Providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Tenth Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my great appreciation to my very distinguished friend from Rochester, New York, the Chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in strongest opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation, House Resolution 202, which provides for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the 110th Congress. While I consider the funding of the committees of the House a very, very important priority, I, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, oppose this rule since the resolution goes far beyond, far beyond the very important task in one respect, and, unfortunately, it falls extraordinarily short in another task.

Mr. Speaker, on March 1, the Committee on House Administration ordered reported House Resolution 202, a clean committee funding resolution. If passed by the full House, the resolution will provide approximately a 2.6 percent across-the-board increase in House committee budgets between the last session of the 109th Congress and the first session of the 110th Congress. While most committees can make do with that very modest increase, we have one committee that absolutely cannot. It is called the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Mr. Speaker, on the opening day of the 110th Congress, Ms. Slaughter and I both stood here as we debated and then ended up supporting a very important part of the opening day rules package. On that day, we asked the Ethics Committee to take on substantial new responsibilities.

They are now responsible, Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Committee, based on what the passage of the opening days rules package imposed on them, they are now required to pre-approve all trips. They are required to issue guidance on rules that they were not involved in drafting at all. As I said, we imposed that on them. They are required to provide training for every employee of the House on the new ethics rules that we have just put into place and forced them to implement. And they are still in a position where they have to now provide timely advice to every single Member who makes a request for the application of this rule.

On top of that, Mr. Speaker, they have the responsibility of investigating allegations of wrongdoing whenever they do occur.

Now already, I understand, the Committee on Ethics, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, is falling behind. Appropriation season is well under way, and we have absolutely no guidance whatsoever about the new ethics standards for earmarks. We have new travel and gift rules, but those regulations created as many questions as they answered; and the Ethics Committee is already months behind in its correspondence with Members.

We are going to hear from a number of our colleagues who have been dealing with this very difficult situation. The chairman and the ranking member, the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Ethics appeared before the Committee on House Administration. In fact, Ms. Slaughter and I were both there because our testimony followed them. Mr. Hastings and Mrs. Tubbs Jones, Republican and Democrat in a bipartisan way, they came to plead their case to provide an increase beyond that 2.6 percent so they can deal with this massive new mandate imposed upon them. It was a large request, but the members of the Ethics Committee need it because they want to do their job and they need the resources to do it.

What the House Administration Committee did, and we were there during that testimony, they expressed great sympathy with their plight. And at the end, they felt they could do a little more. That decision leaves every single Member of this House in jeopardy, and it is one that we cannot let stand.

That is why, as I said, Mr. Hastings, the former chairman of the Ethics Committee and Mrs. Tubbs Jones, the new chairman of the Ethics Committee, took the very unusual step of just yesterday appealing to us up in the Rules Committee to correct this problem.

Now my Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Hastings, has the dual responsibility of serving not only as the distinguished ranking member of the Ethics Committee, but also he serves on the Rules Committee, and he sat before us and asked that we simply allow the House to debate this issue. He didn't argue that we have to do it. I happen to believe we do have to do it, but he simply was making the request that the Rules Committee make in order a chance for this House to discuss this very important ethics issue, one with which we are all very familiar. He was joined in this request by the distinguished Chair of the committee. She wasn't there, but I know she has supported his request for us to have an opportunity to debate this issue, and I know she strongly supports the effort, as she did in her testimony before the Administration Committee asking for the additional resources so the Ethics Committee, Mr. Speaker, can in fact do their job.

This is particularly important given the other aspect of this rule. This rule self-executes an amendment establishing the new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, about which the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee was just speaking.

Without impugning the necessity or desire to establish that select committee, my colleagues got to hear me explain at the Rules Committee yesterday exactly why this process was so outrageous and why this is the wrong way to go about establishing a select committee.

Mr. Speaker, never mind that the minority was never given the language creating this select committee until we literally walked into the room yesterday at 2 p.m., and never mind the fact the Democratic majority is denying us a motion to recommit with instructions which would have been made in order if the privileged resolution came to the floor, never mind that the Rules Committee never held a hearing or produced an original jurisdiction committee report on the establishment of this select committee, something I believe is totally unprecedented.

With all of the committees established in the history of this institution, I am convinced that never before has this process been used, and never mind that the House is completely side-stepping regular order by self-executing this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, never mind all of those horrible procedural outrages that have been imposed. I am not going to talk about those. The most troubling part of this whole episode is that this self-executing amendment grants the new select committee some $3.7 million over the course of this Congress. So if we can find an additional $3.7 million to fund this new select committee that will have no legislative power whatsoever, I don't understand why we can't fund a mere $1 million to fully fund the bipartisan request that was made before the Rules Committee to provide the necessary funding for our very hardworking colleagues, Mr. Hastings, Mrs. Tubbs Jones and their colleagues on the Ethics Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate on this rule, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so I may amend the rule to make in order the bipartisan Tubbs Jones-Hastings amendment so that the 430 Members that supported the new ethics rules may live up to the commitment that they made right here on opening day.

Mr. Speaker, if you think we needed new ethics standards, if you believe that the Ethics Committee should do its job, then you have a moral obligation to defeat the previous question and allow the House to work its will by at least considering the chance to make sure that Mrs. Tubbs Jones, the distinguished Chair of the Ethics Committee, and Mr. Hastings, the ranking member, have the resources they need to do what we, 430 Members, told them they had to do.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I would just like to say that I do look forward, Mr. Speaker, to working with my friend from Vermont on this very, very important issue. And we are at this moment, in fact, going through his legislative initiative. I hope to work closely with him on it.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, the former chairman of the Committee on Standards, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, let me say, we are all concerned about global warming. At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my very distinguished friend from Miami (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Dallas (Mr. Sessions), a hardworking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules how many speakers she has remaining.

Would the gentlewoman like to yield me some of the time because we have got loads of people here who want to talk?

Well, I just wondered if you wanted to give us some of your time.

Mr. Speaker, in light of that, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kiron, Iowa (Mr. King) who came before the Rules Committee offering a very thoughtful amendment last night, our good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Iowa quoting Governor Schwarzenneger. He can do it any time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished former Governor of the State of Delaware, the gentleman from Wilmington (Mr. Castle), who is back.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to a thoughtful former member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Moore, Oklahoma, (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

First, let me say I have utmost respect for both Ohioans, Mr. Boehner and Mrs. Jones, as well as the ranking member of the Ethics Committee, Mr. Hastings.

Mr. Speaker, on the opening day, we did, in fact, establish unprecedented ethics rules. Since that time, we have continued to hear complaints from Members about the lack of ability for the Committee on Standards to provide Members with information that is needed.

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to get the resources necessary.

With that, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend, my California colleague who serves on the House Administration Committee, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, obviously there has been a great deal of thought and talk, and it has been understandable about the issue of ethics and lobbying reform. Last year, Speaker Hastert and I initiated a package that we passed through the House but, unfortunately, we were not able to come to an agreement in the Senate. On the opening day, 430 Members voted to put into place unprecedented ethics reform, unprecedented ethics reform.

Why? Because the American people know we should be held to the highest possible standards. Now, there is an expression that I think is a very important one, and that is ``put your money where your mouth is.'' Now the very distinguished Chair of the committee on ethics, my good friend Mrs. Jones, talked about the fact that she wants to address this as concerns come forward.

Mr. Speaker, this is the committee funding measure that we are bringing to the floor. We are doing some other things to it, self- executing establishment of a committee, but we are providing for that committee that will have no legislative authority whatsoever, $3.7 million. All we are asking, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a chance, a chance to debate the issue of funding for the Ethics Committee here on the floor.

That is why I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Why? Because while this new committee that will have no legislative authority whatsoever will receive $3.7 million, we are simply asking for what is being denied, and that is a chance for $1 million to be provided so that our Members will not be facing the weekend situation that Mr. Lungren just described where he sent a letter to the Ethics Committee, asked for a response about going on a trip, and he didn't receive approval until a week after the trip was to take place.

Mrs. Jones and Mr. Hastings came before the House Administration Committee and made this request for additional funding; and Mr. Hastings, representing Mrs. Jones before the Rules Committee, asked that this amendment be made in order.

Mr. Speaker, any Member who votes for the previous question is denying this institution the opportunity to consider implementing the resources that are necessary to hold us to the highest possible ethical standards. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution, after conclusion of the time for debate on the

resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any

point of order to consider the amendment in section 3, if

offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington or his designee. The

amendment shall be considered as read, shall be separately

debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the

proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to

amendment or demand for division of the question.

Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as

follows:

In section l(b), strike ``Committee on Standards of

Official Conduct, $4,994,181;'' and insert ``Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct, $6,119,301;''.

In section 2(b), strike ``Committee on Standards of

Official Conduct, $2,460,915;'' and insert ``Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct, $2,996,561;''.

In section 3(b), strike ``Committee on Standards of

Official Conduct, $2,533,266;'' and insert ``Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct, $3,122,740;''.

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

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. Chairman, I thank the chair of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Texas, for yielding the time and compliment her and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for developing this legislation and preparing it and bringing it so early in the session to the House floor. I also appreciate the bipartisan cooperation with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the ranking member of the full committee, and it is good to have the gentleman from Arkansas on the floor and managing the bill. I thank the gentleman for his ever thoughtful approach to legislation.

This alternative water sources initiative is not something that we developed in the course of this Congress. It started way back in 2000, in fact, earlier than that, as the committee held hearings over a period of several years to raise the visibility of issues of water supply and groundwater withdrawals and needs of communities well off into the future.

In fact, I should point out that a former colleague of ours, later Speaker, Jim Wright, in 1958 wrote a book entitled, ``The Coming Water Famine,'' where then new Congressman Wright gathered enormous amount of data about water usage by industry, by agriculture, by homeowners, and did a calculation that showed the rising use of water intersecting with a line of steady availability.

All the water there ever was, there ever will be, is available now. We will not create new water, and he showed that in the 1980s the lines would intersect, and that, at that point, the Nation and the Congress need to face up to the need to assure the continuity of availability of water supplies, that continued withdrawal of water from the Ogallala aquifer that covers west Texas and eastern Oklahoma, a huge area of the central portion of the United States, could not continue forever. That water would be withdrawn, and there would be no further water available, just simply was not replenishing as fast as surface needs were drawing upon it.

That was the background. That was the stimulus for the alternative water

sources program that our committee included in the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000, which passed the House, the Senate and was signed into law.

The legislation was developed to address the concerns by communities all across the country over availability of water to meet their future requirements, especially in the more arid regions of the country, as we have already heard from the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney) and Mrs. Tauscher, also from California, who was the initiator of this legislation in previous Congresses.

I have read a great deal about climate change that followed the enormous amount of scientific data pouring forth from the international geophysical year by the United Nations scientific panel, scientists in the U.S. who are reporting on global climate change, and the effect that it is having upon weather and the increasing volatility and variability of the amount, timing and distribution of moisture, not just rainfall but moisture that comes in the form of snow or freezing rain. There is consensus among the climatology scientific community that the timing, intensity and duration of floods, droughts and high- intensity storms are going to continue to plague us over the decades ahead.

Pressure for additional sources of drinking water, usable water for industry and agriculture will only grow and magnify across this country, putting greater pressure on reclamation, on reuse, on advanced wastewater treatment, and even on desalination, as many countries in the world are doing.

In the 1970s, there was an experiment by a Saudi prince who chartered a vessel to go to Antarctica and harness an iceberg, put a huge plastic wrap under that iceberg so it would not melt and had it towed by tug boats to a point off the shore of Saudi Arabia. Then they drilled a hole in the center of it and pumped the water out for several years to bring fresh water to Saudi Arabia. There are not going to be very many icebergs left to be towed as the polar caps melt faster than we can harness the icebergs.

Furthermore, that experiment proved enormously expensive. It also demonstrated that there is a considerable amount of loss of iceberg water capability as the 'berg is towed.

We have to do much better than just towing icebergs. We create with this legislation a modest start on a program to help communities provide for their current needs, for household requirements, industrial needs, for agricultural uses of water, well off into the future.

This is but one important step in the long-term effort we must make to ensure the availability of water supplies and the viability of those water supplies off into the future in this time of highly uncertain climate conditions.

The gentleman raises a very important issue, one that has been of deep concern. He raises two aspects of a question, one that raises deep concern among communities along the Great Lakes who do not want to see waters of the Great Lakes pumped west to quaff the thirst of arid western States.

Several years ago, there was a proposal for a coal slurry pipeline to bring coal in a slurry pipeline from the Powder River Basin to the western end of Lake Superior to ports of Duluth and Superior; and we vigorously opposed it, because that pipeline, if it pumps east, can also pump west and could suck water out of the Great Lakes in vast amounts.

Mr. Chairman, subsequently, in a Water Resources Development Act, I succeeded with legislation to prohibit any withdrawals from the Great Lakes unless there is unanimous agreement among the eight Governors and the Province of Quebec and the Province of Ontario. That language is current law, but it is not strong enough. It really needs to be reinforced. Now that I am in a position to do that, we are going to reinforce it.

The second concern of the gentleman is private companies profiting from the public sector provision of water supplies, and I think we should find a way in which we can limit the profiteering while not interfering with private sector developments.

For example, the little town of Buhl, population 900 in my district, has on its water tank the slogan, ``The Finest Water in America,'' and the city began bottling that water for sale. They are using their open resources to bottle this water in these little 8-ounce and 16-ounce bottles. I wouldn't want to prevent Buhl, which has fallen on hard times, from drawing on its resources. But they are using their own money to do that.

What the gentleman is concerned about is a public, federally funded process that might stimulate the private sector. I commend the gentleman for his concern, and we shall work together to address the situation.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I appreciate the fashion of the gentleman from Georgia, and I respect his consistency. He offered the same amendment yesterday. We had quite a thorough and extensive discussion and a recorded vote, which ended 166-260.

Again, I appeal to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that we are dealing with an authorization. Tomorrow we will be dealing with a different bill that does result in a direct spending reduction as determined by the Congressional Budget Office and for which the committee created an offset and reduced the size of the bill.

This bill, H.R. 700, is not a direct spending bill, and has been so verified by the Congressional Budget Office and by the Office of Management and Budget. It is not subject to the so-called PAYGO rules. An appropriation subsequently could well be subject to PAYGO, but we have yet before us the congressional budget process. We have to vote on a budget, and then we consider the appropriations. If this legislation is enacted in time for the appropriation process, hopefully it could be considered and included, and then there is a question of whether it is subjected to the PAYGO rules.

But in its present form, this is an authorization. It is not a direct spending. It is not subject, as Congressional Budget Office has ruled, to the PAYGO rules. And we made that point yesterday. We make it again today. And I rise in opposition to the amendment, but not in opposition to the approach of the gentleman, who is a true fiscal conservative and wants to ensure that dollars are wisely spent and that we are not overspending.

I assure the gentleman, this legislation, modest as it is in its scope of dollars authorized, will be subjected to the

rigorous oversight of OMB, Congressional Budget Office, procedure and the appropriation process in its new course.

The gentleman from Texas, a member of the Rules Committee, and I had a discussion about the principle involved in the gentleman's amendment in the course of our presentation at the Rules Committee for the rule covering this bill. As a result, the gentleman has offered an amendment that I think is entirely appropriate. But the point at which we are in the consideration of the legislation, and given the time it might take for the other body to act on it, would create a time frame problem through fiscal 2008. I would suggest that the language be changed to reflect two fiscal years from date of enactment, so that we have a precise time but that it is linked to date of enactment of the act, which then would be a very appropriate way to do it.

I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful presentation and the questioning in the Rules Committee, and we will draft language in cooperation with the gentleman and include that as we move forward to conference with the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Both gentlemen offer an amendment, Mr. Chairman, to our bill that is well intentioned to respond to the needs of small communities, to assure that communities under a population of 10,000 are not left behind, as this program is administered. And I certainly am in consonance with that concern.

There are only maybe four communities in my congressional district that have population greater than 10,000. I think of Big Fork, population 950, and others of similar size who have needs for water resource as great proportionately as do the major metropolitan areas.

In fact, in a drought in 1988, Minneapolis was trying to encourage the Corps of Engineers to draw down the head waters of the Mississippi River to increase the flow to Minneapolis while at the same time not banning car washes, not banning sprinkling of lawns, not taking other water conservation measures and also drawing water from the Jordan Basin Reservoir underneath the Twin Cities, a 50-mile diameter basin that is water left over from the melting of the glacier 10,000 years ago, water that can never be replaced because it is an impermeable area.

And I said, oh, wait a minute. It just happened I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight; called the Corps of Engineers in and made sure they didn't draw any matter down from the head waters of the Mississippi River to serve the thirst of Minneapolis while at the same time St. Paul was incorporating water conservation measures.

Well, I cite that history to show that I am really sensitive to these needs. But we do not want to create in this legislation a preferential consideration. And when the gentleman says consider, when the language of the amendment the gentlemen are offering says consider, I take this to mean a factor to be considered, along with other relevant factors and not a set-aside and not a preference.

May I ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), and I yield to the gentleman, to be assured that he concurs in that interpretation.

I thank the gentleman. Let me ask the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler) whether he shares that viewpoint.

Mr. Chairman, when I was elected to Congress, took office in 1975, we formed a Congressional Rural Caucus. There were 250 members. We had a voice on this floor, and a presence on this floor. Today there are less than 90 of us representing primarily rural areas, so we do have to be watchful for small towns, rural areas. And in the spirit of our discussion just concluded, I will accept the amendment of the gentlemen.

Mr. Speaker, although I am not opposed to the motion, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment was offered yesterday by a different gentleman from the other side. I just want to read from the legislative language in the act.

Subsection F: Uses of Grants. ``Amounts from grants received under this section may be used for engineering, design, construction and final testing of alternative water source projects designed to meet critical water supply needs. Such amounts may not be used for planning, feasibility studies, for operation, maintenance, replacement, repair or rehabilitation.'' Although we do not specifically prohibit use of funds for lobbying, no such authorization is permitted. Nonetheless, the gentleman proposes to close a potential opportunity for money to be diverted, and, therefore, we are prepared, as yesterday, to accept the gentleman's motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 700, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule previously adopted, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 202) providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Tenth Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to thank the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers, and all of the members on the Committee on House Administration for their assistance in meeting a very tight schedule. We have been able to perform what normally takes many months in a much shorter time period. Unfortunately, that necessitated some quick decisions, which we would all have preferred more time to make.

I would also like to thank the Chairs and the ranking members of the committees for meeting the deadline that I set forth. I know that there were concerns about foreshortening the process, but this resolution will provide for operating certainty.

The committee's recommendations are driven by the amount of funds available to be allocated to the committees. The continuing resolution, the CR, funding all government operations contained a very modest amount for committees, and it is the CR funds which my committee had to work with.

All committees which testified were treated in exactly the same way. At our hearing, the first question of each committee was, Is the minority satisfied with the allocation of funds for its operations? Almost without exception, Mr. Speaker, the minority expressed satisfaction. Even when there was initial disagreement, the chairman and ranking member found common ground before the House Administration markup.

This committee recognizes that each standing committee carefully assessed its anticipated workload and requested all of its sums it considered necessary to discharge its responsibilities. Unfortunately, when the 109th Congress adjourned, the fiscal 2007 appropriations process was unfinished. That led to the CR, which greatly limited this committee's options in the authorization process for the 110th Congress. And with severely limited resources, my committee was able to recommend across-the-board inflationary adjustments of 2.6 percent for 2007, and 2.94 percent for 2008. Without additional appropriations, no further adjustments were possible.

My committee's amendment in the nature of a substitute authorizes $280,234,490 for the entire 110th Congress, and that includes funding for the select committee just added by the rule.

The committee believes that the Chairs and ranking members will shepherd their resources carefully and despite the approximately $1 million shortfall will still be able to fulfill their responsibilities to the House. The lone panel to receive a supplemental amount was the Armed Services Committee, which bears an exceptionally heavy burden and must be considered a special case.

The war in Iraq has taken the lives of more than 3,000 American service personnel, wounded tens of thousands more, and consumed hundreds of billions of dollars over the last 4 years. The Armed Services Committee has an enormous responsibility going forward and must have the resources with which to oversee America's military policy in Iraq and around the world.

Given the gravity of Armed Services' task, House Administration recommended an additional increase of $500,000 for 2007. While appropriations for 2008 have yet to be enacted, the committee's amendment reflects the best assessment by the appropriators and by the House financial managers of the amount that will be available to support committees during the second session.

Committee workloads increase during the second session of any Congress, and I expect this pattern to continue as committees engage in the critical legislative and oversight work which the American people voted for last November.

As I indicated earlier, every effort was made to ensure that the fairness principle was applied during the funding process. The purpose is to ensure that the minority party can serve as the loyal opposition and contribute fully to the legislative and oversight initiatives of each committee.

The fairness principle takes the form of the one-third rule, which was advocated by both Republicans and Democrats when they served in the minority. The committee believes the principle has now become firmly established in the allocation of resources, committee by committee, and that irrespective of which party is in the majority, the one-third rule will be carried forward. Each committee must nonetheless implement the principle consistent with its own operating practices and procedures. As Chairs and ranking members change from Congress to Congress, the committee expects that the fairness principle will continue to address the needs of the minority.

There were many concerns expressed during this year's truncated funding process, not the least of which was the overall inadequacy of funds to meet the collective needs of the committees. From the beginning of the Congress, even before the adoption of the CR, committees were counseled to operate on a flatline spending basis in order to avoid a shortfall later in the Congress. Most committees followed that guideline and many kept their eventual funding requests within a few percentage points of the flatline spending rate of the preceding session, one committee even restraining its request to preclude an inflation adjustment for both personnel costs and operating expenses.

The committee appreciates the efforts of committees to keep their requests as low as feasible, given the backlog of the oversight responsibilities to be carried out and the legislative agenda set out by the House leadership. However, the committee recognizes the continuing needs of many committees to support and expand their agendas. As a result, both I and the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers, indicated that if additional funds became available for distribution, the committee would entertain future requests to supplement the authorized levels in this resolution.

In addition to the Chairs' and ranking members' concerns about the overall spending shortfall and the impact on staffing levels, there were additional concerns expressed about the ability of committees to attract and maintain senior legislative and oversight professionals because the current salary cap is not competitive with the private sector. A few committees indicated that some new employees were accepting committee positions at salaries below their previous private sector levels based upon a desire to perform public service, and we are very grateful to those staff persons who have done that and will do that. While this is laudable, and some individuals may be willing to make such sacrifices, it remains imperative that committee salary caps become competitive or congressional oversight will suffer.

Another theme carried forward from the 109th Congress committee funding process was crowding, insufficient office space to manage and maintain operations and adequately house the staff necessary to perform the legislative and oversight duties. While some committee have received additional work space, it is often in other buildings, and not even contiguous to other committee offices, making it very difficult to work. This broken-up space introduces operation inefficiencies, and we recognize that, Mr. Speaker. And while the committee does not assign or manage office space, it agreed to bring the committee's overall office space concerns to the attention of the House leadership in the hope that future building changes or innovations will take committee needs into consideration.

Again, I thank all of the members on the Committee on House Administration. I thank the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers, and all of those committee members, both sides of the aisle, who partook of this extremely long hearing that we got all of the committees and the ranking members in, and I applaud all of them for their tolerance.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with Mr. Daniel E. Lungren that we need to take another look at perhaps supplemental funding, and we welcome that thought and we will pursue that, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren, because there is no Member of this House who doesn't want to make sure that the voices of the American people last year will not be taken seriously and will be heard and responded to.

I am so very happy, Mr. Speaker, that the chairwoman on the Committee on Standards and the Ethics Committee came to the floor during the rules deliberation, and she stated that while she would want additional funding, she will guarantee us that that committee will work effectively and efficiently to provide the type of service that is necessary to make sure that the Ethics Committee gives us what it wants us to have. And she said that the best standards of ethics will still be maintained irrespective of.

Now, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren did say we need an extra million dollars. If you look at this, there is a possibility that half a million per session each year would perhaps be the type of funding that we need. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, the supplemental expense resolution pursuant to House rule X for additional funding is where we will pursue that.

I thank the gentleman, but we are complying with, and the Ethics Committee chairwoman said that there will still be maintained, the highest level of standards, and they will do their work efficiently.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the ranking member again in thanking him for his forbearance during that very strenuous hearing process.

I also join him in thanking the staff: Charlie Howell, who is just an extraordinarily effective person, and who worked very hard with me to make sure that all of the very thick material that was needed for this process of hearings was available. And also Matt Pinkus, Janelle Hu and Kristin McCowan, who all played an extraordinary part in making sure that the process went smoothly, although it was very long.

I would also like to thank the minority staff because together they worked very well with the staff to ensure that this process went as smoothly as it could. So I thank all of these folks and the ranking member and all of the members of the committee, the Chairs and the ranking members of all committees, for bearing with us in a tightly budgeted Congress.

I know that our resolution satisfies no one; however, I also know that when legislative and oversight agendas are set, they will be set with a keen eye to how to best use available funds. I want to assure all Chairs and ranking members that my committee will consider all requests for supplemental funding based upon whether or not additional funds are made available to the House. Right now, however, we must all live within our flatline budget constraints because, after all, there was no budget passed last year in the 109th Congress, and we are operating under a continuing resolution.

Indeed, the American people have spoken. They spoke last year, and the Congress must respond to their demands. We all serve as trustees for their voices and their dollars, and I know that each committee will use the funds entrusted to it wisely.

This committee recognizes that each standing committee carefully assessed its anticipated workload and requested only the sums it considered necessary to discharge its responsibilities. Nonetheless, with severely limited resources, the across-the-board inflationary adjustments share the pain equally.

This resolution has the lowest overall committee expenditure authorization level in the last three Congresses, even including the new select committee. At $280 million for the entire 110th Congress, it is an overall decrease of approximately 2 percent, Mr. Speaker. And that is a reversal for which this House should take credit.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, at the time that the Ethics Committee came before our committee for their funding, I inquired as to what they needed, because I was concerned about the insufficiency of funds for that committee per the directions we had received from the leadership as to what we could actually give them.

So during that presentation before our committee, the distinguished chairwoman of the committee said these words regarding her request: ``These positions,'' that is the positions that will be funded by their additional money request, ``are needed to satisfy the mandates of the House Ethics Committee.'' She continued: ``Importantly, the figures presented today represent the collaborative efforts of my ranking member, Representative Doc Hastings, and I to advance,'' again, quoting her, ``the past needs of the committee and the current mandates of the House ethics rules.''

That's the nub of this whole debate. That is why we ask that this rule be voted down and that we will be allowed to have an amendment dealing specifically with funding for the Ethics Committee.

We have to understand, ``additional mandates,'' those are the words from the chairperson of the committee, current mandates of the House ethics rules. I am just asking Members on both sides of the aisle to think about this. We have said that we are going to be the most ethical Congress in history. We have adopted new rules that mandate new concerns with specificity as to conduct by Members and their staff.

One of the enforcing mechanisms is guidance to be given to us by that very Ethics Committee. Therefore, we have imposed additional obligations, additional work on that committee; and yet we are not giving them the additional resources.

Now, if I were a corporation having received the new mandate under Sarbanes-Oxley, and the first thing I told my employees and my shareholders is, I am not going to beef up our lawyers, I am not going to beef up our accountants to give us advice as to what we should do under the law, the shareholders would probably throw me out of my position because I would not be doing the job that is necessary.

We on this floor in these committees have two shareholders. We have our peers, that is the other Members to whom we owe a responsibilities to give them that which they need to ensure that they follow those rules, and we have an obligation to our ultimate shareholders, the taxpayers of America, our constituents, who expect us to put our money where our mouth is to expect us to live up to our promises. May I just say, I thank the committee for the work they did.

I had to make a specific request of the committee about a particular trip I was going on to visit a friend that I have known for 40-some years, before our last break, and I received oral assurance from the committee that it was appropriate. But, technically, I was supposed to receive written assurance, and I received that a week after the visit.

Now, it turned out my wife slipped on the ice and we were not able to go on the visit, so I have to write a letter to the committee to make it clear I didn't do that, and that is why it will not be in my report at the end of the year. But the fact of the matter is, those technical violations that could occur because we don't give them enough in the way of personnel can come back to haunt us as individual Members, but, more importantly, to undercut, undercut the confidence the American people have in this place that we are ethical.

All I am saying is, we can save money in a number of different places; but we ought not to skimp on this particular issue, this particular committee.

Therefore, I would ask Members to vote down this rule so we can have this simple amendment brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, at first I would like to congratulate both the chairwoman and the ranking member of this committee for the bipartisan way in which they have acted in bringing this bill to the floor, this funding resolution, which is part of the regular business of this House, making sure that we can do the people's business here in an organized fashion.

We listened to all of the presentations made by the various committee chairs and ranking members. I was very pleased to see the agreement on the one-third/two-thirds funding rule. As one who served here in a prior life, I can recall when it wasn't so. I can recall at one point in time on one of the committees that I won't mention where I believe the difference in staff ratio at the time I served was something like 7-to-1. I can recall when we got something like 11 percent of the total funding. That made it difficult.

We used to encourage our people by saying you have to be that much better than the others. We have to be seven times better. You have to work seven times harder. You can only say that for so long, and you can only do so much with limited resources.

So the rule that has been established over the last number of years that the minority receives one-third of the funding, approximately, is one that works well for both the majority and the minority. It is good for the minority to have sufficient resources so they not only can present their point of view, but also it keeps the majority on its toes. The direct result of that is better legislative product. So I am pleased that that came through.

However, I must once again register my objection to our inability to give appropriate funding to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. As the chairwoman of that committee said when she appeared before our committee, ``Ethics is neither a Democratic nor a Republican issue. It is an American issue.''

It is an issue that is essential to the proper functioning of this House, and it is something for which we have received black eyes of recent vintage and for which we deserve those black eyes because of the conduct of errant Members in this House. And to provide against that from happening again, to encourage that that does not happen again, we have adopted more stringent rules than we have had in this House, in recent memory at least.

In order to assure that Members are able to follow the details of the rules that have been established, the Ethics Committee, or the committee properly understood as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, has been given additional responsibilities so that Members can rely on their advice in a timely fashion. They do great work. We have dedicated people there, but they will not be able to do the job we give them without additional resources.

This should not be a partisan issue. I for the life of me do not understand the decision made not to give this money. I would have thought the leadership could have put a spotlight on this, given additional money to the Ethics Committee and issued a press release about how they were ensuring that we were going to actually put our money where our mouth was and we were going to have the adequate resources in order to make real the promise that we have given the American people on ethics.

For the life of me, I don't understand why we couldn't find another $1 million for the Ethics Committee. I don't serve on the Ethics Committee, but I don't want to see a Member caught in technical violation of the rules we have adopted for lack of adequate information or available or timely information. I don't want to see a Member who has technically violated our rules because that Member couldn't get a timely response from the committee. Not because the committee doesn't wish to give them that, but because the committee essentially doesn't have the personnel to be able to do that.

We may very well tie ourselves up in knots. Now, the American people probably aren't concerned about whether

we tie ourselves up in knots, but they are concerned about whether our actions reflect the best standards of ethics that we can have. So it is a question of maintaining the confidence of the American people in this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I come here not to talk about a partisan issue and not to talk about an issue that just affects Members of Congress, but an institutional issue. If, in fact, we have created a bond with the American people, and part of that bond is a contract where we hold ourselves out to perform our duties at the highest level of ethical conduct, then in fact we should ensure that that is not difficult to do, but that is expected and easy to do because we have established the strictures in this House and we have established the resources to allow Members to perform within those ethical strictures.

That is why I would stand on this floor today and say that the request of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for $6.1 million, which would be an increase of $1.35 million, is absolutely necessary.

I had every intention of supporting the committee's work on this and being able to recommend this to my fellow Members. I cannot do this.

We have the argument about the other committee that came in with the funding that was put in by a self-executing aspect of the rule just adopted. But that is not what I am arguing about. I am arguing about the absolutely essential need for us to give sufficient resources for the Committee on Ethics to do its work.

As the chairwoman of the committee said in testimony to us directly, these positions that are requested by the Ethics Committee for which they sought the funding that was denied them, these positions are needed to satisfy the mandates of the House ethics rule. She did not say it would be nice to have them. These are additional. These are surplus, to make sure we can do our job. The words were carefully chosen: These positions are needed to satisfy the mandates of the House Ethics Committee.

We need to continue talking about this. We need to work as a committee. If we can do anything about this, I would implore the leadership to take another look at this because it doesn't hurt a Democrat or Republican; it doesn't hurt one individual Member or another. It hurts us all collectively if we fail to give ourselves the best opportunity to show the American people not only are we doing the American people's work, we are doing it based on merit. We are doing it based on a system that is fully ethical, and we don't take this as a burden. We take it as a necessary responsibility, and we understand that not only are we doing the people's business, but we are in a real sense on a stage which requires us to be teachers for many people.

Many young people look at this place and many young people have the opportunity to visit here, and many young people have the opportunity to see our workings here by way of C-SPAN, and I don't want them to be watching in the well of the House as we condemn a Member, as we expel a Member, or we reprimand a Member for inappropriate conduct, and have that Member stand here and say: if only you had given me the resources so I would have known what the rules really were.

I don't want that to be the excuse. I want us to say that we stand here as an ethical, collective body, and that we will put our money where our mouth is. I would just end by saying this: we would not allow a corporation to say they couldn't comply with Sarbanes-Oxley and the new responsibilities under ethics and reporting because they couldn't afford to hire the lawyers and the accountants to do it. We would say that was your obligation.

If we believe that is the obligation in the private sector, we ought to do the very same for ourselves as we stand here in the largest corporation in the world. As the members of the board of directors of the largest corporation in the world that spends more money in the world, we stand here saying we will be as serious about our responsibilities as we expect you to be about yours.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 219 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 219 provides for consideration of House Resolution 202, the 110th Congress committee funding resolution. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration.

The rule makes in order the committee funding substitute adopted by the Committee on House Administration. It also provides for a new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, the text of which is printed in the Rules report accompanying the rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the resolution and provides that the resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us would allow for the consideration of a bipartisan committee funding resolution. It was reported out of the House Administration Committee with the support of both Chairwoman Millender-McDonald and Ranking Member Ehlers.

I want to take a moment to say how pleased I am with the way in which this bill embodies the spirit of fiscal responsibility that is so often advocated by this body.

The financial pressures on our government are immense. Recent years have left us with an unprecedented amount of foreign debt. At the same time, my fellow Democrats and I are struggling to ensure the safety of tens and hundreds of thousands of troops abroad, while refusing to shortchange vital domestic programs here at home.

The resolution reflects that reality. While not all committees have received the budget increases they hoped for, this funding resolution provides a bipartisan approach to ensuring that they can fulfill their duties and obligations without asking Congress to spend money we don't have. It includes only a 2.4 percent increase in funding from last year, one of the smallest increases in committee funding in the last 12 years.

As vital as it is to start bringing home some fiscal sanity back to Washington, there is another reason why the legislation is significant. As a result of actions taken by the Rules Committee yesterday, it now contains a provision that represents a profound departure from the approach that recent Republican Congresses have taken toward one of the most pivotal issues of our time, global warming.

Global warming is not merely an environmental issue. It is also a social issue and an economic one. It affects all nations and all peoples, and its consequences, if left unchecked, could produce truly dramatic changes to human society the world over.

For decades, evidence has mounted that our planet's temperature is rising, and that evidence has become so universally recognized that it is no longer in dispute. President Bush himself even used the phrase ``climate change'' in his State of the Union Address this year, the first time he has acknowledged it.

But the question raised today by some is a different one: Is global warming caused by human activity? Or is it merely a natural phenomenon akin to the last ice age, something that we have to adapt to but we cannot affect?

Efforts to break the link in the public imagination between human activity and climate change are still ongoing. Doubt is still being seeded in the public mind. Sometimes these efforts are blunt. Despite the President's recent admission, his administration has also been accused of rewriting sections of impartial Federal scientific reports that tie human activity to global warming.

Other times, the efforts are more subtle. We hear all the time Members of this body express their desire to, as they put it, ``get to the bottom'' of the problem of climate change so that we may come to understand its true cause.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I on the Democratic side of the aisle do not share this degree of doubt, nor do we seek to disseminate it. We have been convinced by numerous internationally recognized scientific studies, by years of careful analysis and by endless measurements taken around the world. We have been convinced, as have people the world over, by the overwhelming weight of available, impartial and scientific evidence. We have been convinced of a simple idea, that human beings are altering the planet's environment.

And, as such, we have committed ourselves to being the party of personal, environmental responsibility. We have pledged to confront this great challenge before it is beyond our grasp, beyond our ability to change even if we wanted to.

We have promised a strong path of action, and this bill represents the first steps along that path taken by this Congress in years, if not ever.

The resolution will create a fully funded select committee whose sole purpose will be to focus on global warming. The committee will have 15 members, nine from the majority and six from the minority. It will serve as a much-needed congressional forum for hearings, investigations and discussion, and will have the chance to make recommendations concerning climate change.

Simply put, people all the world over can breathe easier because the resolution will institutionalize the commitment of the House of Representatives to confronting global warming.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment to address one of the criticisms of this rule that is likely to be voiced by the minority. We may be told that a hearing and markup process for the select committee did not take place before the rule was authored.

But a question like this one, the question of whether or not we should address global warming, has had an ongoing public hearing for a generation. Numerous arguments on both sides of the question have been made. And at the end of it all, the overwhelming consensus, both among the public and among internationally recognized climate scientists, is that global warming is real; it is human influenced; and it is our responsibility to control.

The creation of this select committee is a response to that international public hearing. Democrats have called for the need to fight climate change for years, and today we have the chance to turn that call into action, and we don't intend to waste it.

Mr. Speaker, we can't forget that, in 1997, the Republican-controlled Senate rejected the Kyoto Protocol, a path-breaking international effort to control global warming. And we must not forget that, back in 2001, one of the administration's first acts of international significance was the dramatic rejection of that same set of principles.

It is time for this House to join the vast majority of the world community that recognizes the threat global warming poses and the role that our Nation plays in it. It is time for us to be leaders on this issue and to take responsibility for our actions.

I urge the passage of this rule and of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me take 30 seconds to say to my good friend, Mr. Dreier, that while he has made much of the fact that a bipartisan group went before the committee to beg for money, that it was turned down by a bipartisan pair, the Chair and the ranking member of that committee, perhaps he should take up his complaint with Mr. Ehlers who was the Republican ranking member on that committee.

Now I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to enter into the Record a very important piece of information which has just come my way.

Printed in the New York Times this morning: ``Internal memorandums circulated in the Alaskan division of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service appear to require government biologists or other employees traveling in countries around the Arctic not to discuss climate change, polar bears or sea ice if they are not designated to do so.

``In December, the Bush administration, facing a deadline under a suit by environmental groups, proposed listing polar bears throughout their range as threatened under the Endangered Species Act because the warming climate is causing a summertime retreat of sea ice that the bears use for seal hunting.

``It remains unclear whether such a listing will be issued. Over the past

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

`` `Please be advised that all foreign travel requests and any future travel requests involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice and/or polar bears will also require a memorandum from the regional director to the director indicating who'll be the official spokesman on the trip and the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears.'

``The sample memorandums, described as to be used in written travel requests, indicate that the employees seeking permission to travel `understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice will not be speaking on or responding to these issues.'

``Electronic copies of the memorandums and cover note were forwarded to The New York Times by Deborah Williams, an environmental campaigner in Alaska and a former Interior Department official in the Clinton administration.

`` `This sure sounds like a Soviet-style directive to me,' Ms. Williams said.

``Limits on government scientists' freedom to speak freely about climate change became a heated issue last year after news report showed that political appointees at NASA had canceled journalists' interview requests with climate scientists and discouraged news releases on global warming.''

Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a time for this Congress to take up global warming, and if there was ever a question that it was not the position of this administration to ignore it, I hope this puts it to rest.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have none. I am ready to close.

Go ahead and use it any way you like.

I am not giving you my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman who chairs the Ethics Committee, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

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

I want to say the same thing Mrs. Tubbs Jones said: our leadership is not going to let it go without the money that it requires.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.