U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

89–055 2003

HEARING ON COMMITTEE FUNDING REQUESTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 12 AND 13, 2003

Printed for the Use of the Committee on House Administration

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

BOB NEY, Ohio, Chairman

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

Ranking Minority Member

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

PAUL VINOVICH, Staff Director

GEORGE SHEVIN, Minority Staff Director

(1)

COMMITTEE FUNDING REQUESTS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:50 a.m., in Room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Ney 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Ney, Ehlers, Larson, Millender-McDonald, and Brady. 

Staff present: Paul Vinovich, Staff Director; Fred Hay, Counsel; 

Reynold Schweickhardt, Technical Director, Jeff Janas, Professional Staff Member; George Shevlin, Minority Chief of Staff; 

Charles Howell, Minority Chief Counsel; and Keith Abouchar, Minority Professional Staff Member. 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. 

The purpose of this committee hearing is to consider funding requests of the committee of the U.S. House of Representatives for 

the 108th Congress. We will have several panels of Members testifying before this committee both today and tomorrow as the hearing progresses. 

I would like to outline the procedure that we will follow during 

the hearings. The Chair and the ranking minority member of each 

committee will come before the committee and present their budget 

request for the 108th Congress. The Chair and the ranking minority member will each have 5 minutes to testify. The Committee on 

House Administration members will have 5 minutes each to ask 

questions of the Chair and/or the ranking minority member. 

In this Congress, committees have requested significant increases in funding, which is to be expected. Requests total approximately $252 million, almost $49 million more than the authorization in the 107th Congress of $203 million. This is an average overall increase of 23.99 percent, similar to the 22.4 requested increase 

in the 107th. The committee, of course, was able to tailor a bipartisan mark that is in fact where the House wanted to be on spending. 

The total amount of the request was driven by a special circumstance this time. The creation of the Select Committee on 

Homeland Security accounts for 22.4 percent of the total increase 

requested by committees. So Homeland Security itself is 22.4 percent of that. Of the $48 million in new requests, over $11 million 

is being requested by the Committee on Homeland Security alone, 

which is a brand new committee. So this Committee on House Administration will have one new entity to deal with which, at the 

2

end of the day, will still have a rather large budget because it has 

significant duties, especially dealing with security. 

Committees have also asked for an increase in staff, for a total 

of 110 new staff overall. Keep in mind, however, that 52 of the staff 

requests come from the Committee on Homeland Security alone. 

As Chair, I want to do all we can for the committees to ensure 

they get the funds and do the job for their constituencies across the 

United States that depend on the action of these committees for 

many things. I am also sure the other committee chairmen, as they 

know, and, if not, everybody will not get exactly everything they requested. 

But it is important to remember that, over the years—when I 

came here in 1994, the Republicans took control of the House. 

Committee budgets were cut by about 30 percent, or over $66 million alone. Had we continued the current levels back at that time, 

we would be about $299 million more in spending. So, as a result 

of that period of time, we have saved, I think, a considerable 

amount of money as a House. 

On the issue of minority resources, I am pleased to say we 

worked with Steny Hoyer to make sure two-thirds/one-third became reality. We appreciate the Chairs working with us. I support 

the one-third/two-thirds. That is an issue I don’t think we will have 

to debate. I am glad we have been able to put that to rest, but it 

is still an appropriate question to ask of all the Chairs; and I believe that we can work together to get a funding proposal to be fair 

and balanced. 

As far as our committee, Committee on House Administration, 

we allocate one-third of our total budget to the Ranking Member, 

Mr. Larson. The Committee on House Administration, of course, 

encouraged everybody else to do the one-third. I realize chairmen 

allocate differently. Our choice has always been to give the minority in this committee money, and they spend it as they see fit on 

where to spend it. 

In the 107th Congress it was decided to remove requests for 

funding for hearing room upgrades from the committee budget 

process as requests were costly, inconsistent and do not accurately 

represent the true costs of funding committees. We sought to reach 

the goal of the technology of these committees, and we will have 

a separate funding measure to do that so that we can complete upgrades within the rooms and with equipment for the committees. 

Since the 107th Congress, the Committee on House Administration, in conjunction with the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Mr. Eagan, and the Architect of the Capitol, in cooperation 

with the committees, has made upgrades in several full and subcommittee hearing rooms; and we have more upgrades planned in 

2003 and 2004. 

With that, we will basically end general statements. 

I would want to mention that we have our own budget here, 

which I will be glad to go over. But since we have two Chairs, I 

will recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you very much, Chairman Ney. 

I believe it was President Woodrow Wilson, in his book on congressional government, who recognized—and it is not far from the 

truth—a Congress in session is a Congress on public exhibition. 

3

While a Congress in committee rooms is a Congress at work; and 

today this committee begins that work in earnest. 

With that, let me first praise Chairman Ney’s budget and staffing recommendations for the House Administration’s Committee, 

because they honor what he has referred to as the two-thirds/onethird principle. Chairman Ney has recommended giving the minority a minimum of one-third of the total funds, one-third of the total 

staff positions and the freedom to expend those funds within the 

committee’s administrative guidelines with no gimmicks or tricks 

which reduced minority resources or discretion. 

I also want to praise the chairman for using his fairness towards 

the House Administration minority as a model for all committee 

funding in the 108th Congress and for setting an outstanding example of how the minority party, be it Democratic or Republican, 

should always be treated. 

After consulting with our ranking members, I am satisfied that 

minority committee staffs expect to receive the minimum resources 

they need to do their work over the next 2 years, with few exceptions. I was told that minority staffs are generally well pleased 

with their one-third allocation of the committee budgets and staff 

slots. 

It is also encouraging that virtually all committee Chairs are 

seeking cost-of-living adjustments for their committee staffs on par 

with COLAs, the Senate and the executive branch. If House committees are to attract and retain the best and brightest staffers 

that market has to offer, committees must appropriately compensate them. The work this institution’s employees conduct on behalf of the American people is no less important than the work conducted by their peers in the Senate and the executive branch. Their 

monthly paychecks should reflect that. 

Again, I applaud the chairman for that effort. 

It is not to say everything is perfect. One consistent complaint 

expressed to me concerns inadequate office and storage space for 

minority committee staffs. In several instances, I was told by ranking members that they are unable to hire their full staff authorizations because they lack adequate working space in which to put 

their personnel. In other instances, I learned of cramped working 

conditions, making it very difficult for minority staff to accommodate disabled visitors who come to the Capitol to see them in 

wheelchairs. 

Space problem obviously is not one that comes under the specific 

jurisdiction of this committee, but it does need to be addressed. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the allocation for the space is 

outside our jurisdiction. With that said, I hope over the next 

months we might join together to appeal to House leadership to 

make a more equitable use of space in Cannon, Longworth, Rayburn, Ford and the other office buildings to address legitimate 

needs of minority committee staffs and their visitors. 

With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman; and you may proceed. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will have some comments later. I don’t want to 

hold up the Chair and the Ranking Member. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to 

state, as my Ranking Member, that we applaud you for setting a 

positive example and evenhandedness. 

4

And if I could submit my statement for the record. 

Mr. BRADY. Just to say thank you and hope that one day we can 

reciprocate. 

The CHAIRMAN. Having choked on my coffee—friendly committee, 

but not that friendly, though—we will go to the Chair of the Education Committee, Mr. Boehner, and Ranking Member, Mr. Miller. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN BOEHNER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for the 

opportunity to come and talk to you about the committee budget 

for the Education and Workforce Committee. 

As a former member of your committee, going back some 10 

years ago, I fought diligently through all of these hearings with 

committee chairmen and the ranking members for an equitable distribution of committee funds. I can’t tell you how much enjoyment 

I had as a new Member of Congress beating up on some former 

chairmen over committees who were getting 18 and 20 percent of 

the budget and those weren’t even very accurate numbers. I believed and fought that the minority ought to have one-third of the 

resources and one-third of the committee slots; and, as I committed 

to all of you last year, as the chairman of this committee, I would 

settle for nothing less. 

So let me say thank you for your help last year and the support 

that you gave us during the 107th Congress. The support allowed 

us to go from a committee with two cell phones to one of the most 

technologically advanced and accessible committee rooms on the 

Hill. 

As we did last Congress, myself and my colleague, the Ranking 

Member, George Miller, developed our budget proposal together; 

and it certainly meets the goal of providing the minority with onethird of the resources and one-third of the committee slots with full 

autonomy over how they expend their resources. 

Our budget submission reflects, I believe, an accurate and fiscally responsible representation of what our committee needs are 

during this Congress. We are requesting a 9.9 percent increase 

over the last Congress’s allocation; and this increase will allow us 

to maintain our technological edge, bring our issues before the 

American public through official travel, web casting and to allow 

us to keep our salaries competitive. 

We hope to maintain the sophisticated technology system that we 

enjoy today. Our budget allows us to upgrade our software, our 

hardware, our communications and our web streaming equipment. 

Our request allows us to purchase off-site disaster recovery 

equipment as a backstop until the House-wide policies are instituted with regard to what would happen in the case these buildings were not accessible. 

We will also maintain a practice that we began in the 107th Congress which is to share information technology staff. We have very 

good technology staff working with Mr. Miller. There is no reason 

why they shouldn’t work for both of us, be shared employees, and 

no reason why the minority and majority shouldn’t have the same 

type of capabilities in their offices. 

5

As you may notice from the documents in front of you, we didn’t 

spend all of our allocation last Congress; and there are a few key 

reasons for that. One, we experienced a significant amount of staff 

vacancies and turnover reflecting a new chairman and a new ranking member. So during the course of those 2 years, there were vacancies that existed more often, certainly, than what we see today. 

Those slots are now by and large full, so that will have an impact. 

If that had been the case over the last 2 years, we wouldn’t have 

had those extra funds left over. 

Secondly—and I think this is the most significant factor in us not 

spending all of our allocation. We planned for costs related for committee room upgrades that in the end were paid for by separate 

resolution. But that money did, in fact, get spent in terms of technology upgrades with regard to software and hardware for both 

majority and minority staffs. 

Our budget request, thirdly, represents our actual spending practices from this last session, rising costs associated with inflation, 

wage rates and continued demand for updated technology. 

So we believe that our request is in keeping with the spirit of 

this committee to ensure that Congress is accessible to the American people and to push the envelope of technology and to hire and 

retain a high-quality staff. 

Let me just say thank you for the opportunity to be here and 

turn it over to my colleague and friend from California, Mr. Miller.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and let me begin by congratulating our new Ranking Member, Mr. Larson, on his position 

and look forward to working with him. I appreciate the opportunity 

to appear before you and the other members of the committee in 

support of Chairman Boehner’s request for our committee budget. 

While we disagree from time to time on a number of policy 

issues, there can be no disagreement about the fairness with which 

the minority has been treated in this committee and by the Committee on House Administration. It is an important change, and I 

think it is a change that is fundamental to how both sides are able 

to work with one another. 

You have made it easy and Mr. Boehner has made it easy to support these budgets now that we have that kind of allocation of resources. We have the autonomy over those resources to use them 

as we see fit, and that has been the experience of the minority in 

the Education and Workforce Committee. 

We appreciate this committee allowing for the technological upgrades. This is not a committee that has spent a lot of time on 

those issues over the past 20 years, and Mr. Boehner was willing 

to discuss those and recognize the needs, but it was certainly beyond our immediate budget at that time. But they have made a difference in the committee. 

It also allows us to inform our constituents in our home districts 

when the committee will be taking up legislation. They are able to 

view it as it is streamed and participate in those deliberations. 

I believe that the workload of this committee supports the budget 

request. This is a committee whose jurisdiction goes to the core of 

6

both parties. We will be dealing with and are currently dealing 

with welfare reform, with special education, with pension reform, 

higher education, Head Start, child nutrition and a host of additional issues; and I believe that workload and the interest by other 

Members in the Congress of that workload and our ability to respond to those Members supports this request. 

I am one of those who has talked to our ranking member about 

the question of space. We are one of those committees where the 

minority side of our committee is unable to fill our slots. We do not 

have a place to put people. We would hope we would use this committee as a conduit to talk to the leadership on behalf, if the majority has the same situation, but I know there are other minority 

members of the committee that have this situation, to see if there 

is a way to find additional space. We realize that most of the desirable space is gone, but this is just a simple question of housing 

these people so they can go to work and we can bring our staffing 

levels up to the full complement necessary to address the agenda 

of this committee. So I am here in support of it. 

I appreciate the manner in which this committee has treated our 

committee and I appreciate the manner in which Mr. Boehner has 

treated not only me but all of the members on the minority side, 

both in addressing their immediate needs as service on the committee but also with their attention to the issues of concern to 

those members. I look forward to supporting this request.

The CHAIRMAN. Before we open up to questions, I do want to 

make a note on that space. 

Under the House rules, we have the authority over space; and, 

in all reality, we don’t. We have some input. Those decisions are 

made at the leader level. 

It is a crisis point on space. There is no question about it, I 

mean, in these offices and other offices. And people are two and 

three to a room. We have had to take a back anteroom we used to 

be able to use for Members, and it is filled with not only people 

working there but a table that is used for other meetings. 

I know everybody is going through this, and I think we do need 

to have some discussions probably with the leaders to try to find 

something. I don’t know where we go. These buildings, as you 

know, were designed years ago when there were far less people, 

people didn’t necessarily interact with Washington, D.C., that 

much, didn’t have Internet. So it is something we do need to convey 

to the leaders, to find at least something temporarily until some 

space is acquired. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, clearly, I think you 

are right on the mark with that. 

Let me also applaud the two Chairs before us for their stellar example of how a committee should conduct its business. We are particularly interested as well in the shared technology approach that 

you have utilized within your committee. I think it perhaps could 

be instructive for other committees as well in the long run, to save 

on resources as well. 

My only question again would be, that I would have for the two 

of you—and, obviously, you are supportive of the budget and have 

been a great committee. If you don’t get the total number of your 

7

increase, I just assume that the same spirit of one-third/two-thirds 

will still stay in effect. 

Mr. BOEHNER. You probably shouldn’t assume that, but you are 

right. 

Listen, as I said before, I sat in this room and in the old committee room over in the Capitol and fought tooth and nail for fairness. And I recall—and I mentioned this 2 years ago when I was 

here—that there was a raging debate in late 1994 and early 1995 

over how we were going to treat the new minority. I thought then, 

that we needed to allocate for the minority one-third of the resources and one-third of the slots and if we were to do anything 

less it would not be the mark of a gentleman. 

So that is when the process started of the minority to one-third. 

Regardless of how well we do with the committee, I am not going 

to treat my colleague any differently. Whatever the numbers are, 

we will get two-thirds, he will get one third, and he’ll always be 

fighting to get the two-thirds, I am sure. 

Mr. LARSON. I appreciate your historic perspective and the great 

integrity you bring to the process. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to comment. 

I have the pleasure of serving on the Education and Workforce 

Committee. I pulled the chairman aside last week and said that I 

served on a number of committees in the House and I have never 

seen a committee that was so well run, so well administered as the 

Education and Workforce Committee has under this team. They 

both do a good job, and everything runs like clockwork. We have 

our huge debates, our distinct differences, but in terms of all the 

operations, everything flows smoothly, everything is done properly. 

It was the first committee that I am on to organize this year. So 

I have full confidence that what they have submitted is worthy of 

being funded. I can’t say it strongly enough that it is a real pleasure to serve on a committee that is so well administered. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any questions? 

One question I just might ask in closing, I would assume that if 

the two-thirds/one-third allocation is there that we would expect a 

bipartisan vote out of the Committee on Education on the floor? 

Mr. BOEHNER. I would expect that you can count on Mr. Miller 

and me to vote for it, and you can probably count on the fact that 

we will work the members of our committee. But there is no reason 

for this not to be a bipartisan effort, given that the agreement that 

we have come to on the two-thirds/one-third over the years. 

You know, if you all recall, for those of you who weren’t here—

Mr. Miller was here—this used to be a big, ugly fight every year. 

We went to a biannual process; and once we, by and large, got to 

the two-thirds/one-third, it really became a nonevent. But I don’t 

expect any troubles in terms of bipartisan support for this effort. 

I used to always ask. We had over 360 votes last time for this, and 

I think the two-thirds/one-third agreement helped things along. 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t think there is any question, Mr. Chairman, 

that that agreement has changed the whole demeanor around this 

side when it comes to the floor. It used to be viewed as an opportunity to settle a lot of other agendas. I think most of that has gone 

by the wayside. 

8

I would just say that at the end of your legislative hearings I am 

sure the ranking members will be meeting with Mr. Larson; and 

if people are being treated as we are being treated, it is our expectation that we would support this bill when it comes to the floor. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you both, gentlemen. 

While we are waiting for the next two, how about if we can—

while we are waiting for Mr. Waxman, I wanted to mention our 

own budget proposal. We have submitted a budget request that totals $10,374,000 for 

the 108th Congress. That is over a 2-year period. That was a 39 

percent increase over the 107th. We currently have a total of 45 

total slots, with the minority receiving exactly a third of the staff 

slots. So it is 30 and 15. We have requested an increase of nine 

new staff. It would be six and three—six majority and three minority; and, of course, the one-third allocation. We are the only committee that totally allocates all of it freely, I believe. 

I do want to mention that we have asked for increases for personnel, equipment, travel and administrative accounts. The reason 

I believe they are justified, in the wake of September 11, there has 

been increased focus on the continuity of House operations, emergency planning, other security-related issues. It has greatly increased the workload of both the majority and the minority, and an 

increase of staff would be appropriate and would be required. 

We will continue to serve our Members. This is a Members’ committee. And there is no question—as you all are finding out every 

time you go to vote on the floor of the House, more people will regularly come up to you and ask you for something. So we service the 

members. Maybe not always the answer they want, but we provide 

an answer to them and also with the tracking of the committees. 

But 9/11 created—and the staff knows who were here at that 

time—created work hours until 2 and 3 o’clock in the morning; and 

it was constant with the security. We don’t hope we have a situation like that again. But now ideas on security issues are being 

brought to this committee that we never, ever dreamed that we 

would deal with. Again, that is part of expected amounts of money 

that would be needed. 

With that, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Waxman is on his way and asked if I would go 

ahead, if it is okay with you. 

Mr. LARSON. If I might comment by way of saying that we are 

fully supportive of the chairman’s recommendation and to underscore what he has said with respect to the security concerns that 

have been raised both by individual staffs, by committee members, 

et cetera, just further underscores the importance of the committee’s role. 

As the chairman points out, this is and should be and under his 

leadership has very much become the Members’ committee, where 

they get to come and voice their concerns and express their desires 

to make sure it enhances the quality of work environment and the 

security that each and every one of our offices have come to expect. 

I compliment the chairman and his staff for the hard work that 

they have done in putting this together. Our staff has completely 

reviewed it and is satisfied with the mark.

Thank you. 

9

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the gentleman. 

We will proceed with chairman Tom Davis and ranking member 

Mr. Waxman. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify 

here. 

Just a little perspective on this committee. In the 103rd Congress, this was three separate full committees in the Congress. It 

was the Government Operations Committee, Post Office and Civil 

Committee and the District of Columbia Committee which, combined, had over 200 staff members. In the 105th Congress, after 

combining, went to 141 staff members. We were down to 131 staffers in the 107th, and then down to 118 is where we are today. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As a 

new chairman, I greatly appreciate the advice and assistance provided by Chairman Ney and his staff in preparing our primary expense resolution. I also want to thank our Ranking Member, Henry 

Waxman, for his insights and suggestions in crafting the committee’s reform agenda and our request for the 108th Congress. 

Whether under Democratic or Republican leadership, for the first 

time in the history of the Committee on Government Reform our 

minority will receive 33 percent of staff and budget. 

Today, 44 Members of Congress comprise the House Committee 

on Government Reform. The committee has put together a very aggressive agenda that includes both oversight and increased legislative responsibilities. Reform of the Federal Government is a monumental task and can appear overwhelming at first glance. However, I think you will see that we have put together a comprehensive but achievable agenda that will bring us a long way toward 

improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Government. 

We have reorganized our seven subcommittees and their jurisdictions in an attempt to focus on long-term reform challenges. As our 

oversight plan suggests we will focus on the following: 

As the government and our country shifts its focus in order to 

tighten our borders and increase our vigilance, this committee will 

be doing everything it can to enhance the government’s computer 

and information security, something we have been lacking in the 

past. Last year’s passage of FISMA, the Federal Information Security Management Act, was only the first step. We plan to closely 

oversee implementation of FISMA, including development of new 

OMB guidance, the establishment of agency testing and evaluation 

plans and the development and promulgation of information security standards. 

We are also committed to improving government procurement 

and contracting practices. Government spends $140 billion a year 

on services. We save 10 percent of that. That is real money as we 

look at the way that we procure and buy items, particularly in the 

services sector. 

I was a government contracts lawyer before I came to Congress. 

I was general counsel for a billion dollar company. Our staff has 

considerable expertise in this area as well. We have brought over 

10

some of the leading procurement attorneys from the Senate side to 

help us, and we intend to utilize this exercise to realize real reform 

in the procurement area. 

One of the first things we need to do is educate agencies about 

procurement practices, and our Services Acquisition Reform Act is 

intended to do just that. This bill will provide agencies greater access to commercial markets, particularly in the fields of services 

and technology, by educating agency acquisition workforces, creating chief acquisition officers and emphasizing performance-based 

contracting. 

This is so important because, today, government computer systems are stovepipes that within an agency can talk to each other 

but don’t speak across platforms to other agencies and to State and 

local governments with whom they interact. This is a major problem in government; and if we can solve this and get to procurement 

practices that make this viable, we are doing I think a tremendous 

service to governance. It is not a headline-grabbing thing, but very 

important for governance. 

The Homeland Security Act has a number of provisions that this 

committee intends to monitor closely, including the personnel reforms and the procurement flexibilities in the legislation. Successful implementation of these provisions could lead to similar reforms 

government-wide in subsequent legislation, and we intend to make 

sure that this happens. 

Reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and 

international interdiction policies are also a factor in our legislative 

and oversight agenda. 

Also, we will invest considerable time and energy into integrating performance and accountability into the management practices of the Federal Government. The Government Performance 

and Results Act of 1993 celebrates its tenth anniversary this year. 

We are working with our Senate counterparts and the GAO to 

evaluate the impact of the legislation in improving government performance. 

We also have a number of postal items in front of us. When you 

take a look at the Post Office, it is almost 9 percent of the U.S. 

economy. The President has a commission right now on postal reform that should report back in the next few months, and we will 

pursue and look at the direction that is taking and work with Mr. 

Waxman in a bipartisan manner. 

And this is an issue we will have to tackle. We have major legislation coming to the House floor in the next few weeks that will 

ensure that we do not have a postal rate increase for the next 4 

years. 

The oversight and investigative activities I have just laid out represent a drastic change from previous activities of this committee, 

but if we can handle our funds carefully, I think we can accomplish 

our goals with only a 3.8 percent increase from last year’s allotment. From the first session to the second session, our request is 

for a 4 percent increase. Along with standard cost of living benefits 

that are required to keep an experienced staff, I think our expense 

requests adequately reflect the financial needs of the committee for 

both years. Mr. Waxman and I both jointly request a five slot staff 

11

increase for 2004 to satisfy subcommittee ranking members’ desire 

for more staff. 

The request for funds in the areas of equipment, telecom and 

others is to update and enhance communications that we have now. 

Just to sum up, in the 107th Congress, we had 200 hearings in 

Washington, 42 field hearings. In the 108th Congress, with the active oversight agenda, we plan to hold even more hearings; and our 

travel budget request reflects this. Rather than resigning to an Inside the Beltway perspective, we feel that many of the committee’s 

oversight and investigative activities can much more effectively be 

conducted through field investigations and hearings. A broad-based 

witness pool will give us the chance to hear testimony from Americans that are not affiliated with a special interest group and doing 

this, again, with close cooperation of the minority. 

In summary, I ask the members of the committee to recognize 

our agenda is more comprehensive and more vital than ever before. 

We have taken a conservative approach. I have given you the history. The funding of this committee has gone steadily down, but we 

think we can—with what we have we think we can adequately 

manage a very ambitious agenda. 

On behalf of the members of the committee and along with my 

distinguished colleague, the Ranking Member, Henry Waxman, we 

would appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from California. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Larson, members of 

the committee. I join with Chairman Davis in supporting the funding request for our committee. 

In the past, I have expressed concern regarding the fairness of 

the budget process in our particular committee. In 1995, upon taking control of the House, the Republicans said they were going to 

give each of the committee minorities one-third of the resources. 

Yet for several consecutive Congresses following this pledge, the 

Government Reform Committee majority requested only a 25 percent share of the budget for the Democratic minority. The majority 

then used accounting gimmicks to inaccurately inflate its minority 

budget allocation. 

In the last Congress there was a shift—and I think to a great 

extent because of the work of this committee—in the majority 

budget practices, and the minority allocation increased. I am 

pleased that Chairman Davis is continuing this trend by asking for 

a 33 percent minority allocation. Moreover, he has been working 

closely with the minority in developing the committee agenda and 

conducting committee business; and I appreciate chairman Davis’ 

professionalism and bipartisan efforts. 

But, by the way, when we talk about professionalism, that means 

consultation. It means trying to work things out and putting partisanship aside. I was just informed a while ago that the Budget 

Committee is looking at asking our Government Reform Committee 

to come up with $70 billion in savings. Now I was never consulted 

by the Budget Committee. I don’t know if Mr. Davis had been conVerDate jul 14 2003 22:53 Sep 10, 2003 Jkt 089055 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B055.XXX B055
12

sulted by them. I don’t know where we get $70 billion of savings. 

Are we going to take it out of the pensions of Federal employees? 

Are we going to take it away from the Postal Service? It seems to 

me that our job is going to be impossible if that budget proposal 

goes through. 

Full funding of Chairman Davis’ request is imperative. We are 

facing tremendous challenges in our committee. We have an ambitious legislative agenda which includes reforms of the laws governing civil service, property management, procurement and the 

Postal Service; and, with the exception of the Postal Service, these 

laws have not received serious congressional consideration in years. 

If we receive the resources we need and do our job right, we will 

improve the effectiveness of government and save the taxpayers literally billions of dollars, but I will tell you it is not going to be $70 

billion unless we act and eliminate essential services. 

Besides this ambitious legislative agenda, we have vital oversight 

responsibilities. Chairman Davis has planned more oversight on a 

broad range of topics than the committee pursued in previous 

years. Hearings over the next month, for example, explore the risk 

of the file-sharing programs like Kazaa, contract mismanagement 

at the Department of Energy, on-line distribution of dangerous 

pharmaceuticals, and homeland security coordination in the Capital region. Each of these topics is vitally important and each requires significant staff resources. 

Besides strongly supporting the Chairman’s budget request, I 

also want to bring to your attention one other issue, the need for 

additional office space for the minority staff. While we are now 

being allocated 33 percent of the staff slots, we are actually having 

difficulty filling all of the slots because we are running out of space 

to put the people. Anything that this committee can do to improve 

this situation would be very helpful. 

I appreciate this opportunity to come before you. I must tell you, 

it is a good feeling for me to be able to come on a bipartisan basis 

and urge this committee to adopt what I think is a reasonable, fair 

and conservative budget proposal for our committee to operate just 

to do the job that has been assigned to us.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Chair and the Ranking Member. 

I want to make a note, we told Education and Workforce, space 

is at a crisis point in this Capitol; and, of course, some of the space 

right now is being taken due to the construction at the Visitors 

Center. Even with that, these buildings were designed years ago. 

As I pointed out to the last Chair and Ranking Member, you know, 

30, 40, 50 years ago, people didn’t necessarily travel to D.C. as 

much. There wasn’t an Internet. And now America, thank goodness—these are open, they are televised, Internet. It also causes a 

definite need for staff and a certain workload for all the committees 

because they do important things that people care about across this 

Nation, frankly, and part of the world. 

We have got some jurisdiction, but, technically—on a technical 

basis, the decisions are made at the leaders’ level. I think Members 

of this committee on both sides of the aisle will try to find some 

kind of space, because it is bad everywhere. So it is well noted. 

Mr. LARSON. Let me echo the sentiments of the chairman. I don’t 

believe there are too many staff people from whom we haven’t 

13

heard where space is an issue. And what the chairman has articulated, this is an effort we will take up with leadership, though not 

completely under our direct jurisdiction, although it says so in the 

rules. 

Let me also applaud the two of you for your outstanding work 

in Congress, and Mr. Waxman, especially. Sometimes we are humbled by your experience and depth of experience and also the historic perspective that Tom Davis brings to every encounter he is in 

and your bold agenda. Moving that agenda outside the Beltway is 

one that I think would be commended. Hopefully, more committees, 

though they don’t have quite the agenda you have, follow that example as well. There, again, that points to the need for more funding and the need for staff and spending as well. So, you know, we 

certainly concur with your efforts. 

I especially want to applaud you for the issue of commonality of 

communication, which I know is near and dear to your heart, especially within the Beltway, and the homeland security issues that 

represents, as we hear from Eleanor on a regular basis with regard 

to that as well. I thank you both in that spirit. I have been asking 

all the chairmen this, without being too redundant, again, we are 

so grateful for the work of this chairman and the way that he has 

established and been firm on the one-third/two-thirds rule, but in 

the event that we don’t get what we want, I assume——

Mr. DAVIS. That allocation number will be the same. 

Mr. LARSON. What President Kennedy used to say when he 

quoted Peter Finley Dunne, said, trust everyone but cut the cards. 

So those are the kind of questions that have to be asked in those 

situations. 

But thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your integrity and Mr. Waxman for appearing here today. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed a pleasure to know that the contentious aura by which the 

Government Reform Committee has once been seen across this 

country has now abated and that we come together in the commonality of serving the people through the Government Reform office—or Committee, I should say. 

I am interested to—and I must applaud you, Mr. Chairman and 

the Ranking Member, for saying that you have had so many field 

hearings. Because it is important that folks who are unable to travel to Washington get an opportunity to speak on issues that are so 

relevant to this committee, and it is important for you to be in the 

field. I would like to recommend that one of your first hearings be 

in my district so that we can have the people draw from the expertise of both of you, the collegiality that they have not seen in the 

previous committees. 

I also thank you for informing us that the Postal Service increase—we will not service Postal Service increases, and I hope 

not, because——

Mr. DAVIS. We will see service increase but no rate increase. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Well, that is good news, because 

each time we try to go about getting anything through Postal—our 

post office, there are certain increases that are done, and so we are 

hopeful—grateful for that. 

14

Mr. Chairman, it seems that if this is going to become a sweet 

refrain with both the Chairs and the Ranking Members coming 

forth on this office space, would it be in our purview to send a letter to leadership saying that this has been a constant request by 

the Chairs and Ranking Members? Is that something we can possibly do? 

The CHAIRMAN. To answer the gentlelady’s question, I think it is 

something we can definitely note to them. There are some ways 

that we can get together as committee members to discuss some 

options, at least some temporary relief. 

Homeland security is coming up. Not only is that brand new to 

our entire budget process that we have been given that duty—

which is important—where are they going to be at? Where are they 

going to put them? So that has to be settled. 

But I think some temporary measure. I understand these buildings are full. Maybe we can, Congresswoman, come up with some 

ideas and bring it to the leadership. 

Mr. BRADY. Just a thought out loud that the Chairman and the 

Ranking Member are a little happy about with the cooperation of 

the Budget Committee. I think they really have arrived when they 

asked you for their cooperation when they have a $70 billion surplus. 

Mr. WAXMAN. If they are going to give us instructions, which is 

what happens under the budget process, for a committee to make 

cuts, I can’t see why they wouldn’t have talked to even the chairman of the committee, let alone the Democrats on the committee, 

to get some sense of what that might mean. No postal increase—

well, I don’t think we are going to have a post office if we have to 

make cuts of that magnitude. I want to find out more what they 

have in mind. But the idea they would be putting something out 

like that without talking to us is to me the most troublesome aspect. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions? 

I thank you. 

Next up is—we can take Mr. Young. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Oberstar is on his way, but I am going to suggest—I am not sure if you are interested in it or not, but some of 

you may want to have your pictures taken at 1 o’clock. 

Mr. Oberstar has cleared this. We have worked together, and I 

believe we are on the same wave length, and I won’t speak for him. 

We just left a press conference. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I do thank you and members of this committee. I am honored to be before you. 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as you 

know, is the largest committee in Congress. Members of Congress 

want to serve on this committee because it addresses the needs of 

their constituency and helps build a modern transportation system 

for our Nation which I think is crucially important for the continued growth of this Nation. 

In recent years, we have seen the quality of life slowly eroding, 

like paint peeling from a girder of a rusted, time-weary bridge. Our 

15

State and local governments are straining under the burden of 

growing population and congested roadways. We lose approximately $70 billion a year because of congestion, down the drain; 

and if we don’t try to improve this transportation system, we will 

lose more and the economy will in fact be hurt. 

All our transportation systems are crucially important, including 

water, air and highways, train, mass transit; and, of course, the 

ability for moving passengers on fast rail is very, very important. 

Our committee also handles the water and sewer systems in this 

country. We are going to pass a water bill this year which is crucially important; and, very frankly, if we don’t do it, we are losing 

more water today than we are consuming, again because we have 

not kept up with this program. 

We need the resources. I am not going to sit here and say we 

have the ability to do these things without these resources. We are 

going to reauthorize the highway and transit, aviation, water resources programs. That means field hearings. 

We have six subcommittees: Subcommittee on Aviation, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines; Subcommittee on 

Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management; Subcommittee on Railroads; Subcommittee on Water Resources. 

We also have oversight and investigations efforts underway 

again. 

Additional resources are essential to maintain our long history of 

providing excellent service to our Members, of producing thoroughly researched and effective legislation, and of attracting and 

maintaining highly qualified staff. 

I know you have heard this many times before, but I think we 

have one of the finest staff on both sides of the aisle of any committee. And this is a very bipartisan committee. I think you can 

check with Mr. Oberstar. We work well together. We don’t always 

agree on all things, but we work things out. Rarely have we had 

a vote that has really been contentious. We try to solve problems 

ahead of time. 

Last year we have been through things we never foresaw. 

As far as legislation, we had to pass the TSA legislation which 

is not my shining light, by the way, but it was required; and we 

are trying to review that under Homeland Security, the new select 

committee which I serve on. But we also passed the Airline Stabilization Act, the Port Security Act, the Railroad Retirement Act; 

and we were really busy last year because we didn’t know that 

some of these things were coming up. But the committee rose to 

the occasion, the staff rose to the occasion, and I believe we have 

a fine outfit. 

Our increased funding request for travel as a result of planned 

field hearings again is very, very important. Our respect for $8.7 

million in 2003 and $8.9 million in 2004, for a total of $17 million, 

is what we need to carry out our legislative and oversight functions 

of this Congress. 

And I want to thank our good friend and colleague—he will come 

here eventually—Jim Oberstar. We continue again, as I said, to 

work very close in a bipartisan effort. Congressman Oberstar and 

16

his staff have been helpful in developing the proposed budget, and 

I appreciate his assistance. 

While I cannot foresee the future, the next 2 years offer the twin 

promises of great progress and great challenge. We expect them to 

be busy, productive and ask that when you will be considering our 

funding request, also consider the additional resources required for 

the largest committee in the 108th Congress. I believe this has 

been submitted to you. I won’t go over it. You have seen the request, and I want you to consider it. 

This is a committee that has an outstanding record of achieving 

goals in a bipartisan way. I had another committee such as this 

committee in the old Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. 

That was a committee that never lost a vote on the floor. We always solved the problems prior to coming to a vote in the committee. We did have people dissenting, but there was a bipartisan 

majority of both Democrats and Republicans. When I was in the 

minority, Democrats treated me very well. This is sort of carrying 

on the tradition of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the Chair; and then what we 

will do is, after questions, move on to Small Business. When Mr. 

Oberstar comes in, we will just have him come up. 

Mr. YOUNG. If he says anything different than what I have said, 

let me know. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are also my chairman, and I enjoy serving 

on your committee. I think you do a fine job. And it is getting a 

little more difficult. Some of my roads are a little more bumpy in 

Ohio, and maybe we can make out a smoother ride to D.C. 

Mr. YOUNG. I am willing to listen to everybody’s suggestions. 

The CHAIRMAN. And everybody will have one. It is a well-run 

committee, and it has been a pleasure to be on it. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and let me as well applaud Mr. Young and Mr. Obserstar for your long-standing reputation of working in a bipartisan manner to accomplish the collective 

goals of the United States of America and forwarding what are important infrastructure issues for this country. 

Your plate, as you indicate, is full. Your agenda is both ambitious 

but laudatory, especially given these times of national concerns and 

infrastructure concerns as it relates to getting our people to and 

from their destinations and keeping the flow of commerce at a level 

that will only help to assist and propel our economy as we move 

forward. 

We have spoken with Mr. Oberstar who also sings your praises 

for the kind of cooperation and work. We may disagree on some 

issues, but, as you say, you work it out. So that stands as a model 

for a way to get things done here. 

The question I have asked all the Chairmen—and Chairman Ney 

is to be credited for, as you point out, the way you were treated. 

He is treating all committees fairly with the two-thirds/one-third 

allocation. 

The concern is and the question we have asked—and I hope you 

appreciate the spirit of the question—if for some reason we don’t 

17

get all the funding that you like and request, is it your intent to 

still keep the one-third/two-thirds distribution? 

Mr. YOUNG. It is my intent to keep the one-third/two-thirds allocation. 

Mr. LARSON. I thank you for the continued integrity you bring to 

the process. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to 

speak highly of Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar, 

of which I serve on this committee, for their bipartisanship. Not all 

the time do we agree on everything, but it appears to be—and from 

the standpoint of the public and the public’s interest in transportation, they are very pleased. 

I can speak from California, because we have lots of Californians 

this week. I can say the staff on both sides, when the Californians 

come to town, they take the time to visit with them. So that is really an asset that we have in the Transportation Committee, that 

you take the time to meet with Californians who are coming here 

to seek some type of guidance as we prepare for the reauthorization 

of T–21 and also AIR–21. 

I thank you so much, Mr. Chairman; and whatever they want, 

give it to them. 

Mr. YOUNG. If I could make one side comment. Keep in mind this 

is going to be a very interesting challenge, because there are those 

who don’t want to have the appropriate amount of moneys to do 

the program. 

I am pleased. I believe that the budget committee has reached 

agreement with us that they will give us the ability to go out and 

try to sell our program to raise the money. That is going to take 

heavy lifting, but this is a necessity for this country. Our transportation system is in a deplorable state. We have made progress, but 

we have a lot further to go. 

We throw away $70 billion a year just in congestion alone. At 

four tanks of gas for every car that should never be spent for just 

sitting still, you have four tanks of gas at $2 a gallon, and are talking about $300 wasted. That is not good economics. That is not the 

right thing to do, and we have to address that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions? 

We will move on to Small Business. Welcome. 

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

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Minority Member 

and members of the Committee on House Administration, I am 

pleased to testify in support of our funding request to cover the expenses of legislative initiatives, studies, technical upgrades and 

oversight investigations of the Committee on Small Business for 

2003 and 2004 in the amounts of $3,006,329 and 3,211,884 respectively. 

The committee will be working on critical issues impacting small 

business. The committee will continue its role as an advocate for 

small businesses, ensuring small business interests are defined and 

taken into consideration during all stages of development of public 

policy and legislative initiatives. 

18

Legislatively, the committee will work on reauthorizing the programs of the SBA this year. In addition, the committee plans to 

look at other critical issues including but not limited to, increasing 

small business participation in Federal procurement, reigning in 

the spiraling cost in health care for small businesses, tax and regulatory relief for small businesses and opening up more avenues for 

small businesses to access capital. 

In addition, we are going to have a series of at least six hearings 

involving the loss of manufacturing base in America staring with 

the hearing on March 26th, as to why the Air Force is buying titanium from Russia as opposed to the three American firms—two in 

Ohio and one in Western Pennsylvania causing the destruction of 

hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. It is going to be a series of very 

contentious hearings. But it is absolutely necessary because if we 

don’t try to reestablish the manufacturing base in this country, we 

are not going to have much of a country left. And that is why we 

are asking for an increase because of the tremendous amount of 

work is being done in preparation for these hearings. 

Finally, the committee will have a particular focus on revitalizing 

our Nation’s small manufacturing base. Despite our increased legislative pace and our aggressive agenda, the committee funding resolution represents a serious effort to keep committee spending in 

line without compromising our mission. As in previous years, the 

minority’s requests have been incorporated into the committee 

budget proposal. 

The committee has a history of bipartisan cooperation, a tradition that has been continued ever since I became chairman. The 

committee has passed its rules, its oversight plan and adopted 

views and estimates of the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request. Since the Republicans gained the majority, the minority has 

received one-third of the committee staff slots and control over 

third of the personnel budget. I intend to maintain these ratios 

during the 108th Congress. By comparison, during the 103rd Congress Republicans, then the minority, received 22 percent in 1993 

and 25 percent in 1994 of the personnel budget. 

Of the majority staff positions, there are three administrative, 

nonpartisan in nature: The chief clerk, who handles hearing arrangements; the systems administrator, who oversees the maintenance of the committee Web site; the finance clerk, who looks after 

all committee finances. Unlike some other committees, we count 

these positions against the majority staff allocation. As in the past, 

the committee will see the resource needs of minority are met. In 

fact, all their requested needs have been incorporated into this 

budget resolution, including a long-standing request for an additional staff slot. 

My predecessor ran this committee in a fiscally responsible manner in the 106th Congress, and I intend to carry on the traditions 

to ensure the resources are available to support the committee’s 

mission. With the proposed spending increase in H. Res. 83 may 

appear large at first, this committee is still the second smallest in 

terms of personnel and funding in terms of any standing committee 

in the House. Yet this committee oversees and has direct responsibility, not just for the $800 million spend by the SBA, which 

leverages over $20 billion in lending to small businesses, but also 

19

for the $50 billion spent by all Federal agencies to purchase goods 

and services from small businesses across the country. 

As the committee will recall it was the Small Business Committee that held 41⁄2-hour hearing, wherein the Army had contracted with several foreign nations to manufacture the black beret 

for our fighting men and women. As a result of bipartisan effort, 

we canceled most of those contracts, returned the Army, at least 

for that contract, to following the Berry amendment, and thus restored hundreds of U.S. manufacturing jobs. 

We will continue to have more hearings on why our own government isn’t following our own procurement requirements and as we 

do that, that helps restore jobs to our manufacturing sector. When 

you compare the jurisdiction of the Small Business Committee to 

other similar committees, like Veterans Affairs or Science, which 

have more staff and a higher committee budget to oversee agencies 

with smaller budgets, H.R. 83 simply attempts to bring some equity to the situation. 

I see that my time is up here. And I will take any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

We will now have testimony of the ranking member, Ms. Velazquez. 

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

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Democratic 

Member Larson, and members of the committee. I am grateful for 

the opportunity to testify before you today regarding the budget request for this Committee on Small Business in the 108th Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that makes our economy truly 

unique is the critical role that small businesses play in job creation 

and overall growth. In times of recession, corporate America sheds 

jobs, while small business creates them. In short, small business is 

big business in America. 

Chairman Manzullo has set out an aggressive agenda to help the 

most important economic driver in this Nation: Small business. 

First, we will undertake the most sweeping overhaul of the SBA in 

over a decade. Our committee also oversees the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which requires agencies to consider the impact their 

rules have on small businesses. Last year there were several high 

profile proposals and regulations that did not comply with RegFlex 

from agencies like EPA, CMS, and the IRS. And this year I expect 

to see more. It is these big issues that will consume much of our 

time. 

As the ultimate generalist, our committee is like no other in Congress. We have to know about and advise on trade and tax policy 

with the same expertise as the Ways and Means Committee. We 

have to understand worker training and health care as well as the 

Education and the Work Force Committee, and be experts on our 

Nation’s financial markets, much like the Financial Services Committee. 

What this means is that our committee must assemble a team 

of experts, which takes funds to attract and retain them. Even in 

today’s weak economy, whether it is a young lawyer or an individual with years of experience, they can all command salaries upVerDate jul 14 2003 22:53 Sep 10, 2003 Jkt 089055 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B055.XXX B055
20

wards of $100,000. This reality is reflected in the fact that the majority of our budget needs are in the salary department. 

This budget will also help the committee make up for lost ground 

from previous Congresses when the funding provided was clearly 

insufficient. I fear that if we fall any further behind, we will not 

be able to serve our members, or this country’s small businesses. 

We are also requesting an increase of three slots, one for the minority and two for the majority. This is critical to bring on a paid 

professional staff to focus on entrepreneurial development, since 

more than one-third of the SBA focuses on these programs, including the small business development centers, women’s business centers, one-stop capital shops, and the Veterans Assistance Program. 

Currently, this area is split among staff, staff who manage other 

small business issues such as tax, health care, pensions and technology, as well as our primary jurisdiction over the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

It is an immense responsibility that due to competing requests 

doesn’t always get the due diligence that is required. There is also 

a need to clarify a misconception that has existed since I became 

ranking Democratic member. One of the rationales for the limited 

number of slots, 31, was that the minority’s administrative needs 

are handled through the majority’s administrative staff. While 

there is a good flow of information between our offices, the fact is 

that given the realities of our operation, we have had to use one 

of our slots for an administrative position, making the need for another slot all the more pressing. 

The additional funding and slots will allow us to address these 

issues and will bring the committee in line with other committees 

in terms of staffing, like Veterans Affairs. Even with the addition 

of 3 slots, our aggressive agenda will expect us to do more with 

less. That is why the other requests contained in this year’s budget 

are for additional resources that are not at the committee’s disposal. If we are to get by with a low staffing level, then we must 

have the right tools. The budget request includes funds for important research items like Lexus Nexus, Congressional Quarterly, 

and various critical industry journals that the committee, due to 

budget constraints has never been able to afford. 

There are also technology upgrades for equipment and for our 

Web sites. Mr. Chairman, I know that you are aware of how invaluable the Internet has become for our constituency. Many times 

our Web sites are the best source of information for small businesses to gain an understanding of how Federal policy impacts 

them. We do not have a person dedicated to handling Web site design and maintenance. This task is not only time consuming, but 

also requires a high level of expertise. Given this, we are also requesting funding to hire a consultant to revamp and maintain our 

sites 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to thank you and Ranking 

Democratic Member Larson for this opportunity. If we are going to 

climb out of the current recession, small businesses will have to 

play a critical role. We can help them, but our committee needs the 

resources outlined in this budget request. I hope that you both 

agree. In this way we can best serve the backbone of this Nation’s 

economy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

21

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentlelady from New York and the 

gentleman from Illinois.

Questions? 

Mr. LARSON. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me compliment 

you on your aggressive agenda moving forward. I share your concerns with respect to manufacturing and I especially, again, appreciate the manner in which, in talking with staff, the minority has 

been extended the kinds of one-third/two-thirds opportunity that is 

essential for us to function appropriately. 

Representative Velazquez, let me also again compliment you on 

the outreach work that you have done, especially for women and 

minorities. I know how important that is not only to my district, 

but to every district around the country. As both of you have stated, your committee is the backbone and will provide the impetus 

for any economic recovery that we experience. My question, I have 

asked this of every person that has come before us both from the 

Chair’s perspective, in the event you don’t get everything that is 

asked for in the budget, is it still your objective to have a one third/

two third? 

Mr. MANZULLA. Absolutely. 

Mr. LARSON. Representative Velazquez, I know last year there 

were some concerns in reading through some of the notes that you 

had with respect to this. You have obviously seen changes. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes, there have been positive changes. And my 

office was consulted and we were able to provide input into the 

whole drafting of the budget process. The only area where I need 

to see some improvement is for the minority staff to be able, and 

myself, to look at the budget submission once it is submitted. And 

that didn’t happen. And we were allowed to go into the office and 

look at the budget submission for 2 hours, I guess, and by doing 

that, we were able to catch a mistake regarding minority staff of 

$100,000. And I will suggest that next year and the following 

years, we are allowed to look at the budget submission once it has 

been submitted. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking 

member, it is good to see my Chair and my ranking member, of 

which I serve as a ranking member on a subcommittee for this 

committee. This is an absolutely incredible committee because this 

committee has gone beyond the pale. They are reaching out to minorities like never before, thanks to the ranking member Nydia 

Velazquez, and also the sensitivity to the chairman, in allowing 

this type of exchange to happen. 

We are very grateful to both of you for trying to extend the manufacturing base. We do know that is where jobs come from. And as 

you have both said so eloquently, the job creation is the manner 

about which small businesses operate, and they are the ones who 

really create more jobs. So, again, Mr. Chairman, I am very 

pleased, I was going to raise the question that my ranking member 

has raised, and now that you seem to be pretty much satisfied with 

the manner by which this process has taken place, I would say 

just, Mr. Chairman, give them what they want. That is what I said 

for the Transportation Committee, so I will say that again. 

22

Mr. MANZULLO. If I could add this footnote. Our request would 

bring the Small Business just over the level it was funded at in the 

103rd Congress, making up for the 34 percent cut we received in 

1995, the next Congress. So it is really restoring back to where we 

were before. In the last year, we held at the full committee level, 

I think it was 51 or 52 hearings. With the exception of the first 

hearing which was the organization meeting, those hearings, Mrs. 

Velazquez and I, I think, agreed on almost every issue that we 

were involved in. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I just would like to echo 

what the chairman is explaining here. We got in, regarding the 

funding level of 1993. Please make a note that our committee never 

recovered from that funding level of 1993. And believe me, it is 

wonderful to hear my members and every Member of the House of 

Representatives go out there and praise small businesses but, you 

know, we need to continue to create growth in our economy, and 

the only way to do that is by providing the resources that we need 

to do our job. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?

Mr. BRADY. Yes Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the courtesy and the cooperation 

that they showed me while I was a member on that committee. I 

want to thank you. 

Mr. MANZULLO. We miss you guys. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member. We will move on. Thank you very much. We will move on to 

Mr. Oberstar, ranking member of Transportation, which I serve on 

the committee and enjoyed my time working with Ranking Member 

Oberstar. With that, Mr. Young has been in and said that you 

know, he echoes, or you echo everything he said. So it is yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES OBERSTAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. We miss you from our committee, Mr. 

Chairman. And I am sorry to be delayed. I got the wrong starting 

time for this event and I checked and they said you are running 

behind. At any rate, I do support the budget that the chairman has 

submitted. And frankly, he called it a modest increase, I would call 

it a meager increase. We need the money to provide a cost of living 

adjustment for our staff and to pay as we have done on each side 

incentive bonuses to reward superior performance. We also have to 

keep our technology up to date with the changes that occur so we 

can process these volumes of data that pour into this committee on 

all the programs over which we have jurisdiction, and to conduct 

both Washington and field oversight hearings, which members are 

beseeching us to conduct throughout the country. 

I heard Chairman Manzullo talk about the treatment of the minority in the 1993 and 1994 years. Our committee has always operated on a basis of fairness, and in fact, before the one-third rule 

was adopted, I was administrator of the Public Works Committee 

staff, I just talked to the Republicans and said what do you need. 

And then we went to the House Administration Committee and got 

the funds that they needed to do their job, and that the majority 

needs to do its job. We have continued that bipartisan spirit in the 

23

Committee on Public Works over all the years. We don’t have our 

own budget for travel and equipment. That is not new. That preceded the Republican majority, but just as in the past where we 

treated the Republicans fairly, they have treated the Democrats 

fairly. 

So I have no concerns about how those expenses will be distributed. But to justify that, just think of where we are, we will have 

$500 billion in authorizations to accomplish in the 2 years of this 

Congress; the $375 billion Federal highway and transit program, 

45 to $50 billion for aviation; we have an $80 billion high speed rail 

program; passenger inner city rail that we reported out of subcommittee doesn’t get to the House floor last year, we are determined to bring in this year; $5 billion for Coast Guard, another $4 

billion for homeland security; 41⁄2 to $5 billion Water Resources Development Act and all the programs that you were familiar with, 

and Ms. Millender-McDonald is familiar with. 

And an interest that you and I share, Mr. Chairman, and that 

is steel. The Buy America provision that we include year after year, 

that I initiated in 1982, has meant 40 million tons of American 

steel going into the Federal Aid Highway Program. If we achieve 

the levels of increase in investment that we are seeking to create 

for the highway and transit system that will mean nearly 3 million 

tons a year of American steel going into the Federal Aid Highway 

Program, every year for the next 6 years, all American steel, every 

guardrail, every fence post, every I beam, every rebar that you see 

in highways in America is American steel. It is not foreign steel. 

And we have got to tighten those restrictions on our transit system to ensure that we get an even higher participation in transit. 

We had lost so much overseas. If we go ahead with the high speed 

inner city rail system, that will mean another million to 2 million 

tons a year of American steel going into the rails that are needed 

to build that system. We have a lot at stake in our respective districts as well as for the good of this country. All of those programs 

mean improved productivity, reducing congestion, and reducing the 

cost of logistics in our national economy. 

Fifteen years ago, logistics consumed 16 percent of our gross domestic product. Today, because of the investments we have made 

in highway and transit system, logistics consume 10 percent of our 

GDP. That is a $600 billion savings a year to our national economy 

because of the programs that we have crafted in our committee. We 

need the funding for our staff to continue to do that high level professional service to America. We thank you for your consideration. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the ranking member for testimony. Questions? 

Mr. LARSON. Let me also thank the ranking member and leader 

in the infrastructure issues that face this country. Chairman 

Young, as was pointed out by our chairman, testified earlier and 

spoke eloquently about the bipartisan cooperation and how well the 

committee has worked, and especially with its emphasis to both enhance commerce across this country and transport Americans to 

and from work and across this country and whether by rail, whether it by air, by water or by automobile or highway. 

Again, the committee is to be commended, and Mr. Chairman, 

you are to be commended for your emphasis here. We applaud the 

24

works and the committee in the way that you are able to obtain 

by partisan cooperation. And I just assume from your remarks that 

you are quite satisfied, however meager, with the increase in the 

budget. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. Yes, indeed. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, thank you and ranking member. Mr. Oberstar, as we have all said before you got here, 

kudos to you, and the Chairman, for the bipartisan way in which 

you run the committee and the efficiency by which you and the expertise that you bring to the committee, but the overall committee 

and how it is run is a credit to both of you. I serve on the committee and I have enjoyed serving on the committee. When you 

speak about the 4 million tons of steel, and we know that a lot of 

our steel companies are going out of business, can we then—are 

you suggesting that the steel that will be included in transportation projects around this country will still be U.S. steel, given the 

fact that a lot of the steel has been coming from other countries, 

especially China? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes indeed. The Federal Aid Highway Act requires American steel to be used in our Federal aid highway system. As you drive along the highway system in California, look at 

the guardrails; that is American steel. Look at the fence post that 

enclose the right-of-way; that is American steel. The reinforcing rod 

that goes into the concrete base; that is American steel. Look under 

the overpasses as you go along and you see the I beams; that is 

all American steel. It is required. It is part of our law it says it 

will be American steel. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. That practice will continue in light 

of the fact that a lot of our steel companies are going out of business? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We won’t get a bill out of our committee. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I love it. The oversight hearings 

that you speak of, and certainly I would like to put my first bid 

in for one in my district, are you suggesting to us that the travel 

funds have not been extended to the minority side? Or can you further explain that? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We don’t control the separate travel budget. And 

that is—if we make a request of the chairman, he has approved for 

the member to travel on official business as part of another delegation. For example we have worked that out. That hasn’t been a 

problem. But when we do congressional field hearings, they are 

jointly approved in our committee. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. So it is applicable? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank your for your time and your testimony before the committee and the job you do in the committee. 

Also there was a great bipartisan vote for this funding resolution 

on the floor. We appreciate that. I would assume it would have 

support, I would hope on the measure. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You give us an adequate budget, we will get an 

adequate vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is an adequate answer. 

25

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Just one thought. Mr. Young stated 

that if the budget does not have the funding that we need to move 

on the various projects, and I know again staff has met with a lot 

of Californians, which we who are here, are concerned about in 

terms of the reauthorization of TEA–21. He says that he hopes that 

we can go outside and sell the products, sell the bid for this funding for the transportation bill? Is that something that you are and 

will be, I guess you feel that this is something that we should do 

and will do? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, indeed. We have started at the beginning of 

the year. We had a major gathering of all the groups who support 

transportation from transit to rail to aviation, and not only the contractors and builders and the public agencies, but also the labor organizations and the building trades and the steelworkers union, 

and others came together. And we had another gathering about 2 

weeks ago, rallied the troops and get them to support our $375 billion program. 

We had a news conference just prior to this event announcing the 

results of two separately conducted public opinion polls that 

showed two-thirds of the American public support an increase in 

the highway user fee, if that money goes into highways and transit. 

And that means maintaining the fire walls and the guaranteed account to ensure that those dollars do go into the purpose for which 

the user fee is collected. And we have seen the benefit of it. 

In the last 5 years because of the guaranteed account, we have invested $135 billion in highway and transit programs in just 5 

years. In the 42 years of the Internet Highway Program, we invested $114 billion. We have done more in 5 years than we did in 

42 years of the Internet Highway Program because of the guaranteed account, because of the fire walls, because those dollars collected at the pump go into highway projects as you leave the gas 

station. And the people see that they believe it. That is a matter 

of stewardship. And we are good stewards of those dollars entrusted to the highway trust fund. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Any other questions? I want to thank 

you for your time again and thank you for what you have done for 

the steel. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We move on to Ways and Means. And we have 

Chairman Thomas, chairman of the Ways and Means, and here for 

ranking member Mr. Rangel is Mr. Stark of California. And we 

welcome the chairman. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WILLIAM THOMAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a 

written statement and would request unanimous consent that it be 

placed in the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. No objection. 

Mr. THOMAS. By the way the room looks real good. 

The CHAIRMAN. Especially if you look behind you. A very nice 

piece of art. 

Mr. THOMAS. This hearing room was the District of Columbia 

prior to its early demise. 

26

What my written statement says is that true to the commitment 

when we were in the minority, if we ever became the majority, it 

would be a two-thirds/one-third split. Not just in staff, but in total 

resources. In an attempt to deliver on that, when we acquired the 

committee in the last Congress, there were 10 shared staff. We 

have gotten that down to five, and actually only four, although 

there are five slots, one will not be filled and we have reduced that 

primarily by attrition. The request I think is a modest one. I have 

been amused at some of the percentages coming in, having been in 

this business for some time. 

The Ways and Means Committee is requesting over a 2-year period an amount that equals to about 12 percent. That is primarily 

in the additional two staff that we are requesting. If you examine 

the workload of this committee in terms of the entire revenue code, 

trade legislation, Social Security, Part A and half of part B on 

Medicare, we produce a significant portion of the legislation that is 

essential. And some would say not as essential as we think it is. 

But in comparison to the workload that this committee puts out. 

In terms of the number of staff that we have, the number of members that we have and the resources we request of you, I believe 

that this is an extremely reasonable and appropriate budget. We 

do not have at the current time a two-thirds one-third space relationship. It is less than 30 percent. We have several options available to us, but because of the homeland security changes now going 

on in this building, we do think that before this session is out, and 

hopefully for sure before the Congress is out, that we will be able 

to either reallocate or obtain space that moves us essentially into 

the two-thirds/one-third allocation of space as well, then we would 

be totally two-thirds/one-third basis for staff resources and space. 

Regarding staff and resources, that amount is allocated to the minority in a lump sum, which they can distribute as they see fit in 

terms of their decisions, not in categories that we impose upon 

them. With that, I will await any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stark. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. STARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Rangel regrets that he is unable to be here and requested that I appear before you on his behalf to fully support the Ways and Means budget 

request. It was approved in our committee by unanimous consent, 

and we were consulted as the budget was being developed and had 

the opportunity for input. As the chairman indicated, we think it 

is about an 11.6 increase for the 108th Congress. Our needs are 

similar to other committees as was pointed out. Almost all of this, 

I think, goes for existing salaries and for the two additional employee slots. I would join with the Chair, and I know that the question of jurisdiction on this is sort of hazy, but space almost becomes 

more important to any of us than the actual staff slots. We are fortunate on both sides of the aisle in our committee to have Robert 

Wood Johnson fellows who bring expertise that we couldn’t begin 

to afford, but we can’t find room for them to sit. 

27

It is literally that bad. To the extent that any of us together can 

work on creative use of space, or redesign of space, I think it would 

go a long way to help us all and help all of our staff who work too 

long for too little money. But I would join with the chairman in 

supporting this request for our committee and ask for your serious 

consideration to support it, as well. 

Mr. THOMAS. Prior to any questions, I do want to underscore the 

fact that you recently visited our committee room, which is a very 

nice committee room, but frankly the audio system desperately 

needs an upgrade. We have no video whatsoever. I am not speaking 

as the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. 1100 Longworth is the alternate floor for the House of Representatives. We 

have no redundancy and no digital capability. If 1100 Longworth 

were to function as for whatever reason, a period of time the floor 

of the House of Representatives, it is woefully inadequate in terms 

of what would be considered appropriate and normal audio and 

video capability. 

I know we are going to begin to move forward, hopefully during 

the August recess in this regard. But it is something that concerns 

me even more now in the current context of alternate use sites 

than it did a year and a half ago. It was a fallback that was not 

contemplated to be really a serious one, but now I think you have 

to look at the fact; what would you do if you ran the floor of the 

House out of that room for 2 or 3 months. Thank you very much. 

I will await any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will note, I did testify there and of course, these 

mikes are about, are about the same style and type of mike, and 

there is a definite need for improvement. And also, of course, when 

it came to Ways and Means and the size and significance of the 

room and alternative use, we do have that study that we actually 

had to go into because it is a little bit more complicated on that 

room and we would expect some things to be able to be done. 

It is going to take—hopefully by the August recess, and we will 

work with you for that. 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank the Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have no questions. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me 

echo your concerns as has been expressed to us by members of the 

minority on the minority staff on the committee with regard to 

audio visual and other technological advances. Let me also commend you and the committee and thank Mr. Stark in representing 

Mr. Rangel for his comments. Obviously you all are in sync with 

where you would like to be as a committee. It would be helpful as 

some of the committees are working on how they share technology. 

One of the things we hope to do on House Administration in terms 

of outreach is to get your input and feedback, and having served 

here and being able to look with the splendor at your picture radiating. 

Mr. THOMAS. I am just thankful it is still on the wall. 

Mr. LARSON. Again, any input that you could provide us would 

be very helpful. And thank you both for testimony today. 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank the gentleman. We have plenty of input. The 

problem is we have to find the money and resources. 

28

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. The only thing I would like to ask, 

Mr. Thomas, you spoke about the 12 percent increase for staffing. 

Is that staffing—staffing of what? 

Mr. THOMAS. It is not entirely staffing. But as my colleague indicated, about 86 to 89 percent of our funds goes toward staffing. We 

are asking to increase the staff. We currently have 77 and we 

would like to add two additional. Any of the staff that we add and 

we are going to fill a vacancy and that is three. So it is two to one. 

Everything is split on a two-to-one basis as we add. Some of that 

also is for equipment. We have the periodic need, the gentlewoman 

needs to know when I inherited the Ways and Means Committee, 

the members did, the staff did not have cell phones, obviously 

Blackberries, and there was no way to access the computers from 

remote locations. We have invested a significant amount of money 

to create a greater productivity in our staffs. But some of the computers that were there are beginning to run their life cycles and 

therefore require upgrading. That is one area that we are going to 

continue to spend money because I do believe you get the productivity back. 

But I do want to underscore my colleague’s comments about 

space. We are looking at unfilled elevator shafts that are ventilated 

for an opportunity to fill the space. At one time, there was a beautiful glass wall anteway into the back rooms of the Ways and 

Means Committee. That has now been occupied by staff because it 

was space that could be cannibalized. And we are desperate in a 

beautiful building built in the 1930s which simply doesn’t have 

space that is easily acquired by us, and we are dividing up spaces 

in ways now that has about reached its limits on creativity. 

And we would be looking for some additional sources beyond ventilated elevator shafts to accommodate a committee that deals with 

the entire Tax Code, trade, Social Security, et cetera. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. We do understand. That is duly 

noted that space is a tremendous problem. And that is woefully 

needed for your continuing the important work that you do. We 

thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I just want to close by saying that we appreciate 

the two-thirds/one-third and the way that you set that up here is 

the way we conduct our severals here of turning the entire budget 

over. And I think that was a good thing from day one that you did. 

Mr. THOMAS. We preached for years that that was a fair division. 

In the 103rd Congress, which is the one just prior to the current 

majority, the resources for the Ways and Means Committee Minority were 17 percent of the staff and virtually none of the resources. 

Currently that is now a full one-third across the board. That is 

what we said should have been done. When we became the majority, we could have been terribly and woefully neglectful if we didn’t 

practice what we preached. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank both the gentlemen. I would note 

we have a vote, the picture for the floor and another vote. So if we 

could continue after that second vote with the Intelligence Committee. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Committee will come to order, and we will proceed with Judiciary. And we have the Chairman, Chairman Sensenbrenner. 

29

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

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

would like to ask that my full statement appear in the record and 

in the interest of time, I will summarize it. 

As you all know, the Judiciary Committee is one of the workhorse committees in Congress. We had jurisdiction over 14 percent 

of all of the bills that were introduced in the last Congress. We reported over 103 bills with accompanying legislative reports, of 

which 80 were agreed to. We were responsible for 53 new laws, 47 

public and 6 private. The Government Reform and Resources Committee had had more committee reports and more public laws; however, most of their work product were relatively minor issues like 

boundary adjustments in the Resources Committee and the naming 

of post offices in the Government Reform Committee. 

Most of our legislation is really meaty, and it requires extensive 

hearing records and committee reports. And I would just draw the 

attention of members of this committee that the report on the 

bankruptcy bill, which we will be filing following it being reported, 

which will probably be thicker than the Washington phone book. 

All of that requires people, and all of that requires equipment. And 

we are asking for 15 new permanent staff slots, 10 for the Majority 

and five for the Minority. I have been scrupulous in maintaining 

the one-third/two-thirds ratio both in terms of slots and staff, taking out certain administrative positions that are really nonpartisan 

in nature, such as the printer, the people who work for the Government Printing Office, those that do the payroll and the like. 

The equipment line in this budget includes the purchase of additional computer softwares and printers first to accommodate the 

additional staff, and secondly, in order to increase the productivity 

of our committee. Again, if you look at the volume of paperwork 

that comes out of the Judiciary Committee, we need this additional 

equipment in order to keep ahead of the game on that. 

I would point out that Mr. Conyers and I are in agreement with 

this budget. We would ask for your favorable consideration, and I 

will now be happy to yield to Mr. Conyers, and the two of us will 

answer any questions you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Chairman and recognize the Ranking 

Member. Pleasure to have you, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Good afternoon, Chairman Ney, and to my good 

friend Ranking Member Larson. I am delighted to be here with my 

Chairman on Judiciary James Sensenbrenner to join with him in 

the testimony. I just have to say, he has been an effective Chairman. We have been able to do a lot more things than we thought 

we would be able to. But the assignments keep coming in, and 9/

11, of course, has complicated that considerably. 

Now, to me, it is critical that the slots that the Chairman and 

I seek are granted here because we have never been stretched to 

the limits that we are now currently in the committee. And we 

have just come through a cloning bill. We have bankruptcy that is 

waiting for us to be reported out today. We are in recess until we 

can leave this very important hearing. In addition, we have had 

matters of science and ethics that didn’t—well, some of it didn’t 

30

even exist 4 years ago. And we have marked up medical malpractice, and it will be brought to the floor in a few days, and that 

is legislation that raises significant issues involving our State laws, 

concerns the drug companies and the HMOs as well as constitutional law. It is an issue that hasn’t been reported out of our committee until last year. 

Bankruptcy is a several-hundred-page bill, and it grows more 

complex with each Congress and gets more complicated as it touches upon pension questions and international law as well. We are 

also doing some very important work that I am sure this committee 

would appreciate that deals with piracy over the Internet. We have 

the ever-agonizing issues of immigration law and now homeland security. This is over and above the issue subjects of our jurisdiction, 

crime, antitrust, administrative law, civil rights, reproductive 

choice, and, of course, all constitutional questions and the oversight 

of the Department of Justice itself. 

So why do we need new staff? Because these issues cannot be 

shortchanged at the expense of understaffing. The public debate on 

these questions are seminal, and there are other issues, gun safety, 

crime, tort reform, which are, I think, important issues and some 

which are even growing more important. So the Chairman and I 

pride ourselves on our work, and we just simply need more people 

to help continue the tradition of excellence that the committee has 

enjoyed over the years. It seems to me that we have a large assignment of legislative matters than any other committee. 

And I have enjoyed working with the Chairman. We have a good 

relationship. I have a good relationship with this committee as 

well. I have enjoyed working with Chairman Ney, who I must say 

played an enormously important role on election reform legislation 

that without him, we wouldn’t have gotten this bill to the White 

House for signature. He has been very helpful in helping it get 

funded. And Ranking Member Larson, you and your staff have 

been working closely with us in formulating a budget we can all 

live with, and I am grateful to you for that. My other colleagues 

are all friends of ours. But we come here urgently needing the best 

help that you can bring to us, and I thank you very much for this 

opportunity to share a few of these items with you.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate the testimony of both of the gentlemen, and also it was a pleasure to work with you and have your 

support on efforts you did for the legislation and also the followup of the money, and we have got a little bit more to go. Thank 

you. 

Questions? 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you Mr. Chairman. And I would like to also 

acknowledge what the Chairman has said that, in fact, Judiciary 

is a workhorse committee, and I was honored as a freshman to 

serve with Mr. Sensenbrenner when he was the then-Chair of the 

Science Committee. And the long, distinguished career of Mr. Conyers is legendary here in Congress. 

Clearly the need that you put before the committee is well-deserved. In the event as we go through this process—this is a question we have asked all the Chairs that have come in, and I know 

Chairman Sensenbrenner mentioned in his opening remarks with 

31

regard to the one-third/two-thirds. If we are only to get 12 employees instead of 15, we assume it would still be that one-third——

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. It will be. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you so much. It is good to see 

the Chairman and the Ranking Member today and my first real 

meeting and listening to those Chairs and Ranking Members who 

do so admirably in committees. 

Ranking Member, I was concerned that you—it was mentioned, 

rather, that you would like a little more leeway in purchasing supplies and all this. Is this something that has now been taken care 

of in this approach to giving the two-thirds/one-third in all other 

types of partnerships with the Chairman? 

Mr. CONYERS. I am happy to report to you that it has, and that 

we are working on some very major issues, some that I can’t even 

reveal at the hearing, and that we have—I have no problems in 

that regard whatsoever, Ms. Millender-McDonald. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to see 

where we were on that, and I thank you both so much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions? 

I want to thank both of you for your testimony. 

We will move on to Intelligence. I want to thank both Members 

for coming. As I understand it, you have an extremely tight time 

frame; is that correct? 

Mr. GOSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is accurate. 

Mr. LARSON. If both the Chairman and the Ranking Member 

would accede, we are more than happy to, through unanimous consent, accept your written remarks for the record and go directly to 

questions. 

Mr. GOSS. I am very much obliged, Ranking Member, and I appreciate that. We have prepared statements and want them entered into the record.

The CHAIRMAN. There is not a bunch we can publicly ask you 

anyway. Any questions? 

Mr. LARSON. I would only just like to again add and, again, I 

thank you, Chairman Goss, for your extraordinary work on the 

committee, and we are so pleased that Jane Harman with her tremendous expertise and background has joined you in what, since 

September 11, has become an extraordinarily important committee 

not only to Congress, but to the entire Nation and, dare I say, the 

globe as well. 

The question we have asked all the Chairs coming in, our concern has been over the one-third/two-thirds split. And it is our expectation that irrespective of what the ultimate decision is, that 

that will be maintained, whether that be the full request or it 

being a partial request. 

Mr. GOSS. That is certainly the case. Ms. Harman and I have a 

close working relationship, as I did with her predecessor. There has 

never been a problem on the one-third/two-thirds. She does control 

one-third of the personnel moneys. And as for other expenditures, 

we do it on a shared basis because we operate very largely on a 

bipartisan basis in this committee because it is a national security 

matter. 

32

Ms. HARMAN. If I could add to that, I think I am the fourth Democrat to serve as Ranking Member with Mr. Goss. There must be 

something in the water in Florida. But he is correct in that the 

ratio is two-thirds/one-third. 

I would like to point out to the committee that there are a lot 

of able women on the professional staff on both sides on the committee, and it functions as a very bipartisan committee, something 

that is extremely important to me. 

Mr. LARSON. Your reputations and the integrity you both bring 

to the committee in the process are well known and well regarded 

throughout all of Congress and certainly shared by this committee. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate my dear friend and the new Ranking Member who hails 

again from California, so I don’t know about the Florida water, but 

California is doing quite well itself, and we really do know that 

Jane comes with extraordinary expertise and background, so we 

know she is going to do well on this committee. 

And, Mr. Goss, as always, I respect you, and so by virtue of the 

fact we have a lot of women on there speaks volumes for you as 

well. So we thank you for the work you do for us. 

The CHAIRMAN. I wanted to note in closing, too, you have a critical function as a committee. I think it has been extremely well 

run. And 2 years ago I am happy that decisions were made and 

support came at all levels from the Speaker and also from Mr. Gephardt and members of the committee, and their support continues 

throughout both sides of the aisle to put the money into this committee that it needed to have. Those resources were wisely spent 

and for, I think, what turned out to be one of the most important 

functions in this Congress for a committee. 

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and your 

Ranking Member and your committee for the extraordinary support 

and the timely support that you have given us with our requests 

that come, through no fault of our own, for the extraordinary circumstances with which we had to deal since 9/11. I feel we have 

used the money wisely, and accountability will show that, and I 

think we are making a very reasonable request for what I think 

is a very critical need for the next year. Thank you very much, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now go ahead with the Resources Committee, Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member, Mr. Rahall of West 

Virginia. And Mr. Pombo of California. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

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

members of the committee. As the new Chairman on the Committee on Resources I am pleased to present a bipartisan request 

for committee operations for the 108th Congress. This request represents a fair and honest estimate of our needs and will allow us 

to build on our past successes. 

The jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources literally runs 

from the top of the world, the oil and gas resources of the Arctic 

slope, to the bottom of the sea, the preparation of nautical charts. 

Fishermen and foresters, ranchers and rangers, endangered coal 

miners in Ohio and the endangered willow fly catcher in Arizona, 

33

wildlife and water, Native American and American Somoans all 

rely on the work of the Committee on Resources. With this expansive jurisdiction, it is no wonder we are the most active committee 

on the Hill, holding more hearings and markups, 227, and enacting 

more public laws, 128, than any other committee. 

In reviewing the budget from the previous Congress, it is clear 

that the committee on resources needs more resources itself both 

in funds and staff. Last Congress our travel funds ran out in the 

middle of the second session, severely hampering our ability to hold 

field hearings and conduct investigations outside Washington, D.C. 

One of the pledges I made when selected to chair the committee 

was to ensure that we would actively solicit the views of local communities and ordinary citizens whose lives and livelihoods are affected when we develop legislation. These people often cannot come 

to us, so we need to go to them. And if that takes us to the Marshall Islands or to Silver Bow, Montana, or even St. Clairsville, 

Ohio, then we need the resources to go there. 

We held our first field hearing last Friday in Flagstaff with 

seven Members traveling from Washington to hear about the devastation to our public forests, water and air caused by the catastrophic wildfires in Arizona last summer. Over 450 people attended, and the testimony we heard was remarkable and moving. 

Communication is also key in reaching out to those who cannot 

afford Washington lobbyists to front their cause. For that reason it 

is imperative that the Committee on Resources have teleconferencing ability. Broadcasting committee hearings and markups over 

the Internet as well as posting notices in local newspapers, soliciting views and alerting the public to committee activities would 

further allow those outside Washington, D.C., to have their voices 

heard. Under former Chairman Hansen the committee began to 

modernize their communications operations. There is much more to 

be done to ensure that we hear from U.S. Citizens across the Nation and across the oceans. 

As Chairman, I assure you that Mr. Rahall and I will share 

these resources equitably. We have forged a good working relationship, and I want to continue that effort. The Committee on Resources will be more productive if we work together as leaders even 

if we might disagree at times on policy. 

Further specifics of our requests were included in the budget proposal forwarded to your committee last month, and I am happy to 

answer any questions that you might have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony.

Ranking Member Mr. Rahall. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NICK RAHALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Chairman Ney, Ranking Member 

Larson. Let me say that I hope my testimony is going to be the 

shortest in the history of testimony on the Hill. This is the length 

of it, not even a full page. 

Chairman Ney and Ranking Member Larson, I am here to simply 

say that I am in complete agreement with Chairman Pombo and 

the remarks he has just made and with the budget request for the 

Resources Committee that are being submitted jointly here today. 

34

This budget reflects the same agreement, as you heard the Chairman state, between former Chairman Hansen and myself that we 

entered into in the beginning of the last Congress that worked so 

well. And under this budget, the Minority would control a full onethird of the staff salary budget. As to the rest, our committee does 

not operate as if there are Republican or Democrat copiers or computers. If a piece of equipment reaches the end of its ability to 

function properly, it is replaced rather than located in the offices 

of the Majority or the Minority. 

This proposed budget would provide the Resources Committee 

with sufficient resources to consider legislation that is sponsored by 

Mr. Larson, the Coatesville Study Act, which I have already contacted Chairman Pombo on. It would provide us with the necessary 

resources to act upon badly needed pieces of legislation referred as 

well by the Chairman that is sponsored by you, Mr. Chairman Ney, 

and myself known as CARE 21. 

That concludes my testimony, and I am open for questions as 

well. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for testifying. The Chairman is pretty good. He knows where I live. Now Ranking Member 

should know where I was born. 

Mr. RAHALL. Yes. My home State. 

The CHAIRMAN. Wheeling specifically. 

Any questions? 

Mr. LARSON. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me also 

commend Chairman Pombo and also Ranking Member Rahall, as 

they say—Shakespeare said brevity is the soul of wit, and so we 

appreciate your very succinct but focused testimony. 

I commend the Chairman. I do applaud your efforts. We heard 

from Chairman Davis earlier today about the need to get outside 

the Beltway on so many important issues, and particularly on a 

committee that is as valued as yours is across the Nation as you 

protect our precious resources. I think that is a vital interest not 

only to Congress, but to all Americans, so we applaud your efforts 

and think your focus has been reasonable and justified. 

The question we have asked all the chairmen as they have come 

in, from the Minority standpoint, and you mentioned it already in 

your testimony, about the adherence to the one-third/two-thirds 

prospect. In the event—and we certainly hope not—that the funding isn’t all that it should be and you didn’t get all that you asked 

for, is it still your intent to continue that one-third/two-thirds relationship? 

Mr. POMBO. Yes. It is part of our committee rules, and both Nick 

and I have agreed that we will stick to that budget request. 

Mr. LARSON. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for 

the courtesies that they have shown me and also other Members 

throughout Congress. I would only ask if the Ranking Member had 

anything to add. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you. Let me just add further what the Chairman has said. Certainly I agree with the premise. I would also expect, though, that other Ranking Members collectively be treated 

in the same manner, and to their satisfaction I might add as well. 

35

Mr. LARSON. I think we can be proud of the efforts of the Chairman of this committee because he has really set the tenor for Congress in terms of responding to that request. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I must agree with you. He has set 

the tone for this committee, and we are most appreciative to you 

and your leadership, Mr. Chairman. 

Only thing I want to do is welcome both of these men, Dick and 

Nick. Those two names alone should add a lot to the Resources 

Committee. But they are both new in their respective roles, if I am 

not mistaken—this one is not new? You left Transportation. But 

from a Californian to a Californian, welcome and congratulations 

for having received the chairship of this committee. 

I have the largest Samoan population outside of Samoa, and so 

I would be very interested in some of the legislation, some of the 

things that you are doing, and especially in an oversight hearing 

in my district where not only do I have the largest amount of 

Samoans out of Samoa, but Cambodians and Filipinos. And so I 

don’t know whether that stretches that wide, but certainly the 

needs are pretty much the same. And so I would be interested in 

an oversight hearing in my district where we can speak to the challenges that the Samoan population has here. 

Mr. POMBO. Just in response, I will be more than happy to work 

with the lady in trying to achieve that in a field hearing. As I am 

sure you are aware, we have a number of field hearings planned 

all over the country and, for that matter, all over the world in 

terms of what our jurisdiction is. I believe very strongly that the 

best way to educate Members and to give the public an opportunity 

to address Congress is to get us outside the Beltway and get us out 

into the real world. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the Members for their kind comments and just reassure that two-thirds/one-third is a part of life 

here, and a couple of new chairmen including Chairman Pombo—

he immediately held to that, and we appreciate it. 

I also think taking the committees out on the road, as we would 

say, across the country to be able to have people that could come 

to them versus having to come to Washington is a tremendous 

thing, especially with the critical and important issues you have. 

I know the hearings won’t be without controversy, but they are an 

awfully good thing to do. So we appreciate it. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. And we will move on to Financial Services. 

Chairman Mike Oxley of Ohio and Ranking Member Barney Frank 

of Massachusetts. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. OXLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank you and 

Ranking Member Larson for hearing us out today. Two years ago 

this committee made an investment in the new Financial Services 

Committee, and I want to thank you for that and for what you 

have given to the committee, and I think the taxpayer got their 

money’s worth. We have done a lot more with your resources than 

most other committees. When America needed new tools to fight 

the flow of terrorist money, Financial Services Committee delivered 

the anti-money laundering legislation, and it became part of the 

36

PATRIOT Act. And we just had an oversight hearing yesterday on 

how that act is working. When we discovered Wall Street professionals put greed first and investors last, it was our committee that 

held the first hearings on Enron and WorldCom and responded 

with the first legislation in April of 2001 in which we—which ultimately became the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. And when the economy 

suffered because of the lack of terrorism insurance, again our committee stepped up and passed terrorism risk insurance about 7 

months before the Senate responded, and we finally got that bill 

signed and passed in the lame duck session. 

We have a lot of other work to do in terms of oversight over Sarbanes-Oxley and what is happening out in the world with the Nation’s investors, modernizing our financial institutions, promoting 

economic growth. We have requested $16.9 million in budget authority for this Congress. About 86 percent of that would be for 

personnel compensation. 

We are near the bottom of the rung when we compare the size 

and resources of the committees in overall funding. For instance, 

the Transportation Committee, which is the only committee larger 

than ours, they got a budget of more than $21⁄2 million more than 

our committee. That works out to nearly $24,000 more per Member. And we simply need to compete in many respects for top talent 

with the administration as well as with Wall Street and other jobs 

in the financial services sector. 

I want to take this opportunity to thank my new Ranking Member, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts. We worked well together over the 

years, and I was pleased to have him ascend to the position of 

Ranking Member and we are going to plan to get a lot done in this 

session of the Congress. To that end, of course, our budget guarantees that the Minority will control its budget, which will be onethird of both committee funds and staff slots. And I know, Mr. 

Chairman, that has been one of the hallmarks of your leadership, 

and I want to applaud you and your new Ranking Member Mr. 

Larson for continuing on that, which I think is good policy and 

makes a great deal of sense. 

So we once again come before you with our thanks from the last 

time. And our committee was a new committee 2 years ago, but we 

have been tested by fire. And some of the major issues that we 

dealt with last year were something that we hadn’t even planned 

on in the initial agenda with the terrorist attack of 9/11 and, of 

course, the corporate scandals that occurred. And I am quite proud 

of the work that our committee has done. Seventy members, it 

sounds rather unwieldy, but in the overall scheme of things, we 

were able to pass major legislation on a number of fronts, virtually 

all with large bipartisan majorities, that became law and signed by 

the President. And if you look at the output per committee, I suspect ours is right up there at the top in terms of legislative output. 

So again, I want to thank you for hearing us and our request 

today. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Chair. 

Mr. Frank. 

37

STATEMENT OF HON. BARNEY FRANK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Larson. 

I completely concur with what the Chairman has said, and he 

has been extremely fair in our working relationship. It has been an 

excellent one. We have been able to cooperate. Cooperation in our 

job means working together on some issues and fairly framing 

those issues whether it is legitimate disagreement, and I think we 

have been able to do both quite well. 

It is a committee with very broad jurisdiction as it has now come 

about. In addition to the areas that the Chairman mentioned, we 

also have a supervisory role with the Federal Reserve. It is our job 

to deal with the Humphrey-Hawkins employment aspect. We have 

got the entire housing jurisdiction, which is a very significant one. 

And I just came back from a quick trip to Greece at the request 

of various people because we supervise the U.S. Relationship with 

the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund. So the scope is 

really quite broad, and it really does require significant staff resources, because the level of expertise we need to have is high. 

We in particular and others may have this as well, but I am 

struck to the extent to which we are trying to make people who 

have been acquiring expertise in particular areas for a long time 

do things they would rather not do. And it is important for us to 

be able to have an expertise that can go up against them in a very 

wide range whether you are talking about the Federal Reserve, the 

International Monetary Fund, intricacies of the securities industry, 

et cetera. 

I very much support the Chairman’s request. We have been productive. I am proud to say we are the committee that authored the 

first bill that passed this year. We have a very productive markup 

scheduled tomorrow with some things that are very important for 

the functioning of the banking industry. We have some important 

hearings still coming up. So I fully support the Chairman, and I 

think there was a very legitimate argument for even additional resources, given the scope of what we have got to do. 

Mr. OXLEY. Will the gentleman yield? I think the gentleman from 

Massachusetts will also agree that we have an excellent set of subcommittee chairs. 

Mr. FRANK. Yes. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. Best and brightest, I assume. 

Mr. FRANK. In the housing area very much, or as we would say, 

de la maison. 

The CHAIRMAN. Merci beaucoup.

With that said, this committee is a very active committee, and 

it just handles a wide variety of issues. And it really had been 

down also on the funding scale. Last time when it got bumped up, 

it not only took on additional responsibility, but the funding really 

had been at a lower level. 

Any questions? 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Chairman Oxley and Representative Frank, for your candid and lucid 

testimony. 

One of the concerns we have heard raised—and I just have two 

questions, but one has been raised by virtually everyone who has 

38

come before is the issue of space in terms of the committee, and 

while not a specific jurisdiction, although it comes under our committee rules, it is a decision that goes to another pay grade other 

than ours. But nonetheless, again, through the Chairman’s desire 

and acquiescence, we are going to speak to the leadership directly 

about those needs. Do you have space concerns? 

And again, Mr. Chairman, you eloquently stated in your remarks 

about keeping the one-third/two-thirds relationship. It is our concern in the event that people don’t get funded to the levels they 

were, we assume that is the case, but we just wanted to ask that. 

Mr. OXLEY. Absolutely. That is large in our rules, and we would 

certainly respect that regardless of what the funding was. 

Mr. FRANK. One of the things I was pleased to learn when I came 

to this committee is that the staffs have very good working relationships. There really is a good deal they do that saves time for 

us. 

On the space thing, I could not agree more, and I would put that 

as the highest priority. I have just been in a position of having to 

fill some positions, and I have had to tell some very able people, 

people who have come to me from the SEC and elsewhere, that I 

have only one drawback that I have to be honest about, and that 

is the physical working conditions stink; that we have these really 

talented people doing very important jobs, and it isn’t the Chairman’s fault, but we don’t treat really the extraordinarily hardworking people who work for us well enough. And sometimes they 

are dealing with things that you want confidentiality. And I don’t 

think it makes the best impression on the people with whom they 

deal. We ask them to meet with people, frankly, to save us from 

meeting with people sometimes, and there is some fairly important 

people that the meeting spaces are not what they should be. So to 

the extent we could increase space, that would be the biggest contribution we could make to our functioning. 

Mr. OXLEY. I would agree with that. It is also, I think, a retention issue. Again, we have some pretty talented folks that are constantly, I think, being recruited by Wall Street, by K Street and by 

the administration. And part of that is just a quality of life and 

their working conditions and that doesn’t help in terms of retention 

if they don’t have a quality workplace. 

Mr. FRANK. These are first-rate people who I think read Dilbert 

and fantasize how nice it would be. 

Mr. LARSON. Again, I would like to compliment this Chairman 

again for his efforts and work also on a concern that we have, and, 

Chairman Oxley, you alluded to that, that with regard to the pay 

levels, Dave Obey often comments we train personnel in the House 

that go onto the Senate or on to the private sector because of the 

pay grade levels there. So along with accommodations, it is our 

focus and this Chairman’s focus has been to make sure that staff 

is being paid accordingly. 

The CHAIRMAN. And we have the pay that we have built in with 

the cost of living, and, of course, the Chairs and Ranking Members 

can give other pay differentials. 

Also wanted to note this reoccurring theme of the space, because 

with the great support by our Ranking Members and our Ranking 

Member and other Members, we passed the student loan, which we 

39

now can have some student loans paid back, because the Senate 

had it and we didn’t have it. But you have to have the space to 

physically put somebody to help them pay off their student loans. 

And the space situation is just in a crisis. I think this building 

was probably built in the 1930s, I think Rayburn was built in the 

1950s, and in those days not everybody could get to Washington, 

D.C., easily. And on top of it, there wasn’t an Internet, wasn’t the 

mass communication that we have. Great thing about the committees now, people can get here, or you can take the committees out 

on the road, Internet, but all that causes is more people to write 

in or voice their opinion about issues and advocacy groups. And 

staff needs to meet with them and look at their concerns, and that 

is great, but we have outlived the ability to be housed in these 

buildings, and just a basic respect for working conditions. And so 

we have just got to do something to find some more space, and we 

will work on that. 

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

Space has been the operative word here today with all of the 

Chairmen and Ranking Members. Retention is very critical, and I 

would think it is critical to us in our own offices, but it should be 

even more so, given the areas of concentration and the issues that 

come before you. And so I am sensitive to your request for more 

space and space that will be adequate for these professionals to use 

when they are meeting with those high-skilled folks out of Wall 

Street and other places. 

I would like to congratulate our friend Barney Frank for coming 

in as the Ranking Member. We certainly hate to see him leave Judiciary, but if he has to land anyplace, it is the Ranking membership. And so we welcome you aboard, and good also to see you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank both of you for your time. 

And last on the schedule today is Standards. And we have Chairman Hefley from Colorado and Ranking Member Mr. Mollohan of 

West Virginia. Welcome to both. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time. I want to say, 

though, that Mr. Oxley as he left the room whispered in my ear 

and said, we got all the money. 

As I begin, Mr. Chairman, my second term as Chairman of the 

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I am pleased to appear before you today in support of our budget request and to appear here with the new Ranking Member of the committee, Alan 

Mollohan. 

We appear in support of House Resolution 64, the committee’s 

funding resolution for the 108th Congress. The Standards Committee is a relatively small committee, as you well know, but its 

responsibilities are broad. We have 10 members, 5 Republican, 5 

Democrat, the one committee in the House that is evenly divided, 

and we work very, very hard to see that this is a completely nonpartisan, not a bipartisan, committee. None of us serve on this because it is a good fundraising committee or you get a lot of glory 

40

from it. We serve on it for the institution and the value that it has 

for that. 

We also have a staff of 13. We have eight nonpartisan attorneys. 

We emphasize that all the time. We have three support staff and 

two shared professional staff members who assist the Chairman 

and the Ranking Member respectively. 

The committee’s jurisdiction is threefold: It is to provide guidance 

and information to House Members and employees on the laws, 

rules and standards that govern their official conduct; to administer in cooperation with the Clerk of the House the financial disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act insofar as 

they apply to House Members and employees and congressional 

candidates; and to investigate instances of possible misconduct by 

Members, officers or employees and, where misconduct is found, to 

take appropriate disciplinary action. 

I consider the committee’s advice and education efforts—in the 

form of publications and briefings on the rules and having staff 

readily available to respond to questions of Members and House 

employees—to be a critical part of the committee’s mission. In fact, 

I think if we are really doing our job, we are helping Members not 

get in trouble, rather than prosecute them after they have gotten 

in trouble. We want them to come to us. We want to be able to advise them on what is appropriate and what is not up front, rather 

than have to deal with it after some indiscretion has occurred. 

Prior to the start of the 2002 campaign, in December 2001, the 

committee issued a campaign activity booklet that provides a current statement of the House rules and related authorities that 

apply to Members and employees when they engage in campaign 

or political activity. In addition, during the 107th Congress the 

committee issued a dozen general advisory memoranda to Members 

and employees, including one relating to the use of official resources in connection with the redistricting process, on which there 

were some problems as we were all going through that process. 

Another key part of the committee’s advice and education efforts 

is the issuance of private advisory opinion letters in response to requests submitted by Members, employees and others. In the 107th 

Congress the committee issued over 700 private advisory opinion 

letters. The start of this Congress with all of our new Members and 

employees has been particularly a busy time. Already this year, the 

committee has issued approximately 100 advisory opinion letters. 

In addition, in an effort to accommodate all of our incoming 

freshman Members and our staff, our committee attorneys have already held two large-scale briefings on the ethics rules, open to all 

House Members and employees, as well as numerous briefings for 

individual offices. 

One result of these advice and education activities is that the 

committee and its staff see on a practically daily basis how the ethics rules impact the lives and work of Members and House employees. 

I think another basic responsibility of the committee is to be 

alert to instances in which some change in the rules may be in 

order, whether it be lifting a needless restriction, closing a loophole, or merely clarifying or simplifying the rules. Some changes 

along these lines can be made by the committee acting on its own 

41

authority, but other changes can be made only through an amendment of the House rules. 

While the committee’s responsibilities to monitor and review financial disclosure statements require a great deal of time and effort, and in the 107th Congress committee staff was required to review over 5,000 of them, the other major committee responsibility 

is in the area of investigation of possible misconduct. This is an 

area for which the level of the committee’s workload is virtually impossible to anticipate. For example, in the 107th Congress we were 

confronted with the circumstance of the sitting Member of Congress who had been convicted of several felonies, and I can’t tell 

you the amount of time both for the members of the committee and 

the staff that this occupied. I hope—and I am sure Alan would 

back me up on this—that never in our lifetime will we have to go 

through that again. That is not a fun experience. 

Turning to the specifics of the committee’s proposed budget, the 

largest item by far, on the order of about 85 percent, is for personnel compensation. Our figures reflect roughly a 4 percent cost 

of living increase in both 2003 and 2004 and allow for merit increases or bonuses on an average of about an additional 4 percent 

each year. 

The House rules require that our committee staff be assembled 

and retained as a professional nonpartisan staff, and that each 

member of the staff shall be professional and qualified for the position for which he is hired; in other words, we have mostly attorneys 

on the staff. In budgeting for compensation, it is our intention to 

attract and retain the best people we possibly can for this job, and 

we do have some wonderful people down there. 

The proposed budget also includes a request of $25,000 for consultants over each of the next 2 years. We don’t use consultants 

very much, and it is my belief that insofar as we possibly can, we 

ought to handle these internal situations ourself as a committee 

and as a staff. But we do feel it is prudent to put some money in 

there just in case we do have to call on outside consultants or outside counsel. And I will point out, Mr. Chairman, that I believe 

every year that I have been involved in this committee, we do turn 

money back. We don’t figure a way to spend the money so we will 

get more next year. We do turn money back that we don’t use. If 

we don’t use this consultant money, we won’t try to do something 

else with it. 

Two other budget items I would like to touch on are equipment 

and supplies. A large portion of the requested increases in these 

categories is for computer-related expenses. For example, we understand that House Information Resources is establishing an offsite backup of House computer resources. Our budget includes 

$25,000 for additional security mechanisms that would be needed 

for the committee’s records. Our request for supplies includes software that would upgrade the committee Website. 

The figures before you represent our best estimates of the committee’s needs for the 108th Congress. As has happened on occasions in the past, if events result in greater demands on the committee, then we would have to come back to you, but we hope—sincerely hope that that is not necessary. 

42

Mr. Chairman, before I conclude my remarks, let me just say 

that your committee and our committee dovetail on a lot of things, 

and we have to have a close working relationship to make either 

one work right for the institution, and I cannot imagine a closer 

working relationship than we have had these last few years, and 

I thank you for that. I think it is to our mutual interest to continue 

that, and as far as I am concerned, that will continue from our side 

of it, and I am sure it will for you, too. 

Now I turn it over to our Ranking Member Alan Mollohan.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Hefley, 

Chairman Ney, Ranking Member Larson, Mr. Brady. It is a pleasure to appear with the Chairman here today on behalf of the budget request for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. 

I have recently rejoined the ethics committee, this time as Ranking Member. During the short term I had been here, I was impressed that my predecessor and the Chairman obviously did an 

excellent job with the committee. The Chairman has provided exemplary leadership over a long period of time. I find the committee 

to be well led and well staffed. And having reviewed the budget request, I find myself in total agreement with the Chairman with regard to that request and think it was very admirably presented 

here to the committee, and I would like to associate myself with 

his remarks and with the substance of his request. I would specifically support his request for the $25,000 contingency fee for outside consultants, and I also share his philosophy 

that this committee ought to do its work internally to the extent 

that it is possible to do that. I believed that the first time I served 

on the committee, and I continue to believe that. 

So I, again, in summary, Mr. Chairman, associate myself with 

my Chairman’s remarks and look forward to serving with him and, 

with him, working with you to make sure that the ethics committee 

and the House of Representatives works; works for the institution 

and also works for the Members. 

Thank you for allowing me to appear here today, and I join the 

Chairman in any questions you might have. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank both of you for coming here 

today, and we will continue that close relationship we have had. 

The other thing I can appreciate is the job that you have. It is 

a tough job. And like we always used to say, who do you make 

angry if you were in House Administration or ethics. Both of those 

committees are good committees, and the thing I have been impressed with quite a lot, because I would call when I probably became Chair of this committee—our Member services in both Minority and Majority here in House Administration field constant calls, 

and their answers are critical, and their answers are important. 

And, of course, we field calls directly over to you. 

I also have been very impressed with the staff as I have called 

inquiring, because you need to do that to find out, you know, what 

steps you take to make sure everything is correct. And I have always been impressed with the quickness of the calls back by your 

staff and your credibility of the answer. Really appreciate it. And 

43

I know they get a lot of calls, so we have been impressed with your 

staff. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again let me thank 

both the Chairman and the Ranking Member for appearing today. 

And let me add that given the Chairman’s testimony, and as a 

Member of the House having gone through that excruciating experience last year, the integrity that you brought to that process 

served the House and the country extraordinarily well. I think we 

are fortunate to have you in that position, and the committee has 

only been enhanced by the addition of Alan Mollohan, who, like his 

father before him, brings a standard of ethics and commitment to 

the United States Congress and to this committee that is so vitally 

important in our ability to conduct business in a fair-handed manner, and, as the Chairman pointed out, not an attempt to play God 

here with Members, but an attempt to reach out and assist Members of the body so that they do the right thing and receive all of 

the important guidance and information that only helps them perform their tasks better. 

It is an important committee. I think you are right to reserve 

those funds for consultants. It clearly has been a frugal committee. 

I share your concern about operating internally as well, and I think 

you have made a great case here today. Obviously the commitment 

exists within the committee, a question we have asked everyone, 

about the one-third/two-thirds, something that this Chairman has 

been extraordinary on, and we look forward to continuing working 

with you. 

Mr. HEFLEY. I thank both of you very much for your kind words, 

and we appreciate that very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions? 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just need to echo and 

piggyback on the words that were spoken here by my Chairman 

and My Ranking Member. We went through some tough times last 

year, and embarrassment was a good word that could be used, and 

it is pretty hard to embarrass me. And I was leaning toward that 

until you stepped in and conducted yourself, and it was needless 

to say you could have sold a lot of money on commercials. Everybody was watching it. And I was proud of the way you handled 

yourself. And now I feel a lot better that a friend of mine and 

someone with the highest integrity in this House is joining you. So 

I wanted to thank you for what you have done and look forward 

to working with you all in the future. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Pleased to have both of the Members here today. 

And for tomorrow, we will continue—of course, tomorrow. I want 

to thank Ranking Member Mr. Brady, Ms. Millender-McDonald. 

Mr. Ehlers was here. Thank you for your diligence, your patience, 

and also the thoughtful questions and the time you put into this, 

and, Minority and Majority staff, we appreciate it. 

I ask unanimous consent that Members have three business days 

to submit their statements and materials for the record and for 

those statements and materials to be entered in the appropriate 

place in the record. Without objection, the material will be so entered. 

44

I ask unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to make 

technical and conforming changes in all matters considered by the 

committee at today’s portion of the hearing. Without objection, so 

ordered. 

Having completed our business for today’s hearing on committee 

funding, the committee is hereby in recess subject to the call of the 

Chair. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the committee was adjourned, subject to 

the call of the Chair.] 

(45)

COMMITTEE FUNDING REQUESTS 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2003

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

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:43 a.m., in Room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Ney 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Ney, Linder, Larson, Millender-McDonald and Brady. 

Staff present: Paul Vinovich, Staff Director; Fred Hay, Counsel; 

Jeff Janas, Professional Staff Member; George Shevlin, Minority 

Chief of Staff; Charles Howell, Minority Chief Counsel; and Keith 

Abouchar, Minority Professional Staff Member. 

The CHAIRMAN. The House Administration Committee will come 

to order for the purpose of receiving further testimony on the hearing to consider funding requests of the Committee to the U.S. 

House of Representatives for the 108th Congress. 

Today, we have the Chairman, the gentleman Mr. Goodlatte, and 

Ranking Member, Mr. Stenholm. We can start with the Chairman. 

Present your case and what you need. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Larson 

and other members of the committee. We very much appreciate the 

opportunity to come to you this morning to present our modest request for the House Agriculture Committee for the coming year. 

In the prepared statement, which I will submit for the record, we 

have appended a graph that I think pretty clearly illustrates the 

situation that the committee finds itself in. If you will look at that, 

you will see that the House Agriculture Committee with 51 members is the sixth largest committee in the House. In terms of the 

staff of the committee, we are, however, the 13th committee. And 

in terms of the budget, we are one behind that, in 14th place. 

So we are very frugal and very proud of the fact that we work 

very hard to accomplish a tremendous amount with a very limited 

budget and very lean and mean staff both on the majority and on 

the minority side. 

The committee has a very aggressive agenda this year; and, 

based upon the activities of the House Budget committee, it appears we may be even busier this year than originally anticipated. 

Because if we are to go forward with a reconciliation process, that 

means effectively going back in and examining all of the assumpVerDate jul 14 2003 22:53 Sep 10, 2003 Jkt 089055 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\B055.XXX B055
46

tions that we made in last year’s farm bill and having to reach 

some new decisions about spending requirements. We will certainly 

do that, but we need your assistance in making sure that we have 

the necessary resources to be able to do that. 

In addition, whether that is done or not, the implementation of 

this farm bill is a major undertaking for the Department of Agriculture and for the committee having to oversee that. 

We are also very much engaged in a number of other very important issues. Because of the passage of trade promotion authority 

last Congress, the administration is engaged in a wide array of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. As you know, agriculture is our largest sector of our economy, and it is our largest 

export item, and it is an item that has significant trade surplus, 

in contrast to most other areas. Therefore, the committee’s work to 

make sure that the interests of American agriculture are protected 

in those processes is also something that is going to take a substantial amount of staff and member time. 

We are also going to be reviewing—because of the debacle we 

find ourselves in every year with disaster relief packages, we are 

going to have a major overhaul of crop insurance programs in the 

country. That, again, is something that will take a great deal of 

time and effort on the part of our staff. 

Our significant request for this year, the principle increase is in 

the area of new equipment that we need to modernize, primarily 

in computers. If you look at our numbers, you will find that is primarily in the first year of this Congress. We have a larger increase 

there because of the need to replace a significant amount of equipment in that area. 

In most other areas, I think you will find that our requests for 

increases are very modest and basically just an effort to keep up 

with the rate of inflation. 

I also want to point out that the staff salary category contains 

no more than a 4 percent a year increase, which is just about or 

a little above the cost of living adjustment. 

The equipment category closely follows the House guidelines for 

updating computers and other equipment and contains a one-time 

cost in 2003 for equipment to ensure continuity of service in the 

event of an emergency. I know a number of committees are doing 

this; and really, in a coordinated effort to make sure that we are 

capable of continuing to operate in emergency circumstances, we 

have to duplicate and locate in a remote location some of our equipment needs. 

At this time I would turn our attention to our ranking member 

who is someone who has served on this committee for a very long 

period of time, certainly longer than I have; and his reputation as 

being a fiscally responsible Member of Congress is second to none. 

So I am the fourth chairman of the Committee on Agriculture since 

the 104th Congress; and, as my predecessors have done, I am relying on his gracious wisdom in this endeavor before us today to help 

make our case. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have some wisdom from Texas. 

47

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES W. STENHOLM, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. STENHOLM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just say the tradition of bipartisanship on the Ag Committee is long and well understood and well appreciated. I have 

been here 24 years, and I have already seen the same relationship 

with Chairman Goodlatte. I have learned Virginian reasonably 

quick. He is a reasonably fast study on Texan. And when we get 

there, why, we have the language barrier taken care of. 

I fully support the request of the chairman. I would say that—

and the division of the resources to the minority is very fair. It is 

the same—basically the same as it was when we were in the majority. We treated the Republican minority the same way that we are 

being treated today: It was fair then, it is fair today. That is one 

of the factors that contributes to the fact that, where we may not 

always agree on every issue, we do find a way of disagreeing without being disagreeable and continue to work on the problems that 

face American agriculture. 

The agenda the chairman has laid out, I fully support. He laid 

out what is a very ambitious agenda, but it is a very necessary 

agenda for the Ag Committee. The oversight responsibilities that 

we have are extremely important, and it is important that we have 

the resources to do that job. 

So I am here to say I fully support the chairman. I would appreciate this committee granting to us that which we have asked. We 

believe it to be a very responsible request. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank both gentlemen. 

With the support of the Ranking Member, the gentleman from 

Connecticut, Congressman Larson, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Congressman Brady, I know we will have some questions. 

One thing I wanted to ask, and this has been a reoccurring 

theme. You haven’t asked for additional staff slots, but what is 

your space requirements right now of the existing staff you have? 

In other words, is it comfortable or jam-packed or—it has been a 

reoccurring theme about lack of space. I wondered how you sat 

with that. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I wouldn’t want to characterize 

it as comfortable. I will refer to my staff if they have some ideas 

about additional space. 

But I do want to point out that, in that regard, we are not asking 

for staff position increases. I believe we are the only committee in 

the House that has more members of the committee, 51, than we 

have staff, both majority and minority staff combined. 

I am advised by our Chief of Staff that we are tight, but we can 

live with what we have. 

The CHAIRMAN. I was going to say, if you have too much space, 

we will probably take some away. So, a good answer. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We are right down the hall. I think if you take 

a look, you will not find a lot that you can shoehorn into. 

The CHAIRMAN. Things have changed. One great thing is that the 

Internet has opened up. People can travel easier than they could 

maybe in the past. There are field hearings. But all of that, rightfully so, causes the public to ask questions about their government, 

and they want service. These buildings were designed quite a few 

48

years ago when you didn’t have Internet and people didn’t necessarily get to Washington as they can or maybe didn’t have field 

hearings. So just something that has been a reoccurring theme. I 

wondered how it was. 

I appreciate also the last funding resolution, the bipartisan support we had on the votes on the resolution. I know there will be 

a question by our ranking member on some allotments, two-third/

one-third, but I just hope that we can also have the support—if we 

can hold to the allotments that we stress in two-third/one-thirds. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And congratulations to you, Mr. Chairman, on becoming Chair of 

the Agriculture Committee. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Mr. LARSON. We couldn’t agree with you more in terms of the 

sage advice, the wit, and the down-home practicality and humor 

that Mr. Stenholm brings not only to the Agriculture Committee 

but he also brings to the United States Congress as well. 

In talking with our staff, the committee has long served as a 

model for the way other committees should run, and you are both 

to be commended for that. As Mr. Stenholm has pointed out, you 

have an ambitious agenda but one that is very important to the 

constituents whom you both serve and the people all across this 

Nation. 

The questions that we have been rather routinely asking every 

Chair who has come in—and again I want to credit Chairman Ney 

for really setting the tenor for Congress in making sure that there 

was a two-thirds/one-third agreement, something historically, as 

Mr. Stenholm has pointed out, that has always been accommodated 

on the Agriculture Committee but not necessarily in all other committees. 

The bipartisan manner in which you conduct business is also to 

be commended. 

Our concern would be that, in the event that even these modest 

requests that many people have asked for don’t achieve full funding 

status, is it still your intention to have that one-third/two-thirds 

split? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, thank you, Mr. Larson; and I think that 

is a very pertinent question. I think you can tell from the comments that we made that that is something that we have very carefully followed. It is certainly not new with me. It has been a longstanding tradition in the committee, and I hope that Congressmen 

Stenholm can verify that. 

I can tell you that is it my intention that we follow that no matter what allocation we receive, that whatever burden we have to 

bear here—and with regard to equipment and so on, I think Mr. 

Stenholm will verify that we go out of our way to make sure that 

they also receive their fair share of things, other than just staff, so 

that that staff is properly equipped and able to conduct their business. 

We are very proud of some of the technological advancements we 

put in place in the committee. As you know, our constituency 

reaches the farthest corners of the country, some of the most remote areas. So the ability of American farmers and ranchers to be 

49

able to access information from this committee via the Internet is 

very important to us. 

We are proud that our web site was recently recognized, got a 

silver award from the organization that was handing out awards 

last week for good-quality web sites. We believe we may be the only 

one that got a gold, silver, or bronze award that was done in-house, 

not by an outside consulting firm. So we have worked very, very 

hard to make sure that we are using the resources that you make 

available to us. 

Mr. STENHOLM. I agree with the Chairman. I mean, it is a fair 

division. Whatever the resources we have, we have had no complaints, anticipate none with the relationship that we have. 

Mr. LARSON. Well, again, I thank you both. Your integrity and 

the way you conduct your business is a model, as we said earlier. 

I would only point out as well—and you should be justifiably 

proud of the Golden Mouse Award, et cetera. But I want you to 

know that our office received one as well, totally produced inside. 

And I told Brian Mahar, who was responsible for that, if I mentioned his name I expect appropriate compensation for that as well. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, congratulations, Mr. Larson. We regretfully stand corrected. We will include you when we boast. 

The CHAIRMAN. It may be Brian who expects some more compensation for doing that. 

Mr. LARSON. They always do. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. No questions. 

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STENHOLM. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will take a short recess. 

[Recess.]

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. 

The next committee is the Science Committee. We have the 

Chairman from New York, Congressman Boehlert, and the Ranking Member from Texas, Congressman Hall. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

YORK 

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let me express great respect at 

the outset for keeping to a very rigid schedule. You are right on 

time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Scientifically on time. 

Mr. BOEHLERT. Yes. This is not gratuitous, but let me commend 

your staff. Because my staff reports to me on the committee and 

my personal staff that your administrative staff has been very, 

very receptive to questions. Haven’t always given us the answer we 

wanted but have always given us a good answer and in a timely 

manner. So my commendation to them. As a former staffer, I know 

who really does all the work here on the Hill. 

Thank you for the opportunity for Mr. Hall and me to appear before you today. Let me say at the outset that we are extremely cooperative—and we have no disputes over any committee budget 

matters. 

50

This year, we plan to maintain the two-thirds/one-third salary 

account split that has been the committee’s practice; and we are 

going to continue that practice. The minority has about one-third 

of the committee staff and uses its salary account as it sees fit, and 

that is the way I think it should be. 

The Science Committee is requesting a 2003 budget allocation 

that would be about 11 percent higher than what we received in 

2002 and then just a 2 percent increase over 2003 levels for 2004, 

and there are a number of clear reasons for this requested increase. 

First, the committee will have to allocate substantial resources 

to investigate the tragic loss of the space shuttle Columbia. Indeed, 

the Speaker has already given his blessing to an additional staffer 

for the committee because of this responsibility. The investigation 

will also entail significant travel expenses, as the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, with which we intend to work closely, is 

headquartered in Houston; and the facilities involved in the maintenance and operation of the shuttle are located throughout the 

country. 

Second, the committee continues to upgrade the staff. To take 

just one example, we have changed our associate counsel position 

from a low-level entry position to a senior position to be filled by 

someone who can carry out the tasks like the shuttle inquiry. 

In addition, the committee staff has been able to attract more 

Ph.D.s, attorneys, and individuals with significant private sector 

and government experience over the past 2 years and needs to be 

able to retain these excellent public servants. 

Third, much of our requested increase, $365,000, is slated to be 

used to purchase equipment for an offsite emergency office which, 

unfortunately, we think is a wise precaution in these times. 

Finally, let me say that within the next few weeks, as soon as 

two of our four subcommittees Chairs appoint their designees, all 

our majority staff positions will be filled. This was not the case in 

the last Congress as we worked to fill the vacancies that we inherited and to build a staff to match our priorities. And, incidentally, 

it is not a criticism of my predecessor, Chairman Sensenbrenner, 

who purposefully left vacancies unfulfilled in the latter portion of 

his tenure to give me maximum flexibility. 

Having a full staff will mean that the Science Committee will not 

only use all of its requested salary funds in 2004 but will incur additional costs for travel and administrative expense that are associated with having more staff and taking on even more difficult challenges, the loss of the Columbia a case in point. 

In short, Mr. Chairman, I believe we have put forward a reasonably well-documented request that will enable the science community to continue to play an active role in a wide range of issues. 

I look forward to responding to any questions you or Mr. Larson 

or Mr. Brady might have. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the Chairman for his testimony.

Now, the ranking member. 

51

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RALPH M. HALL, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you; and I thank John Larson 

for his good job and the work he has done and would ask him to 

put in a good word for me with Ms. Pelosi every chance he gets. 

We do get along. This is the third year that we have worked together, and there is harmony there, and there has been success. 

We are little, Mr. Chairman, like all us World War II guys were 

in 1945 in how our marriages lasted so long. You know, we got together in 1945 and decided that the men would make all the major 

decisions and the women would make all the minor decisions. This 

has worked for 55 years. But there hasn’t been a major decision 

yet. Kind of the way we are working together here. 

But—and I am—I kid him a lot, but he is a professional, he is 

sincere, he is cooperative, he is helpful, and I appreciate him. 

We want to stress to ensure the independent commission that is 

charged with investigating this thing remains independent. We 

think that the Admiral really wants to do that, and we are certainly supporting him on that. 

The Chairman has talked about the future of the space program. 

That is something that we have really got to work toward. 

I also salute his efforts to upgrade the experience level of the 

professional staff. 

These are things that we have asked for, and I think he is justified in the requests that he has made. 

In summary, he is attempting to put the Science Committee on 

a course to make it one of the really, truly important and effective 

committees in the House. I support that, and I support the ratios. 

I would hope that the ratios would be consistent among all committees and we be treated accordingly. 

With that, I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank both gentlemen for their testimony. 

The ratio issue is something that we push; and Congressman Bill 

Thomas and Steny Hoyer, when he was ranking member, did some 

real heavy lifting. There were a couple of ones that weren’t up to 

par. Then 2 years ago, as you know, the Speaker was insistent, he 

wanted it done; and House Administration got it done. Our ranking 

member now is insistent to keep it there, and we hear that message, and I think it is a good thing. 

I wanted to ask a question on space, and I ask this question but 

it has also come up about space accommodations for existing staff. 

The reason I mention it is that these buildings were built a lot of 

time ago; and I think we have field hearings and the Internet and 

people are more active with their government advocacy groups, but 

it also causes, obviously—people have to have their answers, answers given across this country, so we have had to, obviously, have 

more staff to accommodate the constituencies and citizens in the 

U.S. Are you having a space problem of physically where to place 

people? 

Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, we are operating in tight quarters. But, realistically and honestly, I think they pass the adequacy test. But 

it is difficult. 

The CHAIRMAN. The other think is that we had a great bipartisan 

vote a couple years ago with members of the Science Committee on 

52

both sides of the aisle. We would hope that if we hold to the ratios 

that we could again get bipartisan support. 

Mr. BOEHLERT. You have that from me, no question about it. I 

think the committee is doing a good job. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, it is an honor 

to have these distinguished gentlemen before us today. I have been 

honored to serve on the Science Committee since I became a Member of Congress, and I want to commend the Chairman for his enlightened leadership and the manner not only as it relates to budgetary concerns but also just in the manner in which you treat the 

members of the minority and, also, the relationship that he does 

have with Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall is—well, he is kind of like a Will Rogers of the Congress. 

Mr. HALL. Will Rogers is dead, isn’t he? 

Mr. LARSON. Well, yes, Mr. Rogers did perish, unfortunately, but 

remains everlasting on our minds, et cetera. But was known especially for his down-home humor and his practicality and his ability 

to, when things have a tendency to tense up, to lighten up the moment and have people look realistically about the responsibility 

that they have in front of them. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

Mr. LARSON. While I am doing my level best with Ms. Pelosi and 

him, I do want to say that he is indeed loved by all Members on 

both sides of the aisle for just the genuine kind of person he is. 

It is our intent to certainly accommodate the committee. They do 

have outstanding staffs on both sides, and we want to commend 

you for that. 

Mr. Palmer has put in some specific requests. I will have to talk 

about that in behind-closed-door meetings with Mr. Hall. But, 

nonetheless, we think that we should proceed in a manner——

The only question that we have, and we have asked this routinely, and that is, with regard to—in the event that we don’t get 

all the funding that is desired here, is it still the intent to keep 

that one-third/two-third relationship? 

Mr. HALL. Yes. 

Mr. BOEHLERT. It is our intention to do that. 

Mr. LARSON. Well, we appreciate that. 

Again, your integrity and the manner in which you have handled 

this committee and the outstanding leadership that both of you 

have provided are a credit to the United States Congress. 

Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much for those kind words. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Nothing. 

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. The next committee will be Rules. The committee 

will come to order. The committee will come to order. 

I appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Member, and if you 

would like to give a brief statement. 

53

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID DREIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. DREIER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me say that it is a great pleasure to be here again with my 

colleague, Mr. Frost; and I am pleased to submit to you a bipartisan budget package which passed the Rules Committee by a voice 

vote. 

We intend to continue our long-standing arrangement dedicating, 

as we know, under the rules of the House, a third of the Committee’s personnel budget to the minority, while granting all other requests in a timely manner subject to the availability of funds that 

are allocated from you to this committee. 

In my 4 years a chairman of the committee, the minority has 

been granted every request that has been made, whether it be 

equipment, subscriptions, or supplies. We have worked on computer issues as well with them, trying to make sure that all their 

needs are addressed; and I suspect that this 108th congress will be 

no different. 

We will also continue to operate within the constraints of our existing staff ceiling of 36, with 24 allocated to the majority, 11 allocated to the minority, and one shared administrative employee. Actually, it is my understanding now that we are going to be making 

a modification. It will actually be 24, 12 on the staffing allocation, 

based on a change that I was told yesterday we are going to be 

making. 

Our committee is asking for a modest overall increase of five and 

a half percent. These increases will be incurred in personnel compensation and are necessary to keep experienced staff from leaving 

the job for jobs in the private sector. It is also necessary to ensure 

that the minority has sufficient funds within their one-third allocation to provide modest cost-of-living increases over the next 2 

years. Mr. Frost has an extremely loyal, very dedicated and experienced staff; and we want to make sure that they are compensated 

accordingly. 

Thanks to the support of this committee and your leadership, Mr. 

Chairman, for our previous fund request, our committee has done 

well in upgrading the office equipment and will continue to do so 

in this Congress. 

Our biggest priorities in the 108th include the purchase of a 

high-speed capacity photocopier for the minority, new network 

servers for both the majority and the minority, modernizing the 

equipment in our subcommittee office, which currently has antiquated equipment dating back to the early 1990s—that doesn’t 

seem so long ago to me—but antiquated equipment from the early 

1990s. 

The subcommittee modernization was originally budgeted for the 

107th Congress but not undertaken as the committee was notified 

that the subcommittee office had been relocated. The relocation is 

now complete, and we hope to begin the renovations just as soon 

as possible. We are planning to initiate the majority of equipment 

purchases and/or upgrades during the first session of this Congress. 

Our travel budget has been reduced 50 percent; administrative 

expenses have been reduced by 2 percent. 

54

I believe it is a very, very fair and balanced budget request that 

we have; and I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Frost. I 

have enjoyed working closely with him as we have developed this 

budget, and I am glad that we have got a package that we can both 

support. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Ranking Member. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARTIN FROST, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I will summarize my remarks, because we have votes. 

It is a pleasure to be here today. Some years ago, I sat where 

you are sitting today. I was the chairman of this account subcommittee, and that was a different time. So I can understand the 

problems that you face. 

I would like to acknowledge that chairman Dreier has, in fact, 

given the minority one-third of all the resources of the committee 

and that he has been very accommodating when it came to our requests for equipment for the minority; and I join in his request to 

the committee. 

I would like to make some observations, and I am going to summarize. 

We have a lot of very experienced staff on our side, and it is my 

view that the committee has not sought enough money to compensate staff, and it has put some restrictions on—of course, that 

by its very nature puts restrictions on what we can pay very experienced people who have been around for a long time. I would—

while I am joining with the Chairman, and I do support his request, I would hope that at some point in the future that we would 

be able to—your committee would be able to allocate more total 

money for staff, again, knowing that this is divided on a two-thirds/

one-third basis, so that we could compensate adequately the very 

experienced people that we have. 

The Chairman has indicated, and I wasn’t aware that we are 

going from 11 to 12 slots, and I appreciate that. We really needed 

two additional slots. But, of course, if we don’t have enough money 

to pay staff, the slots are not overly helpful at this point. 

The problem that we face is that we have very complicated matters before this Congress, and the Rules Committee plays an increasingly important role in the consideration of those matters on 

the floor. We just had a somewhat heated debate on a rule that is 

on the floor today. 

We have very good people working for us, and I would hope that 

we would be able to come to the point where we could adequately 

compensate and retain those very good people. 

I do appreciate what the Chairman has done in terms of accommodating our equipment needs. The Chairman has certainly honored the two-thirds/one-third division of staff, and that has been 

the tradition on this committee even before that was the tradition 

in the House and with other committees.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the gentlemen. Thank you. 

55

Mr. LARSON. Well, given the time—I know that the two-thirds/

one-third rule has always been a floor and not a ceiling, and I am 

hoping that we can accommodate the interests and concerns of Mr. 

Frost and the committee. 

Again, I commend the Chairman for his working relationship and 

his historic perspective of Congress and the House and everything 

that that means. It has been an honor to be associated with you, 

Mr. Chairman, over the years. I can’t think of anyone who, in 

terms of a colleague’s colleague, better typifies the relationship that 

I have with Martin Frost. He is like General Omar Bradley. He has 

certainly been there for the Members and this institution, and it 

is an honor to serve with him as well. It is hopeful that we can 

work this process through. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman, Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. I feel the same. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we want to thank both Generals for being 

here today. 

Mr DREIER. Well, I wasn’t called a General, the only military guy 

here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will call you Patton. 

The CHAIRMAN. Speaking of Generals, I want to extend an apology to our colleague, Congressman Skelton. The bells have rung, 

and he came early. But would you like to—do you want to—we can 

do Duncan afterwards? 

Mr. SKELTON. It is up to you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have 10 minutes left. It is up to you. If you 

would like to put a statement in the record. 

Mr. SKELTON. I thank you very much. I am sure that Duncan is 

on his way. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Larson, thank you. I would like to put my 

statement in the record, if I may. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Mr. SKELTON. We are a rather unique committee, as two members sitting here will testify. We are very bipartisan. We have a 

fully professional staff. A handful are dedicated to the minority, 

but, by and large, most of the staff are fully professional. 

For a good number of years the defense budget has been rising, 

but the same number of staff members has been 60, and the payment has been, in some cases, limited. If we want to keep a good 

staff, we are going to have to compete with outside interests as 

well as other governmental arms. I hope that—and the request, 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Larson, is for a 13 percent increase. Over the 

last two chairmen, we haven’t had any number of increases in the 

personnel number; and there is an increase in authorization for an 

additional six staff members. The authorization today is at 60.

Mr. SKELTON. I really think that the pay, the COLAs that are 

needed, the equipment, supplies, travel funds all require the full 

amount that Mr. Hunter is requesting. I certainly agree with everything. He has treated us very, very well. He will continue do so 

I know. We work on not just issues but process hand in glove. I 

56

would appreciate the request that Mr. Hunter has put forward, and 

I second the motion as much as I possibly can. 

I hope this committee will realize that we are a very unique, bipartisan effort in Congress and we work that way. The demands 

on the Armed Services now with the potential of Iraq, the terrorism 

war that is ongoing, you don’t have any idea the amount of work 

that has increased during that time; and I think his request for additional funding is certainly justified. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Unfortunately, we are out of time. I just want to commend you 

and the committee. You do a great job on this important issue. 

The gentleman from Connecticut. 

Mr. LARSON. It is our intention to fully fund your request. 

Just one quick subnote, that Mr. Taylor and Mr. Abercrombie 

have asked that we have cream for their coffee or milk for their 

coffee. They are a little concerned about the powdered stuff. 

Mr. SKELTON. We have noted their request, and we will do our 

very best to fulfill your request. 

Mr. LARSON. Again, I thank you for the working relationship; 

and, in his absence—I am sure Mr. Hunter will stop by later on, 

but I want to commend you both and especially you, Mr. Skelton, 

for the manner in which, whether it has been Mr. Stump or anyone 

that you have had an opportunity to work with, you have done so 

bipartisanly and in the best interest of our country. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. I serve with Mr. Skelton. You are one of the classiest 

people in this institution. Thank you. 

Mr. SKELTON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The committee will stand in recess. 

[Recess.]

The CHAIRMAN. The House Administration Committee is back 

from recess. 

We had the Ranking Member here, who had good and glowing 

things to say about the committee and also the Chairman, so, with 

that, we have the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, 

Mr. Hunter. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Larson. Great 

to be with you, and thank you for taking Ike’s statement here at 

the end of the session just before the vote. 

Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, we are asking for an increase 

this year. In years past, as you know, we have turned money back. 

We have essentially the same staffing ceiling since 1995; and the 

increases that we are asking, roughly a 13.8 percent increase, is I 

think necessary to take care of merit pay, adjustments, cost-of-living pay as well as a modest increase in the size of our staff. 

I would ask if I could offer my written statement for the record 

and just give you a summary of——

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. HUNTER [continuing]. Why I think this is reasonable. 

57

First, as Mr. Larson knows, we have taken on a job which has 

become increasingly complex; and to those ends we have added a 

new subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, which I think is extremely necessary in these times. We also now have the military operating at 

high state around the world, a fairly significant budget at $399 billion this year, and we have new elements of national defense. We 

have, obviously, the homeland security element, which is going to 

involve us to a large degree. We have a new frontier in space. We 

have missile defense emerging into operational states; and, of 

course, the ongoing war against terrorism. 

All of this also is putting an increasing strain on our soldiers, 

sailors, airmen and Marines. We are maintaining this volunteer 

military at a time when it is more and more difficult to get these 

folks back home to make sure that their needs are taken care of 

in terms of their families and personal requirements and yet we 

have been able to make this volunteer military work. 

So I think we have an increasing oversight role in Armed Services, and we have—Mr. Skelton may have alluded to this, but we 

have got, I think, a unique bipartisan working relationship on this 

committee in that we don’t have a ratio of minority to majority 

staff. What we have is a base professional staff that handles 99 

percent of our issues are bipartisan issues, whether you are talking 

about pay for the troops, equipping the troops, military construction, so we have a professional staff that is bipartisan and is maintained through whether you have Republican or Democrat control. 

Along with that, we allot in this case—Mr. Skelton’s case—nine 

professional staff members to the minority so that when you have 

legitimate policy difference within the minority, whether it is Republican or Democrat, you have the ability to engage in that policy 

debate and make that policy debate. We found that to be very 

workable. Members of our committee go to our professional staff, 

whether they are Republican or Democrat, and receive the same 

professional response; and it is always a response directed to helping folks in uniform and doing the right thing for national security. 

So we are asking for this increase. I think it is valid in light of 

the responsibilities that we have in the area that we need to look 

over. 

The other aspect of needing some additional resources is this, 

Mr. Chairman. Frankly, we have got the administration recruiting 

a lot of our professional staff folks. Some folks may refer to that 

as stealing our staff people. We think of them as moving on to another position, but we have had I think six Senate confirmables 

have left our professional staff this last year. 

We also have industry competing for our folks. They have got to 

know an increasingly sophisticated aspect of many systems, which 

requires that they have a high degree of expertise, and it is a degree of expertise which is sought out by industry, too. 

So we are competing with industry, and we are competing with 

the administration for talented folks, and that means that we have 

to pay them a decent salary to be able to attract those folks and 

recruit them into the Armed Services staff. 

So that is my pitch, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and my 

great friend Mr. Larson, a member of the committee, and Mr. 

58

Brady, also a great friend, for allowing me to come up and make 

this presentation and put our request in. 

I would like to ask that my written statement be entered into the 

record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

I just want to note the importance of your committee all year 

round but especially at this particular time and commend you on 

the bipartisan job that you all have done on that committee. I 

think that you have done a great job, you and the Ranking Member 

and the way the staff has responded to people. 

One thing I wanted to clarify for the record, are you asking for 

five new slots or six? 

Mr. HUNTER. We are asking for—let me say we have a 60 base 

now. We are going to 66. We are asking for six new slots; and the 

minority will share, Mr. Chairman, any increase that we receive. 

But we looked over these new areas and we really have to work 

on those that are very difficult. This information technology we are 

spending a ton of money on requires a lot of attention, a lot of talent. The war against terrorism is going to require a lot of talent, 

the new things we are doing in space and with respect to the newly 

operational missile defenses we are setting up around the world 

and, lastly, trying to make this Pentagon run more efficiently and 

effectively. 

And I don’t want to mention that Mr. Brady has brought up several times we need to have better food in the markups, but he is 

going to volunteer that in the next markup. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me echo the sentiments that were expressed by Ike Skelton 

early on about the outstanding working relationship that he has 

with Mr. Hunter. It has been an honor for me, along with Mr. 

Brady, to serve on the Armed Services Committee; and the fairminded manner in which the Chairman treats us not only in terms 

of requests as it relates to the committee but in the manner which 

you treat all the members who serve on the committee—you go the 

extra mile on behalf of the members. And it is duly noted by both 

sides of the aisle, and we commend you for that. 

I also think, as you pointed out, the unique relationship of the 

professional staff on the Armed Services committee because of its 

bipartisan nature and the extraordinary pressure that the committee is operating under, meeting the demands concurrent with 

the times today, it certainly warrants the increase that you have 

asked for and sought. We hope to be able to accommodate everyone’s desires and concerns. 

We know as well we are going to hear shortly from the Budget 

Committee. Someone who has forgotten more about defense than 

maybe most of us collectively can remember is John Spratt, and he 

always is touting the importance of making sure that we have professional staff and that we are able to get the kind of information 

that we need. 

So, Mr. Chairman, again I thank you. Mr. Skelton was in complete harmony with your request, and again I think that is a credit 

59

to the way both you and he conduct yourselves as the people who 

spearhead our Armed Services Committee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Larson and Mr. Brady, too, for 

your membership on this great team. We have got a great team on 

the Armed Services Committee. I appreciate it. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Hunter, I come from the City of Philadelphia, and I 

come way up here and sit there day in and day out in the markup, 

and you give me pizza and hoagies. I can bring my own pizza and 

hoagies. 

But I am only teasing you. I enjoyed them. When you are hungry, everything tastes good. 

I just found out today that we had a Democrat and Republican 

staff. It was never treat that way on that committee as long as I 

had been there. You have a great staff. They treat us with respect. 

As I said about the Ranking Member, I way about the chairman, 

you both are two class individuals, and I am proud to serve with 

you. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Brady. It is great to 

have you on the team. I appreciate it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just to correct the record, Mr. Brady meant to 

say he would like Philly cheesesteaks. 

Mr. HUNTER. We are going to let him bring those next time. 

Mr. LARSON. I would also like to parenthetically add that we did 

bring up with Mr. Skelton that several members of the committee 

have asked that we now serve milk and cream with our coffee in 

the anteroom just adjoining, and I am glad that Rita has indicate 

she is going to be able to accommodate the staff. They will all be 

here. Proud to hear that Mr. Brady and I have been able to deliver 

that on their behalf, and we thank you in advance, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you. I think there was a delivery started 

this morning. 

Also, Mr. Chairman, we could use more room, obviously. We have 

got space problems, as I believe most folks do. I wanted to make 

that note for the record. 

The CHAIRMN. I want to thank the Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Next, move on to Energy and Commerce. We 

have been talking about budgets, but we have gotten off onto food, 

and I know you are from Louisiana. 

Mr. TAUZIN. We are talking turkey here. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have the Chairman, Congressman Tauzin of 

Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Congressman Dingell of Michigan. We will start with the Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank you again 

and thank this committee generally for the extraordinary help that 

you have given not only our committee but all of the committees 

of jurisdiction in terms of upgrading our rooms and our ability to 

60

do our job. I think we are much more efficient now, and I want to 

thank you for that. 

Let me also tell you that if you look at a comparison of all the 

funding requests, we are coming to you with an 11 percent increase 

over the 2 years I think we have talked about. In regards to that, 

if you compare that request to most of the other committees, you 

will see that we are relatively low in our request. A committee is 

requesting as much as 43 and 40 percent and 29 and 30 percent. 

I would hope that as a result of all these hearings and as a result 

of your deliberations and your decisions that we don’t learn that we 

should have played that game, that we should have come in asking 

for some huge increase in order to get a more reasonable increase. 

What we will try to do, as you will see, is ask for increases that 

are commensurate with the increasing workload and the increasing 

requirements of our committee and the incredible burden of hiring 

competent staff to do the difficult, complex job we do for the House 

and for the country. 

As you know, I want to focus on three areas. 

First of all, I am pleased to be joined by the former chairman of 

the committee, Mr. Dingell, our ranking Democrat on the committee, who I think will tell you as much as I can about the needs 

of our committee and why it is important that we continue to have 

your support in supporting the key elements on which we base our 

work. 

First of all, if you want to hire a skilled lawyer in this town any- where on K Street, you are looking at $150,000 right now or better. 

The demand for competent, qualified staff coming out of that pool 

is very difficult to satisfy; and the competition being as fierce as 

it is—in fact, we lose some of our best people every year to opportunities on K Street; and we have seen some of our very best personnel moving off to—I am very happy for them—but taking some 

very nice assignments elsewhere than in government service. 

And that competition doesn’t get easier. It gets worse as we go 

along, and I want to make that point to you. 

Second, beginning the last Congress, we have reached a bipartisan goal of allocating fully one-third of our committee slots and 

resources as well to our minority. That, as you know, was a request 

of this committee and the leadership. We have worked this out, and 

we have worked it out very amicably with our committee, and it 

is working. 

However, that comes with a price. The majority—we can’t simply 

give away resources required to attain them. We would cease to 

function if we did that. We have to have the capacity as a majority 

to organize and get our work done. So making this accommodation 

has put some strains on the ability of the majority to get its work 

done and organize and do it. 

I want to make sure that you understand not only are we happy 

to do it, we thought it was the fair and right thing to do, but it 

has stressed us to some degree. 

Third, our hearing room upgrades. I don’t have to tell you again. 

I have said it once, I will say it a thousand times. Not only my 

committee but all the committees have had the benefit of upgrades, 

and I want to thank you for that. We are now literally, finally, a 

high-technology committee. We have telecommunications under our 

61

jurisdiction, and we were operating with egg timers for a long time. 

We now are finally a high-technology committee with high-technology stuff in our committee room to do interactive rooms, and we 

have done them. We have done interactive hearings with witnesses 

as far out as California. 

Although, as requested by you, we have not included a funding 

request for the upgrade of the second hearing room, which is 2322. 

We do request that those funds be required—provided rather. With 

the House frequently in session now only 2 or 3 days a week, it 

is critical we have both of these hearing rooms function. If we had 

the full 5 days, we could have hearings scheduled out more appropriately across that time. We wouldn’t need necessarily to speed up 

the upgrade of the second hearing room. We have no choice any 

more. So we are in dire need of that upgrade, and we hope that 

you will find the funding for that work as well. 

Again, let me thank you for the opportunity to make these few 

points to you; and I yield to my dear friend and the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Dingell. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Larson, members of the committee, thank you. I am happy to appear here with Chairman Tauzin. I thank you for your courtesy in hearing from us. 

I support the budget that he suggests. I believe it is both necessary and desirable that the committee should be funded at these 

levels. 

Mr. Tauzin has treated us fairly with regard to the amount and 

allocation of resources, financial and otherwise; and because of the 

workload facing the committee, I would urge that the committee do 

adopt the budget suggested. I would note that it was endorsed by 

our committee unanimously. 

I ask you to, of course, assist us in upgrading room 2322, which 

is our second hearing room. 

I thank you for your consideration in hearing from us. If you 

have questions, I will be happy to respond. 

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if I could add one other thought. 

Ninety percent of our budget is in compensation of the staff. We 

focus our attention on personnel. 

One final thought, too. That is that, because our committee does 

such extraordinary oversight work—you have seen our work on the 

Enron hearings. You have seen it on the Firestone hearings, Red 

Cross. You have seen it on a number of different, very serious, 

huge national issues. We are busy right now investigating national 

labs and some of the abuse of Federal funds to credit cards. Our 

staff and our members have to—very often have to go out to places 

with our investigators, have to travel around the country, and that 

part of our budget is very critical as well if we are going to continue our work. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair notes you have had a couple of years 

of heavy lifting, and a lot of committees have had that happen. 9–

11 with House Administration, as you can imagine, the security 

and the anthrax caused an amazing workload; and the staff, minorVerDate jul 14 2003 22:53 Sep 10, 2003 Jkt 089055 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B055.XXX B055
62

ity and majority, did a great job, as the members did. In your case, 

I am sure some of that, also, flows in. But you had specialty items 

that came up unexpectedly you had to react to. 

I also want to note for the record I can remember 2 years ago—

and it was tough doing this, but you did it. You took nine new 

slots, and you shifted them to the minority to make that whole 

process occur, and that is tough. You ask for slots, and you get 

them, and you shift them. But it was the fair thing to do, and you 

all agreed on that, and I give you a lot of credit for doing that. 

Also, I want to note your staff has given us ideas in technology 

that we now are trying to take conference wide for the Democrats 

and Republicans, ideas of TV channels and digital and things that 

we can do. So we appreciated that, and it is going to benefit all the 

members. 

The other thing, too, is that you are the only committee—and I 

know you had something to do with this, obviously—where I got a 

personal thank you from everybody, minority and majority, for 

what we did. So I appreciate the courtesy from both sides. 

Mr. TAUZIN. I learned that as a child. You guys have been awfully good, and I made sure all my members knew that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks, and we appreciate also the bipartisan 

vote for the funding resolution. Two-thirds/one-third was critical. 

Chairman Thomas and Ranking Member Hoyer pushed that at 

that time. The Speaker insisted on that. A lot of it was done. We 

came in at the end and wrapped the rest of it up with both the 

Ranking Member and the Chairman’s help. 

Our Ranking Member, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. 

Larson, was insistent on it, and rightfully so; and we agreed with 

him and his persistence on that. We appreciate getting the bipartisan vote. We hope that can happen again, both sides voting for 

the funding resolution on the floor. You both can commit to that 

at this time——

Mr. TAUZIN. I can’t speak for John, but certainly you have my 

support, and you know that. 

Mr. DINGELL. I will be supporting your budget that you submit, 

Mr. Chairman; and I will be happy to do so. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks. 

I want to ask you about space because we are hearing about 

tight quarters, space, physical location of staffs. Buildings were 

built a long time ago, and I just wondered if you had any comments 

about any need for additional space. 

Mr. TAUZIN. One of the other things I did was to try to make additional space available to John as we allocated the space that was 

allocated to our committee. I think Mr. Dingell will acknowledge 

that has happened with regard to housing the members of staff 

that was shifted over to his side. 

But, obviously, space is always a problem, as we are working in, 

as you know, older buildings. Our good fortune is to be in the Rayburn Building, which is a more modern-type space; and the committees obviously operating in the older buildings maybe have even 

more difficulty than we have. But we utilize all the space we have. 

I would love for you to walk by some of the operations. You will 

see that we are stacked up in closets in some cases even in the 

Rayburn building. To the extent I know other committees may 

63

have more serious problems than we have in that regard, I want 

to echo that it is a problem for us even in a modern building. I can 

imagine how much a problem it is for other committees in more ancient buildings. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Connecticut. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Chairman Ney. 

As we have said to the previous Chairs and Ranking Members 

who have come forward, we want to continue to thank Mr. Ney for 

his service in asserting the one third/two thirds relationship that 

has existed on the committee, as both of you have already acknowledged. 

Chairman Tauzin, we want to thank you again for the manner 

in which you have worked with the minority. There can be no 

greater testimony or compliment than to have the dean of the 

House indicate that he endorses your proposal, and that certainly 

is good enough for me, a man whom we hold in such high regard 

and stature in the House of Representatives, and rightfully so because of his long-standing service and commitment and understanding and respect for this great institution, is something that he 

has made sure that those of us who are following him are well 

aware of. I personally thank him for that. 

We have said and you have indicated in your statement, so I 

don’t think there is a point in following up on the relationship between the one-third/two-third split that we obviously think has 

helped the process. 

Again our kudos and thanks, because the enlightening thing for 

new members—and all three Democrats are new members to this 

committee—is to find out just how much information actually—new 

information and help that so many of our committees, especially in 

the areas of technology and other matters, might be able to assist 

us. 

I would only ask the dean of the House if he has anything else 

to add, or is there anything we should follow up with on the committee? 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Larson. I appreciate your concern 

about us, and I am grateful to you for that and also for your friendship. 

Our chairman has been fair in allocating resources of the committee, and I want to thank this committee for the way in which 

you have addressed our concerns and problems. I particularly want 

to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you also, Mr. Larson, for the 

fashion in which you have done so. 

We are able to conduct our business well. There are times we 

have certain stresses on us, but I would observe that the Chairman 

has, as I have mentioned, been fair. 

We do confront, as the Chairman has wisely observed here, that 

we do have space problems; and these facilities, the buildings, are 

old. The Cannon Building, I suspect, is approaching its 100th birthday. This building was occupied by my dad in 1933 when he first 

came in here. That is a long time ago? 

I was the last guy to get into the Rayburn Building when it was 

set up in 1965. 

Mr. TAUZIN. Were you here when they burned the Capitol? 

64

Mr. DINGELL. Just after. 

But all of these buildings confront major problems, both with regard to design, with regard to safety, with regard to the space 

available per employee; and that is true in your personal office as 

well as it is in terms of committee business. 

We face questions of wiring and safety, and I wouldn’t be at all 

surprised if were not probably condemned as being unsafe for electrical and water and other concerns which we have. The elevators, 

as you might know, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, is an 

abomination. 

To conduct the business of this body in facilities of this age is difficult, but I know this committee has been diligent in addressing 

those concerns, and I want to express my appreciation for that, too. 

Mr. TAUZIN. If I could jump in, Mr. Larson, let me first mention 

something that I think Mr. Dingell will also concur in. 

The nice thing we discovered when we made the adjustment in 

staff and allotments and space, first of all, most of the work we do 

we do in a very bipartisan fashion. We will have some great wars 

once in a while over some good issues, and we may have a few this 

year, but an awful lot of our work is done where the staffs are 

working together. My staff works for John as much as his works 

for me in that regard. We work as a team to get good legislation 

to the floor, and I hope that is true of more committees. I know it 

is very true of ours. 

I find that the quality of the staff that work for the minority is 

as important to me as the quality of the staff that works for the 

majority, and that has worked out very well, and I want to thank 

Mr. Dingell publicly for that. 

Secondly, to let you know that your respect for Mr. Dingell is 

matched completely by my own. I grew up with this man when I 

first came to Congress as the chairman of a committee. I learned 

an awful lot about how to run a committee, how to make it work, 

because I paid attention to him; and I think that is paying dividends for our committee today. I have the greatest honor and respect for him, and I think that helps us work through these asset 

and allocation issues quite well. 

Mr. DINGELL. And I share those feelings, gentleman and ladies, 

for my present Chairman. 

Mr. TAUZIN. Finally, there are some great new technologies. I 

just want to make you aware of a couple of them that are on the 

cusp, that are not here yet. But we are investigating one new technology that may well be able to distribute broadband over the old 

copper that exists in these buildings. Instead of rewiring and putting in fiber and doing all the things we have—we might have to 

do, it might be possible to distribute broadband, high-quality digital interactive capacity in a building as old as this one and the 

Cannon building without necessarily going through a lot of reconstruction. Before you go into reconstruction, I think you need to 

know more about these new technologies. 

Secondly, there are incredibly new wireless technologies on the 

cusp. There are some ultra broadband concepts that FCC is just beginning to license in application. One, developed by a company 

called Time Domain in Huntsville, Alabama, if it is as good as it 

promises to be could deliver ultra-wide broadband through brick 

65

and mortar, through walls, without the necessity of even using the 

current wires and the new fiber that you might want to put in 

those walls. 

In short, there are some pretty interesting things happening that 

I would encourage you to stay in touch with our staff on as we 

learn more about them. We will share that information with you 

because it may keep you from making a decision to spend money 

that you might not have to spend because there is a system that 

eclipses in technology the old systems that existed that you might 

deploy, and to that extent we will continue to share that with you. 

Mr. Larson, I appreciate your thoughts on that. 

Mr. LARSON. We thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Also, Mr. Chairman, if you could share with us your great culinary expertise as well, that is always welcome. 

Mr. TAUZIN. I will tell you how grateful I am for all you have 

done. I will be more than happy to do what I did for Martha Stuart. I will come and cook for you——

Mr. LARSON. We appreciate that. We will take you up on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from California. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, it is always good to see the 

committee Chairman and the Ranking Member work so well together, and this has been since I have been here in 1996. While 

we certainly value the institutional memory and the institution of 

Mr. Dingell, in fact, this institution perhaps needs to be relooked 

at. Mr. Chairman, I would love to see how long has it been since 

we have looked at the wiring and the safety of this place. Perhaps 

there are reports and a thorough examination has been done, but 

I think we need to in light of fiberoptics and the great things that 

are being done now. 

Given the mode that we are in, we cannot be too careful in ensuring that the wiring and the safety of these buildings, irrespective of the lack of space, be one that we are in front of and not behind on. So these two outstanding gentlemen that bring so much 

to the Energy and Commerce Committee can give us some suggestions or at least have us work with their staff on some of the things 

that they feel we should be looking at in terms of the wiring and 

just in the complete safety of these buildings. Speaking on behalf 

of the members, we will be grateful and much appreciative of that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. BRADY. No questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, I want to thank both of you. I appreciate the work that both of you do and the suggestions and how you 

have been able to tackle a lot of tough topics in a good manner. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you for your courtesy; and thank you also 

for your leadership, ladies and gentlemen of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Next we will go to the Budget Chairman, Jim 

Nussle of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Congressman John Spratt 

of South Carolina. 

The Chair will note that many chairmen have testified they need 

a budget increase because they have got tasks from the Budget 

Committee. So I thought I would let you know that, Mr. Chairman. 

66

Mr. NUSSLE. I am sorry, I couldn’t hear you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Many of the chairmen and ranking members 

have said that they now need a budget increase because they have 

tasks from the Budget Committee. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well——

The CHAIRMAN. You don’t have to comment on that. I just wanted to note it. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM NUSSLE, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Mr. NUSSLE. We passed our budget last night at about 1:30, Mr. 

Chairman. Mr. Spratt and I conducted our committee markup, our 

annual markup for the budget. And you are correct. But since it 

has not yet passed the floor or gone to conference, those tasks are 

projected tasks dynamically scored for the purpose of their testimony before you. So——

The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman would yield for just one second, I want to give you some comfort level that the $5 million that we 

need to find has been already agreed to on a bipartisan basis. We 

are going to charge a member of the Budget Committee for rent. 

Mr. NUSSLE. I had a feeling that was going to come up today; 

and, Mr. Chairman, we intend to our part. We think that that is 

true, at a time when there are difficulties throughout our budget 

and when we have men and women in service and we ask for sacrifices, that everyone should be willing to do so. 

Our request for the 108th Congress is for an overall increase for 

both sessions of 4.7 percent. That is a 3.26 percent increase the 

first year, and a 1.39 percent increase the second. It is an average 

increase which we believe is consistent with the rate of inflation. 

We are not requesting an increase in the number of available 

staff positions. Our long-term goal, however, does remain to attract 

and retain good-quality personnel in very specialized vocational 

areas. Another way of putting that is that we have a budget responsibility that is equal to, if not greater than, the President’s at 

OMB. Our Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office provide us with those kinds of details and expertise, and we 

want to ensure that those positions continue to attract good people. 

Our increase in personnel compensation would go toward our 

continuing efforts to develop specialized staff and keep pace not 

only with our Senate counterparts but also with appropriation and 

authorizing committees. 

Our funding levels in the categories of travel, detailees, and consultants remain unchanged from the 107th Congress. This request 

does not assume any funding for detailees from the executive 

branch or any outside consultants. No outside consultants are requested. 

We are requesting a modest increase in the committee’s budget 

for equipment. The major portion of this increase would go toward 

the installation of the disaster recovery system, with the remaining 

portion being used for software upgrades and the annual one-third 

upgrade of computers, printers, and other equipment. 

In preparing my funding request, Mr. Spratt has been consulted 

and the minority staff have been consulted to determine their 

budgetary needs. My practice has been to provide the minority oneVerDate jul 14 2003 22:53 Sep 10, 2003 Jkt 089055 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B055.XXX B055
67

third of the total budget for personnel, as has been requested by 

this committee; and we have lived up to that in all of the budgets 

that I have had the opportunity to request. This translates into 

providing the minority one-third of available staff positions as well 

as one-third of the line item for personnel compensation.

Additionally to that, Mr. Chairman, just to report to you and to 

the ranking member, that it is my policy to upgrade one-third of 

the minority’s equipment each year as well in addition to that, 

which, I don’t believe is something that has been requested by this 

committee, but I think is important for us to do. 

Finally, I am unaware of any reasonable requests from the minority that have not been accommodated in this budget. Mr. Spratt 

and I worked closely together. We kind of have an understanding 

that, while we have to argue and kick and fight and fuss when it 

comes to the substance of a budget, we should operate our committee in a bipartisan, process-oriented way; and that means that 

we operate in fairness, as requested by this committee and as commanded by our Constitution and the duties we have before us. 

So that is the way I like to operate, and I commend Mr. Spratt 

for the way he operates as well. 

That is my testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ranking Member Spratt. 

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

CAROLINA 

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much; and I agree 

with everything that my Chairman has just said. 

If I could digress just one second. I am also on the Armed Services Committee, and I sat through Duncan Hunter’s testimony, and 

I would like to second what he has said about the professional staff 

on the Armed Services Committee. Not only does that committee 

superintend the authorization of billions of dollars, more than any 

other committee in the Congress, really, it also is sitting in on top 

of a major increase in defense right now. And we found in this area 

that, to get good professional help, there is a lot of competition in 

this city, in the government and outside the government, and we 

need good professional and technical help to adequately be stewards of the defense budget, which is now $400 billion. 

We have on our committee, the Budget Committee, an arrangement whereby we get a third of the personnel resources and a third 

of the budget, and that has been a suitable arrangement. It has 

worked well, and the Chairman has worked with us. When we 

needed equipment, for example, he has worked very well with us. 

During the past year, we were evicted from our quarters which 

were in the old Tip O’Neill building back behind here which used 

to be, I think, a Howard Johnson Motel. The advantage of being 

in that building was that we had plenty of space, and every staffer 

had not only his or her own bathroom but his or her own bathtub. 

I don’t know if they were used for that purpose. In fact, I found 

that a lot of the bathtubs had been converted to file cabinets. But, 

in any event, we have been evicted from that; and the building was 

68

razed. Now we are tucked away in a little corner between—under 

the Cannon Building. 

I have to say that the Architect of the Capitol and your staff 

were very, very gracious in the way they helped us work out this 

space. But if you want to see the picture of parsimony, come see 

where the minority staff on the Budget Committee is located right 

now. It is very, very efficient use of space. So efficient that if we 

get any additional people we are going to have to come back to you 

and ask for some additional help for additional space, because we 

really don’t have any more space there. 

Last year, we did ask for additional staff. You weren’t able to 

grant it. We have had for years on this committee an arrangement 

of having associate staff, staff of members, personal staff who also 

get supplementary pay from the Budget Committee. We are gradually moving away from that process which frees up slots for us to 

put full-time professional staff in. As we do it, we may have a couple of positions to fill, in which event we will come back to you and 

ask if we can get your assistance in providing additional space for 

these people. 

We are grateful for what we have got. Let me particularly say 

that the Chairman took the initiative in coming to your committee, 

I am sure, and asking for a number of audiovisual aids in our committee room. I think it is as well equipped as any. It is a model, 

really, that other committees, mine included, the Armed Services 

Committee, should come and look at. It really makes a difference 

in conducting a hearing, a markup, anything else, to have all of 

these aids in the room both for us and for the people who attend 

the hearing. 

The bottom line is, I support the request; and I hope that this 

committee will be able to grant it for our Budget Committee. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, could I just add one thing in echoing 

Mr. Spratt’s comments? And I think it is important for you and I 

particularly to keep this in mind. That while Mr. Spratt and his 

staff are in the minority today—and I am not making any predictions, but you never know who might be in those offices tomorrow. 

I have tried to help Mr. Spratt with space because I have always 

felt that if you do unto others, they are going to do unto you; and 

we need to keep that in mind as we look for space, we provide appropriate equipment and accommodations for the minority. It is 

fair I think that—the arrangement that we have in budgets and 

staff and whatnot. But space in particular, we have to remember 

those could be someone else’s offices some day, and it is important 

for us to keep that in mind. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well taken. 

When Steny Hoyer, who now is a whip, in the minority, was here 

as Ranking Member, one of the first things we talked about and 

that Congressman Hoyer publicly said, was that if things reversed, 

that he was going to hold to the two/thirds/one-third and hold some 

of the arrangements that we were able to have with Congressman 

Hoyer. And we have had a wonderful beginning relationship also 

with our Ranking Member from Connecticut here, Congressman 

Larson. So I think it is a fairness issue. 

69

I just want to note a couple things. The one-third change in the 

computers is a great idea. We have always encouraged that to be 

done every year. I have always appreciated, you know, the ability 

of both of you—you have got a tough job. You know, we make light 

in the sense of what we have got to come up with, and we will 

work with that. You have got a tough job. 

The other thing is your requests are reasonable. If you also look 

at the history—and this request is reasonable. If you look at the 

history of the Budget Committee, too, it had a fairly flat line; and 

that is great. But the modest request also I think is reasonable, because, as we have technology and more people become aware of 

what Washington does and some people do field hearings, that is 

all good for the whole process across the country. But, as you do 

that, that means more people are involved in the process, and more 

phone calls come in, and more work comes in, and the staff needs 

to respond to people across the United States. That creates more 

work and the need for more people. 

So I fully understand that and appreciate it. 

Mr. SPRATT. Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nussle did have a self-interest in it. We did covet the quarters he had, but he was very gracious, and so was your staff extremely helpful in putting us in this 

new space. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

The gentleman from Connecticut. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me also echo the sentiments that have been expressed here 

and thank both the Chairman and the Ranking Member for your 

collaborative effort to make sure that the work here in Congress 

gets done in an appropriate manner, and we thank you for adhering to the one-third/two-third relationship. 

I am equally struck by the—from listening to a number of the 

Chairs and Ranking Members who have come before us to talk 

about some of the unique things that they are doing in their committee. Mr. Spratt alluded to the almost unique relationship that 

exists with the Armed Services staff, and some of the quality-of-life 

concerns, i.e., the type of pay and compensation that they receive. 

But I am also struck by the need to have best practices in committees. Clearly, in terms of the kind of technology that Mr. Nussle 

has brought forward in the committee, as noted by Mr. Spratt, is 

something that I hope—and knowing our Chairman, being forwardthinking and visionary—is something that we hope on the Armed 

Services Committee that we might embrace. 

Obviously, based on your testimony, you are in concurrence and 

agreement with both the funding levels and the split that exists. 

Our only concern—and we have asked this of all the Chairs that 

have come in—is one of, should you not receive what you fully anticipate, would you still keep that one-third/two-third relationship? 

Again, echoing the Chair’s concern that he has expressed to every 

member—and I can’t think of anyone who has come before us who 

hasn’t had a space concern. 

But those are my two questions for the Chair and the Ranking 

Member. 

Mr. NUSSLE. The answer is an emphatic yes, and we should keep 

that arrangement, No. 1. Maybe more importantly, I would hope 

70

that all committees—and this is not just kidding around—this is 

serious, we have a lot of work to do—and I know the committee 

funding portion of this is only one part of the total that is the operation of Congress, but Congress can and should look at itself when 

it comes to holding the line on spending. So if that means the 

Budget Committee can and should do more, we stand ready to attempt to accommodate that. 

Certainly, we are supporting the request that we have. I think 

it is important for our staff in particular. 

Mr. LARSON. Very reasonable. 

Mr. NUSSLE. And they do a great job. But we understand that 

you have got a tough job to do. We know it maybe better than 

most, and we hope you do it well. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from California. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Indeed, we do have a tough job. 

This is why I commend this Chairman and the Ranking Member, 

because it is critical that we continue to have this Committee on 

House Administration to kind of monitor and oversee the Chairman and—it is still Chairmen—and Ranking Members who come 

before us. It is critical. 

As a new member, I can appreciate them more than ever before 

because of your coming to us to engage in the dialogue of the need 

for increase in budgetary matters. 

Mr. Chairman, having been a member on the Small Business 

Committee since coming to Congress in 1996, at one time there was 

concerns about whether the Small Business Committee was really 

necessary. In light now of the economic straits that we are in, dire 

straits, and knowing that small businesses are the engine that 

drives the economy, given the creation of jobs, can we be assured 

that the small business will maintain its visibility as a committee 

and that the possibility of its budget be maintained and not decreased any further? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well, on the Small Business Committee portion, 

that is, of course, your job. And you do it well and you will do it 

well. 

On the issue of committee reorganization in general, you are 

looking at somebody who would be willing to think completely and 

totally outside of the box. Oftentimes, we do things around here because they have always been done that way, and sometimes forget 

not only how it first happened but what maybe needs to be reformed so it can be done better. 

I think probably the mother of all examples of that was ice delivery here in Congress. Many people didn’t understand why we got 

buckets of ice. After a little bit of questioning why that practice 

happened, people made, I think, some smart decisions about not 

only saving some money, but doing the smart thing with regard to 

an old practice that—you may not even know what I am referring 

to—it happened about 8 years ago now. But it was a practice that 

started before the invention of the refrigerator, you know. 

So I guess when you ask me a question about what the committee structure should be, I am willing to reconsider at any time 

the structure of committees in the House of Representatives. So I 

71

don’t want to make any news here today, but I would be willing 

to consider that at many junctures. 

The invention of the Budget Committee is an example of that. 

We have only been around since 1974. I happen to believe it is a 

good invention. We may have some others like the Homeland Security Committee that might be a good invention now because of the 

changing times. We shouldn’t be stuck within a regime just because it has always been done is my only advice. 

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

fact, I am a proponent of getting outside of the box, because I think 

there is growth when you do that. But I also think that those committees that we have should be carefully looked at before any type 

of reorganization, given in light of again this economy and the driving force that small businesses do in terms of this economy. So we 

will revisit that at a later time. 

But I see that you have anticipated travel, and one of those is 

port security. Now, down in my region of Los Angeles—Long Beach 

is where I really am nested more so—we have two ports, the Ports 

of Los Angeles and Long Beach, that make up the largest port system in the country and the third largest in the world. With that, 

we have—about 45 percent of containers that come flow through 

those ports and then travel throughout the country. I would certainly like to engage you and the Ranking Member in the possibility of having one of your hearings or field hearings at the Ports 

of Los Angeles and Long Beach to really see how critical it is and 

of our having to bring in so much containers that come in to go 

throughout this Nation and the security aspects of these containers 

and the ports itself. So I should certainly like to rally for that type 

of travel, if you can find this within your anticipated travel time. 

Then, lastly, as the going-out Chair of the Congressional Caucus 

on Women’s Issues and as an African-American, I hope that when 

you do your consultant contracts that you be sensitive enough to 

the diversity that we have in this country and that some of those 

contracts will mirror that diversity in this country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentlelady. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. BRADY. No Questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. I again want to thank both of your for your time. 

[Recess.]

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We will continue with International Relations. On behalf of Chairman Henry 

Hyde is Chairman Chris Smith of New Jersey and, of course, Ranking Member Congressman Tom Lantos of California. 

We will begin with the gentleman, Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for 

being a moment late. I was at the Irish-American lunch with Brady 

O’Hearn and the Vice President. So I apologize for being late. 

I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before your 

committee to present our budget. I do this on behalf of CongressVerDate jul 14 2003 22:53 Sep 10, 2003 Jkt 089055 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B055.XXX B055
72

man Henry Hyde. Our good friend and colleague, the Ranking 

Member, Mr. Lantos will speak, but he as well will present a joint 

budget for the 108th Congress. 

I anticipate that during the 108th congress we will face one of 

the most challenging sessions in decades. As Chairman Hyde will 

point out, and does, the war in Iraq, the continuing global war on 

terrorism, North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons, the rebuilding of Afghanistan and many other troubled spots in the world 

will ensure that the agenda for this Congress will be one of the 

most ambitious of any committee in the House. All of these crises 

today demand our immediate attention in the form of legislation, 

supplemental authorizations, and rigorous oversight. 

In addition, we must continue our normal legislative and oversight responsibilities, such as funding for the Department of State, 

legislative and oversight jurisdiction for foreign assistance, the 

United nations, export policy, and sanctions measures, including 

curtailing the threat of weapons of mass destruction. 

We must also carry out our responsibilities in receiving foreign 

heads of state and other dignitaries and provide staff support for 

various parliamentary groups. 

I would like to briefly outline two major increases in our budget 

request. The first, the 2003 equipment request, is an increase of 

$228,070 over the 2002 allocation. 

After the events of 9/11, we decided that we were not prepared 

to function as a committee if such a disaster were to happen. In 

that regard, we hope to install a disaster recovery system for our 

computer environment and to provide several new file servers for 

backup at off-site locations. 

The 2004 equipment request also represents our concerns for 

emergency preparedness. We hope to provide most of the staff with 

Blackberry pagers and increase the number of laptops and portable 

printers. It is also our goal to upgrade work stations every 3 years 

to keep pace with technological advances. These include installing 

flat-screened monitors at every location. 

The second major increase is in the personnel category. We are 

requesting funding for three new staff positions, two for the majority and one for the minority, in order to ensure that the minority 

continues to be allocated one-third of the staff slots, excluding 

shared administrative staff. Effectively, these three new slots are 

already allocated as follows: One slot is for the Speaker-designated 

position serving as a staff for Chairman Bereuter in his capacity 

as the president of the NATO parliamentary assembly; the second 

slot is for a Pearson Fellow assigned to the committee since July, 

2000, and who is retiring from the Foreign Service; and the third 

slot is for the minority. 

In addition, we have included funds for the 2003 and 2004 

COLAs and a small amount for the majority and minority meritorious increases. Also, we need additional monies to fund the recent increase in the transit benefits and to reimburse the party 

staff for accrued annual leave. 

Mr. Chairman, it has been a pleasure working with Tom. As a 

matter of fact, Henry Hyde has worked with him so well in the last 

3 years. I served with Tom both as his ranking for a number of 

years when he was chairman and then when I chaired the InterVerDate jul 14 2003 22:53 Sep 10, 2003 Jkt 089055 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B055.XXX B055
73

national Office of Human Rights Committee. He really is a very, 

very fine, outstanding representative. It is always good to work 

with him, and we present this jointly to this committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking 

Member. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM LANTOS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, I just would like to add a sentence or two to what my friend 

Chris Smith has said. 

Let me first reiterate his comment that this is probably the most 

bipartisan committee of the entire Congress. You will all be pleased 

to learn that Henry Hyde is fine and will be back in a few days, 

and we all look forward to his return. 

We fully support the budget as presented by Vice Chairman 

Chris Smith. I personally have a strong view that we should be 

moving towards the Senate formula, where staffing and space reflects the reality of the body. Our Republican friends have slightly 

under 53 percent of the membership of the House; we have slightly 

over 47 percent. I think staff and space allocation should reflect 

these realities, and I hope that sooner or later this more equitable 

and fair and just arrangement will prevail. 

I need not elaborate on the workload of the committee. You all 

know this, as we all did, that the President’s last press conference 

had about two dozen questions, every single one of them dealing 

with international affairs; and I think it is sort of self-evident that 

this load is not only likely not to decrease but it will intensify post 

Saddam Hussein. 

We hope also that you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the committee, will look at the space allocation where the 

International Relations Committee is rather poorly treated. Many 

of our people are in Annex II, and it dramatically diminishes the 

efficiency of our operations both on the Republican and the Democratic side. People are running back and forth, wasting a lot of 

time. If you could give up more of your own office, Mr. Chairman, 

we would be greatly appreciative and would be happy to absorb it.

The CHAIRMAN. Actually, I will take you back. I think once you 

see it, you won’t want it. 

Justs to make a note, it is interesting—the Ranking Member 

mentioned, I actually have given up my office. We moved three of 

my staff into my personal office right here. 

Mr. LANTOS. We salute you for that. 

The CHAIRMAN. And we did that, actually, this morning. Everybody is out of space. 

Mr. LANTOS. We could take this room, for instance. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will rent it to you once in a while. 

Mr. SMITH. Would the gentleman yield? We actually moved one 

of the subcommittees to the Ford Building. That does cause a disconnect of sorts, especially since we all work so synergistically. So 

it is a problem. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate the testimony of both gentlemen 

today and the working relationship we both have. 

74

I have learned a lot on international relations over the years. I 

haven’t been on the committee, but I have had some very, very fine 

meetings; and I have been involved with, of course, the members 

of the committee. We appreciate you testifying on behalf of Chairman Hyde, who has done a wonderful job, as the Ranking Member 

has. 

I do want to speak about the space, though. It is a crisis; and 

it is not only all of you, it is Veterans and—I mean, you just keep 

going down the list; and we have got to address it. 

These buildings—we talked about this today, but I just want to 

reiterate. These buildings were built—we found out Congressman 

John Dingell’s father was in this building in 1933. In those days, 

you know, you didn’t have Internet, you didn’t have a lot of advocacy groups. D.C. was maybe even a little harder to get to. Now 

you have got field hearings, you have got a lot of advocacy groups, 

the Internet, more communications than in the history of our planet. That is wonderful for public policy, but, as you do that and more 

people are involved in the system, the staffs of these committees 

have to answer to those constituencies across the country. That is 

great, but that means that you have got to have more people. 

So the buildings simply weren’t designed, any of them, for this 

type of situation. So we have got to work together to get more 

space for everybody. Your problem is shared amongst almost, you 

know, 99 percent of all the committees. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me associate myself with your remarks, and let me also 

thank Mr. Smith for being here and pinch-hitting for Mr. Hyde. We 

want to also acknowledge and thank Mr. Hyde because of his treatment of the minority and particularly Mr. Lantos, whom we so 

much admire for his long-standing work on this committee. But 

Mr. Hyde deserves special kudos. 

I know it is a difficult move to move staff to the Ford Annex and 

in the process grant space to Mr. Lantos in the Rayburn Building. 

That was a class act and a stellar model and certainly set an exemplary example of how things should be done, but it underscores the 

Chairman’s point and concern as well as yours about the need for 

additional space. 

Our concern has been—and while I might share the opinion of 

the distinguished Mr. Lantos as it relates to the equity of the Senate relationship, I again commend this Chairman for insisting on 

the one-third/two-thirds relationship and the working arrangement 

that has been adhered to by all the Chairmen who have come before us today. 

I would only ask that in the event people don’t get all of the request that they ask for, that we still keep that two-thirds/one-third 

relationship; and I would ask that of Mr. Smith representing the 

Chair and Mr. Lantos. 

If you care to respond to that. 

Mr. SMITH. I can assure you that Chairman Hyde will adhere to 

that. He has an outstanding relationship with Mr. Lantos. Just as 

Tom indicated, the Chairman did have surgery on his back in New 

75

York. He had some problems with his discs. But he should be ready 

to go back to work next week. So he is recovering very well. 

Mr. LARSON. We wish him Godspeed and wish him well. 

Mr. SMITH. We will tell him you said so. Thank you. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, my sentiments exactly to Chairman Hyde, a speedy recovery. 

Please extend that statement from me. 

Both of you, the Ranking Member, of which he is my neighbor, 

my friend, my State-mate, it is so great to see you here today and 

in good spirits. But you and the Chairman have always been sensitive to me when I have brought my bill on mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS as well as my sexual exploitation bill, trying 

to address that issue with women in Africa and girls. So I thank 

you both so much. 

Mr. Smith, in your position of pinch-hitting for the Chairman, 

you can’t be quite that great Chairman, but you have done a great 

job today. I thought it was going to be the Veterans and then International Relations in which you do an outstanding job at the Veterans Services. 

Mr. Lantos, the two dozen questions that the President submitted to this committee, is there any way I can get a copy of 

those? I would be interested in those questions and knowing perhaps some of the concerns that were raised and the answers that 

came out of this committee. 

Mr. LANTOS. Of course. 

Let me just say, we were so delighted with the initiatives you 

took in the international field. We hope you will be equally active 

this session. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I certainly will. And thank you both 

so much. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. BRADY. Yes. 

Just quickly, Mr. Chairman. I want to have dinner tonight, so I 

will be remiss if I didn’t say hello to you for my wife. She thinks 

you are one of the classiest and most distinguished Members in 

Congress, and I am getting to be worried about that a little bit. 

I also like your chutzpah by coming into a committee that is 

funding you and asking a member of the majority party and chairman of this committee to get a piece of his office. I would like to 

maintain that——

Mr. LANTOS. We are old friends; and since we used that gym together, I see him under other circumstances, too. 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, we will wrap up the committee. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Then we will go back to Veterans after Homeland Security. 

Next is Homeland Security, Chairman Chris Cox and Ranking 

Member Turner. I appreciate both the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member, the newest people on the block when it comes to committee funding. 

76

As the gentlemen are aware, we put out a temporary allocation 

so that—which we appreciate our Ranking Member Congressman 

Larson’s work on that; and we have talked about the two-thirds/

one/third, which I know our Ranking Member will have a question 

on. 

With that, we will go straight to the Chairman and then our 

Ranking Member. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRISTOPHER COX, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. COX. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of 

this committee. We appreciate this opportunity to testify before you 

on the budget for the Homeland Security Committee. 

Of course, our Ranking Member, Jim Turner, is also here to testify. Jim and I have worked together closely to develop this budget 

and begin the significant task of organizing this new committee to 

oversee the largest reorganization of the Federal Executive Branch 

in my lifetime. Just as those who threaten our country make no 

distinction between Republicans or Democrats, our committee will 

discharge our serious responsibilities with bipartisanship throughout this Congress. 

The task facing the Homeland Security Committee couldn’t be 

more significant. When the Congress and President Bush created 

the Department of Homeland Security just a few months ago, consolidating 22 Federal agencies and over 170,000 Federal employees, 

the purpose was not to reshuffle the bureaucracy. The critical mission of this Department—indeed, the most important policy of our 

Federal government—is to make America safer, to protect our citizens from a new terrorist attack. 

The Speaker and the full House of Representatives in passing 

H.R. 5 decided that this Department should not be subjected to 

overlapping, redundant, and potentially conflicting oversight in authorization from 44 separate committees and subcommittees in the 

House alone. H. Res. 5 created one authorizing and one oversight 

committee, the Select Committee on Homeland Security. This new 

committee will act as the central point of contact for the Department within the House, coordinate the oversight efforts of all 

House committees, and legislate as necessary any changes to the 

Homeland Security Act. 

The constant focus of this committee will be to provide the most 

effective and efficient oversight to ensure that the Department of 

Homeland Security succeeds in its primary mission, preventing another attack on the territory and people of the United States. 

The extraordinarily important responsibility of the Homeland Security Committee, together with our complement of over 50 members and its significant interjurisdictional role, of course will require staff and resources. Our budget request, however, is intended 

to be frugal. The committee’s proposed budget of $5 million and 

change for 2003 and a like amount for 2004, totalling $11 million 

for the 108th Congress, would make this committee smaller than 

11 other committees in the House in the 107th Congress. By size 

of budget, we would rank in the bottom half of House committees. 

The major portion of the budget is personnel. The committee is 

currently interviewing experts on bioterrorism, cybersecurity, nuVerDate jul 14 2003 22:53 Sep 10, 2003 Jkt 089055 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B055.XXX B055
77

clear and chemical weapons, border and port security, and infrastructure protection, among other specialties. This kind of expertise 

is necessary to ensure that our oversight is informed and effective 

so that we can assist the Department in achieving its mission, 

rather than bogging it down. 

The fiscal year 2003 budget for equipment is $712,000. The budget for communications is $269,000. Since the committee is starting 

from scratch, we have significant non-recurring capital expenses, as 

you would expect, for such office equipment as computers, telephones, printers, copiers, and the like. 

At the heart of preventing terrorism is coordinating our Nation’s 

intelligence analysis and sharing threat information among Federal, State, and local authorities. We have among our committee 

membership the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the 

Intelligence Committee for precisely this reason. 

To permit the committee to properly handle and store classified 

information, the budget includes construction expenses for a SCIF, 

including a vault, secure computer equipment, and secure phones. 

The cost to create a secure compartmented information facility will 

depend on the adequacy of the committee’s office space, a need that 

is for the moment unmet. We have included an additional $50,000 

in our request for security costs to upgrade potentially ill-suited 

physical space. Because this may be an inadequate reserve and because adequate space has yet to be identified, we ask your willingness to consider subsequent requests in this category should the 

need arise. 

The request also includes $735,000 for consultant contracts. The 

committee will seek to draw on the expertise of the private sector 

to assist us in such diverse areas as information technology integration, cybersecurity, chemical safety, immunology, and infrastructure hardening. In addition, we expect to engage special legal 

counsel for discrete matters. 

The Homeland Security Committee is by definition concerned 

with protecting the population and territory of the entire Nation. 

Therefore, the Select Committee has included $209,000 for travel 

to such destinations as Seattle, Atlanta, and Los Angeles to evaluate first-responder procedures, examine port security, and coordinate with the Centers for Disease Control. 

In the 108th Congress, the total budget for the Committee on 

Homeland Security will be split two-thirds for the majority and 

one-third for the minority. The cost of the very modest shared 

staff—the chief financial officer, office manager, and calendar 

clerk—will be divided equally by the majority and minority. This 

arrangement has been agreed to by both the majority and the minority. 

I recognize that every dollar the Congress spends comes from the 

stretched pockets of hard-working American taxpayers. We have 

worked hard, therefore, to ensure that this budget accurately represents our minimum requirements to fulfill our responsibilities. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I will be 

happy, when my Ranking Member, Mr. Turner, is finished, to answer any questions. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas. 

78

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM TURNER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

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

Larson, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity 

to testify regarding our budget request for our new committee. 

I want to also thank and acknowledge the support and cooperation that I have seen coming from our Chairman. I appreciate very 

much the bipartisan way which he has proceeded again to organize 

this committee. It has been a pleasure to work with Chris Cox. He 

is truly a gentleman, and I think that it bodes well for our ability 

as a committee to move forward in a bipartisan way to carry out 

the extremely important tasks that this committee has been given 

to strengthen our homeland defense. 

When I look at our committee, I know that, in coming up with 

our budget request, as the new kid on the block we had a somewhat difficult time clearly anticipating what the costs of this committee would be. I join with the chairman in making our request 

to you, and I join him today in acknowledging our support for the 

budget request and the numbers that are submitted to you. I appreciate very much the committee’s efforts to try to work with us 

in this formative period. 

There is no question that a committee of 50 Members of the 

House will have significant responsibilities, and the staffs on the 

committee will have demands made upon them reflective of that 

number. 

It is also very clear to me that, as a committee with the jurisdiction that we have been granted to have oversight over a new Department that previously consisted of 22 separate agencies, that 

the oversight responsibility of this committee will be as great as 

any committee on this House. 

It is also clear to me that our responsibility to secure and protect 

classified information places additional financial burdens on this 

committee. 

Of course, as a start-up committee, we have a lot of front-end 

costs; and, as you know, we have yet to resolve even the basic question of where this committee will be housed or where its committee 

hearings will be conducted. 

So we request your indulgence and your assistance as we move 

forward so that, as we try to put this committee together, we can 

ask you to be flexible with us in trying to meet whatever unforeseen needs and obligations may be thrust upon us. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the opportunity 

to be here; and we request your support in the budget amounts 

that have been laid out before you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just note, on this, already we have had, 

you know, total flexibility with the new committee; and the staff 

of minority and majority here have been involved with each other 

on communicating on start-up issues, you know, detailees, all the 

things that are brand new here. Once we find out also the space—

and space has been a big issue today. Everybody needs more space. 

And everybody does. We have got to find out where you are housed. 

But with the Ranking Member—we appreciate with our Ranking 

Member and both sides of the aisle of this committee we were able 

to take that resolution to the floor for several hundred thousand. 

79

You needed to have that—whether you spent it all or not by March 

24th was irrelevant. You needed to have start-up ability. But you 

are a start-up committee, and so we are going to continue on this 

committee, members on both sides of the aisle and staff, to continue to work with you as this whole new start-up process happens. 

It is an important committee. For us making a decision to—and 

I have been asked questions on, you know, on this, on the funding. 

We don’t go back in and take homeland security and because we 

have the brand-new funding that we didn’t have 2 years ago, we 

didn’t go back in and remove money from every committee to fund 

it. And we didn’t have to do that. 

This is a unique start-up, and that is how I think we have to 

look at it. That way, everybody’s budgets are judged fairly. And I 

think that is just important to mention. 

It is an important committee. A couple years ago, we weren’t entertaining this idea, but the world has changed, and we recognize 

that. Thank you. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and congratulations to 

both Mr. Cox and Mr. Turner. 

Let me say from the outset, I think that Speaker Hastert and 

Leader Pelosi have chosen well. I can’t think of a more important 

committee, given the circumstances that the Nation faces. As Mr. 

Turner knows, the committee—Mr. Brady and I—he served on 

Armed Services—in terms of the scope, responsibility, and a committee that transcends partisanship altogether, it is so American at 

its core in terms of your mission. So—for what is going to be a very 

challenging task, you are both to be commended for taking on this 

responsibility. 

As the Chairman noted, in your remarks as well, the overlapping 

responsibility that you have, and so many senior Members of Congress that serve, I have the distinct notion and feeling that perhaps 

one of the hardest things will be managing some of the various 

Members that will be serving there. 

But, having said that and in the best of all spirits—I was the 

Senate president in Connecticut, and we created specific select 

committees to deal with crisis situations—it seems to me that we 

have got to provide the greatest flexibility as it relates to this committee. This is something—and I fully associate myself with the 

comments of Mr. Ney and am concerned that perhaps we are going 

to have to fund this committee at more than the initial request. 

The Chairman mentioned in his opening statement about field 

hearings in Seattle, Los Angeles, Atlanta, et cetera. What a surprise. And so—and because of the nature of this committee and 

also the need—we heard from Armed Services today, and we heard 

Mr. Spratt and Mr. Nussle on Budget. The emphasis here, and as 

Chairman Cox went into, is the very specific kind of person you are 

looking to recruit to this committee and their need to not only be 

in the Beltway but also ferret information outside the Beltway, I 

believe, is going to be very challenging. Hopefully, the Congress 

will have the sensibilities to be flexible and to be open to supplemental increases as this committee carries out its responsibility 

that, to say the least, is awesome. 

I have spoken at length with Mr. Turner and again would echo 

his sentiments in terms of the cooperation. Our concern on the 

80

committee has been the one-third/two-thirds relationship, no matter what the funding levels end up being. 

I commend him and Leader Pelosi because they feel strongly that 

this is a committee that definitely deserves the supported requests. 

As, hopefully, I have indicated today, any supplemental requests 

that will be needed to carry out your assignment is something that 

we feel strongly about. 

Mr. LINDER [presiding]. Ms. Millender-McDonald. 

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

And kudos to the two of you. You have gotten an assignment 

that is absolutely very critical, very demanding, where you do not 

have a game book that someone has preceded you with. But the 

two of you are very able attorneys, so you have the legal acumen 

as well as the discipline that can undertake whatever comes to this 

committee. So, kudos again to both of you for the leadership in appointing you to this very important committee, important because 

before 9/11, 2001, we did not even think about homeland security. 

Now we are all very much immersed in that concept. So I thank 

you. 

I will agree with my Ranking Member and the Chair that this 

is a rather modest budget. It seems to me like just to get off the 

ground you would need to have a couple more dollars, while I am 

not touting that. But I would certainly be amenable to whatever 

the Chairman and the Ranking Member suggests as we go forth. 

Mr. Cox, I know that with the impressive undertaking that you 

did in 1998 with the special assignment to look into China—the 

technology, the warheads and the missiles, and all of those things 

that were connected in that special committee that you chaired and 

the report that came out in 1999—I was quite impressed. So when 

they said that you would come forward, of course it would be a Californian to direct us. 

And, Mr. Turner, you have been on Armed Services, and so we 

know your expertise—I think you served on Armed Services—so, 

your expertise. 

Both of you recognize that this issue and this mission is not a 

defining moment of Republicans and Democrats, but, as the Ranking Member says, it is Americans. We are all in this together. 

You spoke about the $735,000 in contracts. I hope, being the outgoing Chairwoman of the Congressional Caucus on Women’s 

Issues, that these contracts and those whom you get will mirror 

this country in terms of women, in terms of minorities, that they 

are very able folks in both categories to help you as you launch this 

very important program. 

Thirdly, as you come into Los Angeles and come into the region, 

I hope you consider coming to the Long Beach and Los Angeles 

Ports that make up the largest part system in the country and 

third largest in the world, providing over 45 percent of the containers that go across this country emanating from those ports. My 

dear friend and partner in crime, if you will, Congresswoman Dana 

Rohrabacher and I, representing Long Beach, would certainly appreciate your thinking about coming to this port system to look at 

the really vulnerable nature of ports as we undertake homeland security. 

Thank you both so much for being where you are. 

81

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LINDER. Thank you. 

Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. No comments. 

Mr. LINDER. Thank you both. You have got a big task ahead of 

you. We will let you get on with your jobs. 

Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LINDER. Next, we would like to have you join us at the table, 

Mr. Smith, the Veterans Affairs Chairman, and Mr. Evans, the 

Ranking Member. 

We welcome you and thank you for coming this afternoon; and 

we will lead off with the Chairman, Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and let me say 

how great it is to be here. I thank you for this opportunity on behalf of myself and my good friend and colleague Lane Evans, whom 

I have worked with for many years, almost 20 years on the committees—I have been on it for 23—and greatly admire his work on behalf of veterans. 

As you know, our committee not only crafts legislation in the 

medical care area and the discretionary care area, but we also do 

a lot in the area of benefits. About half our budget is benefits, and 

the other half is for health care. We do have the second largest 

Federal agency. We employ over 200,000 people. We have a budget 

authority of approximately $62 billion. So it is an enormous expanse of commitment on the part of the American government to 

those who have borne our battle as well as their widows and to 

their orphans.

The VA is making a request today, our committee, and it is a joint request, for an increase. We are hoping for $6,776,000 to allow 

us to continue to hire and retain what we think is the finest staff 

on Capitol Hill. It will allow us to respond to the leadership’s call 

to pursue an aggressive oversight agenda. 

I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that during my first 2 years as 

chairman of this committee we have had a very, very heavy emphasis on accountability: What is out there? Are we doing what we can 

with the available monies even before we ask for new monies when 

it comes to veterans health care? 

We have discovered all kinds of gaps. We realize that in the medical care collection area, for example, when going after third-party 

payers, so much more can and should be done to make sure that 

the insurance companies pay a fair share. When our higher income 

veterans get health care, we go after them legitimately to make 

sure they pay their share of that recipient’s health care. 

I deployed a staff as well as Lane to go over and look at VA 

health care facilities that are in proximity to DOD facilities; and 

we came back and found out, after going to approximately two 

dozen sites, that there were enormous amounts of opportunity for 

DOD/VA sharing that were unrealized. So we proposed legislation 

for it. The legislation passed, And hopefully we will realize those 

savings. 

82

But the staff report and the members who have gone on these 

trips as well, including myself, found out that we can get so much 

more bang for the buck. And that means staff travel. We do have 

a request to put our staff travel up to $65,000. We hope to do more 

of that kind of on-site oversight as we go forward this year. 

Just for the record, we do have 32 full-time staff. We are hoping 

to increase that to the Speaker’s number of 34. We fell, especially 

with this oversight component—and we are doing it so vigorously, 

accountability being a very large part of our joint efforts here, especially with scarce funds within the VA—that it is important that 

we have the professional staff to do the job right. 

We still have a problem, and you have heard this today, of inadequate spacing. That especially accrues to my good friend Lane 

Evans and Michael Durishin and his Democratic staffers. We are 

asking if you can help us to find some additional room to house 

these very valuable staffers. We are trying, we are looking, and 

perhaps you can give us some help on that. 

Just one thing about the people who make up our staff. The combined staff of 32 now have over 500 years of Federal service. Pat 

Ryan, who is the Chief Counsel and Staff Director, not only came 

from a rich background within the VA itself, he has been on the 

committee almost as long as I have. I have been on for 23 years. 

He has served very admirably in virtually every position, and now 

he is Chief of Staff and General Counsel. 

That is the kind of very professional people that we do have. So 

we are looking to give them merit raises coupled with the COLA, 

which does take some money, because I don’t want to lose any of 

these people. They do a great job. And that is on both sides of the 

aisle. We work very well together. 

Lane and I produced some landmark legislation this year, a 

homeless veterans bill that is unprecedented. I have to tell you, 

there are 275,000 veterans on the street on any given night. These 

are mostly men and some women who served honorably in the 

United States Government as our military. They are trained, they 

have capabilities, and they are on the streets. 

We worked on bipartisan legislation. Our staffs did yeoman’s 

work. President Bush signed it into law. Now we are into the implementation phase to get those people back into society and to 

save them from a ruinous lifestyle. 

The same goes to the G.I. Bill, another historic bill, to increase 

the benefits package for our men and women in uniform. We found 

that it was being underutilized. Fifty percent of those who signed 

up were using it. Why? The benefit wasn’t enough to make college 

possible. We increased it by 46 percent. There was sticker shock 

when we first did that. We know now that many more hundreds 

of thousands of veterans will go to college as a direct result of that 

legislation. It was bipartisan. Our staff worked it up and worked 

with us, and it takes an enormous amount of work. 

I can go on and on, but we have some challenges, Mr. Chairman. 

There is a process very much akin to BRAC with regards to veterans health care facilities that comes up. A recommendation will 

be made for closure or radical realignment of health care facilities. 

We want to make sure that anything that is going to be closed or 

enhanced gets the kind of scrutiny that it deserves so that no vetVerDate jul 14 2003 22:53 Sep 10, 2003 Jkt 089055 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B055.XXX B055
83

eran is diminished in his or her ability to have access to health 

care. 

I can go on and on, but we need this request, and we hope you 

will look at it favorably. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Chairman. 

The Ranking Member. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LANE EVANS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I welcome the opportunity to join with Chris Smith concerning 

the budget request for the Committee on Veterans Affairs. As he 

has laid out, this is very much a product of bipartisan effort. 

Under the request proposed by Chairman Smith, there will be a 

total of 34 committee staff. Of these total staff, 23 will be majority 

staff and 11 will be Democratic staff. Of the committee staff request, 33 percent is allocated for Democratic staff in the 108th Congress. 

Office space, however, is an entirely different matter. The office 

space now allocated to the Democratic staff is totally inadequate. 

Less than one-fifth is occupied by the Democratic staff. It does not, 

in fact, accommodate the current 10 members of the Democratic 

staff; and I cannot accommodate fellows, interns, and others who 

contribute to our committee. They don’t have a place literally to 

park their gear and get the office space that they deserve. 

I talked to the Chairman. He is very sympathetic—we appreciate 

that, Chris—and we will be glad to work with him for a reasonable 

solution. That solution has thus far been elusive. Unfortunately, 

the staff of the superintendent has not even been able to identify 

space available. So I ask you for your assistance, Mr. Chairman 

and Ranking Member Larson. I look forward to working with you 

on that request. It is a committee request, and I urge your consideration of a favorable response. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank both gentlemen. 

Space is—and I am aware of the dilemma you have. We have 

talked with your staff, and space is a crisis. We have been hearing 

this everywhere. It is an absolute crisis in proportion around the 

buildings. People need to have availability to have some kind of 

space. They serve constituents all across this country that want an 

answer from their government, and so we were going to speak with 

the leaders to attempt to do something. As I understand, yours is 

a bad, bad situation with the space. 

Let me just thank both of you. I really don’t have any questions. 

I think the budget requests have been very, very responsible by the 

Veterans’ Committee. I just want to thank you for service to the 

country. You continue to serve your country and do what you do 

on this committee. 

I was on Veterans’ Committee, and I was—one of the greatest 

things I think you can do—we wouldn’t be here, we all know that, 

if it wasn’t from the Revolution forward and the men and women 

today putting themselves in harm’s way to make sure we are here. 

Your committee is a valuable, valuable part of this institution, obviously. 

84

Thank you. 

Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you, Mr. 

Smith, for pulling double-duty today. 

Let me thank you as well for not only your testimony and your 

service but the passion you bring to your job. It is very heartening 

to listen to you and hear it and a tribute to the manner and the 

responsibility that you assume. 

The Ranking Member, as you have pointed out, is a man who 

brings tremendous stature and empathy and heartfelt concern. 

Your explanation of the bipartisan cooperation is indeed something 

that all committees should aspire to and adhere to. 

I am concerned about the space issues. As we outlined, I feel 

very fortunate on this committee to have a Chairman who is equally concerned. It is truly a Member’s Member who reaches out to try 

to help solve these problems and has even given up his own space 

to accommodate people, which I think speaks volumes to the kind 

of Chairman he is. 

Notable in our concern as well as the Members and the staff 

whom we want to accommodate is that your committee especially 

has so many of the greatest generation who are disabled, who do 

come to call upon you who don’t have appropriate access. That is 

why it is so incumbent upon this committee to try to accommodate 

the requests that Mr. Evans has so eloquently laid out before us, 

and I assure you we will work to those ends. You have a very modest request before the committee, and I can’t think of a more worthy group of Americans needing of our attention and concern than 

veterans, and I want to thank you both for your service to the 

country. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia. 

Mr. LINDER. I do want to say thank you. I started here 10 years 

ago serving on the Veterans Committee. I know the work that you 

do, and I just want to say thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just quickly, I want to echo and also thank you for the job that 

you are doing for the people that fought so hard for us at one time 

and now maybe are not in the position to fight as hard for themselves, especially for the homeless. And, also, the education. I am 

a product of the G.I. Bill. 

I just appreciate again, to echo—my Ranking Member has said 

it best, with passion, and, again, that passion is for the people that 

fight for us while we are here and life is comfortable and they are 

in harm’s way. I feel really good that the both of you are doing the 

job that you are doing so well and want to continue to support as 

best as I can. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Again, I want to thank both of you gentleman for 

what you are doing for the veterans. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Mr. Larson, members of the committee, thank you. 

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I ask unanimous consent that members have 3 

business days to submit their statements and materials for the 

85

record and those statements and materials to be entered in the appropriate place in the record. 

Without objection, those materials will be so entered. 

I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes on all matters considered by the committee on today’s portion of the hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I want to thank all the members for being here, listening to a 

very important part of the hearing process. Now we will put the 

pen to the paper and work together to keep the institution moving. 

Having completed our business for today in this hearing on committee funding, this committee is hereby adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:56 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]