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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

66–807 2011

COMMITTEE FUNDING FOR THE 112TH CONGRESS 

(DAY 1) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Held in Washington, DC, March 1, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California, Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PHIL GINGREY, M.D., Georgia 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

RICHARD NUGENT, Florida 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, 

Ranking Minority Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

CHARLES GONZALEZ, Texas 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

PHILIP KIKO, Staff Director 

JAMIE FLEET, Minority Staff Director 
(1) 

COMMITTEE FUNDING FOR THE 112TH 

CONGRESS (DAY 1) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:58 a.m., in Room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Daniel E. Lungren 

[chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lungren, Harper, Gingrey, Schock, 

Nugent, Rokita, Brady, Lofgren, and Gonzalez. 

Staff Present: Phil Kiko, Staff Director and General Counsel; 

Peter Schalestock, Deputy General Counsel; Kimani Little, Parliamentarian; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk; Yael Barash, Assistant 

Legislative Clerk; Salley Wood, Communications Director; Karin 

Moore, Elections Counsel; George Hadjiski, Member Services Staff; 

Richard Capetto, Member Services Staff; Jamie Fleet, Minority 

Staff Director; Kyle Andersen, Minority Press Secretary; Matt 

Defreitas, Minority Professional Staff Member; Khalil Abboud, Minority Elections Staff; and Thomas Hicks, Minority Elections Counsel. 

The CHAIRMAN. I now call to order the Committee on House Administration for today’s hearing on committee funding for the 112th 

Congress. The hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative 

days so that members may submit any materials they may wish to 

be included therein. And a quorum being present, we will proceed. 

As an initial matter, I would ask unanimous consent to place the 

proposed budget for the Committee on House Administration into 

the hearing record. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

First, I would like to thank my fellow members of the committee 

for being here. As I have said before, I will say it again, between 

our attorney and new members, I believe we have an excellent 

committee composition. I am honored to serve here with each of 

you. I also would like to thank all the chairs and ranking members 

who will testify before us over the next 2 days. I cannot stress 

enough the importance of their work, particularly when you ensure 

the tremendous responsibility to ensure vigorous effective oversight 

of our Federal agencies. Our resources by comparison with these 

Federal agencies are, shall we say, less robust. 

During fiscal year 2010, the executive branch had approximately 2.7 million employees with a proposed budget of $3.7 trillion. In 

this House, our committees had a total of just over 1,500 employees 

and a budget of approximately $150 million. We, of course, have 
2 

the responsibility to oversee that much larger budget, that much 

larger employment base. 

Over the last century the executive branch and the administrative agencies have grown exponentially. We can discuss whether 

this is good or bad. But regardless, it remains, or demands, vigorous fact-finding, oversight and accountability and a task for 

which we in our committees are severely outmanned. Furthermore 

we are here at a time when our Nation’s fiscal reality is simply incomprehensible. The national debt, as we know, is over $14.1 trillion. We know here in the House, we are fast approaching our debt 

ceiling. We now discuss annual $1.5 trillion deficits as if they were 

commonplace. 

From 2009 to 2011, discretionary spending went from $1.2 trillion to $1.4 trillion. These numbers would be unimaginable if they 

weren’t true. We simply have no choice but to reduce expenditures 

cutting out essential spending and not exempt ourselves from the 

path back to fiscal sanity and responsibility. We here in Congress 

cannot be immune to our fiscal reality, and we will not be, which 

is why, back in January, one of the first orders of business was to 

cut our own budgets. 

Over the next 2 days, we will hear from our chairs and ranking 

members about how given the necessary 5 percent cut we imposed 

on ourselves they plan to do more with less, how they are managing and will manage their resources with equity and prudence, 

how they have been better able to utilize technology to increase efficiency and transparency and what challenges they see for the future. 

Again, I thank each committee for joining us. They worked extremely hard serving the institution and striving to fulfill our obligation of vigorous oversight. I look forward to hearing their insights, observations and ideas and just say at the outset the submissions that we received from the committees have, in some particularity, given us an idea of what their budgets are, what they 

are doing, their plans for oversight for this Congress. 

Today’s hearing will supplement those written materials that 

they have already presented to us. I now would like to recognize 

my colleague and committee ranking member, Mr. Brady, for the 

purpose of providing an opening statement. 

[The statement of Mr. Lungren follows:] 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, these 

hearings today and tomorrow will probably be the most important 

part of what our committee does. Rather than go to a long opening 

statement, I would rather hear from our colleagues. I ask unanimous consent to include the longer statement into the record. And 

I would probably hope and/or, for the most part, when we do have 

these hearings and the ranking member and the chairman come together, that we do ask them about their cuts and how they did 

their one-third two-thirds. I am sure you will do that. And hopefully that they get together and they can get together and get 

along. And the reason why I emphasize that, because especially for 

the new members on the committee, this committee does get along. 

We get along excellently. 

I have a great relationship with the chairman. I hope that he has 

a good relationship with me. We don’t always and we don’t necessarily have to agree, and we are not supposed to agree on everything. But we do it respectfully. We don’t embarrass each other, we 

don’t embarrass other members. But we do agree on 95 percent of 

what we do here because we are a members committee. 

So anybody in front of us who doesn’t get along, I am going to 

question that and find out why they don’t get along, and maybe sit 

them in with us from time to time and let them know how we do 

get along. And we do. We are a members committee. And I said it 

often that whatever they—we are the committee that they ought to 

feel free to come in front of and we try to help them in every way. 

And I don’t extend that to Democrats only. I extend it to Republicans. But when Republicans have come to me, I naturally go to 

my chairman, then my ranking member, then my chairman now 

and discuss it with him and not get blindsided either way. That is 

where we can keep this gleesiness that we do have to keep it together. 

So Mr. Chairman, with that, thank you for holding these hearings and look forward to our testimony from our chairmen and 

ranking members. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. And I very much appreciate your comments and am in accord with them. Now, for the 

first presentation by a committee, we have the Transportation and 

Infrastructure Committee with the chairman, Congressman John 

Mica, and the ranking member, Congressman Rahall. And gentlemen, you are recognized, and we appreciate the chance to hear 

from you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN MICA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, members 

of the important House Administration Committee. You do have 

important work. And I had the honor to be selected to serve on the 

House Administration Committee for a number of years and appreciate your efforts in trying to make the House run, and also this 

important budget responsibility over committees. And a number of 

other key issues. But let me just say briefly, and I have a lengthy 

statement that I would like unanimous consent to be made part of 

the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 
7 

Mr. MICA. Well, even though my name is John, I am not a Johnny-come-lately on saving money in the T&I Committee. As the Republican ranking member turned back about $1 million, $500,000 

in the 110th and 111th while in the minority, that was of the funds 

allocated to us, and I am pleased to present a budget on behalf of 

the committee for the 112th Congress, which is 5 percent lower 

than the 111th Congress. 

So we will go from $20 billion—$20 billion—go from $20.874 million to—round the numbers off, to 19.830, which is more than $1 

million in savings for that period. 

So we are pleased to now, in the majority, to continue the trend. 

And also, trying to do more with less, even though I think we will 

be more productive than the less productive last couple of sessions. 

We intend to, and we have passed out an FAA reauthorization already, an extension on the import and transportation highway and 

transit bill that we all take up tomorrow, and then reauthorization 

of several other key programs this year. 

So we have that responsibility, plus important oversight responsibility that we will conduct. And we will do it with a lean, I won’t 

say mean, aggressive approach and thorough job on transportation 

and infrastructure for the House of Representatives and the Congress. And pleased to yield back. And I will be glad to answer at 

the appropriate time any questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Mica follows:] 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. NICK RAHALL, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rahall. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate you and 

Mr. Brady having our T&I Committee before you to testify on our 

committee’s budget for the 112th Congress. I will keep both my 

prepared statement for the record and my oral statement very 

short and brief. 

To date, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to say that Chairman Mica 

has treated our committee minority fairly. I control one-third of the 

budget for the Democratic staff salaries and other matters such as 

equipment and supplies are dealt with on a nonpartisan manner. 

So I support Chairman Mica’s request. And I have heard Mr. Brady 

speak the nonpartisanship and the ability to get along of this committee on rules administration. And I must say, you would have to 

battle our committee for the number one spot as being the most 

nonpartisan and able to get along chairman and minority ranking 

member. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support Chairman Mica’s request. 

[The statement of Mr. Rahall follows:] 
14 
15 
16 
17 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I yield myself 5 minutes. 

Obviously, you have requested a 5 percent decrease in funds from 

the 111th Congress. I believe that takes you back to somewhere 

close to where you were in the 110th Congress in total. Where have 

you been able to make your savings? Do you anticipate any difficulties with respect to proceeding this year. 

Mr. MICA. Well, about 90 percent of our budget goes for salaries, 

so we are going to cut back on some positions. But, again, minority 

has a third of the resources. We didn’t fill some when we were in 

the minority. And then I might say too, we have already hired at 

least a half a dozen, maybe eight of the minority staff to the majority staff who were formerly in the majority staff but are incredible 

professionals that we are fortunate to have. 

So I think we can do it and I think we can complete our job, 

again, just maximizing the great resources that we already have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rahall, you have worked out the one-third, 

two-thirds? 

Mr. RAHALL. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. And are you both satisfied that you can do the 

oversight that we are supposed to be doing this year? I mean, there 

has been a lot of talk about doing oversight. And I always remind 

people that every committee has responsibility for oversight, not 

just the ‘‘Oversight Committee.’’ 

Mr. RAHALL. Well, the chairman has already embarked on a very 

rigorous schedule of oversight already. I have not been able to keep 

up with him at all of them. But he has done that. And I anticipate 

that he will be able to do it within the confines of this budget, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mica, you have already started oversight? 

Mr. MICA. Yes. And subpoenas aren’t very expensive. So whatever it takes, and as economically as we can move forward, we will. 

The CHAIRMAN. You have already done some field hearings? 

Mr. MICA. Oh, yes. In fact, we did first—we produced a report 

last October called ‘‘The Federal Government Must Stop Sitting on 

Its Assets.’’ And the first field hearing we did, one of the biggest 

assets we are sitting on is the northeast corridor. And we conducted our first field hearing. We had about 15 members in this 

blinding snowstorm in Grand Central Station. I looked at that and 

I looked at another $16 billion worth of projects going on in New 

York City. 

Then we began our round and now we are going to extend the 

transportation bill. We have had six interim short-term extensions 

of the transportation bill which don’t allow the States to move forward with big projects, hence, you don’t get employment in the 

States. And it is very important that we do that. 

Now, a lot of States now are coming into their construction season so it is vitally important that we extend that. So parallel to 

first passing out the FAA bill, which we have done 17 extensions, 

the last 4 years they were not able to pass an FAA bill, we passed 

that out of committee last week. We hope to have that up in a 

week. But parallel also to that, we are doing hearings on the 

FAA—I am sorry, on the transportation reauthorization. 

We started in a bipartisan manner, and I started—went to Beckley, never been to Beckley, West Virginia. Then we went to the 

State capital. Started in the ranking member’s district. Went to the 
18 

State capital of West Virginia. And we left at 4:30 after votes. I 

guess our last vote was last Saturday at 4:30. And we held a hearing, convened it at 10:30 in the morning at Columbus, Ohio, the 

State capital. We went to Indianapolis. From there, even though 

our flights were cancelled, we drove to Chicago, did a hearing in 

Chicago. Then we flew to Portland, did a hearing in Vancouver. 

Then we did one in Fresno where they have, of course, one of the 

terminis of high speed rail, but also on the bill. 

Then we did a joint House-Senate bicameral bipartisan hearing 

with Senator Boxer, somewhat unprecedented for the two bodies on 

this kind of legislation, in Los Angeles. Then we flew to Oklahoma 

City, did a hearing there. Then we went to Tulsa on a major project 

with the governor. And then we went to Arkansas, Jonesboro, Arkansas, Memphis, Tennessee, and then flew to Miami for starters. 

So I would say that we are conducting oversight. We are also 

running a parallel effort to gain understanding, support and then 

build recommendations from the folks out there that deal with the 

Federal Government on what we put into a long-term transportation bill, which we hope to have before the Congress by the September deadline. 

The CHAIRMAN. So it does sound like you are doing oversight. 

You ought to think of Johnny Cash’s song, ‘‘I’ve Been Everywhere.’’ 

Mr. MICA. Well, the best we did going back to sitting on our assets, several new aggressive subcommittee chairs and Mr. Denham 

heads up public buildings which is within—it oversees FEMA, public buildings economic development. We held probably the coldest 

hearing you ever would want to attend in a vacant building between here and the White House that sat vacant for more than 10 

years next, to the Old Post Office, which has 400,000 square feet 

and only 200,000 square feet utilized. 

But we held it in a vacant building 2 weeks ago when it was 

about the coldest day with no heating there. And your heart would 

have warmed, Mr. Lungren, if you had seen the bureaucrats shivering, as Mr. Denham held them accountable for leaving that Federal asset vacant and sitting on it for more than a decade. 

So I think we started that. We don’t need a lot of money. We just 

need a cold vacant building to conduct the hearings. 

The CHAIRMAN. My time has more than expired. 

Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Yes. And respectfully to correct you, subpoenas are 

very expensive. 

The CHAIRMAN. It depends whether you issue them or you are receiving them. Mr. Schock. 

Mr. MICA. Hopefully we won’t have to do that. 

Mr. SCHOCK. I would just say congratulations on your good work 

so far. Clearly, you are not sitting on your assets. And I just would 

ask as a strong proponent of a transportation highway bill, I want 

to make sure that this 5 percent reduction is not going to, in any 

way, impede our ability to get a highway bill? 

Mr. MICA. Absolutely not. Mr. Rahall. 

Mr. RAHALL. I hope not. No, I would not anticipate it affecting 

the transportation reauthorization at all. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Good. All right. Thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rokita. 
19 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you ranking 

member. Indiana was one of your stops. I happened to be in part 

of that meeting. I want to thank you for taking such an aggressive 

approach coming to see so many of us across the country. I didn’t 

take it as an oversight so much as I took it as a listening session. 

And again, it was so very well received. When I think of oversight, 

I am thinking of the Department of Transportation right here. I am 

one that personally believes there are too many people in the Department of Transportation, too many bureaucrats. 

And it is just not at Department of Transportation, it is all the 

bureaucracies pushing endless pieces of paper, actually acting in a 

way that prohibits money from getting to the States. So my question in terms of this budget hearing is, do you feel that you have, 

not the right amount of people, because I think all our committees 

have the right amount of people, quite frankly, but the right type 

of people to go and do the type of, and do oversight of the Department of Transportation if that, in fact, is your intent. 

Mr. MICA. Well, let me say on the part about going out and hearing from folks, is what you do is you gain a better understanding 

of the bureaucracy that they don’t need in Washington and support 

for eliminating that. I believe that we can—and if you went to 

these hearings, you heard about consolidation, you heard about 

overregulation, you heard about overreach by the Federal Government. And then you pinpoint who is responsible for that. 

So they give us the ammunition to put in the bill the changes 

we need to make, mostly with the Department of Transportation, 

but other agencies, that, again, are forcing people to spend money, 

the long process that—unneeded money, the long process that they 

go through. And we heard that at every hearing. So it does reinforce this. Now, on quality, I think we have some of the best staff 

and we are able to do more with less. We have initially hired some 

additional investigative staff and we are continuing to staff up. But 

I guarantee you that we can work within the budget we are presenting and do an effective job and find the best people. It is a 

challenge, though, and people are coming very expensive. 

Today I am losing my chief of staff, who is retiring after 27 years 

of Federal service. It actually costs him money to stay in office. So 

I don’t know what his plans are, he hasn’t made them, but he will 

probably go out and make three times what he can and a third of 

the effort and a lot less abuse. So it is tough retaining good folks 

on the Hill today and attracting people to difficult positions. So 

good question. Thank you. 

Mr. RAHALL. If I might respond. I assume you are talking about 

people in the agencies being qualified and experienced enough to 

do the job? 

Mr. ROKITA. No, I am sorry. That was a drawn out question. I 

want to know if your committee has the right type of experience, 

expertise, professionals, to really get at what I consider the oversight of the executive branch bureaucracies? 

Mr. RAHALL. I feel very confident on my side of the aisle, and 

with those on the majority side that I have worked with thus far. 

On our side, we have individuals that have institutional memories, 

they have long experience and tenure here on the Hill. To their 

credit, they stuck through what I am sure have been many offers 
20 

from downtown, to which the chairman alluded would be so much 

easier for them to accept. But they have dedicated their careers to 

public service. And they are providing myself and our minority side 

and the majority side with a great deal of experience from years 

of working with the Federal bureaucracy and transportation issues. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Mica, from 

the great State of Florida, we are glad to have you here as a minority member. We certainly appreciate your time, particularly as relates to the budget. But just to follow up, particularly as it relates 

to oversight. I think one of the things that we truly want to see 

happen is a vigorous oversight, particularly as relates to bureaucracy that currently exists in D.C. We are obviously—you know, 

Chairman Mica, when you said billions, obviously, we are so used 

to saying billions of dollars when we are talking about a multi-million dollar budget it tends to lose its, I guess, punch. But the dollars that you receive, obviously, from a bipartisan commitment in 

regards to rooting out excesses, and particularly as relates to oversight, you know, we want to see you champion that, and we appreciate your ability to work together as a cohesive group. 

Mr. MICA. One of the things, let me just add too, is trying to find 

investigative personnel. And you want the highest quality. Many of 

the people that I have approached aren’t willing to come here fulltime. Some might come contract or part-time. For example, right 

now, I have gotten on a short-term basis the former Secretary of 

Transportation from the State of Florida. But she is only going to 

come for a month and a half. You need people like that of the highest caliber to assist us, because particularly in her instance, she 

knows where the bodies are buried, where the fat is in the Federal 

budget. 

But on an investigative, I tried to hire a couple of top investigative people in this town, and they won’t come because of the exposure. They will not work full-time. I think we should look at some 

ability to contract people who could come on for specific projects. 

Again, I think that that could be very beneficial to give us more 

leeway in doing that. 

Mr. NUGENT. Well, you know, oversight depends upon the investigators that you hire obviously. Coming from an investigative 

background you are only as good as the investigators you hire. And 

if you really want to get down to the brass tacks in regards to, like 

you say, where the bodies are buried, you have to have an aggressive but a competent staff that isn’t just learning the process, but 

really understands the process. 

Mr. MICA. Exactly. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you both for your presentation, and 

thank you for the work that you are already doing. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have been told Judiciary is walking in right 

now. 

Welcome, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member from the Judiciary Committee. This is the regular hearing that we schedule for 
21 

funding for all the committees. We have received your voluminous 

paperwork, and thank you for it, outlining the oversight for the 

committee, your personnel requests and other submissions. And we 

appreciate that and we look forward to your testimony to in some 

way supplement what you have already presented. Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LAMAR SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say I am 

impressed you are on time. I was expecting to have to wait who 

knows how long. But good to be here. Chairman Lungren, Ranking 

Member Brady and members of the committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today on the Judiciary Committee’s budget 

request for this Congress. In this economy, all Americans are 

forced to tighten their belts and do more with less. I recognize that 

and the Judiciary Committee will do the same. This budget submission requests a decrease in funding of 5 percent below the funding for the 111th Congress. Among the important matters the committee must consider are ensuring that Federal law enforcement 

agencies have the necessary tools to prevent terrorist attacks, that 

America’s borders are secure, that our Nation’s children are safe 

from sex predators and that the administration of justice is fair 

and efficient within our Federal judiciary. In addition, the committee plays an important role in strengthening our economy and 

putting Americans back to work by ensuring robust and fair competition under the antitrust laws, promoting America’s global competitiveness through our intellectual property laws and improving 

the business climate by reining in burdensome and unnecessary 

regulations. These issues are critical to the safety and well being 

of millions of Americans. This budget request will still allow us to 

retain a highly qualified staff as the cornerstone of the committee’s 

capacity to consider complicated and often controversial legislation 

and policy issues that fall within our jurisdiction. 

And I am pleased that Mr. Conyers, the ranking member, supports this budget submission and note that it continues the commitment to give the minority one-third of the staff slots along with 

one-third of the salaries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to plead our case, and now I will yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Smith of Texas follows:] 
22 
23 
24 
25 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Conyers. 

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

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Dan Lungren and my good 

friend Bob Brady and other members that are here. I am happy to 

be with you for this 112th session of Congress. It is true our roles 

are slightly different than they were in the 111th Congress. But because, as you know, Dan Lungren, in your terms on the Judiciary 

Committee, we on our side always like you, ladies and gentlemen, 

to get a sample of what it is like to be in the majority, because it 

is likely not to last that long, but I think it keeps you, I think it 

keeps your morale up, and we are very, very happy to join with 

Chairman Lamar Smith, with whom you and I have worked across 

the years with. 

Now, all of the nice things about being a fair chairman is that 

you expect the same kind of results when you are not the chairman. And I am happy to say that Lamar has not let me down. We 

worked together, we shared the leadership in Judiciary, as you 

know, in a way that has always allowed both sides to have their 

voices and subject matters heard. And I need not remind either of 

you, or all of you, about the large amount of legislation that comes 

through Judiciary Committee. As a matter of fact, three of the first 

bills of this 112th Congress is in the jurisdiction of our committee, 

and we handled more legislation, if you discount the post offices, 

than any other committee going. 

And we like it that way. And we have worked together. And this 

committee has always taken our needs into consideration. We have 

always had a fair shake from Chairman Brady, now himself now 

ranking member, and we hope that that relationship will continue. 

So I will put my statement in the record and hold ourselves open 

for any questions or comments that the committee may have. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I will recognize myself for 

5 minutes. I notice that in the actual raw numbers, Chairman 

Smith, you end up with a minus 10.8 percent. I guess that reflects 

the fact that you also had an increase in funding in the last Congress to take care of the impeachment hearings and actual action 

that we took on that. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. We had a 

fairly lengthy process that involved outside counsel, outside investigators, and that additional staff accounted for the increase in expenditures in the last Congress. 

The CHAIRMAN. And luckily we don’t have impeachments of Federal judges very often. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. We hope we don’t have to go through any 

impeachment procedures in this Congress. We don’t anticipate any 

at this point. 

The CHAIRMAN. So if we take that out, you have hit the mark 

with a 5 percent decrease. How did you manage to find the savings 

in the budget? 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Well, we found the savings in the budget by, 

quite frankly, not hiring as many staff members as we would have 

otherwise, both support staff and attorneys. We hope we can do the 

same job, we hope we can work harder, smarter. Maybe it will require some double time and extra time, but we hope we can get the 

job done just as well as we have in the past. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. We have noticed that we are extremely busy. You 

know, this is the first day of the third month of this session of Congress, and we have been busier than ever with less staff. And although it is difficult, I think it is necessary in terms of the circumstances that we find ourselves in. It is to me perfectly appropriate that the legislative branch reevaluate its resources in how 

we spend our money, just as we are asking everybody else to do 

the same thing. 

So it is in that spirit that we think that this committee will be 

able to accomplish all that we have done in the past, even though 

it will probably—well, I know it will be with less. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, every committee has a responsibility 

of doing oversight, even though we have an official ‘‘Oversight 

Committee.’’ Are you satisfied that you will have the resources to 

do the oversight of those parts of the executive branch that we are 

responsible for overseeing? 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Oversight is particularly important to the 

committee. We do not have a specific Oversight Subcommittee, but 

we do have designated staff that conducts oversight. And in fact, 

all five of our subcommittees spend a good portion of their time on 

the oversight responsibilities. And again, we have, I think, it is 

three staff members that are dedicated specifically to oversight and 

to the work that goes into that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Just I was pleased to hear that both of you are still 

getting along as the transfer of power from one side to the other. 

And Mr. Conyers, you said, and I thank you for your comments, 

that we were extremely fair with you when you were the chairman, 
33 

and you would hope that it would be the same way now with Mr. 

Lungren as chairman. I can assure you that it will. 

Mr. CONYERS. Good. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Schock. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Well, I am impressed by the significant reduction 

you have made in your budget, so clearly leading by example. We 

appreciate that. And look forward to you doing a good job. That is 

all I got. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. I just want to echo to say in response, it is good 

to see some bipartisan support with each other working together. 

Hopefully that will work even further as you move along in your 

committee assignments. I also would like to thank in reference to 

your budget, particularly where you are today versus the 110th 

Congress. You actually are just a few dollars over the budget from 

the 110th Congress, so that is a great position to be. I wish more 

committees were like you. So thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. I also would hope that the executive branch 

would take your example. That is when you have a spike in funds 

for a crisis or unusual circumstance you don’t use that as your 

baseline for the next year. And the Judiciary Committee has stood 

up on that, and I appreciate that, and thank both of you for your 

testimony. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much for being here. You 

are the third committee up. We appreciate it. We have the submission that you made in written form, and we would very much like 

to hear from you to supplement that as you see fit. So Mr. Rogers, 

Mr. Ruppersberger. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Brady. We appreciate the opportunity. Given the current challenging fiscal environment, the committee has sought to achieve 

greater efficiencies in the conduct of its work. Accordingly, the committee’s budget request reflects a 5 percent decrease from the committee’s top line budget for the 111th Congress. Additionally, the 

proposed budget does not include an increase for any budget category from 2011 to 2012. And I know we submitted a statement. 

I won’t take the whole time. But one of the things that the ranking 

member and I realize is that this is a unique committee in a lot 

of ways. The skillsets for the employees that we hire are pretty 

narrow. Most of the work, the vast majority of the work that we 

do is in a classified setting. 

So the oversight that we conduct is incredibly important. There 

are so few members that have the clearances to be able to do that 

oversight work. It is something that we have decided that we are 

going to work together more frequently than maybe in the past to 

try to accomplish that mission of aggressive oversight on behalf of 

the House Intelligence Committee. 

When we looked at the budget, we knew it was coming, we decided we would build some efficiencies in together. We both jointly 
34 

supported this. On better coordination of travel, we think that was 

a place to save. We cut some positions on the committee. And that 

was probably the hardest thing for us to do given the, again, the 

very narrow skillset that is required for folks to perform their duties, including the ability to get a clearance on the House Intelligence Committee. 

But we believe that this fairly reflects a budget that we still can 

perform those vital functions, we can still travel to the places that 

this committee needs to travel to in order to accomplish proper 

oversight in the world. And again, this is one of those rare committees that if you are not showing up someplace overseas, you are not 

doing your job in this particular mission. 

So again, we appreciate the committee’s consideration. Thanks 

for allowing us a few minutes. Again, my full statement is submitted for the record. And with that I will turn it over to my ranking member. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Chairman Lungren, Ranking Member 

Brady, this is—the Intelligence Committee’s major role is the oversight of all the intelligence departments; CIA, NSA, there are different groups. We also are working very closely on budget issues 

involving all of the intelligence programs, whether it is space, 

whether it is cyber security, whether it is HUMINT, which CIA 

does. 

Mr. Rogers and I are working very closely together. This is a 

joint statement. We have not been able in the last 4 years, have 

not been able to really have a budget passed. And one of our goals 

is to work together, both Republicans and Democrats, to make sure 

that we do what is necessary for our Intelligence Community. We 

believe that intelligence is the best defense against terrorism and 

a lot of other threats that are out there. 

From a fiscal point of view, we all understand the cuts, the 5 percent cut that everyone has to go through. That means we are going 

to have to do more with less, but we are going to be up to the challenge. And I think part of the challenge is that both of our staffs 

are working together now. We are formulating our budget for the 

Intelligence Community and both staffs are coming together. And 

I think by working together, we are able to take the 5 percent cut 

that we all have to live with at this point. So if there are any questions, I have a statement for the record, any questions we would 

be happy to answer. 

[The statement of Mr. Rogers and Mr. Ruppersberger follow:] 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Your statements will be 

considered a part of the record. I was privileged to serve on the Intelligence Committee in the 1980s. I realize what an important role 

it has. In my judgment, it has an even more important role today. 

One of the things that we depend on the Intelligence Committee to 

do is to ensure that we have the intelligence apparatus and resources necessary to do the job, and at the same time make sure 

the American people, along with the Judiciary Committee, have 

their civil liberties preserved. That is a very, very important function. And while I brought the resolution to the floor to cut everybody by 5 percent, I just want to make sure that you are able to 

do the job that you have to do. This is exceptionally important 

work. You have to have highly skilled staff. And can you tell this 

committee that, in fact, you have the resources to do the job that 

you think needs to be done. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, obviously, I think every committee, 

including this committee, could argue that, yes, we would like to 

fill all our slots to do it. I do believe after careful review and working through staff issues and working through with the ranking 

member that we accomplish the mission of the Intelligence Committee on the recommended budget that we have given you. It does 

mean a little bit more work for the staff that we have, it means 

a little extra overtime. But in these tough times I think every family I know that I represent is doing exactly the same thing. And 

I know the people who work for the committee are equally committed to that kind of work until the job is done, not until the clock 

tells you the job is done. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I have a note in that regard is that under 

Chairman Reyes and Ranking Member Hoekstra, we were able to 

upgrade our technology in the last 4 years. And as a result of that, 

will help us tremendously in dealing with these cuts. There is no 

question we have a lot of threats, whether it is cyber security, one 

of the biggest threats to our country, and NSA is an integral part 

of dealing with the defenses in that regard. We have the threat of 

China and Russia in space, and that is another area that we need 

to focus on. But we are up to the task. And the teamwork approach, I think that Chairman Rogers and I have agreed to work 

together, will make that a big difference. And in the past, sometimes our staffs weren’t working as closely as they could. 

We are now working together as a staff on issues of intelligence, 

cyber security, space, gangs, Mexico, drug issues, all of those different areas. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is the new SCIF working for you? 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, it is fantastic. The SCIF that you 

served in was like serving on a very small submarine on a bad day. 

The new SCIF, we have plenty of room, we have got a lot of great 

space. If you could have figured out a window, to give us windows 

we really would have appreciated that. 

The CHAIRMAN. But if we gave you windows it wouldn’t be a 

SCIF. 

Mr. ROGERS. That is right. That is why I said if you could figure 

that out. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brady. 
40 

Mr. BRADY. Just happy to see that both of you do work together 

and work together long. That working relationship benefits the 

whole United States and benefits our citizens. Thank you. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I appreciate it. And I think one of the 

things we always joke. But I was a prosecutor and he was an FBI 

agent, and together I think we have had training and we have 

worked in that area of working together in strike forces and dealing with targets like we have in intelligence, and we did that in 

defense, we did that in the criminal area and now we are doing it 

in intelligence. 

Mr. BRADY. Both of those scare me to death. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. While you are sleeping, we are going to be 

there protecting you, sir, so it will be okay. 

Mr. BRADY. That is what scares me. 

Mr. ROGERS. There is a gentleman outside who would like to talk 

to you, Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. No doubt he will. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rokita, do you have any questions? 

Mr. ROKITA. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. I love it when I hear a prosecutor and law enforcement getting together having a lot of years on the law enforcement 

side. But the intelligence area, everything, everything operates 

from intelligence. That is the baseline in regards to where we need 

to go, what our threats are, how we identify our threats, and where 

we need to put our resources. So to hear that both of you, your 

staffs are working together, instead of working opposite of each 

other, particularly in reduced budgets, that is really where we need 

to go, and so I am happy to see that. 

Mr. ROGERS. I will tell you we did something that has not been 

done since I have been on the committee. It may have happened 

back in the 1980s, but it certainly hasn’t happened for a long time. 

We had a budget briefing where we had both staffs briefing the 

members at the same time. I haven’t seen that since I have been 

on the committee. I mean, that just goes—we have just changed 

the culture because we knew we had to do more with less, that 

wasting any time fighting amongst ourselves was not going to be 

valuable to the end game of the mission. And I have to tell you, 

both of us agree with you, there is no more important time in our 

history than the need for intelligence and accurate intelligence 

that, you know, the old days of knowing one enemy and where you 

could apply your resources are gone. We don’t know where the next 

fire is. And so our getting it right on the budgets for the Intelligence Committee so that they have the resources to be the centuries around the world is incredibly important, and we take that 

mission very, very seriously. And now, again, our staffs working together, I think will go a long way to accomplishing that end. 

Mr. NUGENT. And I would think in oversight, hopefully, you can 

bring the same mindset to the agencies that you oversee. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. But our issue is not to tear them down and 

catch them, our issue is to build them up and give them the resources and then hold them accountable for their performance. 

I would like to point out one thing if you were in law enforcement that where I come from, the prosecutor usually was in 
41 

charge, and then you would have the agents and whatever. Now, 

I know I am in the minority, but I am just reminding Chairman 

Rogers that—— 

Mr. NUGENT. There are some bad court systems like that. 

Mr. ROGERS. At least they took credit for being the case, as you 

know, Sheriff, good and well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Rogers, in addition to the fact that 

your staff works for all the members on the Intelligence Committee, when Members of Congress not on the Intelligence Committee want to review things that are classified, they must rely on 

your staff and your facilities to do so as well, correct? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think maybe we ought to remind some of our 

colleagues that they have that opportunity before we have votes at 

particular times because we all share in the responsibility of oversight for the Intelligence Committee. 

Mr. ROGERS. I agree, Mr. Chairman. And we both agree that a 

well-informed member makes better decisions. These are very complicated issues. The secrecy is incredibly important, as you know, 

Mr. Chairman, from your time on the committee, so that we don’t 

lose people who have, in good faith, put their trust in the United 

States. That is incredibly important. And the techniques that our 

Intelligence Community uses to get information is incredibly important. But we believe that most members who want to take advantage of that should take advantage of that and go through the appropriate oath-taking process to keep that information classified. 

And we have established rules that Mr. Ruppersberger and I are 

going to, in a short-term, agree to a turn-around when a member 

requests access to that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I know that is appreciated 

by all. And we thank you for the way that you are conducting the 

Intelligence Committee. And thank you for working within the 

budget. I appreciate it. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Ranking 

Member. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have not forgotten the subway, Mr. Ruppersberger. 

Mr. HALL. Good afternoon, I think. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, two of my favorite people, because we 

always enjoy the testimony. For freshman members, these are two 

of the nicest people in the Congress and they usually come up with 

some of the most interesting comments when they appear before 

our committee. And I know they will not fail us today. 

We thank you for appearing before our committee. This is the 

regular hearing that we have on the funding resolution before we 

bring the full funding resolution to the floor of the House. As we 

all know, we passed a resolution indicating that we are going to 

take 5 percent cuts, both with our MRAs, with the leadership and 

with our committees. And the committees have all submitted their 

numbers. We have here your written submissions. Believe it or not, 

we have got plenty of stuff from all the committees, and we actually go through it. But we stand ready to hear your oral testimony 

and appreciate the fact that you are here on time. So with that 
42 

Chairman Hall and Ranking Member Johnson, we are happy to 

hear from you. 

Mr. HALL. Go? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, go. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RALPH HALL, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. HALL. I have already said good afternoon. I thank you and 

know that you have a lot of this to do, and I will try to be as brief 

as I can be. 

I read well from the printed page, and I have scanned through 

this, and I have cut out all I don’t have to read. But the committee’s jurisdiction is broad and very diverse. We have a lot of Federal nondefense research and development agencies such as DOE, 

NASA, NIST, NSF, EPA, and we are going to really be working on 

the EPA a little bit, DHS and Department of Transportation. Actually, we will also be examining programs with expiring or expired 

authorizations. That is where we got some of our 5 percent cut. 

As you can imagine, the committee staff on both sides of the aisle 

need to have sufficient technical expertise to know how to handle 

this. So we have tried, and I am sure Ranking Member Johnson 

would agree with me, that we have a talented and skilled staff capable of delivering for our members, and we tried not to cut back 

too much on salaries but to really find things that we can do without. 

The budget before you does reflect a 5 percent cut in overall 

spending from the 111th Congress to the 112th Congress. Many of 

the savings will come from tightening our supplies budget, we 

found areas there and deferring—this may be unique, but deferring 

the purchase of new computers for 1 year. I think the budget reasonably achieves savings while protecting our highest priorities. 

As in years past, we have been diligent about making sure that 

the minority receives one-third of the total staff slots, as well as 

control over one-third of the personnel and the salary budget. 

I look forward to a great Congress with Ranking Member Eddie 

Bernice Johnson. She is not only my good friend, she is my neighbor. We have neighboring districts in Texas. And while we may disagree on a few things, we share a lot of common goals, including 

protecting our space assets, advancing America’s energy security, 

and promoting our Nation’s competitiveness. 

And I will do my best to answer any questions that—I won’t solicit questions, but I will do my best to answer them. I yield back 

my time, and I am ready to leave. 

[The statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 
43 
44 
45 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Chairman Lungren and 

Ranking Member Brady. I first want to say I am pleased to appear 

with my good friend, Chairman Hall at today’s hearing, and I know 

he will do an excellent job leading the committee in the 112th Congress, and I look forward to working constructively with him on 

many important issues that will come before our committee. We actually have been on this committee together, I am in my 19th year, 

and he was here even longer. 

I think most people recognize that America is in a competitive 

fight to maintain its status as the most innovative country in the 

world, and I firmly believe that the Nation’s economic future is dependent on how committed we are to this fight. 

In light of the budgetary environment in which we find ourselves, it is imperative that we focus our limited Federal resources 

on those programs that are most effective. Our committee has a 

very broad and diverse jurisdiction, and the issues before us typically have a scientific or a technological component. 

The staff of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology will 

play a critical role in our oversight efforts through the advisory 

support they provide as members of our committees. Unfortunately, 

the committee on Science, Space and Technology faces a unique 

challenge in that many of our staff must have advanced degrees beyond Master’s or Ph.D’s to effectively do their jobs. In attempting 

to attract and retain these types of highly sought after professionals, we must compete with many private and public entities. 

I think it is vital that Mr. Hall’s proposed budget be fully funded 

to maintain the committee staff’s current level of expertise and talent and to preserve our ability to attract such highly skilled personnel. As the economy improves and private sector hires pick up, 

the challenge we face in this regard will only intensify. 

As you know from testimony before this committee in prior years, 

our committee has a long tradition of allocating funding, two-thirds 

to the majority and one-third to the minority. I have no reason to 

doubt that Mr. Hall will continue this arrangement in the 112th 

Congress. And I will be happy to answer any questions you might 

have. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
46 
47 
48 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you both very much. Mr. Hall, EPA. Some 

of us would like to make sure we do proper oversight on EPA. Do 

you have the resources to do that? 

Mr. HALL. I think so. You know, I think the Speaker cancelled 

out the oversight facility Ed Markey and Mr. Sensenbrenner put 

together, and we—I don’t know if we benefited from it or not, but 

we inherited Mr. Sensenbrenner, and with his group that he has 

worked with for the past year, with Mr. Markey. And we are really 

looking very closely at the EPA and what they are doing to the various States. 

And I think you might remember back some time before, we put 

a provision on EPA that unless they—the problem was we couldn’t 

get an answer from them—that we put a provision in there that 

if they didn’t answer in 30 days, it was granted. That way, you 

can’t appeal from nothing, from doing nothing. That forced them to 

give us an answer. But somewhere along the way they got that 

knocked out. 

When we had a new Speaker several years ago, he took after the 

EPA and the committee that taxes us and let up on the EPA right 

at the last, but still went after those that were writing the tax bill. 

We really need to look closely at the EPA and how they got the 

right to attack the various States, and they did that by naming 

themselves to certain authorities and using that authority that I 

think is not based on science. And I think that is our duty to try 

to bring the people before us that reported that, and when they tell 

us who the science was, ask them what that science was and try 

to find out if it is really true or not. I think it is bad science that 

they made those decisions on. 

But we are going to attack more the expenditures. They have $16 

billion in the last 4 years of spending. All we have now are some 

pamphlets on global warming, for example, that EPA has entered 

into. 

So we have the oversight. We have the people, I think, to really 

take them on. And I think Mrs. Johnson is going to be as anxious 

to be sure that the States are as protected as I am, or more so, 

maybe. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brady, do you have any questions? 

Mr. BRADY. No, I don’t. But Chairman Hall, I hope that you don’t 

get to Philadelphia often because I do use your quotes and I give 

you no credit for them. 

Mr. HALL. Well, you are quoting the oldest guy in Congress. Can 

I tell you something? Just before I left to go back to get the general 

election returns, back several weeks ago, months ago—I have a 

neighbor, I am 87. He’s 89. He hollered, hey Ralph, I want to tell 

you something. Stuck his head in the window and said I am getting 

married again. I said, do I know her? He said no. I said, well is 

she pretty? He said, well, no. I said, does she have a home or 

money or something? He said, I don’t think so. I said, do you love 

her? He said, no. I said, what the hell are you marrying her for? 

He said, she can drive. Everybody’s got something. That is a true 

story. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rokita, you can try and top that. 

Mr. ROKITA. The committee is not leasing any vehicles, right? 

Mr. HALL. No. 
49 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nugent, do you pass too? 

Mr. NUGENT. I pass. 

The CHAIRMAN. Unless you have something to add to that, Ms. 

Johnson, we can—— 

Mr. HALL. I have got a lot more stories. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ralph, I think you better stop while you are 

ahead. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Let me say that Mr. Hall and I have known each 

other prior to either one of us coming to Congress, and we have always had a great relationship. As he told you, we don’t agree on 

everything, but we have a way of discussing it and coming to an 

agreement for the most part. He is going to be a little harder on 

EPA than I am. I am just as concerned about lives and lungs as 

I am anything else that the environment would injure. And so, I 

look forward to working with him. We have always been friends. 

And when I have a problem, I get him in a closed quarters, and 

that is on the airplane. So thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. We thank both of you. And Ralph, I 

will talk to you later about some more stories. Thank you. Because 

of the schedule with votes later today, we are trying to see if we 

can get Rules Committee to come here earlier, so perhaps—not 

available. All right. We will stand adjourned till 1:20. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We will resume the committee hearing, and 

thank the gentlemen from the Armed Services Committee for being 

here. 

This is our regular hearing that we have on all committees for 

their funding resolutions so that we can present the omnibus funding resolution before the House. As we all know, we had that resolution about a 5 percent cut for every committee, so I think we 

know approximately where we are. 

We have received your written materials in terms of oversight, 

your budgets, personnel, et cetera, et cetera, and that is something 

we have had a chance to look at. So now we would love to hear 

from both Chairman Buck McKeon and the ranking member, Mr. 

Smith. And if you have prepared statements, they will be entered 

into the record. We would love to hear what you have to tell us 

about how you are going to do a 5 percent cut. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BUCK McKEON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCKEON. Well, I can shorten this up a little bit. And you 

have got my statement so I won’t read it. I will just tell you that 

we have cut and it is not easy. We are the largest committee in 

Congress. And what we have done is just held up on hiring. We are 

not hiring to our full complement. We hope that it would be a temporary situation, and that we will be able to get up to full staffing. 

But right now we are making due with what we have. And I hope 

we will be able to do it without further cuts. 

[The statement of Mr. McKeon follows:] 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I concur 

with the Chairman’s remarks. The 5 percent cut, we understand 

the situation with our budget. Certainly, it is appropriate to try to 

find savings wherever we can throughout the government, within 

the legislative branch as well. It should be no exception. As Mr. 

McKeon indicated, our committee does do some fairly important 

work. We have over 50 percent of the discretionary budget, and our 

prime responsibility is the national security of the country, and the 

staff is absolutely critical to that. The knowledge that they bring 

with the DOD process enables us to work with the Department of 

Defense, better understand their processes, and I think the chairman would agree with me that without our staff, we would be in 

a world of hurt. So we need as many of them as we can. 

That said, on both the minority and the majority side, we have 

made the requisite cuts in staffing to accommodate that level and 

we can live within that current level and we are hoping that the 

5 percent level is what we stay at. 

And with that, I am happy to support Mr. McKeon in answering 

any questions that you have. 

[The statement of Mr. Smith of Washington follows:] 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 

The CHAIRMAN. How are you allocating resources between majority and minority. 

Mr. SMITH of Washington. We share it. 

Mr. MCKEON. Our committee has a longstanding policy of bipartisanship. And we just share our, a lot of people we share. A lot 

of the people that we use, they are all professional people, and so 

when we lost the majority many years ago, they hired some of the 

people we had and we have done the same thing this time because 

these people are not political, for the most part. They are professional people, former military people, people that have a great deal 

of experience in the defense area. And so we are able to work that 

out. 

The CHAIRMAN. So Mr. Smith, you are satisfied with the way 

that works out? 

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Yes, very much so. I have been here 

for, switched both ways. And as Mr. McKeon indicated, the bulk of 

the staff, you know, they are not partisan, they are professional. 

And the bulk of the staff just flips over from working for the Democrats to working for the Republicans, which they did. But then on 

the minority side, we do have our own staff. Previously we have 

had, I think it was 15 staffers. Now with the cuts we are down to 

13. But the minority has a staff that it can work with. But the 

budget is simply blended together, and we have both had the experience of being in both the majority and the minority, so the minority rights are respected within the budget process, which I think 

works quite well. I know most, if not all of the committees just split 

it two-thirds, one-third and then do whatever they want with it. By 

blending our budget, we are much better able to work together, and 

I think also better able to save money and get efficiencies out of 

what we spend. 

The CHAIRMAN. Picking up on that last statement, both Democrats and Republicans have said that defense should not be sacrosanct, even though it is our most important, at least from my 

standpoint, our most important responsibility. 

We need to take a careful look at spending. Do you have the staff 

that will allow you to do the oversight of the Pentagon to help the 

rest of us in Congress to be able to do that kind of tough-eye looking at spending? 

Mr. MCKEON. That will be one of the problems. We do have an 

oversight subcommittee, and we expect a lot from them. But, frankly, we are undermanned, as being the largest committee and having the great responsibility of almost half of the spending that we 

can account for. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you are the largest committee by membership 

of the Members of the House, but not by staff? 

Mr. MCKEON. No, by membership. No, our committee is not the 

largest staff. We are a unique committee. 

I am on the Education Committee also. And we have two anterooms, you know, and you don’t dare trespass. We use one anteroom. We come in together when we are here all day long and 

marking up our bill, it generally goes till about midnight. We eat 

together, we work together and we have a unique relationship. 
64 

We are getting by. We could use more. We could use the additional three people that were allotted. But we understand the situation. 

Mr. SMITH of Washington. And you correctly identified the most 

important issue, and that is, having the staff to oversee the budget. 

And I think our staff does an outstanding job. It is an enormous 

budget over at the Department of Defense. But I know on many 

programs, it has been our professional staff that have been the first 

ones to notice areas where savings can be achieved, or where programs have gone off the beam and need to be reined in. And they 

have been instrumental in many programs, most notably on the future combat systems program which had a series of problems, 

many of which were first identified by HASC staff, so they play a 

critical role, and I think, you know, certainly I agree with the 

chairman that you can’t have too many of those people. We are 

pretty satisfied with what we have. But it is going to stretch us a 

little thin this time to make sure that we can do that oversight effectively. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I must be one of the most fortunate ones in Congress. I have the opportunity of serving on both 

committees that are extremely bipartisan and friendly, with my 

chairman and my ranking member do get along, the whole committee gets along well. And as my chairman said, we do eat and 

mingle together, and I would just put a request in for a little better 

food. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I didn’t know they had food in their budget. We 

have got to take a look at that. Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. I appreciate what each of you do. It is such an important committee. And we want to make sure you have the appropriate resources. 

But understanding that we are also in a bit of a jam when it 

comes to the money that is available to us, and of course, looking 

at the budget for the 111th, that was an 8.4 percent increase over 

the 110th Congress. So we, with this 5 percent cut, we are still 

above what the 110th level was. 

Do you anticipate the ability if we need to, at the end of this 

term, going into the 113th Congress, the ability to save even more 

money? Do you believe, Chairman McKeon, that you could find additional savings through the next 2 years? 

Mr. MCKEON. If we are asked to or told to we will find the savings. But, as you know, just as with your committee, most of our 

budget is people. And I don’t see where we could go any further 

without reducing, again, more people. And that reduces us, it eliminates or cuts down our ability to do oversight and to fully man the 

things that we do. We are, right now, in the middle of the hearings 

process for our bill that we have passed every year for the last 49 

years, and it is a major undertaking. On the Education Committee, 

for instance, we have lots of jurisdictions, almost like two committees. And we have certain bills to reauthorize. If you don’t get them 

done, you just don’t get them done. You do it the next Congress or 

the next Congress and things really lag. 

We don’t have that opportunity. We have to pass a bill every 

year, and it takes—we just finished a hearing this morning with 
65 

the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of the Naval Operations, 

Commandant of the Marines. And we have two more of those hearings scheduled for this week. Then we move into the combatant 

commanders which will start on Thursday. And there are lots, and 

then we are also doing that at subcommittee, so it takes a lot of 

people to staff all of these hearings and to make sure that we have 

the adequate preparation to go into them. 

So again, if we are told to cut, we will cut. I mean, if we got 

down to, like Mr. Jefferson had one secretary and he said don’t 

worry too much because I do all my own correspondence, I guess 

we could get to that point. But I hope we don’t have to. 

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, if I could throw in on 

that remark. I think it would be very difficult to cut further where 

we are at. And the salient point, as my staff pointed out to me, we 

are the largest committee in terms of members. We have the second lowest ratio of staff for those members. So further cuts would 

be difficult. 

In addition to the budget points that were made earlier, the 

sheer size of what we do, necessity every year of passing the defense authorization budget so that we can do the oversight we need 

to do over DOD spending and not simply turn it over to the administration and their budget. 

So we are stretched pretty thin at the moment, and we can absorb the cuts but we would not want to go much lower than that. 

It would make it very difficult to do the job that we are asked to 

do. 

Mr. HARPER. Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, thank 

you for the important work you do. With that I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. Chairman and ranking member, I appreciate you 

being here today. Obviously, Armed Services is, that is a priority 

of government is protection of our people. That is our core mission, 

one of our core missions. We just want to make sure that you have 

the ability to do oversight and be robust in your oversight to make 

sure that we are getting everything that we need to get in regards 

to the protection of this country, but in particularly, as we start 

looking at force reductions that have been talked about 2015, I 

want to make sure that we remember that the troops on the 

ground are imperative, that we take care of them and make sure 

that they have the equipment they need and the oversight to make 

sure that they are taken care of from their commanders on the 

ground, which I believe they are. 

But your position is paramount in regards to the United States 

of America retaining its independence across the board, because we 

have so many threats out there, some that we don’t even know 

about today. But you are charged with the awesome responsibility 

of making sure that our Armed Services are prepared, that they 

have the equipment that is necessary, that they have the proper 

oversight to make sure that we can afford what we need to do in 

the coming years. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you. We have votes on. Let me just say 

this: That we did carry through on the 5 percent cut on all committees. Actually, Judiciary ended up with a larger cut because they 

had extra money for impeachment proceedings last year, but it is 
66 

5 percent across the board. But one of the things I have tried to 

point out is that if we are going to do true oversight and control 

the big spending in the government, which is the executive branch, 

we need to have the people, we need to have attention to do it. And 

that is particularly so in your bailiwick because we know what 

large portion of the budget comes out of the Defense Department, 

how important that is that we spend our money wisely. 

So I thank you for being able to absorb these cuts. I understand 

what you are saying about the question of effectiveness. And we 

are very cognizant of that. And we appreciate the bipartisan nature 

of your committee, both before your chairmanship, Mr. McKeon, 

and since that time. And if no others have questions, we will be 

happy to let you go. And I would just announce that we will resume with the next committee, which is Small Business. It is 

scheduled—immediately following the votes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. HARPER [presiding]. We are ready to start back. And I want 

to thank you, Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Vela ́zquez 

for being here and going through this process with us. This is an 

important exercise for the Committee on House Administration 

where we address our oversight of the committees’ budgets for the 

House of Representatives. We appreciate the work you do and appreciate what everybody has done to try to work within the budget 

restraints that we have. And we look forward to hearing from both 

of you. And we will start with Chairman Graves. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SAM GRAVES, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to present the budget before the committee for the 112th 

Congress. On the Small Business Committee, we have got a lot of 

work to do, and we have adopted a very aggressive and comprehensive oversight plan to examine the value and efficiency of government programs that are designed to assist small businesses, as 

well as look at the regulatory and paperwork burdens that have 

been placed on small businesses by the various Federal agencies. 

While the importance and volume of the committee’s work is an- ticipated to be great, we are presenting a budget request of $6.874 

million, which is 5 percent less than the funding authorized in the 

111th Congress. Ranking Member Vela ́zquez’s office has provided 

us with their projections, and while we are not able to fully fund 

all of their anticipated expenses, the minority is going to have full 

control over one-third of the committee’s budget. The ranking member gave us the very same opportunity before, and we want to extend that right back. 

A large portion of our budget is going to be spent on personnel 

to ensure that we have the caliber of staff to do the significant 

oversight work that we have planned, as well as the staff to do the 

outreach work which is going to be outside Washington. And this 

is an important component to our plan. We are going to be doing 

a lot of field hearings and not only field hearings, but listening sessions, and town hall meetings outside of Washington. I don’t think 

government can be effective unless you go out and you listen to 

what people have to say. And particularly given the state of the 
67 

economy right now, small businesses are going to be what leads us 

out of this recession or into economic recovery. And we need to go 

out and hear what they have to say. So the increase in the travel 

budget reflects this priority as well. 

In line with the goals of transparency and communication beyond 

the beltway, we anticipate some additional technology needs that 

are going to allow us to stream video via the Internet and better 

capture information from small businessmen and women who wish 

to offer their feedback. 

But otherwise, the budget will remain fairly flat and we have reviewed the expenses in the last Congress, and we have made a few 

minor adjustments. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to be brief because we are 

getting a little bit of a late start. But I appreciate the consideration 

of our request and turn to Ranking Member Vela ́zquez. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much, Chairman Graves. 

[The statement of Mr. Graves follows:] 
68 
69 
70 
71 

Mr. HARPER. And now we will hear from Ranking Member 

Vela ́zquez. Thank you for being here today. 

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

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, ranking member, members of the 

committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the budget 

submission for the Small Business Committee in the 112th Congress. It would be hard to overstate the role of small businesses in 

our economy. They represent 99 percent of all employers. One in 

three American gets their first job at a small business. Two out of 

every three new jobs originates with a small business. 

Small firms are the job creators, leading in all areas, exports, 

manufacturing and technology. They take risks, develop innovative 

products, enter new markets and keep America positioned as a 

global economic leader. 

Most of all, during downturns, it has been the small business 

firms that lead our Nation toward recovery. The mission of the 

Small Business Committee is not only to support small firms, it is 

also to act as their voice so that Federal agencies are more sensitive to entrepreneurs’ needs. 

On that front, over the last 2 years, the committee has held 75 

hearings on a wide range of oversight issues. We also drafted 36 

bills, 12 of which became law. Taken together, our oversight and 

legislative workload is compatible to that performed by committees 

with budgets three times larger than ours. 

The difference is that we help create jobs, and whether or not we 

have a different opinion regarding the government role, it is, in 

fact, important that we provide that voice to small businesses, as 

was stated by Mr. Graves. 

I recognize our committee has long operated with fewer resources 

than most committees. However, I am concerned about whether 

this budget will allow Chairman Graves and myself to meet all the 

commitments to our members and, more importantly, provide small 

businesses the support and advocacy they deserve. 

Just 4 years ago this committee received the smallest funding of 

any other, only 3.3 percent more than was allocated 18 years ago 

during the 103rd Congress. Given how long the committee has been 

underfunded, I am concerned this budget may not be sufficient at 

a time when we should be maximizing small business job creation 

potential. 

Mr. Chairman, our committee is bipartisan. I have always enjoyed working with Mr. Graves. I think we share the belief that on 

our committee, there are no Democrat issues, no Republican issues. 

There are small business issues. Together, we will ensure that the 

Small Business Committee remains equally productive and active 

as previous years. 

Certainly, there are different views, but rest assured, Chairman 

Graves and I can set aside our differences to focus on what is important, supporting American small businesses so they can grow 

and create new jobs. 

With that, I thank you, and I appreciate your time, and I am 

willing to entertain any questions that you may have. 

[The statement of Ms. Vela ́zquez follows:] 
72 
73 
74 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you both. And I guess what I want to make 

sure, with the cuts that we have had and going back 5 percent, 

looking at the numbers, I will ask each of you if you have the funding that you need to implement your oversight responsibilities as 

a committee. Chairman Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. I think we do, and we are certainly going to try. 

And you know, the fact of the matter is we don’t have any money. 

The government doesn’t have any money. We are broke. And so I 

think we have to do everything we can, obviously, to try to do better than other areas of government obviously. And I think that is 

the reason all the committees are trying to cut back and do a good 

job with what we have. And I think we can do that. 

We have obviously made some priority adjustments, and we are 

doing some different things in terms of reaching out when it comes 

to technology and when it comes, obviously to the personnel we 

need. And we are obviously going through a transition. The ranking member is moving to the minority role and obviously the majority, we are moving to the majority role. And so there are some adjustments that are going to take place. But I think we can do it. 

We have gone over real carefully the budget, and I think we are 

going to be able to meet our obligations. 

Again, as the Ranking Member pointed out, we have always been 

the least funded committee in Congress. And I think we have always done a good job, and we are going to try to continue that reputation of doing a good job and advocating for small business and 

try to do it with less. 

Mr. HARPER. Ranking Member Vela ́zquez, your comments on 

your funding availability to do your oversight responsibility. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am going to be the bad 

cop here. I disagree with the chairman. I am trying to be helpful. 

The 5 percent reduction will not help. And in my testimony I raise 

concerns that the 5 percent reduction will not enable the committee 

to meet its commitments. And a big part of this is going to be its 

oversight mission. 

During the 111th Congress, we held 15 oversight hearings on 

fraud, waste, abuse, which included three on GAO investigations. A 5 percent cut is approximately $400,000, which, when com- pared to the $97 billion awarded through SBA’s contracting programs is small potatoes. So, Mr. Chairman, I really believe that, 

given the fact that this committee is important, it might not be 

Ways and Means, it is not Energy and Commerce, it is not the Appropriations Committee, but at a time when the economy continues 

to struggle, this committee is an important voice for small businesses. 

Members will be contacting us regarding issues faced by their 

small business firms in their district. They will be asking us to 

hold field hearings and to deal with specific issues regarding the 

Federal marketplace and Federal contractors from their own districts. So I will ask that you assess if this is the appropriate time 

for this committee, given the fact that we have received the smallest funding to cut 5 percent more. 

Mr. HARPER. And I would point out that the amount with the 5 

percent cut still puts you significantly over the level of funding for 

this committee in the 110th. So I know it is going to be difficult, 
75 

but these are difficult times with the lack of money here in Washington. And with that, I will recognize Ranking Member Brady for 

any questions he may have. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You do the one-third/twothirds split is still done the same exact way? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. That is correct. 

Mr. BRADY. So you are trying to be helpful. You are trying to get 

$130,000 for the Democrats and get $270,000 back to the Republicans. That is good nonpartisanship. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. That is right. 

Mr. BRADY. Unfortunately, we are still trying to wrestle with this 

here. We do understand, the committee I started off is Small Business. And we do understand that you are the lowest funded committee and some things may happen, who knows. If they do, we 

will take it under advisement. And I thank the chairman and the 

ranking member for being here today. Thank you. 

Mr. HARPER. At this time, I will recognize the gentleman from 

Georgia, Dr. Gingrey. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Small Business Committee for testifying, my good friends, Mr. Graves and Ms. Vela ́zquez. A lot of 

the questions are sort of standard for each of the committees that 

come before us in regard to their budget in the 112th. And obviously, you have referenced the 5 percent cut, and there is a little 

bit of difference of opinion in regard to how much drain the two 

of you feel that that will have on the committee as far as doing 

your work. 

Let me direct my question first to Ms. Vela ́zquez. Are there any 

particular priorities of the committee that you think will be most 

difficult to meet because of the funding cut? Give me some examples of areas where you just really feel like the committee needs 

to do some work and may not be able to. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Well, oversight is very important, and especially 

given the fact that we have $97 billion awarded through SBA contracting programs. There are some issues we are aware of that are 

related to poor management and a lack of oversight from within 

the agency; fraud in the HUBZone program, fraud in the serviceDisabled veteran-owned Contracting program, problems regarding 

the administration of the disaster program. 

So, look, this is very important. And if we don’t have the resources, if there is a disaster again in our country, I hope it will 

not happen, but we have to make sure that those programs are 

working the way they need to be working in order to assist at any 

given moment. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, thank you. In the little bit of time I have got 

left, before I yield to one of my other colleagues I wanted to ask 

of the chairman. Chairman Graves, the Small Business Committee 

probably has, I am guessing at this now, just intuition, more field 

hearings maybe than a lot of other committees. And if that is correct, do you foresee that you will be able to continue to do the level 

of reaching out to the communities, small business men and women 

across the country, and not just in your two respective districts, but 

to fulfill that very important function of having field hearings. 
76 

Mr. GRAVES. Well, we plan to do a lot more than there were before. And again, that goes back to going out and listening to what 

people have to say. I don’t think Washington can be very responsive just staying in Washington. And its members, I think it is important to go out and hear what their small business owners have 

to say. We are going to do quite a little bit of travel. That is what 

we have planned. When it comes to field hearings. Not just field 

hearings, I intend to do listening sessions or town hall meetings 

when it comes to small businesses, and many things like that. 

And I think we are going to be able to do that. Obviously we 

have reallocated a lot of the budget to that, to be able to do that. 

And that is what we are going to—you know, that is what we intend to do, and hopefully we will be able to do that. And we will 

be able to come back next year and tell you if we were successful 

or not. 

Mr. GINGREY. We look forward to that report. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. And I now recognize the gentleman 

from Indiana, Congressman Rokita. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for being 

with us today. What other parts of the Federal Government bureaucracy, what other Federal agencies do you have jurisdiction 

over besides the SBA? 

Mr. GRAVES. We have obviously oversight or legislative jurisdiction over SBA, but we have jurisdiction for—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Oversight. 

Mr. GRAVES. Jurisdiction over anything that touches small businesses. In fact, we have got one of the widest jurisdictions possible 

even though we have a fairly limited, you know, legislative—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Have you noticed waste, fraud and abuse, Mr. 

Chairman, in other bureaucracies besides SBA? 

Mr. GRAVES. Well, obviously, in SBA there are a lot of problems, 

to be quite honest with you. The SBA does some things very, very 

well, but they obviously do some things not very well. And we also 

see that in other areas. Overall, if you look at contracting, which 

is an issue we have been very active in, in contract bundling, 

whether it is the Defense Department or whatever agency it happens to be, there are a lot of problems with that in not giving small 

businesses the opportunity to be able to participate, being more, 

you know, favorable obviously to larger businesses or bundling 

those contracts up so larger businesses have a better opportunity. 

But that is a problem throughout, government, and not paying attention to some of those programs, you know, that the government 

is supposed to be paying attention to when it comes to various aspects or various businesses, depending on the individual who might 

own that small business. So there are a lot of problems throughout 

the Federal Government when it comes to where we can be. 

Mr. ROKITA. We are all tasked with oversighting those on our 

various committees. Ranking Member Vela ́zquez, how many staff 

members are on the committee, not just your part, for both of you 

or the total committee, two-thirds and the one-third, how many 

staff members are we talking about? 

Mr. GRAVES. There are 28 on our side. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Ten on our side. 
77 

Mr. ROKITA. So about 38 or 40 people. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. You asked him a question. And based on my 

own experience—— 

Mr. ROKITA. I am just running out of time. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ [continuing]. Just now its contracting throughout 

the Federal Government over which we have jurisdiction. Also, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. So we deal with any regulations coming 

out of any Federal agency. We have to make sure that they do 

hearings and we seek comments from small businesses so that we 

prevent unintended consequences that would impact negatively 

small businesses. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you very much for that. So the 38 personnel 

staff members, is there anything you are noticing that you can do 

to re-tweak or tweak how the org chart looks or the type of people 

you are hiring in order to do your oversight mission better than 

maybe it has been in the past? Are you lopsided clerical, are you 

lopsided investigatorywise, investigatory staffwise? Have you 

looked at how you can remodel the committee staff? 

Mr. GRAVES. Well, we obviously have the advantage of getting to 

start almost from scratch because we are ramping up completely. 

And so we are putting most of our emphasis obviously on investigators. And we are going to be putting—that is where we are doing 

the bulk of our hiring. Then also in technology. Again, and I talked 

about earlier, we are doing live streaming of our hearings and 

being able to solicit input from small businesses all over the country. So we are putting a lot of emphasis too on the technology aspect. But the biggest change is probably in investigation. 

Mr. ROKITA. So the 38 members, the staff members, how many 

will be investigators? 

Mr. GRAVES. Ten on our side. 

Mr. ROKITA. And the rest will be classified as what, clerical, 

press? 

Mr. GRAVES. Professional, press, managing the technology aspect 

of it, which takes more and more, unfortunately today, than it used 

to. 

Mr. ROKITA. I yield back. Thank you very much, both of you. 

Mr. HARPER. At this time I will recognize the gentleman from 

Florida, Congressman Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member for being here. Going back to oversight, 

and I want to make sure that I understand this, the ranking member, you brought up that you are afraid that oversight will suffer 

with a budget cut. How many—what do you base that on? I mean, 

is it the number of staff that you are moving away from investigations? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Well, in order to keep track with exercising the 

oversight role of our committee, you need to have staff, professional 

staff that is well versed in the area of procurement. On my end, 

we have lost some of the staff that have the experience, the knowledge, and the training. But we are dealing here with $97 billion in 

contracting procurement. So that is a big chunk of contracts. And 

we need to have the resources to do the type of investigation, the 

type of research that is required in order to make sure that the 

Federal agencies are policing themselves in terms of procurement 
78 

and contract awards are given to those that are qualified as small 

businesses. 

We have done so many investigations that show us that while 

they claim that they are achieving their contracting goals required 

by the statute, they have been misquoting big businesses and small 

businesses, and in the end, small businesses are the ones suffering. 

So we will not be able to discover that type of action if we don’t 

have the staff that are doing the research and keeping track with 

all the thousands and thousands of awards, contracting awards, 

that are generated by the Federal Government. 

Mr. NUGENT. You had mentioned earlier that there were specific 

areas that you recognize where there is fraud and abuse. I would 

hope that as you have limited resources, and I have experience 

with investigations, that when you have limited resources, you target those that you think are the biggest offenders, those that obviously have the largest dollar effect as it relates to impacting the 

Federal Government and particularly small businesses. 

So I would hope, you know, through this restructure, and it is 

painful, we certainly recognize that, and we are asking every committee to do more with less. So you know, it is all about priorities 

and prioritization. And obviously you know your committee sets 

that tone in regards to where that priority should be. And particularly with your vast experience in small business that you should 

have the ability to help them, you know, laser in on those areas, 

particularly the low hanging ones that you can get easily and then 

move on to those that are more difficult. Thank you. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank each of you for being here. Chairman 

Graves, Ranking Member Vela ́zquez, thank you for your time 

today. We appreciate the important work that you both do. 

Thank you, Chairman King, Ranking Member Thompson. I appreciate you both being here and the important work you do on 

your committee. And we appreciate you taking the time to be with 

us as we fulfill our obligation to do oversight on the committee 

budgets for the House of Representatives. And we look forward to 

hearing from both of you. And Chairman King, we will recognize 

you now. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETER KING, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Chairman Harper, Ranking Member 

Brady, members of the committee. First of all, thanks for giving 

Ranking Member Thompson and I the opportunity to testify here 

today. In fact, this marks the fourth Congress where Ranking 

Member Thompson and I will be working together. It is my second 

time around as chairman. He had two very distinguished terms as 

chairman. And probably I don’t know if there is any other committee in Congress, despite certain philosophical differences we 

might have, where we work more closely together and we really 

keep partisanship to an absolute minimum. We realize that homeland security is national security. And Ranking Member Thompson 

and I, and hopefully all the members of our committee share the 

common mission to keep our country safe. 

Now, we have reduced the budget by 5 percent pursuant to legislative direction. The budget into the next 2 years will be $8,443,000 
79 

in 2011 and the same amount for 2012. And this will support the 

committee’s oversight responsibilities, staff salaries, operating expenses. The ranking member and I intend to do more with less. 

And we also continue the customary division of two-thirds/one-third 

between the majority and the minority offices. 

Mr. Chairman, at the first committee hearing we had on February 9th, Secretary Napolitano said the terrorist threat to our Nation is at its most heightened state since the terrorist acts of September 11th. Just last week we saw Khalid Aldawsari, a Saudi student who is studying in Texas being arrested and charged with intent to bomb the home of former President Bush, various targets 

in New York City, nuclear reactors, other recent attacks emanating 

from the U.S. from having a U.S. involvement, or the Time Squares 

bomber Faisal Shahzad; the Fort Hood terrorist, Major Hasan; the 

Little Rock Recruiting Center Shooter Carlos Bledsoe; the New 

York City subway bomber, Najibullah Zazi; the Mumbai plotter, 

David Headley; Colleen LaRose, known as Jihad Jane; and also 

other members from Minnesota involved with Al-Shabaab. 

So we have, as our main priority, is to counter the serious and 

evolving threats facing our country. Since the committee was first 

formed as a Select Committee back in 2003, the nature of the 

threat has changed. At that time it was primarily al Qaeda operating out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now it is morphed, and 

spread into Yemen, other parts of the Middle East, and now also 

Secretary Napolitano and NCTC Director Michael Leiter have said 

there is a threat of home-grown terrorism. 

So the committee priorities will be domestic radicalization, operational control of the border, strengthening our Nation’s cyber security. And in fact, Chairman Lungren is actually the chairman of 

the subcommittee dealing with cyber security. We have to improve 

cargo security, interoperable communications for our Nation’s first 

responders, ensuring our homeland security grants are effective 

and risk-based, and also passing an authorization bill for the Department of Homeland Security. We also conduct oversight of 

homeland security programs and policies. 

Thursday of this week, Secretary Napolitano will be making a 

second appearance, this time to testify on the President’s budget 

request. We are going to have field hearing site visits throughout 

the country. And again, most of the work will be done in a very 

bipartisan way. So anyway, I appreciate, and I think Ranking 

Member Thompson certainly appreciates the support of the Committee on House Administration for our mission, and we look forward to working with you. And thanks for the opportunity to testify. And I will be happy to try to answer any questions you may 

have. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you Chairman King. 

[The statement of Mr. King follows:] 
80 
81 
82 
83 

Mr. HARPER. Ranking Member Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You look 

good in the chair. I support Chairman King in his presentation. 

Our committee, for the most part, has a reputation of being very 

bipartisan. When the enemy shows up, nine times out of 10, they 

won’t ask party affiliation or anything like that, so it is clear that 

we need to get it right. In that respect, the proposed budget allocation of one-third two-thirds I am in agreement with. The 5 percent 

reduction, we have made the necessary adjustments in our budget 

so that we will meet it both this year and next year respectively. 

Apart from that, Chairman King and I have probably worked together longer than any other chair and ranking people in Congress 

and we are still on speaking terms. So I think that speaks well for 

both of us. But in this respect, we have, in most instances, with 

respect to this committee made reasonable requests for budgets. 

We have not been one of those who just asks for money for money’s 

sake. We respect the leadership’s cut in the budget and will be willing to live within those suggested cuts. I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 
84 
85 
86 
87 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. I will ask each of you if you have the 

funding necessary to implement your oversight responsibilities. 

Mr. KING. Yes, I believe we do. Obviously, we have made adjustments in salary. But also I am trying to bring in people at no cost. 

For instance, the NYPD has assigned an inspector from the joint 

terrorist task force. He is going to be working full-time for the committee for the next 2 years as a fellow. The FBI, we have a supervisory special agent from the FBI detailed to us. I also plan to utilize other fellows and detailees from other Federal agencies. Such 

as the Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security. So we are 

making the most with what we have. 

And again, it is easier for us. We are ramping up. It is a little 

tougher for the ranking member. But as Ranking Member Brady 

pointed out before, it is easier for the majority to adjust to these 

decreases, but we are doing it. And I am confident we can fulfill 

our mission. Because in many ways, the oversight we do is—obviously, if we find something that is wrong, something that is improper, it is going to be disclosed. But also, oversight as to whether 

or not the Department is carrying out its mission. As far as the 

various levels of security there has to be monitoring. And I believe 

we have the staff both in the majority and the minority to get it 

done. It will be a little easier for me than it will for Ranking Member Thompson. 

Mr. HARPER. Ranking Member Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. It is a little more difficult being in the minority, 

but we will do it. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you both. And now I will recognize Ranking 

Member Brady for any questions he may have. 

Mr. BRADY. Just to thank both of you for being here today. You 

do an excellent job keeping us safe. I appreciate that. I also take 

note that terrorists don’t have a registration card and they don’t 

show it, you know, I appreciate that. But one little question just 

for my own mind. On classified information, do you get the proper 

classified information that you do need from these other agencies? 

Do you share it, do they hold back? Beyond that question, at some 

point in time many years ago, there was a little bit of a problem 

with the other agencies sharing amongst themselves and sharing 

with our committee. 

Mr. KING. Well, as far as the committee, the ranking member 

and I, we get regular briefings from the Intelligence Community. 

I think sometimes we feel perhaps we could be getting more than 

we are—you know, than we do. Maybe being a newer committee, 

we don’t get all that we need. But I would say we get 95 percent 

of what we need and it is getting better each time. 

As far as the sharing of intelligence within the Federal Government itself, it is light years better than it was back on September 

10, 2001, but there is still, I think the ranking member would 

agree, there is still a ways to go. There is always going to be some 

divisions both at the Federal level between Federal and State, between State and local, as far as not always a full sharing. Somebody wanting to take credit for the case, somebody holding on to 

information. But it is light years ahead of where it was. 

And I know when I was chairman and when Ranking Member 

Thompson was chairman, we worked together to try to bring about 
88 

as much sharing of information within the agencies or between the 

agencies and among the agencies, and also with our committee. 

And generally, I find whenever we ask for specific information we 

get it. Sometimes you have to pull out the information. But whenever we ask for it, I would say we get it. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Chairman King is correct, there is still some 

stovepiping of intelligence, but if you probe hard enough you can 

get it. Our biggest challenge is jurisdiction. If we had the proper 

jurisdiction within this committee, then some of the issues that we 

do confront we can resolve. But given the fact that the only real 

jurisdiction we have 100 percent is oversight, everybody else is 

split between judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and so that makes 

it a little difficult. But the agencies have cooperated in most instances in providing the information we need. 

Mr. BRADY. See, that 5 percent is the one that troubles me a little bit. That may be a major problem with the 5 percent. My point 

is that we do fund these agencies through our various committees, 

and I think that we should have some dialogue amongst them and 

make sure that they do share with you to do your job properly over 

these other agencies. It is not, you know, like you are getting hit, 

they are all getting hit, and then we can either be nice or not be 

nice and bring them in here. Not in this committee naturally, but 

the authorizing committees that have the authorization over them 

and make sure that that happens. I would be a little concerned 

about that. 

Mr. KING. I don’t want to leave the wrong impression. For the 

most part we get it. I think I am just being honest. There is a certain—for instance, I am also on the Intelligence Committee and I 

don’t feel Homeland Security gets the same level of intelligence 

over time that the Intelligence Committee does now. The Intelligence Community is more used to dealing with the Intelligence 

Committee, and that may account for some of it. But again, the situation is getting better. It is much better than it was. 

Mr. BRADY. My point is simple. I know you and I trust you and 

I know you and I trust you. I would like to trust them though on 

the same level. As long as they are trusting you, then we all can 

be on the same page for security, for again, for the safety of the 

American people. Thank you both. Thanks for coming in. 

Mr. HARPER. At this time, I will recognize the gentleman from 

Georgia, Congressman Gingrey. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I thank Chairman 

King and Ranking Member Bennie Thompson for being here and 

testifying for us. I am going to ask kind of a naive question because 

I am sort of new on this and on the committee for the first time, 

so you all forgive me and bear with me. But I notice that in the 

salary on the majority staff side, there are 11 internship positions 

at $21,599 per intern. Tell me, is that kind of routine, has that 

been consistent over the years and how does that compare to internship salaries on other committees? 

I am assuming these are full-time interns. I know we have some 

interns in my office, in my Member office, and I am sure they 

would be shocked to see these salaries for the interns and probably 

would be at my throat over it since we pay them nothing. 
89 

Mr. KING. That is the cap authorized by the House. I believe it 

was consistent under Ranking Member Thompson who was the 

chairman. And we get a lot of use out of these interns. Many of 

them are students who are majoring in homeland security or homeland security-type related subjects. And others who are maybe 

looking for another job, we have them in the meantime. And I find 

we get tremendous work out of the interns. I have always found 

it to be very productive on both sides of the aisle. 

Mr. GINGREY. Ranking Member Thompson, how many hours a 

week on average would you say that these interns spend on the 

committee. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Anywhere from 20 to 40. Sometimes they are 

placed there full-time from the university or college. Most of them 

tied to some professional program. One of the shortcomings we 

have in the area of homeland security is we don’t have enough professionals in the area. One of the things Chairman King and I 

worked on a long time is we are trying to reduce the overreliance 

on outside contractors, and the only way we can do that is kind of 

put our own farm team together. And part of the way we do it is 

with the internship program. 

Mr. KING. There is also many legal issues come up. We have law 

clerks working as interns. We actually had a firefighter who was 

on the payroll as an intern. He was assisting us. So we try to— 

again, there is very good use is made of them. And as the ranking 

member said, it is not—there is not a large pool out there of people 

in their 30s, 40s and 50s who have experience in homeland security. Basically it is a new science which has developed or a new 

field of study which has developed since September 11th. So many 

people we use are students, graduate students, people just out of 

colleges, universities. 

Mr. GINGREY. What would you say the average age of these interns is? 

Mr. KING. I would say early 20s, I guess. 

Mr. GINGREY. 20s, 20-somethings? A lot of them college students? 

Mr. KING. College students, graduate students or recent graduates. 

Mr. GINGREY. I am sure there is a lot of value added to having 

them on board. A quick and dirty math, about $235,000 a year that 

you are paying for these interns. And I would think that it would 

make a difference whether they are working 20 hours a week or 

40 hours a week. And that may be something you want to look at 

and have some consistency there in regard to how much time they 

spend and that you have equity in regard to what you are getting 

out of them. I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. HARPER. I just hope your interns aren’t watching this hearing, Congressman Gingrey. At this time, I will recognize the gentleman from Florida, Congressman Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. I do not have any questions. I thank you for your 

work on homeland security. I have to take leave, but thank you 

very much. 

Mr. HARPER. I would like to thank both of you for your time and 

the important work you are doing. Chairman King, Ranking Member Thompson, thank you. 
90 

Chairman Bonner, Ranking Member Sa ́nchez, thank you for taking time to come here and discuss this and allowing us to do our 

job on the Committee on House Administration to make sure we 

provide our oversight of the committee budgets in the House of 

Representatives. And we are honored to have both of you here. And 

we look forward to hearing from both of you. And with that I will 

recognize you, Chairman Bonner. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JO BONNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I was going 

to say thank you to Chairman Lungren, but I will instead thank 

you, Acting Chairman Harper and Ranking Member Brady. We appreciate very much you and other members of the committee giving 

Ms. Sa ́nchez and me an opportunity to appear before you today on 

behalf of the Ethics Committee and on behalf of the other eight 

members of which the acting chairman is one of our distinguished 

colleagues. Thank you on behalf of our committee for your service 

on this committee and to the institution as a whole. 

I am privileged to serve along with the ranking member, Congresswoman Linda Sa ́nchez and eight of our distinguished colleagues on what is a uniquely evenly divided Committee on Ethics, 

the only evenly divided committee in the House of Representatives. 

The committee is tasked in carrying out its duties in an impartial 

manner in order to provide a fair procedural framework for the 

committee’s activities and to well serve the people of the United 

States, the House of Representatives, as well as the members, officers and employees of this institution. 

We believe that the budget proposal before you will allow us to 

accomplish this mission. As you know, Mr. Chairman, our mission 

is a difficult and an important one. And there are no volunteers 

who serve on the Ethics Committee. The purpose and work of this 

committee is very important to the integrity of the institution. 

Moreover, the committee’s core responsibilities include providing 

training, advice and education to House members, officers and employees, reviewing and approving requests to accept privately sponsored travel related to official duties, reviewing and certifying all 

financial disclosure reports that members, candidates and senior 

staff are required to file and investigating and adjudicating allegations of impropriety in violation of House ethics rules. 

And to give you just an idea of the volume of the work of the 

committee that is accomplished in each Congress, let me share 

with you just a few remarkable numbers from the 111th Congress 

that just recently concluded. During this time, the Committee on 

Ethics issued more than 780 formal written advisory opinions, 

fielded thousands of informal telephone calls, e-mails and in-person 

requests for guidance on ethics issues, provided training to more 

than 10,000 House members, officers and employees each year, reviewed nearly 6,900 financial disclosure statements and reviewed 

more than 3,090 privately sponsored trip requests. 

The committee also commenced or continued investigative factgathering regarding 111 separate investigative matters; received 13 

referrals from the Office of Congressional Ethics, commonly known 

as OCE; resolved 75 investigative matters without taking formal 
91 

action; impaneled four investigative subcommittees; carried over 

and expanded one investigative subcommittee and completing that 

investigation through the investigative and adjudicatory phase as 

well as the sanction phase of a very public matter; fielded 12 reports with the House totaling more than 15,000 pages and authorized the issuance of 240 subpoenas, interviewing 140 witnesses and 

reviewing more than 55,300 pages of documents held through more 

than 70 investigative meetings. 

As of December 31st of last year, there were at least 16 investigative matters still pending before the committee. Mr. Chairman, 

as you are aware, the budget proposal before you reflects a 5 percent or $308,858.45 cut to the committee’s budget for 111th Congress. The committee received $6,177,169 in the 111th Congress. 

And the committee will gratefully receive $5,868,310.55 in the 

112th Congress. But unlike other committee budgets, the large 

bulk of the committee expenses on the Committee on Ethics is personnel compensation. Mr. Chairman, I have some additional comments I would like to enter into the record to complete my statement, but I would like to conclude before I recognize—— 

Mr. HARPER. Without objection. 

Mr. BONNER [continuing]. Before I recognize the ranking member 

by singling out one lady who has been, to this day with our committee as the administrative staff director, Ms. Joanne White from 

the great State of Mississippi, which should please the chair, who 

begins her 21st year with the committee and more than 35 years 

with the House of Representatives. 

It is people like Joanne White that allow us to do our work, and 

I hope that this committee will appreciate the work of Ms. White. 

Thank you for letting me and the ranking member appear before 

you, and thank you for the support that this committee, the Committee on House Administration, has shown to the Committee on 

Ethics throughout its time. 

[The statement of Mr. Bonner follows:] 
92 
93 
94 
95 

Mr. HARPER. And we certainly thank Joanne White for that wonderful service that she continues to provide. And with that, we will 

recognize Ranking Member Sa ́nchez. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Good afternoon, Acting Chairman Harper and 

Ranking Member Brady. Thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before the Committee on House Administration today on behalf of 

the Committee on Ethics. We appreciate the opportunity to provide 

you with an overview of how the Committee on Ethics proposes to 

use its budget in this Congress as well as its activities in general. 

At the outset, I want to reiterate a point that was made by the 

chairman. The committee is unique among all other committees in 

that its membership is comprised of an equal amount of Democrats 

and Republicans. This parity is very important, given the nature 

of the committee’s work. Although I did not serve on the Ethics 

Committee in the last Congress, it was clear to me and many of 

our colleagues in the House that during the 111th Congress, the 

committee was reinvigorated. 

I have enjoyed getting to know Chairman Bonner and I look forward to working with him and all of our colleagues, as well as the 

staff of the committee, to ensure that the committee can continue 

this trend. Chairman Bonner has described some of the committee’s notable accomplishments from the 111th Congress, and these 

are completely striking given where the committee began the 111th 

Congress. At the beginning of the last Congress, the committee employed only 15 staff and had nine vacancies. It lacked a permanent 

staff director. Of its staff, just one attorney was fully dedicated to 

the committee’s investigative work. 

In addition, during 2009, the committee’s director of advice and 

education was appointed by the President to serve as the United 

States attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. From that 

starting point the committee hired 11 new staff members, including 

a permanent staff director and chief counsel, a deputy chief counsel 

and seven investigative attorneys. With those hires, the committee 

was fully staffed for the first time. 

Moreover, the chairman and ranking member then sought approval to expand the committee’s cap to hire even more staff. The 

entire staff was hard at work during the last Congress. In addition 

to the committee’s ongoing work regarding advice, education, financial disclosure and travel, the committee’s investigative unit was 

more active duty than ever before. In addition to beginning or continuing 111 separate investigative matters the committee had five 

formal investigative subcommittees, a record in the committee’s 

history. For more detailed information about these accomplishments, I encourage our colleagues and the public to review the 

committee’s end of Congress report which is available on our Web 

site at ethics.house.gov. 

The committee also made investments in technology and related 

training to make its advice, education and investigative units even 

more efficient. I look forward to working with the chairman to 

identify even more ways in which we can continue to expand the 

committee’s use of technology. Although we understand that the 
96 

committee, like other House committees, will receive a 5 percent 

cut to its budget from the last Congress, I am committed to seeing 

that the committee maintains this vigorous level of activity in the 

next 2 years. 

A key to that continued success is the committee’s nonpartisan 

staff. I have enjoyed meeting and getting to know the talented men 

and women who make up the committee staff. And I would like to 

single out just one of them now to echo Chairman Bonner’s words 

of thanks for Joanne White who is marking 20 years at the committee today. 

Her commitment to the committee and to the House are emblematic of the dedication that all of the nonpartisan staff bring to their 

jobs. Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to address you 

today and thank you for your committee’s consideration of our 

budget request. We are happy to answer any questions that you 

may have. 

[The statement of Ms. Sa ́nchez follows:] 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much. And with that, I just want 

to make sure that each of you would tell me if you believe you have 

the funding necessary to implement your required oversight responsibilities? 

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe we do. As the ranking 

member indicated, we asked for in the preceding Congress, and I 

see the chair of the committee and a distinguished member of the 

House Administration Committee has just entered the room. 

When Ms. Lofgren chaired the committee and I served as the 

ranking member, we did ask for additional money for technical upgrades, computer upgrades and additional staff. We were never 

able to fully arrive at the level of 29 employees that we were slotted. And because of the necessity in making some tough decisions 

and bringing the cuts to the House itself, I think it is safe to say 

that we probably will not fill all of the positions even at a reduced 

level that we would have. That said, I would say as a positive note 

when we initially solicited advertisements for interested attorneys 

and staff to join the committee at the beginning of the 112th Congress, the ranking member and I have received over 255 applications. 

So there is a renewed interest. I agree with Ms. Sa ́nchez that 

thanks to the positive work that we were able to do during the preceding Congress, I think we have got people who are interested in 

joining the work of the committee in a nonpartisan professional 

way. And so to directly answer the chairman’s questions, I think 

we will certainly make do with what this committee affords us to 

have, and I think we can meet that goal, and I look forward to trying. 

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

Sa ́nchez, your views on that. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Certainly. Clearly working with a smaller budget 

does create a set of constraints, but I am positive that with the 

budget that we are requesting, we can do the bulk of the work that 

the committee should do. My understanding is that in the last Congress there were investments made in technology that make the 

staff more efficient. So I am hoping those efficiencies carry over 

into this Congress. And with a lesser budget, we can still maintain 

the high quality and high level of staff that we have there on the 

committee, and that they continue to do the work that we know 

they are capable of. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much. And with that, I will recognize Ranking Member Brady for any questions he may have. 

Mr. BRADY. Hearing your testimony, I am assuming that the 

staff is one-third, two-thirds. That is working out, that agreement? 

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Brady, to refresh your memory, because you 

were very supportive of us when you were chairman of the committee, this is the only evenly divided committee, both by, in terms 

of the make-up. There are five Democrats and five Republicans. 

And the staff is evenly—in fact, it is not evenly divided. It is a nonpartisan professional staff that is hired. The only exception to that 

is that the chair and the ranking member each have a counsel assigned to them. But as has been the practice of the past, even 

though the counsel to the chair, in this case, counsel to a Republican member and previously counsel to the chair and counsel to a 
102 

Democratic member in the 111th Congress, they really serve the 

entire committee. So there really is not an evenly divided—there 

is not a two-thirds/one-third ratio on the staff. 

Mr. BRADY. How about space, is the new space arrangements 

working out? 

Mr. BONNER. Well, since Chairman Lungren has arrived, I will 

thank him directly and publicly. We certainly were as surprised as 

a lot of others were to find that the committee which had been in 

the Capitol for many, many years, I don’t know the exact number, 

but we were surprised that we were going to move. But I am sure 

the parliamentarian was surprised he was going to move and the 

Committee on Appropriations was surprised they were going to 

move. Thanks to this committee, your committee’s work, and singularly thanks to Chairman Lungren, I think you helped make the 

move, the transition, as smooth as possible. 

It is a much different view as opposed to looking out over The 

Mall of the Capitol. One of the few perks, as Chairman Lofgren will 

recall, was to be able to work in the historic Capitol Building and 

look out over The Mall itself. But we appreciate the space that we 

were given. The staff has worked hard to get up to speed in their 

new space. And we are diligently working to fill that staff, the 

voids that are there. So Chairman Lungren, thank you for your 

personal assistance in helping to make a painful bit of news a little 

bit less painful. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. If I may add to that. And again, I did not serve 

on the committee in the 111th Congress, and perhaps Congresswoman Lofgren can speak more to this. In informal discussion with 

some of the staff, there are some concerns that they have with the 

space, particularly where some of the offices are located in very 

public areas where Members coming in for advice or guidance, if 

there are reporters in the hallway, they could draw wrong inferences from the fact that Members may just be seeking guidance 

from the committee. So there are a number of space-related issues 

that have come to my attention that I hope to work with the chairman to address in a way that makes our members and the committee staff more comfortable in their new surroundings. 

There is also some degree of separation in terms of offices of the 

staff, which isn’t necessarily, doesn’t exactly promote sort of smooth 

running of some of the operations. So there are some challenges to 

the new space that I hope to work with the chairman to address 

some of these concerns that have been raised by the committee 

staff. 

Mr. BRADY. Okay. Thank you. And thank you for appearing in 

front of this committee. And I hope you will never see me in front 

of yours. 

Mr. LUNGREN [presiding]. Congresswoman Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I just wanted to make a couple of comments and 

thank the Members who are serving here in the 112th. I am happy 

not to be among them. And to know that there is someone maybe— 

I was at a Judiciary Committee hearing, I am sorry I am late, but 

I did want to publicly thank and acknowledge Joanne White. I 

think that was already done by the chairman. But it is not that 

usual that someone serves for 20 years on a committee. And her 

tremendous service is very valuable to us. She has seen a lot, but 
103 

because of confidentiality she can say nothing. I just think it is tremendous. And the work that she has done, not just for the committee, but really for our country, is spectacular. And I wanted to 

publicly thank her for that and for sticking with it. 

I wanted to comment just a couple, on a couple of points. And 

I think the budget is adequate to do this because you can move 

money from personnel to technology if you wish. I wanted to make 

sure that was the case. We did do some improvements in technology, and we have made it possible for people to file things on 

the Web and make it work better. There is still room to do a lot 

more of that. And I am hoping that the committee has enough technical expertise. Actually, we are a little bit on the thin side on that. 

To expand that, because it will save a lot of time for the attorneys. 

And maybe you can give feedback on that. And then the second 

thing, and it is certainly not the committee’s fault, and it wasn’t 

their choice to move. But I just say I think the space is terrible. 

I mean, the point that Ms. Sa ́nchez has made is absolutely correct. The committee room is right across from the Longworth Cafeteria. And to think that you can have a confidential visit if a Member is planning to come in, it is just not possible. Furthermore, the 

committee meeting room is right outside the smoking room. So 

when the committee meets, it is not like the House Administration 

Committee or the Judiciary Committee where you want the public 

to see, often-times it is confidential matters, and that confidentiality is going to be very difficult to maintain. The three offices are 

separated. It is really not a good space situation. And I am hopeful 

that the committee can work to improve it, because this is a hard 

enough job as it is. 

The staff works incredible hours. And to have this kind of dysfunctional space situation just makes a bad trying situation way, 

way harder to deal with. So that is our job, not their job. But I 

hope that we can take that up, Mr. Chairman. And I don’t know 

if there are comments on the technology side. 

Mr. BONNER. Well, I would say that, first of all, and we were 

singing your praises before you came into the room, but certainly 

the leadership that you provided that I attempted to assist with in 

terms of making the technological upgrades, Ms. Lofgren is exactly 

right, we need to all do better in terms of making, taking advantage of technology today and making it easier and more user 

friendly for the 10,000 staffers and members who work up here to 

use the committee. And we will, I am confident that the ranking 

member and I will continue to build on the work that began in the 

111th Congress. 

I would say that while I think we were all, or at least I was certainly surprised by the decision to move out of the Capitol. In defense to the incoming Speaker and now the current Speaker, when 

he made the decision to relocate the parliamentarian so that we 

could create for the first time a lady’s bathroom off the House floor, 

which I have never used the one in Statuary Hall, I doubt I will 

use the new one, but I think that is certainly appropriate to bring 

this old building into compliance and to make it more convenient 

for our female colleagues. 

It did set off a domino. You then add the parliamentarian’s moving, Speaker’s Office, House Appropriations Committee, as I noted. 
104 

I will say on a positive note, though, in addition to changing the 

name from the more formal Committee on Standards of Official 

Conduct to the Committee on Ethics, one of the things that we 

hope to do is to encourage people that there is not a stigma attached to the committee. And if you are getting ready to make a 

trip or you are getting ready to get married and you want guidance, that you can come in and make it more available to where 

you can seek advice from the committee. Chairman Lungren actually looks puzzled by my comment. 

Mr. LUNGREN. No, no. You are talking about getting permission 

from the Ethics Committee to get married. I didn’t realize that was 

one of your obligations. 

Mr. BONNER. For the wedding gifts. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Pardon me, and the engagement ring also, because 

I ran up against that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And baby gifts, too. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. And the baby gifts. 

Mr. BONNER. But as the former chair of the committee knows, we 

were in three locations. We were in the Ford Building, we were in 

the CVC, and we were in the Capitol previously. So we were not 

asked would we like to move. Certainly if we had been given a vote 

we would have asked to have stayed. But I think that notwithstanding the growing pains of moving into a totally new environment basically here in the Longworth Building, the staff is working, as you would expect them to, with a good attitude and as hard 

as they can to make this work. 

And clearly, if the Committee on House Administration has other 

ideas that would make additional space available or a larger space 

where we could bring the staffs together in the coming months or 

years, we certainly would encourage that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, if I can just close. I appreciate that 

the chairman has put the best face on this possible, but I do think 

certainly there are times and there were times in the last Congress 

where witnesses were brought in and it was important that the 

witnesses on a matter be seen in a confidential manner. I mean, 

there are many cases where confidentiality is important, and it is 

going to be very difficult, I would say impossible, to do that given 

the current location. 

And I hope that we can work on this further. I know even though 

the members are putting a good face on it, a discreet place would 

not probably bring them—they would not condemn us for succeeding in doing that. And I yield back. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, all I would say is if there is an issue of confidentiality and protection, we would be happy to work with you on 

that to the extent we can. I would also like to say I would—I very 

much appreciate the work your staff does. Whenever I have 

thought about a trip or whenever I have thought about how you 

handle a request to put your name on some honorary panel, my office always checks with the Ethics Committee staff. They have 

never been slow to react. Their advice has been very good advice. 

And I can just imagine that if every member does the same thing 

that my staff and I do, the tremendous workload that you have. 

So we appreciate the fact that you have a tremendous job to not 

only protect the public, but to protect members from unproven 
105 

ungrounded accusations and also to give members a sense of what 

the rules are so they can follow those rules and protect the integrity of this institution. 

So I thank you very, very much for that. And if there are no 

other questions, we would thank you for your testimony. We now 

have a break until 3:40 until our next committee is to be here. And 

we tried to get some to come up a little bit earlier but couldn’t do 

that. I think we are going to have votes around 3:15, so hopefully 

that will work out with us coming back here. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. With the concurrence of the ranking member of 

this committee, we will reassemble for the continuation of this 

hearing. And we do have your written submission. We have the 

oversight plan, all the other information here that is part of our 

record, and we look forward to hearing from you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DARRELL ISSA, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Brady. 

Both the ranking member and myself voted for the House resolution that reduces our level by 5 percent. We are altogether too 

aware that we are reducing ours not by 5 percent per se, as much 

as we are reducing it to a level of around 2007. Adjusted for inflation and constant dollars, our committee will be operating at probably 2004, 2005 constant dollars. 

Having said that, America has been cutting back for many years 

now. They are operating, in many cases, at levels of real income 

that go back to the early 2000’s, and we have to do the same. There 

is no time like today to make huge changes in the waste in government. Earl Devaney, who has been the chairperson of recovery 

oversight estimates, and is accurate, that at least 7 percent of all 

money that government spends is, in fact, some form of waste, or 

it is being defrauded. 

We believe our committee, with the funds that we are supplied 

and the personnel we are authorized, can make a huge difference 

and reduce that by hundreds-fold what were authorized in the way 

of funding. To do so, we are going to work together on a bipartisan 

basis to ensure that when the administration and the bureaucracy 

sees us, they see us, in fact, united to try to find real waste in government and make a real change. 

Additionally, and the ranking member certainly will have his 

own statement, I think the committee is well aware that no matter 

how much we take out of discretionary spending, we cannot get 

anywhere close to a budget that the American people can live with 

unless we take on the non discretionary spending, both the waste 

in it and the systematic failures. 

So at least on behalf of this committee we are committed to do 

oversight, look for waste, fraud and abuse, and then go after the 

systemic problem that has caused health care and other costs to 

our elderly to rise far faster than inflation or the American people’s 

ability to do so. Those are some of the items that are in our plan. 

We know we have to do better than we have in the past and we 

know we have to do it for substantially less and we are committed 

to do it as a committee. 

And with that, I am sure the ranking member has a few words. 
106 

[The statement of Mr. Issa follows:] 
107 
108 

The CHAIRMAN. The ranking member is recognized. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELIJAH CUMMINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Brady. This is the first time I have appeared before 

you as the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, and I 

thank you for the opportunity. 

I also want to thank Chairman Issa for including the minority 

as a partner in developing both our committee’s budget and our 

oversight plan. The committee has adopted an aggressive agenda 

to root out waste, fraud and abuse, to make our government work 

more effectively and efficiently on behalf of the American taxpayers. And I have often said that we want to add value to the 

lives of all Americans. 

As I have expressed to Chairman Issa, I am very pleased we 

were able to work in a bipartisan manner to include in our oversight plan an investigation into allegations of abuse by mortgage 

service companies during the current national foreclosure crisis. 

In addition, the Government Accountability Office has provided 

us with a good roadmap for our work. At a hearing before our committee earlier this month, GAO issued its biennial high risk report 

which highlights more than 30 areas where we can find real efficiencies and considerable savings. For example, GAO highlighted 

the need to make significant improvements in Federal contracting, 

which accounts for hundreds of billions of dollars each year. 

In light of this ambitious agenda, full funding of the chairman’s 

budget request is imperative. As he noted, our overall budget request represents a 5 percent decrease from the 111th Congress. Although I support this request, I do so reluctantly. The efforts of our 

committee take significant resources. But there is no doubt that 

they provide a cost-effective return on the investment. Of course, 

I am pleased that Chairman Issa is continuing our committee’s tradition of requesting one-third allocation of the budget for the minority. 

However, I caution against making further cuts. Nearly every 

member of my staff has already taken a cut of at least 5 percent 

and some more. Like your staff, they are among the most hardworking, knowledgeable and dedicated public servants in the country. And in this time where public servants are being criticized, 

and I think quite unfairly, I think it is very important, as the 

President said, that we attract the brightest and the best. A lot of 

them are sitting right behind you right now. They routinely put in 

tremendous hours, not for the pay, but for the privilege of working 

in this institution, to fulfill their patriotic mission of public service, 

and to make a positive difference in the lives of more than 300 million Americans. And so I thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking 

member, and other members of the committee. And with that, I 

will yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Cummings follows:] 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your statements. Obviously, you have accepted a 5 percent decrease in funds, as have 

other committees. Actually, Judiciary has a slightly higher budget 

because they had a spike in funding last year for impeachment proceedings, but everybody has had a 5 percent decrease in their baseline. 

How did you manage to find the savings? Did you take it out of 

personnel? Did you take it out of technology? Did you take it out 

of other expenditures? 

Mr. ISSA. Some of it. Some of those cuts are not yet determined. 

So far we have not filled all of our slots and we are delaying a couple of them. Quite candidly, we are hoping to get a few more 

detailees and a higher level of cooperation with the administration 

because ultimately, no matter how much funding and staff you give 

us, unless we have cooperation from within the national bureaucracy, we are really not going to be that effective. 

We did do some planning for some smart buying. Some of our 

computers are actually going to be operating multiple software on 

a single computer using VM ware. We have also combined a couple 

of positions to be a little more efficient. The committee also has 

some shared staff that reduces redundancy. We think we can find 

all of it by the end of the year. There is no question though that, 

like the ranking member, we have had to make it clear that there 

are some cuts. We are hiring at a lower rate than we might otherwise have. And we expect that at the end of the year, we will be 

absolutely down to the last penny. But we also think that this is 

a way of showing the American people that we get it. But as the 

ranking member said, and probably the most important thing is we 

generate money by the work that we do in the way of tangible savings. So we also realize we have an obligation not to have so much 

austerity that, in fact, we get more waste in government. 

The CHAIRMAN. And Mr. Ranking Member, from your comments, 

you are satisfied with the division of resources that is the onethird, two-thirds? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. You know, this has been the tradition and 

I have no problem with that. As a matter of fact, you know, I don’t 

know, very soon we may be on the other side and I want to treat, 

want to make sure we treat the—yes. But to answer your question, 

yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. And Mr. Chairman Issa, part of the name of your 

committee is oversight. Yet, all the other committees are supposed 

to do oversight for the jurisdictions that they have. How do you 

make sure that t is not redundancy and that other committees both 

do their job and are not doing the same thing that you are doing 

or vice versa? 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, we have a long tradition of being the 

first to shed light, sometimes the last to shed light, but recognizing 

that when a committee of jurisdiction is able to do, pick it up from 

w we often begin and see it through to fruition, including legislation, we generally step back or offer assets. The fact is that the 

vast majority of what we do is inter, or if you will, multiple committee jurisdiction, and that is where we tend to hit our sweet spot. 

We are working on areas where it takes two or three committees. 

As you know, Homeland Security is a good example, where there 
114 

are 200 and some different committees and subcommittees that 

people can report to. That leaves a lot of room for us to be an umbrella organization. At the same time, Judiciary—we just had one 

with Transportation, joint hearings and joint staff work is how we 

think we can actually get some of the savings where we pool our 

resources when there is a common oversight. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Just to thank the chairman and ranking member for 

being. And Mr. Cummings, as you know, we all did vote for that 

five percent. Also there was an amendment to cut some more. The 

leadership of this committee and yourself and your chairman voted, 

thank you, against that, so we are not against cutting you. We 

don’t want to have to be able to cut any more, especially the little 

men and women, the little people that rely on the salary that is 

not as large as ours and some other people. We don’t want to have 

to cut again. 

So I am in accord with your request as we would love to try to 

find some extra money for you for the job well done that you do. 

And we are not looking to have to stand up and stand up again 

and get some more cuts. We think we did enough, and I think we 

can, hopefully you can and you are saying that you can, you know, 

conduct your business in a proper manner without any more cuts 

that maybe would make you put you at an expense where you 

couldn’t. So we are in accord with that. And I thank both of you 

for being here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. No questions, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. No questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Well, thank you very much. All right. 

Financial Services yet? We understand Mr. Frank is unable to be 

here, so Mr. Bachus, you get to be both the chairman and the ranking member, an unusual circumstance for you. 

We have the material that your committee submitted to us in 

terms of your budget, in terms of description of what your oversight plan is and other material, and we have reviewed that. But 

we, in addition to that, would love to hear your presentation before 

this committee as to how you are going about your business with 

the 5 percent cut that has been imposed on all committees. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SPENCER BACHUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Brady. I am 

pleased to appear before you today as chairman of the Financial 

Services Committee. Our request reflects the 5 percent reduction 

from the allocation our committee received last Congress. Our 

budget request grants the minority one-third of both the funding 

and staff slots allocated to the committee. Our staff slots will be 

allocated 58/28, 58 Republican, 28 Democrat. That reflects an increase in staff slots to the minority from the previous Congress to 

provide a full two-thirds, one-third division. 

In a change from the 111th Congress, we have also allowed the 

minority access to FinMart, which provides them with timely infor-
115 

mation on the funding and payments process to assist them in 

managing their budget. We didn’t have that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think the two of you talked about that last year 

when you came before our committee. 

Mr. BACHUS. Yes, that is right. We wanted that same courtesy, 

but we want to set the example going forward. 

In an effort to provide greater transparency in presenting information to the public, we have gone to an outside vendor to supply 

our committee Web site services. This expense will enable us to 

provide Web site visitors with real-time information and documents 

regarding the committee’s activities as well as several new interactive features. 

Our committee has a significant amount of work ahead with the 

Nation’s sluggish economy and financial challenges. We read daily 

that this is our constituents’ top priority and concern, and it places 

a great emphasis on the work of our committee. 

Therefore, I am asking you to continue to provide us with the resources we need to do our jobs, particularly in an era w oversight 

of the economy is critical. 

And it is my understanding, Ranking Member Brady, that Ranking Member Frank submitted to you a statement. I have it. 

[The statement of Mr. Bachus follows:] 
116 
117 

Mr. BRADY. Yes, he did. And he told me that he could not be here 

but he was happy with working with you and with the arrangement of the one-third, two-thirds with the allocations financial and 

with the office space. So he said that he could not be here but he 

thanked you. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Frank follows:] 
118 
119 
120 

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Bachus, could you explain to us, with 

this 5 percent cut, how your committee intends to do the oversight 

in the Financial Services area? We just had the Committee of Oversight and Government Reform talk about the things that they are 

doing, but they acknowledge, as this committee acknowledges, that 

every committee is supposed to have oversight responsibilities they 

carry out. And this being a particularly important area of concern 

for the public, we would like to be assured that you are not going 

to shortchange that part of your responsibilities. 

Mr. BACHUS. No. In fact, we are adding two staff members to 

oversight. We did very little oversight in the committee over the 

last 4 years, and very, very few hearings, almost none. So we have 

actually added three new employees and redeployed two others to 

help in this area. So I can assure you that we want—— 

Now, I will say this: Government oversight, their responsibilities 

in oversight and our responsibilities are different. I would hope 

that they would respect our jurisdiction in this regard. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you very much. Ranking Member 

Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. I would just thank you for being here and thank you 

for the respect again you are showing the minority with the cooperation that you have been showing. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nugent. 

I hope this doesn’t set a precedent that you get off fairly easily 

if the ranking member doesn’t show up. And if it happens again, 

we will change the circumstance. But we thank you very much for 

your testimony. And I understand the reasons why Mr. Frank 

couldn’t be here and we appreciate that. And you have outlined in 

your written material in some detail as to the plans for the committee, and we appreciate that as well. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, thank you. Let me say this: When Ranking 

Member Frank was chairman, our committees staffs cooperated 

whenever they could. They have a very cordial and civil relationship with each other and treat each other with respect. We differ 

a lot of times on policy, but we try not to internalize that in our 

dealings with each other. He did extend those courtesies to me and 

our staff, and the members—because of his example when he was 

in the majority and we were in the minority, it was the thing to 

do. 

The CHAIRMAN. The only area of controversy I remember last 

year was the financial information available to your committee as 

the minority, and you have changed that with respect to the information available to the minority this time around, correct? 

Mr. BACHUS. Yes. For me to say that it made our job harder and 

that they should do it, made it obvious for me to extend that courtesy to him. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am happy that you followed through because I recall the colloquy that we had on that last year. So thank 

you very much. 

Mr. BACHUS. I expect if we go back in the minority, which, of 

course, I don’t expect for 20 or 30 years, I would expect that he will 

do the same. 

Mr. BRADY. We thought the same thing, sir. 
121 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN KLINE, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member Brady, 

members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to appear 

with the senior Democratic member, the ranking member, Mr. Miller, to testify in support of our joint budget request for the 112th 

Congress. I would like to thank Mr. Miller for his support of our 

overall request, and in keeping with his practice during his tenure 

as chairman, I am pleased to provide the minority staff with autonomy over their allotted one-third share of committing funding and 

resources including staff slots. 

In the 111th Congress, our committee was allocated $17,571,062. 

With the exception of shared staff and technology resources, twothirds of that total was provided to the majority and one-third was 

provided to the minority. In recognition of the budgetary challenges 

facing Congress and the Nation, we respectfully request 

$16,692,508 for the 112th Congress, which reflects a 5 percent reduction in our allocation from the last Congress. 

Our committee anticipates a vigorous legislative schedule this 

year as we address the impending need to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and work to provide the necessary education and training opportunities to ensure our Nation’s 

workforce is prepared to succeed in the global economy. 

We believe the funds we are requesting will enable us to carry 

out our ambitious agenda, and fulfill our responsibilities to this 

Congress and the people of the United States. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I appreciate your time, 

and I will be happy to answer any of your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Kline follows:] 
122 
123 
124 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Brady and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee to review the funding appropriations for this session of the Congress. 

I want to thank Chairman Kline for the preparation of the committee budget, his cooperation in transitioning to the 112th Congress. I appreciate that Chairman Kline has followed the committee tradition of allowing me total autonomy on the budget development of the minority share, and the budget provides the minority 

with one-third of the total funding and staff. 

Additionally, I look forward to working with Chairman Kline 

whenever there are appropriate ways to achieve efficiencies in committee’s operation. 

Our committee has jurisdiction over many timely issues of concern to the country, especially America’s middle class families. The 

committee had a very productive agenda in the 111th Congress, 

overseeing 14 pieces of legislation that became law and holding 81 

hearings. I expect the committee will continue to have an active 

agenda in the 112th Congress. Already we have had seven hearings 

in 13 legislative days since the committee was organized for this 

Congress. 

Major legislation within our jurisdiction has seen floor action and 

as Chairman Kline has pointed out, we hope to work together on 

important reforms in the areas like elementary and secondary education. We agreed on the oversight plan for the committee. We 

worked on it together. And I guess, maybe like in other committees, but today we had a hearing on regulations and it is really sort 

of an oversight hearing on if we are going to reauthorize ESEA, 

what do you do about all the regulations we have built up over the 

years? So I don’t know that it is segmented out, but it looks a lot 

like oversight to me. 

But anyway, I think we are working well together and I appreciate the cooperation, and I appreciate this committee holding the 

committees as you have done in the past, to this two-thirds, one 

thirds split. I think people take responsibility and they do what 

they will. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. George Miller of California follows:] 
125 
126 
127 
128 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. And I understand the sincerity in which you have come up with this budget and which you 

will proceed. It is a 5 percent cut. There are some who believe, although I was not one of them, that we ought to cut even deeper. 

One of the concerns I have is that we have an obligation to do 

oversight. We are small compared to the executive branch. We really, to do our job, we have got to be very, very good and tough about 

it. 

Do you think you have sufficient resources to do the kind of oversight that we need when we are reviewing these education programs and those programs in the area of the work force? 

If we are going to do the job of trying to be a more efficient government, we are going to have to ride herd, if that is the proper 

term, on the executive branch in the best way. 

Do you have the resources that you are able to do that in this 

regard? 

Mr. KLINE. I believe we do, Mr. Chairman. We are addressing 

the 5 percent issue, like a lot of other committees. We have got 

some staff slots that we can fill. We are filling them a little bit 

slower rate. We want to make sure we have got the best qualified 

people to fill those slots so we can maximize the people we have 

got, their efficiencies. It is one thing about being forced to take a 

cut, you look for places for efficiencies. We can do some things in 

house that we were perhaps doing out of house, printing costs and 

so forth. I believe we can do it very well with that cut. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller, one of the things that I reflect on is 

that it is a lot easier to take cuts when you are going to the minority and the majority than when you are going from the majority to 

the minority. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I have been reflecting on that 

myself. 

The CHAIRMAN. But that is life and we have to deal with it. So 

my question is, how do you feel about the resources you have? And 

what kind of decisions did you have to make with respect to your 

side of the budget to incorporate those 5 percent cuts? 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Well, we obviously had significant cuts in personnel. I was very proud of the staff that we had 

assembled. But again, I am not much different than other committees of the House, when you make this transition from majority to 

minority. We were running a cooperative technology center. We 

have stopped that. We seem to think that that may be better, may 

be somewhat, may be a little less expensive on either one of our 

budgets, as opposed to when we had them together. It was something we tried over the last several years. 

What happens to us, you know, a lot of times we, this committee 

has to respond to hiccups that take place. That can be an explosion 

in a coal mine. Those can be very expensive investigations because 

there is a lot of parties and depending on that. There are hiccups 

in the pension system, there are a number of things that happen 

that requires serious expertise and you know, you hope that doesn’t 

happen. But I think on the day-to-day basis, we can do the oversight, and I think the majority can do the investigations that would 

be necessary. We will just have to see. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brady. 
129 

Mr. BRADY. Just to thank both of you for being here today and 

appreciate your testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nugent. Okay. Ms. Lofgren. 

See, you did well even with the ranking member here. Appreciate 

it. Thank you. 

All right. We have got Agriculture coming right up. Thank you 

very much for being here. As you know, this is our marathon effort 

to get all of the committees and find out what their funding requests are before we have to put the omnibus funding request on 

the legislative side before the full house. 

So we have received your written entries going over personnel, 

going over expenses, going over your overall oversight report and 

so forth. And so we already have that as part of the record, and 

we would be very pleased to hear from both of you chairman, Mr. 

Lucas, and Ranking Member Mr. Peterson. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of 

the committee for this opportunity to visit with you today. I appreciate Ranking Member Collin Peterson joining me to outline the 

committee’s proposed budget for the next 2 years. As you all know, 

we have a long and proud history of bipartisan cooperation on the 

House Agriculture Committee. I plan to continue that spirit of cooperation as we proceed with the work of the committee in the 

112th Congress. 

In addition to the bipartisanship, the Agriculture Committee has 

a strong history of fiscal responsibility, modest spending and cooperative nature of our committees. The committee spans back more 

than two decades under control of both parties. 

Even though we have a significant workload ahead of us in this 

Congress, we are proposing a budget reduction for the 112th Congress. The resources provided us will allow us to proceed with a 

very aggressive, robust oversight agenda. As outlined in our oversight plan, we plan to conduct oversight hearings, both here and 

across the country on a variety of issues, from USDA’s GIPSA regulation to the EPA regulations on Atrazine, spray drift, dust, watersheds, just to name a few. 

In addition, we have an extensive series of oversight hearings on 

Dodd-Frank implementation. And, over the past several months, 

the CFTC and other Federal financial regulators have engaged in 

writing an unprecedented number of new regulations for the derivative markets. Since September alone, the CFTC has issued 39 new 

rule proposals involving thousands of pages of regulations. By comparison, before Dodd-Frank, the CFTC averaged only five rules per 

year. We will keep a watchful eye on these regulations as we move 

forward to make sure that they do not impose unnecessary or 

undue regulations on our financial system and economy. 

Finally, we will utilize our resources to begin the process of writing the 2012 farm bill. We plan to conduct a comprehensive audit 

of all farm programs through an extensive series of hearings this 

year. This will be a top-to-bottom examination of how farm programs are working. We want to know if the programs that are implemented as intended by Congress, which programs are duplica-
130 

tive, and whether the programs have outlived their usefulness. We 

also intend to do a series of farm bill hearings across the country. 

Taking the committee into the field is an invaluable part of the 

process of writing farm bills. 

Between the two of us, Collin and I have 23 new members on our 

committee, that is half the body, and feel it is important to expose 

them to as much as possible about farm bill programs before we 

write the next farm bill. 

Mr. Chairman, we truly have our work cut out for us in this Congress. But we firmly believe we can accomplish all of this on fewer 

resources than we have had in the past Congress. We greatly appreciate your consideration of our budget request, and let us know 

in whatever way we can provide additional information. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Lucas follows:] 
131 
132 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Peterson. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. COLLIN PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. And I am pleased to be here today in support of the Agriculture Committee’s budget request. As Chairman Lucas has 

said, the Ag Committee has a history of working in a bipartisan 

fashion. And it is not always easy, but we work very hard to listen 

to each other and understand each other, and I think we have been 

successful in that regard. 

The proposed reduction in the budget submission will require 

some belt tightening, but I am confident that the committee can 

get its work done. As Chairman Lucas has outlined, there are a lot 

of challenges before us, including the program oversight, the farm 

bill preparation, overseeing the implementation of the financial reform legislation we passed in the last Congress. I think that is necessary. 

And you know, I am not a big fan of regulation, but in this case, 

these are things that have to be done to make sure that we don’t 

get into another situation where the public has to bail out these 

large financial institutions. 

I also look forward to the committee’s hearings to review EPA 

regulations. Personally, I think the EPA just doesn’t get it. And 

frankly, my folks and myself are getting kind of sick of those outside of Agriculture telling farmers how to do their jobs. So I think 

we need to address some of these issues this year as well. 

So I look forward to working with Chairman Lucas this Congress, and appreciate your consideration of the Ag Committee’s 

budget request. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Peterson follows:] 
133 
134 
135 
136 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have the one-third, two-thirds split on 

staff allocation? 

Mr. LUCAS. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you are pleased with that, Mr. Peterson? In 

terms of cutting back 5 percent on the overall budget, what kind 

of decisions did you make? Were they in the area of personnel? 

Were they in the area of travel? Was it modernization of your computers or what was it? 

Mr. LUCAS. Basically on our side of the room we just looked at 

across the board, everything, dialing down. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Peterson. 

Mr. PETERSON. I am sorry. I didn’t hear what the chairman said. 

But we have given back over 5 percent of our budget the last, I 

think, since I have been chairman. So, you know, I am not one to 

spend money just because it is there. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you are courageous to admit it. 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, and so we feel like, you know, this budget 

will work, given what—you know, we wrote a farm bill during that 

time, we wrote title 7 of the Dodd-Frank bill, you know, we did a 

lot of work, and we had adequate resources and good people and 

I think it will work. 

The CHAIRMAN. Where are you in the area of technology with respect to your committee? Are you up to date with it? We have had 

a couple of committees come in and talk about how they made 

themselves more efficient by actually upgrading their technology in 

the last Congress. Has that been an issue with your committee? 

Mr. LUCAS. Both under Chairman Peterson and the months that 

I have been chairman, I think we have been very aggressive. We 

did livecasts of our hearings when we were in the field last year. 

We do live broadcasts now of all of our hearings when we are in 

the committee. I think we are current. 

Mr. PETERSON. Yeah, we put quite a bit of money into getting the 

IT stuff up to speed. And I think at the last year, I had even spent 

less money. We gave a considerable amount back. But we also 

spent some money at the end of the year to even to further upgrades. So as far as I know, we are really up to speed on everything we need to do. And we have invested a lot of money and then 

been able to give money back besides. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No, I appreciate that there is a spirit of collaboration between the chair and ranking member, that we have got this 

traditional split and that seems to be working well. So I don’t have 

any additional questions, and I thank them for their time and willingness to share their plans for the future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. I do. Thank you for being here. I really appreciate 

the cooperation that both of you have shown to each other, particularly in the mission as it relates to agriculture, and obviously the 

workforce. But the ranking member, I liked your pronouncement 

on the EPA. You know, Florida is facing a numeric nutrient issue 

in regards to just lousy science. And so I appreciate your committee 

doing aggressive oversight particularly as it relates it EPA. The 

same with the, what is it, the dust that cattle kick up. I have a 

few folks that are—— 
137 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, that and methane flatulation. 

Mr. NUGENT. Yeah. I would like to know how you are going to 

control that. I appreciate your candor and I appreciate your interest in really doing oversight as it relates to EPA. I appreciate that. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you very much. We appreciate 

it. Thanks for your cooperation on a bipartisan basis. 

We are a little ahead of schedule, Mr. Miller, and we are calling 

Mr. Filner’s office to see if he is on his way. Thank you, Mr. Filner, 

for showing up a little early. We actually are going through this a 

little faster than we thought. So we appreciate it. We have the 

written submissions from the committee outlining personnel, outlining your oversight plans, if I can get the right binder here. And 

the other submissions you put. So we have that for our record. We 

have your written submitted statements, and we look forward to 

hearing from you. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEFF MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

Ms. Lofgren, it is a pleasure to appear before you today. I am here 

with ranking member Bob Filner. Our committee request does reflect, in fact, a 5 percent decrease in the total amount of the 111th 

Congress budget for VA. As you know, our committee has oversight 

over the Department of Veterans Affairs, the second largest Federal agency with roughly 300,000 employees and a budget of roughly $125 billion. We have an aggressive oversight plan. We have already engaged in several oversight hearings, including but not limited to ensuring proper implementation of the new law pertaining 

to veterans caregivers, assessing the effectiveness of programs 

aimed at helping veterans locate and retain post-service employment, ensuring the highest quality treatment and care while preserving patient safety and employing effective and efficient use of 

information technology to improve delivery of care and services. Our committee budget for this year is just under $7.3 million. I 

think it is a move towards spending restraint that is required in 

these times, but will allow us the ability to hire and retain topnotch professional staff to assist our committee as we pursue this 

aggressive oversight plan in support of our Nation’s most treasured 

assets, our veterans. 

The committee’s request allows us to work towards a goal of ensuring that the Nation’s veterans and their family members and 

survivors who have access to the VA receive the highest quality of 

care and services, and we hope you will look favorably on our disciplined request. 

Travel funds will be used to perform oversight over some of the 

1,000 VA hospitals, outpatient clinics, nursing homes, national 

cemeteries and Regional Benefits Processing Centers within the VA 

system. Our request for travel funds is extremely modest and is the 

same figure from the previous Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, you may or may not be aware that the vast majority of the committee travel in which our members engage is actually funded by VA, the very agency over which we are charged 

with oversight. I have some concerns about the functionality of this 
138 

arrangement in some instances and would welcome the opportunity 

to visit with you further about that. 

The committee’s request for equipment funds is one-third what 

was requested in the 111th Congress. In an effort at efficiency, the 

committee will only make major purchases when absolutely necessary. Additionally, software will be purchased on an as-needed 

basis in order to maintain House technical standards. 

Our budget submission assumes the maintenance of current staff 

at a ceiling number of 36. Administratively, the majority and the 

minority will maintain the long-standing two-thirds, one-third resource policy with the minority controlling its very own payroll 

budget. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a small committee charged with awesome 

responsibility, oversight of those who care and provide services for 

our Nation’s warriors and their families. We are committed to 

working efficiently to ensure that VA delivers on its mission to care 

for those who have borne the battle and their widows and their orphans. 

I take great pride in the privilege of having the opportunity to 

serve as chairman on Veterans Affairs, and it is now my honor to 

continue my service on the committee since I came to Congress. 

You have my assurance that we will account for and stretch every 

dollar afforded to us as we out-stride the expectations that have 

been placed upon us. And I and my ranking member would be 

happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Miller of Florida follows:] 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Filner. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BOB FILNER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Lofgren. Some of you 

may remember this committee had a few problems at this similar 

hearing over the last couple of times. I would just like to assure 

you that you will not have to see any of those problems this Congress. The chairman and I have established a very good working 

relationship, bolstered with informal conversations, and I am in 

complete support of the committee’s request. Thank you so much. 

[The statement of Mr. Filner follows:] 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. Having just returned from a 

trip to New Zealand and Australia where I managed to be able to 

observe with other members the questioning period of the prime 

minister of Australia, which reminded me of the hearing that we 

had of this committee last year, this is less colorful than last year’s, 

but we appreciate the spirit of bipartisanship. 

And Mr. Chairman, we appreciate you anticipating a number of 

our questions in outlining exactly how you are dealing with the 5 

percent cut. And you have answered the question, but I will just 

ask it again. 

Given the fact that we have accepted a 5 percent cut and we believe as a Congress that that is necessary as reflected in the overall 

vote, do you feel confident you can fulfill the oversight responsibilities for the Veterans Administration that you are charged with 

with the resources that you have? 

Mr. MILLER of Florida. I do. Within the 5 percent decrease, we 

did decrease some salary numbers and equipment purchases. 

Again, the only area that is not reflected in our budget, obviously, 

is that travel number. So that is the one that concerns me. I believe it has been a longstanding practice, but it is one that, I think, 

it is probably time to take a look at it. 

The CHAIRMAN. And Mr. Filner, are you satisfied with the ratio 

of staff resources and the split of the funding in the committee? 

Mr. FILNER. Oh, no, I think they should be 50/50. 

The CHAIRMAN. Other than that. 

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Here we go. 

Mr. FILNER. I mean, no, I am not happy with it, but that is the 

rule so, you know, we work with what we have got. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are more unhappy with it this year than you 

were last year? 

Mr. FILNER. Damn right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. First, it is good to see that there is agreement and 

that you are working together on these important issues that we 

face. I just wanted, before you even mentioned the travel budget, 

I was thinking about the travel budget because, as you both recognize, it is important to get out in the field and see what is going 

on, especially when it comes to medical care for veterans. And I am 

concerned, obviously we are cutting all of the budgets and I think 

that is right. Nobody is disagreeing with that. But it would be a 

concern if the VA had a veto over what the Congress was going to 

take a look at. And now is the time to talk about additional funding. I mean, there isn’t another time to talk about it. And I don’t 

know if that has ever happened. But it really does come to the 

issue of the separation of powers and our need to freely oversee 

what is going on. Is that the concern that you have, Chairman Miller or Mr. Filner? 

Mr. MILLER of Florida. It is. And I don’t know if that has ever 

been a problem where the committee has been prevented from 

going somewhere, but my concern also is alerting the VA from time 

to time where the committee may choose to go and having enough 

time to fix a potential problem before the committee actually arrives. I will tell you that 2011, the VA Office of Congressional Affairs travel budget is $270,000, on which the Senate and the House 
152 

both travel extensively. The request this year is for $274,000. This 

reflects an increase from the 2009 budget to current year of 143 

percent. But, again, I mean, we get basically $50,000 a year allocated to us for committee only travel without the VA. So it has not 

posed a problem that I am aware of. But the potential is there. 

Mr. FILNER. I would agree with the chairman. I mean, nobody 

that I know of has ever been prevented from traveling. It does result—and I say this against my own interest at this moment. But 

in terms of the separation of powers and also the majority control 

by the majority party, the executive department in the hands of the 

other party can fund things for the minority without approval—and 

I don’t think that is right. I think it happened when we were in 

the majority, I think there were a couple of years we were in the 

majority in the Congress, but the executive branch was controlled 

by the other party and I think the minority staff was able to travel 

without going through me as the chair. 

And the chairman and I talked about this, and he is rightfully 

concerned, I mean, that, he has got to have, he has got to know 

what is going on here and he can’t go around it. And I think that 

is a problem rather than any veto. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And that is not your intention to do that I gather. 

Mr. FILNER. No. In fact, we have formalized an agreement where 

we will not go on any travel without him knowing it, for example. 

But it does raise this question. And I think it is just wrong on principle, because it affects, you know, whoever of us happens not to 

be in the majority or can do things which I think violate the principle that we have established with majority control of the House. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, since there has not been a request 

for an enhanced budget, maybe what we can simply do is recognize 

that Mr. Filner and Mr. Miller have reached an agreement to make 

sure that there is nothing untoward that happens, as could happen, 

and then—— 

Mr. FILNER. I think it did when I was chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, we don’t want to revisit that. There is an 

agreement that everything is going to be above board. That is the 

way it should be. And to make sure that if there is ever a case 

where the committee is not freely choosing its oversight, that you 

would certainly let the committee know that. 

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. Actually, this is the first time it has been 

brought up to my attention, and I don’t know whether this occurs 

in any other oversight responsibility. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, Defense and Armed Services. 

Mr. FILNER. I suspect it is more widespread than we know about 

because I think the executive branch wants to, without going into 

psych ops, wants to be able to take people there and see what it 

wants to, whatever department you are in. And if you are in the 

majority in one thing and the minority in another, it can present 

a problem. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. It is also the responsibility of members to 

be tough enough to ask the questions that need to be asked and 

look at the places that need to be looked at. 

Mr. Rokita. 
153 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have any questions. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for 

their attendance. And I would say for the record that I am the new 

Congressman from Indiana’s fourth Congressional district, and apparently I have missed something in the transfer memo that was 

left in my office because I should be more active in this. 

Mr. FILNER. We thank the Lord. 

Mr. ROKITA. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. I just want to thank both of you for the very important work that you do, particularly as it relates to our veterans. 

And I have made a number of visits to clinics and the veterans hospital in Tampa and going up to Gainesville. You do a great job. The 

veterans hospital in Tampa, Haley, has 92 construction projects 

going on at one time, trying to update that facility to give our veterans the best possible care they can get. 

Just one question, though, in reference to the veterans caregivers. Has that started? I know it was passed and funded, but has 

that actually started? 

Mr. MILLER of Florida. I think VA would tell you that it has 

started. The only thing that actually has started, I think, is a toll 

free number that they can contact. We are not pleased at all with 

the roll-out of the program. What they are calling a start was 3 

months late. And I think the unfortunate thing is that we still 

don’t know what caregivers are going to get funded, at what levels, 

and there are people that are in serious need. And the intent of 

this Congress was that it be utilized for OEF, OIF veterans. There 

is some discussion among VA as to instead of stacking it downward 

and seeing how deep it can go, to see how far they can stretch it. 

Our intent when the legislation was passed was to be able to handle those caregivers that are dealing with the issues that are new, 

happening today. And there are a lot of caregivers that are awaiting the opportunity to receive funding. And I think the Secretary 

understands that. We have had some very frank discussions with 

him. He is very receptive. 

Mr. NUGENT. I would hope you continue that aggressive oversight. 

Mr. FILNER. And I think that the chairman is too modest here. 

The first oversight hearing we are having that he has set up is on 

this issue. It is next week, I think, right? 

Mr. MILLER of Florida. It is. 

Mr. NUGENT. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your presentation and the spirit of cooperation expressed here. And we hope 

we will be able to revisit next year and we will have the same sort 

of—— 

Mr. FILNER. Thank you. And you have agreed on the 50/50 funding, I take it. 

The CHAIRMAN. If we are in the minority, I would absolutely 

agree on the 50/50. That is all for today. And we will resume our 

hearing tomorrow with the remaining committees. 

[Whereupon, at 5:27 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]