U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–927 2005

COMMITTEE FUNDING

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, 

MARCH 10 AND 16, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

BOB NEY, Ohio, Chairman 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California, Ranking Minority Member 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

Professional Staff 

PAUL VINOVICH, Staff Director 

GEORGE SHEVLIN, Minority Staff Director 

(1)

HEARING ON COMMITTEE FUNDING 

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:05 a.m., in room 1310, 

Longworth, The Capitol, Hon. Robert W. Ney (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Ney, Millender-McDonald, Brady, and 

Lofgren. 

Staff Present: Paul Vinovich, Staff Director; Jeff Janas, Professional Staff Member; George Shevlin, Minority Staff Director; 

Charles Howell, Minority Chief Counsel; Catherine Tran, Minority 

Professional Staff; and Matt Pinkus, Minority Professional Staff. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to welcome the distinguished chair and 

the ranking member, and we will go ahead and start. I have talked 

to our ranking member and she is on her way here now. 

The purpose today of course, and I will be requesting, is to consider funding requests for the 109th Congress. We will have several 

panels testify before the committee today and next week as our 

process unfolds. I would like to outline the procedure we will follow 

during these hearings. 

The chairman and ranking minority member of each committee 

will come before the committee and present their budget requests 

for the 109th Congress. The chairman and the ranking member 

will each have 5 minutes to testify. The House Administration 

members of course will have 5 minutes each to question the chair 

and ranking member if they so wish. 

With that, again, I want to welcome—well, two of our members 

are here, and of course, Congresswoman Millender-McDonald is on 

her way. I have talked to the gentlelady from California. 

We will start with the chairman, Mr. Hyde. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of 

the committee, we appreciate, Mr. Lantos and I, being given the 

opportunity to present our budget request for the Committee on 

International Relations for the 109th Congress. 

The workload of this committee will continue to be one of the 

most ambitious for any committee in the House. With threats from 

all corners of the world, deep and troubling problems facing people 

all over the globe, we will be involved in most of the major national 

security decisions facing our country today. 

2

In addition to our normal legislative and oversight responsibilities, the committee will continue its rigorous oversight of the 

United Nations, the Oil-for-Food Program, and the handling of contracts and contracting in relation to the reconstruction projects in 

Iraq. We must also carry out our responsibilities in receiving foreign heads of state and other dignitaries, and provide staff support 

for the various parliamentary groups. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly outline the two major increases in our budget request. 

One, the rules of the House of Representatives adopted January 

4th, 2005, authorized the Committee on International Relations to 

create a new subcommittee, dedicated to oversight and investigations. For the additional subcommittee, we are requesting funding 

for four new majority staff positions and one minority position. Salaries for this subcommittee will total $440,000 in 2005 and 

$490,000 in 2006. The request also includes an increase for equipment, travel, communications and other administrative expenses to 

establish this new subcommittee. 

The second major increase in the budget proposal is for funding 

for a proposed House Democracy Assistance Commission that is 

being established at the direction of the Speaker’s office. In fact, we 

will consider the resolution on the House floor next week establishing this commission. One of the two slots on the commission 

would be filled with an existing committee employee. Therefore, we 

are asking for only one new slot for the majority. Overall, we are 

asking for five new majority slots for the new subcommittee and 

the new commission and three new slots for the minority. 

Funding for the new House committee and the House Democracy 

Assistance Commission represents nearly 40 percent of our requested increase for the 109th Congress. I realize this is a large 

increase, but I also believe it is a much needed increase to effectively perform our oversight responsibilities as requested by the 

leadership of the House. 

It has been a pleasure working with my colleague, Tom Lantos, 

our very able and respected ranking democratic member. We have 

an excellent working relationship, perhaps the best partnership in 

the House, and I want to continue in that direction. Our request 

includes funding for three additional minority positions, which ensures my personal commitment to Tom for allocating one-third of 

any additional staff to the minority. 

Office space is a continuing problem. At the beginning of the 

108th Congress, a subcommittee was relocated from the Rayburn 

Building to the Ford Building, and the space was given to the 

Democratic staff. We have been assured by the Speaker’s office that 

additional office space will be assigned to the committee to accommodate the staff of the new subcommittee and the Democracy Commission. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let 

me stress this is a fair and responsible budget request. The Committee on International Relations has become a major player in foreign policy and the budget request will enable us to carry out the 

duties of a serious and successful committee. 

Mr. Lantos has a statement, and following that, I will be pleased 

to respond to any questions you may have regarding our request. 

3

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Distinguished ranking member, Mr. 

Lantos. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM LANTOS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the 

committee. I will just take a minute, because I fully support the 

budget proposal of our distinguished chairman and my good friend, 

Henry Hyde. 

I just would like to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that our committee conducts its work in an incredibly cooperative, coordinated 

and collegial fashion. I only wish that the spirit of the entire body 

would reflect what is the prevailing spirit of the International Relations Committee. 

The chairman has outlined our requests. I fully support those, 

and I only would like to convey to you and to the members of the 

committee the staggering increase in the activities of this committee in recent years. 

If you will allow a vignette, which historically was a Democratic 

anecdote, but it now can be spoken of publicly. At the height of the 

Monica Lewinsky scandal, we had a Democratic Caucus and President Clinton spoke to it with his usual eloquence and brilliance. 

Then he asked for questions. There were three microphones set up 

in the Caucus Room, and I got to a mike and I looked around and 

there were 17 people ahead of me. I listened to the 17 questions. 

Then it was my turn. 

The President says, ‘‘Well, Tom, what is on your mind?’’

And I said, ‘‘Well, Mr. President, I want to change the subject.’’

There was dead silence in the room. Everybody got snow white, 

because they thought I would change the subject to something personal. I said, ‘‘No, all 17 questions preceding me were questions relating to domestic issues. I want to raise an issue of an international nature.’’

You have never seen Bill Clinton more happy than when I finished my question. 

Times have changed. Every major issue on the agenda, with the 

exception of Social Security maybe and a couple of others, is within 

the purview of our committee. Just the range of overseas visitors 

to us has become mind boggling. I spent yesterday afternoon with 

the Libyan Chief of Mission, the American Chamber of Commerce 

from Cairo, with the Chinese Ambassador who is in charge of dealing with North Korea, and every day we have a whole range of basically relevant but extracurricular activities that we cannot escape. The staff is overworked, inadequate in terms of numbers and 

outstanding in quality. 

I strongly urge you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, to respond to our bipartisan request fully, because we are 

carrying out national security and foreign policy responsibilities, 

and we need an adequate staff to do so. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank both of you for your testimony 

and also the job you do. I do have one question of the ranking 

member. Do you believe the two third/one-third has been reached 

as we have——

4

Mr. LANTOS. Well, I certainly do. I must say, and I have said this 

previously, that I believe resource allocations should be based on 

an accurate percentage basis, which would give the Democratic side 

47 percent of the staff, the space, the working budget, but this is 

above my pay grade. 

But in terms of Chairman Hyde’s allocation, I could not be more 

pleased. As in everything else, he is incredibly fair and generous. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I really just want to comment briefly—I don’t have any questions—but the master plan, because we 

listened a couple of years ago, and the master plan will be complete 

by March of 2005 for building space. I have talked to the Architect 

about the space deficiencies. 

I looked at the scale. It is unbelievable if you look at the 1960s, 

when Rayburn was built, I think in 1959—and if you look at how 

many people are supposed to be in these buildings versus how 

many people are in these buildings, we are like 7,000 people over 

where we should be. 

Mr. LANTOS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Working conditions are atrocious. And so I think, 

it looks at supporting staff offices, removing the underground parking, which is a significant security issue, and I am hoping that this 

is implemented soon, because it will take about 5 or 6 years, if it 

is implemented tomorrow, to get done. I think we owe it, whether 

we are going to be here in 7 or 8 years, to future staff of the House, 

to improve the working conditions. A lot of good people do things, 

and I think that they have to have good working conditions. 

But, again, I appreciate both of you, your working relationship, 

the allocation of the two-thirds/one-third. 

Also let me say something, yesterday we also had the Afghan 

women right here in this room. They came here from Afghanistan. 

The amount of increased international activity, as you indicated in 

the Chair, is unbelievable, because as you know, we are about what 

is going on in the world. 

I have traveled with both of you, I have seen some significant 

things you have been able to do, through meetings. I remember one 

time an editorial 6 years ago quoted me because I said international relations is not the exclusive right of any President, there 

is a Congress out there. They praised me in the newspaper and 

then, of course, attacked all of us for traveling in that same paper 

later. 

But I think it is important. I have seen things change. I have 

traveled again on some important trips with both of you, and so I 

think that the role that you do is important and you need to be 

able to have the resources. 

I really have no questions, but I want to thank both of you and 

our gentlelady. Our ranking member is here. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Good morning, good morning to you, 

Mr. Chairman, and to the ranking member. It is great to see both 

of you. I shan’t say that you don’t get along, because you get along 

quite well. 

But the one thing that I am interested in and want to be assured 

of is that the formula that our leader here, the chairman has laid 

out, is the two-thirds/one-third in terms of your allocation of budget, and just want to make sure that you are satisfied, Mr. Ranking 

5

Member, with that concept and with that formula, and that you are 

given the autonomy to get equipment if so needed and those other 

things that are pertinent to your well-being. 

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Ranking Member, let me just say, as I indicated a bit earlier, I really have two answers. Chairman Hyde’s allocation of staff and resources on a two-thirds/one-third basis could 

not be more fair and equitable and gracious. The overall issue of 

whether resources should be so allocated I have serious doubts 

about. We have 47 percent of the membership of this body and a 

strong case can be made, which I am ready to make at the drop 

of a hat, that we should get 47 percent of the resources. But that 

is above my pay grade. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Well, okay, then, so in essence, 

given the venue that you have just outlined, other than that you 

are pretty much satisfied with that? 

Mr. LANTOS. I could not be more happy with the working relationship that both the chairman and I have and our respective 

staffs have. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Very good. I really do agree with 

you, because when I have come before each of you I do like the respectability that you share between each other and how you have 

worked very collegially in terms of trying to find the common 

ground. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to commend you in your 

leadership in ensuring that we have that two-thirds/one-third allocation between the two chairmen and ranking members of these 

two committees so we can be about the business of providing the 

leadership and the services to the committees that they represent. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Questions? The gentlelady. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Since I am brand new I am going to ask a question. I certainly would not disrupt what has been recommended 

here, because obviously the chairman and ranking member agree, 

so maybe this is really about the whole process that we are in. It 

is my understanding, and I guess it is a question, not a statement, 

that the general rule is that the minority has a third of the slots, 

a third of the budget, control over their third? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And then the chairman and ranking member can 

arrange to do something different if it works better for them; is 

that generally the rule? 

The CHAIRMAN. That is the policy. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. All right. 

The CHAIRMAN. There is no actual rule in the House that it has 

to be done. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But that is our operating system. 

The CHAIRMAN. If I could take a second, if the gentlelady would 

yield. When Bill Thomas became chairman of the House Administration and Steny Hoyer was the ranking member, they tried to 

achieve two-thirds/one-third. Bill Thomas did it. He gave Mr. 

Hoyer, as we do to this day, one-third and said here is your allocation. Some committees that shared staff, Ethics and others, had 

more trouble because they shared staff. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

6

The CHAIRMAN. They achieved most of the two-thirds/one-third, 

but there was not a complete achievement of the process. When I 

became chairman, we talked to the Speaker, Bill Thomas. They 

wanted to really get this done with Steny Hoyer. So when Steny 

was chair, we made a huge effort and Steny and I, actually sat 

with a couple of members, ranking members, we got down to about 

two committees where we finally made some decisions and we got 

to what we felt was the two-thirds/one-third and then it continued 

under Mr. Larson. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The rationale is that the majority—it is obviously 

not two-thirds/one-third in the House but the majority has to do 

kind of additional clerical work and administrative burden and 

that that justifies? 

The CHAIRMAN. It was something that Mr. Thomas—I will tell 

you in all fairness I wasn’t here in the minority, but I will tell you 

that we have the stats. When the Democrats controlled the Congress, some of the minority received 9 percent of the budget, 10 

percent of the budget in worst circumstances. So I do need to raise 

that issue. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I wasn’t here then. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, this is not directed—I just want to tell the 

history of before my time here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am just trying to figure out what the rules are. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is what we tried to do. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am sorry to take the committee’s time, because 

they have come up with their own agreement. Obviously, we will 

accept what they have agreed to. I wanted to know what the parameters were for all the committees, and I thank the Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Other questions? With that, I want to thank both 

the Chair and the ranking member for your work in the House and 

your time today. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HYDE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we have the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and Mr. Conyers, the ranking member, 

and we will start with the Chair of the Judiciary Committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

Madam Ranking Member. As the previous committee was leaving 

they said go get them. This is your chance to go get us, and I hope 

that is not going to be the case. 

But I am pleased to appear before you today to present my third 

budget request as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I have a 

lengthy prepared statement that I would like to submit in full for 

the record, but I would like to briefly mention some of the elements 

that I believe are important for this committee to consider. 

As you know, the Judiciary Committee is quite active and is frequently called upon by the leadership to consider complicated and 

controversial legislation. The workload and proven production of 

the Judiciary Committee are unrivaled among other House committees. However, during the past Congress, we ranked seventh in 

7

committee budget allocations. I anticipate that the frenetic legislative pace will continue, as evidenced by the early floor activity this 

year of the REAL ID and Class Action legislation. We plan to mark 

up the bankruptcy bill next week, should the Senate pass it. 

In order to keep up with the pace and continue to address complex areas of law while maintaining oversight of the Executive 

Branch agency and important laws such as the PATRIOT Act, we 

simply need more resources. 

Considering our workload, the number of members and the fact 

that almost all of our professional staff are attorneys and thus command higher than average salaries, I believe that a significant increase in our budget is justified. Consequently, the proposal before 

you today represents $18.26 million to meet the needs of the committee over the next 2 years, which is a 30 percent increase over 

the last Congress. 

Let me explain. The budget contains an increase of nine new permanent staff slots, six for the majority and three for the minority. 

Two of these new staff slots would be allocated for a majority and 

minority law clerk. The backbone of the Judiciary Committee’s effective approach in the 108th Congress was its highly qualified 

staff, which can only be retained if offered salaries which are competitive with the private sector. I really want to emphasize this, because if you expect the committee to do the job that it has to do 

and to file lengthy and complicated committee reports on a complicated legislation like the bankruptcy bill, we need to prevent our 

experienced staff from jumping over to the private sector because 

we can’t pay them enough. 

The equipment line item in this budget request includes the purchase of additional BlackBerries, computers, software and printers 

to accommodate the needs of current staff, as well as any additional staff and to support our continuity of operations plan. We 

also intend to replace outdated equipment in each calendar year to 

keep our systems and equipment current and in compliance with 

the House minimum standards of operation. 

The committee launched a new website last fall, which is providing Members and the public alike improved access to information, and we have budgeted additional funds in this category for 

further enhancements to the website. 

In addition to live webcast access, we have budgeted funds and 

we will continue to provide access to webcast archives of hearings 

to continue our goal of giving taxpayers an opportunity to view 

hearings on demand and to become more participative in the legislative process. 

In order to move aggressively to perform our oversight mandate, 

we have also developed, in coordination with an outside vendor, an 

oversight tracking system, which will help us manage our extensive 

oversight agenda. We have budgeted in this request for additional 

development, user licenses and monthly maintenance. 

Finally, the committee has carefully considered the potential for 

unforeseen disasters and have purchased some equipment for disaster recovery purposes. 

This budget submission allows for additional purchases and 

maintenance of this equipment.

8

This resolution will maintain a one-third minority, two-thirds 

majority division, with respect to salaries and staff slots, adjusting 

for the seven nonpartisan administrative positions. 

For the benefit of the minority members of this committee, let 

me say that we have a total staff allocation—there are seven positions that are purely administrative in nature, such as certifying 

the payroll, doing the accounting, getting our records printed at the 

GPO. We take those seven positions off the top, and the remainder 

are divided two-thirds/one-third. 

In closing, I appreciate the spirit of cooperation which Ranking 

Member Conyers has demonstrated. In the last Congress, I believe, 

we met almost all of the minority’s requests concerning necessary 

equipment, travel and the addition of new office space. I hope he 

agrees that the minority has been treated with fairness in matters 

of committee administration and funding. 

I appreciate your attention to this request and would be happy 

to answer questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the gentleman, I thank the 

Chairman. The ranking member, Mr. Conyers. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. CONYERS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to 

be before you and my friend, Ms. Millender-McDonald and Zoe 

Lofgren now, who I didn’t know was on this subcommittee before 

now. 

This is an important event for us because this joint budget request, which has been carefully worked out between the chairman 

and myself, I think demonstrates that your Committee on the Judiciary has been—it seems to be working more and more, our legislative load is getting larger. 

We just lost a professional staffer, a lawyer last week, because 

we didn’t have a budget, and we couldn’t assure him of anything. 

Unfortunately, with five children, he regretfully took his leave, just 

to back up what Mr. Sensenbrenner had been referring to. 

As you know, you see us on the floor every week. If a week goes 

by and the Judiciary Committee hasn’t been up once or twice or 

more, it is usually a surprise. The complexity and the number of 

issues is quite challenging, and I want to say on behalf of Chairman Sensenbrenner that our request is quite measured in terms of 

how we might increase our resources and our staffing. 

The Class Action bill, now the Bankruptcy bill, the PATRIOT Act 

is going to be back up, the Voting Rights Act has two sections that 

are expiring. We have sentencing guidelines, since the Supreme 

Court has acted to reconsider new matters concerning science and 

criminal law. Plus, our old standbys of antitrust, administrative 

law, the Federal court system itself and immigration claims and 

constitutional amendments. 

So what I merely want to do—and I have a longer statement that 

I ask be included in the record——

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. CONYERS [continuing]. Is that I wanted to underscore the cooperative spirit that has formed our relationship across the years 

9

and the need for the reasonable adjustments that have been put 

forward by Chairman Sensenbrenner. 

It is good to see all of you again, and I close with this observation. It was under Chairman Ney that this Judiciary Committee 

was able to make real progress and move forward to the kind of 

spirit that I think forms the committee on both sides at this 

present moment, and I thank you very much for this opportunity. 

[The statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

10


Insert graphic folio 25 20927A.001
11


Insert graphic folio 26 20927A.002
12

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank both gentlemen. I want to ask 

the ranking member, because 2 years ago you came here and the 

chairman was here, and the two-thirds/one-third is working? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. It is working. We don’t have enough of it to work 

with, but it is working. 

The CHAIRMAN. Money, in other words. You may not always 

agree on every piece of legislation, but you agree on this. That is 

understandable. I appreciate that. 

The gentlelady. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

I couldn’t agree with you more that when professional staff does 

not seem to—salaries do not seem to come to the benchmark of 

those in the private sector, you will certainly lose those types of 

people. So I couldn’t agree with you more. 

I wanted the chairman to recognize, though, that while he spoke 

about the Democrats when they were in the majority, how they 

really didn’t get but about 9 percent of the budget. I would also like 

to have him recognize that once the Newt Gingrich group came into 

the majority, they slashed everything. So this is why these poor 

chairman are now trying to reel back to try to get some of that 

money that was slashed when the new majority wanted to prove 

that they would slash budgets. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, given that you are talking about outdated 

equipment, and you certainly need that, and it is no doubt that the 

Judiciary Committee will be confronted with a lot of those things 

that have been outlined by both you and the ranking member, does 

the minority—who orders your equipment? Do you do that solely 

or does the minority have the opportunity to buy their equipment? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Yes. We do this in house in ordering the 

equipment, but we do it in consultation with the minority. The minority gets approximately a third of the equipment budget to help 

their staff do their job. I do not recall Mr. Conyers and I ever having a problem in determining the allocation of equipment. 

What we try to do is we try to have a rotation plan so that the 

oldest equipment gets replaced so that we can take advantage of 

advances in technology and thus increase the productivity of the 

committee and its staff. But, again, I haven’t heard any complaints 

from Mr. Conyers, nor do I anticipate any. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. So given that he does receive onethird of the budget for—one-third of his budget for equipment, he 

does not have the total autonomy to purchase anything without 

consultation with you; is that correct? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, the House rules require that the vendor orders be signed by the chairman. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Yes. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thus, Mr. Conyers has to make a request, 

and those requests are within the two-thirds/one-third allocation. 

You know, we do share a lot of equipment as well, so that we don’t 

have an unnecessary duplication of equipment. But the proprietary 

work that is being done is on equipment that is secured on each 

side of the aisle. 

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Ranking Member, can I point out that we 

really come up with a unified budget on equipment? I have never—

13

maybe my chief of staff can remember something different. But I 

have never had any problem about equipment. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Okay. 

Mr. CONYERS. Our resources frequently are mutually shared, as 

well as our space for that matter, and I want to just second everything that the chairman has made in reference to your question. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. So, in other words, there is 

collegiality when it comes to the requests for equipment and supplies and that type of thing? 

Mr. CONYERS. Absolutely. It is personnel that haunts us, to me 

in the Judiciary Committee, if I might just tell you candidly. We 

have so many assignments out and so many things coming up that 

we are rather stretched. It is the resources, but it is mostly staff 

that is the thrust of our requests this morning, ma’am. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, then if by some 

means—I see here that your request is for 30 percent increase of 

your budget, which is an average of 9.9 percent. But in the event, 

because it doesn’t mean that you are going to get it, it is just that 

this is your request and of course we have got to look at all of the 

committees. But in the event your committee budget is cut, will 

you still be prone to ensure that the minority gets his one-third of 

that budget irrespective of it? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Absolutely. I would point out that even before this committee issued the edict in 2001 on the two-thirds/onethird split I offered Mr. Conyers more staff than my predecessor, 

Mr. Hyde, offered him during the 6 years that Mr. Hyde was the 

chairman of the committee. 

You know, if Mr. Conyers does not have the staff and the equipment that is necessary, then there simply is a delay in processing 

paperwork in order to present the legislation to the floor. While we 

have got a lot of contentious issues in the committee, we have also 

got a lot of things that we agree on, particularly in the area of intellectual property rights protection. But we want to make sure 

that the paperwork is there so that there is appropriate legislative 

history, so that when these laws get interpreted in the courts the 

courts can refer to exactly what was going on. 

I will give you a case in point. The Bankruptcy bill will be 

marked up next week. The Senate did not file a committee report 

on the Bankruptcy bill. We have dissenting views with those who 

disagreed with it. Last year the committee reported that the House 

Judiciary report filed on the Bankruptcy bill was 450 pages long. 

Now, without staff you are not going to be able to write what 

amounts to a medium-sized book, which will be used by the bankruptcy bar and the bankruptcy judges to determine exactly what 

we mean if the bill becomes law. That is the type of professionalism 

that I think we need. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Absolutely. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Particularly with this committee, 

which——

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Absolutely. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER [continuing]. Which deals with highly technical issues. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I couldn’t agree with you more. I 

certainly do know that this committee needs professional staff, 

14

both at the legal level and all others, technical level, so that you 

can ensure that you have proper staffing. I just want to be ensured 

that when we talk about professional staff that both you and the 

ranking member will be adequately served by that.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Question? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Just a quick comment and then maybe a question 

of Mr. Conyers. As a member of the Judiciary Committee now for 

10 years, I can attest to the fact that the workload is very large, 

and it is my very firm belief that there is not an excess of staff on 

the committee. I mean, it is a huge amount of the work of the Congress that goes through the Judiciary Committee. So I do believe 

that an increase in the budget for this committee is certainly 

soundly based in the workload. 

But having said that, my understanding of the policy of the Congress at this point is that each committee, the minority gets onethird of the slots, one-third of the budget and control over their 

one-third of the budget. Then chairman and ranking members are 

free to vary that by agreement, but that is basically what the minority is entitled to. 

You have varied that by sharing staff and therefore getting less 

than your full allotment. You are not fully controlling your budget, 

as you are entitled to, but you are also free to come up with a different agreement. So you are satisfied with the deal that you and 

the chairman have established? 

Mr. CONYERS. I am quite satisfied with it, Ms. Lofgren. I just 

want to emphasize that it is a marked improvement over—and 

Chairman Hyde and I were and are still very good friends, but the 

resources and the allocation of staff and office space, I might add, 

have all improved under the relationship——

Ms. LOFGREN. The space was something that I wanted to raise, 

because the space for the minority is terrible. I am wondering if 

there is any discussion under way between yourself and the chairman about the space that is available for the minority, not only the 

staff but also members who have to slip out. It is really a constraint. 

Mr. CONYERS. We just got some space in Rayburn, I have just 

been advised, and we have a library next to our office space. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is not always available. 

Mr. CONYERS. I will tell you the story of Jack Brooks, who was 

assigned by Mr. Rayburn, who was then the Speaker, when they 

were building these buildings how large to make the majority and 

how large to make the minority offices. It was done under the assumption that Democrats would never be in the minority. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I think Mr. Brooks got his reward for that 

decision, and certainly that is not behavior that I would like to 

emulate. But I appreciate that additional staff has been made 

available. 

I yield back, unless the chairman would like to say something. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Ms. Lofgren, let me say that we have been 

attempting to get more office space. The problem is not the allocation between the majority and minority staff, the problem is getting 

15

the office space from the Speaker or whomever assigns the office 

space, so that we can have enough space to have our people adequately do their job. We need more office space as well. If this committee can help us get more office space as a full committee, the 

minority will get more space to put their people as well. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brady, a question? 

Just one quick comment, and we did this with the last chairman. 

We have got this office plan, we have been pushing this. In a lot 

of cases there is no space. You know, we have more staff on the 

majority side than the minority, but even here, because we do have 

more people, I gave up my office and we put up three people in it. 

I give up another office, and we put two or three people in it. 

I have been pushing this and I would hope that the Speaker and 

Leader Pelosi would be able to have a meeting of the minds—and 

I know their staff is working towards it, to have some type of decent conditions. 

If you look at the charts from the Architect of the Capitol, this 

building was not designed—these buildings are holding 7,000 more 

people than they were ever designed for. It is not good working 

conditions, it is not healthy, and that is the only way we are going 

to alleviate this. In a lot of places Chairs will call ranking members 

and there is no place to put people, period, unless you take them 

over to Ford and that is all cramped. 

I want to say something internally, we dealt with the committee, 

both the minority staff and the majority staff of your committees 

call, they share ideas, what they want to do, you know, or equipment, and I know it is also really good on detailees for both of you. 

You followed all the ways to process things, and working in turn 

with both of your staffs has been very good for us. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we move on to the Budget. 

Thank you. We start with the Chair and ranking member, Mr. 

Nussle.

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM NUSSLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Mr. NUSSLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Colleagues, 

for the opportunity to come before the House Administration Committee and submit our budget request. I have submitted testimony 

that I would like part of the record. 

For the 109th Congress the Budget Committee is requesting the 

same allocation for 2005 and 2006 as we had for 2004. We are asking for a budget freeze. Since the committee’s budget increased by 

inflation between the first and second session of the last Congress, 

our request is technically from one Congress to another—about a 

1.3 percent increase is what we are asking for. 

While I can argue like I am sure many people have and will for 

additional funds as any chairman can, I really can’t justify a larger 

increase at the time when our Budget Committee last night reported out a pretty tight budget. We are asking all Federal Government and agencies to tighten their belts. I think we ought to lead 

by example. 

16

On an account level our personnel costs in the last Congress 

were less than anticipated because of delays in filling several majority staff vacancies. These vacancies were recently filled with experienced staff from the Executive Branch and other areas. Our 

personnel costs will accordingly increase. 

Nevertheless, the request should provide adequate funding for 

staff and staff salary for the 109th Congress. Our funding levels in 

the categories of detailees and consultants remained unchanged in 

the last two Congresses. 

As with our funding request for the 107th and 108th Congresses, 

this request does not assume any funding for detailees from the 

Executive Branch or outside consultants. 

Additionally, our travel expenses were less than anticipated, and 

consequently our request in that category reflects a reduction for 

funding levels from the 108th Congress. 

Mr. Spratt and I were just visiting about that, and he may want 

to mention this as well. But if we do need to do field hearings of 

some sort in the future, we may need to come back and talk to you 

about that. But at this point in time, it is a pretty rare occurrence 

that the Budget Committee goes out into the field. Most of the time 

that happens here. 

Our equipment needs will not be as great in the 109th because 

we have put a disaster recovery system in place and have already, 

as I previously mentioned, completed upgrades to our hearing 

room. We thank you for your assistance in making sure that was 

possible. 

Therefore our focus will be on software upgrades, an annual onethird upgrade of computers, printers and other equipment. 

Obviously, in preparing these funding requests, Mr. Spratt and 

the minority have been consulted to determine their budgetary 

needs. My practice, as has been requested by this committee and 

is the practice of our committee, is to provide the minority with a 

third of the total budget for personnel. This translates into providing the minority a third of the available staff positions as well 

as the line item for personnel compensation, and additionally it is 

my policy to upgrade one-third of the minority’s equipment each 

year as well. 

To the best of my knowledge, I have attempted to accommodate 

all requests from the minority within our available resources. We 

also share our space, as much as it is again possible. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. But before I do, let 

me just say thank you. This committee has provided us with everything we have needed that I am aware of. You have done a great 

job in helping us upgrade our committee. Obviously everyone has 

many requests to make, but we want to thank you for the things 

you have done to help us be on the cutting edge of delivering a 

quality product, and so thank you for that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for his comments. 

Mr. Spratt. 

17

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

Mr. SPRATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me echo everything 

that Chairman Nussle just said, and Ranking Member MillenderMcDonald. We have a tight budget but we can live within it, and 

I think frankly the example we should set as the Budget Committee is one of squeezing your resources to the maximum. The 

lion’s share of what we get goes to personnel, and as the chairman 

has indicated, a third of the personnel account comes to us, and 

that arrangement has worked very well for us. We could use a few 

extra people, but the fact of the matter is we don’t have the space 

for them. 

We were in the luxurious quarters known as the O’Neill Building, I think it used to be a Howard Johnson’s Motel. We could at 

least say to every staff member, you get your own bathroom, you 

even get your own bathtub. Most of the tubs got converted to file 

space but nevertheless that building was torn down and we were 

orphans looking for space.

I want to commend the House Administration because you found 

us space in the basement of Cannon. We shoehorned into it, but 

given the available square footage, I think your folks did a superb 

job in trying to accommodate our needs for about 13 different staff 

members, but we are maxed out in that space down there. We 

would like to get an additional person. We would like to have a few 

of the people who are sitting in each other’s laps an opportunity to 

find some additional space. So if anything comes open down there, 

that would be my one request, which doesn’t cost direct dollars, 

that if we could have a little bit of additional breathing room it 

would be a boon to us. 

I mentioned to the chairman before we started that as I looked 

down at the budget and saw that there was only $10,500 for travel, 

that if the Budget Committee ever did what we did in the 1980s 

and before, and that is go on the road and hold regional hearings 

as to the input from the public and budget request and what 

should be done, we wouldn’t have nearly enough money to do that. 

We are not asking for it now but we would ask you to leave a 

placeholder. If we ever decide to do that, we might like to come 

back and ask you. 

Otherwise I am satisfied with the budget, pleased with the relationship we have with the majority, and it is working well on our 

committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank you. Again, internally, working 

with our staff holders, working with both your staffs has been no 

problem, things went smooth. 

I also want to thank Mr. Nussle too. Thank you for your comments, but also during the anthrax—House Administration operated out of—you squeezed us into your quarters being so gracious. 

That is how we operated when the anthrax occurred here and we 

all had to vacate this building. So we appreciate the ability to work 

with you. 

Only question that I have, you are okay with the two-thirds/onethird allocation then? 

Mr. SPRATT. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks, I want to thank both of you. 

18

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you very much. Good morning to both of you. And it is good to hear anyone who is dealing 

with money say that they want reductions in terms of your travel. 

I think that is very admirable. And I do understand that you still 

want to hold that spot, though, just in case you might go off to 

more field hearings. 

Space is at a premium around here. My goodness, everyone has 

come to talk about the need for more space, so you are certainly 

with good company in requesting that. The chairman has been very 

open to finding the space as we find it ourselves; even House Administration needs more space. 

I just wanted to emphasize, though, to the minority, the chairman did say that you have—or do you have control over nonpersonnel items like equipment? 

Mr. SPRATT. No, we don’t. But the chairman said that he tries 

to see to it that we have a third of the equipment allowance. I 

think he has a better printmaker; he makes better posters than we 

do. I think he has got the most sophisticated system in the world, 

but ours works fine. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Okay, fine. So you are satisfied with 

the ratio that you get with reference to his ability to reach out to 

you for any equipment or any other incidentals that you would 

need? 

Mr. SPRATT. We have been, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions? The gentlelady. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If I am understanding the testimony correctly, the 

minority—and this may be true of the majority, too, I don’t know—

has not actually been able to utilize its full salary allotment because of lack of space to put the people; is that correct? 

Mr. NUSSLE. I mean, part of it is just the slots, if I could—part 

of it is just obviously—and we have this in our personal offices, too, 

that when somebody leaves and you replace them, maybe the salary is lower, maybe there is a gap at the time. 

I think that is probably more to the case than not having—well, 

I am just speaking for myself. That may not be the case with Mr. 

Spratt, but in our instance, it is just the transition that goes on 

when staff turns over. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Is that true on the minority side as well? 

Mr. SPRATT. What we used to do was have associate members, 

that is, staff who were employees of Budget Committee members, 

like the Appropriations Committee. 

That creates two problems. The main problem, as the chairman 

just said, is the slot problem, the number of available slots. So to 

free up a few extra slots, we abandoned that practice for a prospectus for associate staff, and it has worked pretty well and has 

freed up moneys so we can upgrade our staff and upgrade their salaries and also add a couple of people. 

So we sort of did it in our allowance and constructively——

Ms. LOFGREN. So you don’t share staff at all? 

Mr. SPRATT. We don’t have the space; I don’t know where we 

would put the person. We have got—as you walk in the door to our 

cubbyhole in the basement of Cannon, we have got two people, and 

19

divided between the two of them they are practically in each other’s lap. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I should go visit that, look at it. 

But you are satisfied, given the constraint that we have—and we 

are moving to get additional space, I understand. I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman; this is an education. 

Mr. NUSSLE. And I will just say, for the purposes of my chairmanship more than anything else, I have tried to adopt the attitude of do unto others, because you never know when that is going 

to be your space. And I have really—I have tried to follow that 

practice. 

And my only point in saying it is that I have been down to their 

space, I was just down there the other night; and I know what Mr. 

Spratt is talking about, and it is difficult. I know the challenges 

that they had, and I can’t believe this is an improvement, but that 

is what he is saying. I was never over to the O’Neill Building to 

see their space at that point; but it is an issue we do have to grapple with, no question. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, the space issue is, you know, for 4 years 

we have been harping about it, and I mean, something needs to be 

done because the space issue is terrible, and we are just running 

out of places. I have seen literally some of the closets here being 

converted to small rooms for people here. I just think it is a major 

problem. 

We try—for example, members of the House Administration 

Committee, if they want to use these rooms or our conference room, 

they are welcome to do it. We try to do those kinds of things, and 

I think a lot of people do that, but overall it is out of space. And, 

you know, trying to get a room sometimes just for a meeting in this 

building, and we get—people call us every day for it. 

So it is a real problem, and it has got to be addressed. So the 

sooner we start, the better off we are going to be for people down 

the road. 

Or the alternative is, you cut back. And with the Internet today, 

you know, more people than ever before are calling into offices and 

seeking information. It creates more work, and when it creates 

more work, you need more staff; you have to put them somewhere. 

I would say, honestly, in the corporate world if spaces were like 

this, there would be outright rebellions in offices. 

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, could I say thank you, and thank 

Mr. Nussle for one major change you have made in our facilities, 

and that is in the audiovisual equipment we have, the screens and 

the other things we have in the room. It has made a huge difference in the manner in which we hold hearings and portray the 

budget situation to the public and to the press. I think it has been 

a plus, a big plus, and something you should do in every committee 

room, even those who don’t come ask for it, like the Armed Services 

Committee. I think it would be a great thing for us to have in the 

Armed Services Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And I will thank both the gentlemen. 

Thank you. 

The committee will recess and we will take the vote and come 

back to Financial Services. Thank you. 

20

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, we have our new Member from 

California being sworn in right after the vote, so we have to walk 

down with him. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will go to the recess and then swear in the 

new Member, and then we will come back. Thanks for pointing 

that out. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. We will go ahead and restart with Chairman 

Oxley. And when Mr. Frank comes, we will catch up with him. 

It is a pleasure to have our distinguished Buckeye Chairman, 

Mr. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee. We will 

begin with the Chair. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. OXLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Millender-McDonald, and members of the committee. 

I appreciate, as always, coming back before your committee. I do 

have an Ohio State lapel pin on from the Ohio State University 

alumni breakfast this morning. Our good friend and colleague, 

Ralph Regula, was a keynote speaker. We can’t be too far behind, 

I think we go by seniority. 

Thanks for having this hearing today. I am before the committee 

as chairman of the Committee on Financial Services. 

Four years ago this committee chose to make an investment in 

the Financial Services Committee, and I believe that the Financial 

Services Committee has given the House and the American taxpayers an excellent return on that investment. 

When America needed new tools to fight the flow of terrorist 

money, the Financial Services Committee delivered with antimoney-laundering legislation as part of the PATRIOT Act. When 

we discovered Wall Street professionals who put greed first and investors last, it was our committee that held the first hearings and 

responded with the first legislation. And when the economy suffered because insurers were afraid to write terrorism insurance, we 

responded with legislation to ensure that building and development 

could continue. 

That record of accomplishment continued in the last Congress as 

the committee acted with legislation to protect investors of all 

stripes and to promote trade in financial services, protect consumers against fraud through a modern credit and payment system, and to deliver on the American dream of home ownership. 

We still have a great deal of work to do on restoring the confidence of the Nation’s investors, modernizing our financial institutions, and promoting economic growth; and I am appearing before 

you today to ask that you continue your investment in the work of 

the Financial Services Committee. 

The committee on Financial Services is requesting $16.1 million 

in budget authority for the 109th Congress, approximately $7.8 

million in 2005 and $8.3 million in 2006, 86 percent of which is for 

personnel compensation. This request is less than we asked for in 

the last Congress. It is the right number that will provide the committee with the resources needed to get the job done. 

21

As I pointed out in my written testimony, the Financial Services 

Committee is near the bottom rung when we compare the size and 

resources of committees. I know the chairman appreciates that, 

having been a distinguished member. For instance, the Transportation Committee got a budget of more than $2.7 million more than 

Financial Services; that works out to nearly $24,000 more per 

member, and our work is just as important. We need the resources 

to do the job. 

With this funding request we can continue our investments in 

technology and infrastructure to serve the House and the public. 

We face a particularly tough competition in obtaining the experts 

we need, because we compete with both the administration and for 

the jobs on Wall Street and the private sector. 

Also, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Ranking Member, Mr. Frank, with whom I have enjoyed a good working relationship, and I look forward to continuing that working relationship in 

the future. To that end, the minority will control its budget, which 

will be one-third of the committee funds and staff slots allocated 

to the committee. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to thank 

you. We have done well over the past 4 years with the resources 

before us, and we will continue to do even better. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman; I stand ready to answer any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Oxley follows:]

22


Insert graphic folio 53 20927A.003
23


Insert graphic folio 54 20927A.004
24


Insert graphic folio 55 20927A.005
25


Insert graphic folio 56 20927A.006
26

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I will thank the Chair. And Mr. Frank has 

arrived, and we will hear from the ranking member, and then if 

you have any questions. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARNEY FRANK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to express my support, my appreciation to the chairman, 

because the committee has been handled in an entirely evenhanded 

and fair way, and I appreciate that and want to give my support 

there. And this is something to be worked out together. 

Mr. Chairman, we have space problems. We have a great, hardworking staff that are, unfortunately, scattered, and I know people 

are aware of that and will do what they can. So in terms of the 

committee budget, I am wholly supportive and want to say this: I 

believe we are where we ought to be functioning. 

I would just add one other point, not about—well, it is about the 

committee budget, and it is something that I don’t know if it can 

be addressed, but one of the things that troubles me is the disparity, frankly, between what we are able to do in terms of compensation for members of the committee staff and also members of 

our personal staff. 

And the committee staff on whole, the average, they are not overpaid. I think one of the great bargains the American people get are 

the extraordinarily talented people who work very long hours 

under not always wonderful conditions to help make public policy. 

The staff in general, it is a great bargain. 

But there is a disparity. The members of our personal staff are 

underpaid even by that scale, and I would hope we might be able 

to address some way to increase the personnel allowances, because 

I think there is—the disparity in salaries between committee staff 

and personal staff is troubling to me. 

But having said that, I will repeat again, this budget is, I think, 

a very reasonable one, and I am appreciative of the consideration 

we have been given. 

[The statement of Mr. Frank follows:]

27


Insert graphic folio 59 20927A.007
28

Mr. CHAIRMAN. I want to thank both the gentlemen for coming 

here. I serve on the committee, and you have done a lot of work. 

I just want to note to you, with your staff, both the Democrat 

and Republican staffs, we have had zero problems when they interact with our committee, they have done everything, you know, in 

the right way, the correct way. They call—both staffs, both of your 

staffs. 

I wanted to note something, because you hit on a topic. There is 

a master plan; they are going to complete it in 2005. We have been 

on it for about 4 years, and the architect is going to complete it. 

These buildings—they showed me the flowcharts—these buildings 

were created for 7,000 fewer people than we have today; in other 

words, there are 7,000 or something people that should not be in 

these spaces technically. 

I hope both sides of the aisle, the leaders, will work with the jurisdictions and the Members to get some space. We are just shot 

with space; I mean, people call every day, and working conditions 

are not good. 

The other thing, too, Members’ accounts are probably, frankly, 

authorized at more than we should have because we didn’t live 

within what the appropriators gave us. 

There is only so much we can do. If the House budget is flatlined, 

and we now have the world technology, millions more people are, 

luckily, able to see what is going on and see the Congress interact, 

but that also creates the need for staff to respond to that. And I 

just think that, we need to watch, because we are going to do a disservice to people if we don’t—aren’t able to pay people, if we can’t 

do the student loan program, all the things that I think we need 

to do to retain good people. So I am hoping it is not flatlined. 

Mr. FRANK. I will do everything I can. No one has ever complained to me that letters were answered too quickly or the problem received too much attention or the committee staff worked too 

closely with them on the problem that brought their attention. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions? 

The gentlelady from California, do you have any questions? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am sorry I am late, Mr. Chairman. Our newest 

Member of the California delegation was just sworn in, and obviously the Californians were a little bit delayed on the floor. 

I don’t know what has been asked. It seems to me, from what 

I have read—and I guess this is a question—that this committee 

has done precisely what the expectation is in terms of the one-third 

position, one-third budget, control over the one-third for the minority; is that correct? 

Mr. FRANK. Yes. I just said the chairman has been absolutely 

fair, and we have had zero procedural issues. And we have our control over one-third of the staff plus, frankly, in many ways, the 

staff has worked very closely together. There are some issues on 

which we differ, and we have a structure that allows us to differ 

on those issues in an open process without in any way impinging 

on the relationship. 

So this has been, I think, a model for how committees should 

function, thanks to the chairman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, that sounds great. The only question I would 

have is, and it is not about disagreement with the two of you—and 

29

this has come up with several other committees—how is your space 

situation? 

Mr. FRANK. Yeah, I mentioned that. It is awful, but it is nobody’s 

fault. The problem is that our staff is spread out so much; I think 

I am in four different buildings. There are people in Rayburn, Cannon, one of those buildings I never go to—which one is that—Ford 

or something——

Ms. LOFGREN. I like the Cannon Building. 

Mr. FRANK. Well, Cannon is okay, but it is those buildings back 

by the highway, I think we have got one in the sewer plant. 

Mr. OXLEY. By the way, I don’t think the staff minds necessarily 

that separation from the minority. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is all my questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ranking Member, do you have any questions? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Yes, thank you very much. 

Good morning to both of you. And I suppose with this type of 

collegiality that you feel very good, Mr. Ranking Member, about 

your one-third allocation, one-third, and the ability to perhaps request your equipment with the chairman. If not, just—you do it autonomously? 

Mr. FRANK. Yes. And including, by the way—staff travel is fairly 

done because there is a need for staff to travel. I mean, all aspects 

of it are done in an entirely fair manner. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Okay. Well, I suppose that is about 

all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. I thank both of the Members, 

I appreciate it. 

Next, we will move on to Small Business. 

I appreciate the chairman being here. If you would like to begin. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD A. MANZULLO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority 

Member, members of the Committee on House Administration. I 

am pleased to testify in support of the funding request to cover the 

expenses of legislative initiatives, studies, technical upgrades, and 

oversight investigations of the Committee on Small Business for 

2005 and 2006 in the amounts of $2,987,331 and $3,046,727 respectively. 

Before I enter into the substance of my remarks I want to make 

three quick points. First, the Small Business Committee received 

the third-lowest funding increase of all committees in the 108th 

Congress, and we maximized the use of every dollar allocated to us 

in 2003 and 2004. 

Second, the overall funding level in H. Res. 109 is 5.3 percent 

less than the committee’s proposal from the 108th Congress, so we 

are being very frugal with this request. 

Third, because of the committee’s small size, any increase we get 

will not substantially affect the overall committee funding resolution. For its relatively small staff and budget, the Small Business 

30

Committee continues to be very productive in accomplishing many 

positive results for small businesses across the country.

Our committee will continue its role as an advocate for small 

businesses, ensuring that small business interests are defined and 

considered during all stages of the development of public policy. 

Legislatively, the committee will focus on reducing the regulatory 

and paperwork burdens imposed upon small business in 2005. Next 

year, we will work on reauthorizing the programs of the SBA. 

In addition, the committee plans to look at other critical issues, 

including but not limited to increasing small business participation 

in Federal procurement. We have had numerous hearings on that, 

and we have been able to, on a bipartisan basis, bust many large 

bundling contracts of the different agencies into smaller pieces so 

that small businesses are not smoked by one or two large industries across the country. 

We are working on tax relief for small business and improving 

small business access to capital, including revitalization of small 

business companies participating securities program. And finally, 

the committee will continue to focus on revitalizing our Nation’s 

manufacturing base. 

This is the only committee in Congress that has hearings concentrating on restoring our manufacturing bases. As the chairman 

knows, coming from Ohio, this country has lost nearly 3 million 

manufacturing jobs. And I hold this up proudly, I was named Mr. 

Fix-It in The Manufacturer magazine that put my picture on there 

because they recognize the effort that we have been making to try 

to restore the manufacturing base. 

And one of the things that we want to do is to hire a consultant, 

which would be much cheaper than a full-time employee. The person we want to hire just did this report on the metal casting industry, which has a defense project in the Speaker’s district. His and 

mine have a lot of boundaries that have been adversely impacted. 

So what we have been doing is trying to bring to the attention of 

the Defense Department the absolute necessity to use its procurement powers to buy from American companies to help restore our 

base. 

The committee has a long history of bipartisan cooperation, a tradition that I fully intend to continue. Since Republicans gained the 

majority, minority has received one-third of the committee staff 

slots and control over one-third of the personnel budget, and I intend to maintain these ratios during the 109th Congress. By comparison, the 103rd Congress, Republicans—then in the minority—

received 22 percent in 1993 and 25 percent in 1994 of the personnel budgets. 

Of the majority staff positions, three are administrative and nonpartisan in nature. As in the past, the committee will see that the 

resource needs of the minority are met. In fact, with the exception 

of the server—which we just found out about today and we will replace that, obviously, for the minority—all request needs have been 

incorporated into our budget funding resolution. 

As with my predecessor, I try to run this committee in a fiscally 

responsible manner, as in the 107th and 108th Congresses, and I 

intend to carry on the tradition to ensure that resources are available to support the committee’s mission. 

31

While the proposed spending increase percentage in H. Res. 109 

may appear large at first, this committee is still the second smallest in terms of personnel and funding out of any standing committee in the House of Representatives, yet this committee oversees 

and has direct legislative responsibility for not just the $600 million spent on the SBA, which leverages $25 billion to small businesses, but we also have jurisdiction for the $65.5 billion spent by 

Federal agencies to purchase goods and services from small businesses across the country. 

Few know that the dollar value of our prime legislative jurisdiction is greater than some other committees that have a larger staff 

and a higher budget. This request would also bring the Small Business Committee finally over the level it was funded at in the 103rd 

Congress. The committee received significant cuts in 1995, which 

was more, in terms of the percentage decrease, than any other committee received except one. 

The committee has made a conscious effort to upgrade and budget for the needs of both the majority and minority. We want to ensure that the actions and resources of the committee are accessible 

to the small business community, we will do that by enhancing our 

e-mail technology and our photocopying and our computer technology. H. Res. 109 reflects the projected workload as described in 

the oversight plan, that has always been sensitive to and supportive of the minority. 

We would respectfully ask for your support in the funding resolution that is outlined in H. Res. 109. 

[The statement of Mr. Manzullo follows:]

32


Insert graphic folio 69 20927A.008
33


Insert graphic folio 70 20927A.009
34

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And we will go to the ranking member from New York. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Ney, Ranking Democratic Member Millender-McDonald, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify on the budget request for the Committee on Small Business. 

Oftentimes, while the Committee on Small Business may not be 

thought of as glamorous, we have one of the most important jobs 

in Congress, protecting and advocating for this Nation’s small businesses. Whether it is drafting legislation that takes their concern 

into account or making sure small businesses have the tools they 

need to succeed, the Committee on Small Business needs to be 

properly equipped, adequately staffed and fully funded. 

Unfortunately, during my tenure as Ranking Democratic Member, this has not been the case. Our allocation is the smallest of 

any committee, and when we only receive minor funding increases, 

it has a drastic effect. Nevertheless, the committee has risen to 

meet the challenges, and I would like to congratulate the members 

and staff for working against the insurmountable odds. 

This most recent budget is 5.3 percent less than the submission 

for the 108th Congress, which, as you will recall during the last 

congressional hearing, I fully supported. The intent of that proposal 

was to close the gap on the historic funding shortfalls. Unfortunately, last Congress we received well below the average allocation 

provided to all the committees during the 108th Congress. 

I urge the Committee on House Administration to consider funding us more at the level we requested last Congress; and I would 

like to comment on specific areas I feel this committee should recognize, staff salaries and expenses. 

While Chairman Manzullo is asking for 16.7 percent more than 

the previous allocation, it is simply not enough, as we are still trying to recover from the 104th, 106th and 108th Congress shortfalls. 

The chairman’s current budget includes a request for an additional slot, which I will strongly encourage the Committee on 

House Administration to consider. After all, the Small Business 

Committee has the smallest budget and lowest number of staff. 

Adding just one more slot would greatly increase productivity. The 

minority would use this slot for the full-time professional staffer to 

handle SBA’s entrepreneurial development programs. Due to current staff limitations, these duties are now being covered by three 

individuals. 

Equipment: With such a small staff, having the technology that 

allows us to get the work done is imperative. The chairman’s budget states that 10 computers will be replaced in 2005, with another 

10 the following year. The minority’s server, which dates back to 

the year 2000, also needs to be replaced. According to our vendor 

and HIR, our server currently runs on Windows NT4, which is an 

operating system that both Microsoft and HIR are soon to discontinue supporting if they haven’t already. 

35

At the moment, we have used about two-thirds of the storage 

space on this server, and our vendor has indicated that the remaining space will not take us through another Congress. Replacing the 

computers and server as soon as possible obviously is our priority. 

While I recognize that these issues—and this is regarding the 

committee facilities—do not fall under House Administration, since 

there is no specific entity or venue where it can be heard, I feel 

they should be raised here. Currently, the Small Business Committee has two hearing room facilities, one located at 2360 Rayburn 

and the other at 311 Cannon. Room 2360 Rayburn has historically 

been our main hearing room, and it is in dire need of renovations. 

The room does not have enough seats for our members, the sound 

system needs to be upgraded, and it is in worn condition. 

While 311 Cannon did undergo historic restoration last Congress, 

it fell short in several areas. It still doesn’t have adequate seating 

for committee members, as is the case with the Rayburn hearing 

room; we are at least 10 seats short. At a recent hearing that was 

well attended, members on my side of the aisle simply saw the 

space constraints and left. 

The sound system needs to be upgraded, as with 2360 Rayburn. 

When we have hearings Members cannot hear witnesses and vice 

versa. Room 311 Cannon has no office space or facilities, and no 

room for staff. We need at least one functioning hearing room that 

allows all members to attend and participate. 

Another critical need is proper and adequate office space. While 

I know we are under real space constraints, the minority has to 

work with less than an attractive work area, 407 square feet, 

which is inefficient and creates a difficult work environment. 

When it comes to staffing needs and we must choose between experienced staff and someone who is bright and has potential, we select the candidate that fits within our salary’s constraint. This requires training from myself and senior staff. While the committee 

has a second office at 559 Ford, setting up in the Ford Building 

does not meet training demands, it limits staff growth, and creates 

problems. 

In the past, there have been conversations with the chairman’s 

office about this issue, but no solution has been found. It would be 

my hope that this committee, along with other entities, will help. 

The bottom line is, we do not need two hearing rooms; realistically, we need one functioning hearing room and office space to 

make conditions workable. 

In closing, Chairman Ney and Ranking Member MillenderMcDonald, I thank you again for this opportunity. I know that 

when budget submissions are made, there is the expectation to always ask for more, but Chairman Manzullo’s budget request is austere. If you choose to fund the committee without Chairman 

Manzullo’s current request, I will then respectfully request an effort to maximize these limited resources, giving the minority a full 

third of the entire budget request. If House Administration fails to 

fund the Small Business Committee at an adequate level, we will 

continue to fall behind, and that will be a disservice to our members, staff and this Nation’s small businesses. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Vela ́zquez follows:]

36


Insert graphic folio 77 20927A.010
37


Insert graphic folio 78 20927A.011
38


Insert graphic folio 79 20927A.012
39

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank both of the Members for testifying today. And I think the committee has also done an important—and I know sometimes people might get mad at the chairman 

here or there because he will publicly say some things, which I 

think are appropriate to say, on manufacturing. Sometimes people 

don’t like to hear that, but I think you have done the right thing 

by mentioning our manufacturing base. 

We have lost 269,000 jobs in Ohio on the manufacturing level. 

So I commend you for speaking out and continuing to speak on that 

issue because it has got to be constantly put out there publicly. 

So I appreciate the work that you have done, both of the Members. 

On the space—we have been talking about this all day long with 

everybody, and there is a building commission report in March of 

this year that will come out, and eventually Congress has just got 

to bite the bullet and make some decent working situations. 

We upgraded Cannon because you have two hearing rooms. I 

don’t expect that a reconfiguration of space will happen in time to 

have one, but what we should pursue is to upgrade the other hearing room. Our CAO—I know the appropriators’ budget last year 

was so tight he was talking about completely zeroing out any upgrades—it is not his fault, he had to do something—so we are hoping this year to use a little flexibility, because we have had a goal 

for quite a few years to get all these rooms brought up to speed, 

and we need to complete that. 

It has been 10 years of trying to do that, and I think it needs 

to be completed so every room is upgraded technologically; that is 

how people know what you are doing, you communicate with them. 

So we hope we can at least get that other room done. I assume—

Cannon has been upgraded. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. But it is not big enough to have seats for every 

member. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Questions. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. 

Mr. Chairman, in speaking about, as you have just spoken, about 

the building commission report, I am hearing that the ranking 

member part of your staff is at the Ford Building; am I correct on 

that? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Right. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Is there any way, Mr. Chairman, we 

can revisit the ranking member staff in the Ford Building? I think 

you said earlier this morning that that is really not adequate for 

them to be so far away from the beaten path of this committee. 

The Small Business Committee, while you have been shortchanged, as you perceive and has been outlined so often in this 

budget, you are really the driving force on creating more jobs in 

this country than any other committee. Small businesses are the 

creation of jobs, and we can ill afford to continue to shortchange 

you. 

But in doing so, Mr. Chairman, my question is, in listening to 

the ranking member, how much input does she have on the budget 

process before you submit it to this committee? 

40

Mr. MANZULLO. We incorporated all of the requests. The only 

thing that we left out, I believe, was the last-minute request for a 

$1,700 server by the minority. Of course, we will honor that. Whatever cost the server is, I guess it is more than $1,700. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. And that will be taken care of? 

Mr. MANZULLO. Yes. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Well, Ranking Member, if I may, I just would 

like to make——

Mr. MANZULLO. Assuming we get our budget approved at the 

level that we need. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Well, I am happy to hear that you are adding 

the server as part of my request, but I would just like to make sure 

that people understand that having input into a budget process requires having meaningful conversation between the chairman and 

the minority and both staffs. 

It just is really sad that I didn’t have a copy of the budget submission before it was submitted, once again; and we have to go 

through House Administration to obtain a copy of the budget submission. So I do not consider that to have meaningful input into 

the budget submission process. 

And I am happy to hear that you offered to replace the server, 

and I think that the chairman has just given an excellent example 

of how helpful consultations could be. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. You know, Mr. Chairman, yesterday 

I had a meeting with the minority leader before we convened this 

hearing today, and this Chair has been extremely sensitive to the 

fact that the two-third/one-third ratio is adequately done between 

the two of you, and that the ranking member gets the ability and 

the freedom to have input in the budget deliberations between you 

two before we get your submission. I am hearing, as Ms. Vela ́zquez 

has said, she does not have that. 

I hear you loud and clear, Mr. Chairman, that you need the 17.8 

percent increase that you have asked us for. But in the event, 

given the budget constraints, you do not get that, will you hold the 

minority harmless and maintain, still, the two-thirds/one-third 

ratio that we are suggesting should be done? 

Mr. MANZULLO. Yes. We have done that since the beginning. It 

gets lowered across the board on it if we don’t get what we are asking. 

I like the fact that Ms. Vela ́zquez says that the budget I requested is austere, which it is; we think it is bare bones. And Ms. 

Vela ́zquez is right, with this committee, we have taken on some 

monstrous lifts because we have become known as the committee 

of last resort. When little guys out there are getting beat up all 

over the place, they come to us because nobody else will talk to 

them because their issues are so minor. 

We just got into something, Mr. Chair, if I may just take a 

minute. I have not even had a chance to discuss this with Ms. 

Vela ́zquez because it just happened yesterday. The head of the U.S. 

Women’s Chamber of Commerce came in to see us, Terry Walker. 

I don’t know if you know her, she is a former music conductor who 

runs a five-person shop here in Washington. It is a relatively new 

organization and I have linked them up with a lady from the Afghanistan embassy. And I said, Let’s start a program? I haven’t 

41

talked to Nydia, but that is how new it is—that the U.S. House of 

Representatives Small Business Committee would be working with 

small businesswomen in Iraq and Afghanistan on a cooperative 

basis to teach them how to be entrepreneurs, to offer them whatever resources we have. 

We believe that the key to freedom in those countries is empowering women to go into small businesses, because that breaks the 

back of the dictatorships by giving women the right to vote; they 

are no longer second-class citizens in those countries. 

This is a really exciting project, and it is unique, but it is the 

type of thing that we do in the Small Business Committee. We are 

there to help people all over the place. And this would be our role, 

at least internationally. It is not going to require an additional 

staffperson. It will still take some of our attention, and that is one 

of the reasons I believe that Ms. Vela ́zquez has even a broader vision of where she wants to take this committee, if we would have 

more money. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Sure. And I just would like for the committee 

not to have any confusion regarding my participation in terms of 

the budget. We get one-third of the salary, but we do not get onethird of everything else. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I am sorry, you don’t get one-third 

of what? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Of anything else, regarding equipment or any of 

the other expenses. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I am very fortunate to serve on 

Small Business as a subcommittee ranking member, and I do know 

that oftentimes when I do ask for my own consultant to this subcommittee, that I don’t have one; and that is a concern of mine, Mr. 

Chairman and Ranking Member, that the slots are not allocated, 

it seems, commensurate with subcommittee ranking members. 

So perhaps they were not supposed to be that way; and if you 

can share that with me, Mr. Chairman, or the ranking member, because oftentimes I do have to use the consultant to the full committee when I have had traveling. 

Mr. MANZULLO. We have never hired a consultant before. The 

person that I want to hire obviously would be cheaper than a fulltime employee, but her expertise is in the economics of manufacturing, and it goes right to the core. 

I know you have lost a tremendous number of manufacturing 

jobs in your district. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Tremendous. 

Mr. MANZULLO. So has Ms. Vela ́zquez. And it is a very esoteric 

area of manufacturing economics, and so that is our goal, to pull 

her in to be able to have the ammunition to give the Pentagon, to 

demonstrate to the Pentagon that they have to keep those jobs in 

the United States to maintain our defense. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Well, good for you. 

And my last question is, hiring that consultant, would that be a 

shared slot, or how would that go? 

Mr. MANZULLO. Well, it wouldn’t be a slot; it is not considered 

a slot. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. So you will just be hiring her for her 

expertise? 

42

Mr. MANZULLO. That is correct. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any additional questions? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Yes. If you get your requests, there will be two additional slots for the committee? 

Mr. MANZULLO. That is correct. 

Mr. BRADY. And will the minority get one slot? 

Mr. MANZULLO. It will be one each. 

Mr. BRADY. And I heard somewhere that the minority is having 

a problem making payroll with the slots that you have; is that 

true? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. No. Well, we are under a lot of constraints. We 

have to share responsibilities, with my personal office included. 

Mr. BRADY. Well, my problem is being in the House of the United 

States Congress and hiring people and having a problem paying 

them. I think we need to fix that in any way we can. I hope you 

fix that. 

And the other thing is travel. Is travel equally one-third, the 

travel time that you——

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. No, only salaries. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Whatever equipment requests and travel requests, we honor; it has never been a problem. 

Mr. BRADY. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, just one question. 

Back to—Mr. Chairman, you are saying that you do honor the 

travel requests. How often? Because now with the whole notion of 

this economic downturn in terms of the country, a lot of the small 

businesses are requesting that we have field hearings so that they 

can have input as to their inability to get contracts from some of 

the agencies here in Washington. 

They do not have the money to come to us. How are we going 

to ensure that we have more travel and that both you and the 

ranking member will have that ability to travel to areas where 

small businesses want to have input? 

Mr. MANZULLO. Well, as the gentlelady knows, Rep. Pat Toomey 

in the last Congress, went to your congressional district for a field 

hearing. And it is not the money, it is the time constraints that 

make it difficult to have even more field hearings. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Because there are so many ports 

now that are requesting to engage in small business contracts, and 

so it is important that we travel to these port areas so that we can 

then ensure that that input from those small businesses are given 

to us so that we can come back and deal with the agencies that 

should and could offer contracts to small businesses. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Well, I agree with you. We sent two of our staffers to Guam, I just could not get out there. Congresswoman 

Bordallo is really getting beat up by the Navy, and I hope they are 

listening to this broadcast. Instead of going to American ship repair 

people in Guam, they are going to people in South Korea and 

Japan. 

That is the type of stuff that we get involved in, Mr. Chairman, 

and it is over and over and over and over again. The Department 

43

of Defense goes out of its way to deny jobs and procurement opportunities to Americans, and that is what is crushing our defense industrial base. We just got into a big fight with the Navy over—in 

fact, it still goes on—with the printed circuit board industry, sending jobs to China for sensitive technologies; and we had to raise all 

kinds of hell with them. 

And then, finally, the Navy said, Well, I think we ought to consider bringing that stuff back to America. And every single day in 

our office we have these little guys coming in that are actually getting creamed in our manufacturing base because somebody at the 

Department of Defense uses that old canard ‘‘best value’’ and decides that they are going to ship something out to another port, another job overseas, without even checking to see its impact on the 

defense industrial base. 

And we have spent so much time on that, and we have had some 

good success on that, and that is why we need even more money, 

as Ms. Vela ́zquez says, to continue the fight on it. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. The money is important, if I may, but I think 

that in order for the minority to fulfill our responsibility that we 

should be given control not only of one-third of the salary, but 

every other expense, that we do not have to go to the majority to 

ask for authorization to go someplace to do a field hearing, and 

then 100,000 questions will be asked. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, in all due respect, it 

seems that that is the practice of all these committees, that the 

ranking member has to go to the chairman for that request; but I 

would like to think that the chairman would be obliging in honoring the request of the ranking member in asking for the traveling 

or whatever. 

It seems like that is the practice of all committees, that they do 

have to engage in this request through the chairman, but the chairman should then, I would like to think, honor those requests. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. As I say, this is my first real day on the committee, and so I guess I just need to express some concern about 

what I am hearing here. 

It is my understanding, based on our discussions and hearings 

with the other committees this morning, that the minority is—

under our policies, is basically entitled to a third of the budget, a 

third of the salary slots and control over their third. Except as to 

how they might vary, the chairman and ranking member could 

agree to do something differently if it works better for them. 

Listening to Congresswoman Vela ́zquez, it sounds like, if the 

budget was submitted before she even saw it, obviously they 

haven’t agreed to something. And we do this collegially, as we 

should. 

But if the ranking member would prefer to have the arrangement that Mr. Oxley and Mr. Frank have, I think that the ranking 

member has a right to do that. And I guess the question is, is that 

the case; and if so, I think we need to have some different understanding here, because otherwise we will not—you know, we will 

be holding hands on the overall budget process. 

Ms. Vela ́zquez, is it——

44

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I wish we could have the same type of relationship that the Financial Services Committee operates under. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I guess the question, then, for the chairman 

is, if you haven’t agreed to vary from that policy, then I think you 

are obligated to provide a third of the budget and a third of the 

slots and control over that third to the minority. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Ninety-three percent of the budget is salaries, 7 

percent is equipment and travel and everything else. Ultimately, I 

am responsible if we tilt on equipment and travel, and that is why 

somebody has to have authority over that. 

We asked them in the budget process. We are given the list of 

equipment and whatever the minority wanted on that, and as I 

said, we got all of that, with the exception of the server that we 

found out about this morning, on it. So we believe that they had 

sufficient input on it. 

And what are you going to do when 93 percent is salaried——

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, if I can, I think there is a communication 

problem here, because the chairman thinks there was consultation 

and the ranking member thinks there wasn’t; and obviously there’s 

a communication issue here. I think that—you know, I don’t know 

what the process is, but I would have a concern about supporting 

a final budget unless this can get straightened out between them. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. If I may, having e-mails back and forth from 

staff to staff, that doesn’t represent having meaningful participation and consultation in the budget process. 

And he talks about 93 percent represents salary, well, we are almost there. The other 7 percent could represent an obstacle for me 

to fulfill my obligation and my responsibility as the ranking on this 

committee. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, my suggestion, I mean, as a newcomer 

here—I mean, we are going to meet again next week; maybe we 

could ask these two individuals to find time to sort through this, 

and then we could be reassured next week. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I think we have done everything 

not only that the law requires us to do, but a matter of what we 

have to do on it. You are going to have the minority—you are going 

to have the majority; that is just the way it is. 

But we have been good stewards of the money that has been 

given to us. We have never denied the minority a travel request or 

an equipment request. Somebody has got to be in charge of that 

last 7 percent, so the budget doesn’t tilt, and the chairman——

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Can I ask a question here, Mr. Chairman? Is it 

not true that other committees are run where one-third is given 

full control to the minority? 

The CHAIRMAN. It depends. There is no rule or obligation—if we 

use the words that minority is entitled to, there is no rule, obligation of the one-third. 

A goal we have had—each committee, does things differently——

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Yeah. But do we have committees that run that 

way, where the majority trusts the minority to be able to control 

one-third of the budget? 

The CHAIRMAN. The one bottom line, which Chairman Manzullo 

has been making—and I will answer your question, but at the end 

45

of the day, the chair of the committee is responsible for the signoffs, because—I will give you an example. 

If all of a sudden you just say, ‘‘Here, here is the money and here 

is the travel money, and if people would have hearings all over the 

place’’ and there was criticism of, ‘‘Why did you have this hearing 

out here,’’ the Chair is still obligated—responsible, for that travel. 

So that is why even we here will sign off on the travel, and have 

to, because at the end of the day I am responsible for it. 

Now, committees are different, each committee, We give onethird of the budget; and that is what we do here. Each committee 

is different. So sometimes when it says one-third, the ranking 

members will get the one-third, but it is done in different ways. 

Some of the Chairs feel that they need to sign off on things because 

ultimately they are legally liable for it. 

Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Not that you would ever need help answering a question, but maybe to give a little more insight, it doesn’t always happen one-third. But when it doesn’t happen one-third, it is at the request of the ranking member and the chairman; it is their agreement. When they come in front of us and say, We are okay with 

not getting the one-third, they are both saying it. We are not hearing that here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, that is not what we are hearing here. I think 

there is a problem here, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MANZULLO. You know, somebody has to be in charge of this 

committee; you have got to have a chairman. One person ultimately has to make the final decision on this. I have done the best 

I could on this. 

Ms. Vela ́zquez wants one-third of the 7 percent. I am not willing 

to give that to her because ultimately what happens in the case 

where they need more equipment than we do, that might exceed 

the one-third. 

In the last 2 years, the minority overran by $1,000 or so their 

budget on personnel. And we had banked some money to be able 

to pick that up. 

This is just the way the committees are run. 

The CHAIRMAN. Could I interject something here? In defense of 

both of you, from your different perspectives, 4 years ago I sat personally with both of you in the same room, and separately with 

both of you, and we talked about a lot of issues when we were coming to the one-third. 

I think a lot of the problem that you might have is underfunding 

in the sense of, if there was a little bit more money, it would make 

it much easier to upgrade some of the equipment. I think that is 

a problem. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, while I do agree 

with you on that, it has been a gentlemen’s agreement or a gentleman and lady’s agreement, given our minority leader, that it 

would be a one-third, one-third and control with reference to the 

nonprofessional and nonstaffing issues. 

We would like to think that this is going to happen, and the one 

thing that I would request of you, Mr. Chairman, is that there is 

meaningful input on this budget by the ranking member and that 

46

e-mails—it was a distinction yesterday, when speaking with the 

Leader of the House, that she wants Member-to-Member conversations on the budget process and not through e-mails from staff to 

staff, because we just sometimes don’t get it right when it goes 

from staff to staff. 

Mr. MANZULLO. If that had not been acceptable to the ranking 

minority members, you could have called me or just stopped by my 

office. The door is always open. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. We are going to stop this, but I 

would like to say again, Mr. Chairman, when we look at this, perhaps we can look at the increase, whatever we can, to this budget. 

Because they have been——

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD [continuing]. Shortchanged over the 

Congresses, and one cannot operate when you have such a minute 

budget to begin with. 

Mr. MANZULLO. We have fabulous staff. These are just great people. Ms. Vela ́zquez has some of the most talented people on her 

staff, and I do on mine. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. But they won’t stay with you if you 

cannot give them the salary that is commensurate with that. 

Mr. MANZULLO. We lose them. We lose them. That is correct. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, just a final comment. I just think 

that, speaking for myself, that what we want to do is go to the floor 

with our proposal and have bipartisan support and—because that 

is important. This committee is like being in the local government, 

which I did for so long, you know, where there is no really Republican or Democratic pothole. I mean, you go together to get it done. 

Key to having that bipartisanship is either having the minority 

rule of thumb, where you get one-third, one-third and control, or 

agreement to do something else. We have had, until this committee, either an out-front agreement by both the chairman and 

the ranking member that they had agreed to do something else or, 

in the case of Financial Services, they went to the default of onethird salary, one-third budget and control of the one-third. 

So I think, if we want to have a kind of a bipartisan support, we 

are going to need that in each and every committee. I am hopeful 

that by the time we finish these hearings we be assured that either 

the default position or the agreement has been reached, because 

otherwise I don’t think we will have bipartisan support. 

I thank the chairman for recognizing that. 

Mr. MANZULLO. We actually get along a lot better than what appears today. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Yes, we do. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have talked with both of you on several occasions. We appreciate that. Thank you very much. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Image is everything. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Now we will go to the patiently waiting Chair and ranking member of Rules. 

I want to welcome our distinguished chairman of Rules, Mr. 

Dreier, and Congresswoman Slaughter, ranking member, who also 

gets a lot of credit on genetic testing, on the side issue for the Genetic Testing Ban bill. I will give you credit for working on that. 

47

Mr. Dreier. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID DREIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Since you are talking about a side issue, let me congratulate this 

committee with whom we worked closely, Ms. Millender-McDonald 

and Mr. Brady and Mrs. Miller, and getting 322 votes on our continuity issue on the House floor this past week. It was a great bipartisan victory and again underscoring what we are doing here. 

Let me say again it is a great honor for me to be here with the 

very distinguished—I will just say thanks again for your work on 

the continuity thing, so I can have that for the record if it didn’t 

get in. 

It is a great honor to be able to work so closely with my very 

good friend and colleague, the distinguished ranking member, Ms. 

Slaughter, on a wide range of issues; and it is clear that we on occasion have disagreements as we emerge from the Rules Committee. But we do seek to find areas of agreement; and, frankly, 

the measure that is being considered on the floor of the House 

right now is a rule which is just passing and has enjoyed strong 

bipartisan support, as we have taken the concerns of most the minority and the majority into consideration. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to explain what 

the Rules Committee does. It is probably a question that is asked 

of you. It is asked of me regularly. People ask what the Rules Committee is. 

It is the Speaker’s committee, and it is the mechanism by which 

the leadership controls the floor and moves our agenda. The committee is at once the House’s traffic cop, its triage unit and its ultimate first responder. We have organized the routine business of 

legislating and are there when needed to respond to crises, no matter from where they originate. 

In addition, the committee’s responsibility is to provide for consideration of legislation. The committee is also responsible for a 

myriad of institutional matters, from ensuring the ability of the 

House to operate during a disaster, to monitoring the effectiveness 

of budget control mechanisms in the House Rules, to drafting the 

opening day rules package. 

Among the biggest changes to the committee rules in the 109th 

Congress was the establishment—and I am sure if you haven’t 

heard from them you will—of a new standing Committee on Homeland Security, which was an extraordinarily challenging and difficult task that we undertook, dealing with the jurisdiction of 10 

different committees. 

Mr. Chairman, virtually every major piece of legislation comes to 

us in the Rules Committee and goes to the floor with the special 

rule. In the 106th Congress, the committee reported nearly 270 

measures; and in the 107th and 108th Congresses about 200 measures were reported from the Rules Committee to the full House. 

The Committee on Rules has not sought major increases over the 

past 8 years, from the 105th through the 108th Congresses. In fact, 

the total average rate of increase for all committees was approximately 32 percent. During that same period of time, over that 8-

48

year period, the Rules Committee has seen our budget grow by only 

22 percent, nearly a third less than the average for the other committees. 

The committee now finds itself in a situation where we need to 

make a number of investments in both our staff and our resources 

to be able to continue to fulfill that very, very broad, extraordinary 

mission, which I just outlined. For the first time since the 104th 

Congress, the committee has requested that the Speaker lift our 

staff ceiling to 39 staff members from the current 36, providing the 

minority with an additional slot along with the majority’s two additional staff members. The committee’s proposed budget includes a 

3.7 percent increase in the salary category in both 2005 and 2006 

to fund these new positions and provide for cost-of-living merit increases to existing staff. 

The committee is also requesting a sizeable increase in funding 

for equipment in 2005 to facilitate our transition to a new computer equipment vendor. This will allow us to fund maintenance 

costs as part of the purchase price. 

Further, after this initial upgrade, we are planning to shift our 

equipment acquisition model to a 3-year cycle, making these kinds 

of purchases more routine and easier to budget. 

Additionally, the committee is seeking approximately $100,000 in 

both 2005 and 2006 to provide for the development of a software 

application to allow the committee to track amendments in a more 

orderly fashion than we do currently. 

This project will leverage the House’s investment in Microsoft 

technologies, allowing us to provide customized information for different House offices. It is my hope that this project will eventually 

permit Members to file amendments electronically, speeding the access and availability of amendments for everyone. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have always tried to be fair with 

my friends and Ms. Slaughter as the new ranking member. I 

worked in the past, since I have been chairman, with our good 

friend, the late Joe Moakley, and of course over the past several 

years with Mr. Frost, and I am working very closely now with Ms. 

Slaughter. 

Our budget continues the tradition of giving the minority a third 

of the total staff slots allocated along with control over a third of 

the salary funds. For other categories, we have always provided the 

minority whatever equipment they need to fulfill their role. 

We anticipate upgrading the minority’s equipment, along with 

the majorities, and we are working on that. We have allocated 

some additional funding to provide any extra technical support that 

the minority may need, since they don’t have the staff dedicated for 

the purpose of focusing on the equipment used, since we take on 

that responsibility and the majority, obviously, in consultation with 

the minority. 

Again, I have always been willing to work and will continue to 

work strongly with and closely with members of the minority. Mrs. 

Slaughter has been a great partner to work with on these issues 

just in the last couple of months in her new position and as a member of the committee over the past several years. I believe that she 

was a cosponsor of the resolution that we had. 

49

Our measure on this budget passed unanimously from the committee, and I would like to encourage your committee to adopt it. 

I want to express my appreciation in behalf of our great new 

staff director, Hugh Halpern, whom you have worked closely with, 

Mr. Chairman, on a wide range of issues and your staff, Mr. 

Vinovich and others. We appreciate the very close working relationship we have had with the House Administration Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We have always enjoyed great—I 

have known you from Financial Services, and we call him our legal 

eagle over there. We have always enjoyed a good working relationship with the majority and minority staff on that committee. There 

just haven’t been problems. Everything has always been done correctly and everything filed correctly over the years. 

I thank the chairman and ranking member. 

[The statement of Mr. Dreier follows:]

50


Insert graphic folio 106 20927A.013
51


Insert graphic folio 107 20927A.014
52


Insert graphic folio 108 20927A.015
53


Insert graphic folio 109 20927A.016
54

STATEMENT OF HON. LOUISE MCINTOSH SLAUGHTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

YORK 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Ney. Good morning to you and 

Ms. Millender-McDonald and Mr. Brady. 

It is a pleasure to be here this morning with my friend David 

Dreier to present to you our budget request for the Committee on 

rules. David has made a very thorough presentation, with which I 

agree. I only want to touch on a few items. 

Mr. Chairman, the practice of committing a third of the salary 

dollars to the minority when Democrats were in control has held 

us in good standing since 1994. David has continued the practice 

of a nonpartisan administration of the committee and has provided 

us with a third of the committee staff slots and a third of the dollars necessary to fund those slots. 

This amount stated in our request is another modest increase, 

primarily to increase salary issues. As you know, the great majority of our budget—as I am sure everybody’s does—goes to salaries. 

I think I have one of the most dedicated staffs in the House. They 

have specialized knowledge that they have built over the years, 

and we want to go do our best to keep them working here in the 

House. So this budget proposal makes a step in the right direction. 

Historically, the Rules Committee has not asked for the substantial increases in funding that other committees have and as a result may find itself playing catch-up in the area of salaries. 

While I understand the physical restraints in play this year, I 

hope the committee will be generous so that the Rules Committee 

can make up some of that lost ground in regard to staff salary levels. Under the budget request, I will be able to make a modest costof-living adjustment to reward my staff for the great job that they 

do. 

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the increase in staff slots, while 

I support the request for an increase and believe it is justified, I 

must point out that the funding request, which will amount to approximately $32,000 for the minority, will not provide the dollars 

to pay a salary for an additional minority slot. I hope that you and 

the committee will take that into consideration when you consider 

the funding level provided to the Rules Committee. 

I would also like to speak in support of the technology and equipment requests. Many times, the Rules Committee finds itself in the 

rather unique position of being the first committee to receive copies 

of bills and conference reports. The ability to quickly disseminate 

this material to the membership of the House has become an important duty of our Committee and needs the technical resources 

to make that happen. David has assured me that all the minority’s 

technology requests, including computers, will be met, and I thank 

him for that. 

Let me conclude by reiterating that we on the Democrat side of 

the Rules Committee support the request the Chairman and I 

present to you this morning. 

On that note, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to answer any questions you might have. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Slaughter follows:]

55


Insert graphic folio 113 20927A.017
56


Insert graphic folio 114 20927A.018
57


Insert graphic folio 115 20927A.019
58


Insert graphic folio 116 20927A.020
59

The CHAIRMAN. I really don’t have any questions. You have had 

a budget over the years that has been very conservative and austere. You know, times change; electronically, things need up upgraded. You have always been very responsible in the submissions 

of the budget, so I really don’t have any questions. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Yes. I will simply say that it is 

great to hear that you two have a good working relationship. The 

chairman has indicated by his remarks that it is a one-third, onethird, one-third, and that all is working well. 

It is important that you do upgrade the equipment, because people are looking at us across this Nation. One committee Chair had 

even asked that we provide them with the types of screens that we 

have here so that you will be able to—persons will be able to see 

you just outside of your hearing room. 

Mr. DREIER. Ms. Millender-McDonald, if I could respond to that 

quickly to say that Mrs. Slaughter has specifically requested that 

we not have these screens in the Rules Committee. So I just want 

you to know for the record that we have not——

Ms. SLAUGHTER. We don’t have room in there for all of this 

equipment. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Well, I do not want to open Pandora’s box on anything. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. You are going to make me say I really don’t 

want to see myself. I really prefer to remember myself as I was. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mrs. Slaughter, you mentioned, 

though, that, even given the increase in the budget that the chairman has outlined here, that only yields you $32,000 for a staff position. Is that what you are saying? 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. That is right. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Is it for an increase in an already 

current staff or would this be additional? 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. No, these would be additional. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. So you would not really yield a very 

experienced professional of staff. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I think I will not be able to hire anybody for 

that small amount. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Yet the budget that, Mr. Chairman, 

you are providing for us would not have any type of increase in 

that range of salary? 

Mr. DREIER. We do have to add an additional level to it. You are 

certainly welcome. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. That is not what I am aspiring to 

do. I just wanted to know within the constraints of what you have 

given us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I just do want to say that the upgrade in the 

technology is critical. We are called upon, as you point out, to disseminate bills and the information quickly. We really need to upgrade pretty quickly. How long has it been? 

Mr. DREIER. A while. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. It has been several years, I think, since we had 

new computers. 

The CHAIRMAN. Other questions? 

I want to thank both of you for your testimony today. 

60

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much. I hope we helped put you 

back on schedule. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

We move on. Transportation is scheduled. Obviously, they are on 

the floor. We would rather have them there getting that bill 

through than here. 

Agriculture will be next. We have the chairman, Mr. Goodlatte, 

and the ranking member, Mr. Peterson. 

Welcome, and we will start with the chairman. 

Mr. Goodlatte. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Millender-McDonald and members of the 

committee, it is a pleasure to be here today in support of the Agriculture Committee’s 109th budget request with my good friend and 

ranking member Collin Peterson. Collin brings a great deal of energy and enthusiasm to his new position, and I look forward to 

working with him in continuing the Agriculture’s Committee longstanding tradition of bipartisanship. 

Our committee’s primary focus in the 109th Congress will be laying the foundation for the 2007 Omnibus Farm Bill. This legislation, known simply as the Farm Bill, directs U.S. agricultural policies for a 7-year period. 

It is a monumental task. It requires an extensive field hearing 

schedule. These field hearings provide all members of the committee the opportunity to explore the efficacy of current agriculture 

policies in all regions of the country. We are looking for what 

works, what does not and where efforts are being duplicated. The 

last two Farm Bills have managed to move the government from 

in front of the tractor to its side, to more of a partnership. 

The Omnibus Farm Bill encompasses most of the areas under 

the committee’s jurisdiction, a wide range of issues that includes 

farm programs, forestry, food stamps, pesticides and commodities 

trading regulation, rural development and the farm credit system. 

In order to properly prepare this legislation, we are asking for 

one additional staff person. It will be an administrative, nonpartisan, assistant clerk position. Since we have been operating at 

the staff level set by the Speaker in 1995, this is a modest and necessary request. 

With the exception of our travel budget request, which will fund 

our expanded field hearing schedule, the balance of our budget categories reflects necessary and minimal increases which are the result of our increased workload or simple inflationary costs. 

It is my hope that you will recognize that the Agriculture Committee has a long history of fiscal responsibility. Our committee’s 

tradition of harmonious relations and fair play between the majority and minority reaches back 2 decades under the control of both 

parties. We intend to continue that tradition and ask that you 

grant us the funds to do the job at hand.

61

I thank you for your time and consideration. 

I want to thank the Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the Chair. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:]

62


Insert graphic folio 123 20927A.021
63


Insert graphic folio 124 20927A.022
64

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Peterson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a statement which isn’t here, so I will do what I do a lot 

of times. I will wing it. 

So I appreciate the chance to be here; and I look forward to 

working with my good friend, Mr. Goodlatte, in a bipartisan matter 

on the Agriculture Committee, as we always have. We appreciate, 

Mr. Chairman, your leadership; and we congratulate Ms. 

Millender-McDonald for her elevation to the ranking member of the 

Committee and look forward to working with all of you on the 

Committee over the years. 

As the chairman said, we have a lot of things to work on in the 

Committee, primarily getting ready for the Farm Bill debate, which 

will take place in 2007. I was involved in putting together the 2002 

Farm Bill. We went through the same kind of process during that 

time, and it takes a lot of work and a lot of effort to get around 

the country. 

The issues that we have in Agriculture really are not Democrat/

Republican issues. Usually, they are between commodities, between 

regions, between different kinds of interests in agriculture. 

In 2002, we were able to get to a point where nobody liked the 

bill, but everybody could live with it, and that is kind of how we 

have to put together the farm bills. So I support the request for the 

resources so that we can do that process. 

The other thing that I would point out is—I believe I am right 

on this—that out of the 45 members of the House Agriculture Committee, I think there are only six members that have been there 

for more than one Farm Bill. So we do have, you know, responsibility to get our members out around the country so that they can 

be up to speed when we get ready to go that. 

Over the years, the procedure in the Agriculture Committee has 

been to share the staff on a one-third/two-thirds basis, which has 

been, I guess, the way they have done that, I guess, the last number of years. 

As I understand it, we have committees that are moving in the 

direction of not just having a one-third/two-thirds split on salaries 

but actually splitting the committee budget one-third for the minority, one-third for the majority and that the minority would have 

control and say over their one-third of the resources. So the chairman and I have been discussing this and talking about it, but at 

this point we haven’t been able to come to a resolution of that situation. 

I feel like we have a new situation, my coming into this position, 

and I think that we ought to move in the direction that some of 

the other committees have moved. So I am still of the opinion that 

we ought to split this entire budget one-third/two-thirds and with 

the minority be able to control our part of the resources. 

So, in spite of the fact that I support the overall budget, I am 

not here today to support the budget for the committee, because we 

have not resolved this issue. I hope that we will be able to resolve 

65

it as we move through the process, but we haven’t been able to do 

it yet at this point. 

So, again, I appreciate your leadership, Mr. Chairman and the 

ranking member, the other members, and look forward to working 

with you and with the chairman as we move through this process. 

[The statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]

66


Insert graphic folio 128 20927A.023
67

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you so much. Thank you 

both so much for being here. 

It has been a practice of mine in this short 2 months that I have 

been here—and congratulations to you, Mr. Peterson, for your position on the committee—to kind of check with the leadership to 

make sure that—what her requests are. I am providing the answers for that. 

Mr. Goodlatte, I know that there has been a principle of this 

committee to have the one-third, one-third and control. I am now 

concerned that that is not what I have heard over the last 24 hours 

as to Mr. Peterson’s position. 

My question to you is that, while perhaps previous ranking members have not engaged in this on a very forceful nature, would you 

be willing to now come back to the principle that has been approved by this gentlemen/gentlelady’s agreement of both your leader and my leader to have the one-third, one-third control? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, Ms. Millender-McDonald, thank you. The 

fact of the matter is that we have some concerns, and we have 

some ongoing discussions with Mr. Peterson, and I would not be 

prepared to say at this time that I would agree to that. 

Quite frankly, if you look at the expenditures by the committee, 

the minority has received well over one-third of the payments in 

each of the last 2 years while I have been serving as chairman of 

the committee. 

In 2003, they received $221,000 in administrative expenses, expenditures for their benefit of that amount. They would have received under the one-third split only $127,000, almost $95,000 less. In 2004, $323,561 was expended for their benefit. They would have received $116,000, or almost $200,000 less, or only about onethird of the amount that we actually expended. 

Now part of this comes from the fact that, while we do split the 

salary portion of the expenses, we have on the Republican side expended less than we have needed, and we have used some of that 

additional resource to bring them up to what we think is the appropriate level of technological capability with the equipment that we 

have purchased for them. We think that it is important for us to 

continue to do that, and we think that the majority staff has the 

expertise to do that. 

In the 108th Congress, our committee exceeded the two-thirds/

one-third goal by $300,000 more in administrative expenses than 

the minority would have received with a two-thirds/one-third budget split. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Well, I thank you for that historical 

perspective. 

While that might be the case, it is extremely important for the 

minority to have some sense of its freedom to spend the budget as 

he sees fit. That has been the request of the minority leader, that 

all of the ranking members have that autonomy to do that. 

Given that, at this point, you are unable to guarantee that is a 

concern of this ranking member. Because I am absolutely here at 

the pleasure of my leader, and she has been very forceful in this 

principle that she and the Speaker have agreed to. So that this 

chairman here has followed that type of request. 

68

So it is incumbent upon us to engage in this dialogue with the 

chairman, because it is imperative that there is a good working relationship as we move into this 109th Congress and that the ranking member has that ability to exercise those principles that have 

been outlined by the leadership. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Because I think certainly Mr. Goodlatte and I 

have worked on many issues together in the Judiciary Committee, 

in particular, and this isn’t a question about whether you have 

been fair. Because that is really not the point. That is not the 

issue. The issue is whether the minority has a right to the default 

position of one-third salary, one-third budget and control over the 

one-third, unless you agree otherwise. And you haven’t agreed otherwise. 

So I really think—as I said earlier, I know you hear the majority 

can do whatever it wants by majority vote. But if we are going to 

make this a bipartisan effort, we are going to insist when people 

have not otherwise—that if a ranking member wants a default position, they have that right; or else you can do it on your own without Democratic votes. But I don’t think that is the way we want 

to proceed. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I understand the position of the minority. It is 

one that you have taken caucus-wide with your leadership. I note 

that of the 19 or 20 standing committees, only five are doing this 

this way. 

The chairman of the committee is elected as a result of the process that the Congress follows to determine the operation of the 

Congress and the committees, and the chairman has responsibility 

to make decisions for the benefit of the entire committee. 

The Agriculture Committee has always operated on a very 

strong, bipartisan basis, and it is certainly my intention to continue 

that tradition with Mr. Peterson. I understand Mr. Peterson’s perspective. So far, we do not agree on following this procedure. I 

think that the committee, in a bipartisan way, has acted very responsibly in terms of taking care of the needs of the minority staff 

and the minority members of the committee; and we intend to continue to do that. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Goodlatte—I am sorry. The gentlewoman, please. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I just wanted to make the point that I think there 

needs to be some discussion on the other side of the aisle on the 

implication on this and whether the implication is to just have a 

party line vote for all the committee budgets or not. That is really 

a decision that probably the Speaker needs to make, because it is 

not just about us. So I would urge that those discussions take 

place, because this is not going to work out well unless they do, 

and I thank the gentlemen. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, you are right. Maybe five or six committees in 

this House have not adhered to a complete one-third/two-thirds, 

but that was——

69

Mr. GOODLATTE. If the gentleman would yield, three-quarters 

have not; only one-quarter have. 

Mr. BRADY. But that is at the agreement of the Ranking Member 

and the Chairman. They agreed to that because they probably have 

their own—what they need to do in their own committee, and they 

are both happy with that. So we don’t try to intercede. 

What I have heard from you is, in the past, you have given more 

than one-third. Are you looking forward to agreeing to give more 

than one-third in the future? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I am not going to agree to anything regarding 

what is needed for the committee in the future until I know what 

the committee’s and the minority’s, in particular, needs are. 

But you do have my commitment to continue to be very fair, as 

all of my predecessors—as the chairmen of the committee have and 

who have all operated under this system, which protects both the 

interest of the majority and the responsibilities of the chairman 

and, I think the evidence is very, very strong, has also protected 

the interests of the minority. 

Mr. BRADY. Yes, if you would agree to the one-third, it would 

seem to me you would fare a lot better in the future than you have 

in the past. 

And there is another little problem—not a problem, just a different thing that happened here. We have a new ranking member, 

and he has to feel his oats, too. We don’t want to hinder him just 

because the previous member did or didn’t get along a little better, 

whatever. Not that he is the new guy down the block or anything, 

but I would just wish you would rethink that. I am sure our chairman is working on that. If you don’t get the one-third, then you are 

both in agreement that you are going to distribute whatever ratio 

you are going to need to distribute. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Brady. You are absolutely correct. If we were to do the two-thirds/one-third split, we would come 

out better. The fact of the matter is, my responsibility as the chairman is to the whole committee, not just to the majority side. I have 

always taken that position. I think it is reflected in the bipartisanship that you see in the Agriculture Committee. 

Mr. Peterson and I have worked together on many things over 

many years. We have a disagreement on this issue, and I have 

agreed to continue to discuss it with him. But that is how I see my 

responsibility and my role. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I just hope that the chairman can 

rethink his position. Because what Mr. Peterson, the ranking member, is asking you to do is not to respect his interests but to respect 

his rights. I would hope that that would be the ultimate conclusion 

or else we will have a fight about the whole budget, which I think 

would be unfortunate. 

I thank the chairman for yielding. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Just one comment, Mr. Chairman. 

You noted that only a third of the committees are adhering to 

this two-thirds/one-third ratio. While that might be the case, nevertheless, when you come to us, they have all said that they would 

adhere to this principle that the leaders of this House have set 

forth for each chairperson and his or her ranking member. 

70

This particular ranking member is fighting for that formula. So 

it is out of that respect that you should then try to come to that 

agreement, because he is fighting for the principle that has been 

outlined by the leadership that we all should be adhering to. 

So I am requesting you to really go back and rethink this so that 

we can say this has been a bipartisan effort and each member and 

each chairperson and the ranking member coming to us in good 

faith. I sure hope that you go back and think that over. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t want to prolong this. We have other ranking members that came. 

I just want to ask a question, so I can get it a little clear in my 

mind, of the ranking member. What control would you be seeking 

that has not been there, what type of control of the funds? 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, I have no doubt from what I have heard in 

the past the chairman has been fair. I guess—I am not saying that. 

But, you know, I am new to this. I was not involved in that process 

before. 

As I understand it, there is—the effort is to try to move in this 

direction on all the committees. I have talked to some of the other 

ranking members that have this agreement, and they prefer it, and 

you know our leader prefers it. So just starting off new—I just 

think, you know, this is the way we ought to be proceeding not only 

on the Agriculture Committee but on all of the committees. You 

know, we have talented people on our side. We can manage our resources; and, you know, I just feel more comfortable moving ahead 

with that process. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, if I might add to that. 

My chief of staff has just reminded me of, I think, a very pertinent point with regard to this entire discussion about the division 

of resources. There are four committees other than your own committee that do that now. The majority share of a two-thirds/onethird split of each of those four committees is greater than the entire budget of the Agriculture Committee in the last Congress. If 

we were to go ahead and agree to do this, I think that we would 

need a very substantial increase in our committee’s budget that we 

are not seeking. 

We have historically been one of the most fiscally conservative 

committees. In the last Congress, we were the only committee that 

had fewer staff than members of the committee. We have fashioned 

our budget request for this year on the same basis; and Financial 

Services, Government Reform, Homeland Security and Ways and 

Means all receive anywhere from 5 to $10 million more in their appropriations than the Agriculture Committee does. So what you are 

asking us to do is to put us in a situation that is a lot tighter than 

it is for some of the other committees that have agreed to do this. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, may I respond to 

that? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, what we are suggesting here is what you have proposed to us is not in concrete 

anyway at this time. We will have to negotiate to see whether or 

not that can be possible. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I understand. 

71

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. In the event that is not possible, we 

have asked the chairman, if this budget is cut, will you still hold 

the minority harmless and that you will still provide this twothirds/one-third ratio. It is irrespective of whether or not what you 

have requested will be given to you. It is a formula. It is a principle 

that we are holding to, irrespective of the final bottom line of your 

budget. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, Ms. Millender-McDonald, the fact of the 

matter is that each one of these committees is in very different circumstances; and the Agriculture Committee, with as tight a budget 

as we have, faces some different considerations than other committees might face. 

Without knowing what expenditures we are going to encounter 

in the future, what I can tell you, in terms of your request for holding the minority harmless, quote, unquote, is that we will, as we 

always have been, be fair to the minority, because I consider it the 

responsibility of my entire staff and myself to operate our committee as a whole entity that has, indeed, historically been fair, including the 2 years that I have been chairman, and we will continue that. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. And fairness means two-thirds/onethird. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Fairness means taking into account the needs 

of the majority staff, the minority staff, what equipment and other 

things that are necessary to operate the committee effectively and 

making sure that both the majority and the minority get what they 

need to operate effectively. 

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I must apologize, because I am not 

the type of guy that wants to, you know, to stretch things out, but 

I am a little confused. 

If you are sitting there telling me you are putting a budget together that you want to get from us and you don’t know if you can 

make a commitment to distribute it one-third or two-thirds because 

you don’t get enough money, I say to you, go back and do your 

budget, do it again, do it with the help of the ranking member and 

come back to us tell us, we want one-third/two-thirds, and you have 

probably got a better shot of getting that budget increased more 

than this budget. At least with this side of the aisle you do. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I appreciate that, Mr. Brady. If that is what the 

Congress decides to do with all of the committees, we might have 

to do just that. But I am a fiscal conservative, and I think we report a fiscally responsible budget. 

Mr. BRADY. We don’t have to do that with all the committees. We 

just have to do that with this committee to make it work. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me go back to one point I want to ask the 

ranking member. So, today, you don’t have a specific idea about 

what you can’t control. You don’t have that yet? 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, the way that it has operated in the past is 

that we received one-third of the salary budget, and that was it, 

and everything else is done by the majority. As I understand what 

is being done in other committees is that the other aspects of the 

budget are decided based on the priorities of the ranking member 

72

within the rules of the House and your committee and our committee. 

We are not going to be doing anything outside the rules, but we 

don’t have control. We are basically told this is how it is going to 

be done. And, you know, it may be that we will agree on that. But, 

again, it is a principle that, you know, we ought to have a third 

of the resources, we ought to be able to decide how those are allocated on our side of the aisle, based on the rules of the House and 

your rules and——

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? 

The CHAIRMAN. I just wanted to clarify. The rules of the House, 

nothing says that there has to be one-third. 

Mr. PETERSON. No. No, I am just saying—we are not going to be 

doing anything that is not, you know, approved by—you know, we 

are not going to be spending money that is outside of the rules of 

what you can spend it on for official purpose of the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. The one rule of the House is that the Chair, 

whether it is myself or Mr. Goodlatte, the Chairs are responsible——

Mr. PETERSON. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. The majority Chairs are responsible to sign off 

for things, and they have, we have the responsibility——

Mr. PETERSON. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Under the rules of the House to 

have the—have to sign, obviously, for travel and other items. 

Mr. PETERSON. But what has happened——

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is held accountable, is what I am saying, under the rules of the House. 

Mr. PETERSON. Right. We understand that, and we know—but 

what happens in the other committees, as I understand it, is that 

they have an agreement between the chairman and the ranking 

member that, you know, the requests or the allocations of the resources are, as long as they are within the legal rules, you know, 

are worked through——

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETERSON [continuing]. The ranking member and the chairman. And that seems to me, you know, that is what the leadership 

has said they want to do. That is where, as I understand it, we are 

trying to move in the Congress so that——

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, that is indeed what 

we are saying here. It may not be a hard and fast rule, but it is 

a principle. It is the agreement that has been made by the leadership of this House that we share in the formula of a two-thirds/onethird. Anything that deviates from that norm, then we need to go 

back and talk to the leadership of this House. Because this is then 

diverting from what they have set forth as a standard. 

So while it may not be a law, it is a standard, it is a principle, 

and it is the guiding principle that has guided all the chairpersons 

and the ranking member. So it is unfair to even sit here and say 

that we will accept a chairperson who refuses to abide by the principles without going back to our leadership, asking what their position will be, given what our position will be. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady. 

73

Ms. LOFGREN. I would question—it seems to me there is real—

really, the default position is what the Financial Services Committee is doing. And they came in, and they are happy. I mean, Mr. 

Oxley and Mr. Frank said they divided two-thirds/one-third. Mr. 

Frank has a third of the salary. He has got a third of the budget. 

He controls his third. It works fine. I don’t know the details of how 

they do that, but that is what the leadership has agreed to. 

The only time that changes is when the committee and ranking 

member agree to some other mode of behavior, which is what we 

saw with Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos, and that is fine, too. 

But I think if we are going—if the ranking member doesn’t agree 

to what the leadership—to change that the leadership has agreed 

to, we can’t do that. 

So I mean although, as I mentioned earlier, I know this really—

this isn’t worked out, this is an issue that is way bigger than this 

committee. It is really about the Speaker and Leader Pelosi and 

whether we have a bipartisan approach to this, which we won’t 

have, I can guarantee you, if the agreements are not held to. I 

think that is a shame, because we should be working on a bipartisanship basis. 

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman——

The CHAIRMAN. If I could inject here, I think we are putting the 

cart way, way ahead of the horse today. 

There were several references to a bipartisan vote. The first vote, 

as I understand the history of the House, was Steny Hoyer and I 

when we had the first bipartisan vote in the history of the House. 

Now I can get us 217 votes on the floor tomorrow morning—everybody is going to be horrifically uncomfortable. I can do that with 

a 1 percent increase, and, you know, we can just go about the business. So there are 100 ways to light that board up and win or lose. 

I don’t want to do that today, to decide that. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will tell you one other thing, though, perspective I want to give you, because I have been here 10 years Steny 

Hoyer and I went forth with the understanding we wanted to get 

to that goal, and Bill Thomas did an awful lot when he chaired this 

committee, and Mr. Hoyer was here to try to get to that goal. 

I have got to tell you, I wasn’t here in 1994. I got elected and 

came here in 1995. There were so many historical hard feelings 

here, it was unbelievable. Some of it was because—Energy and 

Commerce, the minority got 18 percent of the money. I mean, you 

can go down and look at that. So I heard that when I came here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I did, too. 

The CHAIRMAN. But Bill Thomas went—like I said, went a long, 

long way to get there. 

The other problem—and Steny Hoyer and I sat down and negotiated with some of the committees, and it was a tough road on a 

couple of the committees. I won’t mention—it wasn’t Agriculture. 

But what happened is Agriculture, in defense of Mr. Goodlatte, 

signed off. The one-third was in the eye of the beholder in the 

sense that some committees split halfway down. [I think we split 

money on some of the new Member orientation.] I forget how we 

do that. But each was different. So the last ranking member signed 

off and said, yes, this is the one-third and was happy with it. 

74

Now you have a new ranking member——

Mr. PETERSON. If I could just—you know, I don’t know that this 

is ever going to be a problem. But, for example, if we don’t have 

the one-third/two-thirds with the authority, you know, we have a 

lot of hearings to set up, we have a lot of places we have to go 

around the country. You know, the way—if you don’t have that authority, the Chair, you know, the majority could just set up those 

hearings, and I wouldn’t have any leverage to have any say if I 

didn’t agree with what we are doing if they control the travel budget. 

So, you know, I don’t think it is ever going to be a problem. But 

we feel like we ought to have input into at least where some of the 

hearings are. We ought to have input into the equipment. Not that 

it is ever going to be a problem. 

This way it is in writing, and that means that we do have a say. 

We understand the chairman is responsible. We understand he has 

to sign off. It is just a matter of principle. I am not sure it is ever 

going to be a problem, but this is a decision that was made, and 

we just think we should follow it to see if we are starting off with 

a new regime here. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am hearing something that is going down a 

whole different road here. Never in the history of the House—whoever controlled the Chambers, has the minority been able to set 

their own travel. 

Mr. PETERSON. No, no, no, I am not saying that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. You don’t want to be able to set your 

own——

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I think what he 

merely said, and I heard, he wants input. 

Mr. PETERSON. Right, into the hearing schedule. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETERSON. Which I am sure we will have. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Can we agree, Mr. Chairman, to sit 

with these two gentlemen and see whether we can try to work 

something out at a later time than this so we can get on with the 

others? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, you make a very important point 

regarding the responsibility of a chairman of the committee for the 

expenditures of the entire funds of the committee. 

This committee—and I know Mr. Peterson has not been the 

ranking member, but I also do not believe that he would disagree 

that the entire number of years that Mr. Stenholm was ranking 

member there was a lack of consultation. There is nothing arbitrary about the expenditures of the committee nor the decisions 

about when to hold hearings, or the decisions about where to hold 

hearings. They are always done in consultation with the minority. 

Now we don’t always agree on everything, of course, but we have 

always done so in consultation with the minority, and we certainly 

intend to do that with regard to travel needs that Mr. Peterson 

might suggest. 

However, I do have that ultimate responsibility, whether I divide 

the one-third or not. I think that in exercising that responsibility 

the approach that I am taking is the correct one. 

75

But I also agree, Ms. Millender-McDonald, that we will continue 

this discussion, and Mr. Peterson and I have a great deal of common interests in promoting the success of our committee’s work. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I want to thank both of the members 

for being here today. 

We will move on next to the Armed Services Committee. I think 

our chairman is here, Mr. Hunter, and also our ranking member, 

Mr. Skelton. I want to thank both the gentlemen for being here. 

We will start with the chairman, Mr. Hunter. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, thank you——

The CHAIRMAN. You will want to hit the microphone button. 

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. Got it. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman 

Millender-McDonald and members of the committee. Thanks for 

letting us appear before you and present to you our funding resolution for the 109th. I am here with my good colleague, Ike Skelton, 

and join with him in presenting this request today. 

The budget submission provides significant detail, so I wanted to 

touch just on some highlights. 

Our request is roughly $13.3 million, $6.38 million for 2005 and 

$6.9 million for 2006, which is 11.75 percent above the committee’s 

authorized funding level for the 108th. It is based on the need to 

continue and expand the committee’s considerable oversight responsibilities. 

The bulk of the increase is to allow for a small increase in the 

size of the staff as well as support cost-of-living allowances, merit 

increases and adjustments in view of the Speaker’s recent pay 

order. 

It also reflects a 3-year replacement cycle for computer work stations, continuing upgrades for information technology infrastructure; and we also plan to continue enhancements in our ability to 

operate remotely and securely if we are disrupted and if we should 

have to go off site. So we plan to continue to work with House Information Resources (HIR) to take full advantage of the remote operating location to establish off-site storage and remote access options. 

As you know, we have in the Armed Services Committee an essentially nonpartisan staff within which Mr. Skelton maintains 

control over 10 slots. For purposes of all committee operations—

pay, equipment, supplies, office space, parking, et cetera—Mr. Skelton’s staff is treated in exactly the same manner as the rest of the 

staff. 

The committee’s request reflects a level of resources that I think 

is necessary to attract and retain technically qualified staff, which 

is always a problem. We have lots of folks leaving us too—whether 

you have a Republican or Democratic administration, always lots 

of folks leaving to go to the administration, because they have got 

a lot of expertise and their capability is valued by every administration. 

76

It is also, I think, important to note that our committee has traditionally maintained one of the smallest staffs in the House relative to its jurisdiction and the broad oversight responsibilities and 

the actual size of the committee. You know, we are now up to 62 

folks on the committee. So even with staff at fully-authorized levels, the committee staff-to-member ratio is roughly one to one. 

We traditionally have spent wisely. I think if you look at our 

numbers, we have often turned money back to the House, and we 

don’t spend money unless we have to. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee—and I know Mr. 

Brady can attest to this because he is a valued member of our committee—we have got a vast responsibility. We have got a 2.5 million person force. We have got two hot wars going on right now. 

We have responsibility for over half the discretionary budget. If you 

look at our numbers compared to the other committees, we are fairly low in terms of the number of staff that we maintain. 

You know, we maintain—I have listened to the discussion about 

the two-thirds/one-third. We have—I think we are a unique committee. Defense issues can be on an irregular basis, partisan issues. 

We have had those arm-wrestling sessions in our committee, just 

like you have in every committee but in most committees a lot 

more often than we have in Armed Services. 

Let me give you an example. To support this war right now, to 

support our troops, we have 14 task forces that we have got staff 

members assigned to who are working on everything from jammers 

to armor, to force protection, communication. I have got people who 

are doing nothing but contacting the families of people who have 

been killed in action, families of people who are clearly making 

sure that things are taking place that should be taking place. We 

have our teams out making sure that we are resetting the force, 

making sure we are taking care of equipment when we bring it 

back from the theater to make sure that it is ready for the next 

operation. 

We really have a very large area of responsibility, and we don’t 

have a lot of staff members. Our staff is nonpartisan, and I know 

it is hard to, sometimes, in the context of the political battle that 

we do—necessarily do on the Hill that you should have a committee like that, but it is because the issues of national security are 

especially nonpartisan issues. 

Rarely, we do have to draw the battle lines and do battle. And 

the reason you have a nonpartisan staff—but with a number of 

members assigned—10 members assigned to the minority, you 

think that is unusual, how many members are assigned to the majority. The answer is none. 

The reason we did that is because, back in the days of Les Aspin 

and Mr. Dickinson, Bill Dickinson, we realized we were going to 

have some partisan battles, and we said that the minority needed 

to have at least—even though most of the stuff we do is nonpartisan, we needed to have at least a center of gravity, a core of 

staff folks who could—that the minority could use. 

In those days, it was for the Republicans who—which you rarely 

did, would draw the partisan lines, would be able to serve the Republican members, or, in this case, today, serve the Democrat 

members, in those few times when you have a partisan line. The 

77

rest of the time, these members are out there working away on the 

many subcommittees, working for both parties and doing their job. 

Strangely enough, this has worked well. That means that everybody is pulling in the same direction. That is, serving the troops 

and serving our Armed Forces 95 percent of the time. 

When we have to arm-wrestle over a partisan issue, the minority 

has people they can rely on whose job is to be their supporters, and 

so they don’t feel like they are offending—the staff members don’t 

feel like they are going around the many which it is their job to 

rally around and support—in the old days, support Bill Dickinson; 

in these days, support Ike Skelton. When we rarely do cross sabers—and that happens now and again—but our committee, because of the nature of what we do, isn’t partisan. 

So we have—I think we have a well-run operation. We do need 

to have—we have got 59 folks now, going to 61 within a week, and 

we will be at 64, which is our allotment. Because we have got new 

things coming up, Mr. Chairman. We have got this lifting of the 

arms embargo to China, which is going to have major impact on 

our security situation, which needs a lot of work. 

On our security situation, which needs a lot of work, we have got 

technology transfer, trying to keep systems from going to the bad 

guys. We have got the ongoing war against terrorism, and we need 

to fill these additional slots. We are going to be up to our 64, which 

is allotted, in just a week or two, and we would like to go to 67. 

But I think in the context of what we do for the country in our area 

of responsibility, it is a reasonable thing. So I would like to turn 

to Ike and have him give you his perspective here, but that is 

mine. 

[The statement of Mr. Hunter follows:]

78


Insert graphic folio 156 20927A.024
79


Insert graphic folio 157 20927A.025
80


Insert graphic folio 158 20927A.026
81

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Skelton.

STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Millender-McDonald, thank 

you for hearing us today. 

I echo Chairman Hunter’s comments regarding the staff, and in 

particular our staff regarding pay, COLA, equipment and the like. 

And what he has explained in the background, going back to Bill 

Dickinson, which I will remember when he was the ranking member when I first went on the committee. 

We are different in two respects. We, by and large, are very bipartisan. War is not a partisan issue. And secondly, the budget 

that we put out, $440 billion every year and climbing, 18 percent 

of the total Federal budget, one-half of the Federal Government’s 

discretionary budget, and if you look at the numbers of staff that 

we have, they meet themselves going and coming. They are professionals, they all have security clearances. We just can’t go out and 

hire someone off the street that is smart and able. We have to have 

very experienced and highly skilled staff, as well as those who 

meet the criteria for security. So I think that we are well within 

bounds. 

And if you look at some of the other committees, the number of 

staff that they have, and compared to the workload, Mr. Chairman 

and Ms. Millender-McDonald, what we have, we do an awful lot 

with an awful lot less, and I am very, very proud of the staff that 

we have. If anything, the bottom line is what the chairman says. 

Of course we could all use more, but we tend to be more on the 

conservative side of it. And I will tell you, and I know Mr. Brady 

will agree, the staff is not only good, not only professional, but they 

work very, very hard. Many, many weekends you can’t find them 

except at the office, and that is what they are doing. With the tremendous responsibility that we have, we hope that you will meet 

our request. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank both gentlemen. I really don’t have 

any questions, but I do have a comment. 

I have worked with both of you, and I appreciate your insights 

on military, our troops. I have had the pleasure to be able to spend 

time with both of you, and I appreciate your patriotism and your 

respect for each other and the system. 

Also, you talked about all the things you are handling, and I 

know Robert Rangel is back there, and when I get—you get e-mail 

from troops today. And I have had several issues and I call him, 

and people on the staff answer to him. It is comforting to know because you shouldn’t just call the bureaucracy side and say well, 

what do you think, I call you all. And I know other Members are 

doing, and your Staff Director, and your staff has always responded. And I feel the answer we get back makes me comfortable 

that we are doing everything humanly possible for the troops and 

the needs. So I just appreciate that response, both you and the 

Staff Director and the staff over there. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I 

applaud both of you for the work that you do on Armed Services; 

82

it is a tremendous responsibility. The committee itself is so needed 

in this time that we have here. And I have followed a lot of what 

you do because of the position we are in in war, and so I applaud 

you so much. 

My few questions that I have to Mr. Skelton is, do you have control of your one-third of the budget that is given to you by the 

chairman? 

Mr. SKELTON. We don’t look at it one-third/two-thirds. I have 

control over the staffers that work for me, I have numerous recommendations on everything from witnesses to hearings to trips 

and the like, and Mr. Hunter hears me well on those. I don’t think 

we can say we have a one-third/two-third. That has never been the 

situation of the Armed Services Committee as such. 

I control the ten members who actually work directly for me, and 

I choose them. And I might say they are very, very good at what 

they do, as well as the professional staff of which Mr. Hunter 

spoke. Any Member can—Democrat Member can pick up the phone 

and call a member of those who work for me, regardless of specialty, or pick a member of the professional staff regarding his or 

her specialty and get help. That has been the way it has worked 

through the years. And it works well, it works well for the country 

and for the troops. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. It seems like you two have a very 

good working relationship, and as Mr. Hunter has outlined the way 

by which he has been able to move the budget and to ensure that 

you have been satisfied with those movements I think is laudable 

to the chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, you did speak of having to increase staff from the 

level you have now to 64, and perhaps ultimately getting to 67. 

How much of that staff will be converted to the minority side? 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, again, first, with respect to hiring staff, I 

have never asked a staff member if they are Republican or Democrat, and I don’t know of our staff members. I know it seems 

strange, we have got a professional staff which is bipartisan, or 

that is professional staff responsive to all Members. And then you 

have got a minority team of 10 staff members. And so—and I don’t 

know of those staff members that are dedicated to the minority 

which of them were hired by Republican chairmen or Democrat 

chairmen over the years. 

So we have truly a staff which is not only bipartisan and nonpartisan, but because of my bad memory and probably that of the 

other senior members, we can’t remember who hired them or where 

they came from. We know one thing, and that is that they do a 

good job. 

So of these members, if we get three additional members, what 

Ike and I will do is talk it over and talk about what we need. I 

ultimately will hire these folks, but what we need to hire them for 

are these issues that are really nonpartisan issues. In my estimation, just looking at the state of the world, I think this lifting 

of the arms embargo on China is going to provide enormous problems for the United States and issues for us, some of which are 

very complex. So we need people who can understand what the Europeans are going to be doing, what we need to do to try to stem 

critical killing technology that could end up killing Americans on 

83

the battlefield from going over to China from our allies; and secondly, if they do that, what should be our response as Americans. 

That capability is something that is going to be hard for us to 

find, but those are the types of people that I would like to get for 

this additional three people, if we can get them. And I can assure 

you I will discuss these folks with Mr. Skelton, and we will try to 

come up with some good folks, but they won’t be hired for a split, 

you know, Republican-Democrat split. 

Mr. SKELTON. I think there is good expectation, however, that I 

would have one of those three in all probability. Am I correct? 

Mr. HUNTER. Oh, excuse me. Ike will get one of those people, but 

my urging to Ike is that we, as we put together our job requirement for these three folks, that they have capability in this new 

challenge that we are being handed by what is going to happen 

probably around June, which is this lifting of this arms embargo. 

So I would hope that we can both search for talent in that area. 

Mr. SKELTON. The search for talent, he is absolutely right, because every staff member is not an expert in everything. Mr. Brady 

will fully tell you that. So consequently you look for a certain one 

for certain areas. 

But as the chairman said, I have full expectation of one of those. 

What exactly that expertise will be I don’t know and I don’t think 

he would know right now. 

Mr. HUNTER. Let me put it this way, Ike will hire one of those 

three folks. My recommendation is that I want Ike to listen to me 

on his hire, and I am going to listen to him on the two hires. We 

will work this together. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Well, I am really encouraged by 

what you are saying here because the job and the task that you 

have in this committee really should supersede and not be a factor 

in terms of bipartisan or partisan, because war is, I think Mr. Skelton said, is not a partisan thing. And so I am very encouraged by 

what you are saying, and the seamless way, it seems, that the staff 

moves back and forth, irrespective of whether it is Republican or 

Democrat, and that is very encouraging. 

Mr. Chairman, I did see, though, on your request that your 

franking request has a little bit increased considerably from $673 

to $16,000 roughly, as we see here, a vast percentage of increase 

there. 

Can you tell me why is that, and what would you perhaps perceive what that increase in franking might be in terms of mailing? 

What is your anticipation of that increase with reference to mailing? 

Mr. HUNTER. We don’t really do a lot of franking, but we anticipate we will try to—we are going to be trying to have hearings 

around the country, and that is more of a placeholder, if you will. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. So it is a placeholder for perhaps 

the traveling as opposed to the mailing? 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I see. 

Mr. HUNTER. Yeah, we have a fairly low franking operation. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brady. 

84

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I wouldn’t dare to ask either one of 

these gentlemen a question, but I just want to make a comment 

that I am honored and proud to serve under the ranking member 

and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. They do one 

outstanding job doing a hard job every single day, and the staff, 

protecting this country and protecting our men and women in 

harm’s way, and I am proud to serve under them. 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, thank you, sir. I appreciate it, Mr. Brady, and 

we appreciate you. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlelady. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Just two questions, or maybe three. 

First, obviously this is working well, and we are going to accept 

the budget, and express our admiration to you both for all of the 

work that you do for our country. 

I had a question on the additional staffing that has come up with 

other committees. Do you have sufficient space to house additional 

staff? 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes, we do, from what I get from our——

Ms. LOFGREN. I think your Staff Director is wincing. 

Mr. HUNTER. He is hovering in the background here. Let me find 

out. 

As I told you everything is fine, he said no, it is a real challenge. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I was going to say the body language is different 

behind your back. 

Mr. SKELTON. My staff is whispering in my ear and basically saying the same thing, we can use some more room. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is what we have been hearing from everybody. 

And on the franking, I understand you may not be actually using 

the increase for franking, but is franked mail from committees subject to the same kind of constraints that we face, for example, the 

90-day window before elections? And does franked mail go through 

the advisory opinion process like mail we send out from our offices, 

and shouldn’t it? 

Mr. HUNTER. You know——

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want me to answer that? 

Mr. HUNTER. Yeah, go right ahead. I am going to defer to the 

chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the committees are not under a 90-day 

blackout rule, as Members’ offices are. Also, the committee franking technically does not have to go through the same approval process, although some committees will bring us the—and we would 

highly suggest they bring us—the piece to spare them problems. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, though, while you 

have made those overtures, Mr. Chairman, on that, we do want to 

bear in mind that the committees, they do not come under the 

same process or procedures as one’s own personal office, that nonetheless the funding that is provided for them is funded through appropriations. So we are still talking about a certain amount of constraints when it comes to the type of franking mail and the cutoff period for that franking mail to go out. So that should be for 

the record. 

85

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. I appreciate that. And I am looking, Mr. 

Rangel has handed me my balance for—fund balance for franking 

for 2003. We spent $673.74, and in 2004 it was $470.97. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, aren’t you going to 

use your frank for the theatre hearings? 

Mr. HUNTER. We intend to do that. But in the past we have had 

very low franking expenses, and most of our franking has gone traditionally just to administrative correspondence with the relevant 

DOD departments. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Other questions? Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We also had got a notice that the Science Committee was to be up today. They are required, both the chair and 

the ranking member, to go onto the floor, so they apologize. So we 

will have to reschedule that one, and that is the last one that we 

had for today. 

Transportation was required to be on the floor, and like I said, 

they needed to be, and we can reschedule that one, too. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I ask for unanimous consent that members have 

3 business days to submit their statements and materials for the 

record. Without objection, it will be entered. And also unanimous 

consent that the staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes on all the matters. Without objection. 

We have completed our business, and the committee is in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(87)

COMMITTEE FUNDING 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:20 p.m., in room 1310, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Ney (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Ney, Ehlers, Miller, Millender-McDonald, Brady and Lofgren. 

Staff Present: Paul Vinovich, Staff Director; Jeff Janas, Director 

of Committee Operations; and Jack Dail, Franking Commission, 

Staff Director. 

The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will come to order. The ranking 

member of the Transportation Committee is late, but we will begin 

with the chairman, Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. If it is all right with you, Mr. Chairman, we will proceed. Mr. Oberstar will be here. 

The CHAIRMAN. If you could turn your mike on. 

Mr. YOUNG. See, we do not have this modern technology in my 

poor little room. We have to press a switch. 

The CHAIRMAN. We can get you whatever you want, especially 

this week. Especially this year. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate being able to present 

our budget to you. I had a suggestion, that if you would just give 

me the money I am asking for I will not read my statement. Is that 

good? 

The CHAIRMAN. Not a bad deal to me. 

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Anyone looking for a motion? 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. YOUNG. Anyway, again, this is my third Congress as chairman to appear before you, and the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, as you know, is the largest committee in the 

history of Congress. Members of Congress want to serve on this 

committee because it addresses the needs of American citizens for 

safe and efficient transportation. 

A modern efficient transportation system is vital to our Nation’s 

economy and an integral part of the high standard of living and the 

quality of life Americans deserve. As such, our committee will address the problems and needs associated with every mode of transportation: The roads, of course; the bridges, which are outdated and 

worn out; aviation system; railroads; waterways and ports. We adVerDate jul 14 2003 01:09 Jun 21, 2005 Jkt 020927 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\B927.XXX B927
88

dress America’s emergency management services and Federal infrastructure needs. 

Just last week, Mr. Chairman, as you know, we approved a $284 

billion highway and transit bill that will benefit every district in 

the Nation and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in all 50 

States. 

Our committee, as you know, is organized into six subcommittees: The Subcommittee on Aviation; Subcommittee on Coast 

Guard and Maritime Transportation; Subcommittee on Highways, 

Transit and Pipelines; Subcommittee on Economic Development, 

Public Buildings and Emergency Management; Subcommittee on 

Railroads; and the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. 

The full committee will continue to perform oversight and investigations, which we are required to. We have requested a modest 

increase in the committee salary allocation to provide a yearly costof-living increase and to adequately reward superior performance. 

We have not asked for an increase in the committee’s staff ceiling. 

We feel it is essential to take advantage of the technology available 

and to present information in the most efficient means to our Members. Our plan is to upgrade systems to keep pace with that technology. 

I also believe that one of the most important services of the committee is to hold field hearings throughout the Nation on legislation and oversight matters in the affected communities. Therefore, 

I will be asking my subcommittee chairmen to take their subcommittees outside of the Beltway to those communities most impacted by matters under our jurisdiction. 

Our increased funding request for travel is a result of the 

planned field hearings and oversight and investigative trips. Our 

request for $9 million in 2005 and $9.5 million in 2006, for a total 

of $18 million, is our best judgment for what we need to carry out 

our legislative and oversight function. 

Finally, I would like to thank my good friend and colleague, who 

will be here soon, Congressman James Oberstar, the ranking member of the committee. Our committee continues in a spirit of very 

bipartisan cooperation to solve the Nation’s transportation and infrastructure problems in a fiscally responsible manner. Congressman Oberstar and his staff have been most helpful in developing 

this proposed budget, and I do appreciate their assistance. 

While we cannot foresee the future, the next 2 years offer the 

twin promises of great progress and great challenge. We expect 

them to be busy and productive and ask that while you are considering our funding request, also consider the additional resources we 

require as the largest committee in the 109th Congress. 

That is my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I will answer any 

questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Young follows:]

89


Insert graphic folio 176 20927A.027
90


Insert graphic folio 177 20927A.028
91

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the chairman for his time, and I know 

Mr. Oberstar is on his way. 

One question we have asked, and we will Mr. Oberstar, is about 

the two-thirds/one-third, which you have been through last time 

with Mr. Oberstar, of how the resources are divided. 

Mr. YOUNG. I believe we did it like we have always done it. It 

is two-thirds/one-third. We have always been fair. I do not think 

we have ever had a difference of opinion on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I really do not have any questions. I will see if 

our Members have questions. 

I did want to note that I have been on Transportation for 10 

years, and I enjoyed the first chairman and the ranking member, 

Mr. Oberstar, and not just because you are sitting here, because I 

have not said this to everybody—but I have enjoyed your chairmanship and, again, Mr. Oberstar. 

The other thing is, I give you a lot of credit for your tenacity. You 

pushed when some people have been angry on either side of the 

aisle, and that is okay in this business of what is good for people. 

You and Mr. Oberstar have kept this agenda right out front, where 

it needs to be, with what is going on in the United States, with the 

population increase and transportation. 

And the other thing you have done, too, I have a rural area, but 

you have been able to show us in the committee, both of you and 

your staffs, that there are other situations out there that we need 

to pay attention to. We may not have certain transit situations in 

our districts, but we need to care about it. We may not have certain 

waterway situations, but we need to care about it. So you have 

given an overall comprehensive look at transportation. 

I give you so much credit for both of you working together and 

producing the wonderful bill you did that is going to make a better 

way for people who are not even going to know our names. But for 

future generations in our districts, it is literally making visible impacts on our regions. I know our people appreciate it back home. 

So thanks to the chairman and ranking member. 

If the ranking member has an opening statement, I will let you 

go into that. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES OBERSTAR, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I will submit my statement for the record, Mr. 

Chairman. 

You have eloquently and fulsomely described the work of this 

committee, and I know, because I have seen the chairman’s statement prior to the hearing, and I regret being delayed with our Minnesota State Society. 

The CHAIRMAN. If you could press the button on the mike. 

Mr. YOUNG. He told me they have this fancy stuff. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, ours is live. We have a button to swing in 

our committee. 

But you referenced, Mr. Chairman, the rural needs. Our transportation bill that you voted for has $540 million over the next 5 

years of the legislation dedicated to rural road-safety initiatives. 

First time that we have had such a designation set aside for the 

92

specific needs of rural areas, and the Chairman is a very vigorous 

advocate for that provision. 

Forty-three percent of America’s fatalities are in rural areas, and 

half of those killed on rural roads are people from urban areas. 

Urban America has a very keen interest in rural road safety. 

But overall, the legislation that we brought to the floor last 

week, and hopefully will get through conference this time, makes 

a significant downpayment on the Nation’s transportation needs. 

But we have more than surface transportation. In all, we have nearly $500 billion of authorizations in our committee, to include 

the Water Resources Development Act; the Clean Water Revolving 

Loan Fund, $20 billion bill pending in our committee; the reauthorization of the Federal Economic Development Administration programs. We will, in the next year, have to confront the needs of the 

Aviation Trust Fund. All of those are massive investments in what 

makes America work. It moves people and goods in our society. Investments we cannot afford to fail to make. 

The chairman has said often, and I have as well, China is investing $200 billion and doubling the capacity of their ports. They are 

halfway through a $100 billion airport improvement program, 

building six new airports, already completed; modernizing 35 existing ones, and now moving to another $100 billion airport development program for the interior of China to develop regional aviation 

and another $150 billion to be invested in building the equivalent 

of our interstate highway system in the next 15 years. We cannot 

afford not to make those investments in America. 

We have to improve our transportation infrastructure to move 

our economy forward and keep it competitive. The roads that we 

build and the rails that we build and the airport facilities that we 

build are not done in Taiwan or Singapore or Sri Lanka. They are 

built right here in America with American labor and American 

steel. And as a member of our Steel Caucus, Mr. Chairman, you 

know the Buy America provision in steel is critical. It saved over 

100 million tons of American steel over the last 20 years. 

[The statement of Mr. Oberstar follows:]

93


Insert graphic folio 184 20927A.029
94


Insert graphic folio 185 20927A.030
95


Insert graphic folio 186 20927A.031
96


Insert graphic folio 187 20927A.032
97

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I want to thank both the chairman and the 

ranking member again for all the great things I think you have 

done for the country. 

The gentlewoman from California. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let 

me join in the sweet refrain of what you have said earlier. Really, 

I am on this committee, and I know how well this committee 

works. They have worked in concert over the years that I have 

been in Congress, at least for the 9 years I have been here, and 

we have an extraordinary opportunity now to move goods and people more aggressively. 

The growth of this country is tremendous, and yet we have not 

built the roads and bridges to the capacity they should, given the 

growth. So I am pleased to sit on this committee with two fine gentlemen who take leadership by the tail and they move the agenda. 

Mr. Oberstar, you were not here earlier when the chairman 

asked about the two-thirds/one-third formula that is in concert 

with all of the chairs and ranking members. Is that amenable to 

you, and are you satisfied with the operation working with your 

chair? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The division of funding has worked without problem, and we are very pleased with the relationship we have with 

the majority leadership of the committee. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. That is what the chairman said, so 

you are right on point with him. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One thing I always look 

for in a committee as we go through these reviews is the efficiency 

of the operation of the committee, and I am pleased to say the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure operates very efficiently, and they use their money well. It is hard to find any waste, 

except perhaps they could clean their restroom a little more often. 

But other than that, it is a very smoothly operated entity. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Get your mop out. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. Finally got that through. 

It is just a well-run committee in every sense of the word. So, 

clearly, their funding request deserves very favorable consideration. 

I did want to comment a bit further on the statement from the 

ranking member when he talked about infrastructure and our 

problems vis-a-vis China. I am very concerned about this, and that 

is why I was glad to hear the chairman saying we are going to get 

out in other parts of the country and hold hearings. Because we 

have a mammoth educational job to do. I am just amazed that the 

public today does not understand what infrastructure is and what 

role it plays. 

Mr. Oberstar, I was born in your State, the southwest corner, in 

a small town of 800 people, Edgerton. I remember well in the 

early—I guess right after World War II—when we put in sewer and 

water, the immense civic pride that went into that. They were so 

proud that they had that infrastructure and did not depend on septic tanks and home wells and so forth. 

98

Today, I live in the city, and when these city commissions try to 

increase water fees slightly to improve infrastructure, people complain about the increase in the rates. They literally do not know 

what is under the ground. They do not know what is involved. 

They do not know what it is causing. 

I have seen the figures of what is needed in this Nation. I am 

a little concerned that all these cities, townships, whatever, are 

coming to us and saying we cannot afford it, you will have to do 

it. They can afford it just as well as we can, but they have to help 

us educate the public on the nature of the problems and what has 

to be done, and they have to be willing to pay the bill. It is not 

going to be good old Uncle Sam coming to help them, other than 

through the revolving fund, which I think is great. 

If my little old town of 800 people could afford to put in water 

and sewer de novo, certainly the people today can afford to pay the 

cost for improvements. And we have to improve it. And it is not 

just water and sewer, it is highways, bridges; it is transit. That is 

why I love being on this committee, because it is all of these important things and good things that are wonderful for the people, 

which they support, but we do have to do a little education. You 

do not get anything for free in this business. 

So thank you for raising that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentlewoman from Michigan. 

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not 

know that I have a question, but perhaps an observation. 

I am at a slight disadvantage, since my other three colleagues all 

serve on the Transportation Committee, and they have articulated 

very well what a wonderful job you are doing and how cost-efficient 

the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is. But it occurred to me, just listening to the conversation, that even though 

I am not actually a member of your esteemed committee, I utilize 

your services and expertise extensively, as does I think every Member of this body. That was particularly evident during the recent 

consideration of the transportation bill, in its subsequent passage, 

because I am sure that all Members were talking to each of you 

about the different kinds of challenges and needs in their respective districts. So yours is a committee that is unique in some way 

because it does service the entire Congress and the Nation. 

Another observation: All the transportation needs have been 

talked about, but the economic growth has historically always followed the transportation grid, whether it was the wagon trains, 

then the railroads or the interstates and the airlines or what have 

you. So the work that you are doing is of huge importance to our 

economic stability and the future of the economy of our very Nation, in my opinion. 

I have read through the statement and the documentation, and 

I would just say, certainly, that I appreciate everyone being fiscally 

conservative. I like to think of myself as that as well, but I also 

think the business of the American people needs to get done and 

particularly on a committee like the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, so I applaud both of you, the chairman and the 

ranking member, and the Members for their diligent work on these 

issues. 

99

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlewoman. 

Just in closing, we do have a tight budget, as usual, but we will 

try to give every consideration of the needs, considering the importance of the committee overall to the Congress. 

Also, I would be remiss if I did not mention that our staff tells 

me that working with your staff has been a delight. They get 

things on time, the details and all the other things that sometimes 

go wrong do not go wrong with your staff, and they communicate. 

So the relationship of the entire staff, minority and majority, has 

been a very good working relationship with the committee. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, could I just——

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. Of course, Mr. Oberstar used to be a staff 

member. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That helps to understand how this place works. 

The observation of the gentlewoman from Michigan and the gentleman from Michigan as well, you do not see partisan smoke coming out of our committee. We have differences. They are often regional in nature. They are differences of approach. But in the end, 

we have worked those out for the greater good of the country. 

But I cannot help but note the observations of the gentleman 

from Michigan about investment in our wastewater infrastructure. 

The Clean Water Act in 1972 had the purpose of investing wastewater construction grants in the major metropolitan areas first to 

clean up the biggest waste streams. And those were very expensive 

dollars, very expensive projects. 

The plan was, after the first decade, to then shift the emphasis 

to communities of 25,000 or less. And just at that time, the Reagan 

administration came in and terminated the Clean Water Grant 

Program over a 2-year period and then shifted it into the Revolving 

Loan Fund. 

Those smaller communities, with the narrower tax base, with 

fewer resources, without migration, with industries shutting down, 

found themselves unable to finance the improvements to existing 

facilities or build the ones they needed. And the 70–30 matching 

grant programs, which later became 80–20, now was gone for them. 

So the smaller communities of America are not in the same relative position to clean up as the larger metropolitan areas have 

been and continue to be. So I think it is important for us to move 

to the House Floor the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund $20 billion, 5-year bill, as quickly as our House leadership will allow it to 

happen and address the needs of rural America. Otherwise, you are 

simply going to have a repeat of the migration from rural America 

to urban centers that happened in the 1930s when 26 million people left the countryside in America and went to the cities. 

Now you have all those problems of overcrowding and drugs and 

every other imaginable problem that you could avoid if we keep 

people where the quality of living is better, where they prefer to 

be and where we can provide the amenities and necessities of life. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank both gentlemen for your time today. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. It is always a pleasure to ask for money, and, hopefully, we will receive 

it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

100

Next, we will move on to the Science Committee. 

I want to welcome our ranking member, Mr. Gordon, and we will 

go ahead and begin with you, and Mr. Boehlert, I am sure, will be 

here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BART GORDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing us to 

present our budget today. 

The CHAIRMAN. And if you will push the button right in front of 

your mike there. 

Mr. GORDON. This one. There we go. Mr. Chairman, the Science 

Committee ought to know how to use these things, but I think you 

are much more high-tech than we are. 

Thank you for letting me be here today. As Mr. Ehlers can confirm, we have a very good working relationship on the Science 

Committee. I want to congratulate our new ranking member. I 

hope that her relationship with her chairman can be as good as we 

have with the Science Committee. We work well together both as 

Members, and the staff has worked very well also. 

So I really am here to say amen. But you are supposed to let 

Sherry say what he is going to say first. But I will give a preliminary amen to his recommendations. We really do, again, have a 

good working relationship. 

A couple of things I would like to point out, though, is the 

Science Committee, probably more than most, as Vern can tell you, 

has a very good professional staff, most of which have advanced degrees, and it is more difficult to get those folks and more expensive. 

So we are very pleased with our committee. 

But what has happened here in the last couple of years is that 

we have had a lot of additional responsibility, with the shuttle 

crash, with Return to Flight, with reorganization of NASA; there 

are a variety of additional responsibilities. So I would like to make 

a request from this committee that we have our committee slots increased. 

Right now, we have 61, and, again, I would like to get Sherry’s 

concurrence, but to go from 61 to 63. And let me give a little background. 

Since the 106th Congress, ten committees have received additional staff slots while the Science Committee has received no additional staff slots, even though we have had this significant addition 

of responsibilities here. Thirteen committees are requesting additional increase in staff slots than in their 108th authorization. 

I would also say that, at least from my standpoint, we do not request any additional funding. I am not looking for additional funding over our normal request for those additional slots. I think we 

can take care of it within the budget that we have, and I would 

make that request. 

Again, I would support our chairman in what, I am sure, will be 

a good suggestion to you. 

Do you want me to dance or do anything here while we are waiting? 

The CHAIRMAN. If you are like me and you dance, you will be 

thrown out of office. 

101

One question I have while we are waiting for Mr. Boehlert, because there are certain questions I will ask, obviously, of the chairman, about the two-thirds/one-third split of the resources. Do you 

have any comments on that? 

Mr. GORDON. You know, I do. The fact of the matter is, I would 

prefer the so-called one-third/one-third with control. We do not 

have that now. We get one-third of the staff; we get one-third of 

the funding, but we have to go through the committee for whatever 

we are going to do. 

The young man right here could not be any better to work with, 

but our chairman is going to be term-limited, in one of your bad 

decisions, in 2 years. You do not know what is going to happen 

with the next chairman. And I think that, as a policy, it would be 

better, like most committees, to have the one-third/one-third and 

have that control. 

But I am not here to specifically request that today. But since 

you asked, I would like to put a benchmark down because that may 

need to be done in the future. And if you choose to do it, I think 

it would be good, and we would be happy. And if you want to do 

it as a policy across the board, I think it would be the good and 

right thing also. 

The CHAIRMAN. Other questions of Mr. Gordon? 

The gentlewoman from California. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is 

good to see you, and we certainly do not want you to dance. You 

are minus one limb there to some great degree or maybe a limited 

degree. We are happy to know you do work well with Mr. Boehlert. 

He is a fine man. And it is always good to know both the chairman 

and the ranking member are working in concert. 

You have already outlined that you do get a one-third/one-third 

of the budget. It seems like it is a traditional thing that the ranking member does have to go to the chairman for the requests, but 

we want to make sure that the chairman is amenable. 

Mr. GORDON. He is certainly receptive. But sometimes, there can 

be a time frame. It would be more efficient, I think, if you did not 

have to wait. It would be more efficient across the board. I think 

it is a better policy. I think that anybody in the majority needs to 

think about how do they want to be treated if they are in the minority later. As well as when we are back in the majority, which 

will happen at some point——

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. That is right. 

Mr. GORDON. Are we acting responsibly as a minority ourselves? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Absolutely. 

Mr. GORDON. So that is the way we need to all look at these 

things. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I see Mr. Boehlert 

has come in, so you may want to allow him to make his statement, 

and then I will go on with questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the chairman for arriving, and 

if you would like to make your statement, then we will go into 

questions. 

102

STATEMENT OF HON. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will try to be brief. I should say at the outset that Mr. Gordon 

and I have a completely cooperative relationship. We have had no 

disputes over any committee budget matter. 

I would add parenthetically that, since we developed it, Mr. Gordon has asked if they could have an additional staff person without 

any additional money, and I would support that request. And we 

are seeking no additional staff members for the majority side. 

I propose to maintain a two-thirds/one-third salary account split. 

That has been the committee’s practice for a number of years. We 

did not have to be advised to do it. We did it. Others have followed. 

The minority has about one-third of the committee staff and uses 

its salary account as it sees fits. 

Mr. Chairman, the Science Committee is requesting a 2005 budget allocation that would be about 6 percent higher than what we 

received for 2004 and then about a 5 percent increase over 2005 

levels for 2006. There are a number of clear reasons why this request is justified in our mind. 

First, the committee intends to write a NASA reauthorization bill 

that will set the course for our Nation’s space program for years 

to come. This activity will likely entail considerable travel to 

NASA’s facilities to understand the impact of their proposed NASA 

budget. I should note, in this regard, the NASA budget request 

seems to envision facility closures and layoffs that make visiting 

NASA’s facilities even more essential to our business. 

Also, these visits will enable our new Space Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Calvert, to become more fully acquainted with the full 

range of NASA facilities and activities. 

Second, the committee continues to upgrade its staff. This year, 

we are likely to have all our staff positions filled all year, and I 

would point out, it is highly specialized staff with people with 

Ph.Ds and graduate degrees, understandably so to deal with the 

very sophisticated subject matter that our committee is dealing 

with. The majority staff, in addition, has been attracting more 

Ph.Ds and attorneys and individuals who have had considerable 

private-sector experience, and we are continuing in that vein. 

Third, our copiers and computers are nearing the end of their 

useful lives. And as a prudent business decision, we want to replace some of that in this Congress in an orderly pattern. 

We certainly understand the funding constraints under which we 

will all be operating this year. We have worked hard to minimize 

our expenses, seeking out and negotiating good prices with contractors and suppliers, and seeking to travel at the lowest cost available. And, incidentally, we are not dispersing our subcommittees 

all over the country for hearings. We are very limited in our awayfrom-Washington hearings, because we know the need to conserve 

dollars. But we do need a budget increase to continue our oversight 

and legislative responsibilities.

103

In short, I believe we have put forward a reasonable and welldocumented request that will enable the Science Committee to continue to play an active role in a wide range of issues, and I look 

forward to any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Boehlert follows:]

104


Insert graphic folio 203 20927A.033
105


Insert graphic folio 204 20927A.034
106

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also the ranking 

member for being here. 

I have one question. In the budget, you mention establishing an 

offsite emergency office. Do you have a dollar figure on that yet? 

If you do not today, you can get back to us. 

Mr. BOEHLERT. I do not think we have an exact dollar figure, and 

we will get back to you with some details. But that was the recommendation from on high that we begin to consider the necessity 

for some time in the future of operating offsite. 

But we are doing some things like getting more lap-top computers that are very portable for our professional staff so they can 

get the input they need to advise us so that we can make the decisions we are required. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The gentlewoman. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And again, it is good to see you, Mr. Chairman. I have welcomed 

the ranking member in, and he has expressed the cooperation that 

you two share on the committee, and that is good. I told him that 

I have known you for some time, and your dear wife, Marianne. It 

is good to know you two work well together. 

I certainly understand, being the Science Committee, that you 

need specialized staff and persons who are really vast in experience 

because of the nature of what you do. I have been told that you 

have increased or are requesting an increase of $30,000 for the first 

session of this 109th Congress for franking and then $35,000 for 

the second session of the 109th Congress, when, last year, you used 

only $3,000 in franking. 

Can you explain to me why you want such an increase? 

Mr. BOEHLERT. Yes. There are some things we have to do. We 

have to do a better job of outreach to advise various groups around 

the country of what we are doing and the importance of what we 

are doing. 

For example, the various programs under the Assistance to Firefighters. We have helped in the educational component of that obligation so that fire companies around the country can discover how 

valuable this program could be for their fire company, getting the 

necessary equipment they need under a peer-review, merit-based 

decisionmaking process completely divorced from the political process. But knowledge is power, and unless we empower these people 

with the knowledge about the existence of these program, how are 

they going to know? 

We have virtually had almost no franking program in the past, 

and so we are expanding that somewhat. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. That is very true. And noting from 

the previous years, you have not had a large franking budget. The 

thing we want to make sure that we are clear on, that franking, 

that when you are anticipating going across the country with your 

various hearings, that you recognize that you do have to come 

under the certain franking rules in governing that type of mail and 

that it cannot be outside of the realm of working with your committee work and not anything else that could be even in the remote 

be seemingly campaign related. 

Mr. BOEHLERT. We would never ever entertain that. 

107

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I just thought I had to say that for 

the record. 

Mr. GORDON. If I may add. I have been reading about the controversy in another committee on this, and I think they are out of 

order. I have not seen that on this committee. If it did come up, 

I would let you know next year. But I think it was a bad precedent 

that was set elsewhere. 

Also, my chairman, I gave you a preliminary amen earlier. Now 

after hearing you, I want to concur that I amen. 

Let me point one more thing out. I have only been the ranking 

member for a year and a half, and our chairman is now starting 

his fifth year. But he inherited a committee from, and I will just 

say that Bob Walker and Jim Sensenbrenner, let me tell you, those 

boys took the fat out. So you can be well assured that there is 

not—when they get through with a committee, there is not much 

left to be done. 

So I really think that all of his requests are very reasonable, 

built on a base of a frugal start. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you so much, Mr. Gordon. 

That is it for me, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will note that we did get the two previous 

chairs, we got them from ink pens to typewriters by the time their 

chairmanships ended. 

We will turn to our resident science advisor, Mr. Ehlers from 

Michigan. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I would like to vouch for this committee in terms of its 

frugality, occasionally excessive frugality. But, certainly, the committee operates very well. It is a committee that is basically nonpartisan and certainly deserving of the support they have requested. I do commend the ranking member for going so far as to 

break his arm to get our sympathy during this crucial period of deciding their budget. 

On a more serious note, the chairman mentioned, or others have 

mentioned, that we have a very tight budget on the Science Committee. And, frankly, I think the committee should probably do 

more travel. We have a lot of national labs under the jurisdiction 

of the committee. We have many other scientific facilities that are, 

although not directly under the jurisdiction of the committee, are 

funded in large part by government grants, such as Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institute, and so on. Plus you have the National Institute of Standards and Technologies labs, the NOAA labs, all the 

weather reporting and so forth. 

The chairman indicated the need for oversight. I concur heartily 

with that, and I think a good deal of that has to be on-site oversight. So I would encourage the committee to be generous with this 

request so that they can fulfill that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brady, any questions? 

Mr. BRADY. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Michigan, Mrs. Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps, 

again, not a question but an observation. And I have to say I am 

particularly pleased that you have some money in your budget for 

travel for NASA. In particular, as the daughter of an aeronautical 

108

engineer, actually, that worked with Wernher Von Braun at Redstone, I think the space program is critically important. It is important not only to members of the Committee, but also to those who 

serve as ambassadors to do outreach to the entire population here 

of our Nation of how important a space program is in every way. 

There are so many positive spinoffs from that, whether it is technology or the fabrics of the clothes that we wear; there are so many 

things that have evolved out of our space program, and it is a very 

important thing. 

I know the President has advocated the Mars mission, and I am 

very interested to see how all that goes. But I am certain that 

when Columbus was addressing the king of Spain about taking a 

trip with three little boats across the big pond there, that they also 

looked at their committee structure and their budget and whether 

or not they could afford such a venture. But exploration is always 

so very, very necessary. So I certainly support your budget and 

look forward to your committee work this year as well. 

Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are thankful they did not do a cutback at 

that time in Italy. 

The gentlewoman from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, let me apologize for being late. I was actually having a 

meeting on the space budget. 

First, I missed all of the testimony, but I did have a chance to 

review it. I was on the committee for 10 years, and I loved the 

Science Committee. I am sorry I had to leave it in order to join this 

committee. Traditionally, I think it has worked pretty well. Chairman Boehlert is exceedingly fair, and I think all the members of 

the committee recognize that. 

However, the default is the minority gets one-third of the budget, 

one-third of the slots and control over their one-third, except as the 

chairman and ranking member may negotiate otherwise. 

So am I to understand that you are both satisfied with the budget that is being proposed here today? 

Mr. BOEHLERT. What I did offer was one amendment. Since our 

budget was prepared, Mr. Gordon approached me and asked if the 

minority might get an additional person, and I have okayed that, 

without any additional money. And he made that clear from the 

outset. 

The traditional way to go about it was, we will give you one more 

if we get one more. We do not need one more. We can always use 

one more, but I mean, the word parsimonious. So I support his request for a staff person without any additional dollars attached to 

that additional staff, a person to give him a little more flexibility. 

But I think we, and I will let Mr. Gordon speak for himself, but 

I think we have a very good relationship. We work well. And so 

many of the activities, as you know as a result of your experience 

on the committee, on many of the issues, you cannot tell the majority from the minority. They are working together in a common 

cause. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Certainly, under your chairmanship, that is true. 

It was not always true with Mr. Walker. 

109

Mr. BOEHLERT. I can only speak for my chairmanship, but I 

think the staffs enjoy a good professional working partnership rather than just a relationship. 

Mr. GORDON. I concur. I elaborated even more than that earlier 

on the good relationship. 

Going to your one-third/one-third situation, we have the onethird/one-third but without the control. We have control on the salaries but not on the other. It works out well, and we have a very 

good relationship. I think sometimes, and it is certainly not due to 

the staff, sometimes it does slow the process down. I think a better 

procedure, like many of the committees do, would be to also have 

that control. 

As long as he does not get hit by a train, then we are fine. But 

I think that is a legitimate question for this committee to raise and 

whether there should be a policy across the board. But we are satisfied here. 

If I could make one additional comment concerning the additional person. As the chairman said, we are not asking for any additional salary. We have, I guess, something maybe of a unique situation in that we allow our ranking members to have a part-time 

person. And according to the rules here, a part-time person fills up 

a slot just like a full-time person. So we have gotten our own selves 

disadvantaged, but we felt it was necessary if a ranking member 

was going to spend the time and effort to be that ranking member 

and to deal with the responsibilities, they should have some reward. And part of that reward is being able to offset the cost of an 

employee that can do a little more work there. So we wound up 

with these four, or actually five, part-time folks. That really cuts 

into us, because they count just like a full-time person. That and 

the additional responsibilities is the basis of this problem. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see. A parochial question. I talked to the chairman, as well as you, Mr. Gordon, about a long-wished-for trip to 

NASA Ames. Do you have enough money in your travel budget to 

visit NASA Ames? 

Mr. BOEHLERT. We do envision that, particularly under Chairman Calvert’s subcommittee chairmanship. He is new on the job, 

and he has indicated a desire and a willingness. We all have the 

desire to travel more and get out to these sites, but sometimes it 

just is not compatible with our schedule. 

So we have the money built in, and we know we are going to return to flight, hopefully in mid-May, and I would envision a committee trip for that. But more importantly, the subcommittee and 

Mr. Gordon and I have discussed that, that we will be traveling 

more. 

Ms. LOFGREN. They built the fastest supercomputer in the world 

in 6 months for $4 million. It took the Japanese years and hundreds of millions. I would love to have you see it. 

Mr. GORDON. Ames also, as you well know, is under the ax for 

the most significant reductions under this new realignment, and I 

think that, one, should be reviewed; and secondly, with the good 

work you do out there, there needs to be thought, if that happens, 

to what additional responsibilities can Ames pick up. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

110

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from California have another question? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Yes, thank you. I just wanted to ask 

the chairman. You spoke about outreach, going to fire services, fire 

stations for more, I guess, hearings? Or did you say something 

about fire stations? 

Mr. BOEHLERT. No, no, no, the answer was in response to the use 

of the frank and where we are having more mailings of that nature. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. No, no, but in your statement, as 

you read, I thought you mentioned that the Science Committee 

would be going to more areas throughout the country and that you 

will be engaging in some perhaps nontraditional groups that you 

have not engaged with in terms of hearings. I thought I heard that. 

Mr. BOEHLERT. We are always looking to explore that. For example, we did have a hearing on the very programs we are discussing, 

in the fire services’ program. And the administrator, David 

Paulson, was invited to testify, and we had bipartisan members of 

the committee. And that was one of the best attended hearings I 

have ever had outside of Washington, simply because there is a 

great deal of interest in it. 

Not everybody can go out to the airport to fly to Washington to 

participate, so that is the type of thing we are trying to do more 

of. But I can envision the necessity for traveling to some of the 

NASA centers, because NASA has announced their restructuring of 

their workforce, and there are thousands of people whose lives and 

futures are going to be on the line. 

So we want to make sure our committee is in the position to provide the best possible advice to our colleagues on the committee 

and the Congress as to how we should proceed with that. So unless 

we get to Ames and Glen and some of these other places, we will 

not be in that position. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I must say, that is very critical. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank both the chairman and the ranking 

member for coming here today. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Veterans is next. What I will do is, since Veterans is not here, if the gentlewoman would want to, we can quickly present House Administration, and we can present that until the 

Veterans’ Committee comes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT W. NEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

The CHAIRMAN. The ranking member and I have jointly introduced the budget request for House Administration Committee as 

H. Res. 159, and as chairman, I am happy to work with our ranking member, Ms. Millender-McDonald and her staff to introduce a 

budget that we can both support. I think it is an honest budget and 

one that is necessary for us to continue the necessary and important work of running, maintaining and securing the U.S. House of 

Representatives for Members, their staff and employees of the 

House. 

111

House Administration’s request totals $10,101,152 for the 109th 

Congress. This represents an 18.46 percent increase over the 

$8,527,057 figure authorized for the 108th Congress. This breaks 

down to $4,822,199 and $5,278,953 for 2005 and 2006 respectively. 

The committee also requests an increase in our staff ceiling from 

48 to 54. Should these additional slots be approved, of course they 

would be allocated on a two-thirds/one-third basis. We need the additional slots to bolster the ranks of our current staff, who are increasingly dealing with election administration and campaign finance issues, areas within our committee’s jurisdiction, which have 

seen an explosion of activities. With the announcement of the committee’s hearing schedule, including field hearings, additional staff 

are needed to maintain our oversight functions. 

Additionally, our committee is looking to improve its oversight of 

House security and technology issues. Additional, staff and funds 

will assist us in strongly addressing these responsibilities. 

As with all committee budgets, our requested increase is needed 

primarily to support personnel costs, including costs associated 

with comparability pay increases for staff. Many committees have 

already testified to this effect. As the gap grows between privatesector salaries and government salaries, it becomes difficult for 

committees to maintain and acquire qualified staff. If you do not 

have qualified staff, you cannot communicate with constituencies 

across the country. 

Without objection, I will submit the rest for the record because 

our two Members have shown for their testimony. But again, we 

continue the two-thirds/one-third allocation of our resources, as 

was established by Bill Thomas when he was chairman of the committee, and I am pleased to continue that tradition. 

Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California, our 

ranking member, and the other Members and the staff for helping 

us to crunch the numbers and produce this budget. 

[The statement of Mr. Ney follows:]

112


Insert graphic folio 219 20927A.035
113


Insert graphic folio 220 20927A.036
114


Insert graphic folio 221 20927A.037
115


Insert graphic folio 222 20927A.038
116


Insert graphic folio 223 20927A.039
117

STATEMENT OF HON. JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Absolutely. 

Do you want me to make my statement or just go with them? 

Okay, make my statement. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to recognize 

Chairman Ney and Speaker Hastert for their continued leadership 

and consistent commitment to the two-thirds/one-third funding 

principle for the minority. Chairman Ney has been a beacon for all 

the committee chairs, and he has amply demonstrated that allowing minority control over its fair share of committee funding, promoting comity and communication between the majority and the 

minority does not diminish any Chairman’s control over the committee he leads, which is really laudable. 

Chairman Ney’s open-door policy with this ranking member and 

with my predecessors has promoted a broad cooperative working 

relationship and has eliminated the suspicion which arises when 

open communications are lacking. 

So we thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

With respect to the committee’s funding request, let me say, 

right up, that I am rather fiscally conservative. It is the people’s 

money, and we ought to spend only what we need to get the job 

done. When Leader Pelosi assigned me to the task of ranking member, I gave her assurances that I would do a top-to-bottom review 

of all House support services, and I promised that the House would 

do everything reasonable and necessary to ensure the security of 

Members, staff and visiting constituents. This will require additional committee staff resources, and I support the Chairman’s request to Speaker Hastert to raise the staff ceiling for the committee. 

In addition to the security concerns, I think the committee will 

need to engage short-term expertise to review our internal practices and procedures and to ensure that tax dollars are being efficiently spent on internal operations throughout the House. Once 

these reviews are completed, I would anticipate the need for this 

committee to make the changes necessary to streamline House operations and to eliminate waste. 

Mr. Chairman, the most recent Federal election clearly demonstrated the need for aggressive oversight of the Federal Election 

Administration throughout the country by this committee. We must 

go to the people, gather the information and make adjustments to 

HAVA wherever we find it necessary. We will conduct the first of 

what I hope to be many field hearings in Columbus, Ohio, next 

week. In order to conduct this type of oversight, we will need additional funding for travel, and I hope we can obtain that. 

Mr. Chairman, I consider the increase, which we have jointly requested, to be reasonable in light of the security administrative 

and oversight challenges ahead. I would characterize the increase 

as an investment in House efficiency as well as the maintenance 

of our democratic process. I would expect it to result in savings to 

the American taxpayer and a fair and more robust democracy in 

the long run. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

118

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlewoman. 

And now we will move on to chairman of the Veterans Committee, Mr. Buyer from Indiana. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE BUYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA 

Mr. BUYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee to 

present a budget submission for the 109th Congress on behalf of 

the Veterans’ Affairs full committee. My friend, ranking member 

and Marine, Lane Evans, joins me here today in support of the 

committee’s request. 

As you know, we have oversight over the Department of Veterans 

Affairs. The VA is the second largest Federal agency, employing 

over 200,000 people, with budget authority exceeding $69 billion. 

The VA Committee’s total budget request for the 109th Congress 

of $7.9 million will provide us with the funds needed to hire and 

retain the finest staff. It is also my understanding this request may 

represent the largest requested increase this year, but I also believe it is fair, and in fact, it is justified. 

Used efficiently and with careful planning, this budget will allow 

us to provide the highest quality oversight to ensure that veterans 

who accessed the VA yesterday and those coming back today have 

the highest quality of care. 

As I stated in my written testimony and upon assuming the 

chairmanship this January, I asked my staff director to provide a 

complete accounting of all funds, equipment and personnel. I asked 

him to discuss the needs also with the minority, with Lane Evans’ 

staff director, as well. Administratively, we split our salary allotment two-thirds/one-third. 

It is my assessment that the committee badly needs to hire additional staff to meet the needs of our committee. The committee has 

added a fourth subcommittee to better meet the needs of our veterans population. Therefore, additional staff space, especially for 

the Democrats, is needed as they currently share a two-room suite, 

and they should be able to access additional space, preferably within the Canon Office Building. It would be welcomed. 

During this time of war, the committee must provide proper 

oversight to ensure the men and women transitioning into the VA 

health care system are able to do so quickly and effectively. We 

need to make sure those already in the system are provided for as 

well. The committee has identified several areas of concern, and 

the retention of an expert consultant could facilitate our efforts in 

several ways: Number one, to deliver the seamless transition between DOD and VA health care system; number two, to ensure 

that benefits, especially those which seek to help transition our veterans into the work force, are adequate; three, the VA has approximately $3 billion in uncollected debt. Increasing collections is a priority of the committee. An outside consultant will facilitate making 

significant inroads on this front. And, finally, we will continue to 

address the needs of the electronic medical records and information 

technology at the VA. We hope you will look favorably at this increase that we have included in this request to fund such expertise. 

119

With regard to travel, the funds we request will enable us to 

travel to many of the VA hospitals, outpatient clinics, nursing 

homes and national cemeteries within the VA system that are not 

only within the continental United States but also worldwide. 

In recent years, the VA Committee has expended an insignificant 

amount on staff and Member travel to perform oversight. It is more 

important than ever for us to be out and learning firsthand the 

needs and successes of the largest health care delivery system in 

the government and to ensure that the veterans are receiving the 

assistance they need. 

With regard to equipment, equal to the need for additional staff 

is the need for equipment. Due to past funding, this committee was 

not able to make equipment purchases in the 108th Congress and 

has not been able to maintain the one-third hardware inventory 

schedule replacement plan. 

The staff is currently using 15 Pentium III computers and seven 

Pentium II laptops that cannot run the most current House approved software system. They are well below the House minimum 

support standards. Our servers are in dire need of replacement and 

are between 3 and 7 years old. In the 108th Congress, some staff 

had Blackberrys that had to be returned for budgetary reasons. 

So we have some major purchases that must happen over the 

next 2 years, and some of them are immediate. They include a new 

copier for the minority, replacement of several computers and computer upgrades and computer software. Most all are needed to 

meet House minimum technical standards. 

Our Web site, which has won awards, also needs to be updated. 

We currently provide access around the world via audio feed 

through the Web site. We would like to offer video broadcasting, 

too, if the funds were available. We also need additional funds to 

ensure that we have an emergency contingency plan for equipment 

backup and offsite capability should we be unable to access our office. 

In closing, we face complex and unique challenges to ensure that 

the VA continues and excels in completing its mission. Again, I understand this request may be one of the largest of the committees, 

but I can assure you we will use it efficiently and wisely. 

In the recent past, field hearings have been canceled, equipment 

has been taken back and staff has not been hired due to lack of 

funding. Mr. Chairman and ranking member, we will work effectively to offer the finest legislative initiatives to maintain and improve the lives of our veterans and their dependents. We believe 

the increase we are asking for is justified and needed. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Buyer follows:]

120


Insert graphic folio 232 20927A.040
121


Insert graphic folio 233 20927A.041
122


Insert graphic folio 234 20927A.042
123


Insert graphic folio 235 20927A.043
124

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank the chairman for his testimony. 

And we will now go on to our ranking member, Mr. Lane Evans 

of Illinois. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LANE EVANS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your giving 

us the time this afternoon to talk to you about these important 

issues. I think the chairman, though, has outlined them, not only 

recognizing the challenges but the recommendations that can really 

mean something to our ability as a committee to perform as well 

as we can. 

The important issue of space is one that has been most troubling. 

We have had such an overlapping situation that it would probably 

hurt us to continue at this present level. We do not have the ability 

to go out and do oversight or to go out and visit these facilities 

across the country. 

I think that we can work together on this committee. We have 

that hallmark, but we do have to have a decent number of staff. 

It has curtailed at least some of us from getting around as much 

as we used to. And it is too bad, because this is one institution 

where it is very necessary to keep in touch with the people who are 

affected by it. 

So that is why we come here today, to ask for your support in 

these specific areas and to praise the chairman for the work he has 

done. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Evans follows:]

125


Insert graphic folio 238 20927a.044
126

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank both the chair and the ranking 

member. It is a great job you both do here in the Congress for, obviously, a real important issue, our veterans. We would not be here 

debating and able to debate if it was not for the veterans. I do not 

have to tell you that. I know you both are good patriots and have 

watched out for the veterans’ needs, and we give you a lot of credit 

for that. 

On the space issue, we have been hearing this over and over, the 

Architect of the Capitol, I think in March of this year, will have 

sort of a master plan they will unveil. Somewhere along the line, 

we have to get more space. It is endemic throughout our system. 

These buildings were not designed for the amount of people that 

we have. 

With that, I will just see if there are any questions, because of 

the votes. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, 

and thanks to the chairman and the ranking member of Veterans 

Affairs. It is very clear that you need to update some equipment, 

that you are far behind in that as well as maybe some of the other 

necessary components of doing a more efficient job in this committee. 

Mr. Chairman, I do have some glaring requests by your committee with reference to the frank mail allocation. You are requesting one of the largest frank mail allocations in this committee, with 

a $50,000 projection of this. And I would like to call your attention 

to the 108th Congress where you spent only $2,037.39 for the first 

session and only $1,697.77 during the second session. 

This was compared to the request that you had and was granted 

for frank mail of $10,000. This represents an increase of over 2,600 

percent. Can you explain to the committee why you are asking for 

such a considerable increase in the frank mail? 

Mr. BUYER. Two comments. First, with regard to the Chairman’s 

comment regarding spacing, there is, right across from the ranking 

member’s office, the Joint Economic Committee, where there is 

space. This staff has to grow in order to meet these present needs. 

There is room, I want you to take note. They can move up to three 

of their staff there. And if you were to go and see the room in 

which they have to operate in, you would never want anybody to 

be treated like that. So I just wanted to share with you that there 

is some space and to please make note of that. I would endorse 

their gaining access to that Joint Economic Committee room that 

is not being used. 

With regard to your question on frank mail, I was not the chairman, ma’am, in the last Congress. I am the new chairman here in 

January, and we are trying to assess how we can effectively communicate with veterans in the country beyond the veterans’ service 

organizations. 

That is what people seem to sort of rely on. But we do not communicate effectively with all of the county veterans service officers 

in the entire country and territories, and I want to reach out and 

I want to touch them. And I think that is extremely important to 

do that, and that is the purpose of the request, through the franking budget. 

127

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Now, while that is absolutely important for you to do that, because our veterans really do need to hear 

from us here, we want you to recognize that there are limitations 

on how and what you can do with your outreach beyond the scope 

of your own district with reference to franked mail. 

And we must ask that you abide by the 90-day cutoff before an 

election in sending franked mail out, and that you do get a clearance of the franked mail from Franking before it is done. That is 

something that we now find a committee has been in violation of. 

We are now watching very closely the requests for franked mail 

from each committee. 

We are looking at any committee that goes beyond the $25,000, 

which should be kind of the standard for that, but with your saying 

50,000 per session, it really did raise the bar quite a bit—and eyebrows. But I just want you to know that we want to stay within 

the privileges of those Members, chairmen and ranking members, 

but we want also to preserve the integrity of this House and the 

taxpayers’ dollars. 

Mr. BUYER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. If I could interrupt to clear up just for the record, 

but the 90-day cutoff does not apply, under the House rule, to committees. But Members’ offices do have a 90-day cutoff. 

I am sorry. Go ahead. 

Mr. BUYER. Ma’am, I think if you were to look at my own history, 

in my seventh term here in Congress, I am probably in the lower 

20 percent of Members who access and utilize franked mail. So I 

share with you your concern. 

What I am hoping to do here is how we effectively communicate 

with the county veterans service officers. These are the individuals 

who really are very, very active, hands-on with our veterans in our 

communities. They are the ones who the vets first go to, and that 

is who we want to reach out and touch. That was the purpose of 

the request. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I really do appreciate the gentleman 

explaining that and expressing your thoughts about that. And 

while the Chairman has appropriately outlined what is and what 

is not with reference to Chairs’ positions as opposed to Members’ 

positions, we are all spending taxpayer dollars to do this, and I 

think we should very much recognize that and appropriately respond to the limitations vis-a-vis whether it is Member or committee Chair with reference to the taxpayers’ dollars in mailing 

this mail out beyond the scope of your district. 

And with the committee, of course you want to do outreach beyond that across the country. But that mail should go in concert 

with that outreach hearing that you are anticipating doing. 

Mr. BUYER. Ma’am, I am cognizant of everything that you have 

just said. And Mr. Evans and I work cooperatively together. The 

Veterans Affairs Committee is supposed to be the most bipartisan 

committee in Congress, and Lane and I are—not only are we comrades in arms, we are also friends, and we seek to work cooperatively, even in how we communicate with our county veterans service officers. And in uniform, no one ever asked Lane and I whether 

we are Republicans or Democrats. So as we serve our veteran populations, it should be done in the same spirit. 

128

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I thank you so much because, as 

veterans, no one should ever ask whether you are Republicans or 

Democrats. And Mr. Evans has stated to me that he appreciates 

the support that you give him and the continuous camaraderie between the two of you. So we thank you so much. I suppose the $90,000 per session for printing that you have also 

requested is in concert with your outreach to the—across the country; is that correct? 

Mr. BUYER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I also would note we have a Franking Commission at House Administration, and they will sit down and tell you 

the current rules, work with your staff. If rules change in this process this year, they will review those, too, with you. And so the 

Franking Commission will be essential to sit down and be able to 

tell you the current House rules. 

Does the gentlelady have a question? And the second bell has 

rung. I just want to say thank you for your time. I also want to 

note, you are at a turning point, I think, in the committee—turning 

point in equipment, turning point in staff, horrifically lean, and 

some decisions have to be made so you can continue to do your job. 

And I know that. 

Mr. BUYER. My only plea is, please place us in a plan with a time 

line that is realistic, whereby we can modernize and have a realistic replacement plan with regard to our equipment. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. And come to my district first with 

your outreach. 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in recess until 3:00 or 

around—the last vote, I think it is around 3:00. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will come to order. We will start 

with Homeland Security, with our chairman, the gentleman from 

California, Mr. Cox, who will begin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER COX, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. COX. Thank you, Chairman Ney, Ranking Member Ms. 

Millender-McDonald. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on 

behalf of the Committee on Homeland Security. 

We are a new standing committee of the House, and it has been 

almost 60 years since the House has had to consider what it takes 

to start from scratch a new standing committee. The last time we 

did this was during the postwar consolidation of the Nation’s military establishment, 1947. That culminated in the creation of the 

Department of Defense. 

This year, Congress acted to respond to a no less momentous 

change in the organization of the executive branch by creating a 

permanent standing Committee on Homeland Security to address 

this vital national security issue and to oversee the new Department of Homeland Security. 

My distinguished ranking member, Bennie Thompson, and I cosponsored H. Res. 104, which is before you, to cover expenses for 

the Homeland Security Committee in the 109th Congress. The 

129

funding resolution seeks $7.4 million for 2005 and 8.3 for 2006. 

These amounts are necessary to pay salaries for a total of 80 staff, 

majority and minority combined, and operating expenses for the 

full committee and its five subcommittees. 

To put our request into perspective, the amount we are seeking 

would put the committee at the bottom of the top one-third of all 

of the committees in the House. This reflects Representative 

Thompson’s and my own understanding as to what it will take not 

only to get this new committee up and running, but to discharge 

its significant new responsibilities. 

In that connection, it is important to note that the Select Committee on Homeland Security that I chaired in the last Congress 

wasn’t funded under the general budget resolution, it was funded 

under its own separate resolution. This year’s funding resolution, 

therefore, will, for the first time, be setting a baseline for this new 

committee. It has not been done before. 

This new committee is very different from the select committee; 

it has significantly expanded responsibilities and jurisdiction. So I 

think it will be fair to compare future resolutions to whatever you 

do this year; it will not be fair to compare what we do this year 

to anything that has gone before. Certainly, we can’t literally compare it with the funding resolution from the 108th Congress because even the select committee wasn’t included in it. 

In considering our request for funding for the 109th Congress, 

the committee carefully took into account what would be required 

to meet our legislative and oversight responsibilities as specifically 

defined in our Rule 10 jurisdictional statement. Our detailed budget submission explains that fully 89 percent of the committee’s 

budget will be dedicated to expert staff and only 11 percent of the 

requested budget for operational expenses. 

Let me also mention the remarkable breadth of the committee’s 

jurisdiction, which is a far cry from what we had as a select committee in the last Congress. The Committee on Homeland Security 

has jurisdiction over all homeland security policy, governmentwide, in every department of the executive branch as well as, 

quote, ‘‘on a continuing basis all government activities relating to 

homeland security including the interaction of all departments and 

agencies within the Department of Homeland Security.’’ So setting 

the baseline for the Homeland Security Committee in its first year 

is precedent-setting, and it is a serious responsibility. 

As a committee, we won’t be able to meet our jurisdictional responsibilities without not only sufficient staff, but also the necessary expertise. And I think in the formal statement Ranking 

Member Thompson addressed that. He may address it orally later 

today. 

Putting our work into its broader context, we would all acknowledge that the Department of Homeland Security has made significant progress since Congress passed the Homeland Security Act of 

2002. But terrorist networks still pose a serious challenge to our 

national security interests, and perhaps in the long term they will 

pose an even greater threat than they did on September 11, 2001. 

The terrorist threat and, in particular, the combination of evolving 

technology that will fall into the hands of terrorist groups in the 

130

future is with us for the foreseeable future. And to address it, the 

Department of Homeland Security is here to stay. 

Ranking Member Thompson and I, along with the 32 other members of the Homeland Security Committee, are determined to help 

the Department of Homeland Security achieve its mission as mandated in the Homeland Security Act. We will consider legislation 

and conduct vigorous oversight through each of the committee’s five 

subcommittees to ensure that the Department remains focused on 

its overarching priority of preventing terrorist attacks here in the 

United States. We will ensure that the Department allocates its 

terrorism grant assistance, like its overall budget, in a manner that 

reflects the most significant terrorism-related risks that we face. 

Given the scope of the committee’s responsibilities, it is critical 

that we vest in the Committee on Homeland Security the experts 

and the tools necessary to guide positive change in the Department 

and throughout the executive branch. I am confident that the budget request before you, including the committee staff, majority and 

minority combined, of 80 persons will be a prudent and forwardlooking congressional investment. 

Thank you again, Chairman Ney, Ranking Member MillenderMcDonald, and other members of the committee for this opportunity to testify. I will be happy to answer any questions you might 

have. 

[The statement of Mr. Cox follows:]

131


Insert graphic folio 250 20927A.045
132


Insert graphic folio 251 20927A.046
133


Insert graphic folio 252 20927A.047
134


Insert graphic folio 253 20927A.048
135


Insert graphic folio 254 20927A.049
136


Insert graphic folio 255 20927A.050
137

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being here today, 

and the committee that you have served. 

I want to ask one question about, we kind of noted in the submission, you plan to stop using consultants. I am not saying that 

is bad; we use consultants. But a lot of committees use consultants. 

Did you find it in particular due to the nature of homeland security 

that consultants aren’t as valuable to you? I was just curious on 

that. 

Mr. COX. I just inquired of staff, what were the concerns there. 

We intend to hire consultants, and that is included in the budget. 

But as you note, the authority to do so is not as extensive as it was 

for the Select Committee on Homeland Security. Two things obtained: First, because we are a permanent committee, we don’t 

need to outsource so much since we are not in a big hurry. The select committee was time limited and had only one Congress in 

which to operate. 

The second is that there are major conflicts of interest that arise 

with outside consultants and the growing homeland security 

consultancy area. These are precisely the kinds of questions that 

come before the Congress, and so making a general habit of staffing that way is not the course to be preferred. 

The CHAIRMAN. Each committee, I was just curious because each 

committee does it separately. I think by nature homeland security 

and intel would be a whole different type of animal when it comes 

to consultants and things, just due to the nature of the sensitivity, 

too. 

So, questions? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is 

good to see you, my hometown chairman and friend and also the 

ranking member. And congratulations to him again. I have not had 

the pleasure to extend that. 

Mr. Chairman, as you spoke, I was very—it is very interesting 

the task that you have, both of you, on homeland security. This has 

become now a permanent committee, and you are right, you are 

trying to establish this baseline. And with establishing the baseline 

of course we see the movements of dollars with reference to the 

franked mail, and I will get to that in just a moment. 

But when we speak about the consultants—and I know that, as 

the Chairman has said, you have to be very careful because these 

folks have to be scrutinized quite well. But in carrying out the request of my leader, House Leader Pelosi, we want to make sure 

that, and encourage chairmen and ranking members to ensure 

that, there is diversity when we are looking at contractual agreements among folks or getting consultants. Because I think the 

American people want to see a representation of all the people in 

the People’s House. 

In your franking, you requested in the 108th Congress $25,000, 

but you spent a little more than—you spent only $909 in the first 

session and $783 in the second session. And yet in the 109th Congress you are again asking for the $25,000. 

May I ask you why the increase or what your intentions are with 

reference to $25,000 for franking mail? 

Mr. COX. My understanding is consistent with yours about the 

underutilization of that budget in the last 2 years. The committee 

138

utilized our franking budget as a select committee for official committee business such as letters to and from the Department, answering letters addressed to the committee, witness request letters, 

and so on. We did not use the franking for mass mailings to any 

significant extent. 

But the purpose of the budget would be to include the issuance 

of committee reports, and I wouldn’t see any purpose beyond that. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. So, in essence, while you are requesting the $25,000, under the franking expenditures, it would 

really be used for reports and other things endemic to getting the 

information out to this broad spectrum of folks you want to get 

that out to; and it has never been used for mass mailing in the first 

place? 

Mr. COX. That is correct. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Okay. Fine. 

Mr. Chairman, that is all. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Thompson has arrived. So since 

the gentleman from Mississippi is here, we will go ahead and hear 

from the ranking member. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, ranking 

member, other members of the committee. 

As you have already heard from the chairman, there is pretty 

much agreement on this budget. Actually, there is complete agreement on the budget, so—but I would like to get some points into 

the record relative to the budget. 

As the ranking member of the now permanent Committee on 

Homeland Security, I offer my full support of the budget resolution 

offered by my colleague, Chairman Cox, and myself. This resolution 

is bipartisan in nature and requests the resources needed to ensure 

that the new committee can operate effectively and to its fullest capacity. 

Our committee faces the daunting challenge of overseeing the 

Nation’s overall homeland security policy, including the various activities of the Department of Homeland Security. As an agency 

formed from 22 different agencies, the Department’s efforts cover 

many distinct complex issues, including border and port security, 

customs, cybersecurity, and critical infrastructure protection, intelligence analysis of homeland security threats, domestic preparedness and first responders, research and development, transportation security and emerging threats such as agroterrorism, bioterrorism, and nuclear proliferation. In order to conduct effective oversight, our committee must be able to draw an experienced staff 

that can properly evaluate the Department’s efforts in all of these 

areas. 

Such a staff cannot be drawn from recent graduates, but must 

be made up of individuals who are experienced in their fields. To 

recruit, hire, and retain such experts requires competitive salaries 

and incentives. Simply stated, we need the best and the brightest 

to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security, which continues to lag in its efforts to protect our Nation, is doing all that 

139

it should be doing. Chairman Cox and I agree on this, and are committed to hiring the best experts we can for our respective sides. 

One other issue that I would like to raise has to do with the committee’s request regarding travel. I have spoken to Mr. Cox about 

this. We both agree that if our committee is to be effective, it must 

go into the communities across America with the Department 

tasking we are protecting. We cannot do effective oversight of the 

Department if we cannot evaluate for ourselves what is being done 

in towns, cities, and States across America. 

We both have agreed that to further this effort we need to conduct extensive field hearings. Our first will be next week in Vicksburg, Mississippi. I thank Chairman Cox for agreeing to come to 

my district to hear from those most affected and involved in the 

government’s effort to protect our ports and waterways. Of course, 

to conduct such field hearings we would need the staff we requested. I hope you take this into consideration. 

I thank all the committee members for their time, and I am 

happy to respond to any questions you might have. 

[The statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

140


Insert graphic folio 263 20927A.051
141


Insert graphic folio 264 20927A.052
142


Insert graphic folio 265 20927A.053
143


Insert graphic folio 266 20927A.054
144


Insert graphic folio 267 20927A.055
145

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. 

Questions? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before we get to our other Member, Mr. Thompson, you have certainly eloquently stated that this is a daunting task that you have, 

working in perhaps the most challenging committee outside of 

some of the others whom we have talked about today and with 

today. 

We wanted—and we do recognize that you need expertise. You 

do need folks not just coming out with an undergrad in June and 

trying to hit the ground running in this committee. Are you satisfied, though, with the staff that you get and request from the chairman, and have you been able to work cooperatively with him on 

that? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Absolutely. And as I said, this budget we agree 

with. If we receive the resources necessary, we can find the people. 

But in order to find them, we have to negotiate competitive salaries, and if we have the resources, we can do that. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. You do recognize the two-thirds/onethird formula that we have here in House Administration with reference to the Chair and the ranking member. Are you satisfied 

with the two-thirds/one-third and control—control not necessarily 

coming from the ranking member, of course, but that when you do 

request equipment or whatever from the chairman, he is amenable 

to that request? 

Mr. THOMPSON. We have talked about it, and I am in agreement. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Very well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The gentlelady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security 

last Congress and am a member of the standing committee this 

Congress, and I can attest that the scope of the committee’s work 

is very broad and the need for expertise is very serious. And so I 

think the request is a sound one. I do have a couple of questions 

about travel and space. 

I very much agree—I have been in Congress now 10 years and 

I have never been on a CODEL. I am not a big traveler. But I do 

believe this committee really has to get out in the country and look 

at things and to examine them, and I plan to do that with the 

chairman and ranking member. 

And so the question is, is the travel budget that you have presented to us adequate to make sure that all the members who 

should be there are out at the borders inspecting what is going on, 

and all the other sites that we need to go to?

I missed the last 2 hours of our retreat because I had a meeting 

here in Washington, so maybe that was discussed. I know we were 

going to discuss it. 

Mr. COX. Well, what we did discuss at the tail end of our bipartisan retreat is our ambition to visit, as Mr. Thompson said, many 

parts of the country, as many as our congressional schedules allow. 

I don’t think our travel budget that we have asked for here will be 

a constraint. It is, happily, a lot less expensive to travel around the 

146

United States than it is to take congressional delegations to foreign 

countries. And a good deal of our travel will be focused on the 

United States of America because that is what homeland security 

is all about. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. I also had a request about space. 

We are a new committee, and my sense is that the staffs are 

kind of jammed in places that are not really optimal in terms of 

staff space. Is that your sense as well? And space has been a problem for a lot of committees, but I think it is particularly a problem 

for this one since we are new. And have you given some thought 

to what our staff space needs are as we address the space needs 

of Congress overall? 

Mr. COX. Indeed. The Committee on Homeland Security has inherited the space that was made available on a temporary basis for 

the Select Committee on Homeland Security by the Librarian of 

Congress in the Adams Building, one of three Library of Congress 

buildings here in the Capitol complex. That clearly will be inadequate for a permanent Committee on Homeland Security inasmuch as, for example, it doesn’t even include a hearing room or 

contiguous space for majority and minority staff. 

What we are expecting will improve the environment in which 

we are operating is the completion of the Capitol Visitor’s Center 

and the addition of those square feet to what we have to work with. 

We don’t know necessarily that our committee would acquire any 

of that space, but the opportunities that would be created to move 

things around and provide something from nothing, which is really 

what we are looking at here as a brand-new committee, and it has 

got to find significant square feet for a permanent hearing room 

and space—the opportunities would thereby be created. We are expectant this will solve our problem, and I am working very closely 

with the Speaker on this. 

I don’t think we have any realistic expectation that we can get 

out of the box that we are in until, at the earliest, next year because that is the earliest that portions of the Capitol Visitor’s Center that will come on line will be next year. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now, as for a hearing room, it is not a huge committee, but we end up jammed in these horrible little rooms that 

there is really not enough room for the committee. And I am wondering, have we received any commitment? 

You know, I think about 10 years ago there was a Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. Who got their hearing room? Maybe 

we could claim that. 

Mr. COX. We have, in fact, used that on occasion. That is one of 

the rooms that we have been using. It has been a movable feast; 

and it is one of the greatest discomforts that we have as a new 

committee, that we don’t have our own space. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But we expect we might get that when the visitor’s center opens? 

Mr. COX. I think that that is—you know, if you are looking for 

a way to get to break the logjam—and right now there just isn’t 

a whole lot of space. We are not going to build a new building, so 

we have got to move things around and so on. But the opening up 

of that new space, I think will change the equation dramatically. 

147

Ms. LOFGREN. Finally, I believe Mr. Thompson was going to 

say——

Mr. THOMPSON. A couple points. 

One of the challenges we have is, as you know, one of our members requires an ADA-compatible hearing room. We have made 

that request of the chairman, and he has agreed, within his authority, to make sure that whatever hearing room we have is compatible with the law. And when we were a select, we had some problems, and we are trying to work through that also. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is a good point. The final question has to do 

with secure rooms. 

I am ranking on the Intelligence Subcommittee, and we are having our first classified briefing tomorrow morning. But there is a 

real shortage of secure space to have those briefings in the Capitol. 

I am wondering whether you know—maybe the chairman knows—

if that is going to be one of the things that might be improved with 

the opening of the visitor’s center. 

Mr. COX. It is my understanding that it is and, in fact, that the 

Intelligence Committee may well move into space in this new area 

of the Capitol Visitor’s Center. Were that to happen, there would 

be secure space, as you know, in the Capitol itself that, potentially, 

the Homeland Security Committee could use as a portion of its 

space commitment. That space would obviously be inadequate in 

terms of the number of square feet, the hearing room and so on. 

But I just want to take the occasion to thank this committee, 

thank Chairman Ney and other members of this committee for 

what you all did in the last Congress, giving us the resources that 

we needed to construct a SCIF in the Adams Building. It is expensive to construct secure space. We couldn’t operate as a select committee without it for a number of reasons. And on an ongoing basis, 

when we move into permanent space, we are going to need that as 

well. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Those are all of my questions, Mr. Chairman. And 

I know we have got space problems in all the committees, but this 

committee really is at the top of need because they are new. I 

thank the chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We worked, I know the leaders’ offices have 

worked and we have worked with Van Der Meid and Leader 

Pelosi’s staff; everybody has tried to work to find space. It is so difficult. 

And, again, eventually Congress has to—a suggestion I have is 

something across from the Cannon Building where we used to have 

the old page dorm. You can build something, be very close, you are 

not taking people and shifting half of them downtown or something 

like that. But eventually Congress has got to have the will to bite 

the bullet and get some more space. 

Again, these buildings—I saw the flow chart that we will get to 

you all. These buildings were designed for 6,000 fewer people than 

are in them; and the working conditions are not healthy, and it 

probably wouldn’t be tolerated, out in the public sector. 

So hopefully we can work on it. 

I thank both the Chair and the ranking member for being here 

today. Thank you. 

Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

148

The CHAIRMAN. We will move on to the Education Committee, 

Education and the Workforce. 

I thank the chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, 

Mr. Boehner, for being here, and also Mr. Miller, the ranking member. And we will start today with Chairman Boehner for his testimony on the budget. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOEHNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And it is nice to be 

back in my old committee with my colleagues whom I served with 

on this committee for about 8 years. I know this process that you 

are going through is a long one, and I will try to keep it short. 

Our budget submission reflects, I think, an accurate and fiscally 

responsible representation of our committee’s needs. And as I embark on my last term as chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we have a big agenda ahead of us. But this committee has worked well with us the last two cycles, and I think 

that we have had the resources necessary to get our job done. 

Our budget request represents a 5.6 percent overall budget increase, considerably less than what we asked for and received in 

the last Congress. Our budget, I think, reflects fairness in meeting 

the goal, providing one-third of our funding and staffing to the minority, and as in the past two Congresses, this request was developed in full cooperation with Mr. Miller and his staff. 

It does provide meeting the goal of providing the minority with 

one-third of the staff and complete control over his portion of the 

budget. And we continue to have shared employees when it comes 

to the IT functions at our committee. We think—we started this 4 

years ago, and it has worked very well. And as we look at the increases that we are asking for, it is primarily in the area of salaries and much of it would go to the shared staff that we have. 

You know, the committee’s legislative agenda includes reauthorization of the association health plan that we are working on today. 

We have a major budget—I mean, pension overhaul bill dealing 

with defined benefit plans for both single employer and multiemployer, and we expect that we will reauthorize the Higher Education Act this year. 

We have a tremendous effort under way to try to improve the 

Head Start program as well as a lot of other bills that we have 

there, but—many of them we did last year; unfortunately, we have 

to do them all over again this year because the Senate failed to act. 

But I would just say that our request includes upgrades to our 

software, hardware, communications, and Web streaming equipment. It also, I think, will allow us to update and upgrade our offsite data storage plans. And, finally, I think it will leave the incoming chairman, who follows my chairmanship, an adequate level of 

technology and resources to run the committee. 

So, with that, I would just say to my colleagues, thank you for 

giving me a chance to work with you over the last two cycles. We 

try to take the money that you give us and use it wisely. And, with 

that, I would like to turn to my colleague, Mr. Miller. 

[The statement of Mr. Boehner follows:]

149


Insert graphic folio 279 20927A.056
150


Insert graphic folio 280 20927A.057
151


Insert graphic folio 281 20927A.058
152


Insert graphic folio 282 20927A.059
153

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the 

opportunity. I appreciate the chance to appear here to support this 

joint funding request that has been developed by Mr. Boehner’s office and our office. 

I think he has properly characterized it in terms of its apportionments of funds and the control over those funds by the minority. 

It is a relationship that we have had since his becoming Chair of 

the committee. 

I want to take a moment to offer my congratulations to your new 

ranking member, Congresswoman Millender-McDonald, on her appointment to this committee. And we look forward to working with 

her and with the staff of this committee as questions arise during 

the year; and also to recognize my colleague, other colleague from 

California, Zoe Lofgren, who is new to this committee. 

I want to say that the relationship that I have with Mr. 

Boehner—we disagree on a great number of issues, but we do agree 

how this committee has been administered. It has been administered in a very fair and a very balanced way, I think.

With respect to the Democratic members, Mr. Boehner has found 

himself at the end of long afternoons where he has honored the 

right of members on our side of the aisle to offer amendments, to 

fully debate those amendments, and to have roll call votes on those 

amendments; and we are appreciative of that. 

He has long been a supporter, as the chairman of this committee, 

Mr. Ney, has, that the minority would have an apportionment and 

allocation of one-third of those resources. And again this budget reflects that as—except for, as he pointed out, with the shared employees in the IT area, which I think works out to the benefit of 

both parties. 

The important point is, I think, that our relationship has led the 

way in terms of the minority having full discretion over the use of 

those resources so that we can serve the interests of our members, 

their concerns with the issues that come before our committee, 

whether that is to gather additional information in their districts 

or in other places in the country, or to develop that information 

preparing for the markups in the committee. 

I would say the only area in which we are disadvantaged, I think 

you have heard this now from a number of committees, and that 

is in space. We are simply at a point where we really are not able 

to function to our full capacity to serve our members on a very, 

very active and important agenda, simply because of the lack of 

space. We have talked about this now for the last several years, 

but I would hope at some point there would be some effort by the 

majority leadership in the House to start to figure out how to provide additional space. 

I assume some of this impacts the majority also, but certainly it 

does the minority in a number of committees, and I know it is a 

concern that is being raised within our caucus about this resolution 

when it comes forward, because we have raised it now a number 

of years running in terms of the ability of the minority to function. 

154

But, with that, I obviously strongly support our budget submission to this committee and support the efforts that went into writing that budget. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

155


Insert graphic folio 286 20927A.060
156

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank both the gentlemen for being here. 

Questions? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Model, model committee, Chair and 

ranking member. 

The CHAIRMAN. Obviously not a lot going on there. Mr. Boehner, 

are you surprised? Do you want some questions? My staff has written a few if you would like them. 

Mr. BOEHNER. No. We are in the middle of a markup over in our 

committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Actually, I don’t have any questions. 

I wanted to mention about staff though. You have a good staff. 

I know they are sitting in the front row on both sides of the aisle. 

And they really work well; they follow the procedures and the way 

that you are supposed to file things, working with our staff on both 

sides of the aisle. I think it is important for you to know, they don’t 

cause any headaches; and that is wonderful. 

Mr. BOEHNER. Trust me, I think Mr. Miller and I both understand that having good staff keeps us out of trouble, keeps us on 

the right path, and we couldn’t do what we do without having good 

staff. 

And we do have a good relationship both on a staff level and a 

member level at our committee. You know, while we may disagree 

over a lot of the policy issues that we have before us, as I like to 

say, there is no reason for members to be disagreeable with each 

other while they are disagreeing over the policy differences that we 

have. And over the last 4 years, I think Mr. Miller and I have 

worked to really change the culture of our committee, and it has 

been a really resounding success. It is a place that members want 

to serve on. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. The only thing I want to say is, Mr. 

Miller, your request or your observation about space allocation has 

not gone unnoticed. I think several of the members, ranking members, have talked about that. So I have talked with the chairman, 

and we will try to see what can happen. But we are not clear. 

Mr. BOEHNER. I may not be on my talking points here, but having served on this committee and having served in the Republican 

leadership, I think the issue of space is something that there ought 

to be an honest discussion about it. 

These buildings weren’t designed to have—the member offices 

weren’t designed to have the number of staff that we have in them; 

and the number of committees and the number of committee staff, 

those, that space wasn’t designed for that level of employment, either. 

And it is easy for us to get buried in the work that the American 

people send us here to do, but from time to time it is good to step 

back and take a broader look at how we function. And I think that 

the space across the street that they decided to put a parking lot 

in, I would hope that is temporary. But I know, in my case, I have 

got employees who work several blocks away down at the Ford 

Building. I don’t know how many employees are down there. But 

it is an issue that probably deserves the attention of the Congress 

in terms of how much space we really need to do the job that the 

American people send us here to do. 

157

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thanks to both gentlemen. 

And we will move on next to the Energy and Commerce Committee. 

Mr. BARTON. We are told that Mr. Dingell is on his way, if you 

want to take a slight recess. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate the chairman being here. Mr. Barton, we will go ahead and start with you.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. I 

am here to appear on behalf of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I am not going to read my entire statement. 

We have submitted our budget proposal. There is some increase. 

Most of the increase is for personnel; 90 percent of our budget is 

for personnel. 

We probably have half a dozen major policy initiatives we are 

trying to turn into law this year. From Medicaid reform to the energy bill to telecommunications to the abuse of steroids, and the 

Spyware bill. All that takes a lot of intellectual firepower, and on 

our committee that takes a lot of attorneys. So we are asking for 

an increase of 7 slots, mostly for those kinds of issues. 

We give one-third of our budget to the minority. Ranking Member Dingell has a written statement and if he is here in time he 

will read it or submit it. He supports the budget, because we do 

give one-third of the slots and one-third of the budget to the minority. 

We do have a request for some technology upgrades, but we also 

have received some money for technology upgrades very similar to 

what we see here in this committee. We want to say thank you for 

that. But there is some money requested to continue some of those 

technology upgrades. 

And, with that, I would submit the written statement for the 

record and ask unanimous consent that Mr. Dingell’s statement 

also be put into the record. 

[The statement of Mr. Barton follows:]

158


Insert grapic folio 292 20927A.061
159


Insert grapic folio 293 20927A.062
160


Insert grapic folio 294 20927A.063
161


Insert grapic folio 295 20927A.064
162

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The statement of Mr. Dingell follows:]

163


Insert grapic folio 297 20927A.065
164

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Chair—questions? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. No. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have spoken with Mr. Dingell prior 

to your coming aboard, and he did acknowledge his complete support of the budget that you are submitting and the one-third allocation. And so I think, with that, Mr. Chairman I have nothing else 

but congratulations on the camaraderie between the two of you. 

Mr. BARTON. We work very well together. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Good luck on your year. This seems 

to be an easy committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you for coming, and also the submission of the statement by Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. BARTON. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we will move on to Standards. 

The committee will in recess for more or less 5 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order, and the next 

committee on our agenda is Standards. We have the chairman, Mr. 

Hastings, and the ranking member, Mr. Mollohan. We will start 

with the chairman. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Ney and 

Ranking Member Millender-McDonald. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you and your colleagues today to present 

the Standards Committee budget request for the 109th Congress. 

I think it goes without saying that every committee in the House 

contributes much to the important work of the Congress. Having 

said that, however, I think each Member of this body would acknowledge the truly unique role of the Ethics Committee, as we are 

more commonly known. 

I think it is also safe to say that none of us came to Congress 

dreaming of some day serving on the ethics committee. But let me 

assure you that, once receiving that assignment, safeguarding the 

integrity of this institution is a solemn responsibility that no member of the Ethics Committee takes lightly. 

As you know, our committee has two primary tasks—to educate, 

inform, and advise Members and staff about their ethical responsibilities under the rules of the House; and to enforce those rules 

firmly and fairly without regard to friendship, favor, or political 

party. 

Mr. Chairman, the American people have every right to insist on 

the highest ethical standards here in the people’s House, and it is 

our job to help ensure that the American people’s expectations are 

met. Therefore, each day that we serve on the committee our overarching goal is to ensure that those of us privileged to work in 

these hallowed halls conduct the people’s business in a way that 

raises public confidence in the essential integrity of this institution. 

It is a challenging assignment, but as the new chairman of the 

committee, I can tell you that I am ready to go to work. 

165

I am fortunate to serve alongside an outstanding Member, and 

a veteran Member of Congress, Mr. Mollohan of West Virginia, my 

ranking minority member. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the committee has not yet formally 

organized and has adopted no rules for the 109th Congress. Nevertheless, we have consulted with the Parliamentarian and have 

been assured that under the rules of the House, we are free to take 

various administrative steps such as requesting operating funding, 

which would aid our ability to fully function once the Democratic 

members of the Ethics Committee agree to allow us to move forward. 

Therefore, with the Chairman’s permission, I will take just a few 

minutes to highlight our plans for the 109th Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, recent events have certainly underscored the importance of providing the highest quality ethics education, training, 

advice, and information to both Members and staff and at the same 

time have highlighted the need for us to meet sufficient investigative capability to carry out our importance compliance and enforcement functions. 

I truly believe that all Members and staff generally want to do 

the right thing when it comes to ethics. Our obligation to them is 

to do everything possible to help people understand the rules and 

to follow those rules.

That means taking a hard look at our publications, our training 

programs, the way we use communication tools and technology, 

and the way we provide advice and counsel. 

To that end, Mr. Chairman, I am requesting a substantial increase in our funding for salary, equipment, and travel in order to 

fund six new positions and provide our committee with the tools 

needed to better serve Members and the staff within the House. 

Mr. Chairman, for the first time in 13 years, the committee plans 

to publish a comprehensive House ethics manual. The committee 

will work with GPO to produce a manual that is more clearly written and attractively presented than the badly outdated 1992 

version still being used throughout the House. Considerable effort 

will be made to upgrade the committee’s other publications and 

educational materials to better assist Members, officers, and staff 

in understanding their responsibilities with respect to ethics rules 

here in the House. 

The committee plans to contract with an outside vendor to completely rebuild its Web site to make it more easily searchable as 

well as more attractive, interactive, and useful for those inside the 

House as well as the press and the general public. A top committee 

priority will be to significantly improve both the quantity and quality of ethics training for Members and staff. 

The CAO recently commissioned a comprehensive study of professional training needs in the House which identified more extensive ethics training is among the most pressing needs singled out 

by those surveyed. Among other things, we plan to add a professional trainer to our staff, broaden our focus for Members and their 

top aides to every employee in the House, making ethics training 

much more widely available to staff here and in the district as well. 

Among the committee’s most essential functions is to provide advice and counsel to Members and staff concerning ethics rules in 

166

the House. By adding professional staff to focus principally on publications and training, and by adjusting the way the committee 

processes thousands of financial disclosure filings each year, we expect to free up attorneys on our advice and education staff to measurably improve our turnaround time and general responsiveness to 

requests from those we serve. 

Finally, the addition of two experienced investigative counsel will 

enable the committee to strengthen its investigative capability, enhancing our ability to ascertain the facts when ethics violations are 

alleged, and permitting the committee to provide Members and 

staff with timely disposition of the complaints once filed. 

Mr. Chairman, we all recognize that these are challenging budget times and that committee funding dollars are tight. Clearly our 

request this year is a dramatic departure from the very modest increases the ethics committee has sought in the past. While most 

committees have gradually expanded their capabilities over the last 

decade, this committee has not, opting instead to request only 

enough funds to maintain existing staff and replace worn-out 

equipment as needed. 

Indeed, since adding one new position 10 years ago, the committee’s authorized strength has remained absolutely flat at 13 positions throughout the 105th through the 108th Congresses. As you 

know, the ethics committee has long had by far the fewest employees and lowest budget of any standing committee in the House. 

Thus, while the percentage increase in our proposed funding level 

of 55 percent appears high, in actual dollars, the increase we are 

seeking is easily among the smallest that you will receive in your 

testimony. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to encourage you and your 

colleagues to look carefully at our plans to create a more ethical climate and ethical culture in the House and urge you to support this 

important effort. This is a pivotal time for the institution that we 

all love. 

It has always seemed to me that interest in ethics tends to run 

in cycles. By taking advantage of this renewed interest to build a 

more robust capability in the ethics committee, I am confident we 

can create throughout the House a greater awareness and appreciation of the ethical responsibilities that are incumbent upon all 

of us who are privileged to serve here. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Ranking Member, the gentleman from West Virginia. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member MillenderMcDonald, it is a pleasure to join my Chairman, Chairman 

Hastings, here today to support our budget request for the ethics 

committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry, Mr. Mollohan, I think the microphone needs to come closer, or maybe push the switch there. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I had not turned it on, Mr. Chairman. 

I do support the Chairman’s request, Mr. Chairman, in general, 

its overall number, and in large part as he has particularized it. 

167

The ethics committee, as he points out, performs an essential 

service in the House of Representatives. It has not enjoyed a budget increase for years, essentially being flat-funded. And with regard 

to all of the elements that are very important for a committee to 

operate efficiently and function in a way that performs its mission 

for the institution, it must have adequate resources, adequate personnel, adequate materials, up-to-date equipment that is modern, 

spaces that are adequate to accommodate the people and their activities; and then, as the Chairman points out, there are certainly 

processes that can be addressed that additional resources would be 

necessary in order to accomplish. 

Mr. Chairman, I am here to support the Chairman’s request and 

hope that the committee can be responsive.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank both gentlemen. I just have a 

couple of questions. 

You talked about the training monies, and I think in your testimony somebody suggested additional training monies. Those were 

not there before, and there is no problem with that. I am just curious about what skills you hope or what the training will bring to 

the staff. Is it a matter of internal training for the staff? 

Mr. HASTINGS. That is correct. One of the things I have learned 

and absorbed in the time I have served on the committee, when 

Members have a question or an issue is brought before the committee, I think ignorance plays a part of that. I say ignorance; ignorance of what they are supposed to do. I think it is the responsibility—and by the way, the 1992 ethics manual is about that thick, 

if you recall. In fact, here it is. It is pretty hard to comprehend everything in there. 

So part of the training process, then, would be from an outreach 

standpoint where staff on ethics committee would meet with not 

only the top staff in the Members’ offices and Members, but all the 

way down. At least we envision that, and we want to work on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know here in House Administration, it is not 

ethics, but, as you know, we advise on House rules, procedure and 

use of equipment, different questions, and we have a Member service section. If you take the Democrats and Republicans, I think we 

probably have about I want to say seven or eight people that deal 

constantly with answering questions. And that is just here. So I 

know you have to have internal people. If you don’t have people, 

it is difficult to get the questions answered. But we have our manuals, which we have updated, and I am glad to hear you are updating. 

From the time I have been here, this has been a very flat-lined 

budget. We can only deal with what requests are brought to us, but 

I think it has been pretty much flat-lined, and I think you are at 

a turning point if you want to do the job. And I think you need to 

do the job. You have to be able to do the job, and so you have to 

have the resources to do it, and nothing should stand in the way. 

I think you are at a turning point staffwise and equipmentwise, 

so we have to consider the money you are requesting so you can 

use it to conduct the business that you need to do. 

I just have one final question. We are aware that the committee 

plans to hire a new chief counsel. Do you have a time frame? Not 

168

pinning you down exactly, but when you would want to hire a new 

counsel? 

Mr. HASTINGS. Yes, we want to do this as soon as possible. Because of the unique makeup of the committee, that is five-five, I intend to work closely with Mr. Mollohan on that. In fact, we have 

already discussed if he has people that are interested in this. We 

encourage that, and we will go through a joint process of interviewing and hopefully making a selection as soon as we possibly 

can. 

Again, I want to emphasize, because Alan and I have talked 

about this, this is a joint issue because of the nature of the committee, and I fully intend to work with him on that. But we want 

to do that as soon as possible. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if I can follow up on that? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I am sorry. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. This request is a significant increase, and if you 

were to grant it, it would be a significant increase to the committee. There is no question about making available additional resources to the committee, which can be used to—in all the ways the 

Chairman has spoken to, and that I agree with. 

I do want to emphasize, though, that in the past, at least during 

the last Congress that I served on it, in terms of our investigative 

capabilities, moving cases along, the staff we had was adequate to 

do that job. Now, that doesn’t speak to equipment, that doesn’t 

speak to redoing manuals, that doesn’t speak to the outreach activities that the Chairman has articulated here, which I completely 

support. But in terms of the investigative functions and moving 

cases along, I think the committee has performed in that area very 

admirably based on the resources it has had in the past and as we 

have come and testified before you in the past. 

The previous Chairman and myself as the Ranking Member in 

those instances, if we had felt at that time we did not have enough 

resources for those functions, we certainly would have made the 

committee aware of that. The Chairman is proposing additional activities enhancing those investigative activities, which I think we 

need to look carefully at what resources we do need on task, dependent on the workload facing us at that time. But the increases 

will allow us to engage in other activities, which I totally agree 

would be, taken as a whole proposal, a good thing. We may have 

to work through some of the details of the proposal, but the resources are needed, and I support the gentleman in his request. 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand and appreciate the gentleman’s 

comments, and having worked on this budget for 4 years now as 

a chairman, and watching the proposals that come here, I agree 

the adequacy is there. But, obviously, with flat-lining, though, I 

don’t care what committee you are, this committee was held in a 

pretty flat-line status, and it functioned. House Administration 

functioned, and my predecessor did a marvelous job here. But eventually, if you want to do other things to enhance the committees, 

and all committees are important, then I think the increased 

money is important. 

So it is not entirely a matter of money; there is staff training and 

things, but in this case—and I do not know how we will end up 

169

at the end of the day with all the committees, but I believe we need 

to give you the resources with the important tasks that you have. 

Ms. Millender-McDonald.

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I 

agree with you. I support the comments of the Ranking Member, 

because I was about to ask if you were satisfied and had been involved in the budget process with the Chairman. 

And I appreciate the Chairman’s comments as well. And I was 

going to ask you that before you spoke, given the Chairman’s statement in the second paragraph on the second page, he stated that 

the committee had not yet fully organized and adopted the rules of 

the 109th Congress. At the bottom of that he said, ‘‘Such as we are 

requesting in this operating funding, it would aid our ability to 

fully function once the Democrat Members of the ethics committee 

agree to allow us to move forward.’’

So I was just wondering if there were any impediments with this 

budget with reference to the Ranking Member. But you have already spoken. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I didn’t hear the Chairman read that part of his 

statement, and I don’t have it here, but I can remember what you 

said. 

Well, that was probably an irresistible throwaway that he had to 

put in there. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I see. It was good you spoke before 

I came on. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Since you picked it up, I appreciate the opportunity to ad lib about it a bit. 

We are in a process, a very serious process, of organizing the 

committee. As the Chairman pointed out, there are a number of 

things that we can do which—in spite of the fact that we have not 

successfully adopted the rules of the committee, and we are moving 

forward and with conversations as necessary to define those areas 

that we can operate. 

We have not agreed to the rules as directed in the House, as 

passed on opening day, the House rules. Embedded in those were 

three rules directed that the ethics committee adopt. They are objectionable for reasons that is unnecessary to detail in this forum. 

But suffice it to say that we are in the process to work through 

that, and I am perfectly confident that through a process of reasoning together and moving the bigger picture process in a reasonable way, that we will have a very good chance of resolving it in 

the near-term time frame so that we can move forward with the 

full business of the committee. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Aside from the internal aspects of 

what you are outlining, the budget and all that he is bringing forward, you are in agreement with that? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, I agree with the overall request certainly, 

as the Chairman graciously pointed out. In the nature of the committee we will work closely on the details. But I support his vision, 

and I think the idea of reaching out, the idea of enhancing the educational capabilities of the committee, notifying all those that the 

committee has jurisdiction over what their responsibilities are with 

regard to ethics as they operate in this institution, I think all that 

is very good. I agree with the premise that to the extent that eduVerDate jul 14 2003 01:09 Jun 21, 2005 Jkt 020927 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B927.XXX B927
170

cational effort is done in a good manner, we will decrease the number of disappointments that we have. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Other questions? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

I served for 8 years on the Ethics Committee, and it was the only 

time I have ever been glad for term limits, but it was a very interesting experience and, a very positive one. It is the only committee 

in the House that is evenly divided, five Republicans, five Democrats. And in my 8 years on the committee, there was only one divided vote, a 9 to 1 vote on a procedural matter. Everything else 

was unanimous. I think we would be hard-pressed to identify another committee where that has been the case. 

Because the rules and the operation of the committee really require consensus between both of the political parties to act, this 

may not be that important. But am I understanding correctly that 

one of the positions that would be added, if there was concurrence 

by Mr. Mollohan, would be a press type of person? 

Mr. HASTINGS. No, it would not be at all. It would be somebody 

that would focus on this and then on publications that would go out 

on a timely basis whenever. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So not a spokesperson, a person who actually produces material? 

Mr. HASTINGS. Right. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Because I know that we cannot talk to——

Mr. HASTINGS. No, that is right, that was not the intent. And I 

might add that you and I did serve on the investigative committee, 

so I know you know some of the stuff you go through. But believe 

me, that was not what we were talking about. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. I have just two more questions. One is a 

niggly one.

Members of the committee, because it is all confidential, are required to keep the written material confidential. I know when I 

was on the committee, I received a shredder from the committee 

that never worked. Do you have enough money in the budget to actually provide industrial-strength shredders for the committee 

Members so that they can adequately discharge their obligation of 

confidentiality? 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, mine worked. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I used to go over to the committee. 

Mr. HASTINGS. No, we will make sure that they work. I was certainly not aware of that. But, yes, that is something that we, as 

a matter of fact, talked about early when we attempted to organize 

was that those things be made available. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The final question—it was something that your 

predecessor talked about, and I do not think we ever got around 

to doing it, and I still think it is worth doing—to review some of 

the rules to make sure that they actually make sense. Some of 

them are quite petty and, apparently, irrational. 

For example, you can accept the gift, if you will, of going to a 

football game if it is a public university, but if it is a private university, you cannot. So, for example, when San Jose State plays 

171

Stanford, if I sit on the State side, the ticket gift is acceptable; but 

if I sit on the Stanford side, it is not a gift. I don’t go because San 

Jose is in my district and Stanford is my alma mater. But just as 

an example, they should be the same. I am not suggesting it should 

be free for private universities; maybe you should also pay the public university. 

But there are dozens of weird little rules that people can run 

afoul of because they do not seem to make any sense. And I am 

wondering if you have the budget to actually engage in that analysis and make sure that common-sense rules actually are in play. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, I think that is something that we should 

look at. And, again, going back, these are the rules that we go by. 

Not everybody knows that, and probably within this there are probably more examples of which you point out of things that need to 

be looked at very closely. I suspect probably in the process, when 

we do this, some of these things will pop up. 

I might add, to go along with that, from the State of Washington 

that we have Gonzaga University and the University of Washington in the NC2A. One is private, and one is public. So, hopefully, they meet sometime along the line. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I just used that as an example. There are many. 

And there are reasons for some of them, but you attenuate them 

out 25 years, and they do not really have any meaning, and people 

make mistakes because they seem so bizarre. So people get into 

ethical problems when they haven’t really done anything that is 

malum per se. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I think those sort of things will pop up. 

Ms. LOFGREN. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank both Members for being here 

today. 

We are waiting for the Ways and Means Chair and Ranking 

Member, so there will be a recess of 5 minutes, more or less. Thank 

you. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We welcome the Chair of the Committee on 

Ways and Means. You are familiar more than I with this role, because you created it, and that is a compliment. So we welcome and 

we await your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. THOMAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I would 

ask unanimous consent that my written statement be made a part 

of the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. THOMAS. I come before you, and I believe my Ranking Member will be with us shortly. He is at another meeting. Notwithstanding the fact that, if you will look at his statement, I think you 

will find that we worked together in creating the budget. More 

than just that, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before you 

as the chairman of a major committee who can say that the quest 

that I started in 1981 as a Minority member of this committee, 

clear through the time that I was chairman of this committee, has 

now been accomplished. 

172

In the Ways and Means Committee, the Majority controls twothirds of the staff and resources; the Minority controls one-third of 

the staff and the resources. And that was my goal, as you know, 

and I am hopeful that the reports you are getting from other committees is that that is being honored as well. 

One of the reasons it took us so long in Ways and Means was 

that there were more than a dozen staffers who were classified as 

shared staff. And the argument was they were shared because they 

carried out committee business that really wasn’t something that 

belonged to the Majority or the Minority. I happen to believe if you 

are the Majority, you have the responsibility of running the committee, and those people should be counted on your side, notwithstanding the fact they may carry out ministerial tasks, because 

they are under your direction. 

And so with the two additional staff that we are requesting, and 

I think you will take a look at the number of staff that we have, 

and the two additional, given the workload of the committee, it is 

not exorbitant. But it does allow us to remove the last vestiges of 

the shared-staff concept, in which the Minority controls fully, completely, one-third of the staff and fully, completely, one-third of the 

resources, not having to ask the—request of the chairman to use 

a Xerox machine or get a new computer or whatever else. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present the budget. 

I guess my strategy was a little off. I probably should have said I 

will just take half of whatever you guys get. But what I did do was 

go through and look at what we needed to do the job we have. 

I believe especially, as you can see, it is a little bit front-loaded 

for this year, which is a longer year in terms of the time that the 

committee meets, and next year it is about 6 percent, 4 percent, 

and that is 10 percent for everything that the committee has available to it to perform its duty overseeing the entire Internal Revenue Code, Social Security, Medicare, trade, welfare, and a few 

other cats and dogs. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank the Chair. 

[The statement of Mr. Thomas follows:]

173


Insert graphic folio 322 20927A.066
174


Insert graphic folio 323 20927A.067
175

The CHAIRMAN. Personally, your staff and I know you, because 

you have looked over these things, and it was so well done that I 

have no questions from our staff. So I think it was a very well done 

budget, and it is a good, well-prepared budget. I really have no 

questions. 

The gentlewoman from Michigan. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions 

either. I will say that your reputation precedes you, in terms of 

being the former Chair of this committee, in outlining the formula 

of two-thirds and one-third, and you have admirably ensured that 

the Ranking Member shares that. So we thank you so much for establishing that type of formula. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that it is good to 

hear your comment about the Majority assuming the administrative task, because it is my understanding that is really the rationale for the two-thirds/one-third split of committee resources, and I 

think that is a reasonable plan. 

I mean, you could argue another way, but that is what we have. 

And not all of the chairmen have taken your attitude. So it is good 

when you can argue and fight about policy, but not about the paper 

clips. So I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. THOMAS. If I might just make a couple of points. I assume 

other committees may have mentioned this. It is extremely difficult 

to continue to have as positive a working environment as we would 

like because the committees do not control the space, and space always is at a premium. 

We stand ready to assist in whatever you folks may look at as 

a project to try to figure out, as we add a significant amount of 

square footage to the general Capitol area with the visitor’s center 

and adjoining rooms, that we should be especially zealous in working with leadership to pick off a room or two near the committees 

so that we have a comfortable way—we have used all the air shafts 

and the behind-the-chimney areas that we have. So as we move forward, moving into that new addition to the Capitol, I would hope 

we underscore trying to salvage a little bit of space for the Members. 

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I would like for the record to urge you 

to come on by the Ways and Means Committee. We have undergone a renovation of the Ways and Means Committee room for the 

first time in a decade and a half. It has been historically, and is 

being planned in the future, if necessary, to be used as a fall-back 

floor of the House of Representatives. The modernization included 

significant upgrading of the technology not necessarily for the committee’s operation, but because it would function as the House of 

Representatives Chamber. 

But we are also very pleased with the restyling in the colonial 

revival period, which was the period of the 1930s initial design of 

the Ways and Means Committee room, and it has a nice historical 

ambience. So if anybody wants to come over, we are kind of pleased 

to show off our new room. 

Thirdly, I have looked at the budgets, it is kind of an old habit, 

and we have new chairmen, and we have new needs, and especially 

with the shifting because of the post-9/11 and a new full comVerDate jul 14 2003 01:09 Jun 21, 2005 Jkt 020927 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B927.XXX B927
176

mittee, but I will say this on the record, and I will visit with some 

of the committee chairmen, that you should not reward failure to 

move toward a fair allocation of resources. Those committees that 

are not in that frame of mind will give you every reason in the 

books why it can’t be done. I just wanted to show you that if you 

are committed to doing it, you can do it. And you should help supply some of the resources focused on moving in that direction. 

And, frankly, if they do not move in that direction, then the resources that could have been used for that purpose are perhaps not 

as useful in perpetuating the failure to meet a commitment that I 

believe we made in the Minority when we became the Majority. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would 

make just a couple of comments on the space. I was on this committee, and I have been on it for a decade. You became the Chair, 

and I went on the committee, and we went into the 21st century 

for the first time with the Web pages, and everything was lit up 

on opening day, and all of a sudden the entire world had access to 

the U.S. House for the first time. 

And then the technology. I haven’t gotten over to the hearing 

room, I will, but we moved to get certain hearing rooms done and 

to work the Architect of the Capitol and your staff and the other 

staffs to push, because that is another goal that is not finished yet. 

We have the appropriating arm, and we have made a commitment 

there to modernize everything. Some rooms are done, some are not, 

and we really need to finish that up. 

The two-thirds/one-third. After I became Chair, something I immediately did when I became Chair, as you did, and that was to 

allocate the two-thirds/one-third. You did a great job. I said that 

today earlier when we talked about this, and the other day when 

we held hearings. You did a wonderful job of moving us in that direction. You made a total commitment to moving us, and you 

pushed to do that. 

About 4 years ago, I think it was, we had a couple of committees 

where we pushed them along while they kicked or moaned or whatever. The process was to get them there. And we want to make 

sure we don’t slide back. So I think it is something that we have 

talked about, of course, with our Ranking Member and the members of the committee, and that way that argument is out of the 

way. It is not something to be argued every time. It was a goal that 

you really pushed and did a wonderful job on and something we 

want to continue to do. 

But I want to say something about the 21st century also. As we 

went into the modern world, it brings more people in contact with 

our government around the world, around the country. There are 

more questions to be answered, more resources needed then, because you have an obligation to answer individuals that communicate with their government, who come to Washington and are 

more active with their government. And there comes a point in 

time when you have to ask, how many people can you cram into 

a room? Something has to give here at some point in time to have 

some more space. It is a dilemma. And it is past its time. Some 

trigger has to be pulled on that. 

177

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I am committed to a paperless Congress. We are moving in that direction. But I do not think it is possible to have a peopleless Congress. We need the space. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I hope that invitation is extended to the Ranking Member to come and look at the 

Ways and Means Committee room. 

Mr. THOMAS. I urge all Members to take a look, because it was 

a major project. And, of course, as you might expect with technology, most of it is not visible, but you can see the results of the 

project. 

Frankly, it is something that we should all be proud of. And as 

we change these various rooms, we never get the attention that we 

should in terms of the way we try to respond to people’s needs in 

the 21st century, as the Chairman said. 

I am kind of amazed at the equipment that you have got. I want 

to doublecheck mine. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. You see yourself coming and going; 

right. 

Mr. THOMAS. In more ways than one, ma’am. And I appreciate 

the continued replacement. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Next we will have the Intelligence Committee. I want to thank 

both the Chair and the Ranking Member for being here today, and 

we will begin with the Chairman Mr. Hoekstra. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER HOEKSTRA, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I would like to begin by thanking the Chairman 

of the committee for providing us an opportunity to present our 

budget to you today. I would like to submit my entire statement 

for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. HOEKSTRA. And let me just make a couple of points. You 

have had the budget for a period of time. I think we were one of 

the few committees to submit it to you on time when you requested 

it. We have been able to work very much in a bipartisan way in 

preparing the budget, much as Jane and I have had the opportunity last fall to work together on the implementation of the intelligence reform bill and the passage of that bill through the House 

of Representatives. 

We are working very, very hard to keep the spirit of bipartisanship alive on the Intelligence Committee. The issues that we are 

working with are too important for us to drag into partisan politics. 

And I think we are both taking that seriously, and that process has 

continued as we have approached and developed this budget. 

The major changes in the budget that are proposed from the last 

Congress are the implementation and our responsibilities from the 

passage of the intelligence reform bill and also the report that 

came out by the 9/11 Commission last fall. The 9/11 Commission 

last summer, last fall, in their evaluation pointed out that one of 

the weaknesses that they had observed was the weakness in congressional oversight of the Intelligence Community. 

178

There have been some reforms that have been made in the intelligence area to improve our oversight on the Republican side. The 

Speaker of the House now, as Members move on to the Intelligence 

Committee, they are asked to give up other committee assignments 

so that they will have the opportunity to spend more time on what 

the Speaker has identified as a critical function. 

Jane and I, in the work we have done, as we put together the 

annual plan for this Congress, we identified the need for specifically a Subcommittee on Oversight, a subcommittee that we could 

task with key projects and key oversight responsibilities. The oversight functions that we see of most critical importance in this Congress is implementation of the reform bill that we passed last year, 

bringing together 15 different intelligence organizations under a 

new Director of National Intelligence; recognizing that the passage 

of that bill against many entrenched bureaucracies and bureaucrats was difficult enough, but now for Ambassador Negroponte to 

move into that responsibility and take what we envisioned as a reform and making it a reality. 

There are a couple of things we have to monitor very closely. 

Number one, we want to monitor that Ambassador Negroponte actually moves the Intelligence Community in the direction that the 

intelligence reform bill intended the reform to take. So, number one 

is the executive branch implementing the legislation the way Congress intended it to happen. 

The second thing we need to monitor is that as that implementation is taking place, are there unintended consequences? Are there 

things that we expected to happen? Are there changes that we envisioned, changes that would be positive for the Intelligence Community, and, in effect, are we seeing some unintended consequences? 

It is absolutely important that we get this intelligence reform bill 

implemented and that we get it implemented correctly. And the 

footprint for making that happen will be the next 12 months, the 

first 12 month of a Director of National Intelligence. This is where 

some of the early battles will be fought. This is where some of the 

decisions will be made as to what the scope and the responsibilities 

of the Director of National Intelligence will be. We need to make 

sure that we are there providing the appropriate oversight and getting the kind of results that we had hoped that we would get. 

In light of that and other responsibilities that we want to carry 

out in oversight function and other responsibilities of the committee, we have asked for an increase of nine staff positions, divided six for the Majority and three for the Minority staff. 

The only other thing we would like to highlight to you is what 

we have already talked about. We are moving from the fourth floor 

attic of the Capitol to, interestingly enough, into the basement of 

the visitor’s center. And we have had some discussions as to who 

and where and how the costs will be allocated for those spaces; 

what will be the responsibility of the committee; what will be the 

responsibility for the Architect of the Capitol to bear and to budget 

into their plans. And we look forward to working with you, because 

not only do we need a state-of-the-art intelligence capability and 

function in the visitor’s center for us to do our jobs, but we also 

179

see that these secure spaces will also be used by a number of other 

committees when they have the need for secure facilities. 

I think a number of my colleagues have seen some of the capabilities that our military has had to communicate worldwide in 

order to get the information to decisionmakers very, very quickly. 

We need that capability, as do other Members in the House. 

So with that, I yield, I guess, to Ms. Harman. 

[The statement of Mr. Hoekstra follows:]

180


Insert graphic folio 335 20927A.068
181


Insert graphic folio 336 20927A.069
182

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Harman 

and the Ranking Member. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear on a bipartisan basis to talk about our budget. I 

want to commend you first for your bipartisanship. You are flanked 

by two very capable California women, as it should be. And I would 

like to congratulate our colleague Juanita Millender-McDonald for 

now being the Ranking Member of this committee. 

You should know, and Chairman Hoekstra should know, that in 

California the Democratic part of our delegation, 33 Members, are 

majority female, and our two Senators are female, and I would call 

that a good start. 

At any rate, onto this subject. I agree with the Chairman that 

a critical activity which we have to undertake is the implementation of the intelligence reform legislation. It was an enormous victory last year, I think, to come up with bipartisan, bicameral legislation to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. 

That was half the battle. Now we have to make it work. 

And we have been invited to work with the new team of Ambassador Negroponte and General Mike Hayden, and we plan to do 

that to make sure that they succeed. And we need staff, and hopefully within a year or so better space in which to do that work. 

We also have other important work in our new Subcommittee on 

Oversight, and that relates to activities of the Intelligence Community, which are written up all the time in the newspapers. The 

newspaper articles are not accurate, and there are obviously limitations on what we can say publicly about those activities. But it is 

absolutely critical that our Members be fully and completely informed about those activities. 

So with increased staff, some of it dedicated to this Subcommittee on Oversight, we will learn what we need to learn, and 

our Members, who are extremely hard-working, patriotic Americans, will do the oversight that Congress absolutely must do on 

these critical issues. 

I just want to highlight a couple other things. First of all, our 

deal is that we will share some nonpartisan positions. I support 

that deal. There are security roles in the Intelligence Committee 

that have to be filled by qualified people, and we want those people 

to be nonpartisan. Splitting their costs two-thirds/one-third is the 

right thing to do. 

I, in fact, think we need more of them, because I think the security concerns are very serious, with the material coming across our 

Internet, even on our classified sites, include some of our Nation’s 

most carefully held secrets. And I want to be sure we do everything 

we can to protect it on this end. I know the administration is focusing on protecting it on their end. 

So I would hope we would agree about hiring at least one more 

person, and we are talking to the Sergeant-at-Arms about what the 

qualifications of that person could be, and maybe even some suggestions of who that person could be. 

183

Because we were so busy with the intelligence reform effort, we 

were not able to fill vacancies last fall that came to exist then as 

staff got promotions and burned out and so forth, and that leaves 

a lot of slots to fill. On the Minority side we are filling those slots 

rapidly with a very qualified and diverse workforce, and we will 

continue to fill them. 

The only problem now that we will have, which I guess is a good 

problem, is no space to put the people in. Maybe we will have double-deck desks or something like that. I only wish we would have 

Aeron chairs. 

In conclusion, I would like to say that Peter and I were elected 

together in 1992. We talk together regularly. We are trying to restore the bipartisan tradition of the committee, which suffered a bit 

in some recent years. 

But he did not consult me, I want this absolutely on the record, 

about his new facial hair, and I want to say for the record that I 

am quite disturbed about it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Ms. Harman follows:]

184


Insert graphic folio 341 20927A.070
185


Insert graphic folio 342 20927A.071
186

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I don’t know what to say on that, but 

I am glad Mr. Rangel is here, because I am California outnumbered, and New York is a little closer to Ohio, so I at least feel 

a little more strength in numbers. My relatives are in Fontana, an 

aunt and uncle, so I have a lot of California pressure. That is not 

all that bad. 

I have no questions. I think you do an important job, your function for the Congress, and with that I yield to the gentlewoman 

from California. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, don’t cry out loud, 

all these California women. 

The two of you, I think, are working very cooperatively, and I 

have really no questions to ask, but just to say that your intelligence reform bill will be the impetus by which you work very 

closely with the Director of Intelligence, and that is a good thing. 

So it is great to have both of you here, and thank you both so 

much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Our other gentlewoman from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just note that we have been looking at the 

franking budgets in each committee, and although there is a huge 

increase, it is such a tiny amount of money that—I don’t want to 

raise the issue. But we do want to be consistent noting that it is 

only a large increase because there was so little spent to begin 

with. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank both of you for being here. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel, is here. Mr. Thomas 

has already delivered his message, and we will entertain Mr. Rangel, who I just wanted to note that my wife and I had the pleasure 

of being with Mr. Rangel and his wonderful wife to represent the 

United States at the 60th Anniversary of D-Day with other Members of Congress. 

It was a wonderful event and a special time to be there, especially with the service Mr. Rangel has given to the United States 

not only in his congressional position, but service as a veteran. 

Thank you, Mr. Rangel. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was a memorable occasion, and I want to congratulate you for the great bipartisan 

work that you have been doing as Chair, and, of course, to congratulate my friend and colleague from California in this position. 

I am certain in working with Mr. Ney that we can really bring a 

sense of bipartisanship, which is so missing in the Congress. 

I come here, and I am sorry I am late, to support the request of 

the Ways and Means Committee of 10.4 percent. This money will 

be used for modest staff increases, but also to upgrade the technology that we have in our hearing room and our ability to communicate with other Members of Congress. 

We also, and Mr. Thomas has consulted with me, have agreed on 

two additional staff people that would be shared by the Democrats 

and Republicans. I think this would go a long way when professionals can look at the facts and not the parties to try to bring us 

187

together on the sensitive legislation that comes before our committee. 

So I want to thank you. I hope you give serious consideration to 

our request. And if there are any questions, I will attempt to answer them at this time. 

Again, I am so sorry that my responsibilities on the floor prevented me from being here with the Chairman, but I am glad that 

I am able to share my views with you now. 

The CHAIRMAN. No problem. It fits in the schedule quite perfectly. We appreciate your testimony. 

[The statement of Mr. Rangel follows:]

188


Insert graphic folio 347 20927A.072
189

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you so much, Mr. Ranking 

Member. I look forward to working with you. Your Chairman has 

indicated that you work very well with him, and on the two-thirds/

one-third, you are in control of your staff selection, so that is a good 

thing. We are very glad you came because I was wondering where 

my friend was. 

Thank you so much. 

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I think this is so easy, and it is so 

interesting that a committee that is so contentious on the policy 

issues can be so agreeable when it comes to the paper clips and 

other materials. That inspires us to have hope. 

Mr. RANGEL. Well, I was really hoping that by having more professional staff that are not hired because they are Republican or 

because they are Democrats, that in having only to be concerned 

about what is best for America, perhaps we could enlarge on that 

number to form a bridge where the party leadership does not dictate the substance of what is best for America. And if you can find 

a whole bunch of Social Security experts, we need them now more 

than ever. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman from New York. 

Mr. RANGEL. I thank the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we have the Resources Committee. 

I want to thank Chairman Pombo for being here today, and the 

Ranking Member Mr. Rahall, my neighbor, from my first birth 

State; not my home State, but my birth State. 

With that, we welcome Mr. Pombo. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Chairman Ney, Ranking Member 

Millender-McDonald and members of the committee. Thank you for 

this opportunity to testify on the budget submission of the Committee on Resources. 

The Resources Committee Ranking Member Nick Rahall is also 

here, and I am pleased to report that he has cosponsored our committee funding request again this Congress. 

During the 108th Congress, Nick and I enjoyed a very open and 

amiable working relationship. He has been both a friend and a 

worthy adversary, and I look forward to working with him in this 

Congress as well. 

Please note that while we both have unrivaled accomplishments 

in the 108th Congress and lofty goals for the 109th, our requested 

financial increase is, comparatively speaking, unquestionably modest. 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 legislative hearings and marked up 237 bills, 107 of 

which garnered the President’s signature to become Public Law.

In addition, we held nearly 50 official field hearings in communities across the country that were most affected by policies under 

the Resource Committee’s jurisdiction. Collectively these statistics 

alone illustrate the fact that we are the most active and productive 

190

committee in the Congress, especially given our massive jurisdiction over roughly 2.2 billion acres’ worth of national parks, forests, 

refuges, and public lands, including the outer continental shelf. No 

other committee in Congress has compiled as impressive a record. 

The issues under our vast umbrella of jurisdiction affect millions 

of Americans as well as those individuals residing in the territories 

of the United States. As you know, some of the issues include onshore and offshore oil, energy and mineral development, wetlands 

and wildlife management, the Endangered Species Act, Federal 

dams and hydropower generation, crop irrigation, the preparation 

of environmental impact statements under NEPA, Native American 

affairs, and all parks, forests, and public land management regulation. 

Mr. Rahall and I have prepared a comprehensive action plan for 

the 109th Congress. It will include an array of oversight hearings 

both here in Washington and in the field to enable concerned citizens to participate in the legislative process again in the 109th 

Congress. 

The field hearings in particular have proven to be invaluable to 

committee members and staff by enabling us to gather input from 

individuals whose lives and livelihoods are most affected by environmental-related legislation and regulations. As such, we are absolutely committed to continuing those efforts, and especially in 

rural parts of the country which have been underrepresented in 

Congress. 

Our requested budget increase is geared to staff. First, this increase will help us retain the most hard-working and experienced 

staff by providing funds for merit raises and a realistic cost of living adjustment. Second, they will enable us to hire three new staff 

members. The Speaker’s staff ceiling for the committee is currently 

69 slots; 21 of the 69 slots are currently staffed by individuals who 

perform administrative or nonlegislative functions. Unfortunately, 

the committee has reached the staff ceiling many times during the 

past 8 years. As such, we request the committee’s current staff allotment be increased to 72, or three new staff positions in 2005, 

2006. To ensure fairness in the process, the committee Majority 

would acquire two staff positions, and the Minority would acquire 

one. 

In conclusion, let us reiterate that our proposed 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 taxpayers’ pockets, we are 

certain that this budget accurately represents our minimum requirement. 

I want to thank you, and I will be able to answer any questions 

the committee may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking 

Member. 

[The statement of Mr. Pombo follows:]

191


Insert graphic folio 354 20927A.073
192


Insert graphic folio 355 20927A.074
193


Insert graphic folio 356 20927A.075
194


Insert graphic folio 357 20927A.076
195

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rahall. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NICK RAHALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first thank you 

and the members of the committee that are present, Ms. MillenderMcDonald, the Ranking Member, and Ms. Lofgren, for your help to 

me on a number of occasions, especially when it comes to our coal 

miners in southern West Virginia. And I thank you, Mr. Ney, Mr. 

Chairman, for your help, your valiant help, on behalf of our coal 

miners. You have been a true friend to us, and we appreciate it. 

I do appreciate the remarks of my Chairman Mr. Pombo and associate myself with those comments he has just made, especially 

about me. The comments are mutual. I do respect the Chairman 

and have found that our working relationship has been one that 

has been very professional and very upfront with one another, and 

he has been fair to the Minority. And where we disagree, we know 

it up front, and we respectfully disagree with each other. 

The budget that he and I are presenting this afternoon reflects 

the traditional approach the Resources Committee has taken. 

Chairman Pombo has treated the Minority with much respect and 

fairness, and I appreciate his leadership, as I have said. For instance, while the committee currently has 69 staff slots, 9 of those 

are deemed to be nonpartisan, shared employees. As such, the actual split is 40/20 between the Republican and Democratic staff, 

with one-third of the slots and salary controlled by myself as the 

Ranking Member. And in this regard, I share in Chairman Pombo’s 

request for an increase of three staff positions. 

While the Resources Committee has been viewed as a more 

minor committee in comparison to a committee like Ways and 

Means or Transportation and Infrastructure, as the Chairman has 

demonstrated and has stated, we produce an incredible amount of 

legislation. The taxpayers do get their bang for their buck. In the 

last Congress alone, for example, the Resources Committee reported and the House passed 56 bills sponsored by Democrats. 

That is, sponsored by Democrats. 

As to the rest of the budget, our committee does not operate as 

if there are Republican or Democrat copiers or computers. If a piece 

of equipment reaches the end of its ability to function properly, it 

is replaced whether it is in the Minority office or the Majority office. 

There is one aspect of our budget, however, which did cause some 

consternation among certain Democratic Members last Congress. I 

am referring to the franking allocation of the Resources Committee, 

which was the highest among all House committees. The same 

amount, $50,000 per session, is again contained in the proposed 

budget. 

When our budget was submitted to you on February 15, 2005, I 

included a letter stating at that time that I was neutral on the 

franking request, as Chairman Pombo and I had not yet had the 

opportunity to discuss the matter. Since then, we have talked 

about it, Mr. Chairman, and we have come to an understanding 

that no mass frank mailings will be undertaken without consultation between Chairman Pombo and the full Franking Commission. 

196

He has also taken the unprecedented move of agreeing to give the 

Minority control of one-third of the approved franking budget. He 

is a man of his word, and with that agreement I stand side by side 

with Chairman Pombo in asking you to support this budget. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]

197


Insert graphic folio 361 20927A.077
198

The CHAIRMAN. I thank both gentlemen. 

Questions? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. 

And I thank the two of you for coming before us. Certainly Mr. Rahall has answered the obligatory question that I have been raising 

over the last couple of days as we have had the chairmen and 

Ranking Members coming before us, and that is the two-third/onethird formula that has really been the—it was the brainchild of Mr. 

Bill Thomas, who was—just preceded you guys. And he wanted to 

reiterate that he wants to make sure that all committees are still 

carrying out that type of formula. And so I thank you so much. 

Mr. Rahall, sir, you are very much satisfied with what has taken 

place in terms of the budget? You have been informed by the 

Chairman as to what he has outlined in terms of the budget? You 

are aware the Chairman is asking for another $50,000 per session 

for franking mail? 

Mr. RAHALL. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. And have you been totally involved 

with the franking mail and informed of that franking mail? 

Mr. RAHALL. Yes, ma’am, I have. And we have reached an agreement, as I said, future mass mailings would be sent out in consultation with the Franking Commission and the Chairman. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. And while we recognize that chairmen do not necessarily have to go before the Franking as it is outlined in present form, sometimes it is not so much the letter of the 

law, but it is the spirit of the law that we have to always, as Members of Congress, as elected officials, be able to ensure that the 

public sees that, not only the letter, but the spirit of the law. 

And, Mr. Chairman, you did speak about an aggressive mailing 

that you have undertaken over the last Congress, and anticipate, 

I suppose, am I correct, in undertaking this same type of aggressive mailing in this Congress? 

Mr. POMBO. Absolutely. One of the—when I initially testified 

when I took over this committee, I had asked for an increased 

franking budget. One of the issues facing this committee is that the 

millions of people who are impacted by this committee for the most 

part are in rural America. And having the opportunity to reach out 

and communicate with those people is extremely important not 

only to me, but to the Ranking Member of this committee. I believe 

that is extremely important that we do that. 

In regard to following the letter of the law and the spirit of the 

law, this committee followed the letter of the law, the spirit of the 

law, every law, rule, regulation. We consulted with the Franking 

Commission on everything that we sent out even though we were 

not required to do that. We have stayed within the law on everything that we have put out. What Mr. Rahall and I—the agreement 

we have is that the Minority would have one-third of the budget 

on franked mail to use to issue franked mail. 

But having said that, and Nick can back me up on this, almost 

half of the franked mail that went out in the previous Congress 

went into Minority Members’ districts. It went into districts of 

members of the committee. But it went into Joe Baca’s district, 

Dennis Cardoza’s district. It was members of the committee who 

199

represent the Minority, and it went into their districts even before 

we had this agreement on one-third of the budget. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Well, you know, Mr. Pombo, of 

course you recognize those violations that have been outlined that 

you were in violation of. 

Mr. POMBO. Excuse me. There were no violations that I am 

aware of. There were concerns that were raised by outside groups. 

There were things that came up before the committee. But as far 

as I know, there were no violations. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Well, perhaps it was not as outlined 

in the election year mailing restrictions, but is it not true that, 

even if your position as Chairman, when you are doing mass mailings prior to hearings, as you have outlined this is what your whole 

mass mailing was all about, that it should be restricted to just 

those areas that you are going to have a hearing and not necessarily to battleground States that were part and parcel of the upcoming Presidential election? 

Mr. POMBO. The purpose of franked mail is to communicate with 

constituents. That is what we were doing. It was—I believe the 

particular mail that you are talking about went into the four States 

that have the greatest impact on the snowmobile issue. That mail 

did go out. It went into four States in which there were in excess 

of 80,000 jobs directly related to the snowmobile industry. It is an 

issue that this committee has undertaken over the past several 

years, it is something that this committee has been extremely involved in, and it is an issue that other committees have tried to 

dip their fingers into when it is under the jurisdiction of this committee. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. And you have said that it went into 

Minority communities. 

Mr. POMBO. Minority districts. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Minority communities that have 

snowmobiles? 

Mr. POMBO. Minority districts. And the snowmobile issue went 

into the four States that are in the center of that particular issue 

on the ban of snowmobile access on public lands. It would not have 

made any sense to go into Los Angeles on snowmobiles or Florida 

on snowmobiles. You have to go into places like Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Pombo, you are—and recognize 

that these are taxpayers’ dollars that you do spend, irrespective of 

your ability and autonomy to use and to be even under the 90-day 

cutoff, it is still taxpayers’ dollars, as you have outlined in your 

statement, and it is coming out of their pockets. And there are 

some people who were very outraged with getting mail from your 

committee in areas that they felt was not endemic to snowmobiles. 

Mr. POMBO. And there were a number of people that were very 

happy that our committee was very involved with that issue. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. But can we be assured that in your 

coming year when you have this aggressive mass mailing, that you 

are going to try to stick within the constructs of this mailing going 

to—and prior to hearings, that will go into those areas of hearings 

and not just all over the place? 

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentlelady yield? 

200

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. I feel I need to clarify something. He did follow 

that. Let me just read this for a second. 

Criteria for committee franked mail. Must relate strictly to committee business. Committees have no geographical boundaries. 

These are the current rules of the Franking Commission. 

Committees are not required to submit mass mailings for approval. There is not even a spirit of this. They are not required. 

Since 1991, under the Democratic control and under Republican 

control since 1994, the precedent has been to require all mass mailings be submitted for approval by Members only and not committees or leadership. 

But the point I wanted to make is House Administration has to 

decide, and willing to talk about these changes in current procedures. But to ask him today to say, yes, I will abide by not mailing 

out, but the rest of all Chairs can do that, it is just not the franking rules. 

Now, if we don’t like them, we can do something, but right now 

we are awaiting word of the appointment by the Minority on this 

committee of the Franking members, and we have sent that, and 

we are awaiting your appointments so that we can deal with any 

issues if anybody would allege something on the mailers. And we 

have past precedent on these mailers from subcommittee Chairs, 

and the one I am thinking about years ago before I was here that 

I was alerted to was a Democrat and was dismissed unanimously. 

But the thing I have to point out is whether you like the mail 

or you don’t like the mail, or the content or not the content, he followed the rules of the House, because he can mail outside. Now, 

if he today wants to answer the question—and you can answer the 

question—any way he wants, or you won’t mail outside an area or 

another State, but according to the format we follow, he can mail 

anywhere he wants. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting—just a minute, Ms. Lofgren. 

Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that he cannot mail even 

outside of his State of California, or the gentleman from West Virginia. What I am suggesting here, first of all, we have been about 

the business of trying to be fair and equitable in this whole process. And Members, chairmen, have come before us saying that they 

will not go beyond this realm that has either been outlined through 

franking or, in his—as far as the Chairman is saying, that you do 

not have any restrictions, you do not have any restrictions on your 

mailing. But they have said that to ensure that we have a type of 

fair and equitable process that they would not do this. 

And I am asking you, would you do this? I understand that you 

do not have to be restricted to the State of California if you are 

going to have hearings in other States. But these seem to have 

been targeted to battleground States where we had a lot of—where 

there were really Presidential concerns there. And so my question 

is whether or not you will at least be fair and equitable in terms 

of, first of all, your Ranking Member having the autonomy to send 

mass mailers to wherever he wants to send them. 

Mr. POMBO. I am not exactly sure what question you are asking 

me. We followed all rules, all laws, rules, regulations. Bringing up 

201

that we mailed into a battleground State, I don’t remember exactly 

what happened, but Montana, Wyoming, Idaho I don’t believe were 

battleground States, and I don’t believe that Minnesota ended up 

being a battleground State. I am not exactly sure what you are 

asking me to commit to. 

I will commit to you that I will follow all laws, rules, and regulations dealing with franking. And I can assure you that Mr. Rahall 

will do the same thing with his part of the budget. I am not—you 

are insinuating that there were some laws or rules or regulations 

that were broken by this committee in regards to franking, and if 

there is a specific law or rule that we broke, I would appreciate you 

letting me know what that is. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Pombo, I think you are aware 

of headlines that I am now reading where there has been many 

questions about your mailing and your mass mailing last year, and 

that those mass mailings went to targeted battleground States 

where Presidential elections were really at stake. And so my question to you is whether or not you did—you were within the construct of the law, whether you are going to be a little more—or 

careful in your mailing, and that that mailing be targeted only to 

those areas where you are going to have hearings and not outside 

of States where you are not going to have hearings. 

Mr. POMBO. Ma’am, franked mail is not about just doing hearings. It is about communicating with constituents on issues that 

are before the committee. That has nothing to do with the State 

of California or the State of West Virginia. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. And I made that very clear that I 

was not talking about just the State of California or West Virginia. 

Mr. POMBO. But it is not just about informing people about when 

we are going to have a field hearing. It is about communicating on 

issues that are before the committee. And that is what we did, and 

that is what I expect Mr. Rahall to do. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I really do think—I 

think we need to look at this issue again, because if other chairmen 

are going to come before us and they are going to cite that they 

will stay within a certain parameter of mass mailings——

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would be willing to bet the mortgage of my 

house—I have been in the same hearings with you in 2 days, nowhere was the question asked, in my recollection, of any Ranking 

Member: Will you not mail outside an area? Now, it was asked, will 

you mail for hearings, but I don’t recall ever that that was ever 

asked or answered. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I thought I did ask that question, 

sir, many times. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t believe. But we can——

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. We can check the transcripts on 

that. But can we then try to review this? Because I think it is totally unfair that you have a chairman that does one thing, and 

other chairmen who perhaps want to do this have not been so inclined to do that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentlelady yield? I think that there is 

another issue here. It is true—and I think it is a mistake, frankly, 

202

but it is true that committees do not need to submit their mass 

mailings to the Franking Commission. But that is not the end of 

the story, because it violates Federal law to use taxpayer funds to 

campaign, in a political effort. And so the underlying question is 

was the nature of the mailing really a political mailing. 

And you are aware, it is not fun to ask questions, and we share 

part of Santa Clara County, but certainly you are aware that many 

questions about the content of those mailers have been raised in 

the public. And if you read them and then take a look also at your 

Web page, which also does not have to go before Franking, it is 

highly political talking about the Presidential campaign. It was 

sent widely and sent also into congressional races that would be 

contested between the parties and was so politicized. Whether or 

not the Franking Commission checked into it is not the concern; 

the concern is whether the law prohibiting the use of taxpayer 

funds for a political purpose was adhered to. 

I just have a question. Looking at where these mailers were sent, 

they were sent to two Members. I guess Mr. Renzi and Mr. Pearce 

are both in your committee. Those were sharply contested races. 

The two Democratic members, Mr. Baca and Mr. Cardoza, had 

token opposition. 

So I think there are many questions, and I would just like to 

know. The Franking Commission would protect you from these 

kinds of questions that are being asked; because if the Franking 

Commission says, yes, this is not a political mailer, then you know 

you are on pretty safe ground, that you haven’t violated the law 

about sending out political mailers at taxpayers’ expense. Wouldn’t 

you think that would be a good way to proceed next year? 

Mr. POMBO. Well, Ms. Lofgren, we did informally check with the 

Franking Commission before we mailed out any mail just to make 

sure that we were within the law, and it baffles me somewhat that 

members of this committee would, instead of actually looking at the 

mailing that went out, read from what are obviously misinformed 

press clippings about what actually went out from the committee. 

An accusation from some political adversary does not necessarily 

mean that we did anything wrong. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I wasn’t on the committee last year. 

Mr. POMBO. I am just pointing out to you that there is nothing 

in the mailer that is political. And I would challenge anyone to 

point out to me—we don’t advocate party, we don’t ask for a vote. 

It was totally informational about what went out from my committee, from the Committee on Resources, and it was all within the 

law. 

Now, if someone wants to suggest that franked mail in the future 

only be about informing constituents of upcoming town hall meetings or hearings, I think that other Members of Congress would be 

very concerned if that is the direction that this committee wants 

to go, because I would challenge you that most of the franked mail 

that comes out of Members of Congress’ offices is informational 

pieces, and is not just telling people about when your next town 

hall meeting is. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, but we have limits as Members, you and I 

both do, when we send out franked mail from our offices. Sometimes I don’t like the limits, and sometimes I think they are wrong. 

203

We all have beefs with the Franking Commission, but at least we 

know that it is not a political mailer or can’t be. I guess reasonable 

people can differ, but a lot of people feel they were political mailers 

and that the Web site was also. You have got, Kerry, is he flip-flopping? That was picking up from the Presidential campaign. It looks 

like the use of official resources for a political campaign. I think it 

is very problematic and that you would save yourself problems of 

the criticism and protect yourself if we were to go through, even 

though the law doesn’t require it, the Franking Commission to 

avoid this. 

Mr. POMBO. Well, I would again tell you that the committee followed all laws, rules, regulations in regards to franked mail. And 

any accusations to the contrary are, quite frankly, unfounded. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Reclaiming my time from her. 

Mr. Rahall, are you then at liberty—are you going to mail out 

some—this mass mailing of—to constituents of yours speaking 

about the Minority Leader Pelosi and what she is doing to further 

advance the Resources Committee’s objectives and goals? 

Mr. RAHALL. Well, I appreciate the gentlelady’s question. And we 

have not really set up what our plans are yet, our agenda as far 

as mass mailings, if any, that we plan on doing from the Minority 

side this year. But they would, as the Chairman has indicated, be 

mailings on issues, issue-oriented, and may not necessarily be 

going to my constituents. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. No. Not necessarily going to your 

constituents. But what I am saying is that given that this mailer 

that I received has the President’s name on it many times, and so, 

of course, if you are going to do some mass mailers, would you then 

also be sure to include what your leadership is doing with reference 

to the Resource Committee’s objectives and goals? 

Mr. RAHALL. Well, like the Chairman, I would follow every law, 

rule, regulation. And, yes, I would expect to have items that are 

of interest to the audience and the issues that are of concern to our 

leadership. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. But, see, there are no laws and no 

rules and no nothing, so you can just do this carte blanche. And 

so given that you can do this carte blanche, I am just suggesting 

to you will you then exercise the right as a Ranking Member to do 

what the Chairman has done and will be doing in terms of getting 

this information out to the mass of people who he wants to share 

the common goals and objectives of this committee? Will you be 

doing that and be sharing what your——

Mr. RAHALL. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. And be sharing what your leader is 

doing with reference to this? 

Mr. RAHALL. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Okay. Fine. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have a few other questions on 

other subjects. And 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 want to understand what that was all about since the 

committee is asking for just shy of a 10 percent increase in its 

204

budget. And I am wondering, 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? And did any 

of the staff not go on vacation when you closed the committee? 

Looking at with Web site, I don’t know, but it doesn’t appear that 

there were any hearings or markups after September 29, and it 

doesn’t appear there were any press committee releases after October 15. Can you enlighten us on those questions? 

Mr. POMBO. I believe, if memory serves me correctly—I would 

have to go back and look to tell you for sure—that most of the 

month of October, that the Members—most of the staff of the committee was placed on administrative leave or allowed to go do other 

activities. Part of that was there were site visits and district issues 

that staff of the committee were 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, D.C. We did not have—Congress had 

completed its business at that point. We did not have markups or 

official hearings within Washington, D.C., during that time period, 

no. 

Ms. LOFGREN. 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’s salary, but were off, dispatched to work on campaigns 

when they were not taking vacation time. And I think this is an 

opportunity for you to address that. 

Mr. POMBO. And 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. So you have maintained records. And how much 

vacation does each staffer get? How many weeks? 

Mr. POMBO. I think that is dependent on the number of years 

that they have been——

Ms. LOFGREN. So you have a schedule that is published and all 

of that? 

Mr. POMBO. It is all part of the committee rules. And it is the 

same on both sides. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I had a question about some specific staff travel 

and I would like to get an answer. You may not be able to answer 

today. But I took a look at Mr. Kennedy, the press secretary, and 

I note that he turned in a bill for $1,042 the day after the election. 

I don’t know where he was traveling, but since there were no press 

releases issued, I am wondering what was he doing and where did 

he go? 

205

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Kennedy travels with me quite extensively. 

And—I probably shouldn’t say where, exactly where he was, but I 

believe during that time period 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, it is not fair to ask you to know that here, 

but if we can get that information later, that will be very helpful. 

Once questions are asked, you take a look at these more thoroughly. None of us have privacy because it is all the taxpayers’ 

money. Taking a look at some of the other professional staff, I saw 

Mr. Miller, Mr. Whaley, and Mr. Sampson also submitted vouchers 

in good-sized chunks for the same time period. And I was wondering, the expenses were nearly $4,000. I wonder 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, because 

those are our professional staff members, and I can’t tell you by 

memory exactly where they were. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. That is fair. And I would like to get that 

later when you have a chance to take a look at it. 

I have 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, I think the minimum amount that is possible, 300 a month on the MRA. But I 

think has an important position on the Resources Committee given 

his salary. And I am not criticizing the salary, I am sure he is a 

very competent individual, but it looks like he is traveling on your 

MRA probably, I mean, very frequently, almost every week back to 

the district. I am wondering, as a member of the Resources Committee, what is his necessity to be back in California on that kind 

of basis? Not that the staff phone book is accurate, but Ms. Carter 

is named your chief of staff in the telephone book. So who is the 

chief of staff, and how does this work? Because——

Mr. POMBO. Jessica Carter is my chief of staff in my personal office. Steve Ding is the staff director of the Resources Committee, 

and he also does work in my personal office as well, and he travels 

with me extensively; he has for a number of years. He is probably 

one of the best staff members on Capitol Hill, and I would stand 

by him 100 percent. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am not suggesting otherwise. I am just trying to 

figure out how the money works between your office and the committee. It is not about his competence at all. I look forward to getting the information later that obviously you can’t be expected to 

memorize. I am glad 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. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the gentlelady for her comments 

and kindness today to the Chair. And I want to thank both Members for being here. 

Let me just reiterate one thing just to—I hope to clear this up. 

It is the responsibility of House Administration to deal with the 

franking issues. I believe the Chair is correct that February 10 we 

sent the Minority on this committee a proposal about this filing 

that was done by this group; and if the letter is sent from your 

206

leader to the Speaker, you will have your appointments to franking 

that we would like to see happen, and then we can have the vote 

on this. Historically, this vote was done again before with the Democrat subcommittee chair, who had—the question has arisen on 

that issue of their ability to mail. 

In 1991, under Democratic control, this was changed and kept in 

1994 under Republican control. But at that time the issue was to 

focus on the individual Members, because prior to reform there was 

no individual accountability, no public disclosure, and only postal 

patron mailings only if you sent to a ZIP code. And the House 

alone was spending $120 million. The House is now spending between 20 million and 25 million. But the leaders of the House do 

not go for franking opinions, the Chairs of the committees don’t. I 

know on several occasions Mr. Pombo, his staff has brought franking pieces—because we had this debate on the floor of the House 

and had brought these over to be looked at, which is voluntary to 

do. 

But, you know, in my opinion—and I believe the record stands 

of how we operate here in the House, whether someone likes the 

mailer or they don’t like the mailer, and we can go back through 

the past 25-year history of mailers, but he didn’t violate any law, 

and he followed the current operating procedures we have. 

Now, if, in fact—and this is, my question on this issue to both 

of you. But if, in fact, this committee working together decides to 

change some of the rules, whether it is to put the leadership under 

the committee, the committee Chairs, the process, the 90-day 

blackout, then I guess I would ask both people, if we change the 

rules, will you follow the new rules we change? 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, whatever——

The CHAIRMAN. I will answer for both of you. Yes. 

Mr. POMBO. Yeah. I mean, whatever rules that you establish for 

the committee, I am sure Nick and I will follow them. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t want to beat the dead horse, but those 

were the rules, whether you like the mail or not, and the rules 

were followed. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, just an oversight. I think we need 

to keep the record open so Mr. Pombo’s written responses can be 

officially received by the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is not unusual. In fact, standard practice, as the gentlelady knows, and being an attorney, we always 

keep them open. And no objection to that on the past two hearings 

as we did the last one. 

With that, I want to thank both gentlemen for being here. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I look forward to Mr. Rahall sending 

some of his mail into my district so I can see it as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Hopefully he will send a little across the border 

to Ohio in Belmont County, too. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Absolutely. Spread it across the 

country. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

And the next committee up, the last committee, in fact, and we 

will be done, is Government Reform. And I note both Mr. Waxman 

and the Chair had a time line, so I appreciate you—okay. I appreciate your coming. 

207

We will start with the Chair, Mr. Davis of Virginia, and then go 

on to Mr. Waxman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Chairman Ney, and Ms. MillenderMcDonald and Ms. Lofgren. I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Committee on House Administration on 

the Government Reform Committee’s budget proposal. 

Let me just note, in the 103rd Congress this committee was three 

committees; it was the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, it 

was the old District of Columbia Committee, and it was the Government Operations Committee. It was three committees at that 

point with a total of 192 staff slots. Today we do the work of those 

three committees with 118 people. So there has already been a significant reduction. And if you look at our legislative accomplishments over that time, we are putting out more legislation than 

those three committees combined did in the 103rd with about a little over half as many people. 

With now a full term as chairman of the committee under my 

belt, I propose a budget that reflects the needs of the House’s busiest committee with the largest jurisdiction and oversight responsibilities. First, I want to note that this past Congress was the first 

time in history the Committee on Government Reform’s Minority 

staff received 33 percent of the committee’s budget. Henry Waxman, our Ranking Minority Member, and I worked together in 

reaching this goal, and we look forward to cooperating in this Congress to make our Federal Government more efficient. 

The budget proposal we present supports an aggressive agenda 

for the 109th Congress. Our focus is on stamping out fraud, waste, 

and mismanagement in the Federal Government, and making necessary reforms to these challenges. In the 108th Congress, in the 

last Congress, our committee held 340 hearings and markups, 176 

in 2003, 164 in 2004. That is dozens more than you will find with 

any other committee. 

But our work has been more about quality than mere quantity. 

The committee accomplished much on a broad spectrum of areas 

legislatively. The Pentagon’s national security personnel system, 

the D.C. School Choice Act, the Services Acquisition Reform Act, 

postal pension reform, a significant portion of the 9/11 Implementation Act originated in our committee. 

On the oversight front, we played a lead role in looking into the 

U.N. oil-for-food program, pay and medical problems facing National Guard and reservists, flu vaccines, drug smuggling at U.S. 

Borders, drug prevention and treatment programs, the President’s 

faith-based initiative, and oversight of personnel management. 

During the 109th Congress our agenda is even more aggressive. 

Our legislative agenda focuses on computer security, Postal Service 

reform, driver’s license security, identity theft, streamlining the 

Presidential appointments process, Federal law enforcement pay 

and classification reform, reorganization of the GSA, and additional 

acquisition reform. 

On the oversight side, the committee focuses on the GAO’s highrisk list, management of the Department of Homeland Security, 

208

the battle against narcoterrorism, the FDA’s ability to ensure adequate flu vaccine availability and protecting the public from dangerous prescription drugs, the evolving role of the National Guard, 

the misuse of Federal grant money in the District of Columbia, and 

many others. 

Our continued goal is to see improvements in the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the Federal Government, to root out waste and mismanagement in government programs, and to protect the rights 

and interests of American taxpayers. 

I am working to make our committee home plate when it comes 

to accomplishing these goals. With the amount of legislative and 

oversight hearings in the 108th and this aggressive agenda noted 

in the 109th, we believe we can accomplish our goals with an 8.8 

percent increase from last year’s budget. But I would like to give 

you a brief history on the committee’s budget. 

In the 104th Congress, the committee acquired two other standing committees, as I noted before, and we have made them subcommittees of the Government Reform Committee. 

During the 103rd Congress, the Government Reform staff—well, 

I went through the combined numbers with you a minute ago, and 

we are down to almost half of what we were in the 103rd Congress 

when you look at the combination. When the two standing committees combined with Government Reform, it received 105 employees 

and a budget of 13.5 million. We cut the committee funding in half. 

In the 105th Congress, the committee budget increased to enhance its investigative resources, but those gains have disappeared 

over the years. 

From the 105th Congress to the 108th, the committee has received an average 0.7 percent decrease in funding. So, from the 

105th Congress to the 108th, the committee has received a decrease in funding. This average doesn’t meet the demands of the 

cost of inflation over the past three Congresses. Even an 8.8 percent increase to the committee would yield an approximately 1.7 

percent increase from the 105th Congress. 

I am not here to ask for more money simply for equity’s sake. 

We have specific plans for how we would utilize it. One area is in 

committee staffing, and in order to accomplish the goals of the 

109th Congress, we see a need for three additional, two new employees for the Majority and one for the Minority, that would assist 

the committee in carrying out its legislative and oversight responsibilities. 

Additional committee funding will help us pay for the increase in 

transit benefits that are now available to all employees. In the 

past, funds have been transferred from other lines of operation to 

meet those needs. 

We would also like the ability to hire consultants in specialized 

areas to give us expertise in the areas of technology, acquisition, 

and health policy as part of our efforts to locate fraud, waste, and 

abuse. 

The committee acquired much of its equipment during the 107th 

Congress. We would like to update our equipment and technology 

to keep our software current. And it is our goal to upgrade work 

stations every 3 years to keep pace with technology. 

209

We have also requested an increase for the hiring of outside 

Webcasting and vendors for Web site development. Extensive use 

of travel for our investigations and field hearings, the result of our 

wide jurisdiction and commitment to oversight, is also a necessity 

for our committee. This is in order to get a true perspective on investigations and oversight, and not to be limited to an inside-theBeltway insight from our hearing witnesses. 

With this proposal we believe we can meet the needs of the committee’s legislative and oversight agenda, and at the same time 

reach our goals in stamping out waste, fraud, and abuse. 

Once again, I thank you for this opportunity to testify before the 

committee, and we look forward to working with you in this Congress. 

[The statement of Mr. Davis follows:]

210


Insert graphic folio 390 20927A.078
211


Insert graphic folio 391 20927A.079
212


Insert graphic folio 392 20927A.080
213


Insert graphic folio 393 20927A.081
214


Insert graphic folio 394 20927A.082
215

The CHAIRMAN. Wow. What do you do in your spare time? 

I just want to ask one question, be it a little irregular here, because I know we are supposed to go to our distinguished Ranking 

Member. But your home plate goals, was that intentional or——

Mr. DAVIS. We just try to touch all the bases. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you made a home run. Thank you.

Mr. Waxman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Ms. 

Lofgren, members of the committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to go to bat with Chairman Davis on behalf of the budget 

request that our committee is making. 

When Chairman Davis took over the gavel in the last Congress 

for the Government Reform Committee, he pledged to continue providing the Minority with a 33 percent allocation of the committee 

resources, and I am pleased he is continuing this approach in this 

Congress. In addition, I am grateful for the good lines of communication that Chairman Davis has established with the Minority. 

We do not always agree, but we always make an effort to understand each other’s position and to conduct the committee’s business 

professionally. And in important areas such as oversight of steroid 

use in baseball, which is on our minds because we are having a 

hearing on that topic tomorrow, we are able to work together on 

a bipartisan basis. 

It is important to put the Government Reform Committee budget 

request in perspective. Over the last three Congresses, the budgets 

of other House committees have grown on average 33 percent. 

Some committees have seen their budgets grow by over 60 percent. 

Our committee, the Government Reform Committee’s budget has 

actually been cut over this period. We have seen our total budget 

cut by 2 percent during a period in which inflation alone has increased by 14 percent. 

I join Chairman Davis in emphasizing that the committee cannot 

fulfill its crucial legislative and oversight responsibilities if this 

trend continues. That is why it is so critical that the Government 

Reform Committee budget request be fully funded. 

The committee is responsible for addressing numerous pressing 

public policy challenges facing our Nation. I won’t go through the 

extensive list that the Chairman has given you, but I do want to 

point out that we have legislation to reform the Postal Service 

which is critical to the long-term viability of that system. We continue our important work to ensure our Nation’s drug control policies are operating effectively through reauthorization of the Office 

of National Drug Control policy and oversight of drug control efforts. 

The committee continues to conduct oversight of the District of 

Columbia. Chairman Davis and I have worked together to look at 

FDA enforcement of false and misleading advertisements, manufacturing practices for drugs, biologics, and vaccines. And, of course, 

we are examining the growing problem of youth steroid use. 

I hope that, for these reasons, the members of this committee 

will support our committee’s funding request in its entirety. I 

216

thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to be here and to 

answer any questions you or your members may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Waxman follows:]

217


Insert graphic folio 399 20927A.083
218


Insert graphic folio 400 20927A.084
219


Insert graphic folio 401 20927A.085
220

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank both the gentlemen for being 

here. 

Mr. Waxman, is the split workable, the two thirds/one third 

funding? 

Mr. WAXMAN. I would prefer that we got the two-thirds, but 

other—but since the rules have always been that—since the objective has been for many, many years the idea that the Minority 

would get one-third, we have been treated fairly in that regard. 

The CHAIRMAN. I worked with you 4 years ago, and I appreciate 

that, on a difficult situation, to get that into balance we worked 

with you personally. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I do recall that. I appreciate that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous Chair, and appreciated your 

working with us to try to get that into line 4 years ago. 

I really have no questions of the Chair. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. 

Mr. Waxman, help is on the way in terms of the two-thirds, I 

suppose.

Mr. WAXMAN. We have to wait for elections for that. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. As one once said, it is good to know, 

though, that you are working admirably, I suppose, with the onethird for the total budget, the slots, and the control that you have. 

As I have spoken with you, and you seem to be pretty satisfied 

with that, and that is a good thing because the Chairman is just 

adhering to the formula that this committee has set forth even 

going back to when Mr. Thomas was the Chair. He outlined that 

formula, and we are keeping with that. 

Mr. WAXMAN. For our committee, the Minority, we go all the way 

back to Mr. Ney’s chairmanship of where we were able to get the 

third. But in previous years there were all sorts of ways that, when 

all was said and done, we didn’t get quite what the objective was. 

So I want to acknowledge the role that the Chairman here had 

played in that, and to express to you that we feel that we are being 

treated fairly. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Very good. Very good. 

In terms of the request for your franking, Mr. Chairman, I see that you had requested over the years certain amounts, $17,500, 

but you spent barely $3,700, and then $9,000 in the other one, in 

the first and second session of the 108th Congress. You are requesting now $25,000, and I would just ask what—by what means 

are you expecting to expand the mass mailing? 

Mr. DAVIS. One of the—I guess one of the beauties of this committee is we oversee all Federal procurement. And one of the 

things we have tried to do, Federal procurement right now is centered inside the Beltway, in and around Washington, which is 

great for my district; our unemployment rate is 1.4 percent. But 

what we are trying to do is go out into other communities and put 

on seminars how you sell to the government so that we can get the 

benefit of what people outside the Beltway can offer the Federal 

Government, whether it is goods or services. And franking is the 

best way to do this. We did three or four of these last time; we did 

one up in Mr. Tierney’s district, we did one out in the Bay Area. 

But there are other areas, not just technology areas, where this is 

useful not just to the Members, but to the businesses in those 

221

areas. And it is helpful to the government, because the more bidders we have, the better we can drive prices down and get more 

competitive rates. So it is basically what we call these procurement 

fairs. It is a benefit to our Members, but also people outside the 

committee as well. And the frank is a very good way to reach a lot 

of these businesses. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Well, I really—having my 

undergrad in business administration marketing, I am certainly 

one who advocates marketing as much as you can to get the word 

out. So that is a good thing. 

Mr. Waxman, how much of the franking funds do you use for 

your own franking mailing? 

Mr. WAXMAN. I would like to give you the answer to that for the 

record. I don’t know offhand, but I assume we get a split to serve 

the needs of the Minority for the very same purpose. A lot of our 

Members, not just on our committee, but Democratic Members in 

the House would like to have these opportunities for these fairs 

that can reach out to people to understand how they can get involved in government contracts; particularly in minority areas, I 

think that would be very, very helpful. So I don’t know the exact 

number, but I assume that we will want to be able to have a fair 

distribution of it. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I would like to think so as well. 

Mr. DAVIS. We did one in Mrs. Maloney’s—I mean, we don’t care 

whose district it is in. We try to involve our regions. Ultimately, 

this benefits the Federal Government, so we would be happy to 

work with Mr. Waxman on these areas. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Very good. Thank you so much to 

both of you. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to perhaps get a report as to 

how much is being spent on franking both with the Chair and the 

Minority or the Ranking Members on each committee, and report 

that back to us. Thank you so much. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just say I think the questions that have 

been asked are interesting. As you know, I serve on the Judiciary 

Committee, and I was interested in your comment about antitrust 

in baseball, especially since San Jose wants a baseball team. So 

perhaps we can talk further about that later. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank both gentlemen for being here 

today and your time before the committee. Thank you. 

I ask unanimous consent that Members have 3 business days to 

submit their statements and materials for the record. Those statements and materials will be entered in an appropriate place in the 

record. Without objection, material will be so entered. 

Also, I would note the gentlelady’s request, too. Of course, the 

questions, this record will be open for the questions to be answered 

and submitted. I don’t know, 30 days, I assume? I mean, or 2 

weeks? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am sure it wouldn’t take the Chairman more 

than 30 days. They were simple questions. 

222

The CHAIRMAN. Then we will—leave making sure I am technically correct here. Three business days. Without objection, the 

material will be entered. 

I ask unanimous consent staff be authorized to make technical 

and conforming changes on all matters considered by the committee in today’s portion of the hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

Having completed our business for the day in this hearing on the 

committee funding, the committee is hereby adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:53 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ