John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in rising and asking for a vote on campaign finance reform. I understand the desire of many Members of this House to go home and talk about the things that have been accomplished to date, and no doubt there is much that has been accomplished. But we have unfinished business, Mr. Speaker. Education obviously is one piece of that business, but when we do it, we need to speak with a credible voice. We are not going to speak with a credible voice unless the American people really believe that the people here are voting on their interests, the interests of the American people, and not on special interests. We can do that if we address campaign finance reform. We should talk about it in the most comprehensive terms, but we should at the very least talk about doing away with soft money. No matter what party may have had grievances in the past, no matter what individuals may be called into question, the only way that this body gets any bit of comprehensive faith and trust from the American people is if we take on the issue, we debate it, we deliberate, and we vote on campaign finance reform before we go home this session. It is the American people's business; it is our business to see to it.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss not the bill but the rule before us in this particular case. Since I came here some 6 months ago or 7 months ago, it seems that all I hear from the party that said over and over again while it was in the minority is how it was going to do things better when it became the majority; in fact, all we hear now is, when they do something that is totally unconscionable, well, you did it, too, or you did another version of it. In fact, that is not a good enough answer for people in this country, and I do not think people are going to be satisfied that this deliberative body or this body that is supposed to be deliberative spent virtually no time debating one of the more important bills that is going to come out of legislation this year. The real issue is not whether we have this particular tax cut or this spending bill this year. There are larger issues in this country, not the least of which is what is happening to working families and why we have companies reporting 15 percent profits and 1 percent additional revenues, and we know the difference is because they are squeezing that out of American workers. Those American workers have less health care benefits and they have less pension contributions, and they are told by employers that they are going to have the company move to Mexico or they are going to have replacement workers in if they try too hard to get a raise. The real question is what does this tax package, what does this spending bill do for those American workers. And just a few minutes ago they said, we put it on the Internet, go read 20 inches of material and find the answer out for the voters. That is not appropriate. The American people say they want this body to deliberate. They want this body to know what is in that bill. It is a darned good thing that I am a nocturnal sort of person, because since I have gotten here very little that is put on the floor by the majority is ever put on in the light of day, and very often that is because I suspect most of what they are putting forward will not suffer well the light of day. In fact, this particular bill was delivered at 3:45 in the morning, and we have the audacity for the chairman of the Committee on Rules to say, like that is a great thing, like at 3:45 in the morning it was delivered to the minority member, ranking minority member, which gave us all plenty of time between 3:45 this morning and now to read 20 inches of documents and debate it and deliver it for the American people. That is not conscionable. That is not right. This is not a good rule.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts for offering this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect for countries such as Paraguay that make significant efforts to improve their government. I understand that Paraguay is making strong efforts to reform its adoption laws. However, there are instances when their judicial system seems not to be providing objective due process to international adoptions despite the fact that applicants are doing everything in their power to pursue these applications legally. Mr. Chairman, I have a constituent named Maria Saiz who has been trying desperately for 2 years to adopt a little girl named Sara. She has done everything possible and legal in her control and still receives unfounded excuses for why the process has not gone forward favorably. I am happy to report now that the case has been re-routed to the lower courts for further processing, but we have no guarantee of how that will result. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strongly articulates the respect that the United States has for Paraguay's efforts to reform its laws, but at the same time, it sends a clear message that the courts should fairly determine these United States adoption cases based on the fitness of the petitioners as parents and the best interest of the child only. We must participate in these efforts with the hope that soon these children can be adopted by loving parents. I urge my colleagues to vote for the McGovern amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. That is, of course, if we are assuming that this is all about friendship and all about trying to do the right thing by their friend. I think we all know it is something else. I think this thing smells to high heaven and that people understand there is another motive and another goal here for people, and they ought, and again, I am going to close because I have to leave, but they ought to be on this floor explaining to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, her constituents, the State of California, and the people of America as well as every Member of this body why they are allowing this to continue.

Mr. TIERNEY. If I can interrupt, this is the same group of individuals who fought us on spending money to insure children. These are the people that could not find the money to insure as many people as we wanted to insure, young people in this country, who can find $300,000 to argue a cause that is long lost. Again, I think this just goes to the point there is another motive here, another avenue that is strictly political partisan bickering, and they should get beyond it.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I came in a little bit late but I, like yourself, came down here when I saw that this was the topic this evening. I have been watching this scenario unfold for some period of time. Let me not go away permanently from the issue of civil rights, which I think is important. I come from the Irish minority, which is not much of a minority around here, but we had our history and we had our difficult times getting into the electoral process. I am proud of the fact that we are very much engaged in it now and that we contribute so much. Let me take it to a political level. I think that is something that we have to be mindful of here. This is not only a recount that is going on out in California. I was the subject of a recount in my district. I know from past experience, working on other people's recounts over the years, that when those votes are counted, one by one, you have got a real definite idea of how the vote resulted. At the end of that recount, Ms. Sanchez was declared the winner by almost 1,000 votes. That is a significant margin of victory in a recount situation. Now I think we take it to the political level. This is not about just civil rights. It is about politics. This is about how can the Republican Party get behind a candidate who will not let go, a person who lost and now knows he lost, if he has any touch with reality, will not let go of the situation? And they come on and they get behind it and let this situation keep unfolding so that we have a Member of Congress, who represents almost 600,000 people, that has to come here and do the business for those people and represent those people on some very significant and important issues and at the same time, because the party chooses not to let it go, because they, I think, perhaps would like to see a Democrat in that position, allow that situation to unfold so that not only does Loretta Sanchez have to do the business here; she has to be mindful of what is going on back at home. As my colleague from Chicago just said, back home it is clear in the papers there is nothing going on of any substance there except for this obsession with the lack of reality that goes on and on. Let me just say that I think the voters back in Orange County should be significantly proud of the work Loretta Sanchez does in spite of what has been going on back there and the way it must be some sort of distraction, but you would never know it for the fine work she is doing here.

Mr. TIERNEY. It was a 360 vote margin. At the end of the election we had a recount and I won by 371 votes, which in that case was significant enough that a recount could not change that. Yet Loretta Sanchez' was so much larger than that.

Mr. TIERNEY. We counted every vote, and there was a reality in my district. The voters knew the first time. They certainly knew after the recount.

Mr. TIERNEY. The challenger. The challenger has the obligation and burden to overcome the results that are there and that are certified. In this instance, it is an even additional burden on that because there they are certified. The recount has been done. Again, I do not mean to contradict my colleagues here, but I like to keep bringing the focus back to this institution and this leadership that is allowing this to continue. We can talk about a private individual having too much authority, a private individual getting subpoena power that no other private individual has, but we have to come back to this institution and wonder why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that have elected that leadership to this body, are allowing them to do to a Member of this body what has never been done before, and ought not to have been done in the first place, and ought not to be done, period, in this body, because it is a blight on this entire situation, it is a blight on the membership of this organization. We have an institution here that has to be protected, we have Members that have rights, and we have to go back to the voters and explain to them why it is that this body and this leadership is disregarding the Constitution, disregarding the rights of a Member, disregarding the rights of people living in that district and of the American public in general, and making a mockery of the electoral process. I think there should be some explanation for that. Because no matter how much we want to blame the individual who does not seem to be willing to let go, I think we have to blame the people in this institution who are driving this as a partisan matter. I know everybody likes bipartisanship and everybody likes to talk about how well we can get along down here. I do not necessarily subscribe to that. I think a good healthy dose of partisanship is what this place needs, but the right kind of partisanship. It is healthy for us to stand up and to debate our differences. It is healthy for us to set forth what our policies are and our principles, debate them, have a deliberative process, argue them, and come out and have a vote on them in this body. That is the kind of partisanship that the public has a right to expect and probably desires. What they do not need is petty bickering and petty partisanship where a majority in this body, through its leadership, would actually allow this kind of atrocity to go on. This type of a situation, where no one in their right mind believes it is allowable or acceptable to continue on, to harass a Member and to particularly make their life miserable, with no prospects of ever winning, and to take on an entire class of people that have done nothing wrong except go to the ballot box and exercise their right to a constitutional privilege to vote. And that is who we should have down in this body now, is that leadership, that group of people that are allowing this to continue. They should have to answer to the American public. They should have to answer to the people in the district of the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez.

Mr. TIERNEY. No, certainly not. I suspect that this is what the American public has to hear. This is not about a recount to see if they are going to turn the seat over. I think everybody with both feet on the ground or both oars in the water knows that this election is over, that Loretta Sanchez has won. Never in my experience, either as an attorney representing people, my own recounts and other recounts, has anybody found the need to go outside. Most State officials would not let it happen. Certainly most Federal officials would not pursue it to go on. I think there should be some shame on the Members in this institution for allowing it to go on. To the extent they are participating in it, egging on and absolutely doing away with the rights of an individual, no longer do they make the person who is making the challenge prove the case. In this situation they would like Loretta Sanchez to prove a negative.

Mr. TIERNEY. I think that is a good point here. What we ought to be focusing on is why are we not having some explanation from the Members that are Members of this House that are driving this situation as to why this continues on. Why is there not some prospect here that a responsible leadership in this House would call on those Members to get down here and say why is it that this committee and this House would allow the kind of subpoena power to go on that has been going on when constitutional authorities have questioned it? Why would they allow this situation to go on when it has this overtone in terms of race? Why would they do that without coming down and explaining? If they say that is not the way it is, if they say there is some valid reason for this process to continue, I think the American people have to a right to hear about it. More specifically, I think the people in that particular district have a reason to know why they are inundated with this sort of nonsense day in and day out, article after article indicating this is nothing but a witch hunt, has no basis in reality, and there ought to be an answer given. I would suspect that there ought to be Members on this floor standing up explaining themselves.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for yielding me this time, and also the chairman, who was kind enough to carry through on his pledge made to me during the subcommittee hearings in addressing my concerns with the unintended loopholes that were originally in the legislation. Mr. Speaker, before I comment on the present status of the issue, or even the future, I feel it is important to take a look back at the recent history of the fishing history in the United States, specifically in the New England area. It was barely 20 years ago that we faced the decimation of fishing stocks because of overfishing. We face the prospect of repeating that mistake. This time, however, the threat could be much larger. While I respect my colleagues from the west coast who might oppose this legislation, it is, in fact, the very current condition of the North Pacific Pollock Fishery, located off the west coast, that leads me to be concerned about the havoc these trawlers could wreak on the herring and mackerel fisheries found in the Atlantic. Mr. Speaker, we are trying to ensure the viability of our fishing industry in the Northeast by preventing the factory trawlers from overfishing the waters at the expense of fishermen whose very livelihoods depend on a well-plenished fishery. While the herring and mackerel stock are currently thriving, my concern is shared with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Delahunt] that by allowing these factory trawlers in the area, we will place the smaller fishing boats at risk once again. And these are, in fact, the same sized fishing boats that suffered the blunt of the depleted stocks that occurred in the 1970's. Once these factory boats are in our waters, it would be extremely difficult to control the size and scope of their catch. Our fishing industry will never survive if we make that mistake. Protecting the natural resource is intelligent public policy, whether we are talking about the industry's interest or the public interest or the interest of the conservation community. I support this moratorium to allow the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Department of Commerce time to complete the requirements as outlined in the bill. Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents up in Gloucester, as well as other areas of my district, are extremely concerned about this issue. In fact, I know many of these people who have worked tirelessly on the issue and support this bill are now watching the debate at this very moment. I join them in pressing for the necessary protection to continue the fishing tradition that has been passed down from family to family, from generation to generation. It is my hope that we will not inherit from a previous generation the problem of depleting these much-needed resources. Again, I thank the ranking member and the chairman for providing me a chance to have input in this process.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of words. I would like to get a little more direct in the conversation and try to have a little less demagoguery back and forth on either side here. Frankly, this is no way the type of bill it can be construed to be, the farmers versus the bureaucrats. We are talking about commissions here. Farmers, as far as I know, do not make insurance commissions. But we are talking about a WIC program that is generally perceived to be probably one of the most successful programs we have had in the social programs of this country. We are talking about a program that deals with low birth weights, deals with infant mortality, deals with child anemia, saves money in Medicaid in the future, and reduces the number of infants that need costly medical care in the future. Basically, what we are trying to do, as I think the Members on that side of the aisle well know, is make sure that we forward fund enough so that there is not a lapse going from one year to the next year and that we do not leave some 45 to 55 thousand women, infants, and children without the kind of nutritional work and without the kind of food that they need to be sustained in this successful program. And we are pitting that against, I guess you would say, the insurance people, the ones that are earning that commission, not against the farmers. Certainly, nobody has the intention of harming the farmers here. And few people in my district or many other districts, I would suggest, are going to believe that this is a thing against farmers and bureaucrats. It is commissions being earned by insurance people, and it is people that are women, children, and infants receiving nutrition that they need to make sure that they do not fall between the cracks as we go from one year to another.

Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I obviously associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and I close by saying that we have to take a chance, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to take a chance that 45 to 55 thousand women, infants, and children are going to be at risk at the end of this year. I will take the chance that some insurance agency does not make all of the commission that they might otherwise be entitled to under this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], and I voice my support for this amendment. Let me just say that I do not think any of us are not mindful of the comments that are made by our colleagues on the other side of this issue, but the fact of the matter is that the American public are the people that have a burning need to know at least what the aggregate number is in this situation. The time has come and it is long overdue for us to be able to have a debate with real numbers down here about real issues. We are in the midst of a debate right now in this country and in this House about the amount of money that we are going to be spending on programs, and in fact, with spending constraints on a number of programs, we are told the money just is not there. The budget these days is a zero sum game. The fact of the matter is that if this is the case, we should have a disclosure so the American public can see what proportion of our budget we are spending on so- called intelligence matters. It ought to be known how many millions or billions of dollars in relation to the rest of our budget is being spent in this area at a time when we have schools that are in need of repair, when we have cities and communities that are in need of development, when we have infrastructure needs that are going unmet, roads, bridges, and airports left unbuilt, the restraint of growth and missing opportunities for job creation, when we have a debate over insuring half of our children and not insuring the other half, and when we continue to fail to debate the idea of having insurance available for all Americans. The Constitution requires that we have a statement and account of receipts and expenditures for all the money. I think it is an absolute disgrace that we hide here behind secrecy and say that we cannot even tell the American public what the aggregate number is on so-called intelligence matters. In fact, my colleague from across the aisle indicated that the President may well have authority to release these numbers. In fact, I would agree with the gentleman that he does; that in 1996 he said he favored doing just that. Now we see him waiting for us to move, and they are over there with others saying we are going to wait for him to move. The American public wants somebody to move off the dime and tell us what those numbers are. He ought to do it, and if he is not going to do it we ought to do it, because simply there is no reason in the world to say that security is involved. Mr. Chairman, we need to move on this matter. The public has a burning need to know.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that as a member of the committee, I think that it is important to note that everybody on the Democratic side of this committee is perfectly willing to step forward and investigate any alleged abuses of our campaign finance reform system, whether they be Democratic or Republican. What we are not willing to do is to proceed with an investigation that is overly partisan, which lacks any credibility and which is not inclusive. Whether my colleagues are a prior judge or a prior professor or whatever their background is, I think everybody can recognize that there is no value to the outcome of any investigation that does not have integrity, that is not credible and that was not inclusive of the entire committee that was charged with the investigation. Mr. Speaker, from the first time we sat down in this committee, we suggested that we not duplicate the efforts of the Senate, that we work with them, that we not spend twice as much money. A strictly partisan vote defeated that idea, and it has been that way every day in that committee since then. I should think that if my colleagues want to have an investigation that means anything, they want to have an investigation that the people can have confidence in, they will get off the partisanship and move toward the credibility; and we ask that the committee do that.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to stand here before you today to voice my support for this legislation, the Employment, Training & Literacy Enhancement Act of 1997. The Committee on Education and the Workforce, on which I serve, has made considerable efforts to defuse partisan tensions and pass important legislation that will help our children and working families. It has done so on two occasions-- most recently having passed the IDEA Bill for disability education and now by passing this legislation that is before us today for consideration. I applaud all of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, for the spirit of cooperation that has made this possible. This bill streamlines and integrates job training and employment programs, while increasing access to adult education and literacy services. It also strengthens the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. I speak first and foremost of the effect this bill will have on adult basic education--a most vital and sorely neglected field in education today. I am pleased that adult education remains part of the Elementary and Secondary Act. I recently held a ``round table'' discussion in my district, the Sixth District of Massachusetts, with educators, businesses, State government officials, and community groups to talk about the problems surrounding adult basic education and training services within those programs. By and large, this bill positively address as most of the issues raised by that group. Even in my home State of Massachusetts, which is relatively affluent when compared to other areas, 20 percent of the adults are functionally illiterate and a million people have not yet completed high school. Under these circumstances, it is simply unacceptable that 15,000 people wait for adult education classes. Nationally, the statistics are even more daunting. More than 46 million Americans do not have a high school diploma. Studies have shown that the strongest factor in determining the academic success and job prospects of a child is the education level of his or her parents. How can we expect children to learn to read if their parents cannot do so themselves? Although the States, local governments, schools, and community groups do their best to address these needs, my constituents who are involved in adult education tell me that they are barely able to make a dent in this problem with the current resources at their disposal. I am pleased that this bill will offer the people of the Sixth District of Massachusetts and elsewhere some of the needed resources to enhance adult education and literacy services. This bill encourages cooperation among service providers. It increases the Federal commitment of support, and asks local governments to step up their contributions to the effort; it provides for more and better training of instructors, and for the resources to develop the most effective way of actually improving and delivering literacy assistance. With respect to employment and training, this legislation provides a greater choice in securing job training through skill grants. With skill grants, recipients will be able to choose programs that are available at various centers or universities accessible to them. Information will be made available that will identify available job opportunities, site the skills and education needed for particular jobs, and match applicants to the programs providing the right kind of help. So an individual can work toward and get an real, existing job. In addition, I welcome the concept of workforce development boards. Under these boards, different parts of the State will be able to determine what is best for their community. This is important in a State as diverse as mine. As a former president of my local Chamber of Commerce, I recognize the need for business and industry to join with other community groups and local governments to work to insure that those in search of a job can identify the skills necessary to obtain a job within their region, and that the programs devised for education and training for positions reflect the true needs of the local businesses. I am concerned, however, that specific language was left out of the legislation which would have included specifically the representatives of working people as members of these boards. If local business and industry have a place at the table, then the people that work for such companies should also be included. We can recall that under the Job Training Partnership Act, the Private Industry Councils (PICs) were required to have representatives from business and industry as well as organized workers. It strongly encourages that our local communities use their available discretion to make sure that working people are truly represented on workforce development boards. Without that, I think the intent and meaning of that aspect of the legislation will be ignored and the program will not be as successful as it could possibly be. Great effort has been made to work out a formula for distribution within States of the resources provided for in this legislation. It is of great concern that every person who needs these services will have access to them, and I believe the committee should continually review the actual implementation of this legislation to insure that a broad range of people within the State have input into the decisions that are made on this bill. I am also pleased that the majority worked with us to include an amendment strengthening section 508 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. Section 508 calls on Federal agencies to follow Federal guidelines to insure that their information technology is accessible to employees with disabilities. The amendment asks the Office of Management and Budget to enforce existing law and to bring Agencies into compliance with accessibility guidelines. This will aid the 7.5 percent of the Federal work force who have a disability. I also wanted to thank Congresswoman Eshoo for her dedication and hard work on this issue, and Congressman George Miller for his work and cooperation. Again, I commend the spirit and the manner in which this and the IDEA legislation were brought to the floor and hope that it foretells further cooperation on the important matters that will come before the House.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of this legislation, the Employment, Training and Literacy Enhancement Act. I want to also give my appreciation to the chairmen of the full committee and the subcommittee as well as the ranking member. It was, in fact, a notable example of people in this Chamber working together toward a common goal, which was, in fact, a goal that we all spoke about over the last campaign and have carried through for the first 3 or 4 months of this particular session. We have done this on the IDEA legislation, and we have now done it on this particular piece of legislation, and I applaud both the Democrats and Republicans on the committee. I recently have had the opportunity in my district to have a round table strictly on the issue of literacy, adult basic education. From that round table, I heard from all of the folks within the Sixth District of Massachusetts who are intricately involved in adult basic education on a daily basis. They were able to speak to many of the issues that we, in fact, dealt with in this particular piece of legislation; and, by and large, this bill manages to positively address almost all of the concerns which they made known to us. As surprising as it seems to people when I talk throughout the district, even the relatively affluent State of Massachusetts has 20 percent of its population that are adults that are functionally illiterate, and a million people have yet to get a high school equivalency in that State. There are 15,000 people in Massachusetts awaiting the opportunity to have adult basic education literacy and numerary skills worked with them. This is something that we have to provide for. It is a disgrace, frankly, that our system has not been able to step up to the plate and acknowledge and deal with this situation. I think with this act and some of the changes that have been made in it, we are going to be able to extend these programs and revise them so that they are, in fact, more effective. We are providing more resources so that those people will have the skill and ability to teach people and work with people and bring their levels up to what is needed to be able to get a job and to be able to, in fact, read to their children and grandchildren so that we will not have to repeat this cycle well on into the future. I also want to make note of the fact that the job training program allows for a good deal of local participation.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I would like to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Blagojevich].

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to my colleague from Michigan, [Ms. Kilpatrick].

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. I want to thank my colleague from Illinois and state, as a member of the Committee on Reform and Oversight, I would much rather be joining my colleagues debating and deliberating the issues you address than going down the avenue we are taking or seemingly going to take tomorrow. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from New York, Congresswoman Maloney.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the lack of direction and the absence of any agenda addressing issues of importance to the people of my district as well as the people of this country. Frankly this body has been behaving as an institution so gripped by political tensions and acrimony that any action claimed as nonpolitical appears only to be a pretense. Most Americans can remember when the distinguished Congressman O'Neill from my home State of Massachusetts was the Speaker and members of both parties conversed, they met, they socialized, they civilly debated issues and they deliberated all the proposed bills and amendments and finally they voted moving an agenda forward. What has changed, Mr. Speaker? Who has changed to make this different so that the majority now proposes bills designed not for debate, not for contemplation or improvement, not even for amendment, but only for votes along party lines that are phrased in such political terms that are so stark that they are not even faintly disguised as other than campaign hype for the next election. Again, who has changed and what has changed, Mr. Speaker, so that this is the way things are today? People expect us to debate here. They expect us to deliberate and they want an exchange of ideas and votes on the issues of importance to them. They want us to be dealing with campaign finance reform, with education, with health care, with Social Security and Medicare, the budget and economic growth. Our colleagues across the aisle complained when they were in the minority. Well, they are in the majority now, Mr. Speaker. Show us the leadership. Show us the fairness. Show us the good faith. Show us the nonpartisan governance. It is simply not happening. Some assert that they are not extremists on that side of the aisle, and that may be so, but check out the party-line votes and those assertions seem to lack merit. The protestations of moderation are contradicted by their party-line behavior, and their votes support the extremism and the politicization. Perhaps the greatest example, Mr. Speaker, is the committee funding. We are not here today debating campaign finance reform, as we should be, or the economy or health or education. We are not addressing campaign finance reform because we are busy dealing with the budgets for committees like the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, where the committee chairman appears bent on orchestrating an investigation that will be without credibility. Why will it be without credibility, Mr. Speaker? Because, unlike the Senate committee dealing with the same subjects, it is going to be partisan. It is going to be more about the next election than about oversight. It is going to be limited. It is not going to be about the entire House and people running for the House or the entire Senate and people campaigning for the Senate. It is not going to be about Republicans and Democrats running for President, or the Republican as well as the Democratic party. Unlike the Senate, it is going to be focused only in a partisan manner. It is a committee that is seeking some $16.2 million, Mr. Speaker, using $3.2 million to investigate, using as much as $3.8 million of the base budget to supplement that investigation, and reserving some $7.9 million in a slush fund in case it needs more to go about its partisan limited attacks. That is $14.9 million, Mr. Speaker, potentially for that limited partisan political investigation that will be totally without credibility and will be a partial duplication of what the Senate is doing. That Senate, Mr. Speaker, will be doing a broader, bipartisan, more objective and I suggest more credible job for $4.35 million. Are the majority afraid, Mr. Speaker, to investigate Republicans and Democrats who ran for the House and the way they did it? Or Republicans and Democrats who ran for the Senate and the way they did it? Or both parties? We need to know what the past practices were. We need a thorough, inclusive investigation. We are 100 days into this session, Mr. Speaker, and there has been no campaign reform debate. We need a credible, valuable investigation that will cover all practices of all parties and all candidates. The purpose of the oversight portion of that committee, Mr. Speaker, should be to learn from the errors and the problems of the past. The goal, Mr. Speaker, should be to use that information as we deliberate proposals for campaign finance reform. We should be dealing with that business now, Mr. Speaker, so we can then address the budget, the economy, health care, economic growth and other issues in such a way that the public will not have the perception that special interests are taking charge but rather will have the confidence that we are doing the people's business.