```

[House Report 106-72]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
  1st Session           HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 106-72

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

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

                                _______
                                

   March 22, 1999.--Referred to the House calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______

 Mr. Thomas, from the Committee on House Administration, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                       [To accompany H. Res. 101]

  The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred 
the resolution (H. Res. 101) providing amounts for the expenses 
of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the 
One Hundred Sixth Congress, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the 
resolution be agreed to.

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. COMMITTEE EXPENSES FOR THE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS.

  (a) In General.--With respect to the One Hundred Sixth Congress, 
there shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of the House of 
Representatives, in accordance with this primary expense resolution, 
not more than the amount specified in subsection (b) for the expenses 
(including the expenses of all staff salaries) of each committee named 
in that subsection.
  (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts referred to 
in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, $8,414,033; Committee 
on Armed Services, $10,342,681; Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services, $9,307,521; Committee on the Budget, $9,940,000; Committee on 
Commerce, $15,285,113; Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
$11,200,497; Committee on Government Reform, $19,770,233; Committee on 
House Administration, $6,251,871; Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, $5,164,444; Committee on International Relations, 
$11,313,531; Committee on the Judiciary, $12,152,275; Committee on 
Resources, $10,567,908; Committee on Rules, $5,069,424; Committee on 
Science, $8,931,726; Committee on Small Business, $4,148,880; Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct, $2,632,915; Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, $13,220,138; Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, $4,735,135; and Committee on Ways and Means, $11,930,338.

SEC. 2. FIRST SESSION LIMITATIONS.

  (a) In General.--Of the amount provided for in section 1 for each 
committee named in subsection (b), not more than the amount specified 
in such subsection shall be available for expenses incurred during the 
period beginning at noon on January 3, 1999, and ending immediately 
before noon on January 3, 2000.
  (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts referred to 
in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, $4,101,062; Committee 
on Armed Services, $5,047,079; Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services, $4,552,023; Committee on the Budget, $4,970,000; Committee on 
Commerce, $7,564,812; Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
$5,908,749; Committee on Government Reform, $9,773,233; Committee on 
House Administration, $2,980,255; Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, $2,514,916; Committee on International Relations, 
$5,635,000; Committee on the Judiciary, $5,787,394; Committee on 
Resources, $5,208,851; Committee on Rules, $2,488,522; Committee on 
Science, $4,410,560; Committee on Small Business, $2,037,466; Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,272,416; Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, $6,410,069; Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, $2,334,800; and Committee on Ways and Means, $5,814,367.

SEC. 3. SECOND SESSION LIMITATIONS.

  (a) In General.--Of the amount provided for in section 1 for each 
committee named in subsection (b), not more than the amount specified 
in such subsection shall be available for expenses incurred during the 
period beginning at noon on January 3, 2000, and ending immediately 
before noon on January 3, 2001.
  (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts referred to 
in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, $4,312,971; Committee 
on Armed Services, $5,295,602; Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services, $4,755,498; Committee on the Budget, $4,970,000; Committee on 
Commerce, $7,720,301; Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
$5,291,748; Committee on Government Reform, $9,997,000; Committee on 
House Administration, $3,271,616; Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, $2,649,528; Committee on International Relations, 
$5,678,531; Committee on the Judiciary, $6,364,881; Committee on 
Resources, $5,359,057; Committee on Rules, $2,580,902; Committee on 
Science, $4,521,166; Committee on Small Business, $2,111,414; Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct, $1,360,499; Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, $6,810,069; Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, $2,400,335; and Committee on Ways and Means, $6,115,971.

SEC. 4. VOUCHERS.

  Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the committee involved, signed by the chairman of such committee, 
and approved in the manner directed by the Committee on House 
Administration.

SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.

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

SEC. 6. RESERVE FUND FOR UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES.

  There is hereby established a reserve fund of $3,000,000 for 
unanticipated expenses of committees for the One Hundred Sixth 
Congress. Amounts in the fund shall be paid to a committee pursuant to 
an allocation approved by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 7. ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY.

  The Committee on House Administration shall have authority to make 
adjustments in amounts under section 1, if necessary to comply with an 
order of the President issued under section 254 of the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 or to conform to any 
reduction in appropriations for the purposes of such section 1.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    On March 16, 1999, by record vote, a quorum being present, 
the Committee agreed to an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute and, by voice vote, a quorum being present, the 
Committee agreed to a motion to report the resolution, as 
amended, favorably to the House.

                      COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

            STATEMENT ON BUDGET AUTHORITY AND RELATED ITEMS

    The resolution does not provide new budget authority, new 
spending authority, new credit authority, or an increase or 
decrease in revenues or tax expenditures and a statement under 
clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 is not required.

               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states, with 
respect to the resolution, that the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office did not submit a cost estimate and 
comparison under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.

          OVERSIGHT FINDINGS OF COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

    The Committee states, with respect to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that 
the Committee on Government Reform did not submit findings or 
recommendations based on investigations under clause 4(c)(2) of 
rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                              RECORD VOTES

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, with respect to each record vote 
on a motion to report the resolution and on any amendment 
offered to the resolution, the total number of votes cast for 
and against, and the names of those Members voting for and 
against, are as follows:

H. Res. 101, Record No. 1

    Motion by Mr. Hoyer. Subject: Motion to agree to the 
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by Mr. Hoyer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Member                     Aye        Nay      Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas.............................  .........         X
Mr. Boehner............................  .........         X
Mr. Ehlers.............................  .........         X
Mr. Ney................................  .........         X
Mr. Mica...............................  .........         X
Mr. Ewing..............................  .........         X
Mr. Hoyer..............................         X   .........
Mr. Fattah.............................         X   .........
Mr. Davis..............................         X   .........
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................         3          6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Res. 101, Record No. 2

    Motion by Mr. Hoyer. Subject: Motion to agree to the 
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by Mr. Hoyer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Member                     Aye        Nay      Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas.............................  .........         X
Mr. Boehner............................  .........         X
Mr. Ehlers.............................  .........         X
Mr. Ney................................  .........         X
Mr. Mica...............................  .........         X
Mr. Ewing..............................  .........         X
Mr. Hoyer..............................         X   .........
Mr. Fattah.............................         X   .........
Mr. Davis..............................         X   .........
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................         3          6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       -H. Res. 101, Record No. 3

    Motion by Mr. Boehner. Subject: Motion to agree to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Boehner.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Member                     Aye        Nay      Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas.............................         X   .........
Mr. Boehner............................         X   .........
Mr. Ehlers.............................         X   .........
Mr. Ney................................         X   .........
Mr. Mica...............................         X   .........
Mr. Ewing..............................         X   .........
Mr. Hoyer..............................  .........         X
Mr. Fattah.............................  .........         X
Mr. Davis..............................  .........         X
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................         6          3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           GENERAL DISCUSSION

Voice Vote

    The Committee, by voice vote, with a quorum present, on 
March 16, 1999, agreed to report H. Res. 101, as amended, 
favorably to the House.

General Discussion

    H. Res. 101, as amended, authorizes for standing committees 
(excluding the Committee on Appropriations) and the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence $180,378,663 for the 106th 
Congress. An additional $3,000,000 is included in the 
resolution, as authorization held in reserve for unanticipated 
activities. In a separate Committee resolution, approved on 
March 10, 1999, the Committee on House Administration 
established franked mail allocations for these committees.
    The sum total of all budget requests for the 106th Congress 
was $189,029,110. The $180,378,663 authorized for committees is 
$8,650,447, 4.6% less than the sum of all amounts requested by 
committees.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              106th
                        Committee                          request \1\   H. Res. 101      1999          2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture.............................................    $8,564,493    $8,414,033    $4,101,062    $4,312,971
Armed Services..........................................    10,599,855    10,342,681     5,047,079     5,295,602
Banking and Financial Services..........................     9,725,255     9,307,521     4,552,023     4,755,498
Budget..................................................     9,940,000     9,940,000     4,970,000     4,970,000
Commerce................................................    15,537,415    15,285,113     7,564,812     7,720,301
Education and the Workforce.............................    12,382,570    11,200,497     5,908,749     5,291,748
Government Reform.......................................    21,028,913    19,770,233     9,773,233     9,997,000
House Administration....................................     6,307,220     6,251,871     2,980,255     3,271,616
Intelligence............................................     5,369,030     5,164,444     2,514,916     2,649,528
International Relations.................................    11,659,355    11,313,531     5,635,000     5,678,531
Judiciary...............................................    13,575,939    12,152,275     5,787,394     6,364,881
Resources...............................................    11,270,338    10,567,908     5,208,851     5,359,057
Rules...................................................     5,069,424     5,069,424     2,488,522     2,580,902
Science.................................................     9,018,326     8,931,726     4,410,560     4,521,166
Small Business..........................................     4,399,035     4,148,880     2,037,466     2,111,414
Standards of Official Conduct...........................     2,860,915     2,632,915     1,272,416     1,360,499
Transportation..........................................    14,539,260    13,220,138     6,410,069     6,810,069
Veterans' Affairs.......................................     5,220,890     4,735,135     2,334,800     2,400,335
Ways and Means..........................................    11,960,876    11,930,338     5,814,367     6,115,971
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..........................................   189,029,110   180,378,663    88,811,574    91,567,089
                                                         =======================================================
Reserve Fund............................................  ............     3,000,000             0             0
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
      Total.............................................   189,029,110   183,378,663    88,811,574   91,567,089
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amount requested in budget request submitted to Committee on House Administration.

    The minority offered two amendments to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The first amendment would require that 
\1/3\ or greater of any amount allocated to a committee from 
the reserve fund be paid at the direction of the ranking 
minority member. The second amendment would require that \1/3\ 
or greater of any amount authorized to each committee be paid 
at the direction of the ranking minority member. Both minority 
amendments failed.

Committee Funding Process

    The 106th Congress is the third funding cycle under the 
biennial funding process instituted in the 104th Congress. At 
the beginning of the 104th Congress, House Rules were revised 
changing the Committee funding process to a biennial cycle and 
abolishing the bifurcation of funding under statutory and 
investigative accounts.
    The biennial committee funding process has proven 
successful. A two-year budget cycle saves time and resources 
for all committees because the process is undertaken only once 
per Congress, rather than twice as was done previously. The 
biennial funding process facilitates long term planning and 
cuts in half the time and resources dedicated to making, 
defending and approving budget requests.

Comparison of Committee Funding Resolution

    At the beginning of the 104th Congress, three standing 
committees and 32 subcommittees were abolished. Committee staff 
was reduced by 33% from the 103rd Congress levels and committee 
funding levels were reduced by a total of 30%. In the 106th 
Congress, committee staff and funding levels continue to remain 
well below the 103rd levels.
    H. Res. 101, as amended, authorizes a total of 
$183,378,663, which is 18%, $39,956,755 below the 103rd 
Congress level. The Speaker has set the staff ceiling for 
committees, excluding the Committee on Appropriations, at 1,153 
for the 106th Congress, which is 30%, 486 staff slots below the 
103rd Congress level.

                                    Committee Funding Resolution Comparisons
                                      [Excluding Appropriations Committee]
103rd Congress, Democratic Majority...........    $223.3 million
                                                     1,639 staff
104th Congress, Republican Majority...........    $157.2 million        =      70% of 103rd level (reduced 30%)
                                                     1,089 staff        =      67% of 103rd level (reduced 33%)-
105th Congress, Republican Majority...........    $177.9 million        =      80% of 103rd level (reduced 20%)
                                                     1,104 staff        =      67% of 103rd level (reduced 33%)
106th Congress, Republican Majority...........    $183.4 million        =      82% of 103rd level (reduced 18%)
                                                     1,153 staff        =      70% of 103rd level (reduced 30%)

Detailees

    In the 105th Congress, the Committee on House 
Administration adopted new regulations for detailees. No 
reimbursement is required for detailees, except for detailees 
from the Government Printing Office (GPO). Detailees assigned 
from the GPO require full reimbursement. The total number of 
non-reimbursable detailees, at one time, must remain at or 
below the 10% of the committee staff ceiling. Committees must 
reimburse agencies for any detailees that exceed 10% of the 
committee staff ceiling.
    While detailees often provide special expertise not 
available on committee staff, or expertise not required on a 
permanent basis, this policy was intended to continue to ensure 
prudent use of other agencies resources and to continue a full-
accountability model for committee funding. This regulation 
will continue to remain in effect for the 106th Congress.
    In February 1999, the Speaker increased committee staff 
ceilings by the number of GPO detailees a committee had in 
1998. The staff ceiling of any committee that had GPO detailees 
in 1998 will increase by the number of GPO detailees.
    Committees have the option of either continuing to use GPO 
detailees, which will fill the additional staff slots, or 
replace the GPO detailees with committee employees. The 
additional staff positions may only be used for GPO detailees 
or employees hired to assist in the preparation of committee 
publications.

Reserve Fund

    H. Res. 101, as amended, includes $3,000,000 for the 
reserve fund in the 106th Congress. This amount is a 
$4,900,000, 62% reduction from the amount allocated in the 
105th Congress.
    Historically, during a Congress new matters and issues that 
require study and review come to the attention of the House. 
Under a two-year funding cycle, there is a significantly 
greater likelihood that Committees cannot accurately anticipate 
all matters that may arise in their jurisdiction.
    In the 105th Congress, a reserve fund was established as a 
prudent method for funding such unexpected matters. The 105th 
Congress funding resolution included $7,900,000 for the reserve 
fund. The Reserve Fund proved vital in funding unanticipated 
expenses in the 105th Congress.
    Funds allocated to a committee from the reserve fund may 
only be used for expenses associated with the project for which 
the funds were requested. Funds may not be used to supplement 
the funds authorized under a committee's primary expense 
resolution. In addition, any increase in a committee's staff 
ceiling is temporary and a committee's staff ceiling will 
revert to its original level once the project is complete.

Guidelines for Allocation from the Reserve Fund

    On March 10, 1999, the Committee adopted revised Guidelines 
to more closely resemble the Committees' Congressional Handbook 
regulation regarding Biennial Funding. The revised Guidelines 
do not change the material that committees are required to 
submit to the Committee on House Administration. Committees are 
still required to submit documentation that shows why the funds 
are needed and an explanation of why an allocation from the 
Reserve Fund is necessary.
    The most significant change is that Chairman and Ranking 
Minority Members of each committee requesting an allocation 
from the Reserve Fund will now be invited to testify before the 
Committee.

Minority Resources

    The majority is proud of the progress that has been made by 
committees towards the goal of allocating one-third of each 
committee's resources to the minority. We remain committed to 
this goal.
    In 1990, the Democratic Majority, pursuant to Democratic 
Caucus Rule 34(F), adopted a policy that the committee caucuses 
shall not be required to provide for more than 20 percent of 
the total funding for minority investigative staff for the full 
committee and each subcommittee of the committee. In 1994, at 
the end of the 103rd Congress, only four committees (exclusive 
of those with nonpartisan staff) allowed one-third of their 
resources, staff and funds, to the minority party, with an 
average allocation to the minority of 21% of staff slots.
    When the Republicans assumed control in the 104th Congress, 
staff allocations to the minority party significantly improved. 
In the 104th Congress, all committees, excluding committees 
with non-partisan staff, provided at least 22% of the total 
staff salaries to the minority. Twelve committees provided 30% 
or greater of staff salaries and eleven committees provided 
over 25% of the staff slots to the minority.
    In the 105th Congress, additional progress was made toward 
one-third allocation of staff and resources to the minority. 
All committees, excluding those with non-partisan staff, 
provided at least 25% of staff salaries to the minority. The 
average allocation of staff slots to the minority was 30% with 
seven committees providing 33% and four committees providing 
30% or more of staff slots to the minority.
    In the 106th Congress, the average allocation of staff 
slots to the minority will increase to 31% with nine committees 
allocating 33% and five committees allocating 30% or more staff 
slots to the minority. Committees will allocate an average of 
32% of staff salaries, excluding administrative staff, to the 
minority with eleven committees allocating 33% and four 
committees allocating 30% or more of salary budget to the 
minority. No minority will receive less than 28% of staff 
salaries. In addition, four committees will provide a 
percentage of the total committee budget to the minority.

                      Minority Resource Comparison
                    103rd Congress vs 106th Congress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       103rd    104th    105th    106th
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Committees providing 33%       11%      35%      41%      53%
 of staff slots\1\ to the minority..
Number of Committees providing:
    33% or more.....................      2        6        7        9
    25% to 32%......................      7        9        9        8
    Less than 25%...................     10        2        1        0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the 103rd Congress, the calculation is based on investigative
  staff. Committees with non-partisan staff, Armed Services and
  Standards of Official Conduct, are not listed.

    Committees that allocated less than 30% of staff slots to 
the minority in the 105th Congress have made significant 
movement toward the \1/3\ goal. The Committee on House 
Administration will continue to encourage committees to work 
toward the goal of a one-third allocation of resources to the 
minority.

      MINORITY VIEWS OF STENY H. HOYER, CHAKA FATTAH AND JIM DAVIS

             republicans still right on the fairness issue

    ``A ratio of one-third/two-thirds for all committee staff, 
investigative as well as statutory, is a sine qua non for 
bridging the institutional animosities that now poison our 
policy debates.''
    This was the view of every member of the Republican 
leadership and the ranking minority members of every House 
committee in a March 30, 1993, letter to the Joint Committee on 
the Organization of Congress. (See Attachment 1).
    It is just as valid today, as Republican and Democratic 
House Members prepare to go to Hershey, Pennsylvania, to try to 
lay to rest the institutional animosities that poisoned the 
legislative process during the recent speakership of one of the 
letter's principal co-signers--Rep. Newt Gingrich.
    In 1999, the test of the Republican majority's commitment 
to fairness and reform in House operations is whether it is 
willing to practice what it preaches. This will be the third 
Congress under Republican majority control. Republican 
rationalizations justifying further delay in uniformly applying 
this Republican principle of fundamental fairness, are totally 
inconsistent with Speaker Hastert's call for the majority and 
minority to work together in a spirit of comity. And all the 
Republican invocations and excuses, particularly with respect 
to several specific committees, cannot mask the fact that they 
have failed to achieve what they stated was fair to the 
minority. It is now time to provide one-third of the resources 
on each standing committee to the minority party, to be 
expended at the direction of its ranking minority member. This 
includes one-third of all staff slots.
    Chairman Thomas, to his great credit, has consistently been 
fair to the Minority on the House Administration Committee, and 
has provided to the minority one-third of funds, one-third of 
staff, and complete discretion over the use of these resources. 
He has also understood that a demonstration of respect for the 
Minority, by adhering to the one-third principle, has in no way 
hampered the ability of the House Administration Committee's 
majority to be aggressive and partisan in pursuit of its own 
agenda, and to fulfill the majority's responsibility to run the 
House.
    But no other committee has fully matched Chairman Thomas' 
standard, though some have come close in terms of funding, 
staffing, or control, or some combination thereof. There has 
been a slow movement toward the principle of fairness on many 
committees, but there is still a long way to go on several 
others.

        minority should control one-third of committee resources

    When the Republican Party was in the minority in the 103rd 
Congress, the Republican mantra was ``one-third for the 
minority''. During that Congress, amendments to provide the 
minority with one-third of all committee resources were offered 
by Republicans in the House Administration Committee during 
committee funding markups. Republicans also offered motions to 
recommit the funding resolution with similar instructions 
during floor consideration. These motions were advertised as 
``fairness amendments'' by their sponsors.
    In the 106th Congress, where the Democratic minority 
represents nearly 49% of the Membership, one-third of all 
committee resources is the minimum which would provide the 
minority a meaningful opportunity to contribute to the House's 
oversight and legislative activities. More importantly, 
application of the one-third principle would promote comity, 
and provide some checks and balances in the operation of the 
House. A majority, while it can work its will if united, is not 
always ``right''. And any policy debate will benefit directly 
from a minority which has the resources to meaningfully 
participate in the debate at all levels, and in fashioning 
amendments to help perfect majority initiatives.
    The application of the one-third principle is a win-win 
situation. The application of anything less diminishes both 
parties, and fosters the suspicion that the minority is being 
intentionally disadvantaged to keep it from effectively 
performing its role.
    The Republican majority, which has only itself to blame for 
some of its most publicized disasters during the last four 
years, might have benefited from the minority's views, and also 
from the minority's ability to temper the majority's positions, 
or to at least focus majority attention on the consequences of 
its proposed actions. But to effectively do so, the minority 
must reach critical mass in developing its own information to 
respond to the majority's initiatives. The Republican one-third 
rule would provide those necessary resources.
    The Republican leadership, and many committee chairs, have 
found excuses to delay the one-third fairness principle for 
five years, even though the Democratic minority in the House is 
far larger than the Republican minority during the last 40 
years. Rather than opening up the committee oversight and 
legislative processes to all Members, irrespective of party, 
the majority appears to have become bitter winners, retreating 
behind statistics of perceived, past unfairness by Democratic 
majorities, as an excuse to remember, and emulate, the alleged 
sins of the past. More than half the current Members of the 
House were elected since the Republicans took control. The 
animosities of the past should not limit the capacity of any 
House Members to fully represent their constituents in the 
106th Congress. However these attitudes affect the majority 
today, as they seek to rationalize their unwillingness to 
implement the one-third principle across all their committees 
now (See Attachment 2).

                          A MISSED OPPORTUNITY

    The dramatic cuts in the number of committee staff, and the 
implementation of staff ceilings by Speaker Gingrich in 1995, 
provided a seemingly ideal opportunity to reinvent the 
committee funding process at every level, but the new 
Republican majority failed to grasp the opportunity. They could 
have adjusted staff sizes and funding amounts to give the 
minority one-third on every committee. Instead, while cutting 
staff, they institutionalized unfairness in the staffing levels 
of several committees, and have used the Speaker's staff 
ceilings to justify their further inaction. In subsequent 
Congresses, either through attrition or by seeking staff 
ceiling increases, committee chairs could have transitioned to 
the one-third principle without disruption to their own 
operations. But there has been minimal movement in this area, 
and past inequities have been perpetuated in this resolution.
    The report of this committee accompanying the funding 
resolution in 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-74) stated:

          Our goal is to have all committees, with the 
        agreement of the chairman and ranking minority member, 
        provide at least a one-third allocation of resources, 
        for use by the minority as directed by the ranking 
        minority member, as soon as practicable.

    In 1995, Chairman Thomas said that committees, which did 
not provide one-third to the minority immediately, would grow 
toward one-third over time. Unfortunately, in the case of 
several committees, the seeds were evidently planted in 
concrete. While Chairman Thomas has provided leadership and 
served as an example of proper minority allocation, and has 
attempted to convince recalcitrant chairmen and the Republican 
leadership to apply the one-third principle in other 
committees, stronger measures are now clearly called for. The 
House Administration Committee, and the House, should direct 
all committees to finally meet the Republican majority's stated 
commitment to fairness. Unfortunately, this committee expense 
resolution fails to take that essential and overdue ``next 
step''.
    To assist in achieving the ``next step'', the minority 
offered two amendments to the omnibus funding resolution. The 
first amendment provided that each committee allow one-third of 
the authorized funds to be controlled by the minority. The 
second amendment provided that one-third of any reserve fund 
disbursements be controlled by the minority. The first 
amendment was identical in form to resolutions or motions 
offered in the Committee, and on the House floor, by the 
Republicans when they were in the minority. They believed in 
the one-third principle of fairness then, and one would have 
expected them to support their own amendments. However not a 
single Republican voted in the Committee for the Republican 
amendments when they were offered by the Democratic minority, 
even though several of the Republicans who offered the 
amendments still serve on the Committee today. This was truly a 
missed opportunity for the majority to take an action 
consistent with public statements that it is committed to a 
more bipartisan and collegial administration of the House.

                      the principal problem areas

    Two committees have lagged far behind others in 
implementing the Republican's simple two-third/one-third 
fairness principle, i.e., Government Reform, and Judiciary. 
Both have been among the most active vehicles for the majority 
in pursuing partisan investigations, which were planned and 
executed with little or no consultation with the minority. Both 
also benefited from disbursements from the reserve fund in the 
105th Congress, above and beyond their funding levels approved 
by the House. Both have refused to grant the minority one-third 
of the staff slots, one-third of either staffing or 
administrative funds, or control over the limited funds 
provided. And both have paid only lip service to the goal of 
providing the minority with one-third over the six year period 
(including this resolution), with Government Reform remaining 
largely unchanged at 25 percent since 1995.
    The performance of the Government Reform Committee in the 
105th Congress illustrates the dangers of a lack of 
accountability. The committee held few hearings, spent huge 
sums of money, duplicated resources available elsewhere, 
ignored possible Republican violations of campaign laws, and 
altered telephone transcripts to advance the majority agenda. 
It was reported that even former Speaker Gingrich, at a meeting 
of the Republican Conference, was critical of the majority's 
alteration of transcripts of telephone conversations, 
characterizing the action as an embarrassment. Had the minority 
had the opportunity and resources to participate more fully in 
the conduct of the committee's business, it might have been 
able to serve as a restraint on this committee's record of 
excess and irresponsibility.
    Despite its record, this Committee asked for an increase of 
over 7 percent above its 105th Congress funding level, while 
still freezing the minority's resources at 25 percent. The 
chairman made this request without any consultation or 
communication with the minority, in violation of Government 
Reform Committee rules, and without any consideration by the 
full Committee.
    The Judiciary Committee has also failed to make substantial 
progress toward one-third fairness principle. The Committee 
sought an increase of 28 percent above the 105th Congress 
level, and received an increase of approximately 15 percent in 
the resolution. Yet even with the increased funding, it is 
refusing to provide even a third of its resources to the 
minority.

                            the reserve fund

    The failure of the Education and the Workforce Committee, 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and Judiciary 
Committee probes to produce any significant results from their 
105th Congress investigations funded by the reserve fund, 
demonstrates the dangers of having an unaccountable pot of 
money which can be expended at the discretion of the Speaker by 
a simple vote of the House Administration Committee, without 
any real debate by either this Committee or by the full House. 
The legitimate role of a reserve fund would be greatly enhanced 
by allowing the House to vote on any intended use.
    The majority recommended $3,000,000 for the reserve fund in 
the 106th Congress--a substantial cut from the amounts 
allocated in the previous Congress. This is a welcome 
reduction, and this limited amount may serve as a disincentive 
to disburse funds for partisan or irrelevant investigations. 
Hopefully the reserve fund will be used only for unanticipated 
expenses which serve public, rather than partisan political 
interests. However it should be noted that two partisan 
oversight investigations in the 105th Congress, which were 
funded from the $7,900,000 reserve fund, have simply been 
continued in the 106th Congress by authorizing the Government 
Reform, and Education and the Workforce Committees substantial 
increases in their funding. Although this has allowed the 
reserve fund to be reduced in the 106th Congress, it has done 
nothing to mitigate the partisan use of funds in these two 
cases.
    Of particular concern is the Census Subcommittee of the 
Government Reform Committee, which has now been embedded in the 
most partisan committee in the House. The Census is of enormous 
importance to all citizens of the United States, and to all 
their elected representatives. Ensuring an accurate Census 
count is an essential part of ensuring fairness in the 
allocation of Federal funds at all levels during the next 
decade, and ensuring appropriate state-by-state representation 
in this institution. There should be nothing partisan about 
ensuring an accurate Census count, and oversight on the Census 
should therefore be on a totally bipartisan basis. The 
inclusion of the Census Subcommittee under the most partisan 
committee in the House--a committee with the worst record of 
allowing any meaningful minority involvement--is unacceptable. 
In order for the Census Subcommittee to be bipartisan, there 
should be an equal number of majority and minority members, 
with an equal division of staffing and other resources. And 
failing that, the one-third rule should govern staffing and 
resource allocation on that Subcommittee.
    The Majority has also taken a small step to open up the 
reserve fund process to greater scrutiny. It has amended this 
Committee's internal guidelines for the consideration of 
reserve fund requests, to include an invitation to the chairman 
and ranking minority members to testify publicly. This will 
provide some needed accountability, and help debunk the 
perception in the last Congress that reserve fund requests were 
simply a matter between the requesting chairmen and the 
Speaker, with the minority having no role, and the House 
Administration Committee serving only the ministerial function 
of implementing the Speaker's decisions.
    The practice in the 105th Congress served to centralize 
control in the office of the Speaker at the expense of broader 
institutional review of funding requests. It also spared the 
majority from the embarrassment of having their requests for 
partisan political investigations subjected to public scrutiny. 
The practice in this Congress should increase public 
accountability, and better ensure the constructive expenditure 
of these funds.
    However we believe that the Committee should go even 
further and require, at a minimum, consultation with the 
minority on the committees involved, before any reserve fund 
request is formalized.
    With the support of this Committee's minority members, and 
the support of every ranking minority member on every House 
com-

mittee (except the Standards Committee), Representative Hoyer 
introduced H. Res. 38, which calls for a House vote on any 
allocation from the reserve fund. The prospect of public debate 
and a vote would require greater care on the part of the 
Majority in its preparation of reserve fund requests.

                              H. Res. 101

    The Minority understands that the Majority may have some 
difficulty passing H. Res. 101, the Omnibus Committee Funding 
resolution, just as it did in 1997, when the rule providing for 
its consideration was defeated, and the committee funding 
process had to be divided into separate resolutions, with final 
action delayed until May of that year. The Majority in 1999 is 
still caught between committee chairmen, who have asked for 
large funding increases, Republicans who believe in fairness, 
and other Republican members who seek to limit the growth of 
government spending irrespective of its purpose.
    One way to avoid a repetition of this problem would be to 
reach out to the minority members who understand the need for a 
properly funded committee system. As long as the minority is 
treated fairly in the allocation of resources, and is consulted 
in the preparation of committee agendas, a truly bipartisan 
committee funding resolution would be possible. It would be 
especially appropriate now, in light of the new Republican 
leadership's desire to promote a more civil atmosphere in the 
House, and comity and bipartisanship in the legislative 
process. This would require abandoning the former Speaker's 
penchant for bypassing House rules, the committee system, and 
other mechanisms of responsible legislative action, each of 
which provides Members collectively, and minority Members in 
particular, an opportunity to represent their constituents on 
an equal footing with every other Member.
    The Republican leadership should finally, and forthrightly, 
meet its commitment to provide the minority with one-third of 
all committee resources--dollars, staff, and control. It has 
still not done so in this resolution. H. Res. 101, as amended 
in the Committee, fails the test of fairness and bipartisan 
cooperation, and deserves to be defeated.

                                   Steny H. Hoyer.
                                   Chaka Fattah.
                                   Jim Davis.


```