[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARKUP OF OMNIBUS COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION AND A COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION
=======================================================================
MARKUP
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 21, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21-196 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
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan Ranking Minority Member
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York ZOE LOFGREN, California
Professional Staff
Paul Vinovich, Staff Director
George Shevlin, Minority Staff Director
MARKUP OF OMNIBUS COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION AND A COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2005
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in room
H-326, the Capitol, Hon. Robert W. Ney (chairman of the
committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Ney, Ehlers, Miller, Millender-
McDonald, Brady and Lofgren.
The Chairman. The Committee is now in order for the purpose
of considering the 109th Congress Omnibus Committee Funding
Resolution and a Committee Resolution establishing the 109th
Congress franked mail allocation for committees. In February
this year, the chairmen and ranking members of all the
committees came before us and requested their budgets, the
resolution along with the committee resolution setting the
franked mail allocations to fully fund committees for the 109th
Congress.
This mark is an amendment in the nature of a substitute
outlining each committee's authorized spending levels for 2005
and 2006. I am pleased to put before the Committee a chairman's
mark that can be supported, I believe, by a majority of members
on both sides of the aisle. This is a great way for this
institution to operate, with members and the ranking members.
And this agreement, which has been in the works for the last
two months, has finally been sanctified in the 11th hour and a
half, and allows us to move forward with a bona fide resolution
for committee funding.
I feel that both the chairmen and ranking members will
agree that this resolution provides sufficient funding for them
to carry out the duties and responsibilities with which they
are charged. As I said many times, we are in the world of the
Internet and a world of information. And that is a wonderful
thing, but it also creates a lot of work that none of the
members mind doing or the staff, but we have an obligation to
people to do the work for the people in the country. And so
that is why this funding measure is so important.
At the beginning of Congress, the Committee on Homeland
Security was made a permanent standing committee, which made
things tougher this year. But I think we have done a good job
allocating our resources, because we have, for the first time
in a long time, funded another full committee. The Committee
will continue to provide important oversight functions,
overseeing the Homeland Security Department and ensuring that
the combined agencies are doing their job. As a result of its
new standing within the House, the budget for Homeland Security
that has been engrossed by this resolution no longer stands
alone, so I feel it is important to note that although it would
appear that the overall budget for committees has increased
dramatically because of the inclusion of that committee, this
is really not the case. This was again a tough task, but I
believe that we have all handled it in the correct way.
So this budget is in line with past committee funding
resolutions, and represents a percent increase similar to that
of the United States Senate. I believe it will have good
bipartisan support on the floor. The Committee has requested a
total of 273 million in spending for the 109th. This is
approximately 39 million more than what was authorized in the
108th Congress, and also represents a 17 percent request
increase. That is a request. Removing Homeland Security from
the equation, the request by committees total 257 million,
approximately a 35 million increase over the 108th authorized
levels. This mark reduces the amount requested by all
committees to 162 million, or a 5.9 percent increase. So 5.9
percent is, I feel, responsible and meets the obligations of
the Chairs and ranking members and the staffs so they can carry
out their business.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute providing
expenses for all committees other than Homeland Security
authorizes $243 million, a 9.2 percent increase, and this is a
$20 million increase over the 108th.
It should be noted that the 109th Congress funding level of
$243 million, excluding Homeland Security, is still lower than
the funding levels of the 103rd Congress in both costs and
actual dollars. So I am proud of the numbers we are putting
forward with this mark, and look forward to passing a
resolution out of the Committee today and then passing the
House floor.
I want to thank our Ranking Member, Congresswoman
Millender-McDonald, all the members of this Committee, and the
staffs who have worked very, very hard. We haven't always had
bipartisan votes on these resolutions, as those who have been
around for a while remember. This will mark the third round
where we have had bipartisan support. I am proud of the fact
that both sides of the aisle are coming together. Also, a lot
of kudos and credit to our ranking member and the other
minority members of the Committee who pushed to make sure that
their ranking members had the one third and the things that
they needed, as we did in consulting our Chairs.
And, with that, I will yield to our Ranking Member. And
thank you, once again, publicly, for all your help, concern,
and your caring of the system of the institution of the House.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, I want to, again,
thank you for your tireless efforts to bring this funding
resolution before this committee. This chairman has worked
vehemently on the floor. He would either find me or I would
find he on the floor, and we worked through this whole process.
And you have worked to ensure that the fairness principle
espoused by Speaker Hastert, former chair Thomas, and yourself
is being followed by all committee chairs. I would like to also
thank my lead staff person, George Schefland, and also your
lead person, Paul, in helping to craft this and constantly
talking to us about the nuances of getting to this point.
The principle that you are following in the footsteps of
your predecessor, first articulated by the Republican
leadership and signed on to by every Republican ranking member
was the Republicans, and when the Republicans were in the
minority, is simply straightforward and straightforward--and
forward.
The minority of each committee is entitled to one third of
the staff, one third of the funds, and control of those funds.
The current Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator
Pat Roberts, who in 1994 was on this committee, best
articulated this principle with language he offered to the
omnibus funding.
Mr. Chairman, the minority has not had to resort to such
specific language largely because of you and your predecessor
and Speaker Hastert believe in this fairness principle and
lived it each day. The House Administration Committee is one of
only five House committees which operate on this principle with
no strings attached, and virtually all other committees have
found a way to satisfactorily apply the principle with some
conditions to the mutual satisfaction of the chairman and
ranking member. I cannot tell you how pleased I am, Mr.
Chairman, that the one committee which appears to be at an
impasse has found a way to apply the fairness principle to the
mutual satisfaction of the chairman and the ranking member.
We have come a long way in a decade, and you have
demonstrated this fairness principle and how it works. It has
governed our committee for over 10 years without compromising
your capacity and your integrity, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you
so much for that. Because of your leadership, we have arrived
at a point where I can honestly represent that the fairness
principle is at work on every committee. You ought to be
congratulated on navigating this, and at the proper time I will
be offering an amendment to your chairman's mark. This
amendment is intended to limit mass mailers by committees and
to ensure that any self-initiated mass mailers are reviewed and
that they are directly related to the ordinary and necessary
responsibilities of the committee. Last year, just prior to the
general election we recognize what went on, and this amendment
will fix this problem and hope that every member of the
committee will give it serious consideration. We hope to
resolve this franking problem, and I will be offering
limitations to this second resolution that will act upon--we
act upon today, and that amendment will give each standing
committee 5,000 per session in franking authority.
And, Mr. Chairman, that amendment will require that each
committee to come back to this committee for supplemental
authorization if the need arises. These two committee
amendments taken together will assure taxpayers that their
franking tax dollars will not be subject to any future waste,
fraud, or abuse in mass mailing franking transitions in
furtherance of this committee's business. I am hopeful that my
amendments will be adopted so that we have to take this
resolution to the floor and we will take it to the floor with
broad support of the resolution.
In closing, again, I want to say what a pleasure it is to
work with you, Mr. Chairman, and to express my hope that,
working together, we can get the entire House behind the
funding resolution when we take it up on the floor next week.
Thank you, sir.
[The statement of Ms. Millender-McDonald follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 21196A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 21196A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 21196A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 21196A.004
The Chairman. Thank you.
Other comments by other members?
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a question in
making sure that I am understanding the ranking member's
comments. And with a great deal of gratitude both to you and to
the chairman for the heavy lifting that I am sure is involved
in getting agreement. But when we left the hearings unresolved
in terms of the chairman and ranking members seem to be the
agriculture and small business committees. Those have now been
resolved to their satisfaction?
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Those have both have been resolved.
Ms. Lofgren. That is good. Congratulations.
The Chairman. We thought we would go on the road and
negotiate. A couple of countries are having disputes and are
having disputes with each other, too.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, if I may, and I will quickly close. I
would certainly like to support the work of the chairman and
ranking member. There is at least one question outstanding, but
it should not stand in the way of supporting this. So good
work.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. I notice the Science Committee is just about
the very lowest in percentage increase. They submitted a modest
increase, but I hope they weren't given the lowest increase
because they submitted a modest increase. Rules, which also
submitted a fairly modest increase, got the entire amount, and
the Science Committee got substantially less. I wondered what
the reason was for that. The Science Committee, I know from
being on it, runs a very tight ship, and a much tighter ship
with less spending and waste than any of the other committees,
and I would hate to see them penalized because they are frugal.
The Chairman. The one thing on Rules. At least since I have
been here, and when Mr. Thomas was chairman, the Rules
Committee was almost a flat-line committee. And this time we
talked to Mrs. Slaughter and also Mr. Dreier. They needed to do
something to modernize their system.
Mr. Ehlers. I am not questioning theirs. I am just saying
why----
The Chairman. And Science. There is, of course, a limited
amount to the entire picture. But we did transmit the numbers
to the Science Committee, and to the best of my knowledge, they
had no objection. We didn't hear objection from them.
Mr. Ehlers. Did they see what other committees got?
The Chairman. We gave them the numbers. Correct?
Mr. Ehlers. For every committee? Did they see that other
committees were getting substantially more than they?
The Chairman. If you start that----
Mr. Ehlers. No. Then it is immaterial. You can't expect
them to comment on the amount if they don't know what they are
getting compared to other committees. I mean.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Government Reform is getting a 4.5
increase.
Mr. Ehlers. I understand that.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. So it is not the lowest.
Mr. Ehlers. No. There is one more.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Two, really.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, Budget generally gets standardized. You
can't count them.
The Chairman. Committees will always look and see that one
committee got more or less. Ways and Means, for example, might
have a lower percentage increase, but has a larger dollar
figure than some committees. But I do know we transmitted these
numbers and did not hear an objection back.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, at least you could have transmitted it to
the members of this committee, too. It is awfully tough to come
in a meeting and get it cut and dry and say, okay, take it or
leave it. And the point is this is one committee--I serve on
three committees; I know how many use their money. This
committee uses it very wisely and judiciously. And just because
they request a modest amount, I don't think they should be
given one of the lowest figures. It is not a very expensive
committee to begin with compared to many of the others.
The Chairman. Let me ask this question of our staff. What
was the total dollar figures Science had requested?
Mr. Ehlers. I am just looking for equity. When I see 18
percent increases, 10 percent increases, 12 percent, 22
percent, et cetera. Then why not request a huge amount? I mean,
this committee is supposed to make judicious judgments.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. When we were going through the
whole process----
Mr. Ehlers. I never saw it.
The Chairman. We did transmit the dollar figures to all the
chairs and the ranking members. Heard back from some that they
weren't happy and we couldn't accommodate them. Some people
came back and said, ``well, you know, we need a bit more,'' and
gave a rationale, and we considered it. But, like I said, these
numbers were given and we didn't hear back.
One thing I would argue is that a committee has to function
by what they need. If a committee starts to say well, ``Ways
and Means got more and we should have got more,'' then this
whole thing would be another 70 million dollars.
Mr. Ehlers. I understand that. But I don't understand why
we are asked, just present the material and supposed to, in 5
minutes, make the decision when we don't know what the factors
were in the decisions.
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
Ms. Lofgren. Which committee, either chairman or ranking
members, raised objections to this that remain unresolved?
Ms. Millender-McDonald. There aren't any.
Ms. Lofgren. So everybody has----
Ms. Millender-McDonald. I called many and the Chairman
spoke with many. So there aren't any others on----
The Chairman. We actually provided these--I personally
provided these numbers to most of the Chairs and our staff went
through the process providing numbers in the last week. This
has just been formulated, frankly, and I apologize for that. We
normally get things in time; this was just put together because
there were going to be votes and we would have to pass
continuing resolutions. But I just never heard back from
anybody on that Committee to say this is just not----
Mr. Ehlers. I understand. I am just frustrated.
Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman, I mean, I am on the Armed Services
Committee. I know what committee I am on. I know what committee
comes in front, I know what request they make. I vote on my
ranking member and I vote on my chairman. I say, are you guys
okay? That is the part of being on this committee that I
thought was supposed to happen, and we are okay with this. And
if I was on Science, I would have done that too. So this is
like the----
Mr. Ehlers. If you knew the numbers had been prepared.
Mr. Brady. They know the numbers. They do. Your ranking
member and your chairman. I take it that it is my
responsibility being on the committee that is going to have any
kind of financing of their committee to go to them and say, are
you guys okay? I didn't just go to the ranking member, I went
to the chairman. And they said, well, we would like more, but
we could live with this. And I said fine. And and I checked
back with the chairman and the Ranking Member and I said, look,
they are okay.
So I thought maybe that was what I was supposed to do. I
mean, I can't imagine walking in and letting everybody see
these numbers, because then you get into a bidding war. But
that is what I did. I took that upon myself to do that.
Mr. Ehlers. So you are saying the members of this committee
shouldn't see the numbers before?
Mr. Brady. No. I am saying the members of this committee
should see the numbers.
Mr. Ehlers. That is my point.
Mr. Brady. That is well taken. But my chairman and my
ranking member of the committee saw the numbers and they shared
with me they were fine. But I think that maybe you are right,
you should have them a little sooner.
The Chairman. I would say, Mr. Ehlers, your office was
informed if they would like to convey these numbers and chose
to let us do that. I hesitate to mention that, but that is what
happened.
Mr. Ehlers. I will talk to them about that.
The Chairman. Thank you. Any other questions?
Ms. Lofgren. I just want to make sure that Chairman
Sensenbrenner is not going to be angry.
The Chairman. He will probably always be angry, about
something else, though, probably not this.
Mr. Brady. When they get happy, they should get happy with
us. When they get angry, they should get angry with the
chairman.
The Chairman. And there is one thing. I went to the other
chairs, and I gave them a number, I tried personally to get to
all I could, but I believe the staff got to the rest. But every
once in a while, I would have somebody say, let me see the
list. And I would say, no. You tell me whether you are happy
with your number. Because they are going to see the list and
they are going to say, ``Well, they got a 15 percent
increase.'' Well, actually, if you look at raw dollar figures,
some of the 15 percents are not as high in raw dollars as the
lower increases. So if you get into that, it is an unwinnable
situation.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, the one thing, we
have spoken with both Chairman Sensenbrenner and also the
ranking member. They have come to their own agreement which
they said is fine with them. So the same as with the small
business and the same as with agriculture.
Ms. Lofgren. Good work.
The Chairman. There are still some slot issues that will be
dealt with that we don't make a mark on. That is decided at the
leader's level, above our pay grades, with the Speaker and the
leader.
Other questions? The Chair lays before the Committee bill
H.R. 224 open to amendment, and the Chair offers an amendment
in the nature of a substitute. Is there any discussion or
amendments? The clerk will report the amendment. And we will
recognize the ranking member.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 21196A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 21196A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 21196A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 21196A.008
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I
indicated in my opening statement, I have this amendment to the
funding resolution. The amendment limits overall mass mailers
by committees and ensures that each mass mailer is reviewed by
the franking commission. It also requires that committee mass
mailers pertain directly to the normal and regular business of
the committee. Last year, just prior to the general election
and earlier in the 108th Congress just prior to some primary
elections we saw some self-initiated committee mass mailers,
which I can only characterize as deeply troubled. If unchecked,
and if this trend were to expand or continue, I believe that
the frank would be placed in jeopardy for the entire House, and
taxpayers would be rightly critical of our stewardship on this
important communication.
My amendment will fix this problem, and I hope that every
member of the committee will consider it. I thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. I support the amendment. We have Jack Dail
here. We have franking people who have a tough job, but they
sit down and go over everything. And they will be able to more
than adequately handle this end from the committees; I think it
has the blackout date in it. These are some changes to existing
law, and no problem to support.
Ms. Miller. Could you expand a little bit on what the
changes are?
Ms. Millender-McDonald. The changes will be that all
members, irrespective of committee chairs and all regular
members, come under the 90-day rule before elections; and,
secondarily, that they do get an advisory opinion by the
franking commission before that material goes out.
The Chairman. Also, a very good provision in this amendment
enables us to plan for certain scenarios. Let us say there is
some type of crisis in the country and these committees need to
communicate, we can always come back. And if we need to add
something on, in a unique situation, we can come back and
discuss it and make a decision. I think that is a good
provision. And again, they will go into franking just as all
Members currently do.
Ms. Miller. Have the committee chairs been made aware of
this amendment as well?
The Chairman. Yes. And there is no one that disagrees with
it. Any questions on the amendment? Those in favor of the
amendment will say aye. Those opposed will say nay. The
question is now on the substitute as amended. Those in favor
will say aye. Those opposed say nay. The bill is adopted as
amended.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to Clause
2(l) of Rule 911, I am providing notice that I am requesting
not less than 2 additional calendar days as provided by the
rules to submit additional views to accompany the committee's
report on this resolution.
The Chairman. Without objection. And I would also like to
recognize our ranking member for the purpose of offering a
motion.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, I move that H.R. 224
as amended be reported favorably to the House.
The Chairman. The question is on the motion. Those in favor
say aye. Those opposed nay. And the motion is agreed to, and
H.R. 224 as amended is reported favorably to the House.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. And now we lay before the Committee a
Committee Resolution establishing the 109th Congress franked
mail allocation for the committees. Is there a discussion?
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, you and I have
discussed this and we have discussed it with our leadership,
and they are in agreement with that. And I move that we adopt
this substitute motion.
The Chairman. I recognize the gentlelady for the purpose of
offering the motion. And it has been moved that the Committee
Resolution establishing 109th Congress franked mail allocation
be adopted. The question is on the motion. Those in favor will
say aye. Those opposed will say nay. The motion is agreed to,
and the Committee Resolution establishing 109th Congress
franked mail allocation for the committees is adopted.
As is technical, I ask unanimous consent that members be
given 7 legislative days for statements and materials to be
entered into the appropriate place in the record. Without
objection, the material will be entered.
I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make
technical and conforming changes on all matters considered by
the Committee at today's meeting. Without objection, so
ordered.
Again, I want to thank all the members for your time and
your concern with the funding resolution, and also the franking
resolution. We are therefore adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:59 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]