[House Report 108-91]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 108-91
======================================================================
PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENSES OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IN THE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
_______
May 6, 2003.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Ney, from the Committee on House Administration, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H. Res. 148]
The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred
the resolution (H. Res. 148) providing for the expenses of
certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One
Hundred Eighth Congress, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the
resolution be agreed to.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. COMMITTEE EXPENSES FOR THE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--With respect to the One Hundred Eighth Congress,
there shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of the House of
Representatives, in accordance with this primary expense resolution,
not more than the amount specified in subsection (b) for the expenses
(including the expenses of all staff salaries) of each committee named
in such subsection.
(b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts referred to
in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, $10,327,531; Committee
on Armed Services, $11,931,357; Committee on the Budget, $11,869,572;
Committee on Education and the Workforce, $14,673,371; Committee on
Energy and Commerce, $18,622,138; Committee on Financial Services,
$13,696,487; Committee on Government Reform, $19,614,435; Committee on
House Administration, $8,527,057; Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, $7,809,730; Committee on International Relations,
$14,552,695; Committee on the Judiciary, $14,048,616; Committee on
Resources, $13,509,424; Committee on Rules, $5,669,311; Committee on
Science, $11,690,845; Committee on Small Business, $5,120,301;
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, $3,071,250; Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, $16,461,893; Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, $5,486,795; and Committee on Ways and Means, $15,976,288.
SEC. 2. FIRST SESSION LIMITATIONS.
(a) In General.--Of the amount provided for in section 1 for each
committee named in subsection (b), not more than the amount specified
in such subsection shall be available for expenses incurred during the
period beginning at noon on January 3, 2003, and ending immediately
before noon on January 3, 2004.
(b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts referred to
in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, $5,084,900; Committee
on Armed Services, $5,871,876; Committee on the Budget, $5,856,333;
Committee on Education and the Workforce, $7,047,896; Committee on
Energy and Commerce, $9,101,042; Committee on Financial Services,
$6,601,085; Committee on Government Reform, $9,740,963; Committee on
House Administration, $4,122,092; Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, $3,780,487; Committee on International Relations,
$6,993,645; Committee on the Judiciary, $6,957,554; Committee on
Resources, $6,492,029; Committee on Rules, $2,797,898; Committee on
Science, $5,711,401; Committee on Small Business, $2,535,261; Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,527,825; Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, $7,982,558; Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, $2,703,328; and Committee on Ways and Means, $7,828,037.
SEC. 3. SECOND SESSION LIMITATIONS.
(a) In General.--Of the amount provided for in section 1 for each
committee named in subsection (b), not more than the amount specified
in such subsection shall be available for expenses incurred during the
period beginning at noon on January 3, 2004, and ending immediately
before noon on January 3, 2005.
(b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts referred to
in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, $5,242,632; Committee
on Armed Services, $6,059,481; Committee on the Budget, $6,013,239;
Committee on Education and the Workforce, $7,625,475; Committee on
Energy and Commerce, $9,521,097; Committee on Financial Services,
$7,095,402; Committee on Government Reform, $9,873,472; Committee on
House Administration, $4,404,965; Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, $4,029,243; Committee on International Relations,
$7,559,050; Committee on the Judiciary, $7,091,062; Committee on
Resources, $7,017,395; Committee on Rules, $2,871,413; Committee on
Science, $5,979,444; Committee on Small Business, $2,585,041; Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,543,425; Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, $8,479,334; Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, $2,783,466; and Committee on Ways and Means, $8,148,251.
SEC. 4. VOUCHERS.
Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized
by the committee involved, signed by the chairman of such committee,
and approved in the manner directed by the Committee on House
Administration.
SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.
Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House
Administration.
SEC. 6. ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY.
The Committee on House Administration shall have authority to make
adjustments in amounts under section 1, if necessary to comply with an
order of the President issued under section 254 of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 or to conform to any
reduction in appropriations for the purposes of such section 1.
COMMITTEE ACTION
On May 6, 2003, by voice vote, a quorum being present, the
Committee agreed to an amendment in the nature of a substitute
and, by voice vote, a quorum being present, the Committee
agreed to a motion to report the resolution, as amended,
favorably to the House.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
STATEMENT ON BUDGET AUTHORITY AND RELATED ITEMS
The resolution does not provide new budget authority, new
spending authority, new credit authority, or an increase or
decrease in revenues or tax expenditures and a statement under
clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 is not required.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states, with
respect to the resolution, that the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office did not submit a cost estimate and
comparison under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Committee states, with respect to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that
the general discussion section of this report includes a
statement of the general performance goals and objectives,
including outcome-related goals and objectives, for which H.
Res. 148 authorizes funding.
RECORD VOTES
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, with respect to each record vote
on a motion to report the resolution and on any amendment
offered to the resolution, there were no record votes on a
motion to report the resolution or on any amendment offered to
the resolution.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Voice vote
The Committee, by voice vote, with a quorum present, on May
6, 2003, agreed to report H. Res. 148, as amended, favorably to
the House.
General discussion
H. Res. 148, as amended, authorizes for standing committees
(excluding the Committee on Appropriations) and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence $222,659,096 for the 108th
Congress. In a separate Committee resolution, the Committee on
House Administration established franked mail allocations for
these committees.
The sum total of all budget requests for the 108th Congress
was $241,454,078. The $222,659,096 authorized for committees is
$18,794,982 or 7.8 percent less than the sum of all amounts
requested by committees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
108th request
Committee \1\ H. Res. 148 2003 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture..................................... $10,623,640 $10,327,531 $5,084,900 $5,242,632
Armed Services.................................. 12,377,680 11,931,357 5,871,876 6,059,481
Budget.......................................... 11,869,572 11,869,572 5,856,333 6,013,239
Education and the Workforce..................... 14,922,183 14,673,371 7,047,896 7,625,475
Energy and Commerce............................. 19,117,623 18,622,138 9,101,042 9,521,097
Financial Services.............................. 16,995,487 13,696,487 6,601,085 7,095,402
Government Reform............................... 20,400,000 19,614,435 9,740,963 9,873,472
House Administration............................ 10,374,974 8,527,057 4,122,092 4,404,965
Intelligence.................................... 7,809,730 7,809,730 3,780,487 4,029,243
International Relations......................... 16,037,995 14,552,695 6,993,645 7,559,050
Judiciary....................................... 17,248,067 14,048,616 6,957,554 7,091,062
Resources....................................... 14,910,527 13,509,424 6,492,029 7,017,395
Rules........................................... 5,669,311 5,669,311 2,797,898 2,871,413
Science......................................... 12,301,690 11,690,845 5,711,401 5,979,444
Small Business.................................. 6,372,008 5,120,301 2,535,261 2,585,041
Standards of Official Conduct................... 3,443,150 3,071,250 1,527,825 1,543,425
Transportation and Infrastructure............... 17,682,505 16,461,893 7,982,558 8,479,334
Veterans' Affairs............................... 6,776,617 5,486,795 2,703,328 2,783,466
Ways and Means.................................. 16,521,319 15,976,288 7,828,037 8,148,251
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 241,454,078 222,659,096 108,755,239 113,903,858
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amount requested in budget request submitted to Committee on House Administration.
Committee funding process
The 108th Congress is the fifth funding cycle under the
biennial funding process instituted in the 104th Congress. At
the beginning of the 104th Congress, House Rules were revised
changing the committee funding process to a biennial cycle and
abolishing the bifurcation of funding under statutory and
investigative accounts.
The biennial committee funding process has proven
successful. A two-year budget cycle saves time and resources
for all committees because the process is undertaken only once
per Congress, rather than twice, as was done previously. The
biennial funding process facilitates long-term planning and
cuts in half the time and resources dedicated to making,
defending, and approving budget requests.
Comparison of committee funding resolution
At the beginning of the 104th Congress, three standing
committees and 32 subcommittees were abolished. Committee staff
was reduced by 33 percent from the 103rd Congress levels and
committee funding levels were reduced by a total of 30 percent.
In the 108th Congress, funding levels continue to remain well
below the 103rd levels.
COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION COMPARISONS
[Excluding appropriations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
103rd Congress, Democratic Majority: $223.3 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
104th Congress, Republican Majority: $157.2 million = 70% of 103rd level
(reduced 30%).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
105th Congress, Republican Majority: $177.9 million = 80% of 103rd level
(reduced 20%).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
106th Congress, Republican Majority: $183.4 million = 82% of 103rd level
(reduced 18%).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
107th Congress, Republican Majority: $203.5 million = 91% of 103rd level
(reduced 9%).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
108th Congress, Republican Majority: $222.7 million = 91% of 103rd level
(reduced 0.2%).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House Administration Committee believes that these
comparisons are significant and show a pattern of responsible
spending, with substantial savings being passed on to
taxpayers. The 108th Congress mark is lower than the overall
funding levels in the 103rd Congress in both nominal and real
dollars. Under Democrat control, the total committee funding
allocation in the 103rd Congress was $223,335,418. Adjusted for
inflation, and factoring in a 5 percent per session increase
this Congress, the current committee budget would be about $281
million, almost $28 million more than committees have requested
in this Congress. This mark, combined with budgets for the four
previous Congresses, will have resulted in a savings to
taxpayers of at least $344 million over the amount that would
have been spent during the same time frame had Democrats
retained control of the House.
Hearing room upgrades
The Committee on House Administration has determined, in
consultation with the Office of the Speaker of the House, that
funds requested for hearing room upgrades by the committees
should continue to be removed from the committee funding
process and be funded separately. The Committee believes this
is necessary so that the omnibus resolution accurately reflects
the true base funding levels for each committee. Since much of
the work performed in upgrading hearing rooms arises from costs
related to infrastructure modifications of House buildings and
other services usually performed by the Architect of the
Capitol and Chief Administrative Officer under their own budget
authority, it is not appropriate to account for these costs
within committee's budgets.
Numerous committees requested money in their budgets to
fund hearing room upgrades in the 107th Congress. Some
committees planning upgrades did not submit requests for funds,
on the assumption that such costs would be borne by the
Architect of the Capitol and/or the Chief Administrative
Officer. Committees were instructed to continue to separate
hearing room upgrades from the omnibus funding process. During
the 107th Congress the House Administration Committee
instituted an organized committee hearing room upgrade process
and significant progress has been made. Hearing rooms for
Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Resources, Judiciary,
Veterans, Budget, and Education and the Workforce have received
major upgrades while additional Committees have installed
specific elements. The value of the upgraded rooms underscores
the fact that the remaining committee rooms are in serious need
of upgrades, as many have not been improved in decades. Even
more immediate is the need to complete an across the board
upgrade of audio and video capabilities in all hearing rooms.
Increased demand by the public to have more access to
congressional proceedings is fueling the need for better and
more technologically advanced hearing rooms.
The decision to separate hearing room upgrades is part of
an overall review of how committee room upgrades are being
achieved. It is important to note that the funds requested by
committees represent a short term solution to committee room
upgrades, providing improvements for general audio and video
enhancements in the hearing rooms themselves and to streaming
video and/or audio on the Internet in order to provide
increased public access. The House Administration Committee has
greatly expanded the number of channels available on the House
Cable System which can carry committee proceedings to further
increase access.
The House Administration Committee believes that a
standardized approach is the most logical and efficient
solution to dealing with committee room upgrades. It is also
critical that minimum technical standards be implemented to
ensure the efficient use of resources and the compatibility of
equipment and infrastructure. As a result, it is the intention
of the House Administration Committee to continue the policy
whereby committees are required to submit a plan and receive
approval from the Committee before committee rooms can be
upgraded.
The Architect of the Capitol and the Chief Administrative
Officer have organized a Committee Room Renovation Program to
improve audio/visual capacity to a common standard and to
accomplish longer-term infrastructure renovations, subject to
the oversight of the Committee on House Administration, the
House Office Building Commission and the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Subcommittee. The committee strongly encourages
that funding for this purpose is provided to complete the
process.
The House Administration Committee is working with the
Chief Administrative Officer to establish a centralized control
center to control the broadcast functions of hearing rooms.
This approach has been taken at the request of several
committees with existing control facilities which occupy space
assigned to individual committees. Such space can be more
effectively used for traditional committee activities, unless
this ``in-room'' capability is deemed absolutely essential by
the individual Committee. It should also be noted that the
number of hearings conducted simultaneously is much less than
the total number of hearing rooms. It is a more effective use
of resources and space to build the number of control
facilities required by the number of simultaneous hearings and
other committee functions rather than build underutilized
capabilities into each hearing room. The Committee has also
worked with technical experts to delineate the functions of
broadcasting from those required to operate in-room multi-media
displays. This separation will permit the staff of each
committee to control the in-room aspects of a hearing while
central staff performs broadcasting functions.
The Chief Administrative Officer is directed to provide
support staff to operate the broadcasting functions for each
Committee Room that is renovated under the Committee Room
Renovation Program. Regulations relating to the operations of
Committee broadcasts will be promulgated by the Committee on
House Administration. The Chief Administrative Officer is
authorized, but not required to provide staff to operate the
broadcasting functions of committee rooms that have been
renovated prior to implementation of the Committee Room
Renovation Program. The Chief Administrative Officer at the
request of any such committee shall operate the broadcasting
functions in such committee rooms.
Continuity of operations
The Committee on House Administration has determined that
the Continuity of Operations of the House of Representatives is
best accomplished as part of an overall program that includes
specific requirements for House Committees.
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the October
2001 anthrax situation increased funding was provided to ensure
the capability of the House as an institution to continue to
function following a variety of situations. The relocation of
House staff to other buildings demonstrated a need for
centralized and coordinated Business Continuity efforts. The
impact of Anthrax on the operations of the Senate further
underscored this requirement. The current network of computers
that are operated by Members and Committees assumes that each
of the House Office Buildings continues to function in a normal
fashion. If a building is not operational due to a variety of
circumstances the computers that are located therein will not
be available to the offices.
The Committee on House Administration has consulted with a
number of other agencies to learn about best practices and to
better oversee the House's Business Continuity/Disaster
Recovery Program. While individual efforts provide a measure of
protection, a decentralized effort to restore the House's
central systems, twenty committees, and the offices of all
House Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner can not
provide an effective and timely solution.
The Committee on House Administration is working with the
Senate, Library of Congress, Government Printing Office, and
the Congressional Research Service to enhance Legislative
Branch wide programs so that the House of Representatives can
continue to function as an institution.
The scope of these efforts requires that committees of the
House participate in an overall and coordinated program in
order for these efforts to be successful. As with the requests
for hearing room upgrades in the 107th Congress, the committee
has determined that there is a need to remove requests for
disaster recovery equipment and related items and address them
in a separate process. It has become obvious that an enterprise
system for the recovery of official files is a necessary
component for conducting business in the House committees in
particular.
In the 108th Congress, committees have submitted requests
for disaster recovery equipment and related items totaling
approximately $2 million. Although not every committee
requested funds for this type of equipment, it is apparent that
committees are interested in establishing a system to protect
and recover Committee data in the event of a debilitating or
catastrophic event.
The House, in conjunction with the Chief Administrative
Officer (CAO), has already begun work on an Alternate Computing
Facility (ACF) that will allow committees to store their data
in a protected offsite facility outside of the Metropolitan
Washington area. This facility is expected to be completely
operational in the mid to latter part of this year. In the
interim, some committees have used funds to purchase disaster
recovery equipment from previous year's funds. The House is
also offering committees, and Member offices, the option of
having data tapes collected by a courier on a routine basis,
where they are delivered to an alternate site for immediate
storage.
While some committees have already purchased and installed
disaster recovery equipment, the committee has concerns that
allowing committees to continue using their funds for the
purchase of this equipment would not only burden them
unnecessarily with costs associated with the upkeep and
maintenance of this equipment, but such a decentralized
approach to securing and protecting the committee data is not
consistent with the best interests of the House.
The House Administration Committee understands both the
need and urgency that committees have to ensure that their
records and work are protected and secure. The committee will
continue to work with the proper entities in the House and
consult with the other committees to ensure that a secure,
standardized enterprise system is instituted that will satisfy
the needs of committees, and will be a cost borne by the House
and not by committees directly.
The Legislative Branch is preparing to use one or more off-
site facilities to ensure the continued availability of key
services and information. This capability will provide for
House-wide needs as well as define a framework for individual
committee and Member office efforts that will allow for
recovery of critical information in the event of an emergency.
It is also critical that minimum technical standards be
implemented to ensure the efficient use of resources and the
compatibility of equipment and infrastructure. These standards
should result in a minimum number of configurations so that
standard operating procedures can be used to restore each of
the committees, Members, and administrative offices of the
House. As a result, it is the intention of the House
Administration Committee to establish a policy whereby
committees are required to submit a plan and receive approval
from the committee before business continuity services,
products, or capabilities are acquired or deployed.
Minority resources
In the 103rd Congress, while still in the minority,
Republicans established the goal of providing for a two-thirds/
one-third minority resources split. Since becoming the majority
party in the 104th Congress, Republicans have continued to make
progress on this issue. Through his own leadership, Speaker
Hastert has vigorously pursued this goal, advocating that all
committees allocate one-third of committee resources to the
minority. In the 107th Congress, committees met that goal and
in the 108th Congress, this ratio has been sustained. The
committee is also pleased with the bi-partisan nature with
which this goal has been reached. The House Administration
Committee has never mandated that committees reach this goal.
However, with the encouragement of leadership and this
committee, cooperation between Chairmen and Ranking Members has
produced agreements that were mutually acceptable to both the
majority and minority members.
Finally, we want to thank Speaker Hastert for the
leadership he provided in putting together this resolution.
Also, we are very grateful to our new ranking member, John
Larson of Connecticut, for his hard work, patience and
constructive efforts to produce a resolution that members on
both sides of the aisle can feel comfortable in supporting.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JOHN LARSON, JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD AND ROBERT
BRADY
We support this committee funding resolution, House
Resolution 148, as amended, which provides for an overall
nominal 9.4 percent increase in funding for the 19 committees
under the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration
from the level set in the 107th Congress.
The process through which this resolution was developed,
and the Majority leadership's commitment to ensuring equitable
treatment for the Minority, indicate a health respect for the
work of this institution and the vital contributions that both
sides of the aisle make in enacting and overseeing public
policy. Our Committee Chairman, Rep. Bob Ney, and his staff
must be commended for their commitment to comity and
bipartisanship. His leadership has been critical to the
progress toward fairness in the allocation of committee
resources between the Majority and Minority which this
resolution represents.
House Resolution 148 goes a long way toward achieving the
Majority and our long-time goal of ensuring that the Minority
receives one-third of each committee's total resources and
staff slots, and that the Minority has control over those
resources. While the supporting budgets underlying this
resolution do not achieve this goal in every case, the Ranking
Minority Members of the 19 committees funded by this resolution
generally agree that the substantial progress made in the 107th
Congress was not an anomaly. Even the handful of committees
which had been most visibly deficient in the past in providing
for the Minority's legitimate needs, have come a long way. The
various accounting artifices used by certain committees during
the funding process in earlier years have either been abandoned
or are clearly on the wane.
Finally, we are grateful to Chairman Ney and Speaker
Hastert for their continuing leadership and support for comity
and fairness, and for working with committee chairmen to ensure
an equitable distribution and control of staff and budget
resources between the Majority and Minority. Chairman Ney, to
his enduring credit, has practiced the principle he has
espoused, and has set the example for other committees by fully
implementing the one third rule. We are committed to applying
the one-third rule when we again become the majority party.
In addition to our concern that the resolution fairly
allocate resources between the Majority and Minority, our other
concern is that the resolution provide adequate resources for
the committees to keep pace with inflation, provide their
staffs with pay adjustments in line with those provided to
Executive Branch employees and Senate committee staff, and also
meet the needs of the post September 11, 2001 environment.
In most cases, the resolution accounts for cost-of-living
increases since the 107th committee funding resolution, as
reflected in the consumer price index and pay adjustments made
to employees of the Executive Branch by President Bush late
last year that the House would be wise to follow. However, we
have some concern that the resolution may not provide
sufficient funding for the 19 committees under House
Administration's jurisdiction to manage the extraordinary new
workload they have assumed since March 2001, when the committee
funding resolution for the 107th Congress was adopted.
We need not belabor the fact that much has changed in the
past two years, including the expectations on the United States
Congress and its committee system. The tragic events of
September 11, 2001 cast into sharp relief the need for the U.S.
House of Representatives to examine the gaps and deficiencies
in this nation's military and security apparatus. While we
expect the new House Select Committee on Homeland Security to
lead the charge in this area in the 108th, virtually no House
committee will be spared responsibilities because the issue of
security is a broad one that extends to the jurisdiction of
virtually every House committee. The recent military action in
Iraq, combined with the immense diplomatic and reconstruction
challenges associated with its successful resolution, is
certain to impose new oversight and legislative demands on
several House committees, particularly the Committees on Armed
Services, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations.
Other significant committee duties that were never
contemplated at the beginning of the 107th Congress but will
confront the committee system in 108th Congress include
heightened policing of the nation's accounting, financial, and
pension systems, which will impose new demands on the
Committees on Ways and Means, Financial Services, Education and
the Workforce, and Energy and Commerce, and investigating the
Space Shuttle Columbia tragedy, a critical mission that will
fall largely to the Science Committee.
At the start of the committee funding process, the
committees collectively requested a 24 percent increase in
funding over the level set for the 107th Congress--from
$203,506,704 to $252,329,070. At first blush, this proposed
increase may strike some as excessive. However, we must point
out that much of this proposed increase was due to the
formation of the new Select Committee on Homeland Security,
which did not exist and received no funding during the 107th
Congress. No one denies that this new committee must be given
ample resources to oversee the most significant restructuring
of the Federal government since 1947 and help secure this
nation's borders. But for purposes of total committee funding
for the 108th Congress, Homeland Security should be treated as
a separate committee because it distorts the size of the
proposed increase from the 107th Congress to the 108th
Congress.
When Homeland Security was taken out of the analysis of the
initial funding requests and only those committees that existed
in the 107th Congress were considered, the proposed total
increase from the 107th to the 108th declined from 24 percent
to only 18 percent. It would be unusual for committees to
receive everything they request. However, we believe that
increases in committee budgets are justified to meet the
following three needs:
(1) Increased committee workload: the chairmen and their
ranking minority members outlined for us in two days of
hearings ambitious oversight and legislative agendas for the
108th Congress, much of which is related to addressing the
urgent military, diplomatic, security, and veterans needs of
this nation. We were greatly impressed by the strong support
Republican chairmen and their senior-most committee Democrats
voiced for their respective budget requests, and by the degree
to which they were able to justify them.
(2) Committee staff compensation/cost-of-living
adjustments: we were greatly encouraged that virtually all the
committee chairs sought cost-of-living-adjustments for their
committee staff personnel on par with COLAs already in place in
the U.S. Senate and the executive branch. If House committees
are to attract and retain the best and brightest staffers the
market has to offer, committees must properly compensate them.
The work this institution's employees conduct on behalf of the
American people is no less important than the work conducted by
their peers in the Senate and executive branch. Their monthly
paychecks should reflect that.
(3) Mission-critical technology upgrades: virtually every
committee chairman and his ranking Democratic member told us
that they confront the immediate need of implementing disaster-
recovery programs in the event that their committee is unable
to conduct regular business in its House office space. Central
to meeting this need is developing off-campus computer systems
to store mission-critical data--a costly but essential
activity. We understand that a separate vehicle may be used to
meet this need.
As reported in House Resolution 148, the proposed increase
for the 108th Congress--a modest 9.4 percent--is considerably
less than the initial total request sought by chairmen and
their ranking minority members.
Managed properly by committee chairmen and their ranking
minority members, we are confident that the proposed 9.4
percent increase will provide almost all House committees
adequate resources over the next two years to match the 4.1
percent pay increase that President Bush has provided to
federal employees in the Executive Branch under the Federal Pay
Comparability Act of 1990, a decision that the U.S. Senate
quickly followed with respect to its committee staff
compensation policies. Eighty to 90 percent of a House
committee's annual budget is devoted to staff compensation. It
is money well-spent, providing House committees with some of
the finest experts available on matters ranging from weapons
procurement to tax policy.
To prevent these public service professionals from flocking
to the Senate, executive branch, or private sector--where the
skills are highly sought-after and handsomely remunerated--and
causing a concomitant ``brain-drain'' in the House of
Representatives, committees must have the resources to compete
in the marketplace for talent and expertise. We are pleased to
see that the resolution provides resources to at least keep
pace with Executive Branch and the Senate.
We expect that the proposed increases for the committees,
modest as they are, will spare them the difficult task of
choosing between their compensating their personnel
commensurate with the U.S. Senate and Executive Branch or using
the increase to pay for costly technology and infrastructure
upgrades that are essential to the work and security of House
committees. We think that the committees should not have to
choose. At a minimum, committees should be able to provide
cost-of-living adjustments to current committee professionals
without shortcoming other activities.
The big question for us is whether the proposed 9.4 percent
is enough to permit the Chairmen and their ranking minority
members to carry out the ambitious agendas they described to
the Committee of House Administration in March, perform crucial
oversight and legislative responsibilities as they relate to
the post-September 11 environment, and respond to exigencies
that no amount of planning can predict.
Mitigating our concern about the adequacy of the proposed
9.4 percent is the Majority's oft-repeated commitment to the
\2/3\-\1/3\ principle. In a previous era, we might have been
concerned that in cases where committee resources were just
enough to cover basic committee needs, chairmen would be
inclined to deprive the Minority of \1/3\ of the resources.
During the two days of the committee funding hearings, we
specifically asked each chairman if he intended to honor this
important principle in the event that his budget request was
trimmed. The answer, to our satisfaction, was yes. In the
spirit of ``trust but verify,'' we will monitor closely the
distribution of resources to the Minority of each committee
during the 108th.
Although not directly related to the committee funding
process, a constant refrain emerged from our Committee's
hearings. The constant refrain was that each committee had
insufficient and inadequate office space to operate efficiently
and that this deficiency in office space was affecting the
capacity to recruit and retain professional staff. The effects
was particularly hard on the Minority because of overcrowding,
multiple offices divided by floors or between buildings, and a
lack of storage space. In several instances, we were told that
Ranking Minority Members were unable to hire their full staff
authorizations because they lack adequate working space in
which to put additional personnel. In other instances, we
learned that cramped working conditions make it very difficult
for Minority staff to accommodate disabled visitors who use
wheelchairs. We recognize that the allocation of committee
office space is outside this Committee's control. But we are
hopeful that the Architect of the Capitol, and the House
leadership, will take cognizance of this emerging space crisis,
and consider ways to address it, such as by making better and
more equitable use of existing space in the Capitol and House
office buildings, or by procuring or building such additional
space as may be required for the efficient operation of the
House and its committees.
John B. Larson.
Juanita Millender-McDonald.
Robert A. Brady.