    [House Hearing, 109 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                               COMMITTEE FUNDING

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                        HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC,

                             MARCH 10 AND 16, 2005

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    20-927                 WASHINGTON : 2005
    _________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
    Printing  Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free
    (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
    Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                            BOB NEY, Ohio, Chairman
    VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan           JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                    California, Ranking Minority
    JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California            Member
    THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York         ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          ZOE LOFGREN, California

                               Professional Staff

                         Paul Vinovich, Staff Director
                    George Shevlin, Minority Staff Director

                          HEARING ON COMMITTEE FUNDING

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2005

                              House of Representatives,
                             Committee on House Administration,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:05 a.m., in room
    1310, Longworth, The Capitol, Hon. Robert W. Ney (chairman of
    the committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Ney, Millender-McDonald, Brady,
    and Lofgren.
        Staff Present: Paul Vinovich, Staff Director; Jeff Janas,
    Professional Staff Member; George Shevlin, Minority Staff
    Director; Charles Howell, Minority Chief Counsel; Catherine
    Tran, Minority Professional Staff; and Matt Pinkus, Minority
    Professional Staff.
        The Chairman. I want to welcome the distinguished chair and
    the ranking member, and we will go ahead and start. I have
    talked to our ranking member and she is on her way here now.
        The purpose today of course, and I will be requesting, is
    to consider funding requests for the 109th Congress. We will
    have several panels testify before the committee today and next
    week as our process unfolds. I would like to outline the
    procedure we will follow during these hearings.
        The chairman and ranking minority member of each committee
    will come before the committee and present their budget
    requests for the 109th Congress. The chairman and the ranking
    member will each have 5 minutes to testify. The House
    Administration members of course will have 5 minutes each to
    question the chair and ranking member if they so wish.
        With that, again, I want to welcome--well, two of our
    members are here, and of course, Congresswoman Millender-
    McDonald is on her way. I have talked to the gentlelady from
    California.
        We will start with the chairman, Mr. Hyde.

     STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Hyde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of
    the committee, we appreciate, Mr. Lantos and I, being given the
    opportunity to present our budget request for the Committee on
    International Relations for the 109th Congress.
        The workload of this committee will continue to be one of
    the most ambitious for any committee in the House. With threats
    from all corners of the world, deep and troubling problems
    facing people all over the globe, we will be involved in most
    of the major national security decisions facing our country
    today.
        In addition to our normal legislative and oversight
    responsibilities, the committee will continue its rigorous
    oversight of the United Nations, the Oil-for-Food Program, and
    the handling of contracts and contracting in relation to the
    reconstruction projects in Iraq. We must also carry out our
    responsibilities in receiving foreign heads of state and other
    dignitaries, and provide staff support for the various
    parliamentary groups.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly outline the two major
    increases in our budget request.
        One, the rules of the House of Representatives adopted
    January 4th, 2005, authorized the Committee on International
    Relations to create a new subcommittee, dedicated to oversight
    and investigations. For the additional subcommittee, we are
    requesting funding for four new majority staff positions and
    one minority position. Salaries for this subcommittee will
    total $440,000 in 2005 and $490,000 in 2006. The request also
    includes an increase for equipment, travel, communications and
    other administrative expenses to establish this new
    subcommittee.
        The second major increase in the budget proposal is for
    funding for a proposed House Democracy Assistance Commission
    that is being established at the direction of the Speaker's
    office. In fact, we will consider the resolution on the House
    floor next week establishing this commission. One of the two
    slots on the commission would be filled with an existing
    committee employee. Therefore, we are asking for only one new
    slot for the majority. Overall, we are asking for five new
    majority slots for the new subcommittee and the new commission
    and three new slots for the minority.
        Funding for the new House committee and the House Democracy
    Assistance Commission represents nearly 40 percent of our
    requested increase for the 109th Congress. I realize this is a
    large increase, but I also believe it is a much needed increase
    to effectively perform our oversight responsibilities as
    requested by the leadership of the House.
        It has been a pleasure working with my colleague, Tom
    Lantos, our very able and respected ranking democratic member.
    We have an excellent working relationship, perhaps the best
    partnership in the House, and I want to continue in that
    direction. Our request includes funding for three additional
    minority positions, which ensures my personal commitment to Tom
    for allocating one-third of any additional staff to the
    minority.
        Office space is a continuing problem. At the beginning of
    the 108th Congress, a subcommittee was relocated from the
    Rayburn Building to the Ford Building, and the space was given
    to the Democratic staff. We have been assured by the Speaker's
    office that additional office space will be assigned to the
    committee to accommodate the staff of the new subcommittee and
    the Democracy Commission.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
    let me stress this is a fair and responsible budget request.
    The Committee on International Relations has become a major
    player in foreign policy and the budget request will enable us
    to carry out the duties of a serious and successful committee.
        Mr. Lantos has a statement, and following that, I will be
    pleased to respond to any questions you may have regarding our
    request.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Distinguished ranking member, Mr.
    Lantos.

    STATEMENT OF HON. TOM LANTOS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                        THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Lantos. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
    committee. I will just take a minute, because I fully support
    the budget proposal of our distinguished chairman and my good
    friend, Henry Hyde.
        I just would like to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that our
    committee conducts its work in an incredibly cooperative,
    coordinated and collegial fashion. I only wish that the spirit
    of the entire body would reflect what is the prevailing spirit
    of the International Relations Committee.
        The chairman has outlined our requests. I fully support
    those, and I only would like to convey to you and to the
    members of the committee the staggering increase in the
    activities of this committee in recent years.
        If you will allow a vignette, which historically was a
    Democratic anecdote, but it now can be spoken of publicly. At
    the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, we had a Democratic
    Caucus and President Clinton spoke to it with his usual
    eloquence and brilliance. Then he asked for questions. There
    were three microphones set up in the Caucus Room, and I got to
    a mike and I looked around and there were 17 people ahead of
    me. I listened to the 17 questions. Then it was my turn.
        The President says, ``Well, Tom, what is on your mind?''
        And I said, ``Well, Mr. President, I want to change the
    subject.''
        There was dead silence in the room. Everybody got snow
    white, because they thought I would change the subject to
    something personal. I said, ``No, all 17 questions preceding me
    were questions relating to domestic issues. I want to raise an
    issue of an international nature.''
        You have never seen Bill Clinton more happy than when I
    finished my question.
        Times have changed. Every major issue on the agenda, with
    the exception of Social Security maybe and a couple of others,
    is within the purview of our committee. Just the range of
    overseas visitors to us has become mind boggling. I spent
    yesterday afternoon with the Libyan Chief of Mission, the
    American Chamber of Commerce from Cairo, with the Chinese
    Ambassador who is in charge of dealing with North Korea, and
    every day we have a whole range of basically relevant but
    extracurricular activities that we cannot escape. The staff is
    overworked, inadequate in terms of numbers and outstanding in
    quality.
        I strongly urge you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
    committee, to respond to our bipartisan request fully, because
    we are carrying out national security and foreign policy
    responsibilities, and we need an adequate staff to do so. Thank
    you, sir.
        The Chairman. I want to thank both of you for your
    testimony and also the job you do. I do have one question of
    the ranking member. Do you believe the two third/one-third has
    been reached as we have----
        Mr. Lantos. Well, I certainly do. I must say, and I have
    said this previously, that I believe resource allocations
    should be based on an accurate percentage basis, which would
    give the Democratic side 47 percent of the staff, the space,
    the working budget, but this is above my pay grade.
        But in terms of Chairman Hyde's allocation, I could not be
    more pleased. As in everything else, he is incredibly fair and
    generous.
        The Chairman. Thank you. I really just want to comment
    briefly--I don't have any questions--but the master plan,
    because we listened a couple of years ago, and the master plan
    will be complete by March of 2005 for building space. I have
    talked to the Architect about the space deficiencies.
        I looked at the scale. It is unbelievable if you look at
    the 1960s, when Rayburn was built, I think in 1959--and if you
    look at how many people are supposed to be in these buildings
    versus how many people are in these buildings, we are like
    7,000 people over where we should be.
        Mr. Lantos. Yes.
        The Chairman. Working conditions are atrocious. And so I
    think, it looks at supporting staff offices, removing the
    underground parking, which is a significant security issue, and
    I am hoping that this is implemented soon, because it will take
    about 5 or 6 years, if it is implemented tomorrow, to get done.
    I think we owe it, whether we are going to be here in 7 or 8
    years, to future staff of the House, to improve the working
    conditions. A lot of good people do things, and I think that
    they have to have good working conditions.
        But, again, I appreciate both of you, your working
    relationship, the allocation of the two-thirds/one-third.
        Also let me say something, yesterday we also had the Afghan
    women right here in this room. They came here from Afghanistan.
    The amount of increased international activity, as you
    indicated in the Chair, is unbelievable, because as you know,
    we are about what is going on in the world.
        I have traveled with both of you, I have seen some
    significant things you have been able to do, through meetings.
    I remember one time an editorial 6 years ago quoted me because
    I said international relations is not the exclusive right of
    any President, there is a Congress out there. They praised me
    in the newspaper and then, of course, attacked all of us for
    traveling in that same paper later.
        But I think it is important. I have seen things change. I
    have traveled again on some important trips with both of you,
    and so I think that the role that you do is important and you
    need to be able to have the resources.
        I really have no questions, but I want to thank both of you
    and our gentlelady. Our ranking member is here.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Good morning, good morning to you,
    Mr. Chairman, and to the ranking member. It is great to see
    both of you. I shan't say that you don't get along, because you
    get along quite well.
        But the one thing that I am interested in and want to be
    assured of is that the formula that our leader here, the
    chairman has laid out, is the two-thirds/one-third in terms of
    your allocation of budget, and just want to make sure that you
    are satisfied, Mr. Ranking Member, with that concept and with
    that formula, and that you are given the autonomy to get
    equipment if so needed and those other things that are
    pertinent to your well-being.
        Mr. Lantos. Madam Ranking Member, let me just say, as I
    indicated a bit earlier, I really have two answers. Chairman
    Hyde's allocation of staff and resources on a two-thirds/one-
    third basis could not be more fair and equitable and gracious.
    The overall issue of whether resources should be so allocated I
    have serious doubts about. We have 47 percent of the membership
    of this body and a strong case can be made, which I am ready to
    make at the drop of a hat, that we should get 47 percent of the
    resources. But that is above my pay grade.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Well, okay, then, so in essence,
    given the venue that you have just outlined, other than that
    you are pretty much satisfied with that?
        Mr. Lantos. I could not be more happy with the working
    relationship that both the chairman and I have and our
    respective staffs have.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Very good. I really do agree with
    you, because when I have come before each of you I do like the
    respectability that you share between each other and how you
    have worked very collegially in terms of trying to find the
    common ground.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to commend you in your
    leadership in ensuring that we have that two-thirds/one-third
    allocation between the two chairmen and ranking members of
    these two committees so we can be about the business of
    providing the leadership and the services to the committees
    that they represent.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Questions? The gentlelady.
        Ms. Lofgren. Since I am brand new I am going to ask a
    question. I certainly would not disrupt what has been
    recommended here, because obviously the chairman and ranking
    member agree, so maybe this is really about the whole process
    that we are in. It is my understanding, and I guess it is a
    question, not a statement, that the general rule is that the
    minority has a third of the slots, a third of the budget,
    control over their third?
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Yes.
        Ms. Lofgren. And then the chairman and ranking member can
    arrange to do something different if it works better for them;
    is that generally the rule?
        The Chairman. That is the policy.
        Ms. Lofgren. Okay. All right.
        The Chairman. There is no actual rule in the House that it
    has to be done.
        Ms. Lofgren. But that is our operating system.
        The Chairman. If I could take a second, if the gentlelady
    would yield. When Bill Thomas became chairman of the House
    Administration and Steny Hoyer was the ranking member, they
    tried to achieve two-thirds/one-third. Bill Thomas did it. He
    gave Mr. Hoyer, as we do to this day, one-third and said here
    is your allocation. Some committees that shared staff, Ethics
    and others, had more trouble because they shared staff.
        Ms. Lofgren. Right.
        The Chairman. They achieved most of the two-thirds/one-
    third, but there was not a complete achievement of the process.
    When I became chairman, we talked to the Speaker, Bill Thomas.
    They wanted to really get this done with Steny Hoyer. So when
    Steny was chair, we made a huge effort and Steny and I,
    actually sat with a couple of members, ranking members, we got
    down to about two committees where we finally made some
    decisions and we got to what we felt was the two-thirds/one-
    third and then it continued under Mr. Larson.
        Ms. Lofgren. The rationale is that the majority--it is
    obviously not two-thirds/one-third in the House but the
    majority has to do kind of additional clerical work and
    administrative burden and that that justifies?
        The Chairman. It was something that Mr. Thomas--I will tell
    you in all fairness I wasn't here in the minority, but I will
    tell you that we have the stats. When the Democrats controlled
    the Congress, some of the minority received 9 percent of the
    budget, 10 percent of the budget in worst circumstances. So I
    do need to raise that issue.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, I wasn't here then.
        The Chairman. No, this is not directed--I just want to tell
    the history of before my time here.
        Ms. Lofgren. I am just trying to figure out what the rules
    are.
        The Chairman. That is what we tried to do.
        Ms. Lofgren. I am sorry to take the committee's time,
    because they have come up with their own agreement. Obviously,
    we will accept what they have agreed to. I wanted to know what
    the parameters were for all the committees, and I thank the
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. Other questions? With that, I want to thank
    both the Chair and the ranking member for your work in the
    House and your time today.
        Mr. Lantos. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Hyde. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Next we have the Chair of the Judiciary
    Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and Mr. Conyers, the ranking
    member, and we will start with the Chair of the Judiciary
    Committee.

    STATEMENT OF HON. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    Madam Ranking Member. As the previous committee was leaving
    they said go get them. This is your chance to go get us, and I
    hope that is not going to be the case.
        But I am pleased to appear before you today to present my
    third budget request as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I
    have a lengthy prepared statement that I would like to submit
    in full for the record, but I would like to briefly mention
    some of the elements that I believe are important for this
    committee to consider.
        As you know, the Judiciary Committee is quite active and is
    frequently called upon by the leadership to consider
    complicated and controversial legislation. The workload and
    proven production of the Judiciary Committee are unrivaled
    among other House committees. However, during the past
    Congress, we ranked seventh in committee budget allocations. I
    anticipate that the frenetic legislative pace will continue, as
    evidenced by the early floor activity this year of the REAL ID
    and Class Action legislation. We plan to mark up the bankruptcy
    bill next week, should the Senate pass it.
        In order to keep up with the pace and continue to address
    complex areas of law while maintaining oversight of the
    Executive Branch agency and important laws such as the PATRIOT
    Act, we simply need more resources.
        Considering our workload, the number of members and the
    fact that almost all of our professional staff are attorneys
    and thus command higher than average salaries, I believe that a
    significant increase in our budget is justified. Consequently,
    the proposal before you today represents $18.26 million to meet
    the needs of the committee over the next 2 years, which is a 30
    percent increase over the last Congress.
        Let me explain. The budget contains an increase of nine new
    permanent staff slots, six for the majority and three for the
    minority. Two of these new staff slots would be allocated for a
    majority and minority law clerk. The backbone of the Judiciary
    Committee's effective approach in the 108th Congress was its
    highly qualified staff, which can only be retained if offered
    salaries which are competitive with the private sector. I
    really want to emphasize this, because if you expect the
    committee to do the job that it has to do and to file lengthy
    and complicated committee reports on a complicated legislation
    like the bankruptcy bill, we need to prevent our experienced
    staff from jumping over to the private sector because we can't
    pay them enough.
        The equipment line item in this budget request includes the
    purchase of additional BlackBerries, computers, software and
    printers to accommodate the needs of current staff, as well as
    any additional staff and to support our continuity of
    operations plan. We also intend to replace outdated equipment
    in each calendar year to keep our systems and equipment current
    and in compliance with the House minimum standards of
    operation.
        The committee launched a new website last fall, which is
    providing Members and the public alike improved access to
    information, and we have budgeted additional funds in this
    category for further enhancements to the website.
        In addition to live webcast access, we have budgeted funds
    and we will continue to provide access to webcast archives of
    hearings to continue our goal of giving taxpayers an
    opportunity to view hearings on demand and to become more
    participative in the legislative process.
        In order to move aggressively to perform our oversight
    mandate, we have also developed, in coordination with an
    outside vendor, an oversight tracking system, which will help
    us manage our extensive oversight agenda. We have budgeted in
    this request for additional development, user licenses and
    monthly maintenance.
        Finally, the committee has carefully considered the
    potential for unforeseen disasters and have purchased some
    equipment for disaster recovery purposes.
        This budget submission allows for additional purchases and
    maintenance of this equipment.
        This resolution will maintain a one-third minority, two-
    thirds majority division, with respect to salaries and staff
    slots, adjusting for the seven nonpartisan administrative
    positions.
        For the benefit of the minority members of this committee,
    let me say that we have a total staff allocation--there are
    seven positions that are purely administrative in nature, such
    as certifying the payroll, doing the accounting, getting our
    records printed at the GPO. We take those seven positions off
    the top, and the remainder are divided two-thirds/one-third.
        In closing, I appreciate the spirit of cooperation which
    Ranking Member Conyers has demonstrated. In the last Congress,
    I believe, we met almost all of the minority's requests
    concerning necessary equipment, travel and the addition of new
    office space. I hope he agrees that the minority has been
    treated with fairness in matters of committee administration
    and funding.
        I appreciate your attention to this request and would be
    happy to answer questions.
        The Chairman. I want to thank the gentleman, I thank the
    Chairman. The ranking member, Mr. Conyers.

       STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Conyers. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to
    be before you and my friend, Ms. Millender-McDonald and Zoe
    Lofgren now, who I didn't know was on this subcommittee before
    now.
        This is an important event for us because this joint budget
    request, which has been carefully worked out between the
    chairman and myself, I think demonstrates that your Committee
    on the Judiciary has been--it seems to be working more and
    more, our legislative load is getting larger.
        We just lost a professional staffer, a lawyer last week,
    because we didn't have a budget, and we couldn't assure him of
    anything. Unfortunately, with five children, he regretfully
    took his leave, just to back up what Mr. Sensenbrenner had been
    referring to.
        As you know, you see us on the floor every week. If a week
    goes by and the Judiciary Committee hasn't been up once or
    twice or more, it is usually a surprise. The complexity and the
    number of issues is quite challenging, and I want to say on
    behalf of Chairman Sensenbrenner that our request is quite
    measured in terms of how we might increase our resources and
    our staffing.
        The Class Action bill, now the Bankruptcy bill, the PATRIOT
    Act is going to be back up, the Voting Rights Act has two
    sections that are expiring. We have sentencing guidelines,
    since the Supreme Court has acted to reconsider new matters
    concerning science and criminal law. Plus, our old standbys of
    antitrust, administrative law, the Federal court system itself
    and immigration claims and constitutional amendments.
        So what I merely want to do--and I have a longer statement
    that I ask be included in the record----
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Mr. Conyers [continuing]. Is that I wanted to underscore
    the cooperative spirit that has formed our relationship across
    the years and the need for the reasonable adjustments that have
    been put forward by Chairman Sensenbrenner.
        It is good to see all of you again, and I close with this
    observation. It was under Chairman Ney that this Judiciary
    Committee was able to make real progress and move forward to
    the kind of spirit that I think forms the committee on both
    sides at this present moment, and I thank you very much for
    this opportunity.
        [The statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I want to thank both gentlemen. I want to ask
    the ranking member, because 2 years ago you came here and the
    chairman was here, and the two-thirds/one-third is working?
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Yes.
        Mr. Conyers. It is working. We don't have enough of it to
    work with, but it is working.
        The Chairman. Money, in other words. You may not always
    agree on every piece of legislation, but you agree on this.
    That is understandable. I appreciate that.
        The gentlelady.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I
    couldn't agree with you more that when professional staff does
    not seem to--salaries do not seem to come to the benchmark of
    those in the private sector, you will certainly lose those
    types of people. So I couldn't agree with you more.
        I wanted the chairman to recognize, though, that while he
    spoke about the Democrats when they were in the majority, how
    they really didn't get but about 9 percent of the budget. I
    would also like to have him recognize that once the Newt
    Gingrich group came into the majority, they slashed everything.
    So this is why these poor chairman are now trying to reel back
    to try to get some of that money that was slashed when the new
    majority wanted to prove that they would slash budgets.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner, given that you are talking about
    outdated equipment, and you certainly need that, and it is no
    doubt that the Judiciary Committee will be confronted with a
    lot of those things that have been outlined by both you and the
    ranking member, does the minority--who orders your equipment?
    Do you do that solely or does the minority have the opportunity
    to buy their equipment?
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Yes. We do this in house in ordering the
    equipment, but we do it in consultation with the minority. The
    minority gets approximately a third of the equipment budget to
    help their staff do their job. I do not recall Mr. Conyers and
    I ever having a problem in determining the allocation of
    equipment.
        What we try to do is we try to have a rotation plan so that
    the oldest equipment gets replaced so that we can take
    advantage of advances in technology and thus increase the
    productivity of the committee and its staff. But, again, I
    haven't heard any complaints from Mr. Conyers, nor do I
    anticipate any.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. So given that he does receive one-
    third of the budget for--one-third of his budget for equipment,
    he does not have the total autonomy to purchase anything
    without consultation with you; is that correct?
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, the House rules require that the
    vendor orders be signed by the chairman.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Yes.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thus, Mr. Conyers has to make a request,
    and those requests are within the two-thirds/one-third
    allocation. You know, we do share a lot of equipment as well,
    so that we don't have an unnecessary duplication of equipment.
    But the proprietary work that is being done is on equipment
    that is secured on each side of the aisle.
        Mr. Conyers. Madam Ranking Member, can I point out that we
    really come up with a unified budget on equipment? I have
    never--maybe my chief of staff can remember something
    different. But I have never had any problem about equipment.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Okay.
        Mr. Conyers. Our resources frequently are mutually shared,
    as well as our space for that matter, and I want to just second
    everything that the chairman has made in reference to your
    question.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. So, in other words, there is
    collegiality when it comes to the requests for equipment and
    supplies and that type of thing?
        Mr. Conyers. Absolutely. It is personnel that haunts us, to
    me in the Judiciary Committee, if I might just tell you
    candidly. We have so many assignments out and so many things
    coming up that we are rather stretched. It is the resources,
    but it is mostly staff that is the thrust of our requests this
    morning, ma'am.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, then if by some
    means--I see here that your request is for 30 percent increase
    of your budget, which is an average of 9.9 percent. But in the
    event, because it doesn't mean that you are going to get it, it
    is just that this is your request and of course we have got to
    look at all of the committees. But in the event your committee
    budget is cut, will you still be prone to ensure that the
    minority gets his one-third of that budget irrespective of it?
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Absolutely. I would point out that even
    before this committee issued the edict in 2001 on the two-
    thirds/one-third split I offered Mr. Conyers more staff than my
    predecessor, Mr. Hyde, offered him during the 6 years that Mr.
    Hyde was the chairman of the committee.
        You know, if Mr. Conyers does not have the staff and the
    equipment that is necessary, then there simply is a delay in
    processing paperwork in order to present the legislation to the
    floor. While we have got a lot of contentious issues in the
    committee, we have also got a lot of things that we agree on,
    particularly in the area of intellectual property rights
    protection. But we want to make sure that the paperwork is
    there so that there is appropriate legislative history, so that
    when these laws get interpreted in the courts the courts can
    refer to exactly what was going on.
        I will give you a case in point. The Bankruptcy bill will
    be marked up next week. The Senate did not file a committee
    report on the Bankruptcy bill. We have dissenting views with
    those who disagreed with it. Last year the committee reported
    that the House Judiciary report filed on the Bankruptcy bill
    was 450 pages long. Now, without staff you are not going to be
    able to write what amounts to a medium-sized book, which will
    be used by the bankruptcy bar and the bankruptcy judges to
    determine exactly what we mean if the bill becomes law. That is
    the type of professionalism that I think we need.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Absolutely.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Particularly with this committee,
    which----
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Absolutely.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner [continuing]. Which deals with highly
    technical issues.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. I couldn't agree with you more. I
    certainly do know that this committee needs professional staff,
    both at the legal level and all others, technical level, so
    that you can ensure that you have proper staffing. I just want
    to be ensured that when we talk about professional staff that
    both you and the ranking member will be adequately served by
    that.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. I thank you so much. Mr. Chairman,
    thank you.
        The Chairman. Question?
        Ms. Lofgren. Just a quick comment and then maybe a question
    of Mr. Conyers. As a member of the Judiciary Committee now for
    10 years, I can attest to the fact that the workload is very
    large, and it is my very firm belief that there is not an
    excess of staff on the committee. I mean, it is a huge amount
    of the work of the Congress that goes through the Judiciary
    Committee. So I do believe that an increase in the budget for
    this committee is certainly soundly based in the workload.
        But having said that, my understanding of the policy of the
    Congress at this point is that each committee, the minority
    gets one-third of the slots, one-third of the budget and
    control over their one-third of the budget. Then chairman and
    ranking members are free to vary that by agreement, but that is
    basically what the minority is entitled to.
        You have varied that by sharing staff and therefore getting
    less than your full allotment. You are not fully controlling
    your budget, as you are entitled to, but you are also free to
    come up with a different agreement. So you are satisfied with
    the deal that you and the chairman have established?
        Mr. Conyers. I am quite satisfied with it, Ms. Lofgren. I
    just want to emphasize that it is a marked improvement over--
    and Chairman Hyde and I were and are still very good friends,
    but the resources and the allocation of staff and office space,
    I might add, have all improved under the relationship----
        Ms. Lofgren. The space was something that I wanted to
    raise, because the space for the minority is terrible. I am
    wondering if there is any discussion under way between yourself
    and the chairman about the space that is available for the
    minority, not only the staff but also members who have to slip
    out. It is really a constraint.
        Mr. Conyers. We just got some space in Rayburn, I have just
    been advised, and we have a library next to our office space.
        Ms. Lofgren. That is not always available.
        Mr. Conyers. I will tell you the story of Jack Brooks, who
    was assigned by Mr. Rayburn, who was then the Speaker, when
    they were building these buildings how large to make the
    majority and how large to make the minority offices. It was
    done under the assumption that Democrats would never be in the
    minority.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, I think Mr. Brooks got his reward for
    that decision, and certainly that is not behavior that I would
    like to emulate. But I appreciate that additional staff has
    been made available.
        I yield back, unless the chairman would like to say
    something.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Ms. Lofgren, let me say that we have
    been attempting to get more office space. The problem is not
    the allocation between the majority and minority staff, the
    problem is getting the office space from the Speaker or
    whomever assigns the office space, so that we can have enough
    space to have our people adequately do their job. We need more
    office space as well. If this committee can help us get more
    office space as a full committee, the minority will get more
    space to put their people as well.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. Mr. Brady, a question?
        Just one quick comment, and we did this with the last
    chairman. We have got this office plan, we have been pushing
    this. In a lot of cases there is no space. You know, we have
    more staff on the majority side than the minority, but even
    here, because we do have more people, I gave up my office and
    we put up three people in it. I give up another office, and we
    put two or three people in it.
        I have been pushing this and I would hope that the Speaker
    and Leader Pelosi would be able to have a meeting of the
    minds--and I know their staff is working towards it, to have
    some type of decent conditions.
        If you look at the charts from the Architect of the
    Capitol, this building was not designed--these buildings are
    holding 7,000 more people than they were ever designed for. It
    is not good working conditions, it is not healthy, and that is
    the only way we are going to alleviate this. In a lot of places
    Chairs will call ranking members and there is no place to put
    people, period, unless you take them over to Ford and that is
    all cramped.
        I want to say something internally, we dealt with the
    committee, both the minority staff and the majority staff of
    your committees call, they share ideas, what they want to do,
    you know, or equipment, and I know it is also really good on
    detailees for both of you. You followed all the ways to process
    things, and working in turn with both of your staffs has been
    very good for us.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Next we move on to the Budget.
        Thank you. We start with the Chair and ranking member, Mr.
    Nussle.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JIM NUSSLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                           THE STATE OF IOWA

        Mr. Nussle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Colleagues,
    for the opportunity to come before the House Administration
    Committee and submit our budget request. I have submitted
    testimony that I would like part of the record.
        For the 109th Congress the Budget Committee is requesting
    the same allocation for 2005 and 2006 as we had for 2004. We
    are asking for a budget freeze. Since the committee's budget
    increased by inflation between the first and second session of
    the last Congress, our request is technically from one Congress
    to another--about a 1.3 percent increase is what we are asking
    for.
        While I can argue like I am sure many people have and will
    for additional funds as any chairman can, I really can't
    justify a larger increase at the time when our Budget Committee
    last night reported out a pretty tight budget. We are asking
    all Federal Government and agencies to tighten their belts. I
    think we ought to lead by example.
        On an account level our personnel costs in the last
    Congress were less than anticipated because of delays in
    filling several majority staff vacancies. These vacancies were
    recently filled with experienced staff from the Executive
    Branch and other areas. Our personnel costs will accordingly
    increase.
        Nevertheless, the request should provide adequate funding
    for staff and staff salary for the 109th Congress. Our funding
    levels in the categories of detailees and consultants remained
    unchanged in the last two Congresses.
        As with our funding request for the 107th and 108th
    Congresses, this request does not assume any funding for
    detailees from the Executive Branch or outside consultants.
        Additionally, our travel expenses were less than
    anticipated, and consequently our request in that category
    reflects a reduction for funding levels from the 108th
    Congress.
        Mr. Spratt and I were just visiting about that, and he may
    want to mention this as well. But if we do need to do field
    hearings of some sort in the future, we may need to come back
    and talk to you about that. But at this point in time, it is a
    pretty rare occurrence that the Budget Committee goes out into
    the field. Most of the time that happens here.
        Our equipment needs will not be as great in the 109th
    because we have put a disaster recovery system in place and
    have already, as I previously mentioned, completed upgrades to
    our hearing room. We thank you for your assistance in making
    sure that was possible.
        Therefore our focus will be on software upgrades, an annual
    one-third upgrade of computers, printers and other equipment.
        Obviously, in preparing these funding requests, Mr. Spratt
    and the minority have been consulted to determine their
    budgetary needs. My practice, as has been requested by this
    committee and is the practice of our committee, is to provide
    the minority with a third of the total budget for personnel.
    This translates into providing the minority a third of the
    available staff positions as well as the line item for
    personnel compensation, and additionally it is my policy to
    upgrade one-third of the minority's equipment each year as
    well.
        To the best of my knowledge, I have attempted to
    accommodate all requests from the minority within our available
    resources. We also share our space, as much as it is again
    possible.
        I would be happy to answer any questions. But before I do,
    let me just say thank you. This committee has provided us with
    everything we have needed that I am aware of. You have done a
    great job in helping us upgrade our committee. Obviously
    everyone has many requests to make, but we want to thank you
    for the things you have done to help us be on the cutting edge
    of delivering a quality product, and so thank you for that.
        The Chairman. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for his
    comments.
        Mr. Spratt.

      STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

        Mr. Spratt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me echo everything
    that Chairman Nussle just said, and Ranking Member Millender-
    McDonald. We have a tight budget but we can live within it, and
    I think frankly the example we should set as the Budget
    Committee is one of squeezing your resources to the maximum.
    The lion's share of what we get goes to personnel, and as the
    chairman has indicated, a third of the personnel account comes
    to us, and that arrangement has worked very well for us. We
    could use a few extra people, but the fact of the matter is we
    don't have the space for them.
        We were in the luxurious quarters known as the O'Neill
    Building, I think it used to be a Howard Johnson's Motel. We
    could at least say to every staff member, you get your own
    bathroom, you even get your own bathtub. Most of the tubs got
    converted to file space but nevertheless that building was torn
    down and we were orphans looking for space.
        I want to commend the House Administration because you
    found us space in the basement of Cannon. We shoehorned into
    it, but given the available square footage, I think your folks
    did a superb job in trying to accommodate our needs for about
    13 different staff members, but we are maxed out in that space
    down there. We would like to get an additional person. We would
    like to have a few of the people who are sitting in each
    other's laps an opportunity to find some additional space. So
    if anything comes open down there, that would be my one
    request, which doesn't cost direct dollars, that if we could
    have a little bit of additional breathing room it would be a
    boon to us.
        I mentioned to the chairman before we started that as I
    looked down at the budget and saw that there was only $10,500
    for travel, that if the Budget Committee ever did what we did
    in the 1980s and before, and that is go on the road and hold
    regional hearings as to the input from the public and budget
    request and what should be done, we wouldn't have nearly enough
    money to do that. We are not asking for it now but we would ask
    you to leave a placeholder. If we ever decide to do that, we
    might like to come back and ask you.
        Otherwise I am satisfied with the budget, pleased with the
    relationship we have with the majority, and it is working well
    on our committee.
        The Chairman. I want to thank you. Again, internally,
    working with our staff holders, working with both your staffs
    has been no problem, things went smooth.
        I also want to thank Mr. Nussle too. Thank you for your
    comments, but also during the anthrax--House Administration
    operated out of--you squeezed us into your quarters being so
    gracious. That is how we operated when the anthrax occurred
    here and we all had to vacate this building. So we appreciate
    the ability to work with you.
        Only question that I have, you are okay with the two-
    thirds/one-third allocation then?
        Mr. Spratt. Yes.
        The Chairman. Thanks, I want to thank both of you.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you very much. Good morning
    to both of you. And it is good to hear anyone who is dealing
    with money say that they want reductions in terms of your
    travel. I think that is very admirable. And I do understand
    that you still want to hold that spot, though, just in case you
    might go off to more field hearings.
        Space is at a premium around here. My goodness, everyone
    has come to talk about the need for more space, so you are
    certainly with good company in requesting that. The chairman
    has been very open to finding the space as we find it
    ourselves; even House Administration needs more space.
        I just wanted to emphasize, though, to the minority, the
    chairman did say that you have--or do you have control over
    nonpersonnel items like equipment?
        Mr. Spratt. No, we don't. But the chairman said that he
    tries to see to it that we have a third of the equipment
    allowance. I think he has a better printmaker; he makes better
    posters than we do. I think he has got the most sophisticated
    system in the world, but ours works fine.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Okay, fine. So you are satisfied
    with the ratio that you get with reference to his ability to
    reach out to you for any equipment or any other incidentals
    that you would need?
        Mr. Spratt. We have been, yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Very good.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Any other questions? The gentlelady.
        Ms. Lofgren. If I am understanding the testimony correctly,
    the minority--and this may be true of the majority, too, I
    don't know--has not actually been able to utilize its full
    salary allotment because of lack of space to put the people; is
    that correct?
        Mr. Nussle. I mean, part of it is just the slots, if I
    could--part of it is just obviously--and we have this in our
    personal offices, too, that when somebody leaves and you
    replace them, maybe the salary is lower, maybe there is a gap
    at the time.
        I think that is probably more to the case than not having--
    well, I am just speaking for myself. That may not be the case
    with Mr. Spratt, but in our instance, it is just the transition
    that goes on when staff turns over.
        Ms. Lofgren. Is that true on the minority side as well?
        Mr. Spratt. What we used to do was have associate members,
    that is, staff who were employees of Budget Committee members,
    like the Appropriations Committee.
        That creates two problems. The main problem, as the
    chairman just said, is the slot problem, the number of
    available slots. So to free up a few extra slots, we abandoned
    that practice for a prospectus for associate staff, and it has
    worked pretty well and has freed up moneys so we can upgrade
    our staff and upgrade their salaries and also add a couple of
    people.
        So we sort of did it in our allowance and constructively--
    --
        Ms. Lofgren. So you don't share staff at all?
        Mr. Spratt. We don't have the space; I don't know where we
    would put the person. We have got--as you walk in the door to
    our cubbyhole in the basement of Cannon, we have got two
    people, and divided between the two of them they are
    practically in each other's lap.
        Ms. Lofgren. I should go visit that, look at it.
        But you are satisfied, given the constraint that we have--
    and we are moving to get additional space, I understand. I
    thank you, Mr. Chairman; this is an education.
        Mr. Nussle. And I will just say, for the purposes of my
    chairmanship more than anything else, I have tried to adopt the
    attitude of do unto others, because you never know when that is
    going to be your space. And I have really--I have tried to
    follow that practice.
        And my only point in saying it is that I have been down to
    their space, I was just down there the other night; and I know
    what Mr. Spratt is talking about, and it is difficult. I know
    the challenges that they had, and I can't believe this is an
    improvement, but that is what he is saying. I was never over to
    the O'Neill Building to see their space at that point; but it
    is an issue we do have to grapple with, no question.
        The Chairman. Again, the space issue is, you know, for 4
    years we have been harping about it, and I mean, something
    needs to be done because the space issue is terrible, and we
    are just running out of places. I have seen literally some of
    the closets here being converted to small rooms for people
    here. I just think it is a major problem.
        We try--for example, members of the House Administration
    Committee, if they want to use these rooms or our conference
    room, they are welcome to do it. We try to do those kinds of
    things, and I think a lot of people do that, but overall it is
    out of space. And, you know, trying to get a room sometimes
    just for a meeting in this building, and we get--people call us
    every day for it.
        So it is a real problem, and it has got to be addressed. So
    the sooner we start, the better off we are going to be for
    people down the road.
        Or the alternative is, you cut back. And with the Internet
    today, you know, more people than ever before are calling into
    offices and seeking information. It creates more work, and when
    it creates more work, you need more staff; you have to put them
    somewhere.
        I would say, honestly, in the corporate world if spaces
    were like this, there would be outright rebellions in offices.
        Mr. Spratt. Mr. Chairman, could I say thank you, and thank
    Mr. Nussle for one major change you have made in our
    facilities, and that is in the audiovisual equipment we have,
    the screens and the other things we have in the room. It has
    made a huge difference in the manner in which we hold hearings
    and portray the budget situation to the public and to the
    press. I think it has been a plus, a big plus, and something
    you should do in every committee room, even those who don't
    come ask for it, like the Armed Services Committee. I think it
    would be a great thing for us to have in the Armed Services
    Committee.
        The Chairman. Thank you. And I will thank both the
    gentlemen. Thank you.
        The committee will recess and we will take the vote and
    come back to Financial Services. Thank you.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, we have our new Member from
    California being sworn in right after the vote, so we have to
    walk down with him.
        The Chairman. We will go to the recess and then swear in
    the new Member, and then we will come back. Thanks for pointing
    that out.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Chairman. We will go ahead and restart with Chairman
    Oxley. And when Mr. Frank comes, we will catch up with him.
        It is a pleasure to have our distinguished Buckeye
    Chairman, Mr. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services
    Committee. We will begin with the Chair.

        STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Millender-McDonald, and members of the committee.
        I appreciate, as always, coming back before your committee.
    I do have an Ohio State lapel pin on from the Ohio State
    University alumni breakfast this morning. Our good friend and
    colleague, Ralph Regula, was a keynote speaker. We can't be too
    far behind, I think we go by seniority.
        Thanks for having this hearing today. I am before the
    committee as chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.
        Four years ago this committee chose to make an investment
    in the Financial Services Committee, and I believe that the
    Financial Services Committee has given the House and the
    American taxpayers an excellent return on that investment.
        When America needed new tools to fight the flow of
    terrorist money, the Financial Services Committee delivered
    with anti-money-laundering legislation as part of the PATRIOT
    Act. When we discovered Wall Street professionals who put greed
    first and investors last, it was our committee that held the
    first hearings and responded with the first legislation. And
    when the economy suffered because insurers were afraid to write
    terrorism insurance, we responded with legislation to ensure
    that building and development could continue.
        That record of accomplishment continued in the last
    Congress as the committee acted with legislation to protect
    investors of all stripes and to promote trade in financial
    services, protect consumers against fraud through a modern
    credit and payment system, and to deliver on the American dream
    of home ownership.
        We still have a great deal of work to do on restoring the
    confidence of the Nation's investors, modernizing our financial
    institutions, and promoting economic growth; and I am appearing
    before you today to ask that you continue your investment in
    the work of the Financial Services Committee.
        The committee on Financial Services is requesting $16.1
    million in budget authority for the 109th Congress,
    approximately $7.8 million in 2005 and $8.3 million in 2006, 86
    percent of which is for personnel compensation. This request is
    less than we asked for in the last Congress. It is the right
    number that will provide the committee with the resources
    needed to get the job done.
        As I pointed out in my written testimony, the Financial
    Services Committee is near the bottom rung when we compare the
    size and resources of committees. I know the chairman
    appreciates that, having been a distinguished member. For
    instance, the Transportation Committee got a budget of more
    than $2.7 million more than Financial Services; that works out
    to nearly $24,000 more per member, and our work is just as
    important. We need the resources to do the job.
        With this funding request we can continue our investments
    in technology and infrastructure to serve the House and the
    public. We face a particularly tough competition in obtaining
    the experts we need, because we compete with both the
    administration and for the jobs on Wall Street and the private
    sector.
        Also, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Ranking
    Member, Mr. Frank, with whom I have enjoyed a good working
    relationship, and I look forward to continuing that working
    relationship in the future. To that end, the minority will
    control its budget, which will be one-third of the committee
    funds and staff slots allocated to the committee.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to thank
    you. We have done well over the past 4 years with the resources
    before us, and we will continue to do even better.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman; I stand ready to answer any
    questions you may have.
        [The statement of Mr. Oxley follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Well, I will thank the Chair. And Mr. Frank
    has arrived, and we will hear from the ranking member, and then
    if you have any questions.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts.

     STATEMENT OF HON. BARNEY FRANK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                    FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

        Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to express my support, my appreciation to the
    chairman, because the committee has been handled in an entirely
    evenhanded and fair way, and I appreciate that and want to give
    my support there. And this is something to be worked out
    together.
        Mr. Chairman, we have space problems. We have a great,
    hardworking staff that are, unfortunately, scattered, and I
    know people are aware of that and will do what they can. So in
    terms of the committee budget, I am wholly supportive and want
    to say this: I believe we are where we ought to be functioning.
        I would just add one other point, not about--well, it is
    about the committee budget, and it is something that I don't
    know if it can be addressed, but one of the things that
    troubles me is the disparity, frankly, between what we are able
    to do in terms of compensation for members of the committee
    staff and also members of our personal staff.
        And the committee staff on whole, the average, they are not
    overpaid. I think one of the great bargains the American people
    get are the extraordinarily talented people who work very long
    hours under not always wonderful conditions to help make public
    policy. The staff in general, it is a great bargain.
        But there is a disparity. The members of our personal staff
    are underpaid even by that scale, and I would hope we might be
    able to address some way to increase the personnel allowances,
    because I think there is--the disparity in salaries between
    committee staff and personal staff is troubling to me.
        But having said that, I will repeat again, this budget is,
    I think, a very reasonable one, and I am appreciative of the
    consideration we have been given.
        [The statement of Mr. Frank follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both the gentlemen for coming
    here. I serve on the committee, and you have done a lot of
    work.
        I just want to note to you, with your staff, both the
    Democrat and Republican staffs, we have had zero problems when
    they interact with our committee, they have done everything,
    you know, in the right way, the correct way. They call--both
    staffs, both of your staffs.
        I wanted to note something, because you hit on a topic.
    There is a master plan; they are going to complete it in 2005.
    We have been on it for about 4 years, and the architect is
    going to complete it. These buildings--they showed me the
    flowcharts--these buildings were created for 7,000 fewer people
    than we have today; in other words, there are 7,000 or
    something people that should not be in these spaces
    technically.
        I hope both sides of the aisle, the leaders, will work with
    the jurisdictions and the Members to get some space. We are
    just shot with space; I mean, people call every day, and
    working conditions are not good.
        The other thing, too, Members' accounts are probably,
    frankly, authorized at more than we should have because we
    didn't live within what the appropriators gave us.
        There is only so much we can do. If the House budget is
    flatlined, and we now have the world technology, millions more
    people are, luckily, able to see what is going on and see the
    Congress interact, but that also creates the need for staff to
    respond to that. And I just think that, we need to watch,
    because we are going to do a disservice to people if we don't--
    aren't able to pay people, if we can't do the student loan
    program, all the things that I think we need to do to retain
    good people. So I am hoping it is not flatlined.
        Mr. Frank. I will do everything I can. No one has ever
    complained to me that letters were answered too quickly or the
    problem received too much attention or the committee staff
    worked too closely with them on the problem that brought their
    attention.
        The Chairman. Any questions?
        The gentlelady from California, do you have any questions?
        Ms. Lofgren. I am sorry I am late, Mr. Chairman. Our newest
    Member of the California delegation was just sworn in, and
    obviously the Californians were a little bit delayed on the
    floor.
        I don't know what has been asked. It seems to me, from what
    I have read--and I guess this is a question--that this
    committee has done precisely what the expectation is in terms
    of the one-third position, one-third budget, control over the
    one-third for the minority; is that correct?
        Mr. Frank. Yes. I just said the chairman has been
    absolutely fair, and we have had zero procedural issues. And we
    have our control over one-third of the staff plus, frankly, in
    many ways, the staff has worked very closely together. There
    are some issues on which we differ, and we have a structure
    that allows us to differ on those issues in an open process
    without in any way impinging on the relationship.
        So this has been, I think, a model for how committees
    should function, thanks to the chairman.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, that sounds great. The only question I
    would have is, and it is not about disagreement with the two of
    you--and this has come up with several other committees--how is
    your space situation?
        Mr. Frank. Yeah, I mentioned that. It is awful, but it is
    nobody's fault. The problem is that our staff is spread out so
    much; I think I am in four different buildings. There are
    people in Rayburn, Cannon, one of those buildings I never go
    to--which one is that--Ford or something----
        Ms. Lofgren. I like the Cannon Building.
        Mr. Frank. Well, Cannon is okay, but it is those buildings
    back by the highway, I think we have got one in the sewer
    plant.
        Mr. Oxley. By the way, I don't think the staff minds
    necessarily that separation from the minority.
        Ms. Lofgren. That is all my questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you very much.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Ranking Member, do you have any questions?
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Yes, thank you very much.
        Good morning to both of you. And I suppose with this type
    of collegiality that you feel very good, Mr. Ranking Member,
    about your one-third allocation, one-third, and the ability to
    perhaps request your equipment with the chairman. If not,
    just--you do it autonomously?
        Mr. Frank. Yes. And including, by the way--staff travel is
    fairly done because there is a need for staff to travel. I
    mean, all aspects of it are done in an entirely fair manner.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Okay. Well, I suppose that is about
    all I have, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Well, thank you. I thank both of the Members,
    I appreciate it.
        Next, we will move on to Small Business.
        I appreciate the chairman being here. If you would like to
    begin. Thank you.

       STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD A. MANZULLO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Manzullo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority
    Member, members of the Committee on House Administration. I am
    pleased to testify in support of the funding request to cover
    the expenses of legislative initiatives, studies, technical
    upgrades, and oversight investigations of the Committee on
    Small Business for 2005 and 2006 in the amounts of $2,987,331
    and $3,046,727 respectively.
        Before I enter into the substance of my remarks I want to
    make three quick points. First, the Small Business Committee
    received the third-lowest funding increase of all committees in
    the 108th Congress, and we maximized the use of every dollar
    allocated to us in 2003 and 2004.
        Second, the overall funding level in H. Res. 109 is 5.3
    percent less than the committee's proposal from the 108th
    Congress, so we are being very frugal with this request.
        Third, because of the committee's small size, any increase
    we get will not substantially affect the overall committee
    funding resolution. For its relatively small staff and budget,
    the Small Business Committee continues to be very productive in
    accomplishing many positive results for small businesses across
    the country.
        Our committee will continue its role as an advocate for
    small businesses, ensuring that small business interests are
    defined and considered during all stages of the development of
    public policy. Legislatively, the committee will focus on
    reducing the regulatory and paperwork burdens imposed upon
    small business in 2005. Next year, we will work on
    reauthorizing the programs of the SBA.
        In addition, the committee plans to look at other critical
    issues, including but not limited to increasing small business
    participation in Federal procurement. We have had numerous
    hearings on that, and we have been able to, on a bipartisan
    basis, bust many large bundling contracts of the different
    agencies into smaller pieces so that small businesses are not
    smoked by one or two large industries across the country.
        We are working on tax relief for small business and
    improving small business access to capital, including
    revitalization of small business companies participating
    securities program. And finally, the committee will continue to
    focus on revitalizing our Nation's manufacturing base.
        This is the only committee in Congress that has hearings
    concentrating on restoring our manufacturing bases. As the
    chairman knows, coming from Ohio, this country has lost nearly
    3 million manufacturing jobs. And I hold this up proudly, I was
    named Mr. Fix-It in The Manufacturer magazine that put my
    picture on there because they recognize the effort that we have
    been making to try to restore the manufacturing base.
        And one of the things that we want to do is to hire a
    consultant, which would be much cheaper than a full-time
    employee. The person we want to hire just did this report on
    the metal casting industry, which has a defense project in the
    Speaker's district. His and mine have a lot of boundaries that
    have been adversely impacted. So what we have been doing is
    trying to bring to the attention of the Defense Department the
    absolute necessity to use its procurement powers to buy from
    American companies to help restore our base.
        The committee has a long history of bipartisan cooperation,
    a tradition that I fully intend to continue. Since Republicans
    gained the majority, minority has received one-third of the
    committee staff slots and control over one-third of the
    personnel budget, and I intend to maintain these ratios during
    the 109th Congress. By comparison, the 103rd Congress,
    Republicans--then in the minority--received 22 percent in 1993
    and 25 percent in 1994 of the personnel budgets.
        Of the majority staff positions, three are administrative
    and nonpartisan in nature. As in the past, the committee will
    see that the resource needs of the minority are met. In fact,
    with the exception of the server--which we just found out about
    today and we will replace that, obviously, for the minority--
    all request needs have been incorporated into our budget
    funding resolution.
        As with my predecessor, I try to run this committee in a
    fiscally responsible manner, as in the 107th and 108th
    Congresses, and I intend to carry on the tradition to ensure
    that resources are available to support the committee's
    mission.
        While the proposed spending increase percentage in H. Res.
    109 may appear large at first, this committee is still the
    second smallest in terms of personnel and funding out of any
    standing committee in the House of Representatives, yet this
    committee oversees and has direct legislative responsibility
    for not just the $600 million spent on the SBA, which leverages
    $25 billion to small businesses, but we also have jurisdiction
    for the $65.5 billion spent by Federal agencies to purchase
    goods and services from small businesses across the country.
        Few know that the dollar value of our prime legislative
    jurisdiction is greater than some other committees that have a
    larger staff and a higher budget. This request would also bring
    the Small Business Committee finally over the level it was
    funded at in the 103rd Congress. The committee received
    significant cuts in 1995, which was more, in terms of the
    percentage decrease, than any other committee received except
    one.
        The committee has made a conscious effort to upgrade and
    budget for the needs of both the majority and minority. We want
    to ensure that the actions and resources of the committee are
    accessible to the small business community, we will do that by
    enhancing our e-mail technology and our photocopying and our
    computer technology. H. Res. 109 reflects the projected
    workload as described in the oversight plan, that has always
    been sensitive to and supportive of the minority.
        We would respectfully ask for your support in the funding
    resolution that is outlined in H. Res. 109.
        [The statement of Mr. Manzullo follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And we will go to the ranking member from New York.

       STATEMENT OF HON. NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Ney, Ranking Democratic Member Millender-McDonald,
    and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify on the budget request for the Committee on Small
    Business.
        Oftentimes, while the Committee on Small Business may not
    be thought of as glamorous, we have one of the most important
    jobs in Congress, protecting and advocating for this Nation's
    small businesses. Whether it is drafting legislation that takes
    their concern into account or making sure small businesses have
    the tools they need to succeed, the Committee on Small Business
    needs to be properly equipped, adequately staffed and fully
    funded.
        Unfortunately, during my tenure as Ranking Democratic
    Member, this has not been the case. Our allocation is the
    smallest of any committee, and when we only receive minor
    funding increases, it has a drastic effect. Nevertheless, the
    committee has risen to meet the challenges, and I would like to
    congratulate the members and staff for working against the
    insurmountable odds.
        This most recent budget is 5.3 percent less than the
    submission for the 108th Congress, which, as you will recall
    during the last congressional hearing, I fully supported. The
    intent of that proposal was to close the gap on the historic
    funding shortfalls. Unfortunately, last Congress we received
    well below the average allocation provided to all the
    committees during the 108th Congress.
        I urge the Committee on House Administration to consider
    funding us more at the level we requested last Congress; and I
    would like to comment on specific areas I feel this committee
    should recognize, staff salaries and expenses.
        While Chairman Manzullo is asking for 16.7 percent more
    than the previous allocation, it is simply not enough, as we
    are still trying to recover from the 104th, 106th and 108th
    Congress shortfalls.
        The chairman's current budget includes a request for an
    additional slot, which I will strongly encourage the Committee
    on House Administration to consider. After all, the Small
    Business Committee has the smallest budget and lowest number of
    staff. Adding just one more slot would greatly increase
    productivity. The minority would use this slot for the full-
    time professional staffer to handle SBA's entrepreneurial
    development programs. Due to current staff limitations, these
    duties are now being covered by three individuals.
        Equipment: With such a small staff, having the technology
    that allows us to get the work done is imperative. The
    chairman's budget states that 10 computers will be replaced in
    2005, with another 10 the following year. The minority's
    server, which dates back to the year 2000, also needs to be
    replaced. According to our vendor and HIR, our server currently
    runs on Windows NT4, which is an operating system that both
    Microsoft and HIR are soon to discontinue supporting if they
    haven't already.
        At the moment, we have used about two-thirds of the storage
    space on this server, and our vendor has indicated that the
    remaining space will not take us through another Congress.
    Replacing the computers and server as soon as possible
    obviously is our priority.
        While I recognize that these issues--and this is regarding
    the committee facilities--do not fall under House
    Administration, since there is no specific entity or venue
    where it can be heard, I feel they should be raised here.
    Currently, the Small Business Committee has two hearing room
    facilities, one located at 2360 Rayburn and the other at 311
    Cannon. Room 2360 Rayburn has historically been our main
    hearing room, and it is in dire need of renovations. The room
    does not have enough seats for our members, the sound system
    needs to be upgraded, and it is in worn condition.
        While 311 Cannon did undergo historic restoration last
    Congress, it fell short in several areas. It still doesn't have
    adequate seating for committee members, as is the case with the
    Rayburn hearing room; we are at least 10 seats short. At a
    recent hearing that was well attended, members on my side of
    the aisle simply saw the space constraints and left.
        The sound system needs to be upgraded, as with 2360
    Rayburn. When we have hearings Members cannot hear witnesses
    and vice versa. Room 311 Cannon has no office space or
    facilities, and no room for staff. We need at least one
    functioning hearing room that allows all members to attend and
    participate.
        Another critical need is proper and adequate office space.
    While I know we are under real space constraints, the minority
    has to work with less than an attractive work area, 407 square
    feet, which is inefficient and creates a difficult work
    environment.
        When it comes to staffing needs and we must choose between
    experienced staff and someone who is bright and has potential,
    we select the candidate that fits within our salary's
    constraint. This requires training from myself and senior
    staff. While the committee has a second office at 559 Ford,
    setting up in the Ford Building does not meet training demands,
    it limits staff growth, and creates problems.
        In the past, there have been conversations with the
    chairman's office about this issue, but no solution has been
    found. It would be my hope that this committee, along with
    other entities, will help.
        The bottom line is, we do not need two hearing rooms;
    realistically, we need one functioning hearing room and office
    space to make conditions workable.
        In closing, Chairman Ney and Ranking Member Millender-
    McDonald, I thank you again for this opportunity. I know that
    when budget submissions are made, there is the expectation to
    always ask for more, but Chairman Manzullo's budget request is
    austere. If you choose to fund the committee without Chairman
    Manzullo's current request, I will then respectfully request an
    effort to maximize these limited resources, giving the minority
    a full third of the entire budget request. If House
    Administration fails to fund the Small Business Committee at an
    adequate level, we will continue to fall behind, and that will
    be a disservice to our members, staff and this Nation's small
    businesses.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Velazquez follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I want to thank both of the Members for
    testifying today. And I think the committee has also done an
    important--and I know sometimes people might get mad at the
    chairman here or there because he will publicly say some
    things, which I think are appropriate to say, on manufacturing.
    Sometimes people don't like to hear that, but I think you have
    done the right thing by mentioning our manufacturing base.
        We have lost 269,000 jobs in Ohio on the manufacturing
    level. So I commend you for speaking out and continuing to
    speak on that issue because it has got to be constantly put out
    there publicly.
        So I appreciate the work that you have done, both of the
    Members.
        On the space--we have been talking about this all day long
    with everybody, and there is a building commission report in
    March of this year that will come out, and eventually Congress
    has just got to bite the bullet and make some decent working
    situations.
        We upgraded Cannon because you have two hearing rooms. I
    don't expect that a reconfiguration of space will happen in
    time to have one, but what we should pursue is to upgrade the
    other hearing room. Our CAO--I know the appropriators' budget
    last year was so tight he was talking about completely zeroing
    out any upgrades--it is not his fault, he had to do something--
    so we are hoping this year to use a little flexibility, because
    we have had a goal for quite a few years to get all these rooms
    brought up to speed, and we need to complete that.
        It has been 10 years of trying to do that, and I think it
    needs to be completed so every room is upgraded
    technologically; that is how people know what you are doing,
    you communicate with them. So we hope we can at least get that
    other room done. I assume--Cannon has been upgraded.
        Ms. Velazquez. But it is not big enough to have seats for
    every member.
        The Chairman. Right.
        Questions.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
        Mr. Chairman, in speaking about, as you have just spoken,
    about the building commission report, I am hearing that the
    ranking member part of your staff is at the Ford Building; am I
    correct on that?
        Ms. Velazquez. Right.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Is there any way, Mr. Chairman, we
    can revisit the ranking member staff in the Ford Building? I
    think you said earlier this morning that that is really not
    adequate for them to be so far away from the beaten path of
    this committee.
        The Small Business Committee, while you have been
    shortchanged, as you perceive and has been outlined so often in
    this budget, you are really the driving force on creating more
    jobs in this country than any other committee. Small businesses
    are the creation of jobs, and we can ill afford to continue to
    shortchange you.
        But in doing so, Mr. Chairman, my question is, in listening
    to the ranking member, how much input does she have on the
    budget process before you submit it to this committee?
        Mr. Manzullo. We incorporated all of the requests. The only
    thing that we left out, I believe, was the last-minute request
    for a $1,700 server by the minority. Of course, we will honor
    that. Whatever cost the server is, I guess it is more than
    $1,700.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. And that will be taken care of?
        Mr. Manzullo. Yes.
        Ms. Velazquez. Well, Ranking Member, if I may, I just would
    like to make----
        Mr. Manzullo. Assuming we get our budget approved at the
    level that we need.
        Ms. Velazquez. Well, I am happy to hear that you are adding
    the server as part of my request, but I would just like to make
    sure that people understand that having input into a budget
    process requires having meaningful conversation between the
    chairman and the minority and both staffs.
        It just is really sad that I didn't have a copy of the
    budget submission before it was submitted, once again; and we
    have to go through House Administration to obtain a copy of the
    budget submission. So I do not consider that to have meaningful
    input into the budget submission process.
        And I am happy to hear that you offered to replace the
    server, and I think that the chairman has just given an
    excellent example of how helpful consultations could be.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. You know, Mr. Chairman, yesterday I
    had a meeting with the minority leader before we convened this
    hearing today, and this Chair has been extremely sensitive to
    the fact that the two-third/one-third ratio is adequately done
    between the two of you, and that the ranking member gets the
    ability and the freedom to have input in the budget
    deliberations between you two before we get your submission. I
    am hearing, as Ms. Velazquez has said, she does not have that.
        I hear you loud and clear, Mr. Chairman, that you need the
    17.8 percent increase that you have asked us for. But in the
    event, given the budget constraints, you do not get that, will
    you hold the minority harmless and maintain, still, the two-
    thirds/one-third ratio that we are suggesting should be done?
        Mr. Manzullo. Yes. We have done that since the beginning.
    It gets lowered across the board on it if we don't get what we
    are asking.
        I like the fact that Ms. Velazquez says that the budget I
    requested is austere, which it is; we think it is bare bones.
    And Ms. Velazquez is right, with this committee, we have taken
    on some monstrous lifts because we have become known as the
    committee of last resort. When little guys out there are
    getting beat up all over the place, they come to us because
    nobody else will talk to them because their issues are so
    minor.
        We just got into something, Mr. Chair, if I may just take a
    minute. I have not even had a chance to discuss this with Ms.
    Velazquez because it just happened yesterday. The head of the
    U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce came in to see us, Terry
    Walker. I don't know if you know her, she is a former music
    conductor who runs a five-person shop here in Washington. It is
    a relatively new organization and I have linked them up with a
    lady from the Afghanistan embassy. And I said, Let's start a
    program? I haven't talked to Nydia, but that is how new it is--
    that the U.S. House of Representatives Small Business Committee
    would be working with small businesswomen in Iraq and
    Afghanistan on a cooperative basis to teach them how to be
    entrepreneurs, to offer them whatever resources we have.
        We believe that the key to freedom in those countries is
    empowering women to go into small businesses, because that
    breaks the back of the dictatorships by giving women the right
    to vote; they are no longer second-class citizens in those
    countries.
        This is a really exciting project, and it is unique, but it
    is the type of thing that we do in the Small Business
    Committee. We are there to help people all over the place. And
    this would be our role, at least internationally. It is not
    going to require an additional staffperson. It will still take
    some of our attention, and that is one of the reasons I believe
    that Ms. Velazquez has even a broader vision of where she wants
    to take this committee, if we would have more money.
        Ms. Velazquez. Sure. And I just would like for the
    committee not to have any confusion regarding my participation
    in terms of the budget. We get one-third of the salary, but we
    do not get one-third of everything else.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. I am sorry, you don't get one-third
    of what?
        Ms. Velazquez. Of anything else, regarding equipment or any
    of the other expenses.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. I am very fortunate to serve on
    Small Business as a subcommittee ranking member, and I do know
    that oftentimes when I do ask for my own consultant to this
    subcommittee, that I don't have one; and that is a concern of
    mine, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, that the slots are not
    allocated, it seems, commensurate with subcommittee ranking
    members.
        So perhaps they were not supposed to be that way; and if
    you can share that with me, Mr. Chairman, or the ranking
    member, because oftentimes I do have to use the consultant to
    the full committee when I have had traveling.
        Mr. Manzullo. We have never hired a consultant before. The
    person that I want to hire obviously would be cheaper than a
    full-time employee, but her expertise is in the economics of
    manufacturing, and it goes right to the core.
        I know you have lost a tremendous number of manufacturing
    jobs in your district.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Tremendous.
        Mr. Manzullo. So has Ms. Velazquez. And it is a very
    esoteric area of manufacturing economics, and so that is our
    goal, to pull her in to be able to have the ammunition to give
    the Pentagon, to demonstrate to the Pentagon that they have to
    keep those jobs in the United States to maintain our defense.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Well, good for you.
        And my last question is, hiring that consultant, would that
    be a shared slot, or how would that go?
        Mr. Manzullo. Well, it wouldn't be a slot; it is not
    considered a slot.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. So you will just be hiring her for
    her expertise?
        Mr. Manzullo. That is correct.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Any additional questions?
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. No.
        The Chairman. Yes, Mr. Brady.
        Mr. Brady. Yes. If you get your requests, there will be two
    additional slots for the committee?
        Mr. Manzullo. That is correct.
        Mr. Brady. And will the minority get one slot?
        Mr. Manzullo. It will be one each.
        Mr. Brady. And I heard somewhere that the minority is
    having a problem making payroll with the slots that you have;
    is that true?
        Ms. Velazquez. No. Well, we are under a lot of constraints.
    We have to share responsibilities, with my personal office
    included.
        Mr. Brady. Well, my problem is being in the House of the
    United States Congress and hiring people and having a problem
    paying them. I think we need to fix that in any way we can. I
    hope you fix that.
        And the other thing is travel. Is travel equally one-third,
    the travel time that you----
        Ms. Velazquez. No, only salaries.
        Mr. Manzullo. Whatever equipment requests and travel
    requests, we honor; it has never been a problem.
        Mr. Brady. Okay. Thank you.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, just one question.
        Back to--Mr. Chairman, you are saying that you do honor the
    travel requests. How often? Because now with the whole notion
    of this economic downturn in terms of the country, a lot of the
    small businesses are requesting that we have field hearings so
    that they can have input as to their inability to get contracts
    from some of the agencies here in Washington.
        They do not have the money to come to us. How are we going
    to ensure that we have more travel and that both you and the
    ranking member will have that ability to travel to areas where
    small businesses want to have input?
        Mr. Manzullo. Well, as the gentlelady knows, Rep. Pat
    Toomey in the last Congress, went to your congressional
    district for a field hearing. And it is not the money, it is
    the time constraints that make it difficult to have even more
    field hearings.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Because there are so many ports now
    that are requesting to engage in small business contracts, and
    so it is important that we travel to these port areas so that
    we can then ensure that that input from those small businesses
    are given to us so that we can come back and deal with the
    agencies that should and could offer contracts to small
    businesses.
        Mr. Manzullo. Well, I agree with you. We sent two of our
    staffers to Guam, I just could not get out there. Congresswoman
    Bordallo is really getting beat up by the Navy, and I hope they
    are listening to this broadcast. Instead of going to American
    ship repair people in Guam, they are going to people in South
    Korea and Japan.
        That is the type of stuff that we get involved in, Mr.
    Chairman, and it is over and over and over and over again. The
    Department of Defense goes out of its way to deny jobs and
    procurement opportunities to Americans, and that is what is
    crushing our defense industrial base. We just got into a big
    fight with the Navy over--in fact, it still goes on--with the
    printed circuit board industry, sending jobs to China for
    sensitive technologies; and we had to raise all kinds of hell
    with them.
        And then, finally, the Navy said, Well, I think we ought to
    consider bringing that stuff back to America. And every single
    day in our office we have these little guys coming in that are
    actually getting creamed in our manufacturing base because
    somebody at the Department of Defense uses that old canard
    ``best value'' and decides that they are going to ship
    something out to another port, another job overseas, without
    even checking to see its impact on the defense industrial base.
        And we have spent so much time on that, and we have had
    some good success on that, and that is why we need even more
    money, as Ms. Velazquez says, to continue the fight on it.
        Ms. Velazquez. The money is important, if I may, but I
    think that in order for the minority to fulfill our
    responsibility that we should be given control not only of one-
    third of the salary, but every other expense, that we do not
    have to go to the majority to ask for authorization to go
    someplace to do a field hearing, and then 100,000 questions
    will be asked.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, in all due respect,
    it seems that that is the practice of all these committees,
    that the ranking member has to go to the chairman for that
    request; but I would like to think that the chairman would be
    obliging in honoring the request of the ranking member in
    asking for the traveling or whatever.
        It seems like that is the practice of all committees, that
    they do have to engage in this request through the chairman,
    but the chairman should then, I would like to think, honor
    those requests.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady from California.
        Ms. Lofgren. As I say, this is my first real day on the
    committee, and so I guess I just need to express some concern
    about what I am hearing here.
        It is my understanding, based on our discussions and
    hearings with the other committees this morning, that the
    minority is--under our policies, is basically entitled to a
    third of the budget, a third of the salary slots and control
    over their third. Except as to how they might vary, the
    chairman and ranking member could agree to do something
    differently if it works better for them.
        Listening to Congresswoman Velazquez, it sounds like, if
    the budget was submitted before she even saw it, obviously they
    haven't agreed to something. And we do this collegially, as we
    should.
        But if the ranking member would prefer to have the
    arrangement that Mr. Oxley and Mr. Frank have, I think that the
    ranking member has a right to do that. And I guess the question
    is, is that the case; and if so, I think we need to have some
    different understanding here, because otherwise we will not--
    you know, we will be holding hands on the overall budget
    process.
        Ms. Velazquez, is it----
        Ms. Velazquez. I wish we could have the same type of
    relationship that the Financial Services Committee operates
    under.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, I guess the question, then, for the
    chairman is, if you haven't agreed to vary from that policy,
    then I think you are obligated to provide a third of the budget
    and a third of the slots and control over that third to the
    minority.
        Mr. Manzullo. Ninety-three percent of the budget is
    salaries, 7 percent is equipment and travel and everything
    else. Ultimately, I am responsible if we tilt on equipment and
    travel, and that is why somebody has to have authority over
    that.
        We asked them in the budget process. We are given the list
    of equipment and whatever the minority wanted on that, and as I
    said, we got all of that, with the exception of the server that
    we found out about this morning, on it. So we believe that they
    had sufficient input on it.
        And what are you going to do when 93 percent is salaried--
    --
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, if I can, I think there is a
    communication problem here, because the chairman thinks there
    was consultation and the ranking member thinks there wasn't;
    and obviously there's a communication issue here. I think
    that--you know, I don't know what the process is, but I would
    have a concern about supporting a final budget unless this can
    get straightened out between them.
        Ms. Velazquez. If I may, having e-mails back and forth from
    staff to staff, that doesn't represent having meaningful
    participation and consultation in the budget process.
        And he talks about 93 percent represents salary, well, we
    are almost there. The other 7 percent could represent an
    obstacle for me to fulfill my obligation and my responsibility
    as the ranking on this committee.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, my suggestion, I mean, as a newcomer
    here--I mean, we are going to meet again next week; maybe we
    could ask these two individuals to find time to sort through
    this, and then we could be reassured next week.
        Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Chairman, I think we have done everything
    not only that the law requires us to do, but a matter of what
    we have to do on it. You are going to have the minority--you
    are going to have the majority; that is just the way it is.
        But we have been good stewards of the money that has been
    given to us. We have never denied the minority a travel request
    or an equipment request. Somebody has got to be in charge of
    that last 7 percent, so the budget doesn't tilt, and the
    chairman----
        Ms. Velazquez. Can I ask a question here, Mr. Chairman? Is
    it not true that other committees are run where one-third is
    given full control to the minority?
        The Chairman. It depends. There is no rule or obligation--
    if we use the words that minority is entitled to, there is no
    rule, obligation of the one-third.
        A goal we have had--each committee, does things
    differently----
        Ms. Velazquez. Yeah. But do we have committees that run
    that way, where the majority trusts the minority to be able to
    control one-third of the budget?
        The Chairman. The one bottom line, which Chairman Manzullo
    has been making--and I will answer your question, but at the
    end of the day, the chair of the committee is responsible for
    the sign-offs, because--I will give you an example.
        If all of a sudden you just say, ``Here, here is the money
    and here is the travel money, and if people would have hearings
    all over the place'' and there was criticism of, ``Why did you
    have this hearing out here,'' the Chair is still obligated--
    responsible, for that travel.
        So that is why even we here will sign off on the travel,
    and have to, because at the end of the day I am responsible for
    it.
        Now, committees are different, each committee, We give one-
    third of the budget; and that is what we do here. Each
    committee is different. So sometimes when it says one-third,
    the ranking members will get the one-third, but it is done in
    different ways. Some of the Chairs feel that they need to sign
    off on things because ultimately they are legally liable for
    it.
        Mr. Brady.
        Mr. Brady. Not that you would ever need help answering a
    question, but maybe to give a little more insight, it doesn't
    always happen one-third. But when it doesn't happen one-third,
    it is at the request of the ranking member and the chairman; it
    is their agreement. When they come in front of us and say, We
    are okay with not getting the one-third, they are both saying
    it. We are not hearing that here.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, that is not what we are hearing here. I
    think there is a problem here, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Manzullo. You know, somebody has to be in charge of
    this committee; you have got to have a chairman. One person
    ultimately has to make the final decision on this. I have done
    the best I could on this.
        Ms. Velazquez wants one-third of the 7 percent. I am not
    willing to give that to her because ultimately what happens in
    the case where they need more equipment than we do, that might
    exceed the one-third.
        In the last 2 years, the minority overran by $1,000 or so
    their budget on personnel. And we had banked some money to be
    able to pick that up.
        This is just the way the committees are run.
        The Chairman. Could I interject something here? In defense
    of both of you, from your different perspectives, 4 years ago I
    sat personally with both of you in the same room, and
    separately with both of you, and we talked about a lot of
    issues when we were coming to the one-third.
        I think a lot of the problem that you might have is
    underfunding in the sense of, if there was a little bit more
    money, it would make it much easier to upgrade some of the
    equipment. I think that is a problem.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, while I do agree with
    you on that, it has been a gentlemen's agreement or a gentleman
    and lady's agreement, given our minority leader, that it would
    be a one-third, one-third and control with reference to the
    nonprofessional and nonstaffing issues.
        We would like to think that this is going to happen, and
    the one thing that I would request of you, Mr. Chairman, is
    that there is meaningful input on this budget by the ranking
    member and that e-mails--it was a distinction yesterday, when
    speaking with the Leader of the House, that she wants Member-
    to-Member conversations on the budget process and not through
    e-mails from staff to staff, because we just sometimes don't
    get it right when it goes from staff to staff.
        Mr. Manzullo. If that had not been acceptable to the
    ranking minority members, you could have called me or just
    stopped by my office. The door is always open.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. We are going to stop this, but I
    would like to say again, Mr. Chairman, when we look at this,
    perhaps we can look at the increase, whatever we can, to this
    budget. Because they have been----
        Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald [continuing]. Shortchanged over the
    Congresses, and one cannot operate when you have such a minute
    budget to begin with.
        Mr. Manzullo. We have fabulous staff. These are just great
    people. Ms. Velazquez has some of the most talented people on
    her staff, and I do on mine.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. But they won't stay with you if you
    cannot give them the salary that is commensurate with that.
        Mr. Manzullo. We lose them. We lose them. That is correct.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, just a final comment. I just
    think that, speaking for myself, that what we want to do is go
    to the floor with our proposal and have bipartisan support
    and--because that is important. This committee is like being in
    the local government, which I did for so long, you know, where
    there is no really Republican or Democratic pothole. I mean,
    you go together to get it done.
        Key to having that bipartisanship is either having the
    minority rule of thumb, where you get one-third, one-third and
    control, or agreement to do something else. We have had, until
    this committee, either an out-front agreement by both the
    chairman and the ranking member that they had agreed to do
    something else or, in the case of Financial Services, they went
    to the default of one-third salary, one-third budget and
    control of the one-third.
        So I think, if we want to have a kind of a bipartisan
    support, we are going to need that in each and every committee.
    I am hopeful that by the time we finish these hearings we be
    assured that either the default position or the agreement has
    been reached, because otherwise I don't think we will have
    bipartisan support.
        I thank the chairman for recognizing that.
        Mr. Manzullo. We actually get along a lot better than what
    appears today.
        Ms. Velazquez. Yes, we do.
        The Chairman. I have talked with both of you on several
    occasions. We appreciate that. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Image is everything.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Now we will go to the patiently waiting Chair and ranking
    member of Rules.
        I want to welcome our distinguished chairman of Rules, Mr.
    Dreier, and Congresswoman Slaughter, ranking member, who also
    gets a lot of credit on genetic testing, on the side issue for
    the Genetic Testing Ban bill. I will give you credit for
    working on that.
        Mr. Dreier.

     STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID DREIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Dreier. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Since you are talking about a side issue, let me
    congratulate this committee with whom we worked closely, Ms.
    Millender-McDonald and Mr. Brady and Mrs. Miller, and getting
    322 votes on our continuity issue on the House floor this past
    week. It was a great bipartisan victory and again underscoring
    what we are doing here.
        Let me say again it is a great honor for me to be here with
    the very distinguished--I will just say thanks again for your
    work on the continuity thing, so I can have that for the record
    if it didn't get in.
        It is a great honor to be able to work so closely with my
    very good friend and colleague, the distinguished ranking
    member, Ms. Slaughter, on a wide range of issues; and it is
    clear that we on occasion have disagreements as we emerge from
    the Rules Committee. But we do seek to find areas of agreement;
    and, frankly, the measure that is being considered on the floor
    of the House right now is a rule which is just passing and has
    enjoyed strong bipartisan support, as we have taken the
    concerns of most the minority and the majority into
    consideration.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to explain what
    the Rules Committee does. It is probably a question that is
    asked of you. It is asked of me regularly. People ask what the
    Rules Committee is.
        It is the Speaker's committee, and it is the mechanism by
    which the leadership controls the floor and moves our agenda.
    The committee is at once the House's traffic cop, its triage
    unit and its ultimate first responder. We have organized the
    routine business of legislating and are there when needed to
    respond to crises, no matter from where they originate.
        In addition, the committee's responsibility is to provide
    for consideration of legislation. The committee is also
    responsible for a myriad of institutional matters, from
    ensuring the ability of the House to operate during a disaster,
    to monitoring the effectiveness of budget control mechanisms in
    the House Rules, to drafting the opening day rules package.
        Among the biggest changes to the committee rules in the
    109th Congress was the establishment--and I am sure if you
    haven't heard from them you will--of a new standing Committee
    on Homeland Security, which was an extraordinarily challenging
    and difficult task that we undertook, dealing with the
    jurisdiction of 10 different committees.
        Mr. Chairman, virtually every major piece of legislation
    comes to us in the Rules Committee and goes to the floor with
    the special rule. In the 106th Congress, the committee reported
    nearly 270 measures; and in the 107th and 108th Congresses
    about 200 measures were reported from the Rules Committee to
    the full House.
        The Committee on Rules has not sought major increases over
    the past 8 years, from the 105th through the 108th Congresses.
    In fact, the total average rate of increase for all committees
    was approximately 32 percent. During that same period of time,
    over that 8-year period, the Rules Committee has seen our
    budget grow by only 22 percent, nearly a third less than the
    average for the other committees.
        The committee now finds itself in a situation where we need
    to make a number of investments in both our staff and our
    resources to be able to continue to fulfill that very, very
    broad, extraordinary mission, which I just outlined. For the
    first time since the 104th Congress, the committee has
    requested that the Speaker lift our staff ceiling to 39 staff
    members from the current 36, providing the minority with an
    additional slot along with the majority's two additional staff
    members. The committee's proposed budget includes a 3.7 percent
    increase in the salary category in both 2005 and 2006 to fund
    these new positions and provide for cost-of-living merit
    increases to existing staff.
        The committee is also requesting a sizeable increase in
    funding for equipment in 2005 to facilitate our transition to a
    new computer equipment vendor. This will allow us to fund
    maintenance costs as part of the purchase price.
        Further, after this initial upgrade, we are planning to
    shift our equipment acquisition model to a 3-year cycle, making
    these kinds of purchases more routine and easier to budget.
        Additionally, the committee is seeking approximately
    $100,000 in both 2005 and 2006 to provide for the development
    of a software application to allow the committee to track
    amendments in a more orderly fashion than we do currently.
        This project will leverage the House's investment in
    Microsoft technologies, allowing us to provide customized
    information for different House offices. It is my hope that
    this project will eventually permit Members to file amendments
    electronically, speeding the access and availability of
    amendments for everyone.
        Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have always tried to be fair
    with my friends and Ms. Slaughter as the new ranking member. I
    worked in the past, since I have been chairman, with our good
    friend, the late Joe Moakley, and of course over the past
    several years with Mr. Frost, and I am working very closely now
    with Ms. Slaughter.
        Our budget continues the tradition of giving the minority a
    third of the total staff slots allocated along with control
    over a third of the salary funds. For other categories, we have
    always provided the minority whatever equipment they need to
    fulfill their role.
        We anticipate upgrading the minority's equipment, along
    with the majorities, and we are working on that. We have
    allocated some additional funding to provide any extra
    technical support that the minority may need, since they don't
    have the staff dedicated for the purpose of focusing on the
    equipment used, since we take on that responsibility and the
    majority, obviously, in consultation with the minority.
        Again, I have always been willing to work and will continue
    to work strongly with and closely with members of the minority.
    Mrs. Slaughter has been a great partner to work with on these
    issues just in the last couple of months in her new position
    and as a member of the committee over the past several years. I
    believe that she was a cosponsor of the resolution that we had.
        Our measure on this budget passed unanimously from the
    committee, and I would like to encourage your committee to
    adopt it.
        I want to express my appreciation in behalf of our great
    new staff director, Hugh Halpern, whom you have worked closely
    with, Mr. Chairman, on a wide range of issues and your staff,
    Mr. Vinovich and others. We appreciate the very close working
    relationship we have had with the House Administration
    Committee.
        The Chairman. Thank you. We have always enjoyed great--I
    have known you from Financial Services, and we call him our
    legal eagle over there. We have always enjoyed a good working
    relationship with the majority and minority staff on that
    committee. There just haven't been problems. Everything has
    always been done correctly and everything filed correctly over
    the years.
        I thank the chairman and ranking member.
        [The statement of Mr. Dreier follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     STATEMENT OF HON. LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER, A REPRESENTATIVE
                 IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Ms. Slaughter. Thank you, Mr. Ney. Good morning to you and
    Ms. Millender-McDonald and Mr. Brady.
        It is a pleasure to be here this morning with my friend
    David Dreier to present to you our budget request for the
    Committee on rules. David has made a very thorough
    presentation, with which I agree. I only want to touch on a few
    items.
        Mr. Chairman, the practice of committing a third of the
    salary dollars to the minority when Democrats were in control
    has held us in good standing since 1994. David has continued
    the practice of a nonpartisan administration of the committee
    and has provided us with a third of the committee staff slots
    and a third of the dollars necessary to fund those slots.
        This amount stated in our request is another modest
    increase, primarily to increase salary issues. As you know, the
    great majority of our budget--as I am sure everybody's does--
    goes to salaries. I think I have one of the most dedicated
    staffs in the House. They have specialized knowledge that they
    have built over the years, and we want to go do our best to
    keep them working here in the House. So this budget proposal
    makes a step in the right direction.
        Historically, the Rules Committee has not asked for the
    substantial increases in funding that other committees have and
    as a result may find itself playing catch-up in the area of
    salaries.
        While I understand the physical restraints in play this
    year, I hope the committee will be generous so that the Rules
    Committee can make up some of that lost ground in regard to
    staff salary levels. Under the budget request, I will be able
    to make a modest cost-of-living adjustment to reward my staff
    for the great job that they do.
        Mr. Chairman, with regard to the increase in staff slots,
    while I support the request for an increase and believe it is
    justified, I must point out that the funding request, which
    will amount to approximately $32,000 for the minority, will not
    provide the dollars to pay a salary for an additional minority
    slot. I hope that you and the committee will take that into
    consideration when you consider the funding level provided to
    the Rules Committee.
        I would also like to speak in support of the technology and
    equipment requests. Many times, the Rules Committee finds
    itself in the rather unique position of being the first
    committee to receive copies of bills and conference reports.
    The ability to quickly disseminate this material to the
    membership of the House has become an important duty of our
    Committee and needs the technical resources to make that
    happen. David has assured me that all the minority's technology
    requests, including computers, will be met, and I thank him for
    that.
        Let me conclude by reiterating that we on the Democrat side
    of the Rules Committee support the request the Chairman and I
    present to you this morning.
        On that note, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to answer any
    questions you might have.
        The Chairman. I thank you very much.
        [The statement of Ms. Slaughter follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I really don't have any questions. You have
    had a budget over the years that has been very conservative and
    austere. You know, times change; electronically, things need up
    upgraded. You have always been very responsible in the
    submissions of the budget, so I really don't have any
    questions.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Yes. I will simply say that it is
    great to hear that you two have a good working relationship.
    The chairman has indicated by his remarks that it is a one-
    third, one-third, one-third, and that all is working well.
        It is important that you do upgrade the equipment, because
    people are looking at us across this Nation. One committee
    Chair had even asked that we provide them with the types of
    screens that we have here so that you will be able to--persons
    will be able to see you just outside of your hearing room.
        Mr. Dreier. Ms. Millender-McDonald, if I could respond to
    that quickly to say that Mrs. Slaughter has specifically
    requested that we not have these screens in the Rules
    Committee. So I just want you to know for the record that we
    have not----
        Ms. Slaughter. We don't have room in there for all of this
    equipment.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Well, I do not want to open
    Pandora's box on anything.
        Ms. Slaughter. You are going to make me say I really don't
    want to see myself. I really prefer to remember myself as I
    was.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mrs. Slaughter, you mentioned,
    though, that, even given the increase in the budget that the
    chairman has outlined here, that only yields you $32,000 for a
    staff position. Is that what you are saying?
        Ms. Slaughter. That is right.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Is it for an increase in an already
    current staff or would this be additional?
        Ms. Slaughter. No, these would be additional.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. So you would not really yield a
    very experienced professional of staff.
        Ms. Slaughter. I think I will not be able to hire anybody
    for that small amount.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Yet the budget that, Mr. Chairman,
    you are providing for us would not have any type of increase in
    that range of salary?
        Mr. Dreier. We do have to add an additional level to it.
    You are certainly welcome.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. That is not what I am aspiring to
    do. I just wanted to know within the constraints of what you
    have given us.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Slaughter. I just do want to say that the upgrade in
    the technology is critical. We are called upon, as you point
    out, to disseminate bills and the information quickly. We
    really need to upgrade pretty quickly. How long has it been?
        Mr. Dreier. A while.
        Ms. Slaughter. It has been several years, I think, since we
    had new computers.
        The Chairman. Other questions?
        I want to thank both of you for your testimony today.
        Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much. I hope we helped put you
    back on schedule.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        We move on. Transportation is scheduled. Obviously, they
    are on the floor. We would rather have them there getting that
    bill through than here.
        Agriculture will be next. We have the chairman, Mr.
    Goodlatte, and the ranking member, Mr. Peterson.
        Welcome, and we will start with the chairman.
        Mr. Goodlatte.

     STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, Ms. Millender-McDonald and members of the
    committee, it is a pleasure to be here today in support of the
    Agriculture Committee's 109th budget request with my good
    friend and ranking member Collin Peterson. Collin brings a
    great deal of energy and enthusiasm to his new position, and I
    look forward to working with him in continuing the
    Agriculture's Committee long-standing tradition of
    bipartisanship.
        Our committee's primary focus in the 109th Congress will be
    laying the foundation for the 2007 Omnibus Farm Bill. This
    legislation, known simply as the Farm Bill, directs U.S.
    agricultural policies for a 7-year period.
        It is a monumental task. It requires an extensive field
    hearing schedule. These field hearings provide all members of
    the committee the opportunity to explore the efficacy of
    current agriculture policies in all regions of the country. We
    are looking for what works, what does not and where efforts are
    being duplicated. The last two Farm Bills have managed to move
    the government from in front of the tractor to its side, to
    more of a partnership.
        The Omnibus Farm Bill encompasses most of the areas under
    the committee's jurisdiction, a wide range of issues that
    includes farm programs, forestry, food stamps, pesticides and
    commodities trading regulation, rural development and the farm
    credit system.
        In order to properly prepare this legislation, we are
    asking for one additional staff person. It will be an
    administrative, nonpartisan, assistant clerk position. Since we
    have been operating at the staff level set by the Speaker in
    1995, this is a modest and necessary request.
        With the exception of our travel budget request, which will
    fund our expanded field hearing schedule, the balance of our
    budget categories reflects necessary and minimal increases
    which are the result of our increased workload or simple
    inflationary costs.
        It is my hope that you will recognize that the Agriculture
    Committee has a long history of fiscal responsibility. Our
    committee's tradition of harmonious relations and fair play
    between the majority and minority reaches back 2 decades under
    the control of both parties. We intend to continue that
    tradition and ask that you grant us the funds to do the job at
    hand.
        I thank you for your time and consideration.
        I want to thank the Chair.
        The Chairman. I want to thank the Chair. Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Mr. Peterson.

    STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have a statement which isn't here, so I will do what I do
    a lot of times. I will wing it.
        So I appreciate the chance to be here; and I look forward
    to working with my good friend, Mr. Goodlatte, in a bipartisan
    matter on the Agriculture Committee, as we always have. We
    appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your leadership; and we congratulate
    Ms. Millender-McDonald for her elevation to the ranking member
    of the Committee and look forward to working with all of you on
    the Committee over the years.
        As the chairman said, we have a lot of things to work on in
    the Committee, primarily getting ready for the Farm Bill
    debate, which will take place in 2007. I was involved in
    putting together the 2002 Farm Bill. We went through the same
    kind of process during that time, and it takes a lot of work
    and a lot of effort to get around the country.
        The issues that we have in Agriculture really are not
    Democrat/Republican issues. Usually, they are between
    commodities, between regions, between different kinds of
    interests in agriculture.
        In 2002, we were able to get to a point where nobody liked
    the bill, but everybody could live with it, and that is kind of
    how we have to put together the farm bills. So I support the
    request for the resources so that we can do that process.
        The other thing that I would point out is--I believe I am
    right on this--that out of the 45 members of the House
    Agriculture Committee, I think there are only six members that
    have been there for more than one Farm Bill. So we do have, you
    know, responsibility to get our members out around the country
    so that they can be up to speed when we get ready to go that.
        Over the years, the procedure in the Agriculture Committee
    has been to share the staff on a one-third/two-thirds basis,
    which has been, I guess, the way they have done that, I guess,
    the last number of years.
        As I understand it, we have committees that are moving in
    the direction of not just having a one-third/two-thirds split
    on salaries but actually splitting the committee budget one-
    third for the minority, one-third for the majority and that the
    minority would have control and say over their one-third of the
    resources. So the chairman and I have been discussing this and
    talking about it, but at this point we haven't been able to
    come to a resolution of that situation.
        I feel like we have a new situation, my coming into this
    position, and I think that we ought to move in the direction
    that some of the other committees have moved. So I am still of
    the opinion that we ought to split this entire budget one-
    third/two-thirds and with the minority be able to control our
    part of the resources.
        So, in spite of the fact that I support the overall budget,
    I am not here today to support the budget for the committee,
    because we have not resolved this issue. I hope that we will be
    able to resolve it as we move through the process, but we
    haven't been able to do it yet at this point.
        So, again, I appreciate your leadership, Mr. Chairman and
    the ranking member, the other members, and look forward to
    working with you and with the chairman as we move through this
    process.
        [The statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. The gentlelady.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you so much. Thank you both
    so much for being here.
        It has been a practice of mine in this short 2 months that
    I have been here--and congratulations to you, Mr. Peterson, for
    your position on the committee--to kind of check with the
    leadership to make sure that--what her requests are. I am
    providing the answers for that.
        Mr. Goodlatte, I know that there has been a principle of
    this committee to have the one-third, one-third and control. I
    am now concerned that that is not what I have heard over the
    last 24 hours as to Mr. Peterson's position.
        My question to you is that, while perhaps previous ranking
    members have not engaged in this on a very forceful nature,
    would you be willing to now come back to the principle that has
    been approved by this gentlemen/gentlelady's agreement of both
    your leader and my leader to have the one-third, one-third
    control?
        Mr. Goodlatte. Well, Ms. Millender-McDonald, thank you. The
    fact of the matter is that we have some concerns, and we have
    some ongoing discussions with Mr. Peterson, and I would not be
    prepared to say at this time that I would agree to that.
        Quite frankly, if you look at the expenditures by the
    committee, the minority has received well over one-third of the
    payments in each of the last 2 years while I have been serving
    as chairman of the committee.
        In 2003, they received $221,000 in administrative expenses,
    expenditures for their benefit of that amount. They would have
    received under the one-third split only $127,000, almost
    $95,000 less.
        In 2004, $323,561 was expended for their benefit. They
    would have received $116,000, or almost $200,000 less, or only
    about one-third of the amount that we actually expended.
        Now part of this comes from the fact that, while we do
    split the salary portion of the expenses, we have on the
    Republican side expended less than we have needed, and we have
    used some of that additional resource to bring them up to what
    we think is the appropriate level of technological capability
    with the equipment that we have purchased for them. We think
    that it is important for us to continue to do that, and we
    think that the majority staff has the expertise to do that.
        In the 108th Congress, our committee exceeded the two-
    thirds/one-third goal by $300,000 more in administrative
    expenses than the minority would have received with a two-
    thirds/one-third budget split.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Well, I thank you for that
    historical perspective.
        While that might be the case, it is extremely important for
    the minority to have some sense of its freedom to spend the
    budget as he sees fit. That has been the request of the
    minority leader, that all of the ranking members have that
    autonomy to do that.
        Given that, at this point, you are unable to guarantee that
    is a concern of this ranking member. Because I am absolutely
    here at the pleasure of my leader, and she has been very
    forceful in this principle that she and the Speaker have agreed
    to. So that this chairman here has followed that type of
    request.
        So it is incumbent upon us to engage in this dialogue with
    the chairman, because it is imperative that there is a good
    working relationship as we move into this 109th Congress and
    that the ranking member has that ability to exercise those
    principles that have been outlined by the leadership.
        Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentlelady yield?
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Yes.
        Ms. Lofgren. Because I think certainly Mr. Goodlatte and I
    have worked on many issues together in the Judiciary Committee,
    in particular, and this isn't a question about whether you have
    been fair. Because that is really not the point. That is not
    the issue. The issue is whether the minority has a right to the
    default position of one-third salary, one-third budget and
    control over the one-third, unless you agree otherwise. And you
    haven't agreed otherwise.
        So I really think--as I said earlier, I know you hear the
    majority can do whatever it wants by majority vote. But if we
    are going to make this a bipartisan effort, we are going to
    insist when people have not otherwise--that if a ranking member
    wants a default position, they have that right; or else you can
    do it on your own without Democratic votes. But I don't think
    that is the way we want to proceed.
        Mr. Goodlatte. I understand the position of the minority.
    It is one that you have taken caucus-wide with your leadership.
    I note that of the 19 or 20 standing committees, only five are
    doing this this way.
        The chairman of the committee is elected as a result of the
    process that the Congress follows to determine the operation of
    the Congress and the committees, and the chairman has
    responsibility to make decisions for the benefit of the entire
    committee.
        The Agriculture Committee has always operated on a very
    strong, bipartisan basis, and it is certainly my intention to
    continue that tradition with Mr. Peterson. I understand Mr.
    Peterson's perspective. So far, we do not agree on following
    this procedure. I think that the committee, in a bipartisan
    way, has acted very responsibly in terms of taking care of the
    needs of the minority staff and the minority members of the
    committee; and we intend to continue to do that.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Goodlatte--I am sorry. The
    gentlewoman, please.
        Ms. Lofgren. I just wanted to make the point that I think
    there needs to be some discussion on the other side of the
    aisle on the implication on this and whether the implication is
    to just have a party line vote for all the committee budgets or
    not. That is really a decision that probably the Speaker needs
    to make, because it is not just about us. So I would urge that
    those discussions take place, because this is not going to work
    out well unless they do, and I thank the gentlemen.
        The Chairman. Mr. Brady.
        Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, you are right. Maybe five or six committees
    in this House have not adhered to a complete one-third/two-
    thirds, but that was----
        Mr. Goodlatte. If the gentleman would yield, three-quarters
    have not; only one-quarter have.
        Mr. Brady. But that is at the agreement of the Ranking
    Member and the Chairman. They agreed to that because they
    probably have their own--what they need to do in their own
    committee, and they are both happy with that. So we don't try
    to intercede.
        What I have heard from you is, in the past, you have given
    more than one-third. Are you looking forward to agreeing to
    give more than one-third in the future?
        Mr. Goodlatte. I am not going to agree to anything
    regarding what is needed for the committee in the future until
    I know what the committee's and the minority's, in particular,
    needs are.
        But you do have my commitment to continue to be very fair,
    as all of my predecessors--as the chairmen of the committee
    have and who have all operated under this system, which
    protects both the interest of the majority and the
    responsibilities of the chairman and, I think the evidence is
    very, very strong, has also protected the interests of the
    minority.
        Mr. Brady. Yes, if you would agree to the one-third, it
    would seem to me you would fare a lot better in the future than
    you have in the past.
        And there is another little problem--not a problem, just a
    different thing that happened here. We have a new ranking
    member, and he has to feel his oats, too. We don't want to
    hinder him just because the previous member did or didn't get
    along a little better, whatever. Not that he is the new guy
    down the block or anything, but I would just wish you would
    rethink that. I am sure our chairman is working on that. If you
    don't get the one-third, then you are both in agreement that
    you are going to distribute whatever ratio you are going to
    need to distribute.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Brady. You are absolutely
    correct. If we were to do the two-thirds/one-third split, we
    would come out better. The fact of the matter is, my
    responsibility as the chairman is to the whole committee, not
    just to the majority side. I have always taken that position. I
    think it is reflected in the bipartisanship that you see in the
    Agriculture Committee.
        Mr. Peterson and I have worked together on many things over
    many years. We have a disagreement on this issue, and I have
    agreed to continue to discuss it with him. But that is how I
    see my responsibility and my role.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I just hope that the chairman
    can rethink his position. Because what Mr. Peterson, the
    ranking member, is asking you to do is not to respect his
    interests but to respect his rights. I would hope that that
    would be the ultimate conclusion or else we will have a fight
    about the whole budget, which I think would be unfortunate.
        I thank the chairman for yielding.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Just one comment, Mr. Chairman.
        You noted that only a third of the committees are adhering
    to this two-thirds/one-third ratio. While that might be the
    case, nevertheless, when you come to us, they have all said
    that they would adhere to this principle that the leaders of
    this House have set forth for each chairperson and his or her
    ranking member.
        This particular ranking member is fighting for that
    formula. So it is out of that respect that you should then try
    to come to that agreement, because he is fighting for the
    principle that has been outlined by the leadership that we all
    should be adhering to.
        So I am requesting you to really go back and rethink this
    so that we can say this has been a bipartisan effort and each
    member and each chairperson and the ranking member coming to us
    in good faith. I sure hope that you go back and think that
    over.
        Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman.
        The Chairman. I don't want to prolong this. We have other
    ranking members that came.
        I just want to ask a question, so I can get it a little
    clear in my mind, of the ranking member. What control would you
    be seeking that has not been there, what type of control of the
    funds?
        Mr. Peterson. Well, I have no doubt from what I have heard
    in the past the chairman has been fair. I guess--I am not
    saying that. But, you know, I am new to this. I was not
    involved in that process before.
        As I understand it, there is--the effort is to try to move
    in this direction on all the committees. I have talked to some
    of the other ranking members that have this agreement, and they
    prefer it, and you know our leader prefers it. So just starting
    off new--I just think, you know, this is the way we ought to be
    proceeding not only on the Agriculture Committee but on all of
    the committees. You know, we have talented people on our side.
    We can manage our resources; and, you know, I just feel more
    comfortable moving ahead with that process.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, if I might add to that.
        My chief of staff has just reminded me of, I think, a very
    pertinent point with regard to this entire discussion about the
    division of resources. There are four committees other than
    your own committee that do that now. The majority share of a
    two-thirds/one-third split of each of those four committees is
    greater than the entire budget of the Agriculture Committee in
    the last Congress. If we were to go ahead and agree to do this,
    I think that we would need a very substantial increase in our
    committee's budget that we are not seeking.
        We have historically been one of the most fiscally
    conservative committees. In the last Congress, we were the only
    committee that had fewer staff than members of the committee.
    We have fashioned our budget request for this year on the same
    basis; and Financial Services, Government Reform, Homeland
    Security and Ways and Means all receive anywhere from 5 to $10
    million more in their appropriations than the Agriculture
    Committee does. So what you are asking us to do is to put us in
    a situation that is a lot tighter than it is for some of the
    other committees that have agreed to do this.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, may I respond to
    that?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, what we are
    suggesting here is what you have proposed to us is not in
    concrete anyway at this time. We will have to negotiate to see
    whether or not that can be possible.
        Mr. Goodlatte. I understand.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. In the event that is not possible,
    we have asked the chairman, if this budget is cut, will you
    still hold the minority harmless and that you will still
    provide this two-thirds/one-third ratio. It is irrespective of
    whether or not what you have requested will be given to you. It
    is a formula. It is a principle that we are holding to,
    irrespective of the final bottom line of your budget.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Well, Ms. Millender-McDonald, the fact of
    the matter is that each one of these committees is in very
    different circumstances; and the Agriculture Committee, with as
    tight a budget as we have, faces some different considerations
    than other committees might face.
        Without knowing what expenditures we are going to encounter
    in the future, what I can tell you, in terms of your request
    for holding the minority harmless, quote, unquote, is that we
    will, as we always have been, be fair to the minority, because
    I consider it the responsibility of my entire staff and myself
    to operate our committee as a whole entity that has, indeed,
    historically been fair, including the 2 years that I have been
    chairman, and we will continue that.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. And fairness means two-thirds/one-
    third.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Fairness means taking into account the needs
    of the majority staff, the minority staff, what equipment and
    other things that are necessary to operate the committee
    effectively and making sure that both the majority and the
    minority get what they need to operate effectively.
        Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Brady.
        Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman, I must apologize, because I am not
    the type of guy that wants to, you know, to stretch things out,
    but I am a little confused.
        If you are sitting there telling me you are putting a
    budget together that you want to get from us and you don't know
    if you can make a commitment to distribute it one-third or two-
    thirds because you don't get enough money, I say to you, go
    back and do your budget, do it again, do it with the help of
    the ranking member and come back to us tell us, we want one-
    third/two-thirds, and you have probably got a better shot of
    getting that budget increased more than this budget. At least
    with this side of the aisle you do.
        Mr. Goodlatte. I appreciate that, Mr. Brady. If that is
    what the Congress decides to do with all of the committees, we
    might have to do just that. But I am a fiscal conservative, and
    I think we report a fiscally responsible budget.
        Mr. Brady. We don't have to do that with all the
    committees. We just have to do that with this committee to make
    it work.
        The Chairman. Let me go back to one point I want to ask the
    ranking member. So, today, you don't have a specific idea about
    what you can't control. You don't have that yet?
        Mr. Peterson. Well, the way that it has operated in the
    past is that we received one-third of the salary budget, and
    that was it, and everything else is done by the majority. As I
    understand what is being done in other committees is that the
    other aspects of the budget are decided based on the priorities
    of the ranking member within the rules of the House and your
    committee and our committee.
        We are not going to be doing anything outside the rules,
    but we don't have control. We are basically told this is how it
    is going to be done. And, you know, it may be that we will
    agree on that. But, again, it is a principle that, you know, we
    ought to have a third of the resources, we ought to be able to
    decide how those are allocated on our side of the aisle, based
    on the rules of the House and your rules and----
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question?
        The Chairman. I just wanted to clarify. The rules of the
    House, nothing says that there has to be one-third.
        Mr. Peterson. No. No, I am just saying--we are not going to
    be doing anything that is not, you know, approved by--you know,
    we are not going to be spending money that is outside of the
    rules of what you can spend it on for official purpose of the
    committee.
        The Chairman. The one rule of the House is that the Chair,
    whether it is myself or Mr. Goodlatte, the Chairs are
    responsible----
        Mr. Peterson. Right.
        The Chairman. The majority Chairs are responsible to sign
    off for things, and they have, we have the responsibility----
        Mr. Peterson. Right.
        The Chairman [continuing]. Under the rules of the House to
    have the--have to sign, obviously, for travel and other items.
        Mr. Peterson. But what has happened----
        The Chairman. The Chair is held accountable, is what I am
    saying, under the rules of the House.
        Mr. Peterson. Right. We understand that, and we know--but
    what happens in the other committees, as I understand it, is
    that they have an agreement between the chairman and the
    ranking member that, you know, the requests or the allocations
    of the resources are, as long as they are within the legal
    rules, you know, are worked through----
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Peterson [continuing]. The ranking member and the
    chairman. And that seems to me, you know, that is what the
    leadership has said they want to do. That is where, as I
    understand it, we are trying to move in the Congress so that--
    --
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, that is indeed what
    we are saying here. It may not be a hard and fast rule, but it
    is a principle. It is the agreement that has been made by the
    leadership of this House that we share in the formula of a two-
    thirds/one-third. Anything that deviates from that norm, then
    we need to go back and talk to the leadership of this House.
    Because this is then diverting from what they have set forth as
    a standard.
        So while it may not be a law, it is a standard, it is a
    principle, and it is the guiding principle that has guided all
    the chairpersons and the ranking member. So it is unfair to
    even sit here and say that we will accept a chairperson who
    refuses to abide by the principles without going back to our
    leadership, asking what their position will be, given what our
    position will be.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady.
        Ms. Lofgren. I would question--it seems to me there is
    real--really, the default position is what the Financial
    Services Committee is doing. And they came in, and they are
    happy. I mean, Mr. Oxley and Mr. Frank said they divided two-
    thirds/one-third. Mr. Frank has a third of the salary. He has
    got a third of the budget. He controls his third. It works
    fine. I don't know the details of how they do that, but that is
    what the leadership has agreed to.
        The only time that changes is when the committee and
    ranking member agree to some other mode of behavior, which is
    what we saw with Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos, and that is fine,
    too.
        But I think if we are going--if the ranking member doesn't
    agree to what the leadership--to change that the leadership has
    agreed to, we can't do that.
        So I mean although, as I mentioned earlier, I know this
    really--this isn't worked out, this is an issue that is way
    bigger than this committee. It is really about the Speaker and
    Leader Pelosi and whether we have a bipartisan approach to
    this, which we won't have, I can guarantee you, if the
    agreements are not held to. I think that is a shame, because we
    should be working on a bipartisanship basis.
        Mr. Peterson. Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman. If I could inject here, I think we are
    putting the cart way, way ahead of the horse today.
        There were several references to a bipartisan vote. The
    first vote, as I understand the history of the House, was Steny
    Hoyer and I when we had the first bipartisan vote in the
    history of the House. Now I can get us 217 votes on the floor
    tomorrow morning--everybody is going to be horrifically
    uncomfortable. I can do that with a 1 percent increase, and,
    you know, we can just go about the business. So there are 100
    ways to light that board up and win or lose. I don't want to do
    that today, to decide that.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Right.
        The Chairman. I will tell you one other thing, though,
    perspective I want to give you, because I have been here 10
    years Steny Hoyer and I went forth with the understanding we
    wanted to get to that goal, and Bill Thomas did an awful lot
    when he chaired this committee, and Mr. Hoyer was here to try
    to get to that goal.
        I have got to tell you, I wasn't here in 1994. I got
    elected and came here in 1995. There were so many historical
    hard feelings here, it was unbelievable. Some of it was
    because--Energy and Commerce, the minority got 18 percent of
    the money. I mean, you can go down and look at that. So I heard
    that when I came here.
        Ms. Lofgren. I did, too.
        The Chairman. But Bill Thomas went--like I said, went a
    long, long way to get there.
        The other problem--and Steny Hoyer and I sat down and
    negotiated with some of the committees, and it was a tough road
    on a couple of the committees. I won't mention--it wasn't
    Agriculture.
        But what happened is Agriculture, in defense of Mr.
    Goodlatte, signed off. The one-third was in the eye of the
    beholder in the sense that some committees split halfway down.
    [I think we split money on some of the new Member orientation.]
    I forget how we do that. But each was different. So the last
    ranking member signed off and said, yes, this is the one-third
    and was happy with it.
        Now you have a new ranking member----
        Mr. Peterson. If I could just--you know, I don't know that
    this is ever going to be a problem. But, for example, if we
    don't have the one-third/two-thirds with the authority, you
    know, we have a lot of hearings to set up, we have a lot of
    places we have to go around the country. You know, the way--if
    you don't have that authority, the Chair, you know, the
    majority could just set up those hearings, and I wouldn't have
    any leverage to have any say if I didn't agree with what we are
    doing if they control the travel budget.
        So, you know, I don't think it is ever going to be a
    problem. But we feel like we ought to have input into at least
    where some of the hearings are. We ought to have input into the
    equipment. Not that it is ever going to be a problem.
        This way it is in writing, and that means that we do have a
    say. We understand the chairman is responsible. We understand
    he has to sign off. It is just a matter of principle. I am not
    sure it is ever going to be a problem, but this is a decision
    that was made, and we just think we should follow it to see if
    we are starting off with a new regime here.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I am hearing something that is going down a
    whole different road here. Never in the history of the House--
    whoever controlled the Chambers, has the minority been able to
    set their own travel.
        Mr. Peterson. No, no, no, I am not saying that.
        The Chairman. Okay. You don't want to be able to set your
    own----
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, I think what he
    merely said, and I heard, he wants input.
        Mr. Peterson. Right, into the hearing schedule.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Peterson. Which I am sure we will have.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Can we agree, Mr. Chairman, to sit
    with these two gentlemen and see whether we can try to work
    something out at a later time than this so we can get on with
    the others?
        Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, you make a very important
    point regarding the responsibility of a chairman of the
    committee for the expenditures of the entire funds of the
    committee.
        This committee--and I know Mr. Peterson has not been the
    ranking member, but I also do not believe that he would
    disagree that the entire number of years that Mr. Stenholm was
    ranking member there was a lack of consultation. There is
    nothing arbitrary about the expenditures of the committee nor
    the decisions about when to hold hearings, or the decisions
    about where to hold hearings. They are always done in
    consultation with the minority.
        Now we don't always agree on everything, of course, but we
    have always done so in consultation with the minority, and we
    certainly intend to do that with regard to travel needs that
    Mr. Peterson might suggest.
        However, I do have that ultimate responsibility, whether I
    divide the one-third or not. I think that in exercising that
    responsibility the approach that I am taking is the correct
    one.
        But I also agree, Ms. Millender-McDonald, that we will
    continue this discussion, and Mr. Peterson and I have a great
    deal of common interests in promoting the success of our
    committee's work.
        The Chairman. Thank you. I want to thank both of the
    members for being here today.
        We will move on next to the Armed Services Committee. I
    think our chairman is here, Mr. Hunter, and also our ranking
    member, Mr. Skelton. I want to thank both the gentlemen for
    being here.
        We will start with the chairman, Mr. Hunter.

     STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Hunter. Mr. Chairman, thank you----
        The Chairman. You will want to hit the microphone button.
        Mr. Hunter. Okay.
        The Chairman. Got it.
        Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman
    Millender-McDonald and members of the committee. Thanks for
    letting us appear before you and present to you our funding
    resolution for the 109th. I am here with my good colleague, Ike
    Skelton, and join with him in presenting this request today.
        The budget submission provides significant detail, so I
    wanted to touch just on some highlights.
        Our request is roughly $13.3 million, $6.38 million for
    2005 and $6.9 million for 2006, which is 11.75 percent above
    the committee's authorized funding level for the 108th. It is
    based on the need to continue and expand the committee's
    considerable oversight responsibilities.
        The bulk of the increase is to allow for a small increase
    in the size of the staff as well as support cost-of-living
    allowances, merit increases and adjustments in view of the
    Speaker's recent pay order.
        It also reflects a 3-year replacement cycle for computer
    work stations, continuing upgrades for information technology
    infrastructure; and we also plan to continue enhancements in
    our ability to operate remotely and securely if we are
    disrupted and if we should have to go off site. So we plan to
    continue to work with House Information Resources (HIR) to take
    full advantage of the remote operating location to establish
    off-site storage and remote access options.
        As you know, we have in the Armed Services Committee an
    essentially nonpartisan staff within which Mr. Skelton
    maintains control over 10 slots. For purposes of all committee
    operations--pay, equipment, supplies, office space, parking, et
    cetera--Mr. Skelton's staff is treated in exactly the same
    manner as the rest of the staff.
        The committee's request reflects a level of resources that
    I think is necessary to attract and retain technically
    qualified staff, which is always a problem. We have lots of
    folks leaving us too--whether you have a Republican or
    Democratic administration, always lots of folks leaving to go
    to the administration, because they have got a lot of expertise
    and their capability is valued by every administration.
        It is also, I think, important to note that our committee
    has traditionally maintained one of the smallest staffs in the
    House relative to its jurisdiction and the broad oversight
    responsibilities and the actual size of the committee. You
    know, we are now up to 62 folks on the committee. So even with
    staff at fully-authorized levels, the committee staff-to-member
    ratio is roughly one to one.
        We traditionally have spent wisely. I think if you look at
    our numbers, we have often turned money back to the House, and
    we don't spend money unless we have to.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee--and I know Mr.
    Brady can attest to this because he is a valued member of our
    committee--we have got a vast responsibility. We have got a 2.5
    million person force. We have got two hot wars going on right
    now. We have responsibility for over half the discretionary
    budget. If you look at our numbers compared to the other
    committees, we are fairly low in terms of the number of staff
    that we maintain.
        You know, we maintain--I have listened to the discussion
    about the two-thirds/one-third. We have--I think we are a
    unique committee. Defense issues can be on an irregular basis,
    partisan issues. We have had those arm-wrestling sessions in
    our committee, just like you have in every committee but in
    most committees a lot more often than we have in Armed
    Services.
        Let me give you an example. To support this war right now,
    to support our troops, we have 14 task forces that we have got
    staff members assigned to who are working on everything from
    jammers to armor, to force protection, communication. I have
    got people who are doing nothing but contacting the families of
    people who have been killed in action, families of people who
    are clearly making sure that things are taking place that
    should be taking place. We have our teams out making sure that
    we are resetting the force, making sure we are taking care of
    equipment when we bring it back from the theater to make sure
    that it is ready for the next operation.
        We really have a very large area of responsibility, and we
    don't have a lot of staff members. Our staff is nonpartisan,
    and I know it is hard to, sometimes, in the context of the
    political battle that we do--necessarily do on the Hill that
    you should have a committee like that, but it is because the
    issues of national security are especially nonpartisan issues.
        Rarely, we do have to draw the battle lines and do battle.
    And the reason you have a nonpartisan staff--but with a number
    of members assigned--10 members assigned to the minority, you
    think that is unusual, how many members are assigned to the
    majority. The answer is none.
        The reason we did that is because, back in the days of Les
    Aspin and Mr. Dickinson, Bill Dickinson, we realized we were
    going to have some partisan battles, and we said that the
    minority needed to have at least--even though most of the stuff
    we do is nonpartisan, we needed to have at least a center of
    gravity, a core of staff folks who could--that the minority
    could use.
        In those days, it was for the Republicans who--which you
    rarely did, would draw the partisan lines, would be able to
    serve the Republican members, or, in this case, today, serve
    the Democrat members, in those few times when you have a
    partisan line. The rest of the time, these members are out
    there working away on the many subcommittees, working for both
    parties and doing their job.
        Strangely enough, this has worked well. That means that
    everybody is pulling in the same direction. That is, serving
    the troops and serving our Armed Forces 95 percent of the time.
        When we have to arm-wrestle over a partisan issue, the
    minority has people they can rely on whose job is to be their
    supporters, and so they don't feel like they are offending--the
    staff members don't feel like they are going around the many
    which it is their job to rally around and support--in the old
    days, support Bill Dickinson; in these days, support Ike
    Skelton. When we rarely do cross sabers--and that happens now
    and again--but our committee, because of the nature of what we
    do, isn't partisan.
        So we have--I think we have a well-run operation. We do
    need to have--we have got 59 folks now, going to 61 within a
    week, and we will be at 64, which is our allotment. Because we
    have got new things coming up, Mr. Chairman. We have got this
    lifting of the arms embargo to China, which is going to have
    major impact on our security situation, which needs a lot of
    work.
        On our security situation, which needs a lot of work, we
    have got technology transfer, trying to keep systems from going
    to the bad guys. We have got the ongoing war against terrorism,
    and we need to fill these additional slots. We are going to be
    up to our 64, which is allotted, in just a week or two, and we
    would like to go to 67. But I think in the context of what we
    do for the country in our area of responsibility, it is a
    reasonable thing. So I would like to turn to Ike and have him
    give you his perspective here, but that is mine.
        [The statement of Mr. Hunter follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Skelton.

      STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

        Mr. Skelton. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Millender-McDonald, thank
    you for hearing us today.
        I echo Chairman Hunter's comments regarding the staff, and
    in particular our staff regarding pay, COLA, equipment and the
    like. And what he has explained in the background, going back
    to Bill Dickinson, which I will remember when he was the
    ranking member when I first went on the committee.
        We are different in two respects. We, by and large, are
    very bipartisan. War is not a partisan issue. And secondly, the
    budget that we put out, $440 billion every year and climbing,
    18 percent of the total Federal budget, one-half of the Federal
    Government's discretionary budget, and if you look at the
    numbers of staff that we have, they meet themselves going and
    coming. They are professionals, they all have security
    clearances. We just can't go out and hire someone off the
    street that is smart and able. We have to have very experienced
    and highly skilled staff, as well as those who meet the
    criteria for security. So I think that we are well within
    bounds.
        And if you look at some of the other committees, the number
    of staff that they have, and compared to the workload, Mr.
    Chairman and Ms. Millender-McDonald, what we have, we do an
    awful lot with an awful lot less, and I am very, very proud of
    the staff that we have. If anything, the bottom line is what
    the chairman says.
        Of course we could all use more, but we tend to be more on
    the conservative side of it. And I will tell you, and I know
    Mr. Brady will agree, the staff is not only good, not only
    professional, but they work very, very hard. Many, many
    weekends you can't find them except at the office, and that is
    what they are doing. With the tremendous responsibility that we
    have, we hope that you will meet our request.
        The Chairman. Well, I thank both gentlemen. I really don't
    have any questions, but I do have a comment.
        I have worked with both of you, and I appreciate your
    insights on military, our troops. I have had the pleasure to be
    able to spend time with both of you, and I appreciate your
    patriotism and your respect for each other and the system.
        Also, you talked about all the things you are handling, and
    I know Robert Rangel is back there, and when I get--you get e-
    mail from troops today. And I have had several issues and I
    call him, and people on the staff answer to him. It is
    comforting to know because you shouldn't just call the
    bureaucracy side and say well, what do you think, I call you
    all. And I know other Members are doing, and your Staff
    Director, and your staff has always responded. And I feel the
    answer we get back makes me comfortable that we are doing
    everything humanly possible for the troops and the needs. So I
    just appreciate that response, both you and the Staff Director
    and the staff over there.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
    applaud both of you for the work that you do on Armed Services;
    it is a tremendous responsibility. The committee itself is so
    needed in this time that we have here. And I have followed a
    lot of what you do because of the position we are in in war,
    and so I applaud you so much.
        My few questions that I have to Mr. Skelton is, do you have
    control of your one-third of the budget that is given to you by
    the chairman?
        Mr. Skelton. We don't look at it one-third/two-thirds. I
    have control over the staffers that work for me, I have
    numerous recommendations on everything from witnesses to
    hearings to trips and the like, and Mr. Hunter hears me well on
    those. I don't think we can say we have a one-third/two-third.
    That has never been the situation of the Armed Services
    Committee as such.
        I control the ten members who actually work directly for
    me, and I choose them. And I might say they are very, very good
    at what they do, as well as the professional staff of which Mr.
    Hunter spoke. Any Member can--Democrat Member can pick up the
    phone and call a member of those who work for me, regardless of
    specialty, or pick a member of the professional staff regarding
    his or her specialty and get help. That has been the way it has
    worked through the years. And it works well, it works well for
    the country and for the troops.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. It seems like you two have a very
    good working relationship, and as Mr. Hunter has outlined the
    way by which he has been able to move the budget and to ensure
    that you have been satisfied with those movements I think is
    laudable to the chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, you did speak of having to increase staff
    from the level you have now to 64, and perhaps ultimately
    getting to 67. How much of that staff will be converted to the
    minority side?
        Mr. Hunter. Well, again, first, with respect to hiring
    staff, I have never asked a staff member if they are Republican
    or Democrat, and I don't know of our staff members. I know it
    seems strange, we have got a professional staff which is
    bipartisan, or that is professional staff responsive to all
    Members. And then you have got a minority team of 10 staff
    members. And so--and I don't know of those staff members that
    are dedicated to the minority which of them were hired by
    Republican chairmen or Democrat chairmen over the years.
        So we have truly a staff which is not only bipartisan and
    nonpartisan, but because of my bad memory and probably that of
    the other senior members, we can't remember who hired them or
    where they came from. We know one thing, and that is that they
    do a good job.
        So of these members, if we get three additional members,
    what Ike and I will do is talk it over and talk about what we
    need. I ultimately will hire these folks, but what we need to
    hire them for are these issues that are really nonpartisan
    issues. In my estimation, just looking at the state of the
    world, I think this lifting of the arms embargo on China is
    going to provide enormous problems for the United States and
    issues for us, some of which are very complex. So we need
    people who can understand what the Europeans are going to be
    doing, what we need to do to try to stem critical killing
    technology that could end up killing Americans on the
    battlefield from going over to China from our allies; and
    secondly, if they do that, what should be our response as
    Americans.
        That capability is something that is going to be hard for
    us to find, but those are the types of people that I would like
    to get for this additional three people, if we can get them.
    And I can assure you I will discuss these folks with Mr.
    Skelton, and we will try to come up with some good folks, but
    they won't be hired for a split, you know, Republican-Democrat
    split.
        Mr. Skelton. I think there is good expectation, however,
    that I would have one of those three in all probability. Am I
    correct?
        Mr. Hunter. Oh, excuse me. Ike will get one of those
    people, but my urging to Ike is that we, as we put together our
    job requirement for these three folks, that they have
    capability in this new challenge that we are being handed by
    what is going to happen probably around June, which is this
    lifting of this arms embargo. So I would hope that we can both
    search for talent in that area.
        Mr. Skelton. The search for talent, he is absolutely right,
    because every staff member is not an expert in everything. Mr.
    Brady will fully tell you that. So consequently you look for a
    certain one for certain areas.
        But as the chairman said, I have full expectation of one of
    those. What exactly that expertise will be I don't know and I
    don't think he would know right now.
        Mr. Hunter. Let me put it this way, Ike will hire one of
    those three folks. My recommendation is that I want Ike to
    listen to me on his hire, and I am going to listen to him on
    the two hires. We will work this together.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Well, I am really encouraged by
    what you are saying here because the job and the task that you
    have in this committee really should supersede and not be a
    factor in terms of bipartisan or partisan, because war is, I
    think Mr. Skelton said, is not a partisan thing. And so I am
    very encouraged by what you are saying, and the seamless way,
    it seems, that the staff moves back and forth, irrespective of
    whether it is Republican or Democrat, and that is very
    encouraging.
        Mr. Chairman, I did see, though, on your request that your
    franking request has a little bit increased considerably from
    $673 to $16,000 roughly, as we see here, a vast percentage of
    increase there.
        Can you tell me why is that, and what would you perhaps
    perceive what that increase in franking might be in terms of
    mailing? What is your anticipation of that increase with
    reference to mailing?
        Mr. Hunter. We don't really do a lot of franking, but we
    anticipate we will try to--we are going to be trying to have
    hearings around the country, and that is more of a placeholder,
    if you will.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. So it is a placeholder for perhaps
    the traveling as opposed to the mailing?
        Mr. Hunter. Yes.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. I see.
        Mr. Hunter. Yeah, we have a fairly low franking operation.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Brady.
        Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't dare to ask either one
    of these gentlemen a question, but I just want to make a
    comment that I am honored and proud to serve under the ranking
    member and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. They
    do one outstanding job doing a hard job every single day, and
    the staff, protecting this country and protecting our men and
    women in harm's way, and I am proud to serve under them.
        Mr. Hunter. Well, thank you, sir. I appreciate it, Mr.
    Brady, and we appreciate you.
        Mr. Brady. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Gentlelady.
        Ms. Lofgren. Just two questions, or maybe three.
        First, obviously this is working well, and we are going to
    accept the budget, and express our admiration to you both for
    all of the work that you do for our country.
        I had a question on the additional staffing that has come
    up with other committees. Do you have sufficient space to house
    additional staff?
        Mr. Hunter. Yes, we do, from what I get from our----
        Ms. Lofgren. I think your Staff Director is wincing.
        Mr. Hunter. He is hovering in the background here. Let me
    find out.
        As I told you everything is fine, he said no, it is a real
    challenge.
        Ms. Lofgren. I was going to say the body language is
    different behind your back.
        Mr. Skelton. My staff is whispering in my ear and basically
    saying the same thing, we can use some more room.
        Ms. Lofgren. That is what we have been hearing from
    everybody.
        And on the franking, I understand you may not be actually
    using the increase for franking, but is franked mail from
    committees subject to the same kind of constraints that we
    face, for example, the 90-day window before elections? And does
    franked mail go through the advisory opinion process like mail
    we send out from our offices, and shouldn't it?
        Mr. Hunter. You know----
        The Chairman. Do you want me to answer that?
        Mr. Hunter. Yeah, go right ahead. I am going to defer to
    the chairman.
        The Chairman. Well, the committees are not under a 90-day
    blackout rule, as Members' offices are. Also, the committee
    franking technically does not have to go through the same
    approval process, although some committees will bring us the--
    and we would highly suggest they bring us--the piece to spare
    them problems.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, though, while you
    have made those overtures, Mr. Chairman, on that, we do want to
    bear in mind that the committees, they do not come under the
    same process or procedures as one's own personal office, that
    nonetheless the funding that is provided for them is funded
    through appropriations. So we are still talking about a certain
    amount of constraints when it comes to the type of franking
    mail and the cut-off period for that franking mail to go out.
    So that should be for the record.
        Mr. Hunter. Okay. I appreciate that. And I am looking, Mr.
    Rangel has handed me my balance for--fund balance for franking
    for 2003. We spent $673.74, and in 2004 it was $470.97.
        The Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, aren't you
    going to use your frank for the theatre hearings?
        Mr. Hunter. We intend to do that. But in the past we have
    had very low franking expenses, and most of our franking has
    gone traditionally just to administrative correspondence with
    the relevant DOD departments.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Other questions? Thank you very
    much.
        Mr. Hunter. Thank you.
        The Chairman. We also had got a notice that the Science
    Committee was to be up today. They are required, both the chair
    and the ranking member, to go onto the floor, so they
    apologize. So we will have to reschedule that one, and that is
    the last one that we had for today.
        Transportation was required to be on the floor, and like I
    said, they needed to be, and we can reschedule that one, too.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I ask for unanimous consent that members have
    3 business days to submit their statements and materials for
    the record. Without objection, it will be entered. And also
    unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to make
    technical and conforming changes on all the matters. Without
    objection.
        We have completed our business, and the committee is in
    recess.
        [Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                               COMMITTEE FUNDING

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2005

                              House of Representatives,
                             Committee on House Administration,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:20 p.m., in room
    1310, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Ney
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Ney, Ehlers, Miller, Millender-
    McDonald, Brady and Lofgren.
        Staff Present: Paul Vinovich, Staff Director; Jeff Janas,
    Director of Committee Operations; and Jack Dail, Franking
    Commission, Staff Director.
        The Chairman. The meeting will come to order. The ranking
    member of the Transportation Committee is late, but we will
    begin with the chairman, Mr. Young.
        Mr. Young. If it is all right with you, Mr. Chairman, we
    will proceed. Mr. Oberstar will be here.
        The Chairman. If you could turn your mike on.
        Mr. Young. See, we do not have this modern technology in my
    poor little room. We have to press a switch.
        The Chairman. We can get you whatever you want, especially
    this week. Especially this year.
        Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate being able to
    present our budget to you. I had a suggestion, that if you
    would just give me the money I am asking for I will not read my
    statement. Is that good?
        The Chairman. Not a bad deal to me.
        Mrs. Miller of Michigan. Anyone looking for a motion?

    STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                          THE STATE OF ALASKA

        Mr. Young. Anyway, again, this is my third Congress as
    chairman to appear before you, and the Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure, as you know, is the largest
    committee in the history of Congress. Members of Congress want
    to serve on this committee because it addresses the needs of
    American citizens for safe and efficient transportation.
        A modern efficient transportation system is vital to our
    Nation's economy and an integral part of the high standard of
    living and the quality of life Americans deserve. As such, our
    committee will address the problems and needs associated with
    every mode of transportation: The roads, of course; the
    bridges, which are outdated and worn out; aviation system;
    railroads; waterways and ports. We address America's emergency
    management services and Federal infrastructure needs.
        Just last week, Mr. Chairman, as you know, we approved a
    $284 billion highway and transit bill that will benefit every
    district in the Nation and create hundreds of thousands of new
    jobs in all 50 States.
        Our committee, as you know, is organized into six
    subcommittees: The Subcommittee on Aviation; Subcommittee on
    Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation; Subcommittee on
    Highways, Transit and Pipelines; Subcommittee on Economic
    Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management;
    Subcommittee on Railroads; and the Subcommittee on Water
    Resources and Environment.
        The full committee will continue to perform oversight and
    investigations, which we are required to. We have requested a
    modest increase in the committee salary allocation to provide a
    yearly cost-of-living increase and to adequately reward
    superior performance. We have not asked for an increase in the
    committee's staff ceiling. We feel it is essential to take
    advantage of the technology available and to present
    information in the most efficient means to our Members. Our
    plan is to upgrade systems to keep pace with that technology.
        I also believe that one of the most important services of
    the committee is to hold field hearings throughout the Nation
    on legislation and oversight matters in the affected
    communities. Therefore, I will be asking my subcommittee
    chairmen to take their subcommittees outside of the Beltway to
    those communities most impacted by matters under our
    jurisdiction.
        Our increased funding request for travel is a result of the
    planned field hearings and oversight and investigative trips.
    Our request for $9 million in 2005 and $9.5 million in 2006,
    for a total of $18 million, is our best judgment for what we
    need to carry out our legislative and oversight function.
        Finally, I would like to thank my good friend and
    colleague, who will be here soon, Congressman James Oberstar,
    the ranking member of the committee. Our committee continues in
    a spirit of very bipartisan cooperation to solve the Nation's
    transportation and infrastructure problems in a fiscally
    responsible manner. Congressman Oberstar and his staff have
    been most helpful in developing this proposed budget, and I do
    appreciate their assistance.
        While we cannot foresee the future, the next 2 years offer
    the twin promises of great progress and great challenge. We
    expect them to be busy and productive and ask that while you
    are considering our funding request, also consider the
    additional resources we require as the largest committee in the
    109th Congress.
        That is my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I will answer any
    questions.
        [The statement of Mr. Young follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I thank the chairman for his time, and I know
    Mr. Oberstar is on his way.
        One question we have asked, and we will Mr. Oberstar, is
    about the two-thirds/one-third, which you have been through
    last time with Mr. Oberstar, of how the resources are divided.
        Mr. Young. I believe we did it like we have always done it.
    It is two-thirds/one-third. We have always been fair. I do not
    think we have ever had a difference of opinion on that.
        The Chairman. I really do not have any questions. I will
    see if our Members have questions.
        I did want to note that I have been on Transportation for
    10 years, and I enjoyed the first chairman and the ranking
    member, Mr. Oberstar, and not just because you are sitting
    here, because I have not said this to everybody--but I have
    enjoyed your chairmanship and, again, Mr. Oberstar.
        The other thing is, I give you a lot of credit for your
    tenacity. You pushed when some people have been angry on either
    side of the aisle, and that is okay in this business of what is
    good for people. You and Mr. Oberstar have kept this agenda
    right out front, where it needs to be, with what is going on in
    the United States, with the population increase and
    transportation.
        And the other thing you have done, too, I have a rural
    area, but you have been able to show us in the committee, both
    of you and your staffs, that there are other situations out
    there that we need to pay attention to. We may not have certain
    transit situations in our districts, but we need to care about
    it. We may not have certain waterway situations, but we need to
    care about it. So you have given an overall comprehensive look
    at transportation.
        I give you so much credit for both of you working together
    and producing the wonderful bill you did that is going to make
    a better way for people who are not even going to know our
    names. But for future generations in our districts, it is
    literally making visible impacts on our regions. I know our
    people appreciate it back home.
        So thanks to the chairman and ranking member.
        If the ranking member has an opening statement, I will let
    you go into that.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES OBERSTAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

        Mr. Oberstar. I will submit my statement for the record,
    Mr. Chairman.
        You have eloquently and fulsomely described the work of
    this committee, and I know, because I have seen the chairman's
    statement prior to the hearing, and I regret being delayed with
    our Minnesota State Society.
        The Chairman. If you could press the button on the mike.
        Mr. Young. He told me they have this fancy stuff.
        Mr. Oberstar. Yes, ours is live. We have a button to swing
    in our committee.
        But you referenced, Mr. Chairman, the rural needs. Our
    transportation bill that you voted for has $540 million over
    the next 5 years of the legislation dedicated to rural road-
    safety initiatives. First time that we have had such a
    designation set aside for the specific needs of rural areas,
    and the Chairman is a very vigorous advocate for that
    provision.
        Forty-three percent of America's fatalities are in rural
    areas, and half of those killed on rural roads are people from
    urban areas. Urban America has a very keen interest in rural
    road safety.
        But overall, the legislation that we brought to the floor
    last week, and hopefully will get through conference this time,
    makes a significant downpayment on the Nation's transportation
    needs.
        But we have more than surface transportation. In all, we
    have nearly $500 billion of authorizations in our committee, to
    include the Water Resources Development Act; the Clean Water
    Revolving Loan Fund, $20 billion bill pending in our committee;
    the reauthorization of the Federal Economic Development
    Administration programs. We will, in the next year, have to
    confront the needs of the Aviation Trust Fund. All of those are
    massive investments in what makes America work. It moves people
    and goods in our society. Investments we cannot afford to fail
    to make.
        The chairman has said often, and I have as well, China is
    investing $200 billion and doubling the capacity of their
    ports. They are halfway through a $100 billion airport
    improvement program, building six new airports, already
    completed; modernizing 35 existing ones, and now moving to
    another $100 billion airport development program for the
    interior of China to develop regional aviation and another $150
    billion to be invested in building the equivalent of our
    interstate highway system in the next 15 years. We cannot
    afford not to make those investments in America.
        We have to improve our transportation infrastructure to
    move our economy forward and keep it competitive. The roads
    that we build and the rails that we build and the airport
    facilities that we build are not done in Taiwan or Singapore or
    Sri Lanka. They are built right here in America with American
    labor and American steel. And as a member of our Steel Caucus,
    Mr. Chairman, you know the Buy America provision in steel is
    critical. It saved over 100 million tons of American steel over
    the last 20 years.
        [The statement of Mr. Oberstar follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Well, I want to thank both the chairman and
    the ranking member again for all the great things I think you
    have done for the country.
        The gentlewoman from California.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me
    join in the sweet refrain of what you have said earlier.
    Really, I am on this committee, and I know how well this
    committee works. They have worked in concert over the years
    that I have been in Congress, at least for the 9 years I have
    been here, and we have an extraordinary opportunity now to move
    goods and people more aggressively.
        The growth of this country is tremendous, and yet we have
    not built the roads and bridges to the capacity they should,
    given the growth. So I am pleased to sit on this committee with
    two fine gentlemen who take leadership by the tail and they
    move the agenda.
        Mr. Oberstar, you were not here earlier when the chairman
    asked about the two-thirds/one-third formula that is in concert
    with all of the chairs and ranking members. Is that amenable to
    you, and are you satisfied with the operation working with your
    chair?
        Mr. Oberstar. The division of funding has worked without
    problem, and we are very pleased with the relationship we have
    with the majority leadership of the committee.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. That is what the chairman said, so
    you are right on point with him.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One thing I always
    look for in a committee as we go through these reviews is the
    efficiency of the operation of the committee, and I am pleased
    to say the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
    operates very efficiently, and they use their money well. It is
    hard to find any waste, except perhaps they could clean their
    restroom a little more often. But other than that, it is a very
    smoothly operated entity.
        Mr. Oberstar. Get your mop out.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. Finally got that through.
        It is just a well-run committee in every sense of the word.
    So, clearly, their funding request deserves very favorable
    consideration.
        I did want to comment a bit further on the statement from
    the ranking member when he talked about infrastructure and our
    problems vis-a-vis China. I am very concerned about this, and
    that is why I was glad to hear the chairman saying we are going
    to get out in other parts of the country and hold hearings.
    Because we have a mammoth educational job to do. I am just
    amazed that the public today does not understand what
    infrastructure is and what role it plays.
        Mr. Oberstar, I was born in your State, the southwest
    corner, in a small town of 800 people, Edgerton. I remember
    well in the early--I guess right after World War II--when we
    put in sewer and water, the immense civic pride that went into
    that. They were so proud that they had that infrastructure and
    did not depend on septic tanks and home wells and so forth.
        Today, I live in the city, and when these city commissions
    try to increase water fees slightly to improve infrastructure,
    people complain about the increase in the rates. They literally
    do not know what is under the ground. They do not know what is
    involved. They do not know what it is causing.
        I have seen the figures of what is needed in this Nation. I
    am a little concerned that all these cities, townships,
    whatever, are coming to us and saying we cannot afford it, you
    will have to do it. They can afford it just as well as we can,
    but they have to help us educate the public on the nature of
    the problems and what has to be done, and they have to be
    willing to pay the bill. It is not going to be good old Uncle
    Sam coming to help them, other than through the revolving fund,
    which I think is great.
        If my little old town of 800 people could afford to put in
    water and sewer de novo, certainly the people today can afford
    to pay the cost for improvements. And we have to improve it.
    And it is not just water and sewer, it is highways, bridges; it
    is transit. That is why I love being on this committee, because
    it is all of these important things and good things that are
    wonderful for the people, which they support, but we do have to
    do a little education. You do not get anything for free in this
    business.
        So thank you for raising that.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        The gentlewoman from Michigan.
        Mrs. Miller of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not
    know that I have a question, but perhaps an observation.
        I am at a slight disadvantage, since my other three
    colleagues all serve on the Transportation Committee, and they
    have articulated very well what a wonderful job you are doing
    and how cost-efficient the Transportation and Infrastructure
    Committee is. But it occurred to me, just listening to the
    conversation, that even though I am not actually a member of
    your esteemed committee, I utilize your services and expertise
    extensively, as does I think every Member of this body. That
    was particularly evident during the recent consideration of the
    transportation bill, in its subsequent passage, because I am
    sure that all Members were talking to each of you about the
    different kinds of challenges and needs in their respective
    districts. So yours is a committee that is unique in some way
    because it does service the entire Congress and the Nation.
        Another observation: All the transportation needs have been
    talked about, but the economic growth has historically always
    followed the transportation grid, whether it was the wagon
    trains, then the railroads or the interstates and the airlines
    or what have you. So the work that you are doing is of huge
    importance to our economic stability and the future of the
    economy of our very Nation, in my opinion.
        I have read through the statement and the documentation,
    and I would just say, certainly, that I appreciate everyone
    being fiscally conservative. I like to think of myself as that
    as well, but I also think the business of the American people
    needs to get done and particularly on a committee like the
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, so I applaud both
    of you, the chairman and the ranking member, and the Members
    for their diligent work on these issues.
        Mr. Young. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlewoman.
        Just in closing, we do have a tight budget, as usual, but
    we will try to give every consideration of the needs,
    considering the importance of the committee overall to the
    Congress.
        Also, I would be remiss if I did not mention that our staff
    tells me that working with your staff has been a delight. They
    get things on time, the details and all the other things that
    sometimes go wrong do not go wrong with your staff, and they
    communicate. So the relationship of the entire staff, minority
    and majority, has been a very good working relationship with
    the committee.
        Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Chairman, could I just----
        The Chairman. Sure. Of course, Mr. Oberstar used to be a
    staff member.
        Mr. Oberstar. That helps to understand how this place
    works.
        The observation of the gentlewoman from Michigan and the
    gentleman from Michigan as well, you do not see partisan smoke
    coming out of our committee. We have differences. They are
    often regional in nature. They are differences of approach. But
    in the end, we have worked those out for the greater good of
    the country.
        But I cannot help but note the observations of the
    gentleman from Michigan about investment in our wastewater
    infrastructure. The Clean Water Act in 1972 had the purpose of
    investing wastewater construction grants in the major
    metropolitan areas first to clean up the biggest waste streams.
    And those were very expensive dollars, very expensive projects.
        The plan was, after the first decade, to then shift the
    emphasis to communities of 25,000 or less. And just at that
    time, the Reagan administration came in and terminated the
    Clean Water Grant Program over a 2-year period and then shifted
    it into the Revolving Loan Fund.
        Those smaller communities, with the narrower tax base, with
    fewer resources, without migration, with industries shutting
    down, found themselves unable to finance the improvements to
    existing facilities or build the ones they needed. And the 70-
    30 matching grant programs, which later became 80-20, now was
    gone for them.
        So the smaller communities of America are not in the same
    relative position to clean up as the larger metropolitan areas
    have been and continue to be. So I think it is important for us
    to move to the House Floor the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund
    $20 billion, 5-year bill, as quickly as our House leadership
    will allow it to happen and address the needs of rural America.
    Otherwise, you are simply going to have a repeat of the
    migration from rural America to urban centers that happened in
    the 1930s when 26 million people left the countryside in
    America and went to the cities.
        Now you have all those problems of overcrowding and drugs
    and every other imaginable problem that you could avoid if we
    keep people where the quality of living is better, where they
    prefer to be and where we can provide the amenities and
    necessities of life.
        The Chairman. I thank both gentlemen for your time today.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. It is
    always a pleasure to ask for money, and, hopefully, we will
    receive it.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Next, we will move on to the Science Committee.
        I want to welcome our ranking member, Mr. Gordon, and we
    will go ahead and begin with you, and Mr. Boehlert, I am sure,
    will be here.

      STATEMENT OF HON. BART GORDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

        Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing us to
    present our budget today.
        The Chairman. And if you will push the button right in
    front of your mike there.
        Mr. Gordon. This one. There we go. Mr. Chairman, the
    Science Committee ought to know how to use these things, but I
    think you are much more high-tech than we are.
        Thank you for letting me be here today. As Mr. Ehlers can
    confirm, we have a very good working relationship on the
    Science Committee. I want to congratulate our new ranking
    member. I hope that her relationship with her chairman can be
    as good as we have with the Science Committee. We work well
    together both as Members, and the staff has worked very well
    also.
        So I really am here to say amen. But you are supposed to
    let Sherry say what he is going to say first. But I will give a
    preliminary amen to his recommendations. We really do, again,
    have a good working relationship.
        A couple of things I would like to point out, though, is
    the Science Committee, probably more than most, as Vern can
    tell you, has a very good professional staff, most of which
    have advanced degrees, and it is more difficult to get those
    folks and more expensive. So we are very pleased with our
    committee.
        But what has happened here in the last couple of years is
    that we have had a lot of additional responsibility, with the
    shuttle crash, with Return to Flight, with reorganization of
    NASA; there are a variety of additional responsibilities. So I
    would like to make a request from this committee that we have
    our committee slots increased.
        Right now, we have 61, and, again, I would like to get
    Sherry's concurrence, but to go from 61 to 63. And let me give
    a little background.
        Since the 106th Congress, ten committees have received
    additional staff slots while the Science Committee has received
    no additional staff slots, even though we have had this
    significant addition of responsibilities here. Thirteen
    committees are requesting additional increase in staff slots
    than in their 108th authorization.
        I would also say that, at least from my standpoint, we do
    not request any additional funding. I am not looking for
    additional funding over our normal request for those additional
    slots. I think we can take care of it within the budget that we
    have, and I would make that request.
        Again, I would support our chairman in what, I am sure,
    will be a good suggestion to you.
        Do you want me to dance or do anything here while we are
    waiting?
        The Chairman. If you are like me and you dance, you will be
    thrown out of office.
        One question I have while we are waiting for Mr. Boehlert,
    because there are certain questions I will ask, obviously, of
    the chairman, about the two-thirds/one-third split of the
    resources. Do you have any comments on that?
        Mr. Gordon. You know, I do. The fact of the matter is, I
    would prefer the so-called one-third/one-third with control. We
    do not have that now. We get one-third of the staff; we get
    one-third of the funding, but we have to go through the
    committee for whatever we are going to do.
        The young man right here could not be any better to work
    with, but our chairman is going to be term-limited, in one of
    your bad decisions, in 2 years. You do not know what is going
    to happen with the next chairman. And I think that, as a
    policy, it would be better, like most committees, to have the
    one-third/one-third and have that control.
        But I am not here to specifically request that today. But
    since you asked, I would like to put a benchmark down because
    that may need to be done in the future. And if you choose to do
    it, I think it would be good, and we would be happy. And if you
    want to do it as a policy across the board, I think it would be
    the good and right thing also.
        The Chairman. Other questions of Mr. Gordon?
        The gentlewoman from California.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good
    to see you, and we certainly do not want you to dance. You are
    minus one limb there to some great degree or maybe a limited
    degree. We are happy to know you do work well with Mr.
    Boehlert. He is a fine man. And it is always good to know both
    the chairman and the ranking member are working in concert.
        You have already outlined that you do get a one-third/one-
    third of the budget. It seems like it is a traditional thing
    that the ranking member does have to go to the chairman for the
    requests, but we want to make sure that the chairman is
    amenable.
        Mr. Gordon. He is certainly receptive. But sometimes, there
    can be a time frame. It would be more efficient, I think, if
    you did not have to wait. It would be more efficient across the
    board. I think it is a better policy. I think that anybody in
    the majority needs to think about how do they want to be
    treated if they are in the minority later. As well as when we
    are back in the majority, which will happen at some point----
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. That is right.
        Mr. Gordon. Are we acting responsibly as a minority
    ourselves?
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Absolutely.
        Mr. Gordon. So that is the way we need to all look at these
    things.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, I see Mr. Boehlert
    has come in, so you may want to allow him to make his
    statement, and then I will go on with questions.
        The Chairman. I want to thank the chairman for arriving,
    and if you would like to make your statement, then we will go
    into questions.

       STATEMENT OF HON. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Mr. Boehlert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I will try to be brief. I should say at the outset that Mr.
    Gordon and I have a completely cooperative relationship. We
    have had no disputes over any committee budget matter.
        I would add parenthetically that, since we developed it,
    Mr. Gordon has asked if they could have an additional staff
    person without any additional money, and I would support that
    request. And we are seeking no additional staff members for the
    majority side.
        I propose to maintain a two-thirds/one-third salary account
    split. That has been the committee's practice for a number of
    years. We did not have to be advised to do it. We did it.
    Others have followed. The minority has about one-third of the
    committee staff and uses its salary account as it sees fits.
        Mr. Chairman, the Science Committee is requesting a 2005
    budget allocation that would be about 6 percent higher than
    what we received for 2004 and then about a 5 percent increase
    over 2005 levels for 2006. There are a number of clear reasons
    why this request is justified in our mind.
        First, the committee intends to write a NASA
    reauthorization bill that will set the course for our Nation's
    space program for years to come. This activity will likely
    entail considerable travel to NASA's facilities to understand
    the impact of their proposed NASA budget. I should note, in
    this regard, the NASA budget request seems to envision facility
    closures and layoffs that make visiting NASA's facilities even
    more essential to our business.
        Also, these visits will enable our new Space Subcommittee
    chairman, Mr. Calvert, to become more fully acquainted with the
    full range of NASA facilities and activities.
        Second, the committee continues to upgrade its staff. This
    year, we are likely to have all our staff positions filled all
    year, and I would point out, it is highly specialized staff
    with people with Ph.Ds and graduate degrees, understandably so
    to deal with the very sophisticated subject matter that our
    committee is dealing with. The majority staff, in addition, has
    been attracting more Ph.Ds and attorneys and individuals who
    have had considerable private-sector experience, and we are
    continuing in that vein.
        Third, our copiers and computers are nearing the end of
    their useful lives. And as a prudent business decision, we want
    to replace some of that in this Congress in an orderly pattern.
        We certainly understand the funding constraints under which
    we will all be operating this year. We have worked hard to
    minimize our expenses, seeking out and negotiating good prices
    with contractors and suppliers, and seeking to travel at the
    lowest cost available. And, incidentally, we are not dispersing
    our subcommittees all over the country for hearings. We are
    very limited in our away-from-Washington hearings, because we
    know the need to conserve dollars. But we do need a budget
    increase to continue our oversight and legislative
    responsibilities.
        In short, I believe we have put forward a reasonable and
    well-documented request that will enable the Science Committee
    to continue to play an active role in a wide range of issues,
    and I look forward to any questions you may have.
        [The statement of Mr. Boehlert follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also the ranking
    member for being here.
        I have one question. In the budget, you mention
    establishing an offsite emergency office. Do you have a dollar
    figure on that yet? If you do not today, you can get back to
    us.
        Mr. Boehlert. I do not think we have an exact dollar
    figure, and we will get back to you with some details. But that
    was the recommendation from on high that we begin to consider
    the necessity for some time in the future of operating offsite.
        But we are doing some things like getting more lap-top
    computers that are very portable for our professional staff so
    they can get the input they need to advise us so that we can
    make the decisions we are required.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        The gentlewoman.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And again, it is good to see you, Mr. Chairman. I have
    welcomed the ranking member in, and he has expressed the
    cooperation that you two share on the committee, and that is
    good. I told him that I have known you for some time, and your
    dear wife, Marianne. It is good to know you two work well
    together.
        I certainly understand, being the Science Committee, that
    you need specialized staff and persons who are really vast in
    experience because of the nature of what you do. I have been
    told that you have increased or are requesting an increase of
    $30,000 for the first session of this 109th Congress for
    franking and then $35,000 for the second session of the 109th
    Congress, when, last year, you used only $3,000 in franking.
        Can you explain to me why you want such an increase?
        Mr. Boehlert. Yes. There are some things we have to do. We
    have to do a better job of outreach to advise various groups
    around the country of what we are doing and the importance of
    what we are doing.
        For example, the various programs under the Assistance to
    Firefighters. We have helped in the educational component of
    that obligation so that fire companies around the country can
    discover how valuable this program could be for their fire
    company, getting the necessary equipment they need under a
    peer-review, merit-based decisionmaking process completely
    divorced from the political process. But knowledge is power,
    and unless we empower these people with the knowledge about the
    existence of these program, how are they going to know?
        We have virtually had almost no franking program in the
    past, and so we are expanding that somewhat.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. That is very true. And noting from
    the previous years, you have not had a large franking budget.
    The thing we want to make sure that we are clear on, that
    franking, that when you are anticipating going across the
    country with your various hearings, that you recognize that you
    do have to come under the certain franking rules in governing
    that type of mail and that it cannot be outside of the realm of
    working with your committee work and not anything else that
    could be even in the remote be seemingly campaign related.
        Mr. Boehlert. We would never ever entertain that.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. I just thought I had to say that
    for the record.
        Mr. Gordon. If I may add. I have been reading about the
    controversy in another committee on this, and I think they are
    out of order. I have not seen that on this committee. If it did
    come up, I would let you know next year. But I think it was a
    bad precedent that was set elsewhere.
        Also, my chairman, I gave you a preliminary amen earlier.
    Now after hearing you, I want to concur that I amen.
        Let me point one more thing out. I have only been the
    ranking member for a year and a half, and our chairman is now
    starting his fifth year. But he inherited a committee from, and
    I will just say that Bob Walker and Jim Sensenbrenner, let me
    tell you, those boys took the fat out. So you can be well
    assured that there is not--when they get through with a
    committee, there is not much left to be done.
        So I really think that all of his requests are very
    reasonable, built on a base of a frugal start.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you so much, Mr. Gordon.
        That is it for me, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. We will note that we did get the two previous
    chairs, we got them from ink pens to typewriters by the time
    their chairmanships ended.
        We will turn to our resident science advisor, Mr. Ehlers
    from Michigan.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Again, I would like to vouch for this committee in terms of
    its frugality, occasionally excessive frugality. But,
    certainly, the committee operates very well. It is a committee
    that is basically nonpartisan and certainly deserving of the
    support they have requested. I do commend the ranking member
    for going so far as to break his arm to get our sympathy during
    this crucial period of deciding their budget.
        On a more serious note, the chairman mentioned, or others
    have mentioned, that we have a very tight budget on the Science
    Committee. And, frankly, I think the committee should probably
    do more travel. We have a lot of national labs under the
    jurisdiction of the committee. We have many other scientific
    facilities that are, although not directly under the
    jurisdiction of the committee, are funded in large part by
    government grants, such as Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute,
    and so on. Plus you have the National Institute of Standards
    and Technologies labs, the NOAA labs, all the weather reporting
    and so forth.
        The chairman indicated the need for oversight. I concur
    heartily with that, and I think a good deal of that has to be
    on-site oversight. So I would encourage the committee to be
    generous with this request so that they can fulfill that.
        The Chairman. Mr. Brady, any questions?
        Mr. Brady. No.
        The Chairman. The gentlewoman from Michigan, Mrs. Miller.
        Mrs. Miller of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps,
    again, not a question but an observation. And I have to say I
    am particularly pleased that you have some money in your budget
    for travel for NASA. In particular, as the daughter of an
    aeronautical engineer, actually, that worked with Wernher Von
    Braun at Redstone, I think the space program is critically
    important. It is important not only to members of the
    Committee, but also to those who serve as ambassadors to do
    outreach to the entire population here of our Nation of how
    important a space program is in every way.
        There are so many positive spinoffs from that, whether it
    is technology or the fabrics of the clothes that we wear; there
    are so many things that have evolved out of our space program,
    and it is a very important thing.
        I know the President has advocated the Mars mission, and I
    am very interested to see how all that goes. But I am certain
    that when Columbus was addressing the king of Spain about
    taking a trip with three little boats across the big pond
    there, that they also looked at their committee structure and
    their budget and whether or not they could afford such a
    venture. But exploration is always so very, very necessary. So
    I certainly support your budget and look forward to your
    committee work this year as well.
        Mr. Boehlert. Thank you.
        The Chairman. We are thankful they did not do a cutback at
    that time in Italy.
        The gentlewoman from California.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, let me apologize for being late. I was actually
    having a meeting on the space budget.
        First, I missed all of the testimony, but I did have a
    chance to review it. I was on the committee for 10 years, and I
    loved the Science Committee. I am sorry I had to leave it in
    order to join this committee. Traditionally, I think it has
    worked pretty well. Chairman Boehlert is exceedingly fair, and
    I think all the members of the committee recognize that.
        However, the default is the minority gets one-third of the
    budget, one-third of the slots and control over their one-
    third, except as the chairman and ranking member may negotiate
    otherwise.
        So am I to understand that you are both satisfied with the
    budget that is being proposed here today?
        Mr. Boehlert. What I did offer was one amendment. Since our
    budget was prepared, Mr. Gordon approached me and asked if the
    minority might get an additional person, and I have okayed
    that, without any additional money. And he made that clear from
    the outset.
        The traditional way to go about it was, we will give you
    one more if we get one more. We do not need one more. We can
    always use one more, but I mean, the word parsimonious. So I
    support his request for a staff person without any additional
    dollars attached to that additional staff, a person to give him
    a little more flexibility.
        But I think we, and I will let Mr. Gordon speak for
    himself, but I think we have a very good relationship. We work
    well. And so many of the activities, as you know as a result of
    your experience on the committee, on many of the issues, you
    cannot tell the majority from the minority. They are working
    together in a common cause.
        Ms. Lofgren. Certainly, under your chairmanship, that is
    true. It was not always true with Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Boehlert. I can only speak for my chairmanship, but I
    think the staffs enjoy a good professional working partnership
    rather than just a relationship.
        Mr. Gordon. I concur. I elaborated even more than that
    earlier on the good relationship.
        Going to your one-third/one-third situation, we have the
    one-third/one-third but without the control. We have control on
    the salaries but not on the other. It works out well, and we
    have a very good relationship. I think sometimes, and it is
    certainly not due to the staff, sometimes it does slow the
    process down. I think a better procedure, like many of the
    committees do, would be to also have that control.
        As long as he does not get hit by a train, then we are
    fine. But I think that is a legitimate question for this
    committee to raise and whether there should be a policy across
    the board. But we are satisfied here.
        If I could make one additional comment concerning the
    additional person. As the chairman said, we are not asking for
    any additional salary. We have, I guess, something maybe of a
    unique situation in that we allow our ranking members to have a
    part-time person. And according to the rules here, a part-time
    person fills up a slot just like a full-time person. So we have
    gotten our own selves disadvantaged, but we felt it was
    necessary if a ranking member was going to spend the time and
    effort to be that ranking member and to deal with the
    responsibilities, they should have some reward. And part of
    that reward is being able to offset the cost of an employee
    that can do a little more work there. So we wound up with these
    four, or actually five, part-time folks. That really cuts into
    us, because they count just like a full-time person. That and
    the additional responsibilities is the basis of this problem.
        Ms. Lofgren. I see. A parochial question. I talked to the
    chairman, as well as you, Mr. Gordon, about a long-wished-for
    trip to NASA Ames. Do you have enough money in your travel
    budget to visit NASA Ames?
        Mr. Boehlert. We do envision that, particularly under
    Chairman Calvert's subcommittee chairmanship. He is new on the
    job, and he has indicated a desire and a willingness. We all
    have the desire to travel more and get out to these sites, but
    sometimes it just is not compatible with our schedule.
        So we have the money built in, and we know we are going to
    return to flight, hopefully in mid-May, and I would envision a
    committee trip for that. But more importantly, the subcommittee
    and Mr. Gordon and I have discussed that, that we will be
    traveling more.
        Ms. Lofgren. They built the fastest supercomputer in the
    world in 6 months for $4 million. It took the Japanese years
    and hundreds of millions. I would love to have you see it.
        Mr. Gordon. Ames also, as you well know, is under the ax
    for the most significant reductions under this new realignment,
    and I think that, one, should be reviewed; and secondly, with
    the good work you do out there, there needs to be thought, if
    that happens, to what additional responsibilities can Ames pick
    up.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Does the gentlewoman from California have
    another question?
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Yes, thank you. I just wanted to
    ask the chairman. You spoke about outreach, going to fire
    services, fire stations for more, I guess, hearings? Or did you
    say something about fire stations?
        Mr. Boehlert. No, no, no, the answer was in response to the
    use of the frank and where we are having more mailings of that
    nature.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. No, no, but in your statement, as
    you read, I thought you mentioned that the Science Committee
    would be going to more areas throughout the country and that
    you will be engaging in some perhaps nontraditional groups that
    you have not engaged with in terms of hearings. I thought I
    heard that.
        Mr. Boehlert. We are always looking to explore that. For
    example, we did have a hearing on the very programs we are
    discussing, in the fire services' program. And the
    administrator, David Paulson, was invited to testify, and we
    had bipartisan members of the committee. And that was one of
    the best attended hearings I have ever had outside of
    Washington, simply because there is a great deal of interest in
    it.
        Not everybody can go out to the airport to fly to
    Washington to participate, so that is the type of thing we are
    trying to do more of. But I can envision the necessity for
    traveling to some of the NASA centers, because NASA has
    announced their restructuring of their workforce, and there are
    thousands of people whose lives and futures are going to be on
    the line.
        So we want to make sure our committee is in the position to
    provide the best possible advice to our colleagues on the
    committee and the Congress as to how we should proceed with
    that. So unless we get to Ames and Glen and some of these other
    places, we will not be in that position.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. I must say, that is very critical.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank both the chairman and the ranking
    member for coming here today. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Boehlert. Thank you.
        Mr. Gordon. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Veterans is next. What I will do is, since
    Veterans is not here, if the gentlewoman would want to, we can
    quickly present House Administration, and we can present that
    until the Veterans' Committee comes.

     STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT W. NEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                         FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        The Chairman. The ranking member and I have jointly
    introduced the budget request for House Administration
    Committee as H. Res. 159, and as chairman, I am happy to work
    with our ranking member, Ms. Millender-McDonald and her staff
    to introduce a budget that we can both support. I think it is
    an honest budget and one that is necessary for us to continue
    the necessary and important work of running, maintaining and
    securing the U.S. House of Representatives for Members, their
    staff and employees of the House.
        House Administration's request totals $10,101,152 for the
    109th Congress. This represents an 18.46 percent increase over
    the $8,527,057 figure authorized for the 108th Congress. This
    breaks down to $4,822,199 and $5,278,953 for 2005 and 2006
    respectively.
        The committee also requests an increase in our staff
    ceiling from 48 to 54. Should these additional slots be
    approved, of course they would be allocated on a two-thirds/
    one-third basis. We need the additional slots to bolster the
    ranks of our current staff, who are increasingly dealing with
    election administration and campaign finance issues, areas
    within our committee's jurisdiction, which have seen an
    explosion of activities. With the announcement of the
    committee's hearing schedule, including field hearings,
    additional staff are needed to maintain our oversight
    functions.
        Additionally, our committee is looking to improve its
    oversight of House security and technology issues. Additional,
    staff and funds will assist us in strongly addressing these
    responsibilities.
        As with all committee budgets, our requested increase is
    needed primarily to support personnel costs, including costs
    associated with comparability pay increases for staff. Many
    committees have already testified to this effect. As the gap
    grows between private-sector salaries and government salaries,
    it becomes difficult for committees to maintain and acquire
    qualified staff. If you do not have qualified staff, you cannot
    communicate with constituencies across the country.
        Without objection, I will submit the rest for the record
    because our two Members have shown for their testimony. But
    again, we continue the two-thirds/one-third allocation of our
    resources, as was established by Bill Thomas when he was
    chairman of the committee, and I am pleased to continue that
    tradition.
        Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California, our
    ranking member, and the other Members and the staff for helping
    us to crunch the numbers and produce this budget.
        [The statement of Mr. Ney follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    STATEMENT OF HON. JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Absolutely.
        Do you want me to make my statement or just go with them?
        Okay, make my statement.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to recognize
    Chairman Ney and Speaker Hastert for their continued leadership
    and consistent commitment to the two-thirds/one-third funding
    principle for the minority. Chairman Ney has been a beacon for
    all the committee chairs, and he has amply demonstrated that
    allowing minority control over its fair share of committee
    funding, promoting comity and communication between the
    majority and the minority does not diminish any Chairman's
    control over the committee he leads, which is really laudable.
        Chairman Ney's open-door policy with this ranking member
    and with my predecessors has promoted a broad cooperative
    working relationship and has eliminated the suspicion which
    arises when open communications are lacking.
        So we thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        With respect to the committee's funding request, let me
    say, right up, that I am rather fiscally conservative. It is
    the people's money, and we ought to spend only what we need to
    get the job done. When Leader Pelosi assigned me to the task of
    ranking member, I gave her assurances that I would do a top-to-
    bottom review of all House support services, and I promised
    that the House would do everything reasonable and necessary to
    ensure the security of Members, staff and visiting
    constituents. This will require additional committee staff
    resources, and I support the Chairman's request to Speaker
    Hastert to raise the staff ceiling for the committee.
        In addition to the security concerns, I think the committee
    will need to engage short-term expertise to review our internal
    practices and procedures and to ensure that tax dollars are
    being efficiently spent on internal operations throughout the
    House. Once these reviews are completed, I would anticipate the
    need for this committee to make the changes necessary to
    streamline House operations and to eliminate waste.
        Mr. Chairman, the most recent Federal election clearly
    demonstrated the need for aggressive oversight of the Federal
    Election Administration throughout the country by this
    committee. We must go to the people, gather the information and
    make adjustments to HAVA wherever we find it necessary. We will
    conduct the first of what I hope to be many field hearings in
    Columbus, Ohio, next week. In order to conduct this type of
    oversight, we will need additional funding for travel, and I
    hope we can obtain that.
        Mr. Chairman, I consider the increase, which we have
    jointly requested, to be reasonable in light of the security
    administrative and oversight challenges ahead. I would
    characterize the increase as an investment in House efficiency
    as well as the maintenance of our democratic process. I would
    expect it to result in savings to the American taxpayer and a
    fair and more robust democracy in the long run.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlewoman.
        And now we will move on to chairman of the Veterans
    Committee, Mr. Buyer from Indiana.

      STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE BUYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

        Mr. Buyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this
    committee to present a budget submission for the 109th Congress
    on behalf of the Veterans' Affairs full committee. My friend,
    ranking member and Marine, Lane Evans, joins me here today in
    support of the committee's request.
        As you know, we have oversight over the Department of
    Veterans Affairs. The VA is the second largest Federal agency,
    employing over 200,000 people, with budget authority exceeding
    $69 billion. The VA Committee's total budget request for the
    109th Congress of $7.9 million will provide us with the funds
    needed to hire and retain the finest staff. It is also my
    understanding this request may represent the largest requested
    increase this year, but I also believe it is fair, and in fact,
    it is justified.
        Used efficiently and with careful planning, this budget
    will allow us to provide the highest quality oversight to
    ensure that veterans who accessed the VA yesterday and those
    coming back today have the highest quality of care.
        As I stated in my written testimony and upon assuming the
    chairmanship this January, I asked my staff director to provide
    a complete accounting of all funds, equipment and personnel. I
    asked him to discuss the needs also with the minority, with
    Lane Evans' staff director, as well. Administratively, we split
    our salary allotment two-thirds/one-third.
        It is my assessment that the committee badly needs to hire
    additional staff to meet the needs of our committee. The
    committee has added a fourth subcommittee to better meet the
    needs of our veterans population. Therefore, additional staff
    space, especially for the Democrats, is needed as they
    currently share a two-room suite, and they should be able to
    access additional space, preferably within the Canon Office
    Building. It would be welcomed.
        During this time of war, the committee must provide proper
    oversight to ensure the men and women transitioning into the VA
    health care system are able to do so quickly and effectively.
    We need to make sure those already in the system are provided
    for as well. The committee has identified several areas of
    concern, and the retention of an expert consultant could
    facilitate our efforts in several ways: Number one, to deliver
    the seamless transition between DOD and VA health care system;
    number two, to ensure that benefits, especially those which
    seek to help transition our veterans into the work force, are
    adequate; three, the VA has approximately $3 billion in
    uncollected debt. Increasing collections is a priority of the
    committee. An outside consultant will facilitate making
    significant inroads on this front. And, finally, we will
    continue to address the needs of the electronic medical records
    and information technology at the VA. We hope you will look
    favorably at this increase that we have included in this
    request to fund such expertise.
        With regard to travel, the funds we request will enable us
    to travel to many of the VA hospitals, outpatient clinics,
    nursing homes and national cemeteries within the VA system that
    are not only within the continental United States but also
    worldwide.
        In recent years, the VA Committee has expended an
    insignificant amount on staff and Member travel to perform
    oversight. It is more important than ever for us to be out and
    learning firsthand the needs and successes of the largest
    health care delivery system in the government and to ensure
    that the veterans are receiving the assistance they need.
        With regard to equipment, equal to the need for additional
    staff is the need for equipment. Due to past funding, this
    committee was not able to make equipment purchases in the 108th
    Congress and has not been able to maintain the one-third
    hardware inventory schedule replacement plan.
        The staff is currently using 15 Pentium III computers and
    seven Pentium II laptops that cannot run the most current House
    approved software system. They are well below the House minimum
    support standards. Our servers are in dire need of replacement
    and are between 3 and 7 years old. In the 108th Congress, some
    staff had Blackberrys that had to be returned for budgetary
    reasons.
        So we have some major purchases that must happen over the
    next 2 years, and some of them are immediate. They include a
    new copier for the minority, replacement of several computers
    and computer upgrades and computer software. Most all are
    needed to meet House minimum technical standards.
        Our Web site, which has won awards, also needs to be
    updated. We currently provide access around the world via audio
    feed through the Web site. We would like to offer video
    broadcasting, too, if the funds were available. We also need
    additional funds to ensure that we have an emergency
    contingency plan for equipment backup and offsite capability
    should we be unable to access our office.
        In closing, we face complex and unique challenges to ensure
    that the VA continues and excels in completing its mission.
    Again, I understand this request may be one of the largest of
    the committees, but I can assure you we will use it efficiently
    and wisely.
        In the recent past, field hearings have been canceled,
    equipment has been taken back and staff has not been hired due
    to lack of funding. Mr. Chairman and ranking member, we will
    work effectively to offer the finest legislative initiatives to
    maintain and improve the lives of our veterans and their
    dependents. We believe the increase we are asking for is
    justified and needed.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to answer any questions
    you may have.
        [The statement of Mr. Buyer follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Well, I thank the chairman for his testimony.
        And we will now go on to our ranking member, Mr. Lane Evans
    of Illinois.

    STATEMENT OF HON. LANE EVANS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                         THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your
    giving us the time this afternoon to talk to you about these
    important issues. I think the chairman, though, has outlined
    them, not only recognizing the challenges but the
    recommendations that can really mean something to our ability
    as a committee to perform as well as we can.
        The important issue of space is one that has been most
    troubling. We have had such an overlapping situation that it
    would probably hurt us to continue at this present level. We do
    not have the ability to go out and do oversight or to go out
    and visit these facilities across the country.
        I think that we can work together on this committee. We
    have that hallmark, but we do have to have a decent number of
    staff. It has curtailed at least some of us from getting around
    as much as we used to. And it is too bad, because this is one
    institution where it is very necessary to keep in touch with
    the people who are affected by it.
        So that is why we come here today, to ask for your support
    in these specific areas and to praise the chairman for the work
    he has done.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. Evans follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Well, I thank both the chair and the ranking
    member. It is a great job you both do here in the Congress for,
    obviously, a real important issue, our veterans. We would not
    be here debating and able to debate if it was not for the
    veterans. I do not have to tell you that. I know you both are
    good patriots and have watched out for the veterans' needs, and
    we give you a lot of credit for that.
        On the space issue, we have been hearing this over and
    over, the Architect of the Capitol, I think in March of this
    year, will have sort of a master plan they will unveil.
    Somewhere along the line, we have to get more space. It is
    endemic throughout our system. These buildings were not
    designed for the amount of people that we have.
        With that, I will just see if there are any questions,
    because of the votes.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much,
    and thanks to the chairman and the ranking member of Veterans
    Affairs. It is very clear that you need to update some
    equipment, that you are far behind in that as well as maybe
    some of the other necessary components of doing a more
    efficient job in this committee.
        Mr. Chairman, I do have some glaring requests by your
    committee with reference to the frank mail allocation. You are
    requesting one of the largest frank mail allocations in this
    committee, with a $50,000 projection of this. And I would like
    to call your attention to the 108th Congress where you spent
    only $2,037.39 for the first session and only $1,697.77 during
    the second session.
        This was compared to the request that you had and was
    granted for frank mail of $10,000. This represents an increase
    of over 2,600 percent. Can you explain to the committee why you
    are asking for such a considerable increase in the frank mail?
        Mr. Buyer. Two comments. First, with regard to the
    Chairman's comment regarding spacing, there is, right across
    from the ranking member's office, the Joint Economic Committee,
    where there is space. This staff has to grow in order to meet
    these present needs. There is room, I want you to take note.
    They can move up to three of their staff there. And if you were
    to go and see the room in which they have to operate in, you
    would never want anybody to be treated like that. So I just
    wanted to share with you that there is some space and to please
    make note of that. I would endorse their gaining access to that
    Joint Economic Committee room that is not being used.
        With regard to your question on frank mail, I was not the
    chairman, ma'am, in the last Congress. I am the new chairman
    here in January, and we are trying to assess how we can
    effectively communicate with veterans in the country beyond the
    veterans' service organizations.
        That is what people seem to sort of rely on. But we do not
    communicate effectively with all of the county veterans service
    officers in the entire country and territories, and I want to
    reach out and I want to touch them. And I think that is
    extremely important to do that, and that is the purpose of the
    request, through the franking budget.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Now, while that is absolutely
    important for you to do that, because our veterans really do
    need to hear from us here, we want you to recognize that there
    are limitations on how and what you can do with your outreach
    beyond the scope of your own district with reference to franked
    mail.
        And we must ask that you abide by the 90-day cutoff before
    an election in sending franked mail out, and that you do get a
    clearance of the franked mail from Franking before it is done.
    That is something that we now find a committee has been in
    violation of. We are now watching very closely the requests for
    franked mail from each committee.
        We are looking at any committee that goes beyond the
    $25,000, which should be kind of the standard for that, but
    with your saying 50,000 per session, it really did raise the
    bar quite a bit--and eyebrows. But I just want you to know that
    we want to stay within the privileges of those Members,
    chairmen and ranking members, but we want also to preserve the
    integrity of this House and the taxpayers' dollars.
        Mr. Buyer. Thank you.
        The Chairman. If I could interrupt to clear up just for the
    record, but the 90-day cutoff does not apply, under the House
    rule, to committees. But Members' offices do have a 90-day
    cutoff.
        I am sorry. Go ahead.
        Mr. Buyer. Ma'am, I think if you were to look at my own
    history, in my seventh term here in Congress, I am probably in
    the lower 20 percent of Members who access and utilize franked
    mail. So I share with you your concern.
        What I am hoping to do here is how we effectively
    communicate with the county veterans service officers. These
    are the individuals who really are very, very active, hands-on
    with our veterans in our communities. They are the ones who the
    vets first go to, and that is who we want to reach out and
    touch. That was the purpose of the request.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. I really do appreciate the
    gentleman explaining that and expressing your thoughts about
    that. And while the Chairman has appropriately outlined what is
    and what is not with reference to Chairs' positions as opposed
    to Members' positions, we are all spending taxpayer dollars to
    do this, and I think we should very much recognize that and
    appropriately respond to the limitations vis-a-vis whether it
    is Member or committee Chair with reference to the taxpayers'
    dollars in mailing this mail out beyond the scope of your
    district.
        And with the committee, of course you want to do outreach
    beyond that across the country. But that mail should go in
    concert with that outreach hearing that you are anticipating
    doing.
        Mr. Buyer. Ma'am, I am cognizant of everything that you
    have just said. And Mr. Evans and I work cooperatively
    together. The Veterans Affairs Committee is supposed to be the
    most bipartisan committee in Congress, and Lane and I are--not
    only are we comrades in arms, we are also friends, and we seek
    to work cooperatively, even in how we communicate with our
    county veterans service officers. And in uniform, no one ever
    asked Lane and I whether we are Republicans or Democrats. So as
    we serve our veteran populations, it should be done in the same
    spirit.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. I thank you so much because, as
    veterans, no one should ever ask whether you are Republicans or
    Democrats. And Mr. Evans has stated to me that he appreciates
    the support that you give him and the continuous camaraderie
    between the two of you. So we thank you so much.
        I suppose the $90,000 per session for printing that you
    have also requested is in concert with your outreach to the--
    across the country; is that correct?
        Mr. Buyer. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I also would note we have a Franking
    Commission at House Administration, and they will sit down and
    tell you the current rules, work with your staff. If rules
    change in this process this year, they will review those, too,
    with you. And so the Franking Commission will be essential to
    sit down and be able to tell you the current House rules.
        Does the gentlelady have a question? And the second bell
    has rung. I just want to say thank you for your time. I also
    want to note, you are at a turning point, I think, in the
    committee--turning point in equipment, turning point in staff,
    horrifically lean, and some decisions have to be made so you
    can continue to do your job. And I know that.
        Mr. Buyer. My only plea is, please place us in a plan with
    a time line that is realistic, whereby we can modernize and
    have a realistic replacement plan with regard to our equipment.
    Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. And come to my district first with
    your outreach.
        The Chairman. The committee will be in recess until 3:00 or
    around--the last vote, I think it is around 3:00. Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        The Chairman. The meeting will come to order. We will start
    with Homeland Security, with our chairman, the gentleman from
    California, Mr. Cox, who will begin.

    STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER COX, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Cox. Thank you, Chairman Ney, Ranking Member Ms.
    Millender-McDonald. Thank you for this opportunity to testify
    on behalf of the Committee on Homeland Security.
        We are a new standing committee of the House, and it has
    been almost 60 years since the House has had to consider what
    it takes to start from scratch a new standing committee. The
    last time we did this was during the postwar consolidation of
    the Nation's military establishment, 1947. That culminated in
    the creation of the Department of Defense.
        This year, Congress acted to respond to a no less momentous
    change in the organization of the executive branch by creating
    a permanent standing Committee on Homeland Security to address
    this vital national security issue and to oversee the new
    Department of Homeland Security.
        My distinguished ranking member, Bennie Thompson, and I
    cosponsored H. Res. 104, which is before you, to cover expenses
    for the Homeland Security Committee in the 109th Congress. The
    funding resolution seeks $7.4 million for 2005 and 8.3 for
    2006. These amounts are necessary to pay salaries for a total
    of 80 staff, majority and minority combined, and operating
    expenses for the full committee and its five subcommittees.
        To put our request into perspective, the amount we are
    seeking would put the committee at the bottom of the top one-
    third of all of the committees in the House. This reflects
    Representative Thompson's and my own understanding as to what
    it will take not only to get this new committee up and running,
    but to discharge its significant new responsibilities.
        In that connection, it is important to note that the Select
    Committee on Homeland Security that I chaired in the last
    Congress wasn't funded under the general budget resolution, it
    was funded under its own separate resolution. This year's
    funding resolution, therefore, will, for the first time, be
    setting a baseline for this new committee. It has not been done
    before.
        This new committee is very different from the select
    committee; it has significantly expanded responsibilities and
    jurisdiction. So I think it will be fair to compare future
    resolutions to whatever you do this year; it will not be fair
    to compare what we do this year to anything that has gone
    before. Certainly, we can't literally compare it with the
    funding resolution from the 108th Congress because even the
    select committee wasn't included in it.
        In considering our request for funding for the 109th
    Congress, the committee carefully took into account what would
    be required to meet our legislative and oversight
    responsibilities as specifically defined in our Rule 10
    jurisdictional statement. Our detailed budget submission
    explains that fully 89 percent of the committee's budget will
    be dedicated to expert staff and only 11 percent of the
    requested budget for operational expenses.
        Let me also mention the remarkable breadth of the
    committee's jurisdiction, which is a far cry from what we had
    as a select committee in the last Congress. The Committee on
    Homeland Security has jurisdiction over all homeland security
    policy, government-wide, in every department of the executive
    branch as well as, quote, ``on a continuing basis all
    government activities relating to homeland security including
    the interaction of all departments and agencies within the
    Department of Homeland Security.'' So setting the baseline for
    the Homeland Security Committee in its first year is precedent-
    setting, and it is a serious responsibility.
        As a committee, we won't be able to meet our jurisdictional
    responsibilities without not only sufficient staff, but also
    the necessary expertise. And I think in the formal statement
    Ranking Member Thompson addressed that. He may address it
    orally later today.
        Putting our work into its broader context, we would all
    acknowledge that the Department of Homeland Security has made
    significant progress since Congress passed the Homeland
    Security Act of 2002. But terrorist networks still pose a
    serious challenge to our national security interests, and
    perhaps in the long term they will pose an even greater threat
    than they did on September 11, 2001. The terrorist threat and,
    in particular, the combination of evolving technology that will
    fall into the hands of terrorist groups in the future is with
    us for the foreseeable future. And to address it, the
    Department of Homeland Security is here to stay.
        Ranking Member Thompson and I, along with the 32 other
    members of the Homeland Security Committee, are determined to
    help the Department of Homeland Security achieve its mission as
    mandated in the Homeland Security Act. We will consider
    legislation and conduct vigorous oversight through each of the
    committee's five subcommittees to ensure that the Department
    remains focused on its overarching priority of preventing
    terrorist attacks here in the United States. We will ensure
    that the Department allocates its terrorism grant assistance,
    like its overall budget, in a manner that reflects the most
    significant terrorism-related risks that we face.
        Given the scope of the committee's responsibilities, it is
    critical that we vest in the Committee on Homeland Security the
    experts and the tools necessary to guide positive change in the
    Department and throughout the executive branch. I am confident
    that the budget request before you, including the committee
    staff, majority and minority combined, of 80 persons will be a
    prudent and forward-looking congressional investment.
        Thank you again, Chairman Ney, Ranking Member Millender-
    McDonald, and other members of the committee for this
    opportunity to testify. I will be happy to answer any questions
    you might have.
        [The statement of Mr. Cox follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being here
    today, and the committee that you have served.
        I want to ask one question about, we kind of noted in the
    submission, you plan to stop using consultants. I am not saying
    that is bad; we use consultants. But a lot of committees use
    consultants. Did you find it in particular due to the nature of
    homeland security that consultants aren't as valuable to you? I
    was just curious on that.
        Mr. Cox. I just inquired of staff, what were the concerns
    there. We intend to hire consultants, and that is included in
    the budget. But as you note, the authority to do so is not as
    extensive as it was for the Select Committee on Homeland
    Security. Two things obtained: First, because we are a
    permanent committee, we don't need to outsource so much since
    we are not in a big hurry. The select committee was time
    limited and had only one Congress in which to operate.
        The second is that there are major conflicts of interest
    that arise with outside consultants and the growing homeland
    security consultancy area. These are precisely the kinds of
    questions that come before the Congress, and so making a
    general habit of staffing that way is not the course to be
    preferred.
        The Chairman. Each committee, I was just curious because
    each committee does it separately. I think by nature homeland
    security and intel would be a whole different type of animal
    when it comes to consultants and things, just due to the nature
    of the sensitivity, too.
        So, questions?
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is
    good to see you, my hometown chairman and friend and also the
    ranking member. And congratulations to him again. I have not
    had the pleasure to extend that.
        Mr. Chairman, as you spoke, I was very--it is very
    interesting the task that you have, both of you, on homeland
    security. This has become now a permanent committee, and you
    are right, you are trying to establish this baseline. And with
    establishing the baseline of course we see the movements of
    dollars with reference to the franked mail, and I will get to
    that in just a moment.
        But when we speak about the consultants--and I know that,
    as the Chairman has said, you have to be very careful because
    these folks have to be scrutinized quite well. But in carrying
    out the request of my leader, House Leader Pelosi, we want to
    make sure that, and encourage chairmen and ranking members to
    ensure that, there is diversity when we are looking at
    contractual agreements among folks or getting consultants.
    Because I think the American people want to see a
    representation of all the people in the People's House.
        In your franking, you requested in the 108th Congress
    $25,000, but you spent a little more than--you spent only $909
    in the first session and $783 in the second session. And yet in
    the 109th Congress you are again asking for the $25,000.
        May I ask you why the increase or what your intentions are
    with reference to $25,000 for franking mail?
        Mr. Cox. My understanding is consistent with yours about
    the underutilization of that budget in the last 2 years. The
    committee utilized our franking budget as a select committee
    for official committee business such as letters to and from the
    Department, answering letters addressed to the committee,
    witness request letters, and so on. We did not use the franking
    for mass mailings to any significant extent.
        But the purpose of the budget would be to include the
    issuance of committee reports, and I wouldn't see any purpose
    beyond that.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. So, in essence, while you are
    requesting the $25,000, under the franking expenditures, it
    would really be used for reports and other things endemic to
    getting the information out to this broad spectrum of folks you
    want to get that out to; and it has never been used for mass
    mailing in the first place?
        Mr. Cox. That is correct.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Okay. Fine.
        Mr. Chairman, that is all.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Thompson has arrived. So since
    the gentleman from Mississippi is here, we will go ahead and
    hear from the ranking member. Thank you.

       STATEMENT OF HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

        Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, ranking
    member, other members of the committee.
        As you have already heard from the chairman, there is
    pretty much agreement on this budget. Actually, there is
    complete agreement on the budget, so--but I would like to get
    some points into the record relative to the budget.
        As the ranking member of the now permanent Committee on
    Homeland Security, I offer my full support of the budget
    resolution offered by my colleague, Chairman Cox, and myself.
    This resolution is bipartisan in nature and requests the
    resources needed to ensure that the new committee can operate
    effectively and to its fullest capacity.
        Our committee faces the daunting challenge of overseeing
    the Nation's overall homeland security policy, including the
    various activities of the Department of Homeland Security. As
    an agency formed from 22 different agencies, the Department's
    efforts cover many distinct complex issues, including border
    and port security, customs, cybersecurity, and critical
    infrastructure protection, intelligence analysis of homeland
    security threats, domestic preparedness and first responders,
    research and development, transportation security and emerging
    threats such as agroterrorism, bioterrorism, and nuclear
    proliferation. In order to conduct effective oversight, our
    committee must be able to draw an experienced staff that can
    properly evaluate the Department's efforts in all of these
    areas.
        Such a staff cannot be drawn from recent graduates, but
    must be made up of individuals who are experienced in their
    fields. To recruit, hire, and retain such experts requires
    competitive salaries and incentives. Simply stated, we need the
    best and the brightest to ensure that the Department of
    Homeland Security, which continues to lag in its efforts to
    protect our Nation, is doing all that it should be doing.
    Chairman Cox and I agree on this, and are committed to hiring
    the best experts we can for our respective sides.
        One other issue that I would like to raise has to do with
    the committee's request regarding travel. I have spoken to Mr.
    Cox about this. We both agree that if our committee is to be
    effective, it must go into the communities across America with
    the Department tasking we are protecting. We cannot do
    effective oversight of the Department if we cannot evaluate for
    ourselves what is being done in towns, cities, and States
    across America.
        We both have agreed that to further this effort we need to
    conduct extensive field hearings. Our first will be next week
    in Vicksburg, Mississippi. I thank Chairman Cox for agreeing to
    come to my district to hear from those most affected and
    involved in the government's effort to protect our ports and
    waterways. Of course, to conduct such field hearings we would
    need the staff we requested. I hope you take this into
    consideration.
        I thank all the committee members for their time, and I am
    happy to respond to any questions you might have.
        [The statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.
        Questions?
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Before we get to our other Member, Mr. Thompson, you have
    certainly eloquently stated that this is a daunting task that
    you have, working in perhaps the most challenging committee
    outside of some of the others whom we have talked about today
    and with today.
        We wanted--and we do recognize that you need expertise. You
    do need folks not just coming out with an undergrad in June and
    trying to hit the ground running in this committee. Are you
    satisfied, though, with the staff that you get and request from
    the chairman, and have you been able to work cooperatively with
    him on that?
        Mr. Thompson. Absolutely. And as I said, this budget we
    agree with. If we receive the resources necessary, we can find
    the people. But in order to find them, we have to negotiate
    competitive salaries, and if we have the resources, we can do
    that.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. You do recognize the two-thirds/
    one-third formula that we have here in House Administration
    with reference to the Chair and the ranking member. Are you
    satisfied with the two-thirds/one-third and control--control
    not necessarily coming from the ranking member, of course, but
    that when you do request equipment or whatever from the
    chairman, he is amenable to that request?
        Mr. Thompson. We have talked about it, and I am in
    agreement.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Very well.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        The gentlelady from California.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I was a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security
    last Congress and am a member of the standing committee this
    Congress, and I can attest that the scope of the committee's
    work is very broad and the need for expertise is very serious.
    And so I think the request is a sound one. I do have a couple
    of questions about travel and space.
        I very much agree--I have been in Congress now 10 years and
    I have never been on a CODEL. I am not a big traveler. But I do
    believe this committee really has to get out in the country and
    look at things and to examine them, and I plan to do that with
    the chairman and ranking member.
        And so the question is, is the travel budget that you have
    presented to us adequate to make sure that all the members who
    should be there are out at the borders inspecting what is going
    on, and all the other sites that we need to go to?
        I missed the last 2 hours of our retreat because I had a
    meeting here in Washington, so maybe that was discussed. I know
    we were going to discuss it.
        Mr. Cox. Well, what we did discuss at the tail end of our
    bipartisan retreat is our ambition to visit, as Mr. Thompson
    said, many parts of the country, as many as our congressional
    schedules allow. I don't think our travel budget that we have
    asked for here will be a constraint. It is, happily, a lot less
    expensive to travel around the United States than it is to take
    congressional delegations to foreign countries. And a good deal
    of our travel will be focused on the United States of America
    because that is what homeland security is all about.
        Ms. Lofgren. Right. I also had a request about space.
        We are a new committee, and my sense is that the staffs are
    kind of jammed in places that are not really optimal in terms
    of staff space. Is that your sense as well? And space has been
    a problem for a lot of committees, but I think it is
    particularly a problem for this one since we are new. And have
    you given some thought to what our staff space needs are as we
    address the space needs of Congress overall?
        Mr. Cox. Indeed. The Committee on Homeland Security has
    inherited the space that was made available on a temporary
    basis for the Select Committee on Homeland Security by the
    Librarian of Congress in the Adams Building, one of three
    Library of Congress buildings here in the Capitol complex. That
    clearly will be inadequate for a permanent Committee on
    Homeland Security inasmuch as, for example, it doesn't even
    include a hearing room or contiguous space for majority and
    minority staff.
        What we are expecting will improve the environment in which
    we are operating is the completion of the Capitol Visitor's
    Center and the addition of those square feet to what we have to
    work with. We don't know necessarily that our committee would
    acquire any of that space, but the opportunities that would be
    created to move things around and provide something from
    nothing, which is really what we are looking at here as a
    brand-new committee, and it has got to find significant square
    feet for a permanent hearing room and space--the opportunities
    would thereby be created. We are expectant this will solve our
    problem, and I am working very closely with the Speaker on
    this.
        I don't think we have any realistic expectation that we can
    get out of the box that we are in until, at the earliest, next
    year because that is the earliest that portions of the Capitol
    Visitor's Center that will come on line will be next year.
        Ms. Lofgren. Now, as for a hearing room, it is not a huge
    committee, but we end up jammed in these horrible little rooms
    that there is really not enough room for the committee. And I
    am wondering, have we received any commitment?
        You know, I think about 10 years ago there was a Merchant
    Marine and Fisheries Committee. Who got their hearing room?
    Maybe we could claim that.
        Mr. Cox. We have, in fact, used that on occasion. That is
    one of the rooms that we have been using. It has been a movable
    feast; and it is one of the greatest discomforts that we have
    as a new committee, that we don't have our own space.
        Ms. Lofgren. But we expect we might get that when the
    visitor's center opens?
        Mr. Cox. I think that that is--you know, if you are looking
    for a way to get to break the logjam--and right now there just
    isn't a whole lot of space. We are not going to build a new
    building, so we have got to move things around and so on. But
    the opening up of that new space, I think will change the
    equation dramatically.
        Ms. Lofgren. Finally, I believe Mr. Thompson was going to
    say----
        Mr. Thompson. A couple points.
        One of the challenges we have is, as you know, one of our
    members requires an ADA-compatible hearing room. We have made
    that request of the chairman, and he has agreed, within his
    authority, to make sure that whatever hearing room we have is
    compatible with the law. And when we were a select, we had some
    problems, and we are trying to work through that also.
        Ms. Lofgren. That is a good point. The final question has
    to do with secure rooms.
        I am ranking on the Intelligence Subcommittee, and we are
    having our first classified briefing tomorrow morning. But
    there is a real shortage of secure space to have those
    briefings in the Capitol. I am wondering whether you know--
    maybe the chairman knows--if that is going to be one of the
    things that might be improved with the opening of the visitor's
    center.
        Mr. Cox. It is my understanding that it is and, in fact,
    that the Intelligence Committee may well move into space in
    this new area of the Capitol Visitor's Center. Were that to
    happen, there would be secure space, as you know, in the
    Capitol itself that, potentially, the Homeland Security
    Committee could use as a portion of its space commitment. That
    space would obviously be inadequate in terms of the number of
    square feet, the hearing room and so on.
        But I just want to take the occasion to thank this
    committee, thank Chairman Ney and other members of this
    committee for what you all did in the last Congress, giving us
    the resources that we needed to construct a SCIF in the Adams
    Building. It is expensive to construct secure space. We
    couldn't operate as a select committee without it for a number
    of reasons. And on an ongoing basis, when we move into
    permanent space, we are going to need that as well.
        Ms. Lofgren. Those are all of my questions, Mr. Chairman.
    And I know we have got space problems in all the committees,
    but this committee really is at the top of need because they
    are new. I thank the chairman.
        The Chairman. We worked, I know the leaders' offices have
    worked and we have worked with Van Der Meid and Leader Pelosi's
    staff; everybody has tried to work to find space. It is so
    difficult.
        And, again, eventually Congress has to--a suggestion I have
    is something across from the Cannon Building where we used to
    have the old page dorm. You can build something, be very close,
    you are not taking people and shifting half of them downtown or
    something like that. But eventually Congress has got to have
    the will to bite the bullet and get some more space.
        Again, these buildings--I saw the flow chart that we will
    get to you all. These buildings were designed for 6,000 fewer
    people than are in them; and the working conditions are not
    healthy, and it probably wouldn't be tolerated, out in the
    public sector.
        So hopefully we can work on it.
        I thank both the Chair and the ranking member for being
    here today. Thank you.
        Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. We will move on to the Education Committee,
    Education and the Workforce.
        I thank the chairman, the distinguished gentleman from
    Ohio, Mr. Boehner, for being here, and also Mr. Miller, the
    ranking member. And we will start today with Chairman Boehner
    for his testimony on the budget. Thank you.

     STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOEHNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                         FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        Mr. Boehner. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And it is nice to be
    back in my old committee with my colleagues whom I served with
    on this committee for about 8 years. I know this process that
    you are going through is a long one, and I will try to keep it
    short.
        Our budget submission reflects, I think, an accurate and
    fiscally responsible representation of our committee's needs.
    And as I embark on my last term as chairman of the Education
    and the Workforce Committee, we have a big agenda ahead of us.
    But this committee has worked well with us the last two cycles,
    and I think that we have had the resources necessary to get our
    job done.
        Our budget request represents a 5.6 percent overall budget
    increase, considerably less than what we asked for and received
    in the last Congress. Our budget, I think, reflects fairness in
    meeting the goal, providing one-third of our funding and
    staffing to the minority, and as in the past two Congresses,
    this request was developed in full cooperation with Mr. Miller
    and his staff.
        It does provide meeting the goal of providing the minority
    with one-third of the staff and complete control over his
    portion of the budget. And we continue to have shared employees
    when it comes to the IT functions at our committee. We think--
    we started this 4 years ago, and it has worked very well. And
    as we look at the increases that we are asking for, it is
    primarily in the area of salaries and much of it would go to
    the shared staff that we have.
        You know, the committee's legislative agenda includes
    reauthorization of the association health plan that we are
    working on today. We have a major budget--I mean, pension
    overhaul bill dealing with defined benefit plans for both
    single employer and multiemployer, and we expect that we will
    reauthorize the Higher Education Act this year.
        We have a tremendous effort under way to try to improve the
    Head Start program as well as a lot of other bills that we have
    there, but--many of them we did last year; unfortunately, we
    have to do them all over again this year because the Senate
    failed to act.
        But I would just say that our request includes upgrades to
    our software, hardware, communications, and Web streaming
    equipment. It also, I think, will allow us to update and
    upgrade our offsite data storage plans. And, finally, I think
    it will leave the incoming chairman, who follows my
    chairmanship, an adequate level of technology and resources to
    run the committee.
        So, with that, I would just say to my colleagues, thank you
    for giving me a chance to work with you over the last two
    cycles. We try to take the money that you give us and use it
    wisely. And, with that, I would like to turn to my colleague,
    Mr. Miller.
        [The statement of Mr. Boehner follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Mr. Miller.

     STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the
    opportunity. I appreciate the chance to appear here to support
    this joint funding request that has been developed by Mr.
    Boehner's office and our office.
        I think he has properly characterized it in terms of its
    apportionments of funds and the control over those funds by the
    minority. It is a relationship that we have had since his
    becoming Chair of the committee.
        I want to take a moment to offer my congratulations to your
    new ranking member, Congresswoman Millender-McDonald, on her
    appointment to this committee. And we look forward to working
    with her and with the staff of this committee as questions
    arise during the year; and also to recognize my colleague,
    other colleague from California, Zoe Lofgren, who is new to
    this committee.
        I want to say that the relationship that I have with Mr.
    Boehner--we disagree on a great number of issues, but we do
    agree how this committee has been administered. It has been
    administered in a very fair and a very balanced way, I think.
        With respect to the Democratic members, Mr. Boehner has
    found himself at the end of long afternoons where he has
    honored the right of members on our side of the aisle to offer
    amendments, to fully debate those amendments, and to have roll
    call votes on those amendments; and we are appreciative of
    that.
        He has long been a supporter, as the chairman of this
    committee, Mr. Ney, has, that the minority would have an
    apportionment and allocation of one-third of those resources.
    And again this budget reflects that as--except for, as he
    pointed out, with the shared employees in the IT area, which I
    think works out to the benefit of both parties.
        The important point is, I think, that our relationship has
    led the way in terms of the minority having full discretion
    over the use of those resources so that we can serve the
    interests of our members, their concerns with the issues that
    come before our committee, whether that is to gather additional
    information in their districts or in other places in the
    country, or to develop that information preparing for the
    markups in the committee.
        I would say the only area in which we are disadvantaged, I
    think you have heard this now from a number of committees, and
    that is in space. We are simply at a point where we really are
    not able to function to our full capacity to serve our members
    on a very, very active and important agenda, simply because of
    the lack of space. We have talked about this now for the last
    several years, but I would hope at some point there would be
    some effort by the majority leadership in the House to start to
    figure out how to provide additional space.
        I assume some of this impacts the majority also, but
    certainly it does the minority in a number of committees, and I
    know it is a concern that is being raised within our caucus
    about this resolution when it comes forward, because we have
    raised it now a number of years running in terms of the ability
    of the minority to function.
        But, with that, I obviously strongly support our budget
    submission to this committee and support the efforts that went
    into writing that budget. Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Well, I thank both the gentlemen for being
    here.
        Questions?
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Model, model committee, Chair and
    ranking member.
        The Chairman. Obviously not a lot going on there. Mr.
    Boehner, are you surprised? Do you want some questions? My
    staff has written a few if you would like them.
        Mr. Boehner. No. We are in the middle of a markup over in
    our committee.
        The Chairman. Actually, I don't have any questions.
        I wanted to mention about staff though. You have a good
    staff. I know they are sitting in the front row on both sides
    of the aisle. And they really work well; they follow the
    procedures and the way that you are supposed to file things,
    working with our staff on both sides of the aisle. I think it
    is important for you to know, they don't cause any headaches;
    and that is wonderful.
        Mr. Boehner. Trust me, I think Mr. Miller and I both
    understand that having good staff keeps us out of trouble,
    keeps us on the right path, and we couldn't do what we do
    without having good staff.
        And we do have a good relationship both on a staff level
    and a member level at our committee. You know, while we may
    disagree over a lot of the policy issues that we have before
    us, as I like to say, there is no reason for members to be
    disagreeable with each other while they are disagreeing over
    the policy differences that we have. And over the last 4 years,
    I think Mr. Miller and I have worked to really change the
    culture of our committee, and it has been a really resounding
    success. It is a place that members want to serve on.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. The only thing I want to say is,
    Mr. Miller, your request or your observation about space
    allocation has not gone unnoticed. I think several of the
    members, ranking members, have talked about that. So I have
    talked with the chairman, and we will try to see what can
    happen. But we are not clear.
        Mr. Boehner. I may not be on my talking points here, but
    having served on this committee and having served in the
    Republican leadership, I think the issue of space is something
    that there ought to be an honest discussion about it.
        These buildings weren't designed to have--the member
    offices weren't designed to have the number of staff that we
    have in them; and the number of committees and the number of
    committee staff, those, that space wasn't designed for that
    level of employment, either.
        And it is easy for us to get buried in the work that the
    American people send us here to do, but from time to time it is
    good to step back and take a broader look at how we function.
    And I think that the space across the street that they decided
    to put a parking lot in, I would hope that is temporary. But I
    know, in my case, I have got employees who work several blocks
    away down at the Ford Building. I don't know how many employees
    are down there. But it is an issue that probably deserves the
    attention of the Congress in terms of how much space we really
    need to do the job that the American people send us here to do.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Thanks to both gentlemen.
        And we will move on next to the Energy and Commerce
    Committee.
        Mr. Barton. We are told that Mr. Dingell is on his way, if
    you want to take a slight recess.
        The Chairman. I appreciate the chairman being here. Mr.
    Barton, we will go ahead and start with you.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                           THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. I
    am here to appear on behalf of the Energy and Commerce
    Committee. I am not going to read my entire statement.
        We have submitted our budget proposal. There is some
    increase. Most of the increase is for personnel; 90 percent of
    our budget is for personnel.
        We probably have half a dozen major policy initiatives we
    are trying to turn into law this year. From Medicaid reform to
    the energy bill to telecommunications to the abuse of steroids,
    and the Spyware bill. All that takes a lot of intellectual
    firepower, and on our committee that takes a lot of attorneys.
    So we are asking for an increase of 7 slots, mostly for those
    kinds of issues.
        We give one-third of our budget to the minority. Ranking
    Member Dingell has a written statement and if he is here in
    time he will read it or submit it. He supports the budget,
    because we do give one-third of the slots and one-third of the
    budget to the minority.
        We do have a request for some technology upgrades, but we
    also have received some money for technology upgrades very
    similar to what we see here in this committee. We want to say
    thank you for that. But there is some money requested to
    continue some of those technology upgrades.
        And, with that, I would submit the written statement for
    the record and ask unanimous consent that Mr. Dingell's
    statement also be put into the record.
        [The statement of Mr. Barton follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The statement of Mr. Dingell follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I thank the Chair--questions?
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. No.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have spoken with Mr. Dingell
    prior to your coming aboard, and he did acknowledge his
    complete support of the budget that you are submitting and the
    one-third allocation. And so I think, with that, Mr. Chairman I
    have nothing else but congratulations on the camaraderie
    between the two of you.
        Mr. Barton. We work very well together.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Good luck on your year. This seems
    to be an easy committee.
        The Chairman. Well, thank you for coming, and also the
    submission of the statement by Mr. Dingell.
        Mr. Barton. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Next we will move on to Standards.
        The committee will in recess for more or less 5 minutes.
        [Recess.]
        The Chairman. The committee will come to order, and the
    next committee on our agenda is Standards. We have the
    chairman, Mr. Hastings, and the ranking member, Mr. Mollohan.
    We will start with the chairman.
        Welcome.

     STATEMENT OF HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

        Mr. Hastings. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Ney and
    Ranking Member Millender-McDonald. I appreciate this
    opportunity to appear before you and your colleagues today to
    present the Standards Committee budget request for the 109th
    Congress.
        I think it goes without saying that every committee in the
    House contributes much to the important work of the Congress.
    Having said that, however, I think each Member of this body
    would acknowledge the truly unique role of the Ethics
    Committee, as we are more commonly known.
        I think it is also safe to say that none of us came to
    Congress dreaming of some day serving on the ethics committee.
    But let me assure you that, once receiving that assignment,
    safeguarding the integrity of this institution is a solemn
    responsibility that no member of the Ethics Committee takes
    lightly.
        As you know, our committee has two primary tasks--to
    educate, inform, and advise Members and staff about their
    ethical responsibilities under the rules of the House; and to
    enforce those rules firmly and fairly without regard to
    friendship, favor, or political party.
        Mr. Chairman, the American people have every right to
    insist on the highest ethical standards here in the people's
    House, and it is our job to help ensure that the American
    people's expectations are met. Therefore, each day that we
    serve on the committee our overarching goal is to ensure that
    those of us privileged to work in these hallowed halls conduct
    the people's business in a way that raises public confidence in
    the essential integrity of this institution.
        It is a challenging assignment, but as the new chairman of
    the committee, I can tell you that I am ready to go to work.
        I am fortunate to serve alongside an outstanding Member,
    and a veteran Member of Congress, Mr. Mollohan of West
    Virginia, my ranking minority member.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, the committee has not yet
    formally organized and has adopted no rules for the 109th
    Congress. Nevertheless, we have consulted with the
    Parliamentarian and have been assured that under the rules of
    the House, we are free to take various administrative steps
    such as requesting operating funding, which would aid our
    ability to fully function once the Democratic members of the
    Ethics Committee agree to allow us to move forward.
        Therefore, with the Chairman's permission, I will take just
    a few minutes to highlight our plans for the 109th Congress.
        Mr. Chairman, recent events have certainly underscored the
    importance of providing the highest quality ethics education,
    training, advice, and information to both Members and staff and
    at the same time have highlighted the need for us to meet
    sufficient investigative capability to carry out our importance
    compliance and enforcement functions.
        I truly believe that all Members and staff generally want
    to do the right thing when it comes to ethics. Our obligation
    to them is to do everything possible to help people understand
    the rules and to follow those rules.
        That means taking a hard look at our publications, our
    training programs, the way we use communication tools and
    technology, and the way we provide advice and counsel.
        To that end, Mr. Chairman, I am requesting a substantial
    increase in our funding for salary, equipment, and travel in
    order to fund six new positions and provide our committee with
    the tools needed to better serve Members and the staff within
    the House.
        Mr. Chairman, for the first time in 13 years, the committee
    plans to publish a comprehensive House ethics manual. The
    committee will work with GPO to produce a manual that is more
    clearly written and attractively presented than the badly
    outdated 1992 version still being used throughout the House.
    Considerable effort will be made to upgrade the committee's
    other publications and educational materials to better assist
    Members, officers, and staff in understanding their
    responsibilities with respect to ethics rules here in the
    House.
        The committee plans to contract with an outside vendor to
    completely rebuild its Web site to make it more easily
    searchable as well as more attractive, interactive, and useful
    for those inside the House as well as the press and the general
    public. A top committee priority will be to significantly
    improve both the quantity and quality of ethics training for
    Members and staff.
        The CAO recently commissioned a comprehensive study of
    professional training needs in the House which identified more
    extensive ethics training is among the most pressing needs
    singled out by those surveyed. Among other things, we plan to
    add a professional trainer to our staff, broaden our focus for
    Members and their top aides to every employee in the House,
    making ethics training much more widely available to staff here
    and in the district as well.
        Among the committee's most essential functions is to
    provide advice and counsel to Members and staff concerning
    ethics rules in the House. By adding professional staff to
    focus principally on publications and training, and by
    adjusting the way the committee processes thousands of
    financial disclosure filings each year, we expect to free up
    attorneys on our advice and education staff to measurably
    improve our turnaround time and general responsiveness to
    requests from those we serve.
        Finally, the addition of two experienced investigative
    counsel will enable the committee to strengthen its
    investigative capability, enhancing our ability to ascertain
    the facts when ethics violations are alleged, and permitting
    the committee to provide Members and staff with timely
    disposition of the complaints once filed.
        Mr. Chairman, we all recognize that these are challenging
    budget times and that committee funding dollars are tight.
    Clearly our request this year is a dramatic departure from the
    very modest increases the ethics committee has sought in the
    past. While most committees have gradually expanded their
    capabilities over the last decade, this committee has not,
    opting instead to request only enough funds to maintain
    existing staff and replace worn-out equipment as needed.
        Indeed, since adding one new position 10 years ago, the
    committee's authorized strength has remained absolutely flat at
    13 positions throughout the 105th through the 108th Congresses.
    As you know, the ethics committee has long had by far the
    fewest employees and lowest budget of any standing committee in
    the House. Thus, while the percentage increase in our proposed
    funding level of 55 percent appears high, in actual dollars,
    the increase we are seeking is easily among the smallest that
    you will receive in your testimony.
        In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to encourage you and
    your colleagues to look carefully at our plans to create a more
    ethical climate and ethical culture in the House and urge you
    to support this important effort. This is a pivotal time for
    the institution that we all love.
        It has always seemed to me that interest in ethics tends to
    run in cycles. By taking advantage of this renewed interest to
    build a more robust capability in the ethics committee, I am
    confident we can create throughout the House a greater
    awareness and appreciation of the ethical responsibilities that
    are incumbent upon all of us who are privileged to serve here.
        Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Ranking Member, the gentleman from West Virginia.

        STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Millender-
    McDonald, it is a pleasure to join my Chairman, Chairman
    Hastings, here today to support our budget request for the
    ethics committee.
        The Chairman. I am sorry, Mr. Mollohan, I think the
    microphone needs to come closer, or maybe push the switch
    there.
        Mr. Mollohan. I had not turned it on, Mr. Chairman.
        I do support the Chairman's request, Mr. Chairman, in
    general, its overall number, and in large part as he has
    particularized it.
        The ethics committee, as he points out, performs an
    essential service in the House of Representatives. It has not
    enjoyed a budget increase for years, essentially being flat-
    funded. And with regard to all of the elements that are very
    important for a committee to operate efficiently and function
    in a way that performs its mission for the institution, it must
    have adequate resources, adequate personnel, adequate
    materials, up-to-date equipment that is modern, spaces that are
    adequate to accommodate the people and their activities; and
    then, as the Chairman points out, there are certainly processes
    that can be addressed that additional resources would be
    necessary in order to accomplish.
        Mr. Chairman, I am here to support the Chairman's request
    and hope that the committee can be responsive.
        The Chairman. I want to thank both gentlemen. I just have a
    couple of questions.
        You talked about the training monies, and I think in your
    testimony somebody suggested additional training monies. Those
    were not there before, and there is no problem with that. I am
    just curious about what skills you hope or what the training
    will bring to the staff. Is it a matter of internal training
    for the staff?
        Mr. Hastings. That is correct. One of the things I have
    learned and absorbed in the time I have served on the
    committee, when Members have a question or an issue is brought
    before the committee, I think ignorance plays a part of that. I
    say ignorance; ignorance of what they are supposed to do. I
    think it is the responsibility--and by the way, the 1992 ethics
    manual is about that thick, if you recall. In fact, here it is.
    It is pretty hard to comprehend everything in there.
        So part of the training process, then, would be from an
    outreach standpoint where staff on ethics committee would meet
    with not only the top staff in the Members' offices and
    Members, but all the way down. At least we envision that, and
    we want to work on that.
        The Chairman. I know here in House Administration, it is
    not ethics, but, as you know, we advise on House rules,
    procedure and use of equipment, different questions, and we
    have a Member service section. If you take the Democrats and
    Republicans, I think we probably have about I want to say seven
    or eight people that deal constantly with answering questions.
    And that is just here. So I know you have to have internal
    people. If you don't have people, it is difficult to get the
    questions answered. But we have our manuals, which we have
    updated, and I am glad to hear you are updating.
        From the time I have been here, this has been a very flat-
    lined budget. We can only deal with what requests are brought
    to us, but I think it has been pretty much flat-lined, and I
    think you are at a turning point if you want to do the job. And
    I think you need to do the job. You have to be able to do the
    job, and so you have to have the resources to do it, and
    nothing should stand in the way.
        I think you are at a turning point staffwise and
    equipmentwise, so we have to consider the money you are
    requesting so you can use it to conduct the business that you
    need to do.
        I just have one final question. We are aware that the
    committee plans to hire a new chief counsel. Do you have a time
    frame? Not pinning you down exactly, but when you would want to
    hire a new counsel?
        Mr. Hastings. Yes, we want to do this as soon as possible.
    Because of the unique makeup of the committee, that is five-
    five, I intend to work closely with Mr. Mollohan on that. In
    fact, we have already discussed if he has people that are
    interested in this. We encourage that, and we will go through a
    joint process of interviewing and hopefully making a selection
    as soon as we possibly can.
        Again, I want to emphasize, because Alan and I have talked
    about this, this is a joint issue because of the nature of the
    committee, and I fully intend to work with him on that. But we
    want to do that as soon as possible.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Chairman, if I can follow up on that?
        The Chairman. Yes. I am sorry.
        Mr. Mollohan. This request is a significant increase, and
    if you were to grant it, it would be a significant increase to
    the committee. There is no question about making available
    additional resources to the committee, which can be used to--in
    all the ways the Chairman has spoken to, and that I agree with.
        I do want to emphasize, though, that in the past, at least
    during the last Congress that I served on it, in terms of our
    investigative capabilities, moving cases along, the staff we
    had was adequate to do that job. Now, that doesn't speak to
    equipment, that doesn't speak to redoing manuals, that doesn't
    speak to the outreach activities that the Chairman has
    articulated here, which I completely support. But in terms of
    the investigative functions and moving cases along, I think the
    committee has performed in that area very admirably based on
    the resources it has had in the past and as we have come and
    testified before you in the past.
        The previous Chairman and myself as the Ranking Member in
    those instances, if we had felt at that time we did not have
    enough resources for those functions, we certainly would have
    made the committee aware of that. The Chairman is proposing
    additional activities enhancing those investigative activities,
    which I think we need to look carefully at what resources we do
    need on task, dependent on the workload facing us at that time.
    But the increases will allow us to engage in other activities,
    which I totally agree would be, taken as a whole proposal, a
    good thing. We may have to work through some of the details of
    the proposal, but the resources are needed, and I support the
    gentleman in his request.
        The Chairman. I understand and appreciate the gentleman's
    comments, and having worked on this budget for 4 years now as a
    chairman, and watching the proposals that come here, I agree
    the adequacy is there. But, obviously, with flat-lining,
    though, I don't care what committee you are, this committee was
    held in a pretty flat-line status, and it functioned. House
    Administration functioned, and my predecessor did a marvelous
    job here. But eventually, if you want to do other things to
    enhance the committees, and all committees are important, then
    I think the increased money is important.
        So it is not entirely a matter of money; there is staff
    training and things, but in this case--and I do not know how we
    will end up at the end of the day with all the committees, but
    I believe we need to give you the resources with the important
    tasks that you have.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
    agree with you. I support the comments of the Ranking Member,
    because I was about to ask if you were satisfied and had been
    involved in the budget process with the Chairman.
        And I appreciate the Chairman's comments as well. And I was
    going to ask you that before you spoke, given the Chairman's
    statement in the second paragraph on the second page, he stated
    that the committee had not yet fully organized and adopted the
    rules of the 109th Congress. At the bottom of that he said,
    ``Such as we are requesting in this operating funding, it would
    aid our ability to fully function once the Democrat Members of
    the ethics committee agree to allow us to move forward.''
        So I was just wondering if there were any impediments with
    this budget with reference to the Ranking Member. But you have
    already spoken.
        Mr. Mollohan. I didn't hear the Chairman read that part of
    his statement, and I don't have it here, but I can remember
    what you said.
        Well, that was probably an irresistible throwaway that he
    had to put in there.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. I see. It was good you spoke before
    I came on.
        Mr. Mollohan. Since you picked it up, I appreciate the
    opportunity to ad lib about it a bit.
        We are in a process, a very serious process, of organizing
    the committee. As the Chairman pointed out, there are a number
    of things that we can do which--in spite of the fact that we
    have not successfully adopted the rules of the committee, and
    we are moving forward and with conversations as necessary to
    define those areas that we can operate.
        We have not agreed to the rules as directed in the House,
    as passed on opening day, the House rules. Embedded in those
    were three rules directed that the ethics committee adopt. They
    are objectionable for reasons that is unnecessary to detail in
    this forum. But suffice it to say that we are in the process to
    work through that, and I am perfectly confident that through a
    process of reasoning together and moving the bigger picture
    process in a reasonable way, that we will have a very good
    chance of resolving it in the near-term time frame so that we
    can move forward with the full business of the committee.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Aside from the internal aspects of
    what you are outlining, the budget and all that he is bringing
    forward, you are in agreement with that?
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes, I agree with the overall request
    certainly, as the Chairman graciously pointed out. In the
    nature of the committee we will work closely on the details.
    But I support his vision, and I think the idea of reaching out,
    the idea of enhancing the educational capabilities of the
    committee, notifying all those that the committee has
    jurisdiction over what their responsibilities are with regard
    to ethics as they operate in this institution, I think all that
    is very good. I agree with the premise that to the extent that
    educational effort is done in a good manner, we will decrease
    the number of disappointments that we have.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Other questions?
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentlewoman from California.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
        I served for 8 years on the Ethics Committee, and it was
    the only time I have ever been glad for term limits, but it was
    a very interesting experience and, a very positive one. It is
    the only committee in the House that is evenly divided, five
    Republicans, five Democrats. And in my 8 years on the
    committee, there was only one divided vote, a 9 to 1 vote on a
    procedural matter. Everything else was unanimous. I think we
    would be hard-pressed to identify another committee where that
    has been the case.
        Because the rules and the operation of the committee really
    require consensus between both of the political parties to act,
    this may not be that important. But am I understanding
    correctly that one of the positions that would be added, if
    there was concurrence by Mr. Mollohan, would be a press type of
    person?
        Mr. Hastings. No, it would not be at all. It would be
    somebody that would focus on this and then on publications that
    would go out on a timely basis whenever.
        Ms. Lofgren. So not a spokesperson, a person who actually
    produces material?
        Mr. Hastings. Right.
        Ms. Lofgren. Because I know that we cannot talk to----
        Mr. Hastings. No, that is right, that was not the intent.
    And I might add that you and I did serve on the investigative
    committee, so I know you know some of the stuff you go through.
    But believe me, that was not what we were talking about.
        Ms. Lofgren. Okay. I have just two more questions. One is a
    niggly one.
        Members of the committee, because it is all confidential,
    are required to keep the written material confidential. I know
    when I was on the committee, I received a shredder from the
    committee that never worked. Do you have enough money in the
    budget to actually provide industrial-strength shredders for
    the committee Members so that they can adequately discharge
    their obligation of confidentiality?
        Mr. Hastings. Well, mine worked.
        Ms. Lofgren. I used to go over to the committee.
        Mr. Hastings. No, we will make sure that they work. I was
    certainly not aware of that. But, yes, that is something that
    we, as a matter of fact, talked about early when we attempted
    to organize was that those things be made available.
        Ms. Lofgren. The final question--it was something that your
    predecessor talked about, and I do not think we ever got around
    to doing it, and I still think it is worth doing--to review
    some of the rules to make sure that they actually make sense.
    Some of them are quite petty and, apparently, irrational.
        For example, you can accept the gift, if you will, of going
    to a football game if it is a public university, but if it is a
    private university, you cannot. So, for example, when San Jose
    State plays Stanford, if I sit on the State side, the ticket
    gift is acceptable; but if I sit on the Stanford side, it is
    not a gift. I don't go because San Jose is in my district and
    Stanford is my alma mater. But just as an example, they should
    be the same. I am not suggesting it should be free for private
    universities; maybe you should also pay the public university.
        But there are dozens of weird little rules that people can
    run afoul of because they do not seem to make any sense. And I
    am wondering if you have the budget to actually engage in that
    analysis and make sure that common-sense rules actually are in
    play.
        Mr. Hastings. Well, I think that is something that we
    should look at. And, again, going back, these are the rules
    that we go by. Not everybody knows that, and probably within
    this there are probably more examples of which you point out of
    things that need to be looked at very closely. I suspect
    probably in the process, when we do this, some of these things
    will pop up.
        I might add, to go along with that, from the State of
    Washington that we have Gonzaga University and the University
    of Washington in the NC2A. One is private, and one is public.
    So, hopefully, they meet sometime along the line.
        Ms. Lofgren. I just used that as an example. There are
    many. And there are reasons for some of them, but you attenuate
    them out 25 years, and they do not really have any meaning, and
    people make mistakes because they seem so bizarre. So people
    get into ethical problems when they haven't really done
    anything that is malum per se.
        Mr. Hastings. I think those sort of things will pop up.
        Ms. Lofgren. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I want to thank both Members for being here
    today.
        We are waiting for the Ways and Means Chair and Ranking
    Member, so there will be a recess of 5 minutes, more or less.
    Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        The Chairman. We welcome the Chair of the Committee on Ways
    and Means. You are familiar more than I with this role, because
    you created it, and that is a compliment. So we welcome and we
    await your testimony.

       STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. THOMAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I would
    ask unanimous consent that my written statement be made a part
    of the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Mr. Thomas. I come before you, and I believe my Ranking
    Member will be with us shortly. He is at another meeting.
    Notwithstanding the fact that, if you will look at his
    statement, I think you will find that we worked together in
    creating the budget. More than just that, Mr. Chairman, I am
    pleased to appear before you as the chairman of a major
    committee who can say that the quest that I started in 1981 as
    a Minority member of this committee, clear through the time
    that I was chairman of this committee, has now been
    accomplished.
        In the Ways and Means Committee, the Majority controls two-
    thirds of the staff and resources; the Minority controls one-
    third of the staff and the resources. And that was my goal, as
    you know, and I am hopeful that the reports you are getting
    from other committees is that that is being honored as well.
        One of the reasons it took us so long in Ways and Means was
    that there were more than a dozen staffers who were classified
    as shared staff. And the argument was they were shared because
    they carried out committee business that really wasn't
    something that belonged to the Majority or the Minority. I
    happen to believe if you are the Majority, you have the
    responsibility of running the committee, and those people
    should be counted on your side, notwithstanding the fact they
    may carry out ministerial tasks, because they are under your
    direction.
        And so with the two additional staff that we are
    requesting, and I think you will take a look at the number of
    staff that we have, and the two additional, given the workload
    of the committee, it is not exorbitant. But it does allow us to
    remove the last vestiges of the shared-staff concept, in which
    the Minority controls fully, completely, one-third of the staff
    and fully, completely, one-third of the resources, not having
    to ask the--request of the chairman to use a Xerox machine or
    get a new computer or whatever else.
        So with that, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present the
    budget. I guess my strategy was a little off. I probably should
    have said I will just take half of whatever you guys get. But
    what I did do was go through and look at what we needed to do
    the job we have.
        I believe especially, as you can see, it is a little bit
    front-loaded for this year, which is a longer year in terms of
    the time that the committee meets, and next year it is about 6
    percent, 4 percent, and that is 10 percent for everything that
    the committee has available to it to perform its duty
    overseeing the entire Internal Revenue Code, Social Security,
    Medicare, trade, welfare, and a few other cats and dogs.
        The Chairman. Well, I thank the Chair.
        [The statement of Mr. Thomas follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Personally, your staff and I know you,
    because you have looked over these things, and it was so well
    done that I have no questions from our staff. So I think it was
    a very well done budget, and it is a good, well-prepared
    budget. I really have no questions.
        The gentlewoman from Michigan.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions
    either. I will say that your reputation precedes you, in terms
    of being the former Chair of this committee, in outlining the
    formula of two-thirds and one-third, and you have admirably
    ensured that the Ranking Member shares that. So we thank you so
    much for establishing that type of formula.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Lofgren. I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that it is
    good to hear your comment about the Majority assuming the
    administrative task, because it is my understanding that is
    really the rationale for the two-thirds/one-third split of
    committee resources, and I think that is a reasonable plan.
        I mean, you could argue another way, but that is what we
    have. And not all of the chairmen have taken your attitude. So
    it is good when you can argue and fight about policy, but not
    about the paper clips. So I thank the Chairman.
        Mr. Thomas. If I might just make a couple of points. I
    assume other committees may have mentioned this. It is
    extremely difficult to continue to have as positive a working
    environment as we would like because the committees do not
    control the space, and space always is at a premium.
        We stand ready to assist in whatever you folks may look at
    as a project to try to figure out, as we add a significant
    amount of square footage to the general Capitol area with the
    visitor's center and adjoining rooms, that we should be
    especially zealous in working with leadership to pick off a
    room or two near the committees so that we have a comfortable
    way--we have used all the air shafts and the behind-the-chimney
    areas that we have. So as we move forward, moving into that new
    addition to the Capitol, I would hope we underscore trying to
    salvage a little bit of space for the Members.
        Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I would like for the record to urge
    you to come on by the Ways and Means Committee. We have
    undergone a renovation of the Ways and Means Committee room for
    the first time in a decade and a half. It has been
    historically, and is being planned in the future, if necessary,
    to be used as a fall-back floor of the House of
    Representatives. The modernization included significant
    upgrading of the technology not necessarily for the committee's
    operation, but because it would function as the House of
    Representatives Chamber.
        But we are also very pleased with the restyling in the
    colonial revival period, which was the period of the 1930s
    initial design of the Ways and Means Committee room, and it has
    a nice historical ambience. So if anybody wants to come over,
    we are kind of pleased to show off our new room.
        Thirdly, I have looked at the budgets, it is kind of an old
    habit, and we have new chairmen, and we have new needs, and
    especially with the shifting because of the post-9/11 and a new
    full committee, but I will say this on the record, and I will
    visit with some of the committee chairmen, that you should not
    reward failure to move toward a fair allocation of resources.
    Those committees that are not in that frame of mind will give
    you every reason in the books why it can't be done. I just
    wanted to show you that if you are committed to doing it, you
    can do it. And you should help supply some of the resources
    focused on moving in that direction.
        And, frankly, if they do not move in that direction, then
    the resources that could have been used for that purpose are
    perhaps not as useful in perpetuating the failure to meet a
    commitment that I believe we made in the Minority when we
    became the Majority.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I
    would make just a couple of comments on the space. I was on
    this committee, and I have been on it for a decade. You became
    the Chair, and I went on the committee, and we went into the
    21st century for the first time with the Web pages, and
    everything was lit up on opening day, and all of a sudden the
    entire world had access to the U.S. House for the first time.
        And then the technology. I haven't gotten over to the
    hearing room, I will, but we moved to get certain hearing rooms
    done and to work the Architect of the Capitol and your staff
    and the other staffs to push, because that is another goal that
    is not finished yet. We have the appropriating arm, and we have
    made a commitment there to modernize everything. Some rooms are
    done, some are not, and we really need to finish that up.
        The two-thirds/one-third. After I became Chair, something I
    immediately did when I became Chair, as you did, and that was
    to allocate the two-thirds/one-third. You did a great job. I
    said that today earlier when we talked about this, and the
    other day when we held hearings. You did a wonderful job of
    moving us in that direction. You made a total commitment to
    moving us, and you pushed to do that.
        About 4 years ago, I think it was, we had a couple of
    committees where we pushed them along while they kicked or
    moaned or whatever. The process was to get them there. And we
    want to make sure we don't slide back. So I think it is
    something that we have talked about, of course, with our
    Ranking Member and the members of the committee, and that way
    that argument is out of the way. It is not something to be
    argued every time. It was a goal that you really pushed and did
    a wonderful job on and something we want to continue to do.
        But I want to say something about the 21st century also. As
    we went into the modern world, it brings more people in contact
    with our government around the world, around the country. There
    are more questions to be answered, more resources needed then,
    because you have an obligation to answer individuals that
    communicate with their government, who come to Washington and
    are more active with their government. And there comes a point
    in time when you have to ask, how many people can you cram into
    a room? Something has to give here at some point in time to
    have some more space. It is a dilemma. And it is past its time.
    Some trigger has to be pulled on that.
        Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, I am committed to a paperless
    Congress. We are moving in that direction. But I do not think
    it is possible to have a peopleless Congress. We need the
    space.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, I hope that
    invitation is extended to the Ranking Member to come and look
    at the Ways and Means Committee room.
        Mr. Thomas. I urge all Members to take a look, because it
    was a major project. And, of course, as you might expect with
    technology, most of it is not visible, but you can see the
    results of the project.
        Frankly, it is something that we should all be proud of.
    And as we change these various rooms, we never get the
    attention that we should in terms of the way we try to respond
    to people's needs in the 21st century, as the Chairman said.
        I am kind of amazed at the equipment that you have got. I
    want to doublecheck mine.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. You see yourself coming and going;
    right.
        Mr. Thomas. In more ways than one, ma'am. And I appreciate
    the continued replacement.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Next we will have the Intelligence Committee. I want to
    thank both the Chair and the Ranking Member for being here
    today, and we will begin with the Chairman Mr. Hoekstra.

    STATEMENT OF HON. PETER HOEKSTRA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Hoekstra. I would like to begin by thanking the
    Chairman of the committee for providing us an opportunity to
    present our budget to you today. I would like to submit my
    entire statement for the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Mr. Hoekstra. And let me just make a couple of points. You
    have had the budget for a period of time. I think we were one
    of the few committees to submit it to you on time when you
    requested it. We have been able to work very much in a
    bipartisan way in preparing the budget, much as Jane and I have
    had the opportunity last fall to work together on the
    implementation of the intelligence reform bill and the passage
    of that bill through the House of Representatives.
        We are working very, very hard to keep the spirit of
    bipartisanship alive on the Intelligence Committee. The issues
    that we are working with are too important for us to drag into
    partisan politics. And I think we are both taking that
    seriously, and that process has continued as we have approached
    and developed this budget.
        The major changes in the budget that are proposed from the
    last Congress are the implementation and our responsibilities
    from the passage of the intelligence reform bill and also the
    report that came out by the 9/11 Commission last fall. The 9/11
    Commission last summer, last fall, in their evaluation pointed
    out that one of the weaknesses that they had observed was the
    weakness in congressional oversight of the Intelligence
    Community.
        There have been some reforms that have been made in the
    intelligence area to improve our oversight on the Republican
    side. The Speaker of the House now, as Members move on to the
    Intelligence Committee, they are asked to give up other
    committee assignments so that they will have the opportunity to
    spend more time on what the Speaker has identified as a
    critical function.
        Jane and I, in the work we have done, as we put together
    the annual plan for this Congress, we identified the need for
    specifically a Subcommittee on Oversight, a subcommittee that
    we could task with key projects and key oversight
    responsibilities. The oversight functions that we see of most
    critical importance in this Congress is implementation of the
    reform bill that we passed last year, bringing together 15
    different intelligence organizations under a new Director of
    National Intelligence; recognizing that the passage of that
    bill against many entrenched bureaucracies and bureaucrats was
    difficult enough, but now for Ambassador Negroponte to move
    into that responsibility and take what we envisioned as a
    reform and making it a reality.
        There are a couple of things we have to monitor very
    closely. Number one, we want to monitor that Ambassador
    Negroponte actually moves the Intelligence Community in the
    direction that the intelligence reform bill intended the reform
    to take. So, number one is the executive branch implementing
    the legislation the way Congress intended it to happen.
        The second thing we need to monitor is that as that
    implementation is taking place, are there unintended
    consequences? Are there things that we expected to happen? Are
    there changes that we envisioned, changes that would be
    positive for the Intelligence Community, and, in effect, are we
    seeing some unintended consequences?
        It is absolutely important that we get this intelligence
    reform bill implemented and that we get it implemented
    correctly. And the footprint for making that happen will be the
    next 12 months, the first 12 month of a Director of National
    Intelligence. This is where some of the early battles will be
    fought. This is where some of the decisions will be made as to
    what the scope and the responsibilities of the Director of
    National Intelligence will be. We need to make sure that we are
    there providing the appropriate oversight and getting the kind
    of results that we had hoped that we would get.
        In light of that and other responsibilities that we want to
    carry out in oversight function and other responsibilities of
    the committee, we have asked for an increase of nine staff
    positions, divided six for the Majority and three for the
    Minority staff.
        The only other thing we would like to highlight to you is
    what we have already talked about. We are moving from the
    fourth floor attic of the Capitol to, interestingly enough,
    into the basement of the visitor's center. And we have had some
    discussions as to who and where and how the costs will be
    allocated for those spaces; what will be the responsibility of
    the committee; what will be the responsibility for the
    Architect of the Capitol to bear and to budget into their
    plans. And we look forward to working with you, because not
    only do we need a state-of-the-art intelligence capability and
    function in the visitor's center for us to do our jobs, but we
    also see that these secure spaces will also be used by a number
    of other committees when they have the need for secure
    facilities.
        I think a number of my colleagues have seen some of the
    capabilities that our military has had to communicate worldwide
    in order to get the information to decisionmakers very, very
    quickly. We need that capability, as do other Members in the
    House.
        So with that, I yield, I guess, to Ms. Harman.
        [The statement of Mr. Hoekstra follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Harman
    and the Ranking Member. Thank you.

      STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear on a bipartisan basis to talk about our
    budget. I want to commend you first for your bipartisanship.
    You are flanked by two very capable California women, as it
    should be. And I would like to congratulate our colleague
    Juanita Millender-McDonald for now being the Ranking Member of
    this committee.
        You should know, and Chairman Hoekstra should know, that in
    California the Democratic part of our delegation, 33 Members,
    are majority female, and our two Senators are female, and I
    would call that a good start.
        At any rate, onto this subject. I agree with the Chairman
    that a critical activity which we have to undertake is the
    implementation of the intelligence reform legislation. It was
    an enormous victory last year, I think, to come up with
    bipartisan, bicameral legislation to implement the
    recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. That was half the
    battle. Now we have to make it work.
        And we have been invited to work with the new team of
    Ambassador Negroponte and General Mike Hayden, and we plan to
    do that to make sure that they succeed. And we need staff, and
    hopefully within a year or so better space in which to do that
    work.
        We also have other important work in our new Subcommittee
    on Oversight, and that relates to activities of the
    Intelligence Community, which are written up all the time in
    the newspapers. The newspaper articles are not accurate, and
    there are obviously limitations on what we can say publicly
    about those activities. But it is absolutely critical that our
    Members be fully and completely informed about those
    activities.
        So with increased staff, some of it dedicated to this
    Subcommittee on Oversight, we will learn what we need to learn,
    and our Members, who are extremely hard-working, patriotic
    Americans, will do the oversight that Congress absolutely must
    do on these critical issues.
        I just want to highlight a couple other things. First of
    all, our deal is that we will share some nonpartisan positions.
    I support that deal. There are security roles in the
    Intelligence Committee that have to be filled by qualified
    people, and we want those people to be nonpartisan. Splitting
    their costs two-thirds/one-third is the right thing to do.
        I, in fact, think we need more of them, because I think the
    security concerns are very serious, with the material coming
    across our Internet, even on our classified sites, include some
    of our Nation's most carefully held secrets. And I want to be
    sure we do everything we can to protect it on this end. I know
    the administration is focusing on protecting it on their end.
        So I would hope we would agree about hiring at least one
    more person, and we are talking to the Sergeant-at-Arms about
    what the qualifications of that person could be, and maybe even
    some suggestions of who that person could be.
        Because we were so busy with the intelligence reform
    effort, we were not able to fill vacancies last fall that came
    to exist then as staff got promotions and burned out and so
    forth, and that leaves a lot of slots to fill. On the Minority
    side we are filling those slots rapidly with a very qualified
    and diverse workforce, and we will continue to fill them.
        The only problem now that we will have, which I guess is a
    good problem, is no space to put the people in. Maybe we will
    have double-deck desks or something like that. I only wish we
    would have Aeron chairs.
        In conclusion, I would like to say that Peter and I were
    elected together in 1992. We talk together regularly. We are
    trying to restore the bipartisan tradition of the committee,
    which suffered a bit in some recent years.
        But he did not consult me, I want this absolutely on the
    record, about his new facial hair, and I want to say for the
    record that I am quite disturbed about it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement of Ms. Harman follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you. I don't know what to say on that,
    but I am glad Mr. Rangel is here, because I am California
    outnumbered, and New York is a little closer to Ohio, so I at
    least feel a little more strength in numbers. My relatives are
    in Fontana, an aunt and uncle, so I have a lot of California
    pressure. That is not all that bad.
        I have no questions. I think you do an important job, your
    function for the Congress, and with that I yield to the
    gentlewoman from California.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, don't cry out loud,
    all these California women.
        The two of you, I think, are working very cooperatively,
    and I have really no questions to ask, but just to say that
    your intelligence reform bill will be the impetus by which you
    work very closely with the Director of Intelligence, and that
    is a good thing.
        So it is great to have both of you here, and thank you both
    so much.
        The Chairman. Our other gentlewoman from California.
        Ms. Lofgren. I would just note that we have been looking at
    the franking budgets in each committee, and although there is a
    huge increase, it is such a tiny amount of money that--I don't
    want to raise the issue. But we do want to be consistent noting
    that it is only a large increase because there was so little
    spent to begin with.
        The Chairman. I thank both of you for being here.
        The gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel, is here. Mr.
    Thomas has already delivered his message, and we will entertain
    Mr. Rangel, who I just wanted to note that my wife and I had
    the pleasure of being with Mr. Rangel and his wonderful wife to
    represent the United States at the 60th Anniversary of D-Day
    with other Members of Congress.
        It was a wonderful event and a special time to be there,
    especially with the service Mr. Rangel has given to the United
    States not only in his congressional position, but service as a
    veteran. Thank you, Mr. Rangel.

       STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Mr. Rangel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was a memorable
    occasion, and I want to congratulate you for the great
    bipartisan work that you have been doing as Chair, and, of
    course, to congratulate my friend and colleague from California
    in this position. I am certain in working with Mr. Ney that we
    can really bring a sense of bipartisanship, which is so missing
    in the Congress.
        I come here, and I am sorry I am late, to support the
    request of the Ways and Means Committee of 10.4 percent. This
    money will be used for modest staff increases, but also to
    upgrade the technology that we have in our hearing room and our
    ability to communicate with other Members of Congress.
        We also, and Mr. Thomas has consulted with me, have agreed
    on two additional staff people that would be shared by the
    Democrats and Republicans. I think this would go a long way
    when professionals can look at the facts and not the parties to
    try to bring us together on the sensitive legislation that
    comes before our committee.
        So I want to thank you. I hope you give serious
    consideration to our request. And if there are any questions, I
    will attempt to answer them at this time.
        Again, I am so sorry that my responsibilities on the floor
    prevented me from being here with the Chairman, but I am glad
    that I am able to share my views with you now.
        The Chairman. No problem. It fits in the schedule quite
    perfectly. We appreciate your testimony.
        [The statement of Mr. Rangel follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Any questions?
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you so much, Mr. Ranking
    Member. I look forward to working with you. Your Chairman has
    indicated that you work very well with him, and on the two-
    thirds/one-third, you are in control of your staff selection,
    so that is a good thing. We are very glad you came because I
    was wondering where my friend was.
        Thank you so much.
        Mr. Rangel. Thank you.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I think this is so easy, and it
    is so interesting that a committee that is so contentious on
    the policy issues can be so agreeable when it comes to the
    paper clips and other materials. That inspires us to have hope.
        Mr. Rangel. Well, I was really hoping that by having more
    professional staff that are not hired because they are
    Republican or because they are Democrats, that in having only
    to be concerned about what is best for America, perhaps we
    could enlarge on that number to form a bridge where the party
    leadership does not dictate the substance of what is best for
    America. And if you can find a whole bunch of Social Security
    experts, we need them now more than ever.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Rangel. I thank the committee.
        The Chairman. Next we have the Resources Committee.
        I want to thank Chairman Pombo for being here today, and
    the Ranking Member Mr. Rahall, my neighbor, from my first birth
    State; not my home State, but my birth State.
        With that, we welcome Mr. Pombo.

        STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Chairman Ney, Ranking Member
    Millender-McDonald and members of the committee. Thank you for
    this opportunity to testify on the budget submission of the
    Committee on Resources.
        The Resources Committee Ranking Member Nick Rahall is also
    here, and I am pleased to report that he has cosponsored our
    committee funding request again this Congress.
        During the 108th Congress, Nick and I enjoyed a very open
    and amiable working relationship. He has been both a friend and
    a worthy adversary, and I look forward to working with him in
    this Congress as well.
        Please note that while we both have unrivaled
    accomplishments in the 108th Congress and lofty goals for the
    109th, our requested financial increase is, comparatively
    speaking, unquestionably modest. The citizens of the United
    States got more for their tax dollars from the Resources
    Committee in the 108th Congress than from any other committee
    in the House. Our panel and its subcommittees held 174
    legislative hearings and marked up 237 bills, 107 of which
    garnered the President's signature to become Public Law.
        In addition, we held nearly 50 official field hearings in
    communities across the country that were most affected by
    policies under the Resource Committee's jurisdiction.
    Collectively these statistics alone illustrate the fact that we
    are the most active and productive committee in the Congress,
    especially given our massive jurisdiction over roughly 2.2
    billion acres' worth of national parks, forests, refuges, and
    public lands, including the outer continental shelf. No other
    committee in Congress has compiled as impressive a record.
        The issues under our vast umbrella of jurisdiction affect
    millions of Americans as well as those individuals residing in
    the territories of the United States. As you know, some of the
    issues include onshore and offshore oil, energy and mineral
    development, wetlands and wildlife management, the Endangered
    Species Act, Federal dams and hydropower generation, crop
    irrigation, the preparation of environmental impact statements
    under NEPA, Native American affairs, and all parks, forests,
    and public land management regulation.
        Mr. Rahall and I have prepared a comprehensive action plan
    for the 109th Congress. It will include an array of oversight
    hearings both here in Washington and in the field to enable
    concerned citizens to participate in the legislative process
    again in the 109th Congress.
        The field hearings in particular have proven to be
    invaluable to committee members and staff by enabling us to
    gather input from individuals whose lives and livelihoods are
    most affected by environmental-related legislation and
    regulations. As such, we are absolutely committed to continuing
    those efforts, and especially in rural parts of the country
    which have been underrepresented in Congress.
        Our requested budget increase is geared to staff. First,
    this increase will help us retain the most hard-working and
    experienced staff by providing funds for merit raises and a
    realistic cost of living adjustment. Second, they will enable
    us to hire three new staff members. The Speaker's staff ceiling
    for the committee is currently 69 slots; 21 of the 69 slots are
    currently staffed by individuals who perform administrative or
    nonlegislative functions. Unfortunately, the committee has
    reached the staff ceiling many times during the past 8 years.
    As such, we request the committee's current staff allotment be
    increased to 72, or three new staff positions in 2005, 2006. To
    ensure fairness in the process, the committee Majority would
    acquire two staff positions, and the Minority would acquire
    one.
        In conclusion, let us reiterate that our proposed budget is
    both responsible given the current budget climate and
    conservative in light of the committee's vast responsibilities.
    While we recognize that every dollar we spend comes from
    taxpayers' pockets, we are certain that this budget accurately
    represents our minimum requirement.
        I want to thank you, and I will be able to answer any
    questions the committee may have.
        The Chairman. I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking
    Member.
        [The statement of Mr. Pombo follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Mr. Rahall.

      STATEMENT OF HON. NICK RAHALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                    FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

        Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first thank
    you and the members of the committee that are present, Ms.
    Millender-McDonald, the Ranking Member, and Ms. Lofgren, for
    your help to me on a number of occasions, especially when it
    comes to our coal miners in southern West Virginia. And I thank
    you, Mr. Ney, Mr. Chairman, for your help, your valiant help,
    on behalf of our coal miners. You have been a true friend to
    us, and we appreciate it.
        I do appreciate the remarks of my Chairman Mr. Pombo and
    associate myself with those comments he has just made,
    especially about me. The comments are mutual. I do respect the
    Chairman and have found that our working relationship has been
    one that has been very professional and very upfront with one
    another, and he has been fair to the Minority. And where we
    disagree, we know it up front, and we respectfully disagree
    with each other.
        The budget that he and I are presenting this afternoon
    reflects the traditional approach the Resources Committee has
    taken. Chairman Pombo has treated the Minority with much
    respect and fairness, and I appreciate his leadership, as I
    have said. For instance, while the committee currently has 69
    staff slots, 9 of those are deemed to be nonpartisan, shared
    employees. As such, the actual split is 40/20 between the
    Republican and Democratic staff, with one-third of the slots
    and salary controlled by myself as the Ranking Member. And in
    this regard, I share in Chairman Pombo's request for an
    increase of three staff positions.
        While the Resources Committee has been viewed as a more
    minor committee in comparison to a committee like Ways and
    Means or Transportation and Infrastructure, as the Chairman has
    demonstrated and has stated, we produce an incredible amount of
    legislation. The taxpayers do get their bang for their buck. In
    the last Congress alone, for example, the Resources Committee
    reported and the House passed 56 bills sponsored by Democrats.
    That is, sponsored by Democrats.
        As to the rest of the budget, our committee does not
    operate as if there are Republican or Democrat copiers or
    computers. If a piece of equipment reaches the end of its
    ability to function properly, it is replaced whether it is in
    the Minority office or the Majority office.
        There is one aspect of our budget, however, which did cause
    some consternation among certain Democratic Members last
    Congress. I am referring to the franking allocation of the
    Resources Committee, which was the highest among all House
    committees. The same amount, $50,000 per session, is again
    contained in the proposed budget.
        When our budget was submitted to you on February 15, 2005,
    I included a letter stating at that time that I was neutral on
    the franking request, as Chairman Pombo and I had not yet had
    the opportunity to discuss the matter. Since then, we have
    talked about it, Mr. Chairman, and we have come to an
    understanding that no mass frank mailings will be undertaken
    without consultation between Chairman Pombo and the full
    Franking Commission. He has also taken the unprecedented move
    of agreeing to give the Minority control of one-third of the
    approved franking budget. He is a man of his word, and with
    that agreement I stand side by side with Chairman Pombo in
    asking you to support this budget. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I thank both gentlemen.
        Questions?
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
    And I thank the two of you for coming before us. Certainly Mr.
    Rahall has answered the obligatory question that I have been
    raising over the last couple of days as we have had the
    chairmen and Ranking Members coming before us, and that is the
    two-third/one-third formula that has really been the--it was
    the brainchild of Mr. Bill Thomas, who was--just preceded you
    guys. And he wanted to reiterate that he wants to make sure
    that all committees are still carrying out that type of
    formula. And so I thank you so much.
        Mr. Rahall, sir, you are very much satisfied with what has
    taken place in terms of the budget? You have been informed by
    the Chairman as to what he has outlined in terms of the budget?
    You are aware the Chairman is asking for another $50,000 per
    session for franking mail?
        Mr. Rahall. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. And have you been totally involved
    with the franking mail and informed of that franking mail?
        Mr. Rahall. Yes, ma'am, I have. And we have reached an
    agreement, as I said, future mass mailings would be sent out in
    consultation with the Franking Commission and the Chairman.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. And while we recognize that
    chairmen do not necessarily have to go before the Franking as
    it is outlined in present form, sometimes it is not so much the
    letter of the law, but it is the spirit of the law that we have
    to always, as Members of Congress, as elected officials, be
    able to ensure that the public sees that, not only the letter,
    but the spirit of the law.
        And, Mr. Chairman, you did speak about an aggressive
    mailing that you have undertaken over the last Congress, and
    anticipate, I suppose, am I correct, in undertaking this same
    type of aggressive mailing in this Congress?
        Mr. Pombo. Absolutely. One of the--when I initially
    testified when I took over this committee, I had asked for an
    increased franking budget. One of the issues facing this
    committee is that the millions of people who are impacted by
    this committee for the most part are in rural America. And
    having the opportunity to reach out and communicate with those
    people is extremely important not only to me, but to the
    Ranking Member of this committee. I believe that is extremely
    important that we do that.
        In regard to following the letter of the law and the spirit
    of the law, this committee followed the letter of the law, the
    spirit of the law, every law, rule, regulation. We consulted
    with the Franking Commission on everything that we sent out
    even though we were not required to do that. We have stayed
    within the law on everything that we have put out. What Mr.
    Rahall and I--the agreement we have is that the Minority would
    have one-third of the budget on franked mail to use to issue
    franked mail.
        But having said that, and Nick can back me up on this,
    almost half of the franked mail that went out in the previous
    Congress went into Minority Members' districts. It went into
    districts of members of the committee. But it went into Joe
    Baca's district, Dennis Cardoza's district. It was members of
    the committee who represent the Minority, and it went into
    their districts even before we had this agreement on one-third
    of the budget.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Well, you know, Mr. Pombo, of
    course you recognize those violations that have been outlined
    that you were in violation of.
        Mr. Pombo. Excuse me. There were no violations that I am
    aware of. There were concerns that were raised by outside
    groups. There were things that came up before the committee.
    But as far as I know, there were no violations.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Well, perhaps it was not as
    outlined in the election year mailing restrictions, but is it
    not true that, even if your position as Chairman, when you are
    doing mass mailings prior to hearings, as you have outlined
    this is what your whole mass mailing was all about, that it
    should be restricted to just those areas that you are going to
    have a hearing and not necessarily to battleground States that
    were part and parcel of the upcoming Presidential election?
        Mr. Pombo. The purpose of franked mail is to communicate
    with constituents. That is what we were doing. It was--I
    believe the particular mail that you are talking about went
    into the four States that have the greatest impact on the
    snowmobile issue. That mail did go out. It went into four
    States in which there were in excess of 80,000 jobs directly
    related to the snowmobile industry. It is an issue that this
    committee has undertaken over the past several years, it is
    something that this committee has been extremely involved in,
    and it is an issue that other committees have tried to dip
    their fingers into when it is under the jurisdiction of this
    committee.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. And you have said that it went into
    Minority communities.
        Mr. Pombo. Minority districts.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Minority communities that have
    snowmobiles?
        Mr. Pombo. Minority districts. And the snowmobile issue
    went into the four States that are in the center of that
    particular issue on the ban of snowmobile access on public
    lands. It would not have made any sense to go into Los Angeles
    on snowmobiles or Florida on snowmobiles. You have to go into
    places like Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Pombo, you are--and recognize
    that these are taxpayers' dollars that you do spend,
    irrespective of your ability and autonomy to use and to be even
    under the 90-day cutoff, it is still taxpayers' dollars, as you
    have outlined in your statement, and it is coming out of their
    pockets. And there are some people who were very outraged with
    getting mail from your committee in areas that they felt was
    not endemic to snowmobiles.
        Mr. Pombo. And there were a number of people that were very
    happy that our committee was very involved with that issue.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. But can we be assured that in your
    coming year when you have this aggressive mass mailing, that
    you are going to try to stick within the constructs of this
    mailing going to--and prior to hearings, that will go into
    those areas of hearings and not just all over the place?
        The Chairman. Will the gentlelady yield?
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Yes.
        The Chairman. I feel I need to clarify something. He did
    follow that. Let me just read this for a second.
        Criteria for committee franked mail. Must relate strictly
    to committee business. Committees have no geographical
    boundaries. These are the current rules of the Franking
    Commission.
        Committees are not required to submit mass mailings for
    approval. There is not even a spirit of this. They are not
    required. Since 1991, under the Democratic control and under
    Republican control since 1994, the precedent has been to
    require all mass mailings be submitted for approval by Members
    only and not committees or leadership.
        But the point I wanted to make is House Administration has
    to decide, and willing to talk about these changes in current
    procedures. But to ask him today to say, yes, I will abide by
    not mailing out, but the rest of all Chairs can do that, it is
    just not the franking rules.
        Now, if we don't like them, we can do something, but right
    now we are awaiting word of the appointment by the Minority on
    this committee of the Franking members, and we have sent that,
    and we are awaiting your appointments so that we can deal with
    any issues if anybody would allege something on the mailers.
    And we have past precedent on these mailers from subcommittee
    Chairs, and the one I am thinking about years ago before I was
    here that I was alerted to was a Democrat and was dismissed
    unanimously.
        But the thing I have to point out is whether you like the
    mail or you don't like the mail, or the content or not the
    content, he followed the rules of the House, because he can
    mail outside. Now, if he today wants to answer the question--
    and you can answer the question--any way he wants, or you won't
    mail outside an area or another State, but according to the
    format we follow, he can mail anywhere he wants.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting--
    just a minute, Ms. Lofgren.
        Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that he cannot mail even
    outside of his State of California, or the gentleman from West
    Virginia. What I am suggesting here, first of all, we have been
    about the business of trying to be fair and equitable in this
    whole process. And Members, chairmen, have come before us
    saying that they will not go beyond this realm that has either
    been outlined through franking or, in his--as far as the
    Chairman is saying, that you do not have any restrictions, you
    do not have any restrictions on your mailing. But they have
    said that to ensure that we have a type of fair and equitable
    process that they would not do this.
        And I am asking you, would you do this? I understand that
    you do not have to be restricted to the State of California if
    you are going to have hearings in other States. But these seem
    to have been targeted to battleground States where we had a lot
    of--where there were really Presidential concerns there. And so
    my question is whether or not you will at least be fair and
    equitable in terms of, first of all, your Ranking Member having
    the autonomy to send mass mailers to wherever he wants to send
    them.
        Mr. Pombo. I am not exactly sure what question you are
    asking me. We followed all rules, all laws, rules, regulations.
    Bringing up that we mailed into a battleground State, I don't
    remember exactly what happened, but Montana, Wyoming, Idaho I
    don't believe were battleground States, and I don't believe
    that Minnesota ended up being a battleground State. I am not
    exactly sure what you are asking me to commit to.
        I will commit to you that I will follow all laws, rules,
    and regulations dealing with franking. And I can assure you
    that Mr. Rahall will do the same thing with his part of the
    budget. I am not--you are insinuating that there were some laws
    or rules or regulations that were broken by this committee in
    regards to franking, and if there is a specific law or rule
    that we broke, I would appreciate you letting me know what that
    is.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Pombo, I think you are aware of
    headlines that I am now reading where there has been many
    questions about your mailing and your mass mailing last year,
    and that those mass mailings went to targeted battleground
    States where Presidential elections were really at stake. And
    so my question to you is whether or not you did--you were
    within the construct of the law, whether you are going to be a
    little more--or careful in your mailing, and that that mailing
    be targeted only to those areas where you are going to have
    hearings and not outside of States where you are not going to
    have hearings.
        Mr. Pombo. Ma'am, franked mail is not about just doing
    hearings. It is about communicating with constituents on issues
    that are before the committee. That has nothing to do with the
    State of California or the State of West Virginia.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. And I made that very clear that I
    was not talking about just the State of California or West
    Virginia.
        Mr. Pombo. But it is not just about informing people about
    when we are going to have a field hearing. It is about
    communicating on issues that are before the committee. And that
    is what we did, and that is what I expect Mr. Rahall to do.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, I really do think--I
    think we need to look at this issue again, because if other
    chairmen are going to come before us and they are going to cite
    that they will stay within a certain parameter of mass
    mailings----
        The Chairman. Would the gentlelady yield?
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Yes.
        The Chairman. I would be willing to bet the mortgage of my
    house--I have been in the same hearings with you in 2 days,
    nowhere was the question asked, in my recollection, of any
    Ranking Member: Will you not mail outside an area? Now, it was
    asked, will you mail for hearings, but I don't recall ever that
    that was ever asked or answered.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. I thought I did ask that question,
    sir, many times.
        The Chairman. I don't believe. But we can----
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. We can check the transcripts on
    that. But can we then try to review this? Because I think it is
    totally unfair that you have a chairman that does one thing,
    and other chairmen who perhaps want to do this have not been so
    inclined to do that.
        Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentlelady yield? I think that there
    is another issue here. It is true--and I think it is a mistake,
    frankly, but it is true that committees do not need to submit
    their mass mailings to the Franking Commission. But that is not
    the end of the story, because it violates Federal law to use
    taxpayer funds to campaign, in a political effort. And so the
    underlying question is was the nature of the mailing really a
    political mailing.
        And you are aware, it is not fun to ask questions, and we
    share part of Santa Clara County, but certainly you are aware
    that many questions about the content of those mailers have
    been raised in the public. And if you read them and then take a
    look also at your Web page, which also does not have to go
    before Franking, it is highly political talking about the
    Presidential campaign. It was sent widely and sent also into
    congressional races that would be contested between the parties
    and was so politicized. Whether or not the Franking Commission
    checked into it is not the concern; the concern is whether the
    law prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds for a political
    purpose was adhered to.
        I just have a question. Looking at where these mailers were
    sent, they were sent to two Members. I guess Mr. Renzi and Mr.
    Pearce are both in your committee. Those were sharply contested
    races. The two Democratic members, Mr. Baca and Mr. Cardoza,
    had token opposition.
        So I think there are many questions, and I would just like
    to know. The Franking Commission would protect you from these
    kinds of questions that are being asked; because if the
    Franking Commission says, yes, this is not a political mailer,
    then you know you are on pretty safe ground, that you haven't
    violated the law about sending out political mailers at
    taxpayers' expense. Wouldn't you think that would be a good way
    to proceed next year?
        Mr. Pombo. Well, Ms. Lofgren, we did informally check with
    the Franking Commission before we mailed out any mail just to
    make sure that we were within the law, and it baffles me
    somewhat that members of this committee would, instead of
    actually looking at the mailing that went out, read from what
    are obviously misinformed press clippings about what actually
    went out from the committee. An accusation from some political
    adversary does not necessarily mean that we did anything wrong.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, I wasn't on the committee last year.
        Mr. Pombo. I am just pointing out to you that there is
    nothing in the mailer that is political. And I would challenge
    anyone to point out to me--we don't advocate party, we don't
    ask for a vote. It was totally informational about what went
    out from my committee, from the Committee on Resources, and it
    was all within the law.
        Now, if someone wants to suggest that franked mail in the
    future only be about informing constituents of upcoming town
    hall meetings or hearings, I think that other Members of
    Congress would be very concerned if that is the direction that
    this committee wants to go, because I would challenge you that
    most of the franked mail that comes out of Members of Congress'
    offices is informational pieces, and is not just telling people
    about when your next town hall meeting is.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, but we have limits as Members, you and I
    both do, when we send out franked mail from our offices.
    Sometimes I don't like the limits, and sometimes I think they
    are wrong. We all have beefs with the Franking Commission, but
    at least we know that it is not a political mailer or can't be.
    I guess reasonable people can differ, but a lot of people feel
    they were political mailers and that the Web site was also. You
    have got, Kerry, is he flip-flopping? That was picking up from
    the Presidential campaign. It looks like the use of official
    resources for a political campaign. I think it is very
    problematic and that you would save yourself problems of the
    criticism and protect yourself if we were to go through, even
    though the law doesn't require it, the Franking Commission to
    avoid this.
        Mr. Pombo. Well, I would again tell you that the committee
    followed all laws, rules, regulations in regards to franked
    mail. And any accusations to the contrary are, quite frankly,
    unfounded.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Reclaiming my time from her.
        Mr. Rahall, are you then at liberty--are you going to mail
    out some--this mass mailing of--to constituents of yours
    speaking about the Minority Leader Pelosi and what she is doing
    to further advance the Resources Committee's objectives and
    goals?
        Mr. Rahall. Well, I appreciate the gentlelady's question.
    And we have not really set up what our plans are yet, our
    agenda as far as mass mailings, if any, that we plan on doing
    from the Minority side this year. But they would, as the
    Chairman has indicated, be mailings on issues, issue-oriented,
    and may not necessarily be going to my constituents.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. No. Not necessarily going to your
    constituents. But what I am saying is that given that this
    mailer that I received has the President's name on it many
    times, and so, of course, if you are going to do some mass
    mailers, would you then also be sure to include what your
    leadership is doing with reference to the Resource Committee's
    objectives and goals?
        Mr. Rahall. Well, like the Chairman, I would follow every
    law, rule, regulation. And, yes, I would expect to have items
    that are of interest to the audience and the issues that are of
    concern to our leadership.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. But, see, there are no laws and no
    rules and no nothing, so you can just do this carte blanche.
    And so given that you can do this carte blanche, I am just
    suggesting to you will you then exercise the right as a Ranking
    Member to do what the Chairman has done and will be doing in
    terms of getting this information out to the mass of people who
    he wants to share the common goals and objectives of this
    committee? Will you be doing that and be sharing what your----
        Mr. Rahall. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. And be sharing what your leader is
    doing with reference to this?
        Mr. Rahall. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Okay. Fine.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I have a few other questions on
    other subjects. And I was actually very surprised when I read
    the House newspaper, The Hill, in October and found that the
    Chairman had decided to close the committee for, I guess, about
    a month. I want to understand what that was all about since the
    committee is asking for just shy of a 10 percent increase in
    its budget. And I am wondering, what is the vacation policy of
    the House Committee on Resources? How many days of vacation do
    the staffers get each year? Was it a full month that the
    committee was closed down in October? What days were closed
    down? And did any of the staff not go on vacation when you
    closed the committee?
        Looking at with Web site, I don't know, but it doesn't
    appear that there were any hearings or markups after September
    29, and it doesn't appear there were any press committee
    releases after October 15. Can you enlighten us on those
    questions?
        Mr. Pombo. I believe, if memory serves me correctly--I
    would have to go back and look to tell you for sure--that most
    of the month of October, that the Members--most of the staff of
    the committee was placed on administrative leave or allowed to
    go do other activities. Part of that was there were site visits
    and district issues that staff of the committee were doing. The
    main purpose of that was that at that point in time, we had
    completed for the year the congressional work and allowed the
    staff to do other things. A number of staff chose to do site
    visits; a number of staff chose to work from home. There were
    other things that they did. A lot of it involved going to other
    States and other places around the country outside of
    Washington, D.C. We did not have--Congress had completed its
    business at that point. We did not have markups or official
    hearings within Washington, D.C., during that time period, no.
        Ms. Lofgren. I can't recall if this was in the newspaper
    article that talked about it, but certainly, because it was
    just before the Presidential election, concern has been
    expressed in some circles that potentially some of the
    individuals who were still on the government's salary, but were
    off, dispatched to work on campaigns when they were not taking
    vacation time. And I think this is an opportunity for you to
    address that.
        Mr. Pombo. And I am glad that you asked that question,
    because I did read some erroneous media reports on that. Any
    member of the staff who chose to work on a campaign during that
    time period was required to take vacation time. There was no
    one who was given government salary to go work on a campaign.
    Anyone who chose to go work on a campaign during that time
    period had to use their vacation in order to do it.
        Ms. Lofgren. So you have maintained records. And how much
    vacation does each staffer get? How many weeks?
        Mr. Pombo. I think that is dependent on the number of years
    that they have been----
        Ms. Lofgren. So you have a schedule that is published and
    all of that?
        Mr. Pombo. It is all part of the committee rules. And it is
    the same on both sides.
        Ms. Lofgren. I had a question about some specific staff
    travel and I would like to get an answer. You may not be able
    to answer today. But I took a look at Mr. Kennedy, the press
    secretary, and I note that he turned in a bill for $1,042 the
    day after the election. I don't know where he was traveling,
    but since there were no press releases issued, I am wondering
    what was he doing and where did he go?
        Mr. Pombo. Mr. Kennedy travels with me quite extensively.
    And--I probably shouldn't say where, exactly where he was, but
    I believe during that time period he was with me in California.
    Well, for the most part we were in California. But he travels
    with me quite extensively.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, it is not fair to ask you to know that
    here, but if we can get that information later, that will be
    very helpful.
        Once questions are asked, you take a look at these more
    thoroughly. None of us have privacy because it is all the
    taxpayers' money. Taking a look at some of the other
    professional staff, I saw Mr. Miller, Mr. Whaley, and Mr.
    Sampson also submitted vouchers in good-sized chunks for the
    same time period. And I was wondering, the expenses were nearly
    $4,000. I wonder about that since the committee staff was
    supposedly on vacation. Can you enlighten us on that?
        Mr. Pombo. I would have to answer that for the record,
    because those are our professional staff members, and I can't
    tell you by memory exactly where they were.
        Ms. Lofgren. Okay. That is fair. And I would like to get
    that later when you have a chance to take a look at it.
        I have only one other question, and it is an unusual
    situation, and it has to do with who is your chief of staff? I
    note that Mr. Ding is really on your payroll for a very minor,
    I think the minimum amount that is possible, 300 a month on the
    MRA. But I think has an important position on the Resources
    Committee given his salary. And I am not criticizing the
    salary, I am sure he is a very competent individual, but it
    looks like he is traveling on your MRA probably, I mean, very
    frequently, almost every week back to the district. I am
    wondering, as a member of the Resources Committee, what is his
    necessity to be back in California on that kind of basis? Not
    that the staff phone book is accurate, but Ms. Carter is named
    your chief of staff in the telephone book. So who is the chief
    of staff, and how does this work? Because----
        Mr. Pombo. Jessica Carter is my chief of staff in my
    personal office. Steve Ding is the staff director of the
    Resources Committee, and he also does work in my personal
    office as well, and he travels with me extensively; he has for
    a number of years. He is probably one of the best staff members
    on Capitol Hill, and I would stand by him 100 percent.
        Ms. Lofgren. I am not suggesting otherwise. I am just
    trying to figure out how the money works between your office
    and the committee. It is not about his competence at all. I
    look forward to getting the information later that obviously
    you can't be expected to memorize. I am glad I gave you the
    opportunity to address these issues that have been out there in
    the public for so long. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I want to thank the gentlelady for her
    comments and kindness today to the Chair. And I want to thank
    both Members for being here.
        Let me just reiterate one thing just to--I hope to clear
    this up. It is the responsibility of House Administration to
    deal with the franking issues. I believe the Chair is correct
    that February 10 we sent the Minority on this committee a
    proposal about this filing that was done by this group; and if
    the letter is sent from your leader to the Speaker, you will
    have your appointments to franking that we would like to see
    happen, and then we can have the vote on this. Historically,
    this vote was done again before with the Democrat subcommittee
    chair, who had--the question has arisen on that issue of their
    ability to mail.
        In 1991, under Democratic control, this was changed and
    kept in 1994 under Republican control. But at that time the
    issue was to focus on the individual Members, because prior to
    reform there was no individual accountability, no public
    disclosure, and only postal patron mailings only if you sent to
    a ZIP code. And the House alone was spending $120 million. The
    House is now spending between 20 million and 25 million. But
    the leaders of the House do not go for franking opinions, the
    Chairs of the committees don't. I know on several occasions Mr.
    Pombo, his staff has brought franking pieces--because we had
    this debate on the floor of the House and had brought these
    over to be looked at, which is voluntary to do.
        But, you know, in my opinion--and I believe the record
    stands of how we operate here in the House, whether someone
    likes the mailer or they don't like the mailer, and we can go
    back through the past 25-year history of mailers, but he didn't
    violate any law, and he followed the current operating
    procedures we have.
        Now, if, in fact--and this is, my question on this issue to
    both of you. But if, in fact, this committee working together
    decides to change some of the rules, whether it is to put the
    leadership under the committee, the committee Chairs, the
    process, the 90-day blackout, then I guess I would ask both
    people, if we change the rules, will you follow the new rules
    we change?
        Mr. Pombo. Mr. Chairman, whatever----
        The Chairman. I will answer for both of you. Yes.
        Mr. Pombo. Yeah. I mean, whatever rules that you establish
    for the committee, I am sure Nick and I will follow them.
        The Chairman. I don't want to beat the dead horse, but
    those were the rules, whether you like the mail or not, and the
    rules were followed.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, just an oversight. I think we
    need to keep the record open so Mr. Pombo's written responses
    can be officially received by the committee.
        The Chairman. Well, that is not unusual. In fact, standard
    practice, as the gentlelady knows, and being an attorney, we
    always keep them open. And no objection to that on the past two
    hearings as we did the last one.
        With that, I want to thank both gentlemen for being here.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. I look forward to Mr. Rahall
    sending some of his mail into my district so I can see it as
    well.
        The Chairman. Hopefully he will send a little across the
    border to Ohio in Belmont County, too.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Absolutely. Spread it across the
    country.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        And the next committee up, the last committee, in fact, and
    we will be done, is Government Reform. And I note both Mr.
    Waxman and the Chair had a time line, so I appreciate you--
    okay. I appreciate your coming.
        We will start with the Chair, Mr. Davis of Virginia, and
    then go on to Mr. Waxman.

    STATEMENT OF HON. TOM DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                         THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairman Ney, and Ms. Millender-
    McDonald and Ms. Lofgren. I want to thank you for this
    opportunity to testify before the Committee on House
    Administration on the Government Reform Committee's budget
    proposal.
        Let me just note, in the 103rd Congress this committee was
    three committees; it was the Post Office and Civil Service
    Committee, it was the old District of Columbia Committee, and
    it was the Government Operations Committee. It was three
    committees at that point with a total of 192 staff slots. Today
    we do the work of those three committees with 118 people. So
    there has already been a significant reduction. And if you look
    at our legislative accomplishments over that time, we are
    putting out more legislation than those three committees
    combined did in the 103rd with about a little over half as many
    people.
        With now a full term as chairman of the committee under my
    belt, I propose a budget that reflects the needs of the House's
    busiest committee with the largest jurisdiction and oversight
    responsibilities. First, I want to note that this past Congress
    was the first time in history the Committee on Government
    Reform's Minority staff received 33 percent of the committee's
    budget. Henry Waxman, our Ranking Minority Member, and I worked
    together in reaching this goal, and we look forward to
    cooperating in this Congress to make our Federal Government
    more efficient.
        The budget proposal we present supports an aggressive
    agenda for the 109th Congress. Our focus is on stamping out
    fraud, waste, and mismanagement in the Federal Government, and
    making necessary reforms to these challenges. In the 108th
    Congress, in the last Congress, our committee held 340 hearings
    and markups, 176 in 2003, 164 in 2004. That is dozens more than
    you will find with any other committee.
        But our work has been more about quality than mere
    quantity. The committee accomplished much on a broad spectrum
    of areas legislatively. The Pentagon's national security
    personnel system, the D.C. School Choice Act, the Services
    Acquisition Reform Act, postal pension reform, a significant
    portion of the 9/11 Implementation Act originated in our
    committee.
        On the oversight front, we played a lead role in looking
    into the U.N. oil-for-food program, pay and medical problems
    facing National Guard and reservists, flu vaccines, drug
    smuggling at U.S. Borders, drug prevention and treatment
    programs, the President's faith-based initiative, and oversight
    of personnel management.
        During the 109th Congress our agenda is even more
    aggressive. Our legislative agenda focuses on computer
    security, Postal Service reform, driver's license security,
    identity theft, streamlining the Presidential appointments
    process, Federal law enforcement pay and classification reform,
    reorganization of the GSA, and additional acquisition reform.
        On the oversight side, the committee focuses on the GAO's
    high-risk list, management of the Department of Homeland
    Security, the battle against narcoterrorism, the FDA's ability
    to ensure adequate flu vaccine availability and protecting the
    public from dangerous prescription drugs, the evolving role of
    the National Guard, the misuse of Federal grant money in the
    District of Columbia, and many others.
        Our continued goal is to see improvements in the efficiency
    and effectiveness of the Federal Government, to root out waste
    and mismanagement in government programs, and to protect the
    rights and interests of American taxpayers.
        I am working to make our committee home plate when it comes
    to accomplishing these goals. With the amount of legislative
    and oversight hearings in the 108th and this aggressive agenda
    noted in the 109th, we believe we can accomplish our goals with
    an 8.8 percent increase from last year's budget. But I would
    like to give you a brief history on the committee's budget.
        In the 104th Congress, the committee acquired two other
    standing committees, as I noted before, and we have made them
    subcommittees of the Government Reform Committee.
        During the 103rd Congress, the Government Reform staff--
    well, I went through the combined numbers with you a minute
    ago, and we are down to almost half of what we were in the
    103rd Congress when you look at the combination. When the two
    standing committees combined with Government Reform, it
    received 105 employees and a budget of 13.5 million. We cut the
    committee funding in half.
        In the 105th Congress, the committee budget increased to
    enhance its investigative resources, but those gains have
    disappeared over the years.
        From the 105th Congress to the 108th, the committee has
    received an average 0.7 percent decrease in funding. So, from
    the 105th Congress to the 108th, the committee has received a
    decrease in funding. This average doesn't meet the demands of
    the cost of inflation over the past three Congresses. Even an
    8.8 percent increase to the committee would yield an
    approximately 1.7 percent increase from the 105th Congress.
        I am not here to ask for more money simply for equity's
    sake. We have specific plans for how we would utilize it. One
    area is in committee staffing, and in order to accomplish the
    goals of the 109th Congress, we see a need for three
    additional, two new employees for the Majority and one for the
    Minority, that would assist the committee in carrying out its
    legislative and oversight responsibilities.
        Additional committee funding will help us pay for the
    increase in transit benefits that are now available to all
    employees. In the past, funds have been transferred from other
    lines of operation to meet those needs.
        We would also like the ability to hire consultants in
    specialized areas to give us expertise in the areas of
    technology, acquisition, and health policy as part of our
    efforts to locate fraud, waste, and abuse.
        The committee acquired much of its equipment during the
    107th Congress. We would like to update our equipment and
    technology to keep our software current. And it is our goal to
    upgrade work stations every 3 years to keep pace with
    technology.
        We have also requested an increase for the hiring of
    outside Webcasting and vendors for Web site development.
    Extensive use of travel for our investigations and field
    hearings, the result of our wide jurisdiction and commitment to
    oversight, is also a necessity for our committee. This is in
    order to get a true perspective on investigations and
    oversight, and not to be limited to an inside-the-Beltway
    insight from our hearing witnesses.
        With this proposal we believe we can meet the needs of the
    committee's legislative and oversight agenda, and at the same
    time reach our goals in stamping out waste, fraud, and abuse.
        Once again, I thank you for this opportunity to testify
    before the committee, and we look forward to working with you
    in this Congress.
        [The statement of Mr. Davis follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Wow. What do you do in your spare time?
        I just want to ask one question, be it a little irregular
    here, because I know we are supposed to go to our distinguished
    Ranking Member. But your home plate goals, was that intentional
    or----
        Mr. Davis. We just try to touch all the bases.
        The Chairman. Well, you made a home run. Thank you.
        Mr. Waxman.

    STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Ms.
    Lofgren, members of the committee, I am pleased to have the
    opportunity to go to bat with Chairman Davis on behalf of the
    budget request that our committee is making.
        When Chairman Davis took over the gavel in the last
    Congress for the Government Reform Committee, he pledged to
    continue providing the Minority with a 33 percent allocation of
    the committee resources, and I am pleased he is continuing this
    approach in this Congress. In addition, I am grateful for the
    good lines of communication that Chairman Davis has established
    with the Minority. We do not always agree, but we always make
    an effort to understand each other's position and to conduct
    the committee's business professionally. And in important areas
    such as oversight of steroid use in baseball, which is on our
    minds because we are having a hearing on that topic tomorrow,
    we are able to work together on a bipartisan basis.
        It is important to put the Government Reform Committee
    budget request in perspective. Over the last three Congresses,
    the budgets of other House committees have grown on average 33
    percent. Some committees have seen their budgets grow by over
    60 percent. Our committee, the Government Reform Committee's
    budget has actually been cut over this period. We have seen our
    total budget cut by 2 percent during a period in which
    inflation alone has increased by 14 percent.
        I join Chairman Davis in emphasizing that the committee
    cannot fulfill its crucial legislative and oversight
    responsibilities if this trend continues. That is why it is so
    critical that the Government Reform Committee budget request be
    fully funded.
        The committee is responsible for addressing numerous
    pressing public policy challenges facing our Nation. I won't go
    through the extensive list that the Chairman has given you, but
    I do want to point out that we have legislation to reform the
    Postal Service which is critical to the long-term viability of
    that system. We continue our important work to ensure our
    Nation's drug control policies are operating effectively
    through reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control
    policy and oversight of drug control efforts.
        The committee continues to conduct oversight of the
    District of Columbia. Chairman Davis and I have worked together
    to look at FDA enforcement of false and misleading
    advertisements, manufacturing practices for drugs, biologics,
    and vaccines. And, of course, we are examining the growing
    problem of youth steroid use.
        I hope that, for these reasons, the members of this
    committee will support our committee's funding request in its
    entirety. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to be
    here and to answer any questions you or your members may have.
        [The statement of Mr. Waxman follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I want to thank both the gentlemen for being
    here.
        Mr. Waxman, is the split workable, the two thirds/one third
    funding?
        Mr. Waxman. I would prefer that we got the two-thirds, but
    other--but since the rules have always been that--since the
    objective has been for many, many years the idea that the
    Minority would get one-third, we have been treated fairly in
    that regard.
        The Chairman. I worked with you 4 years ago, and I
    appreciate that, on a difficult situation, to get that into
    balance we worked with you personally.
        Mr. Waxman. I do recall that. I appreciate that.
        The Chairman. Under a previous Chair, and appreciated your
    working with us to try to get that into line 4 years ago.
        I really have no questions of the Chair.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
        Mr. Waxman, help is on the way in terms of the two-thirds,
    I suppose.
        Mr. Waxman. We have to wait for elections for that.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. As one once said, it is good to
    know, though, that you are working admirably, I suppose, with
    the one-third for the total budget, the slots, and the control
    that you have. As I have spoken with you, and you seem to be
    pretty satisfied with that, and that is a good thing because
    the Chairman is just adhering to the formula that this
    committee has set forth even going back to when Mr. Thomas was
    the Chair. He outlined that formula, and we are keeping with
    that.
        Mr. Waxman. For our committee, the Minority, we go all the
    way back to Mr. Ney's chairmanship of where we were able to get
    the third. But in previous years there were all sorts of ways
    that, when all was said and done, we didn't get quite what the
    objective was. So I want to acknowledge the role that the
    Chairman here had played in that, and to express to you that we
    feel that we are being treated fairly.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Very good. Very good.
        In terms of the request for your franking, Mr. Chairman, I
    see that you had requested over the years certain amounts,
    $17,500, but you spent barely $3,700, and then $9,000 in the
    other one, in the first and second session of the 108th
    Congress. You are requesting now $25,000, and I would just ask
    what--by what means are you expecting to expand the mass
    mailing?
        Mr. Davis. One of the--I guess one of the beauties of this
    committee is we oversee all Federal procurement. And one of the
    things we have tried to do, Federal procurement right now is
    centered inside the Beltway, in and around Washington, which is
    great for my district; our unemployment rate is 1.4 percent.
    But what we are trying to do is go out into other communities
    and put on seminars how you sell to the government so that we
    can get the benefit of what people outside the Beltway can
    offer the Federal Government, whether it is goods or services.
    And franking is the best way to do this. We did three or four
    of these last time; we did one up in Mr. Tierney's district, we
    did one out in the Bay Area. But there are other areas, not
    just technology areas, where this is useful not just to the
    Members, but to the businesses in those areas. And it is
    helpful to the government, because the more bidders we have,
    the better we can drive prices down and get more competitive
    rates. So it is basically what we call these procurement fairs.
    It is a benefit to our Members, but also people outside the
    committee as well. And the frank is a very good way to reach a
    lot of these businesses.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Well, I really--having my undergrad
    in business administration marketing, I am certainly one who
    advocates marketing as much as you can to get the word out. So
    that is a good thing.
        Mr. Waxman, how much of the franking funds do you use for
    your own franking mailing?
        Mr. Waxman. I would like to give you the answer to that for
    the record. I don't know offhand, but I assume we get a split
    to serve the needs of the Minority for the very same purpose. A
    lot of our Members, not just on our committee, but Democratic
    Members in the House would like to have these opportunities for
    these fairs that can reach out to people to understand how they
    can get involved in government contracts; particularly in
    minority areas, I think that would be very, very helpful. So I
    don't know the exact number, but I assume that we will want to
    be able to have a fair distribution of it.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. I would like to think so as well.
        Mr. Davis. We did one in Mrs. Maloney's--I mean, we don't
    care whose district it is in. We try to involve our regions.
    Ultimately, this benefits the Federal Government, so we would
    be happy to work with Mr. Waxman on these areas.
        Ms. Millender-McDonald. Very good. Thank you so much to
    both of you.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to perhaps get a report as
    to how much is being spent on franking both with the Chair and
    the Minority or the Ranking Members on each committee, and
    report that back to us. Thank you so much.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady from California.
        Ms. Lofgren. I would just say I think the questions that
    have been asked are interesting. As you know, I serve on the
    Judiciary Committee, and I was interested in your comment about
    antitrust in baseball, especially since San Jose wants a
    baseball team. So perhaps we can talk further about that later.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I want to thank both gentlemen for being here
    today and your time before the committee. Thank you.
        I ask unanimous consent that Members have 3 business days
    to submit their statements and materials for the record. Those
    statements and materials will be entered in an appropriate
    place in the record. Without objection, material will be so
    entered.
        Also, I would note the gentlelady's request, too. Of
    course, the questions, this record will be open for the
    questions to be answered and submitted. I don't know, 30 days,
    I assume? I mean, or 2 weeks?
        Ms. Lofgren. I am sure it wouldn't take the Chairman more
    than 30 days. They were simple questions.
        The Chairman. Then we will--leave making sure I am
    technically correct here. Three business days. Without
    objection, the material will be entered.
        I ask unanimous consent staff be authorized to make
    technical and conforming changes on all matters considered by
    the committee in today's portion of the hearing. Without
    objection, so ordered.
        Having completed our business for the day in this hearing
    on the committee funding, the committee is hereby adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:53 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]