[House Report 109-54]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     109-54

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



 
   PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENSES OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF 
           REPRESENTATIVES IN THE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                _______
                                

   April 26, 2005.--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. 224]

    The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred 
the resolution (H. Res. 224) providing for the expenses of 
certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One 
Hundred Ninth Congress, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the 
resolution as amended 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 NINTH CONGRESS.

    (a) In General.--With respect to the One Hundred Ninth 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, $11,257,009; Committee 
on Armed Services, $12,826,209; Committee on the Budget, $12,026,478; 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, $15,493,286; Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, $19,925,688; Committee on Financial Services, 
$15,203,101; Committee on Government Reform, $20,497,085; Committee on 
Homeland Security, $14,000,000; Committee on House Administration, 
$9,554,567; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, $9,527,871; 
Committee on International Relations, $16,299,018; Committee on the, 
Judiciary, $15,312,991; Committee on Resources, $14,520,962; Committee 
on Rules, $6,365,600; Committee on Science, $12,327,996; Committee on 
Small Business, $5,586,974; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
$4,290,536; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
$18,108,082; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $6,474,418; and Committee 
on Ways and Means, $17,819,494.

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, 2005, and ending immediately 
before noon on January 3, 2006.
    (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts referred to 
in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, $5,495,805; Committee 
on Armed Services, $6,292,249; Committee on the Budget, $6,013,239; 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, $7,705,970; Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, $9,812,619; Committee on Financial Services, 
$7,427,648; Committee on Government Reform, $10,121,443; Committee on 
Homeland Security, $6,480,848; Committee on House Administration, 
$4,648,683; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, $4,500,653; 
Committee on International Relations, $7,946,084; Committee on the 
Judiciary, $7,461,565; Committee on Resources, $7,178,224; Committee on 
Rules, $3,074,229; Committee on Science, $6,101,648; Committee on Small 
Business, $2,721,600; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
$1,891,890; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, $8,856,869; 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $3,075,732; and Committee on Ways and 
Means, $8,674,514.

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, 2006, and ending immediately 
before noon on January 3, 2007.
    (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts referred to 
in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, $5,761,204; Committee 
on Armed Services, $6,533,959; Committee on the Budget, $6,013,239; 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, $7,787,316; Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, $10,113,068; Committee on Financial Services, 
$7,775,452; Committee on Government Reform, $10,375,642; Committee on 
Homeland Security, $5,761,204; Committee on House Administration, 
$4,905,885; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, $5,027,217; 
Committee on International Relations, $8,352,934; Committee on the 
Judiciary, $7,851,427; Committee on Resources, $7,342,738; Committee on 
Rules, $3,291,371; Committee on Science, $6,226,348; Committee on Small 
Business, $2,865,373; Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
$2,398,646; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, $9,251,213; 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, $3,398,686; and Committee on Ways and 
Means, $9,144,980.

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. REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF FUNDS FOR MASS MAILINGS.

    (a) In General.--None of the amounts made available under this 
resolution may be used by a committee for the production of material 
for a mass mailing unless--
          (1) The mailing is of a press release to the communications 
        media, a notice of the schedule of a hearing or markup of the 
        committee (the content of which shall be limited to date, time, 
        location, topic, witness list, and ADA services), a committee 
        document printed pursuant to the applicable provisions of title 
        44, United States Code, or a request for the views of the 
        public or the views of other authorities of government 
        essential to the conduct of the study, investigation, or 
        oversight of matters within the jurisdiction and related 
        functions assigned to the committee under rule X of the Rules 
        of the House of Representatives;
          (2) Prior to mailing, the chairman or ranking minority member 
        of the committee (as the case may be) submits a sample of the 
        material to the House Commission on Congressional Mailing 
        Standards and the Commission determines that--
                  (A) the mailing is ordinary and necessary to the 
                conduct of the normal and regular business of the 
                committee, and
                  (B) the mailing would be in compliance with the 
                requirements of subsections (a)(3)(A), (a)(3)(C), 
                (a)(3)(G), (a)(4), and (a)(5) of section 3210 of title 
                39, United States Code, if mailed by a Member of the 
                House of Representatives;
          (3) the mailing would not be prohibited under section 
        3210(a)(6)(A) of title 39, United States Code, if mailed by a 
        Member of the House of Representatives; and
          (4) the aggregate amount that will be spent in franking costs 
        by the committee for mass mailings during the session involved, 
        after taking into account the franking costs of such mass 
        mailing, will not exceed $5,000.
    (b) Mass Mailing Defined.--In this section, the term ``mass 
mailing'' has the meaning given such term in section 3210(a)(6)(E) of 
title 39, United States Code.

SEC. 6. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.

                           COMMITTEE ACTIONS

    On April 21, 2005, 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 BudgetOffice 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. 224 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 
April 21, 2005, agreed to report H. Res. 224, as amended, 
favorably to the House.

General discussion

    H. Res. 224, as amended, authorizes funding for standing 
committees of the House (excluding the Committee on 
Appropriations) for the 109th Congress. The Committee on House 
Administration established franked mail allocations for these 
committees in a separate Committee resolution.
    The sum total of all budget requests for the 109th Congress 
was $273,633,353. The amount actually authorized for 
committees, which totaled $257,417,364, is $16,215,989 or 5.9% 
less than the sum of all amounts requested by committees.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       H. Res. 224, as . . .
                    Committee                    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Request         Amended          2005            2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture.....................................     $11,562,481     $11,257,009      $5,495,805      $5,761,204
Armed Services..................................      13,333,137      12,826,209       6,292,249       6,533,959
Budget..........................................      12,026,478      12,026,478       6,013,239       6,013,239
Education & the Workforce.......................      15,493,286      15,493,286       7,705,970       7,787,316
Energy & Commerce...............................      21,388,076      19,925,688       9,812,619      10,113,068
Financial Services..............................      16,127,977      15,203,101       7,427,648       7,775,452
Government Reform...............................      21,349,000      20,497,085      10,121,443      10,375,642
House Administration............................      10,101,152       9,554,567       4,648,683       4,905,885
Intelligence....................................       9,875,429       9,527,871       4,500,653       5,027,217
International Relations.........................      18,869,785      16,299,018       7,946,084       8,352,934
Judiciary.......................................      18,263,201      15,312,991       7,461,565       7,851,427
Resources.......................................      14,805,934      14,520,962       7,178,224       7,342,738
Rules...........................................       6,365,600       6,365,600       3,074,229       3,291,371
Science.........................................      13,146,852      12,327,996       6,101,648       6,226,348
Small Business..................................       6,034,058       5,586,974       2,721,600       2,865,373
Standards.......................................       4,768,734       4,290,536       1,891,890       2,398,646
Transportation..................................      18,582,105      18,108,082       8,856,869       9,251,213
Veterans' Affairs...............................       7,933,081       6,474,418       3,075,732       3,398,686
Ways & Means....................................      17,819,494      17,819,494       8,674,514       9,144,980
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    SUB-TOTAL...................................     257,845,860     243,417,364     119,000,665     124,416,699
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Total with Homeland Security....................      15,787,494      14,000,000       6,480,848       7,519,152
                                                 ===============================================================
    TOTAL.......................................     273,633,354     257,417,364     125,481,513     131,935,851
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House Administration Committee would like to express 
its deepest appreciation to Speaker Dennis Hastert for his 
leadership and to his staff for their guidance on this issue. 
In addition, the Committee would also like to express its 
appreciation to our Ranking Minority Member, Juanita Millender-
McDonald and her staff for their work in reaching this bi-
partisan agreement that could be supported by minority members 
on the House floor.

Voice vote on Ney/Millender-McDonald amendment

    The Committee, by voice vote, with a quorum present, on 
April 21, 2005, agreed to the Ney/Millender-McDonald amendment.

Ney/Millender-McDonald amendment with regard to committee franking

    An amendment offered by Chairman Ney and the Ranking 
Member, Ms. Juanita MillenderMcDonald (Ney/Millender-McDonald 
amendment) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
agreed to by voice vote. The amendment was crafted after long 
discussions between the majority and minority of the House 
Administration committee related to the use of the committee 
frank.
    The amendment changes regulations that govern the use of 
the frank by committees.
    Chairman Ney recognized the need to work with the minority 
and reached agreement reflected in the amendment. The 
highlights of the amendment include:
    Each committee's authorization is capped at $5000 per 
session ($10,000 for a Congress).
    Each Committee must submit the franked mail piece to the 
Franking Commission for a bipartisan review of the piece and 
receive approval before it is printed and mailed.
    No committee may frank INTO a member's district within 90 
days of a primary or general election in which the member's 
name appears on public ballot.
    Committees may request that the House Administration 
Committee increase their authorization in order to be able to 
respond to correspondence relating to the regular and normal 
business of the committee, but not for mass mailing expenses.

Committee funding process

    The 109th Congress is the sixth 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% from the 103rd Congress levels and committee 
funding levels were reduced by a total of 30%. In the 109th 
Congress, committee staff and funding levels, when adjusted for 
inflation continue to remain well below the 103rd levels.
    It should be noted that with the Homeland Security 
Committee becoming a permanent standing committee of the House 
of Representatives in the 109th, the cost of the committee 
funding resolution increased significantly, adding nearly a 
full percent onto the total amount of the 10.1 % increase.
    H.Res. 224, as amended, authorizes a total of $257,417,364 
for committees, including funding for the Homeland Security 
Committee. This is the first year since Republicans took 
control that the amount of committee funding has exceeded the 
103rd year levels in real dollars. In essence, it has taken 
over a decade since Republicans made their huge budgets cuts at 
the beginning of the 104th Congress to match the levels 
authorized in the 103rd Congress under Democrat control. 
However, when adjusting for inflation, the amount authorized is 
$39,023,776 or 15.2% below the 103rd Congress level. When 
removing the Homeland Security Committee from the equation, the 
difference grows to $53,032,776 or 21.8% less than the 103rd 
levels.

                COMMITTEE FUNDING RESOLUTION COMPARISONS
                       [Excluding Appropriations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
103rd Congress, Democratic Majority:...  $223.3 million
                                         1,639 staff
104th Congress, Republican Majority:...  $157.2 million = 70% of 103rd
                                          level (reduced 30%)
                                         1,089 staff = 67% of 103rd
                                          level (reduced 33%)
 105th Congress, Republican Majority:..  $177.9 million = 80% of 103rd
                                          level (reduced 20%)
                                         1,104 staff = 67% of 103rd
                                          level (reduced 33%)
106th Congress, Republican Majority:...  $183.4 million = 82% of 103rd
                                          level (reduced 18%)
                                         1,153 staff = 70% of 103rd
                                          level (reduced 30%)
107th Congress, Republican Majority:...  $203.5 million = 91% of 103rd
                                          level (reduced 9%)
                                         1,205 staff = 74% of 103rd
                                          level (reduced 26%)
108th Congress, Republican Majority:...  $222.8 million = 99% of 103rd
                                          level (reduced 1%)
                                         1,211 staff = 74% of 103rd
                                          level (reduced 26%)
103rd Congress, Democratic Majority:...  $296.4 million, adjusted for
                                          inflation
109th Congress, Republican Majority:...  $257.4 million, including
                                          Homeland Security
Difference.............................  $39.0 million
                                         1,270 staff = 78% of 103rd
                                          level (reduced 22%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of the printing of this report, the Speaker has set the 
staff ceiling for committees, excluding the Committee on 
Appropriations, at 1270 for the 109th Congress, which is 373 
staff slots or 29.5% below the 103rd Congress level. This 
includes 50 additional slots that were given to the Homeland 
Security Committee in the 108th Congress.

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 share one-third of committee resources with the 
minority. The House Administration Committee believes that with 
this budget, as was the case with the 108th Congress budget, we 
have achieved that goal. The Committee is also pleased with the 
bi-partisan nature with which this goal has been reached.
    While the Committee on House Administration encourages 
committee chairman to work with their ranking members to 
achieve the best possible administrative agreement with regard 
to how committee expenses are obligated, the Committee feels it 
is the prerogative of the Chairman to maintain control over the 
committee budget, as the chairman is ultimately responsible for 
all expenditures obligated by the committee. This is consistent 
with the rules, regulations, and long standing practice of the 
House. We have endeavored to ensure that the minority has a 
fair allocation while the majority maintains the control over 
committee funds necessary for the Chair to fulfill its 
obligations. This resolution strikes that balance and can be 
supported by all members.

Addressing the views of Ms. Lofgren

    During the committee funding hearings, minority committee 
member, Ms. Lofgren raised questions during the testimony of 
Chairman Richard Pombo of the Resources Committee pertaining to 
committee leave policies. These questions were followed by 
written questions that were forwarded to Mr. Pombo. Though Mr. 
Pombo was advised that no other Committee Chair or Ranking 
Member had been asked or required to provide information of the 
sort that was being sought, he nonetheless chose to respond to 
the inquiry. Ms. Lofgren nevertheless continues to maintain 
that additional information is required.
    Though she portrays her request as related to the funding 
process, and necessary for evaluation of the budget request, 
her failure to seek similar information from any other Member 
undercuts this claim. The Committee believes that the 
information already provided by Mr. Pombo is sufficient to 
judge the budgetary needs of the Resources Committee.

                 Statement of Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren

    I strongly support the House Committee Funding Resolution 
for the 109th Congress as approved by the House Administration 
Committee on Thursday, April 21, 2005. This Resolution assures 
that the Minority will be treated fairly in regard to both 
committee budgets and staff. It abides by the \2/3\-\1/3\ 
principle in which the Minority receives \1/3\ of the staff, 
\1/3\ of the budget, and control over that budget. It is my 
understanding that every Chair and Ranking Member in the House 
have come to an agreement on their individual budgets, and all 
treat the Minority in a fair and respectful way. I commend 
Chairman Ney and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald for their 
hard work on this Resolution and I look forward to supporting 
it on the House floor.
    During Markup of the Cominittee Funding Resolution, 
Congresswoman MillenderMcDonald offered an amendment regarding 
House Committee's use of the Frank. Under this amendment, 
Committees will be limited to a $5,000 franking budget per 
year, and Committees will need to abide by, and receive 
approval from, the House Franking Commission for any mass 
mailings. This is an important proposal that I strongly 
support. This amendment assures that House Committees will only 
use the Frank for official purposes, and stem the questionable 
franking practices that developed at the end of the 108th 
Congress.
    During the Committee Funding Resolution hearings in March, 
I posed several questions about the budget and policies of the 
Resources Committee during the 108th Congress to Resources 
Committee Chairman Richard Pombo. On October 6, 2004, The Hill 
reported that Chairman Pombo planned to close the Resources 
Committee for a month leading up to the November 2004 
elections. It went on to state that the staff would receive a 
month of vacation time and Chairman Pombo's spokesman stated 
on-the-record that some staff may choose to go and work on 
campaigns during their time off.
    During the hearing, I posed several questions about the 
vacation policy of the Resources Committee to Chairman Pombo 
and gave him the opportunity to clear up the confusion about 
the events leading up to the 2004 elections. Chairman Pombo 
welcomed the opportunity to address the issue. He answered some 
of my questions at the hearing, and said he would need to get 
back to the Committee regarding others. I have attached a 
transcript of this portion of the hearing to this statement.
    In an effort to get to the bottom of this issue and clear 
up any confusion, I put my questions in writing for Chairman 
Pombo. The record, at the direction of Chairman Ney, was held 
open so Chairman Pombo could respond to the House 
Administration Committee within 30 days. Chairman Pombo did 
respond to some, but not all, of my questions in writing on 
April 13 , 2005. Because representatives of Chairman Pombo have 
categorized these ordinary and routine inquiries as something 
extraordinary in comments to the press, I have included all of 
the correspondence between myself, Chairman Ney and Chairman 
Pombo so that the record can be clear on this matter. At this 
time, Chairman Pombo has still not answered all of my written 
questions.
    It is the job of the House Administration Committee to 
oversee all operations of the House of Representatives, 
including the approval of taxpayer-funded committee budgets. 
Under this Committee Funding Resolution, the Resources 
Committee will receive a 7.5 increase in their operating budget 
in the 109th Congress.
    It is only appropriate that the House Administration 
Committee confirm that the money spent by the Resources 
Committee during the 108th Congress was done so in a proper 
way. Chairman Pombo has the ability to quickly clear up this 
confusion. I remain hopeful that Chairman Pombo will take the 
time to answer the written questions in detail about the 
policies and practices of the Resources Committee to reassure 
that tax dollars are being spent in a legal, fair, and ethical 
manner.

   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION HEARING ON THE HOUSE COMMITTEE 
                   FUNDING RESOLUTION--MARCH 16, 2005

    Ms. LOFGREN. I have a few other questions on a few other 
subjects. I was actually very surprised when I read the House 
newspaper, The Hill, in October and found that the chairman had 
decided to close the committee for, I guess, about a month. I 
just want to understand what that is all about because the 
committee is asking for just shy of a 10% increase in its 
budget. I am wondering, just what is the vacation policy of the 
house committee on resources? How many days of vacation do the 
staffers get each year? Was it a full month that the committee 
was closed down in October? What days were closed down? Did any 
of the staff not go on vacation when you closed the committee? 
Looking at the website, I don't know, but it doesn't appear 
that there were any hearings or markups after September 29th, 
and it doesn't appear that there were any press committee 
releases after October 15th. Can you enlighten us on those 
questions?
    Mr. POMBO. The . . . I believe that if memory serves me 
correctly but I'd have to go back and look to tell you for 
sure, that most of the month of October that most of the staff 
of the committee was placed on administrative leave or allowed 
to go do other activities, part of that was that there were 
site visits and district issues that staff of the committee was 
doing. The main purpose of that was that, at that point in 
time, we had completed for the year the congressional work and 
allowed the staff to do other things. A number of staff chose 
to do site visits. A number of staff chose to work from home. 
There were other things that they did. A lot of it involved 
going to other states and other places around the country 
outside of Washington, DC. We did not have . . . Congress had 
completed its business at that point. We did not have markups 
or official hearings within Washington, DC during that time 
period. No.
    Ms. LOFGREN. Now I can't recall if this was in the 
newspaper article that talked about it, but certainly because 
it was just before the presidential election, concern has been 
expressed in some circles that potentially some of the 
individuals who were still on the government salary were off 
dispatched to work on campaigns when they were not taking 
vacation time. I think this an opportunity for you to address 
that.
    Mr. POMBO. I am glad that you asked that question because I 
did read some erroneous media reports on that. Any member of 
the staff who chose to work on a campaign during that time 
period was required to take vacation time. There was no one who 
was given government salary to go work on a campaign. Anyone 
who chose to go work on a campaign during that time period had 
to use their vacation in order to do it.
    Ms. LOFGREN. And so you maintain records. How much vacation 
does each staffer have? How many weeks?
    Mr. POMBO. I think that's dependent on the number of years 
that they've been----
    Ms. LOFGREN. But you have a schedule that's published and 
all of that?
    Mr. POMBO. It's all part of the Committee rules. It's the 
same on both sides.
    Ms. LOFGREN. I had a question about some specific staff 
travel that I'd like to get an answer to. You may not be able 
to answer it today, but I took a look at Mr. Kennedy, the press 
secretary, and I note that he turned in a bill for $1042.00 the 
day after the election. I don't know where he was traveling, 
but since there were no press releases issued . . . I'm 
wondering what was he doing and where did he go.
    Mr. POMBO. Mr. Kennedy travels with me quite extensively, 
and . . . I probably shouldn't say exactly where he was----
    Ms. LOFGREN. OK.
    Mr. POMBO. But I believe during that time period he was, he 
was with me in California, well, for the most part we were in 
California, but he travels with me quite extensively.
    Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I don't want to . . . It's not fair for 
you to know that here, but if we could get that information 
later----
    Mr. POMBO [continuing]. I can tell you exactly where I was 
so----
    Ms. LOFGREN. It would be very helpful.
    I also, you know, once questions are asked, you take a look 
at these, None of us have any . . . well, there's no such thing 
as privacy, because it's all the taxpayers' money, but taking a 
look at some of the other professional staff, I saw that Mr. 
Miller, Mr. Waley(?), and Mr. Sampson also submitted vouchers 
in, you know, good size chunks for the same time period, and I 
was wondering, the expenses were nearly $4,000, and I wondered 
about that since the Committee staff was supposedly on 
vacation. Can you enlighten us on that?
    Mr. POMBO. I would have to answer that for the record.
    Ms. LOFGREN. OK, that's fair.
    Mr. POMBO. Those are professional staff members, and I 
can't tell you by memory where they were.
    Ms. LOFGREN. OK, that's fair. But I would like to get that 
when you have a chance to take a look at it. I really had only 
one other question, and it is an unusual situation. And it has 
to do with, who is your Chief of Staff? I note that Mr. Ding is 
really on your payroll for a very minor, the minimum amount 
that's possible, I think $300.00 on the MRA. And, but he is, I 
think, has an important position on the Resources given his 
salary. And I am not criticizing the salary. I am sure he is a 
very competent individual, but it looks like he's traveling on 
your MRA probably, I mean, very frequently, almost every week 
back to the district. And I am wondering, as a member of the 
Resources Committee, what is his necessity to be back in 
California on that kind of basis. And in the, not that the 
staff phone book is accurate, but Ms. Carter's name is your 
chief of staff in the telephone book. So, who is the Chief of 
Staff and how does this work?
    Mr. POMBO. Jessica Carter is the chief of staff in my 
personal office. Steve Ding is the Staff Director for the 
Resources Committee and he also does work in my personal office 
as well. He travels with me extensively. He has for a number of 
years. He is probably one of the best staff members on the 
entire Capitol Hill, and I will stand by him . . . .
    Ms. LOFGREN. Oh, I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm just 
trying to figure out how the money works between your office 
and the Committee. It's not about his competence at all. I 
think that . . . I look forward to getting the information that 
obviously you can't be expected to memorize later. I am glad 
that I gave you the opportunity to address these issues that 
have been out there in the public for so long, and I yield 
back, Mr. Chairman.

                     Congress of the United States,
                                  House of Representatives,
                                    Washington, DC, March 17, 2005.
Hon. Robert W. Ney,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Ney: Following up on yesterday's House 
Administration Committee hearing on the committee funding 
allocations, I have attached a list of questions for Resources 
Committee Chairman Richard Pombo to answer. As you will recall, 
I posed these questions to Chairman Pombo during the hearing 
and he promised the House Administration Committee that he 
would answer these questions in writing for the record. It is 
my understanding from you that Chairman Pombo is expected to 
respond to the House Administration Committee within 30 days of 
the hearing. Please call me if you have any questions in regard 
to this matter.
    Thank you for your assistance and for your leadership on 
the House Administration Committee.
            Sincerely,
                                                       Zoe Lofgren.
                                ------                                

        Congress of the United States, House of 
            Representatives, Committee on House 
            Administration,
                                    Washington, DC, March 24, 2005.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources, Longworth House Office Building, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Pombo: Attached please find a letter I 
received from Representative Zoe Lofgren. Along with the letter 
are a series of questions. These written questions expand on 
questions she asked of you at our hearing on March 16.
    These questions go beyond the scope of the subject matter 
of the hearing. Though you may answer them if you wish, you 
should be aware that no other Chair or Ranking Member has been 
asked or required to provide such information.
    The budget proposal you submitted with Ranking Member 
Rahall on February 15, along with your joint testimony, provide 
the information required for our Committee to assess your 
budgetary requirements.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Bob Ney,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                


  Written Follow-up Questions for House Resources Committee Chairman 
                             Richard Pombo

    1. What is the vacation policy of the House Resources 
Committee? Please provide a copy of the policy to the House 
Administration Committee.
    2. On what specific dates did the Resources Committee close 
in October and November of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the 
``closure period'')?
    3. Did any staff of the Resources Committee conduct 
official business of the committee during the closure period? 
If so, please provide a list of such committee staff, and for 
each:
          a. Describe the nature of such official business.
          b. State the dates on which he or she conducted such 
        official business.
    4. Did Resources Committee staff receive regular salary 
payments during the closure period? Did any committee staff not 
receive regular salary payments during the closure period? If 
so, please provide a list of such committee staff and provide 
an explanation as to why each did not receive regular salary 
payments.
    5. In your testimony before the House Administration 
Committee, you stated that ``any member of the [Resources] 
Committee staff who chose to work on a campaign during [the 
closure period] was required to take vacation time.'' Please 
provide a list of committee staff that chose to work on a 
campaign during the closure period and for each, please:
          a. State the dates on which they worked on a campaign 
        during the closure period.
          b. Confirm that each took vacation days while doing 
        campaign work.
          c. State the number of vacation days each was 
        entitled to take in 2004.
          d. State the number of vacation days each actually 
        took in 2004.
          e. Provide a copy of their vacation records for 2004.
    6. Were any official Resources Committee funds used to pay 
for travel or any other expenses of any staffer who chose to 
work on a campaign during the closure period?
    7. The following questions relate to the below ``Travel 
Subsistence'' expenses of the Resources Committee that appeared 
in the most recent Statement of Disbursements of the House from 
October 1, 2004-December 31, 2004. For each, please state where 
they traveled and describe in detail the official committee 
business performed. In addition, for each, please provide 
copies of travel documents, including but not limited to 
receipts and vouchers, that were submitted for reimbursement to 
the House of Representatives.
    a. Brian J. Kennedy, Press Secretary, Travel Subsistence: 
Tuesday, October, 19, 2004-Wednesday, November 3, 2004: 
$1,042.24 (page 2552, Statement of Disbursements of the House, 
October 1, 2004-December 31, 2004).
    b. Matthew Miller, Professional Staff, Travel Subsistence: 
Tuesday, October 26-Wednesday, November 3, 2004: $411.63 (page 
2553, Statement of Disbursements of the House, October 1, 2004-
December 31, 2004).
    c. David S. Whaley, Professional Staff, Travel Subsistence: 
Monday, October 18, 2004-Thursday, November 17, 2004: $1,514.52 
(page 2553, Statement of Disbursements of the House, October 1, 
2004-December 31, 2004).
    d. Vincent Sampson, Deputy Chief Counsel, Travel 
Subsistence; Friday, October 22, 2004-Monday, October 25, 2004, 
$905.24 (page 2553, Statement of Disbursements of the House, 
October 1, 2004-December 31, 2004).
                     Congress of the United States,
                                  House of Representatives,
                                    Washington, DC, March 29, 2005.
Hon. Robert W. Ney,
Chair, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Ney: I was surprised to read your letter to 
Chairman Richard Pombo dated March 24, 2005. In this letter you 
forwarded my follow-up questions from the March 16, 2005 House 
Administration Committee hearing on committee funding 
allocations, yet you seem to give Chairman Pombo an option of 
providing the requested information. This concerns me for 
several reasons.
    First, as you will recall, there was much discussion at the 
hearing regarding the travel of House Resources Committee staff 
in the months of October and November of 2004. Chairman Pombo 
was unable to answer the questions at the hearing about the 
specifics of this travel. In response to my questions, Chairman 
Pombo said ``I would have to answer that for the record.''
    Chairman Pombo himself offered to provide answers to these 
questions. I am puzzled as to why you have now advised Mr. 
Pombo in writing that he does not need to provide the 
information that he already committed to give our Committee.
    Second, in your letter to Chairman Pombo, you state that my 
questions are beyond the scope and subject matter of the 
hearing. I acknowledge that I am the newest Member of the House 
Administration Committee, but it is my understanding that this 
Committee is charged with overseeing all operations of the 
House of Representatives. This includes the work done by the 
personal offices of every Member of Congress and each of the 
individual House Committees.
    Is it not this Committee's responsibility to oversee and 
approve the way that Committees of the House create budgets to 
assure that the funds supplied by American tax payers are used 
in a wise and lawful way? I thought this was the purpose of the 
House Administration Committee hearing on March 16th.
    Serious questions were raised about the money spent by the 
Resources Committee in the 108th Congress. These questions 
include, but were not limited to, the use of the Frank, 
official travel by Committee staff, and the overall vacation 
policy of the Committee. As you know, the Resources Committee 
has requested a 9.6% increase in their operating budget for the 
109th Congress as well as $100,000 for franked mail privileges. 
How could we fulfill our duties as members of the House 
Administration Committee if we approved this large budget 
increase for the Resources Committee in the 109th Congress 
before fully investigating and resolving the questions that 
have been raised about the committee's budget in the 109th 
Congress?
    Third, you state in your letter that ``no other Chair or 
Ranking Member has been asked or required to provide such 
information.'' This is a true statement. Of course, the reason 
is because no other Committee Chair or Ranking Member has faced 
similar questions about their use of federal funds last year.
    No other Chair or Ranking Member chose to close their 
office and place their staff on Administrative leave for over a 
month in October and November of 2004. To my knowledge, no 
other Chair or Ranking Member closed their office, but still 
had staff claim almost $4,000 in travel subsistence 
reimbursements from the House of Representatives in October and 
November of 2004. As far as I know, no other Chair or Ranking 
Member had 2 staff members on official Committee travel return 
to the office on Wednesday, November 3, 2004--the day after the 
November 2004 elections.
    Chairman Ney, these are very serious questions but 
questions that can be answered quite easily. Chairman Pombo has 
the ability to answer them and clear up any confusion. about 
the budget of the Resources Committee in the 108th Congress. I 
am confident that Chairman Pombo would welcome the opportunity 
to put these questions to rest. If all the work done by the 
staff of the Resources Committee in October and November of 
2004 was official, ethical and proper, I know Chairman Pombo 
will want to tell us how by answering these questions.
    I hope you will reconsider your opinion on this issue and 
advise Chairman Pombo that the House Administration Committee 
expects him to answer my questions for the record by Friday, 
April 15, 2005 as he indicated he would during our hearing.
    Thank you for your assistance. I look forward to your 
response.
            Sincerely,
                                               Zoe Lofgren,
                                                Member of Congress.
                                ------                                

        Congress of the United States, House of 
            Representatives, Committee on House 
            Administration,
                                     Washington, DC, April 1, 2005.
Hon. Zoe Lofgren,
House of Representatives,
Cannon HOB, Washington, DC.
    Dear Representative Lofgren: Thank you for your letter of 
March 29. I am sorry if you were disappointed by my letter to 
Chairman Pombo wherein I advised him that no other Chair or 
Ranking Member had been asked or required to provide 
information of the sort you were seeking. I am glad you 
acknowledged the truth of my statement, but I am confused by 
your assertion that, ``Of course, the reason is because no 
other Committee Chair or Ranking Member has faced similar 
questions about their use of federal funds last year.''
    I have included for your review an article that appeared in 
the Detroit Free Press in November 2003. It raises a number of 
questions about campaign activities conducted by the staff of 
Ranking Member John Conyers (both his personal staff and 
Judiciary Committee staff). Indeed, these questions seem even 
more serious than the ones you raise in that they include 
allegations of campaign activities being conducted in 
government office space and on government time, not during a 
leave period.
    You were present when Mr. Conyers appeared before our 
Committee along with Chairman Sensenbrenner to present the 
budget for the Judiciary Committee yet you chose not to ask him 
any questions along these lines. Surely, it cannot be your 
position that questions of this sort that arose in the 2nd 
session of the 108th Congress were somehow related to the 
subject matter of our hearing, but questions that arose during 
the 1st session were not related. I therefore must assume that 
you either, (1) were unaware of the questions that had been 
raised about Mr. Conyers, or (2) that you only want to make 
these inquiries of Members who do not sit on your side of the 
aisle.
    If you were previously unaware of these questions, but 
having been made aware are now concerned about them, I would be 
happy to forward any follow-up questions you may have to Mr. 
Conyers. If your motivations are political, I am sure you can 
appreciate why I am unwilling to assist you.
            Sincerely,
                                                           Bob Ney.

              [From the Detroit Free Press, Nov. 21, 2003]

                       A Free Press Investigation


         (By Joel Thurtell, Chris Christoff and Ruby L. Bailey)

    U.S. Rep. John Conyers and his top aides have assigned his 
congressional staff to work on political campaigns while they 
were on government time and sometimes in government offices, 
staff members say.
    That violates U.S. House ethics rules and, in some cases, 
may be illegal.
    Staffers for the 19-term Detroit Democrat told the Free 
Press they have used government telephones, printers, fax 
machines and mailing lists to solicit campaign contributions, 
organize fund-raisers and canvass for votes. It is illegal to 
raise political funds from any federal office.
    This report is based on extensive interviews with six 
current and former Conyers aides, who asked to remain anonymous 
for fear of reprisals, and Enid Brown, a Conyers volunteer who 
said she took notes at a campaign strategy session attended by 
Conyers and staff members in his downtown Detroit office. The 
Free Press also examined congressional payroll and campaign 
finance records, and schedules and internal records for 
Conyers' office.
    House Judiciary Committee attorney Burton Widest who spoke 
for Conyers, denied any wrongdoing. He acknowledged that many 
staffers work on political campaigns for other Democrats and 
for causes Conyers supports, but he said they use compensatory 
time or work after hours and on weekends.
    Conyers was not available for an interview.
    The two-month investigation found that many members of 
Conyers' staff, as well as at least one Judiciary Committee 
employee who reports to him, campaigned on government time 
without keeping track of their time as required by House rules. 
The recent campaigns include:
    In 2003, the April City Council race of JoAnn Watson, who 
was then on his staff; the June run for Wayne County Commission 
by Keith Williams, and an effort last month to defeat a 
California ballot proposal to ban the collection of racial 
data.
    In 2002, Jennifer Granholm's bid for governor; Robert 
Ficano's run for Wayne County executive; Kevin Kelley's 
campaign in western Wayne County for Congress, and the failed 
race of Conyers' wife, Monica, for a Detroit state Senate seat.

                        ACCUSATIONS AND DENIALS

    Ray Plowden, head of Conyers' Detroit office, denied that 
any campaigning or fund-raising has occurred in Conyers' 
office.
    ``No, no, no, no fund-raising, no campaign work,'' he said. 
``I tell people they can't do any fund-raising out of that 
congressional office.''
    But a staff member insisted, ``Fund-raising has been done 
from the offices. I was part of it.''
    Interviews with the six current and former Conyers staffers 
portray an office where campaign work often supersedes daily 
official responsibilities. They said campaigning is often done 
on nights and weekends, but during working hours there is no 
effort to distinguish between political campaigning and 
congressional duties.
    One staffer described the pervasive nature of the 
campaigning, describing work done for Conyers' wife, Monica, 
39, in her failed state Senate primary campaign last summer.
    ``He had us all work on Monica Conyers' campaign. We were 
dedicated to that campaign. The district office was empty.''
    The staffer added: ``Conyers and Plowden said for the next 
two weeks, `I don't want you to think about anything but the 
campaign.' What are we doing about constituents? I've got a 
lady who doesn't have any heat. It's frustrating.''
    Plowden denied that staffers were ordered to work on 
campaigns.
    ``I wouId never say that,'' he said.
    Despite the political cachet of her last name, Monica 
Conyers lost the primary to Samuel (Buzz) Thomas, a popular 
state representative.

                        IMPERFECT RECORDKEEPING

    John Conyers, 74, first elected in 1964 and the second most 
senior member of the House, is a cofounder of the Congressional 
Black Caucus and a leading voice for civil rights, affirmative 
action and liberal causes. He is the ranking Democrat on the 
Judiciary Committee and in line to become its chairman if 
Democrats win the House in 2004.
    Wides said Conyers is more actively involved in other 
people's campaigns than many in Congress, and that he 
encourages his staff to help campaigns that he believes advance 
social issues and values he thinks are important Conyers has 
been in a safe district all of his political career--winning 
every re-election by more than 90 percent. Congressional 
staffers commonly work on political campaigns. But House ethics 
rules require that they do so on their free time and that they 
``should keep careful records documenting the campaignwork was 
not done on official time.''
    Plowden acknowledged that such records were not kept and 
that it was up to individuals to keep track of their hours 
worked.
    Plowden said staff members often work extra hours evenings 
and on weekends for which they aren't paid, and can use those 
compensatory hours or vacation time to work on campaigns at any 
time.
    He said vacation time varies, based on work performance, 
but that the average vacation time is two weeks annually.
    Plowden is on leave working full time for the presidential 
bid of U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Missouri.
    Wides bristled when asked for records showing when staffers 
worked official hours and campaign hours and took vacations.
    ``You're not going to see anything,'' he said. ``You're 
going to do a hatchet job, and we're not going to let you go 
fishing.''

                             POLITICAL WORK

    Based on the interviews with former and current staffers 
and records, here's a detailed look at how Conyers used staff 
to work on two Detroit political races and to raise money for 
his office.
    April 29, 2003--Detroit City Council race Conyers staffers 
and Judiciary Committee aides worked this spring on the Detroit 
City Council campaign of Watson, a Conyers aide, well-known 
city activist and radio talk show host.
    On April 18, Conyers attended a lengthy meeting in his 
downtown Detroit office to plot strategy for Watson's race 
against former City Council President Gil Hill, said Enid 
Brown, a private investigator volunteering for Conyers, and 
others who attended the meeting.
    At the meeting, Conyers asked 10 staffers, Judiciary 
Committee staff attorney Lillian German and Brown to help find 
information that could be used against Hill, they said. German 
had been hired earlier that month.
    Conyers raised two issues himself, about a loan to Hill 
from Hill's wife and Hill's role on a city pension board that 
had lost money.
    Brown, who lives in Franklin, said Conyers asked her to 
find out whether the loan was legal and for more information on 
the pension issue.
    Conyers knew Brown had done research on the pension issue. 
Brown said she joined the discussion because she respects 
Conyers. But although she's seen Conyers' aides do legitimate 
constituent work on their own time, she said she thought his 
staff should not be working on the Watson campaign on work time 
and in his office.
    ``I don't know if there is any proof of a crime, but there 
was a discussion of a campaign issue by people on the clock,'' 
Brown said. Wides said the meeting was to discuss possible 
ballot fraud in the upcoming election, which he said was an 
issue of interest to the Judiciary Committee.
    Brown and others at the meeting said the participants, 
besides Conyers, were German and Watson, and staff members 
Carol Patton, Joel Segal and Glenn Osowski, aides in Conyers' 
Washington office; Plowden; Deanna Maher, chief of staff in 
Conyers' Downriver office; Karen Johnson, Conyers' Detroit 
press secretary, and Marian Brown, Barbara Herard, Christian 
Thornton and Alexia Smokier of the Detroit office.
    All were paid members of Conyers' staff at the time of the 
meeting, according to congressional disbursement records.
    The records also show Watson never took an unpaid leave to 
campaign for her new job and, in fact, collected her $46,382-a-
year congressional staff salary until the day before she was 
sworn in as a council member. Watson declined comment.
    Plowden said he and Watson talked about her duties when she 
entered the race and agreed that she would continue working 20 
hours a week for Conyers while she ran for the City Council.
    U.S. House ethics rules state that part-time employees may 
engage in campaign activities, ``provided the time spent on 
both official and campaign activities is carefully 
documented.''
    Stan Brand, an attorney for the House Ethics Committee, 
said it would be normal for a House staff member who runs for 
elected office to take an unpaid leave to campaign.
    Wides, Conyers' legal counsel, said Watson campaigned on 
her own time while working 20 hours a week during the City 
Council primary campaign. He said Watson then took vacation and 
comp time to campaign for the general election and keep her 
paycheck coming.
    He declined to provide documentation.
    Plowden said Watson worked regular hours in the office 
answering phones and writing letters to constituents. Former 
and current staff members said Watson was rarely seen in the 
office.
    June 3, 2003--Wayne County Commission Race--Conyers' staff 
was quickly called on again--for Keith Williams, a candidate 
running in a special election for a Detroit seat on the Wayne 
County Commission.
    Williams was in a tough race against Cheryl Cushingberry, a 
political activist and sister-inlaw of former state 
representative and County Commissioner George Cushingberry.
    Cheryl Cushingberry said she discovered that people at some 
public campaign appearances were Conyers' staffers, including 
German and Judiciary Committee attorney Greg Barnes.
    ``I was campaigning not just against Williams, but against 
Conyers,'' she said.
    German spent significant time in the Detroit area. Wides 
said she worked on issues related to the Judiciary Committee 
such as alleged police brutality, reparations for descendants 
of black slaves and funding for Detroit schools, but a staffer 
said German spent much of her time working on campaigns of 
interest to Conyers.
    In fact, German was reimbursed for $1,000 in travel 
expenses in June by Conyers' campaign finance account, not from 
the budget of her employer, the House Judiciary Committee, 
campaign finance records show. German declined comment.
    September 2003--Fund-raising in late summer, Conyers told 
key aides that the staff needed to raise campaign funds.
    In late September, Plowden sent e-mails, one of which was 
obtained by the Free Press, to staffers on office time asking 
them to transmit from government computers names of public 
officials who could be solicited for donations.
    Another Conyers staffer, Osowski, was working temporarily 
out of the office of Williams, the new county commissioner. He 
asked in October that Conyers' staffers on office time fax him 
mailing lists kept on congressional computers of potential 
contributors, including many local officials, using a 
congressional office fax machine. Osowski was sending 
invitations to movers and shakers who were asked to donate 
between $250 and $500 at an Oct. 13 fundraiser for Conyers in 
the Tiger Den restaurant at Comerica Park.
    House ethics rules say such lists ``may not be shared with 
a member's campaign committee, any other campaign entity, or 
otherwise be used for campaign purposes.''

                     Congress of the United States,
                                  House of Representatives,
                                     Washington, DC, April 7, 2005.
Hon. Robert Ney,
Chair, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Bob Ney: Our Committee is charged, among 
other things, with piecing together a plan for Committee 
budgets. These budgets are not just cost of living adjustments, 
but are proposed by the Chairs of each Committee. We spent two 
entire days hearing testimony and much more time reviewing 
written requests so that we could knowledgably evaluate the 
proposals of each Chair. That's why the questions I asked 
Chairman Pombo were relevant.
    Chairman Pombo has asked for a nearly 10% increase in his 
Committee operating budget--well in excess of the cost of 
living increase. Alone among Committee Chairs, Mr. Pombo put 
his Committee staff on paid vacation for the month leading up 
to the election--\1/12\ of the work year.
    Here's a question: How can this budget increase be 
necessary when there wasn't enough work to keep the Committee 
staff at work all year? Further, the timing of the ``vacation'' 
along with statements made by Committee staffers led to 
suspicions voiced publicly that Committee staff were in fact 
being dispatched for partisan campaign purposes. These 
suspicions may have been fueled in part by the unusual mass 
mailings the Committee sent out just before the election. At 
the hearing, I asked about the vacation issue. Because the 
campaign issue is related, I raised it as well to give Chairman 
Pombo a chance to publicly respond. As I'm sure you will 
recall, he said that he welcomed the opportunity to respond. He 
denied the allegations in a general sense but was unable to 
recall particular details about the individuals who had 
submitted vouchers while on ``vacation.'' It sure didn't seem 
unreasonable to me that a Committee Chair would not remember 
those details some months later and Chairman Pombo said he 
would provide the information later. I asked that you keep the 
record open for 30 days so he could, and you said that was 
routine. To follow up on the meeting, I reduced my oral 
questions to written form.
    During our hearing no one objected to my questions--neither 
you nor Chairman Pombo. I certainly expect that Mr. Pombo will 
provide this simple information. If he does not after agreeing 
to do so at the hearing, it is possible that some people will 
wonder why he is unable to respond. I think that would be 
unfortunate since he was so clear in his oral testimony that 
all matters were proper and accounted for.
    Thanks, also, for sending me the article about John 
Conyers. I don't recall seeing it before and wonder, if you 
felt it was relevant to the budget request made by Chairman 
Sensenbrenner, why you did not raise it. I also served on the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (aka, ``the Ethics 
Committee'') for many years. I well understand that the Ethics 
Committee has jurisdiction to review allegations of misconduct 
by Members of the House--both in their capacity as individual 
Members and in their capacity as Chairs and officials of the 
House.
    As you know, I am a new member of the Committee. I am 
enthusiastic about the assignment and look forward to actively 
participating in the broad range of matters that is within our 
jurisdiction during the 109th Congress. As I also serve on our 
Homeland Security Committee, I am particularly eager to work 
with the whole Committee relative to those issues and the 
Capitol complex.
            Warm regards,
                                               Zoe Lofgren,
                                                Member of Congress.
                                ------                                

        Congress of the United States, House of 
            Representatives, Committee on House 
            Administration,
                                    Washington, DC, April 13, 2005.
Hon. Zoe Lofgren,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Representative Lofgren: Enclosed, please find Chairman 
Pombo's response to your inquiries.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Bob Ney,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on Resources,
                                    Washington, DC, April 12, 2005.
Hon. Robert W. Ney,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Ney: I am in receipt of your letter dated 
March 24, 2005, in which you enclosed the questions of Rep. Zoe 
Lofgren (D-CA) as related to the Committee on House 
Administration's March 16 hearing on the proposed Resources 
Committee budget for the 109th Congress.
    As you will recall from the hearing, the basis of Ms. 
Lofgren's questions stemmed from an old Capitol Hill newspaper 
article in which I reportedly ``shut down'' the Resources 
Committee ``so that panel staffers could hit the campaign 
trail'' during the October, 2004 recess. This is factually 
incorrect; inferences drawn in and/or as a result of this story 
are fallacious. As such, I welcome this opportunity to respond 
and lay erroneous claims to rest once and for all.
    As I stated in my testimony before your committee on March 
16th, the citizens of the United States got more for their tax 
dollars from the Resources Committee in the 108th Congress than 
from any other committee in the House. Our panel and its 
subcommittees held 174 1egislative hearings and marked up 237 
bills, 107 of which garnered the President's signature to 
become Public Law. In addition, we held nearly fifty official 
field hearings in communities throughout the country that are 
most affected by policies under the Resources Committee's 
jurisdiction, least served by the media, and whose citizens are 
generally the most under-represented in the House of 
Representatives.
    Under my authority as chairman, I granted the majority 
staff of the Resources Committee 18 days of Administrative 
Leave during October and November while Congress was in recess 
as a gesture of my thanks and appreciation for their hard work 
in compiling this as yet unmatched record.
    And while they were not required to be physically present 
at the committee offices during that time, they were expected 
to fulfill any and all professional obligations they may have 
had (though the House was in recess and the committee had 
finished all of its business for the entire 108th Congress) via 
laptops, cellular phones, and Blackberry devices. In essence, 
the staff was permitted to telecommute. Each and every member 
of this staff is a consummate professional and I can assure you 
this committee did not miss a beat as a result of my gesture.
    Unfortunately, the scurrilous and inflammatory story 
referred to by Ms. Lofgren implied that my decision to grant 
this period of leave was designed, as she put it during the 
hearing, to enable the staff to be ``dispatched to work on 
campaigns when they were not taking vacation time,'' This is 
categorically, patently and unequivocally false.
    No official funds, no official resources and no official 
government time were used--in any way, shape or form--for 
political purposes during the period in question or at any 
other time since I have been chairman. This includes the travel 
subsistence expenses Ms. Lofgren identified in the most recent 
Statement of Disbursements of the House for (4) four of the 
Resources Committee majority staff members. The specific 
information for each of those individuals, as requested by Ms. 
Lofgren, is as follows:

          Brian J. Kennedy: Mr. Kennedy traveled in an official 
        capacity to California, where we worked on 
        communications matters including, but not limited to, 
        the President's signing of the landmark Cal-Fed 
        legislation and planning the committee's communications 
        strategy for the 109th Congress with me personally.
          During the course of your hearing, Ms. Lofgren 
        questioned the purpose of Mr. Kennedy's official travel 
        because, as she put it, he is the press secretary and 
        ``there were no press releases issued'' during the 18 
        day period according to the Resources Committee 
        website. This is correct. The committee had finished 
        its legislative agenda for the 108th Congress and the 
        House stood in recess.
          However, as I am sure the Committee understands, 
        issuing press releases is but a small fraction of the 
        responsibilities in a press secretary's job 
        description. I would duly note, according to her 
        website, that Ms. Lofgren did not issue any press 
        releases during the very period in question either, nor 
        has she issued a release since February 26th of this 
        year. It would be wrong to construe, however, that her 
        press staff was not working simply because no releases 
        had or have been issued.
          Mathew Miller: Mr. Miller traveled with me in an 
        official capacity to meet with myself and Mr. Kennedy 
        on oversight, legislative, and member participation 
        plans for the Resources Committee and its five 
        subcommittees for the 109th Congress.
          David S. Whaley: Mr. Whaley traveled twice during 
        this period in official capacities. He traveled to 
        Baltimore, MD to participate in a panel discussion on 
        the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries 
        Conservation and Management Act. He also traveled to 
        participate in the 14th Special Meeting of the 
        International Commission of the Conservation of 
        Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) in New Orleans, LA.
          Vincent Sampson: Traveled to staff an official 
        oversight field hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy & 
        Mineral Resources in Reno, NV. The subject of the 
        hearing was on Sustainable Development Opportunities in 
        Mining Communities.

    These four members of my staff did travel in an official 
capacity in close proximity, coincidentally, to an election--
hence Ms. Lofgren's questions. However, as you know, it is easy 
to misconstrue (deliberately or otherwise) the rather vague 
information in the Statement of Disbursements document.
    For example, the information contained in the very same 
volume of this publication shows that Ms. Lofgren disbursed 
$6000 in official funds to an entity listed as ``The Democratic 
Network.'' While I am sure this was a legitimate and reasonable 
expense for the Gentlelady from California, you can certainly 
understand how an individual predisposed to partisan 
gamesmanship could disingenuously suggest that taxpayer dollars 
had been funneled inappropriately to a political entity. This 
is unfortunate.
    Let me also say that I take these questions very seriously, 
Mr. Chairman. But the manner in which they have been posed to 
me calls into serious question the true motives here and 
whether or not the official committee funding process at House 
Administration has been manipulated for purposes of partisan 
politics.
    In the future, I hope that members of the Committee on 
House Administration's minority choose to work with you and 
other chairman in a proactive, production, and straightforward 
fashion. Unfortunately, in this case, members of the media were 
somehow privy to the minority's line of questioning before the 
hearing and had even obtained copies of Ms. Lofgren's follow-up 
questions before the committee's official record on the matter 
had closed. When fed to the press without answers, questions of 
this nature have a tendency to take the form of allegations--a 
form I am confident that no member of your committee intended.
    I am eager to earn your committee's approval of the 
Resources Committee budget for the 109th Congress. Proposed by 
both Ranking Member Rahall and myself, the budget is both 
responsible given the current budget climate and conservative 
in light of the committee's vast responsibilities. While we 
recognize that every dollar we spend comes from the taxpayers' 
pockets, we are certain that this budget accurately represents 
our minimum requirements.
    I am encouraged by the minority's recent action with regard 
to seating members on its side of the Franking Commission. That 
work should resume as soon as possible. As you know, my 
response to an outstanding complaint has sat idle from one 
Congress to the next, or roughly the last five months. And as 
you stated and the minority conceded during the hearing, no 
rules or regulations were breached in the conduct of franked 
mail operations at the Resources Committee. In addition, 
roughly half of the franked mail pieces during the 108th 
Congress were sent into the districts of Democratic committee 
members. The complaint should therefore be considered without 
merit and officially dismissed.
    Enclosed for your review is a recent Washington Times 
article, ``Press willfully ignorant of U.S. rural life.'' which 
highlights the recent findings of the Center for Media and 
Public Affairs. After an exhaustive study, the Center concluded 
that much of the press is apathetic toward and/or ``clueless'' 
about life in rural America. I submit this to you as prima 
facie evidence of the need to continue the Resources 
Committee's direct outreach efforts to these communities via 
franked mail and official field hearings. This has been and 
will continue to be the normal and regular business of my 
committee.
    Also, please find enclosed a copy of the Committee on 
Resources Employee Handbook for the 108th Congress for your 
reference, which stipulates the committee's leave and vacation 
policies, among others.
    I trust you will find my responses to the questions posed 
to me by Ms. Lofgren at House Administration Committee hearing 
thorough and complete. Thank you for your outstanding 
leadership of the Committee on House Administration. As always, 
I look forward to working with you closely.
            Sincerely,
                                          Richard W. Pombo,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                     Congress of the United States,
                                  House of Representatives,
                                                    Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert W. Ney,
Chair, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Ney: Thank you for forwarding Chairman 
Pombo's responses to my inquiries. I am glad that Chairman 
Pombo looked at my questions as an opportunity to respond to 
what he terms ``erroneous claims'' that he ``shut down'' the 
Resources Committee last fall ``so that panel staffers could 
hit the campaign trail.'' Probably through an oversight, one 
important question remains unanswered.
    In his testimony before the House Administration Committee, 
Chairman Pombo stated that ``any member of the [Resources] 
Committee staff who chose to work on a campaign during [the 
closure period] was required to take vacation time.'' However, 
in his written responses, Chairman Pombo stated that ``[u]nder 
[his] authority as chairman, [he] granted the majority staff of 
the Resources Committee 18 days of Administrative Leave during 
October and November while Congress was in recess. . . .'' 
According to the Employee Handbook provided by Chairman Pombo, 
``Administrative Leave'' is not charged to vacation time. 
Rather, it appears to he paid leave that is limited to 
``extreme weather conditions, natural disasters, religious 
holidays or other unusual events.''
    Thus, it appears that Chairman Pombo granted the entire 
Majority Staff of the Resources Committee an additional 18 days 
of paid Administrative Leave that did not count towards their 
normal vacation leave. As Mr. Pombo noted, some have raised 
questions about these actions because they occurred immediately 
before the November election.
    My 5th question to Chairman Pombo was intended to put these 
concerns to rest by seeking disclosure of those staff members 
who took vacation time, as opposed to paid ``Administrative 
Leave,'' to work on political campaigns. Because this question 
was overlooked, the questions about whether Resources Committee 
staff worked on political campaigns during their additional 18 
days on paid Administrative Leave remain unanswered. I hope 
that Chairman Pombo will put these questions to rest once and 
for all by clarifying this.
    Finally, Chairman Pombo mentioned a $6,000 disbursement 
from my official funds to an entity listed as ``The Democratic 
Network.'' The Democratic Network is not a political entity. It 
is a company that assists in sending ``e-newsletters,'' a 
service that I am told it provides for about 30 other Members 
as well. If you would like further information on The 
Democratic Network, their telephone number is 310-789-4567.
    Again, thank you for your assistance.
            Very truly yours,
                                               Zoe Lofgren,
                                                Member of Congress.

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                         THE FAIRNESS PRINCIPLE

    We are submitting these additional views to compliment the 
Chairman for his efforts to achieve the fairness principle. For 
the last six years, the Speaker and the Chairman of the 
Committee on House Administration have labored in the House's 
service to the benefit of both the Majority and the Minority 
alike. They have firmly established the ``Fairness Principle'' 
in the committee funding process, and thus secured, to the 
benefit of the institution, the civility in this area of 
operation, which should be applicable to all aspects of the 
House's internal administrative operation. While many others 
have also worked to bring this about, Chairman Ney and the 
Speaker must be credited with greatly diminishing this source 
of continuing tension between the Majority and the Minority--a 
perceived unfairness in the division of committee resources.
    The fairness principle has been a part of House rules, in 
one form or another, for many decades, under both Republican 
and Democratic majorities. The principle is currently embedded 
in House Rule X, Clause 9, and making the fairness principle 
applicable to all committee resources should have been a 
logical extension of this well-established rule. We want to 
make it clear that, irrespective of who is in the majority, 
this fairness principle should always govern the allocation of 
committee resources.
    Until the fairness principle is universally applied, we 
must anticipate that, as committee leadership positions change 
hands, old compromises and accommodations must yield to the 
unconditional application of the fairness principle. Only then 
will Chairman Ney and Speaker Hastert have achieved their 
objective of securing civility between the Majority and 
Minority regarding committee resources in the House.

                            USE OF THE FRANK

    By adopting the Ney/Millender-McDonald amendment to the 
Committee Funding Resolution, the Committee has taken a very 
enlightened approach to committee mass mailings. In recognition 
of a need for clarification and reasonable spending limits in 
this area, the resolution proscribes the use of committee 
operating funds to support mass mailings consistent with the 
provisions of the amendment below.
    The Committee also set a limit on the use of the frank for 
committee related business at $5,000 per session to each 
standing committee. The chart below suggests that few 
committees will have any difficulty with that limit based on 
spending levels prior to the 108th Congress. Chairman Ney 
expressed clearly and unequivocally during the Committee markup 
that any standing committee that needs more in exigent 
circumstances (such as to respond directly to incoming 
correspondence generated by a grass roots letter writing 
campaign) will have to come back to the Committee to request 
any increase. Of course, a committee initiated mass mailing 
would not fall within this type of exigent circumstance. Any 
such proposed increase would be adopted by the full Committee 
in the form of a Committee resolution approved by the body 
during a regular meeting.

                                       HISTORY OF COMMITTEE MAIL EXPENSES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2000         2001         2002         2003         2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture....................................      $691.91      $578.90      $521.91      $645.20      $384.52
Armed Services.................................     5,640.99     6,300.05     7,312.99       673.37       470.97
Budget.........................................     1,232.48       285.20       129.48       133.25       252.44
Education and the Workforce....................     1,665.49     1,458.71     1,515.39     1,345.59     4,839.41
Energy and Commerce............................     3,937.66     2,737.09     1,772.19     1,838.59     1,673.53
Financial Services.............................     1,617.51     1,025.71       733.41     1,078.74       856.10
Gov't Reform...................................  ...........     4,776.00     4,689.00     3,767.09     9,700.46
Homeland Security..............................        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)       909.01       783.89
House Administration...........................     1,381.12       688.01     2,606.07       756.20     7,883.31
Intelligence...................................       342.16       248.10       146.46       353.99       190.26
International Relations........................     5,041.04     1,730.78       834.57       739.27       724.38
Judiciary......................................     6,866.53     4,530.67     4,422.33     2,957.02     2,956.42
Resources......................................     1,563.89     2,882.59     2,081.58    51,123.13    53,917.29
Rules..........................................       241.19       257.14       222.97       924.33       958.19
Science........................................     2,810.99     1,974.97     1,874.39     1,739.34    14,122.29
Small Business.................................     3,292.73     2,214.66     3,502.11       897.88     1,623.39
Standards......................................    17,016.88     1,126.46     4,640.89     3,133.07     1,061.13
Transportation.................................     1,824.82     2,254.39     1,264.35     1,624.70     1,156.61
Veterans.......................................     2,206.75     2,037.79     1,656.58     1,200.22     1,694.77
Ways & Means...................................     4,372.19     2,958.93     1,959.06     1,640.67    1,156.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ N/A.

              AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. MILLENDER-MCDONALD

SECTION 5. REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF FUNDS FOR MASS MAILINGS.

    (a) In General.--None of the amounts made available under 
this resolution may be used by a committee for the production 
of material for a mass mailing unless--
          (1) the mailing is of a press release to the 
        communications media, a notice of the schedule of a 
        hearing or markup of the committee (the content of 
        which shall be limited to date, time, location, topic, 
        witness list, and ADA services), a committee document 
        printed pursuant to the applicable provisions of title 
        44, United States Code, or a request for the views of 
        the public or the views of other authorities of 
        government essential to the conduct of the study, 
        investigation, or oversight of matters within the 
        jurisdiction and related functions assigned to the 
        committee under rule X of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives;
          (2) prior to mailing, the chairman or ranking 
        minority member of the committee (as the case may be) 
        submits a sample of the material to the House 
        Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards and the 
        Commission determines that--
                  (A) the mailing is ordinary and necessary to 
                the conduct of the normal and regular business 
                of the committee, and
                  (B) the mailing would be in compliance with 
                the requirements of subsections (a)(3)(A), 
                (a)(3)(C), (a)(3)(G), (a)(4), and (a)(5) of 
                section 3210 of title 39, United States Code, 
                if mailed by a Member of the House of 
                Representatives;
          (3) the mailing would not be prohibited under section 
        3210(a)(6)(A) of title 39, United States Code, if 
        mailed by a Member of the House of Representatives; and
          (4) the aggregate amount that will be spent in 
        franking costs by the committee for mass mailings 
        during the session involved, after taking into account 
        the franking costs of such mass mailing, will not 
        exceed $5,000.
    (b) Mass Mailing Defined.--In this section, the term ``mass 
mailing'' has the meaning given such term in section 
3210(a)(6)(E) of title 39, United States Code.
                                   Juanita Millender-McDonald.
                                   Robert A. Brady.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.

                                  
