55–477

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 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

REPORT

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;
2

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
3

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 .............
4

Member Aye Nay Present

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.
5

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.

Committee 106th 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,
6

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.
7

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 nonpartisan 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 onethird allocation of staff and resources to the minority. All commit-
8

tees, 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% of staff slots1 to the minority ........................ 11% 35% 41% 53%

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 onethird allocation of resources to the minority.
(9)

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 cosigners—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.
10

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).
11

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 onethird 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.
12

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.
13

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-
14

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.
15
16
17
18
19