[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.]