[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.

                                
