8 million for 1997 alone and provide it to the committee with the jurisdiction overseeing the executive branch, which is the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. So, my friends, the complaints on this side of the aisle are that we are taking three committees who would have shared that jurisdiction, which in the 103d Congress was provided with $26.6 million, and we are in the 105th Congress providing that collapsed new committee with $20 million. That is still only 75 percent of the resources, when they have been asked to take on this much larger job, than was available in the 103d Congress. My colleagues are complaining that we are increasing a committee. Yes, we are increasing a committee over the 104th because we underfunded it. We are new to this job. We will admit we are going to make mistakes occasionally. I will tell my colleagues what we have pledged. When we make mistakes, we will admit it, and when we correct it, we will correct it in public. Then we will go on, and if we make mistakes again, we will admit them and then we will correct them. What we are admitting is that we underfunded this committee. We are going to put a little more money in it and we are going to make sure they have minimum dollars to go ahead and carry out an investigation with which they have been charged. What we have before us today is a funding resolution that makes this change; that, as I said, instead of putting moneys into committees to have staff, it creates a reserve fund, so that if we have a job that was not anticipated at the beginning of the Congress and we did not fund for it, that money could be moved to that committee to do the job. When the job is finished, they will not get to keep the staff, they will not get to grow their bloated committees, and that money comes back to the reserve fund so it can be spent somewhere else when needed. And if not needed, it is not spent. Now, that is a more perfect system, so that we do not let the committees grow themselves but that we do have enough money to meet the needs of a Congress over a 2-year period. That is what we are voting on today. The other 18 committees that we have as standing committees now are going to be retained at their previous funding level. We will come back in 30 days and we will examine how we fund those for the rest of the 105th. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say that there has been some discussion on this side of the aisle, and if my colleague from Connecticut is willing to amend that to include a hard freeze across all Government spending, I might have trouble holding my troops over here. But since it is directed only at this particular area, we may not. Mr. Speaker, we understand the issue, and, with that, I would ask for an ``aye'' vote on House Resolution 91.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Oversight be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 11) permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank my colleague for yielding to me, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, yes, this is something that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has had his name attached to. It is important and significant, because on May 8 of this year, from 8 a.m. until 3 p.m. in the Capitol rotunda, we will celebrate, once again, the days of remembrance of the victims of the Holocaust. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, and look around the world at man's inhumanity to man, it is important that we do not forget. I think probably emblazoned in our minds more than anything else during this day of remembrance is that we as Americans can be proud of our efforts to liberate those who suffered and survived in oppressive Nazi concentration camps, and it helps us to remember that prejudice and hatred still exists.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 91.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today that will allow older Americans to stay in their homes while taking advantage of the exclusion of up to $125,000 in gains on sale of a principal residence. This is a badly needed option for those who wish to use the equity in their home for retirement needs without having to leave the family home. An AARP survey shows that 86 percent of seniors prefer to stay in the family home, yet for a great number of older Americans, home equity is a major component of their savings. Seniors who need additional income in their retirement can face a troubling dilemma: they may have to give up the house to meet their needs. The bill will aid seniors by altering our approach to the $125,000 exclusion. As currently interpreted by the IRS, the exclusion of $125,000 in gain is only available to seniors when they sell their homes and move away, literally forcing people to move to get the tax break. Their other alternatives--both of which allow them to claim the exclusion--are taking out a reverse mortgage or selling their home and leasing it back. Not all seniors will find these devices helpful. Reverse mortgages leave homeowners with the burden of maintaining the home. Sale/leaseback transactions may not provide seniors with the certainty that they will be able to continue occupying their homes. The bill's new alternative will permit seniors to sell the ``remainder interest''--the right to future ownership--in their home and keep the ``life estate''--the right to use the house for the rest of their lives. Such an option does not qualify for the exclusion today. With all the concern about retirement savings, taxpayers can only benefit through the provision of additional options. I hope my colleagues will join me in making this option available as soon as possible.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Dr. Ernest S. Griffith, who passed away at the age of 100 on January 17, 1997. Dr. Griffith served the Congress faithfully for 18 years as Director of the Legislative Reference Service, now the Congressional Research Service. Considered by many to be the father of the Legislative Reference Service, Dr. Griffith transformed a fledgling agency into a vital source of expert information and analysis for Members of Congress and their staffs. When he came to the LRS in 1940, Dr. Griffith had a staff of 40 to handle some 25,000 requests per year. Resources within the legislative branch were scarce, and the Congress depended largely on the executive branch and special interests for its information. By the time Dr. Griffith left the LRS in 1958, his staff had grown to 200, and the number of congressional requests received per year had tripled. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 had expanded the LRS's mission and given it a permanent statutory basis for the first time in its history. Experts had been recruited from all manner of disciplines to provide the legislative branch with its own pool of knowledge and information. For the first time, the Congress had available to it a select group of experts who were both knowledgeable and nonpartisan, and who could be trusted and called on at any time for help. If ever a man left his mark, Ernest Griffith left his indelibly on the Legislative Reference Service. Prior to 1940, Dr. Griffith's career was largely in university teaching and administration. After receiving his A.B. degree from Hamilton College, he was appointed a Rhodes scholar and received a Ph.D. from Oxford University. While at Oxford, he was the warden of Liverpool Settlement House. He taught economics at Princeton and government at Harvard, and was the undergraduate dean at Syracuse University before moving to Washington in 1935. In 1935, Dr. Griffith served as dean of American University's graduate school, where he also taught political science. He returned to American University in 1958 as the founding dean of the School of International Service. Dr. Griffith was a Fulbright visiting professor at Oxford and a lecturer at New York, Birmingham, and Manchester Universities, Swarthmore College, the University of Oslo, and the University College of Swansea. After retiring from American University in 1965, Dr. Griffith was visiting professor at the International Christian University and Rykko University in Japan, and lectured on American government in Turkey and Brazil. He was professor of American government at Alice Lloyd College in Kentucky in his middle eighties. A prolific writer, Dr. Griffith authored numerous articles and books about the Congress, the Presidency, and the history of American city government. His book, ``The American System of Government,'' was translated into more than 25 languages. Between lectures and his duties as Director of the Legislative Reference Service, Dr. Griffith devoted himself to serving and improving the world around him. He founded the Pioneers, a forerunner of the Cub Scouts, chaired the policy board of an interuniversity training center for Peace Corps volunteers, and chaired the Council of Social Agencies, a predecessor of the United Way. He taught Sunday school, served as a delegate to the Third World Council of Churches, and was treasurer of the Wilderness Society. He was also vice president of the American Political Science Association and president of the National Academy of Economics and Political Science. Mr. Speaker, Ernest Griffith was a man of intense passion and boundless energy, who dedicated his life to serving the public good. This is his legacy to us, and this is the legacy we honor here today. To his children, Margo, Alison, Lawrence, and Stephen, his grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, I extend our deepest sympathies.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have to admit I am genuinely confused. It is indeed a rare occasion when I come to the floor and I find out that not only is my friend from Massachusetts saying good things about me in terms of the way I run a committee and the way we split funds, but I read the minority views from my friend from Connecticut, signed by all the members of the committee, about how fair I am and the fact that the distribution of the funds was reasonable. And my colleagues really ought to read it, it is almost embarrassing how flattering they are about the way I run the committee, and then they immediately turn around and talk about this slush fund and they are worried about the slush fund and what is going to happen with it. I am the same person who is chairman of the committee who is going to control the reserve fund. The reserve fund is just exactly that, reserve. Now, these folks ought to know what a slush fund is. In the 103d Congress they had $223 million to slush around. And what my colleagues need to know is that out of that $223 million, more than half was spent outside public scrutiny. More than $112 million was spent in the shadows, in closed door rooms. What we did in the 104th Congress was put it all together, let sunshine in, and what you see is what you get. What we are asking for for this Congress is $45 million less than they spent. Now, how about a slush fund for $45 million. Where was it? Soaked away in the committees. I just do not understand it, but we cannot have it both ways. My friend from California, Mr. Waxman, he does understand it, his concern is that we said the funds are controlled by the majority. That is true, majority rules. That is called democracy. He also said when we are in the majority we never went this far. That is a quote, and he is right. He is right. They never did go that far. He said, ``We only have 25 percent of the resources.'' My friends, the 103d Congress, the minority, us at the time, had 14 percent of the resources in the Committee on Commerce. We had 15 percent of the resources in the Committee on House Oversight. We had 11 percent of the resources in the Committee on the Judiciary. I tell my friend from California, he is right, they never went as far as we have. My friend from Texas, Mr. Doggett, says we should not just point fingers, we ought to offer solutions. And then what he says is he wants more money to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, because Mr. Waxman has a letter from the Parliamentarian that says all they can do is investigate. What is investigating? It is exposing. They cannot offer solutions. They cannot have it both ways. The committee that has the jurisdiction to pass the laws is the Committee on House Oversight. We have what we believe is appropriate. We will do the job. Then I listened to a number of my friends in terms of how much money we are spending. My good friend from California, Mr. Condit, talks about how much money this is. In the 103d Congress they had $223 million. We have passed welfare, we have passed reforming, we have ended patronage, and we have audits with a whole lot less money.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that will allow mutual funds to invest in Publicly Traded Partnerships [PTP's]. PTP's are limited partnerships and PTP shares are traded on regulated, public securities exchanges. Because interests in PTP's are liquid and can be purchased in small increments, they can be bought today by small investors. An anomaly in the Internal Revenue Code prevents mutual funds representing many small investors from making such investments. As safe, liquid securities which generally provide a steady income, PTP's could be excellent investments for mutual funds. However, the Tax Code discourages fund managers from investing in PTP's because our tax laws require that mutual funds get 90 percent of their gross income from specific sources in order to retain their special tax treatment. Distributions from a partnership do not qualify nor do most types of partnership income which flow through to the fund. The only way a mutual fund can invest in a PTP is to be certain that the income fund will never receive more than 10 percent of its income from the partnership and other nonqualifying income sources. Faced with the consequences of failing to qualify--loss of their special tax status--most mutual funds avoid PTP investments. The 90 percent rule makes no sense with regard to publicly traded partnerships. Traditional, small partnership interests are often illiquid and not always well regulated. PTP's are different: the companies have to file information with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the partnership interests are traded on major public exchanges just like stocks. Mutual funds are an increasingly important part of the capital markets, and it does not make sense to deny mutual fund investors an opportunity to earn money through PTP investments. My bill would correct this situation by ensuring that any income received by or allocated to a mutual fund by a PTP, as defined in the Internal Revenue Code, would count toward the income from specified sources which mutual funds must have. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I seek this time to engage the gentleman from Delaware in a colloquy in regard to his amendment on the fiscal year 1997 appropriation bill that discloses the costs of mass mailings. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for purposes of clarification of his amendment.