Providing for consideration of the resolution (H.Res. 279) providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 279. It does provide funding for committees for the 111th Congress so that we might do the work that we're constitutionally required to do.

I'd like to begin by thanking Chairman Brady and his staff for truly engaging in a collaborative process as we work towards our common goal of providing adequate and appropriate funding for committees. It is my belief the legislation before us today does allow the Congress--the House--to carry out both its legislative and oversight functions while balancing those needs with the responsibility placed on us by the American people to spend their tax dollars wisely.

During these difficult economic times we have a shared interest in making sure we're frugal and wise stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. However, this commitment to tighten our collective fiscal belts cannot come at the expense of our constitutionally mandated role of providing oversight over the Federal coffers.

There's one complaint I've had about the Congress when I served here before--some two decades ago--and while I was gone and when I first returned, was that I think there was not the commitment to oversight that was necessary on both sides of the Congress and both sides of the aisle. I think there are many that have done a good job, but we can always do better.

As we have seen recently with the reports of questionable uses of TARP funds, the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse is real, requiring us to be ever vigilant in performing effective oversight and making sure that that's done in a timely fashion.

Just as these committees have a responsibility to conduct effective oversight over the matters under their jurisdiction, the House Administration Committee must ensure that expenses of the House are being used in a manner that prevents waste, fraud, and abuse as well.

So I was extremely pleased that our committee's majority adopted our proposed amendment to have the chairs and ranking members of all committees appear before our committee after the first session to provide an update regarding the funding requests and operations of each respective committee.

One of the things that we should understand is that the rules that we've adopted for the operation of the House in this Congress require that all authorizing committees take the responsibility to provide the vital oversight for those operations of the executive branch that are under their jurisdiction. I believe that we have made progress on that.

The majority has worked with us to move towards the goal of making monthly committee reports available online. These reports are already required, but we will get them in a timely fashion. We will establish a template so that those committees will report and then we will move to make those available online so that we can in fact in the House of Representatives move further to transparency, as we are requiring transparency in the executive branch.

The public can take a look at our work. It's all out there for them to see. They can see the work that we're doing. They can see the oversight that we're providing. They can see, most importantly, how their dollars are being spent in this, their House of Representatives.

In addition to determining appropriate funding levels and ensuring that transparency in committee operations, one of my chief concerns during the committee funding process was that the precedent of allocating one-third of each committee's resources to the minority party was upheld.

When Republicans assumed the majority in 1995, we started what has been an ongoing tradition of ensuring the minority party receives at least one-third of the committees resources, an amount I believe necessary to carry out the minority's responsibilities as the party of ``loyal opposition.''

I'm therefore pleased, Mr. Speaker, that Chairman Brady has not only honored this commitment, but has made very strong statements in the committee, on the Record, that he will be diligent to address any complaints raised by ranking minority members in this regard. For that, I thank him. I think this sets an excellent precedent for the future for all of us.

I believe that both sides have worked well to improve this committee funding process. As the chairman has said, there were just a couple of exceptions where we did not grant the request made by the chairmen and ranking members for the increases as they came forward. We did give increases, but not in the numbers they talked about.

When I look over the numbers, it looks to me like we cut in half the requests for increases that were asked for. I happen to think that that is a good thing here. We can go through the committees one-by-one. Luckily, my staff has printed it large enough so that I can read it now. When I was here 25 years ago, I did not need this large print. I was able to use smaller notes. That just shows the progress that we have made, Mr. Speaker.

I would thank the chairman for working with me to advance this funding process. I would say that we brought this forward in as expeditious a fashion as we were able to.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in support of this resolution, and I continue to do so.

I would just say with respect to the statements made about the Small Business Committee, it received the single largest increase of all the committees of the House of Representatives.

I might say we actually managed for the Budget Committee to come in with no increase whatsoever. We had the Intelligence Committee come in with a 1.5 percent increase below inflation.

I remember when we asked them why they were coming in for such a small request, they said: Well, we had to increase some of our things last year. We were moving into a new SCIF, we had a new meeting place, we had to have new computers. But we made those expenditures last year; we don't need them this year. It was refreshing to actually hear that sort of thing. And there is no indication that, by virtue of the fact that we are giving them but a 1.5 percent increase, that we are trying to short them in any way, form, or fashion.

The Rules Committee also came in below 2 percent. And, again, they talked about the fact that they were trying to keep themselves within those limits.

I would just say, however, with respect to some things that have been said on the floor, I just wish that in the stimulus package we passed it would have had as much in it for small business as we have for the Small Business Committee in this particular resolution relative to other things. I think we could have done far better than that, and particularly with the tax consequences of the President's proposal.

Mr. Speaker, because of some of the questions brought up by Mr. Issa and others, we and our committee fought and we brought this up on our side of the aisle, it was supported by the chairman, that we would try and increase the transparency of the committees of jurisdiction so that in fact people could make judgments as to whether they were carrying out the oversight function, and we do it in two ways. Let me just underscore that.

One is, there is already an existing requirement that every committee report on a monthly basis as to what they are doing. If you look at those reports now, sometimes they are kind of difficult to decipher. So trying to make it much more clear for both the committee and the public, we are working on a template so that information can be presented and easily accessible. We

also are working then to put that on the committee Web site so that people can see and make judgments for themselves. That is one way in which we are trying to ensure that we in the Congress in our committees do the oversight, as well as the legislative work, that we are supposed to do.

The second way we did it was to request--and it is part of this resolution--that the chairpersons and the ranking members of each committee come back to us at the end of the year. And it's not that we are going to question the subject matter that they are dealing with or question how they handle things, but rather we are going to just have some inquiries, looking at those reports, and seeing how what they are doing matched up with their budget request. One of the areas in which we are required to provide oversight of this House is to make sure that oversight is being done.

So I think we have tried to answer the question of whether or not real oversight is going to be done by the way that we made these changes contained in this resolution. I would hope that people understand that I take oversight responsibility very, very seriously; the chairman has indicated that he does as well; and, this committee will do its work to ensure that the American public can make their judgments. It seems to me that is what we are supposed to be doing. If all we are is a rubber-stamp committee, the public can say we are not doing our job.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are a rubber-stamp committee with this chairman, and I am certainly going to work with him to ensure that is not the case. We are going to make sure that we do the people's work and that all the committees do as well. If, at the end of the year we can't prove it to ourselves, we are not going to be able to prove it to the public, and then it is on us. And I would hope that we will step up to the plate, take the responsibility, and do the job that we are sent here to do not only as individual Members but as the collective work of Members in committee.

And if the chairman has no other speakers, I would say that we ought to support this resolution, and 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend from Fort Lauderdale, my Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Hastings, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

And let me say that the American people are hurting. We know that. And Mr. Hastings has alluded to some of the challenges that we have. We're dealing with one of the most serious economic challenges that we've faced in modern history.

And while the American people are facing their economic challenges, I think it's very important for us as an institution, especially as the body of the people, to realize that it's incumbent upon us to set an example.

We all know that the Federal Government is filled, riddled with tremendous waste, fraud and abuse. It's a high level of frustration for Americans. And regardless of political party, people regularly talk about the challenge of dealing with waste, fraud and abuse.

And I will say that one of our important responsibilities that too often is forgotten is our responsibility for oversight. We have to oversee the multifarious programs that have been put forward and established by this Congress.

Now, from my perspective, we have way too many programs. The reach of the Federal Government is far beyond what it should be. And as we look at the budget which we're going to be debating later this week, the notion of having this dramatic increase in spending as a percentage of our gross domestic product is something that I find to be extraordinarily troubling. And we need to get our economy back on track. We need to make sure that we have in place an economic policy that will do that.

And so the American people are clearly looking to this institution, they're looking to Washington, to make sure that we set policies that will allow them to, once again, keep their homes, meet the obligation of paying tuition for their children who are going to college, to pay their other bills. That is something that, on a regular basis, we as Members of Congress hear from the American people. So this issue of committee funding is an important one.

And I will say that there is some concern that has been voiced on this side of the aisle. My California colleague, the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, is troubled over the fact that there have been increases in a number of other committees, and yet the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has not had the kind of increase that he believes is important.

I also want to say that we should take our hats off to the chairman of the Administration Committee, Mr. Brady of Philadelphia, as well as my California colleague, Mr. Lungren, the gentleman from Sacramento, who is the ranking member. We have seen chairmen and ranking members of all of the committees go before their committee, and they have been deliberative and very thoughtful in this package that they have put together. But I do believe that there are, again, concerns that have been voiced by a number of our colleagues.

I want to say that if we look at what has happened in the last couple of months, one particular entity that I think needs to have very, very, very close scrutiny paid to it when it comes to this issue of oversight is the Department of the Treasury. We know there have been programs that began last fall with the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the so- called TARP program, and since that period of time we've had the 1,100- page stimulus bill, which we know has been flawed.

And I think it was demonstrated when, the week before last, we had the issue of trying to deal with the $167 million in bonuses that have been provided in the stimulus package for the executives of AIG. And so we have unintended consequences that stem from a dramatic expansion of the Federal Government. And everyone acknowledges that that's the case. And that's why we, on our side, are regularly trying to, again, limit that reach because no one knows exactly what the unintended consequences will be.

Now, Mr. Lungren, the ranking member, informed me yesterday that we are going to, in this resolution, have a scrutiny over the action of every committee when it comes to the issue of oversight. And I do congratulate the members of the Administration Committee for ensuring that we do have more scrutiny put into place.

I also want to mention an item that is included in this measure that is, I think, very, very important, and that is funding for a commission which I was privileged to found when we were in the majority, and now serve as the ranking member under our colleague, David Price, the gentleman from North Carolina, who has chaired this commission. It's known as the House Democracy Assistance Commission. And our commission has basically taken the challenge of building democratic institutions in new and re-emerging democracies around the world and worked to share our example of the United States Congress with these new and re- emerging democracies. I mean, we are in Afghanistan, Timor-Leste, Indonesia, Haiti, Colombia, Lebanon, Liberia, Kenya, Macedonia, Georgia, and Ukraine. I mean, we have worked closely with the parliaments to try and, again, share our example of the work of the United States Congress.

And I regularly argue, Mr. Speaker, that we clearly don't have the answer, because we know that democracy is a work in progress. And I've often quipped that if some of these countries see the United States Congress in operation they may want to go back to totalitarianism. But the fact is we do have a 220-year example to which we can point as our work in progress. And this commission is, I believe, making great strides in trying to help build the parliaments in these countries so that, as we pursue economic growth and the rule of law in those countries, this commission is going to remain on the cutting edge of that very important work.

So I will say that, again, there are concerns that have been voiced about the level of funding, and I think that there are a number of issues that we still do want to ensure that we address.

But as the American people deal with the economic downturn that we're facing today, I think it is imperative that we, as an institution, do all that we can, Mr. Speaker, all that we can to ensure that we utilize those taxpayer dollars just as cost effectively as possible and, at the same time, redouble our efforts when it comes to overseeing this massive expansion of the Federal Government that has taken place.

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

If the gentleman would yield, I would say to my friend, if he would like me to talk for another 15 or 20 minutes, I would be more than happy to.

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

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank my good friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that I completely concur with my friend on those two issues that he has just mentioned. Ensuring that we have access to quality health care in this country is, I believe, a right that needs to be pursued, number 1.

Number 2, education is going to be critical. As we deal with our emergence from this economic downturn, the United States of America must remain on the cutting edge. The argument that one would get is regarding the exact role the Federal Government should play in every one of these things--in dramatically expanding the number of programs to deal with it or, in fact, in incentivizing those in the private sector. Do we do everything we can to, again, encourage greater access to health care and to quality education?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Will my friend yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, by incentivizing, I believe that we as an institution, through tax policy, can do everything that we possibly can.

For example, in the area of health care, just to touch on that, I believe that a dramatic expansion of medical savings accounts--of which we have been on the cutting edge--of encouraging people to put dollars aside and to save and plan for their health care needs is a better way to go rather than dramatically expanding a government program to deal with it. That is the response, I would say, as far as incentivizing.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 294 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask, Mr. Speaker, unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 294.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 294 provides for consideration of the 111th Congress committee funding resolution. As my colleagues may know, clause 7 of rule X provides for the interim committee funding until the permanent funding resolution is in place. That temporary funding expires today. Therefore, it is very important that we consider and pass this rule and the underlying resolution today.

The committee funding resolution before us is the result of a bipartisan effort between Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Lungren of the Committee on House Administration. It was reported from the committee by a voice vote, and included an amendment by the ranking member to help increase transparency and accountability in the committee funding process.

This is a very fair and modest funding resolution which seeks to keep costs down, but still allow committees to fulfill their duties. This resolution recommends to the House an authorization to expend approximately $149.6 million in the first session and $154.9 million in the second session. This totals approximately $12.4 million below the combined levels requested by each of the committees.

It further reflects the commitment of Democrats to fairness and bipartisanship. The resolution incorporates an amendment by Ranking Member Lungren and carries forward the ``one-third'' rule in which a third of committee resources are used to support the work of the minority.

Rather than blindly tying committee funding to inflation or some other arbitrary number, this resolution is tailored to meet the unique challenges and circumstances facing this Congress.

As we work to implement the sweeping agenda of Democratic leadership and the new Democratic administration while simultaneously addressing seemingly unprecedented challenges, this resolution sensibly provides targeted increases to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Small Business, and Standards of Official Conduct, among others.

The 12 percent increase recommended for the Committee on Financial Services is vital, considering the committee's stewardship of our Nation's financial recovery. It ensures that the committee not only has the resources to develop the legislation necessary to further our economic recovery, but also ensures that the committee has the capacity to adequately oversee the execution of these policies.

This increase, as well as the increase in funding for the Committee on Small Business, will help ensure that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are going into the right hands and helping the right people.

Additionally, with health care reform a priority for this Congress and our new President, H. Res. 279 provides an increase of 11 percent for the Committee on Energy and Commerce so we can continue our efforts to provide health care for every single American, in addition to working to finally achieve energy independence.

And while Congress continues to take on the task of overseeing our Nation's financial industry and the execution of our recovery initiatives, this body is ever-more scrutinized by the watchful eye of the American public. In order to ensure public trust in Congress, this resolution provides for an increase of 10 percent for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

This resolution provides a pragmatic, fiscally prudent approach to committee funding, increasing total funding in 2009 by less than 5 percent, an amount within the D.C. cost of living adjustment.

Further, it provides a 3.9-percent increase in 2010, to accommodate the increased legislative and oversight work load typically seen in the second session.

It also assures adequate oversight by requiring committee chairs and ranking members to return to the Committee on House Administration by February of 2010 to report on committee spending.

This funding resolution strikes a responsible balance between the expanded oversight duties of the 111th Congress and the realities of our current economic climate. It will help this Congress adequately meet our economy's pressing needs, while working toward implementing the policies that will drive our Nation into the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this rule and of the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire of my good friend from California if he has any remaining speakers?

I am the last speaker for this side, so I will reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his side and has yielded back his time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address one of the concerns that my good friend raised with reference to Oversight and Government Reform.

It remains the second best-funded committee in the House with the second largest staff, and Oversight and Government Reform did not use $700,000 of their funding last year, showing that they have a good cushion of additional funding to use this year.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 297 is a practical resolution that reflects the new pressing priorities of the 111th Congress. The funding levels authorized in this resolution will provide our committees with the resources necessary to carry out Congress' increase in oversight responsibilities and to implement the sweeping legislative initiatives of the President's and Democrats' in Congress, referencing yet one more item raised by my good friend as he references the things that are being done.

When people tell me that we are trying to do too much, I always ask: What is it that they would leave out that we should not be doing? Would they leave out education? Do they think that energy independence is not particularly critical? Is there anyone in this body or anywhere in this country who does not understand the critical need for health insurance for all Americans?

One thing is certain: When we are talking about the economy, we are talking about health care, and if we do not do things with reference to health care, then we are not going to be able to solve our economic crisis.

Of course, I will yield.

Reclaiming my time, I am putting a question to my colleague, and I will then reference time for him.

When you said we should incentivize the private sector, who is the ``we'' that you are talking about?

Yes.

Reclaiming my time, it is still the government as an institution that you refer to that is going to do these things. It is just that somehow or another, I guess, ideologically, my good friend and I are opposites when it comes, not only to health care, but to a variety of issues of major consequence.

If this Nation does not face up to its responsibilities having to do with Social Security, if we do not significantly address the issues of Medicare and Medicaid, then somehow or another, I think we are leaving the least of us out of this process. It is one thing to believe that if we incentivize the Tax Code that it is going to solve the problem, but that is not going to reach those persons at the very bottom.

For example, I hope that this budget addresses community health facilities. I believe this resolution represents the vital first step toward adequately addressing health care reform, energy policy and climate change, financial regulation and oversight, job growth and the recovery and long-term stability of our Nation's economy.

Now, in spite of the criticism from our friends on the other side, if they feel about this rule that it is unfair, perhaps unprecedented, our only intention today is to ensure that this resolution is considered in a timely manner so that our committees may be adequately funded and so that we may continue to do the work of the American people.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 294, I call up House Resolution 279 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 279.

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

House Resolution 279 is the primary expense resolution to fund the standing and select committees of the House for the 111th Congress.

Every 2 years, Congress must decide how much money its committees will spend. The Committee on House Administration holds hearings on the needs of the committees for the entire Congress. We then write a resolution to authorize funding for those committees. During our hearings on February 11 and 25, we heard from all the chairmen and most of the ranking members from other committees.

Let me describe what we have done with this amendment to the funding resolution. Over the last Congress, the committees of the House conducted far more hearings and did far more work than in recent years. They did all this without an increase in funding. Last Congress we were not even able to keep up with inflation. All of the committees have been struggling to operate on limited funds, and they have even more work to do in this Congress because of the challenges of our economic situation and other legislative priorities.

At the same time, we know that the economic status of the Nation means that we must do more with less. So we are not going to be able to give the committees all the funds they have requested, the amounts stated in the resolution as introduced.

In general, this substitute gives each committee for 2009 the lower of either the amount they requested, or an increase of 4.78 percent over their funding in 2008. That percent equals the cost-of-living increase for Federal employees in D.C. for 2009.

There are a few exceptions in this substitute. First, we have provided additional funds to the Judiciary Committee to undertake its mandated inquiry into judicial impeachment, which is not an ordinary cost of that committee. Next, the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Financial Services Committee, and the Small Business Committee have each undertaken extra responsibilities this Congress. These three committees have special legislative duties to deal with our financial situation, our health care, and our energy policy.

The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct will receive additional money as well, reflecting their request and our commitment to ethics oversight.

Finally, we have not increased funding over 2008 for the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. That committee had substantial funds left over in 2008. In addition, we have already expanded the oversight work of all committees in this Congress by amending the House rules in H. Res. 40.

When you add it all up, this keeps the total committee funding for 2009 at just 4.78 percent over the total funding from 2008.

In 2010, the committees will receive an across-the-board increase of 3.9 percent which, in our estimation, an inflationary increase is needed to keep staffs paid in the coming year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I'd like to just tell my dear friend from California that I don't need glasses either. I just need longer arms.

I'd like to recognize for such time as she may consume the chairwoman of the Standards of Official Conduct Committee, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

I yield such time as he may consume to a colleague on the Committee of House Administration, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

I recognize the gentlelady from New York, the chairwoman of the Small Business Committee, Ms. Velazquez, for such time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tough bill. None of us on either side of the aisle want to tell our colleagues ``no,'' and we also have to have the responsibility of making sure that we can tighten our belt and let the citizens of the United States of America know that we are not out there just spending freely. It is a tough bill to calculate, it is a tough bill to come up with the right, proper figures that we need to make all our committees' work viable and do the job that they need to do. They do a tremendous job, and much more work than they had in the past Congress due to the economy of the United States of America that we are in right now.

But we wouldn't be up here and be able to do this without cooperation, so I would like to thank my ranking member, my friend from California, for all the cooperation that he has given. It wasn't easy. It wasn't an easy fight. We do converse back and forth. We do talk. We don't always agree, but we are not disagreeable, and we made that pact and we are going to keep that pact. And not only with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the ranking member, Mr. Lungren from California, but his staff and our staff.

It is a tough thing to do, tough to crunch these numbers. Every time they show them to me, without a doubt when I am done looking at them I get a headache, and I give them back to them to give them more headaches, on our side of the aisle and on their side of the aisle.

It's a tough bill to do, but we had to do it. And we had to do it by today, or tomorrow it would really be April Fools for all of us because we would be out of business in our committees, which would essentially shut this House down.

So, Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleague for his support and his cooperation, and I am looking forward to continued support and cooperation.

I urge all Members to vote in favor of this resolution so the committees can continue to do the essential work of the Congress.

I yield back the balance of my time.

There's no words that can express how disappointed I was to see that the notable bottom of the funding once again went to Government Oversight and Reform.

When Republicans took over the Congress in 1994, they dramatically reduced the size of Government Oversight. The following Congress, they did a 48 percent increase, which essentially put it back close to where it was. But not quite. After that time, increases under Republicans have been paltry--in some cases, negative.

President Obama told us it was going to be different, Speaker Pelosi told us it was going to be different. They both said oversight was important.

Now I come from a manufacturing background, and I understand what quality control is. Quality control is not in fact asking the worker if they did a good job. It's somebody independently checking, and when they find mistakes, failures, imperfections, design flaws, pointing them out and giving those on the line the opportunity to repair or to change in a way that gives real quality.

There's only one committee in the Congress that has that task. It's not Energy and Commerce--the most-funded committee; it's not Financial Services--one of the other most-funded committees. It's not even the Rules Committee. It is in fact Government Oversight and Reform.

With over 3,200 GAO individuals and hundreds of millions of dollars being spent there; with $800 billion in the stimulus package and one IG with a $450 million budget; with a $7 billion, and soon to be more, TARP, with virtually no rules and real questions about how much has already been lost, the very idea that, after President Obama includes in his inaugural address oversight, accountability, to defund that committee effectively by flatlining once again--something that, I must admit, I can see the record, and it's been done under both types of administrations, under both Congresses--clearly makes the statement that is the antithesis of what was claimed.

There will be not be transparency in the Obama administration if in fact Government Oversight isn't properly funded to do its job.

Now when I came with Chairman Towns before the committee, Chairman Towns made the request for the dollars. I didn't. Although I felt his request was modest and reasonable. I added while I was there the request for 30 more slots. Not more money, but more personnel. Because I was confident that America's volunteerism would include people wanting to come to our committees for just a stipend if we could give them a slot--an authorized-to-work-here position--and that we would find people within a limited budget. We'd be able to work within the small increase that Chairman Towns asked for.

We didn't get those additional slots. And, notably, we are the only committee I can find that effectively asked for more and didn't get it.

I'm sad to see that, because I think it is in fact an accountability of Speaker Pelosi for not keeping President Obama's promise and commitment to the American people.

I appreciate the chairman of this committee doing what he can within the funds, but I realize he does not make the actual decision. He clearly couldn't be making this decision unless he made a decision that oversight was not important. And I don't believe he did.

So someone, somewhere in this Congress has decided that oversight is in fact not important. That accountability of this bureaucracy--not of this President, as some would have you believe--but of the bureaucracy that we, the Congress, have created and maintained and fund at $3.8 trillion, and growing, is in fact what we're charged to do.

The very idea that chairmen of other committees will in fact do their legislation and then check their legislation flies in the face of experience. It takes a second set of eyes and a second set of hands that have no prejudice toward the original creation of the law.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would remind people that Oversight has no fundamental jurisdiction that is by any means broad. We don't. We take care of the post offices and we oversee Federal workers. What we do is research into waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government.

We are highly limited by the lack of personnel and the lack of dollars to do it over a $3-plus trillion market and countless billions of dollars that have already been wasted under the last administration and continue to be wasted under this administration.

I join with Chairman Towns in believing that you could have done better, you should have done better. It's not too late. Please consider doing better.

There was one thing in the previous statement that I have to take some umbrage over. I only know about the minority of Government Reform. We returned $32,000, slightly less.

Now, we returned it not because we couldn't use it, but because every committee has the reality that you can't spend the last penny. Also, because you are not allowed to go over. So the fact is we fully spent ours.

I don't know if that $700,000 statement that is made includes our $32,000 or not. I don't even know if it is accurate. My understanding is that number can't even be asserted, really, yet, because in fact there is still spending going on.

I would hope that the committee would make available the returns of all the other committees, because I rather doubt that Chairman Waxman failed to use his money. I can tell you that Ranking Member Tom Davis would have loved to have been able to do more investigation, more independent work than we already did.

In closing, I would just mention that we have added in the last two Congresses over $4 million just for global warming, the junket committee. We clearly have enough money. I ask you to reconsider.