```

[House Report 114-838]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

114th Congress   }                                      {       Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session      }                                      {      114-838

======================================================================
 
 PROVIDING AMOUNTS FOR FURTHER EXPENSES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 
            COMMERCE IN THE ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                _______
                                

 November 29, 2016.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

 Mrs. Miller of Michigan, from the Committee on House Administration, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                       [To accompany H. Res. 933]

    The Committee on House Administration, having had under 
consideration an original resolution relating to providing 
amounts for further expenses of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, report the 
same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution 
be agreed to.

                 BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE RESOLUTION

    On October 7, 2015 Congress passed H. Res. 461 by a 
recorded vote of 242 yeas and 184 nays establishing a Select 
Investigative Panel of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. 
Res. 461 requires the Select Investigative Panel to investigate 
and report on:
          1. medical procedures and business practices used by 
        entities involved in fetal tissue procurement;
          2. any other relevant matters with respect to such 
        procurement;
          3. federal funding and support for abortion 
        providers;
          4. the practices of providers of second and third 
        trimester abortions, including partial birth abortion 
        and procedures that may lead to a child born alive as a 
        result of an attempted abortion;
          5. medical procedures for the care of a child born 
        alive as a result of an attempted abortion; and
          6. any changes in law or regulation necessary 
        resulting from such findings.
    The need for this funding arises because the Select 
Investigative Panel was considered and adopted subsequent to 
the primary expense resolution, H. Res. 132, passed by voice 
vote on March 19, 2015.

                           GENERAL DISCUSSION

    Since its creation, the Select Investigative Panel has 
issued dozens of subpoenas and has requested numerous 
transcribed interviews and depositions of individuals with 
knowledge of the abortion and procurement practices under 
investigation. While some progress has been made, many 
individuals and companies in receipt of congressional subpoenas 
have responded by heavily redacting critical information. Many 
have simply refused to comply at all. Currently, the Select 
Investigative Panel is undertaking initiatives to gain 
compliance with its subpoenas. In July 2015, the Select 
Investigative Panel produced an interim update describing the 
substantive work the Select Investigative Panel has already 
completed, despite obstruction from those under investigation, 
the minority staff, and the Ranking Member of the Select 
Investigative Panel. The Select Investigative Panel has been 
tasked with producing a final and definitive report and 
requires the funding necessary to complete these tasks.

                       SUMMARY OF THE RESOLUTION

    The amount for the Committee contained in the resolution is 
as follows:

 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Energy and Commerce...........................     $800,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL

    On November 16, 2016, Representative Candice S. Miller of 
Michigan introduced a matter of original jurisdiction.

                        COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    On November 16, 2016, the Committee on House Administration 
met to consider a matter of original jurisdiction. The 
Committee ordered the bill reported favorably to the House 
without amendment by voice vote with a quorum present.

                         COMMITTEE RECORD VOTES

    In compliance with House rule XIII, clause 3(b), with 
respect to each record vote on an amendment or motion to 
report, together with the names of those voting for and 
against, the Committee reports that there were no recorded 
votes.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    In compliance with House rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1), the 
Committee states that the findings and recommendations of the 
Committee, based on oversight activities under House rule X, 
clause 2(b)(1), are incorporated into the general discussion 
section of this report.

            STATEMENT OF 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 
House rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2), and section 308(a)(1) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is not required.

               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

    In compliance with House rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3), the 
Committee states, with respect to this matter of original 
jurisdiction, 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.

                    PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    In compliance with House rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4), the 
Committee states that the general performance goals and 
objectives for this matter of original jurisdiction are to 
authorize appropriate and additional funding for the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce.

                    DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

    In compliance with Sec. 3(g)(2) of H. Res. 5 (114th 
Congress), the Committee states that no provision of this 
matter establishes or reauthorizes: (1) a program of the 
Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal 
program; (2) a program included in any report from the 
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to 
section 21 of Public Law 111-139; or (3) a program related to a 
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance, published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Pub. L. No. 95-220, as amended by Pub. L. No. 
98-169).

                  DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

    In compliance with Sec. 3(i) of H. Res. 5 (114th Congress), 
the following statement is made concerning directed rule 
makings: The Committee estimates that this matter requires no 
directed rule makings within the meaning of such section.

               INFORMATION RELATING TO UNFUNDED MANDATES

    This information is provided in accordance with section 423 
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-
4). The Committee has determined that this matter contains no 
unfunded mandate on the private sector, nor does it impose a 
Federal intergovernmental mandate on State, local, or tribal 
governments.

                          ADVISORY ON EARMARKS

    In accordance with House rule XXI, clause 9, the Committee 
states that this matter does not contain any congressional 
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as 
defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI.

    EXPENSE RESOLUTION SUBSEQUENT TO THE PRIMARY EXPENSE RESOLUTION

    In accordance with House rule X, clause 6(b)(2), the 
Committee states that this matter of original jurisdiction is 
necessary because the Select Investigative Panel was created 
subsequent to the consideration and adoption of the primary 
expense resolution. The purpose of these additional funds is to 
provide appropriate funding for the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce. The supplemental expense resolution provides 
$800,000.

                             MINORITY VIEWS

    The Democratic Members of the Committee on House 
Administration strongly oppose additional funding for the 
Select Investigative Panel, as we have throughout its 
existence.
    On October 7, 2015, the House Majority passed H. Res. 461 
to create the Select Panel to investigate inflammatory videos 
created by David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress 
(CMP), anti-abortion activists who spent more than two years 
secretly recording Planned Parenthood and other reproductive 
health services. After Daleiden and CMP released deceptively-
edited video footage in July 2015, three Republican-led House 
committees immediately launched investigations into Planned 
Parenthood and others.
    Despite the fact that none of these three Committees 
uncovered any evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood or 
other providers, the House Majority nonetheless created the 
Select Panel to satisfy extremists in their conference who were 
threatening to shut down the government if Planned Parenthood 
were not defunded.
    The resolution authorizing the Select Panel set no time 
limit, target date for completion, or budget for the Select 
Panel's work. It also placed no requirement on the Select Panel 
to establish an investigative plan or rules to govern its work 
and, despite repeated request by the Select Panel's Democratic 
Members, Chair Marsha Blackburn has refused to discuss or adopt 
rules or a plan. As a result, Panel Republicans have conducted 
a viciously partisan investigation that has excluded Democrats 
at every turn, and resulted in an abuse of congressional 
authority that has put health care providers, researchers, and 
their life-saving work at risk.
    The method for funding the Select Panel--through polls of 
the House Administration Committee--has allowed the Select 
Panel to operate without the transparency and accountability 
that the House budget process usually provides. For example, in 
November 2015, Republicans used a closed-door process to 
transfer $300,000 for use by the Select Panel through the end 
of that year. The Democratic Members of the Committee on House 
Administration opposed the transfer of funds as ``wasteful'' 
and ``unnecessary'' and called for a public meeting to ``ensure 
the opportunity for amendments and thorough debate.'' The 
request was not granted and the money was transferred for use 
by the Select Panel.
    On June 16, 2016, Republicans repeated this closed-door 
process to transfer an additional $490,000 to the Select Panel. 
The Democratic members of the Committee on House Administration 
requested a special meeting of the Committee to consider the 
Majority's proposal. The request was not granted and the money 
was transferred for use by the Select Panel without any public 
debate or accountability.
    To date, the Select Panel has spent more than $790,000 and 
is on track to spend well over $1.5 million dollars by the end 
of 2016 all without a set budget, as well as public debate over 
that budget to ensure that Congress is accountable to the 
taxpayers and avoids waste and abuse.
    House Administration Democrats offered an amendment that 
would restrict the use of supplemental funds to costs 
associated with terminating the Select Panel and would require 
the Select Panel to file weekly reports with House 
Administration. The amendment further required the Chair of the 
Select Panel to consult with the Ranking Minority Member before 
the issuance of any subpoenas as unilateral actions by the 
Select Panel's Majority have become a troubling norm. The 
amendment was defeated on voice vote along party lines.

                                   Robert A. Brady.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Juan Vargas.

                                  [all]
```