U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–286 2013

COMMITTEE FUNDING FOR THE 113TH CONGRESS 

(DAY 2) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Held in Washington, DC, March 6, 2013 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet 

www.fdsys.gov 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PHIL GINGREY, M.D., Georgia 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

Ranking Minority Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

KELLY CRAVEN, Staff Director 

JAMIE FLEET, Minority Staff Director 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

COMMITTEE FUNDING FOR THE 113TH 

CONGRESS (DAY 2) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2013 

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

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:44 a.m., in Room 1310, 

Longworth, Hon. Candice S. Miller [chairman of the committee] 

presiding. 

Present: Representatives, Miller, Harper, Nugent, Brady and Lofgren. 

Staff Present: Kelly Craven, Staff Director; Phil Kiko, General 

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

Assistant Legislative Clerk; Salley Wood, Communications Director/Deputy Staff Director; Bob Sensenbrenner, Elections Counsel; 

George Hadjiski, Director of Member Services; Richard Cappetto, 

Professional Staff; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Thomas 

Hicks, Minority Elections Counsel; Greg Abbott, Minority Professional Staff; and Eddie Flaherty, Minority Professional Staff. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will now convene the Committee on House 

Administration to continue the hearing on committee funding for 

the 113th Congress. A quorum is present, so we may proceed. 

And the committee now welcomes Chairman Smith and Ranking 

Member Johnson from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The official reporter will please enter a page break. We 

have a new section. 

The CHAIRMAN. Tracing back to the late 1950s and the space 

race, this Committee on Science, Space, Technology has had a very 

important history. Its jurisdiction extends over all energy research 

and development, all Federally-owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories, astronautical research and development, civil 

aviation research and development, environmental research and 

development, the commercial application of energy technology, the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation, and the National Weather Service. 

Among its priorities for the 113th are to oversee the Department 

of Energy’s Office of Science, its Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the DOE’s loan guarantee programs, its contract management systems, NASA’s continuing mission and efforts, 

and our Nation’s nuclear research and development. 

So, this morning, the committee is proud to have before it Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson. And we appreciate you 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

both coming. The committee has had an opportunity to already 

evaluate the materials that you have sent us, and we are looking 

at them very seriously, and we certainly appreciate both of you 

being in attendance today. 

And the chair recognizes Chairman Smith for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LAMAR SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman Miller, Ranking Member Brady, and members of 

the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

the Science, Space, and Technology’s budget for the 113th Congress. 

In this economy, all Americans are forced to tighten their belts 

and do more with less. This is something that the Science Committee has been doing for many years. The committee’s budget has 

been cut much more than the typical House committee over the 

last 2 years. Since 2010, our budget has been reduced by 16.4 percent, other committees have averaged 11.8 percent. And there is a 

chart attached to my opening statement if you want to take a look 

at that. All we ask for today—that is it. And that is the chart that 

shows other committees have averaged 16 percent—I mean, we 

have been cut 16 percent, and other committees have averaged 11 

percent. 

All we ask for today is fairness. Our request for 2013 sets the 

Science Committee’s funding at a level that would treat it like 

other House committees. Even at this level, the committee would 

operate in 2013 with a smaller budget than it did in 2005. As the 

chart shows, the Science Committee’s budget was cut 16.4 percent 

over the last 2 years. On average, other committees were cut 11.8 

percent. So the Science Committee was cut 4.6 percent more than 

the average of other committees. 

I am a fiscal conservative, but I also believe in fairness. And I 

know members of this committee share that sentiment. The Science 

Committee’s jurisdiction is broad and diverse, covering Federal research and development activities in many different agencies. We 

oversee all or a part of NASA, Environmental Protection Agency, 

Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, FAA, and 

FEMA. America’s economy is driven by innovation and technological advancements, and the purpose of the Science Committee is 

to encourage the R&D that leads to new innovations and job creation. This is America’s future. 

To perform effective and efficient oversight and develop legislative policy direction, we must ensure that staffs on both sides of 

the aisle are equipped with the technical expertise necessary to 

handle this diverse jurisdiction. We are also endeavoring to revitalize the Science Committee and have taken several steps to increase the pace of our activities. We split the Energy and Environment Subcommittee into two separate subcommittees because each 

subject deserves more attention. So we now have six subcommittees 

instead of five. The staff is working hard. But to be more effective, 

we will need to be treated like other committees. The Science Committee also will review major programs that require legislative authorization. It has been 3 years since the committee reauthorized 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

NASA, the National Science Foundation, STEM education, and energy research and development programs, and we aim to reauthorize all of those this year. We also will be reauthorizing a cybersecurity research and development program for the first time in 11 

years. I expect that there will be at least twice as many hearings 

in this Congress as in the last Congress. So we will be more than 

busy. The Science Committee ensures that taxpayers and the 

American people receive a strong return on their investments. Again, as matter of fairness, our request before you for $6.3 million sets the Science Committee’s funding at a level for it to be 

treated like other House committees. Thank you for your time. And 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Smith of Texas follows:] 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 10 here 80286A.001
5 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 11 here 80286A.002
6 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 12 here 80286A.003
7 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 13 here 80286A.004
8 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chairman. 

And the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ranking Member Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I just got this email, which I will read before my remarks: ‘‘The 

greatest difference in our generation may not be between liberals 

and conservatives, but between the pioneers of the future and prisoners of the past. Let me explain. Across America and around the 

world, there are countless pioneers inventing the future, and many 

of their developments will change our lives.’’ 

That is really the mission of our committee. That is from Newt 

Gingrich. 

Good morning, and let me thank you for the opportunity to speak 

today. That just came in, and it intrigued me. Chairman Smith has 

already presented an overview of our committee’s finances, so I will 

just make a few remarks. As the chairman has already noted, we 

have absorbed a disproportionate cut relative to other committees 

in the 112th Congress. 

The result of that 16.4 percent reduction in our budget since 

2010 was to force us to defer filling several staff slots, as well as 

to cut salaries of most of the staff who were retained from the 

111th Congress. We also had to significantly limit committee oversight travel by members and staff. 

So, as we start the 113th Congress, Chairman Smith and I are 

committed to having the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology be active on the many important oversight and legislative 

matters within our jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is very broad and 

complex, ranging from areas as different as nanotechnology, space 

exploration, manufacturing technology, energy innovation, and 

STEM education, just to name a few. 

Attracting and retaining staff with the required experience and 

skills, as well as providing opportunities for members to visit the 

laboratories and other R&D organizations and talk to their personnel requires resources. And the level of cuts we have already 

absorbed has complicated these efforts. I would argue that the sequestration cuts that have now gone into effect will have impacts 

on our agencies that will only increase our oversight responsibilities, not diminish them. 

In addition, our committee will be undertaking a number of 

major legislative reauthorizations in the 113th Congress, including 

COMPETES and NASA, as well as a number of energy R&D programs. 

In closing, the Committee of Science, Space, and Technology will 

have an important role in determining policies that will impact the 

future of both our economy and our quality of life. While I think 

resources beyond those contained in the chairman’s request are 

warranted to enable us to do our jobs effectively, I would request 

that, at a minimum, the committee grant us the funding level requested in the chairman’s testimony. 

I thank you for your time, and I would be happy to answer any 

questions. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

[The statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 here 80286A.005
11 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 here 80286A.006
12 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 here 80286A.007
13 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you both very much for your testimony. And you do have an incredible amount of challenges before 

you as you go into the 113th, as Chairman Smith has laid out. I 

tried to take some notes on all these various things you are going 

to be reauthorizing here. And that is a very high level of activity. 

And I was also looking at some of the field hearings that you are 

looking at going to. And certainly going to Marshall’s—or Marshall 

Space Flight Center, Kennedy Space Center, et cetera, are all 

things that are important, particularly with what is happening 

with the transition in NASA with the space program going to Orion 

and some of various kinds of things that are happening there I 

think are important for the committee as well. 

One thing I would—I don’t know if I am asking particularly a 

question, or perhaps just making you an offer here, our committee 

is really wanting to try to assist all the various committees as you 

utilize new technology for various kinds of things so you don’t have 

duplicative kinds of activities happening, and for instance, some of 

the enterprise solutions that this committee has been very 

proactive on. And we really want to ratchet that up as we go forward here, being able to resource the various committees in ways 

that we might be able to, like using the cloud computing. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Even some of the—I was trying to look through 

some of the information that you provided us about, you know, 

whether it is Web development or various things like that. I guess 

I would just say that our staff wants to assist in any way that you 

think is appropriate for us to do so to help you. You know, subscription services, I know it sounds small, but I mean the ability 

to save $5,000, $10,000, et cetera, et cetera, helps you a bit with 

some of your staffing. And all of that can add up I think a bit. But 

certainly, with the IT might be another area to look at as well. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I actually have a couple of 

suggestions in that area you might expect from the Science and 

Technology Committee. 

One is a House-wide software licenses for Adobe Professional 

would be very useful and likely to save the taxpayer considerable 

funds when looking at the costs relative to the numerous purchases 

of software by other committees. And then a license for the Citrix 

Solution the committee has already implemented could potentially 

provide benefits we see in the solution to the entire House. So 

those are two areas where I think other committees and the House 

itself would save. 

On the Citrix, let me go into a little bit more detail there. The 

Citrix system is what allows remote access by staff, particularly 

maybe on occasions like today when they need to ensure continuity 

of operations and they can’t be in their offices, or when we have 

a disaster recovery, something like that. So that system could help, 

as well as the Adobe Professional. So those would be two areas that 

I think would reap savings across the board. 

The CHAIRMAN. I see my staff back here busily taking notes 

while you are mentioning those. So we appreciate that input. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. We hope that you would credit the committee’s budget with any savings that accrue. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will take that under advisement. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

We are really trying to think about how we can improve the WiFi service on the Hill. I mean, as you go to a lot of paperless kinds 

of hearings and all that, so people can use their iPads instead. 

There are just a lot of things that we have always done it this way, 

but time to step it up here a bit, right? So I just mention that as 

well. 

At this time, I would recognize our Ranking Member Brady for 

his questions. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

My only question would be in this time of difficulty with the cuts 

that we have and you had, and the cuts that you may be expecting, 

do either one of you or both of you have problems finding quality 

people and probably most important, keeping the quality people 

with the institutional knowledge that you have coming in with 

their services? They can make more money on the outside, and 

now, they are being asked to take another cut. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Right. Congressman Brady, I couldn’t have 

asked for a better question about trying to find quality people, because we have been somewhat hampered in our ability to attract, 

for instance, subcommittee staff directors to join us because we 

haven’t been able to necessarily equal the salaries that they are 

being paid in the private sector. So that is one of the reasons why 

I hope that we are granted some deference on the budget so that 

we can make offers to individuals, and so that they will be able to 

consider working on the Hill and working for our committee. 

We have a number of openings, and unfortunately, we are making offers to individuals and asking them to take a pay cut. And 

that is not conducive to attracting the best individuals, necessarily. 

So it all comes back to the budget, and if we have enough to pay 

what is comparable in the private sector, we should be able to attract those individuals. But that is a serious concern. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. And thank you for your testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate your talking about reauthorizing 

NASA. And really, it is I think an unfortunate thing that our space 

program is not moving forward as I think many would like it to be. 

And I certainly see the private sector getting much more involved. 

And that is fine. But when you see China and Russia and others 

taking off like this, reauthorizing NASA is very important. I just 

have to tell you one personal reason I have always been sort of a 

space nut, because my dad actually was an aeronautical engineer. 

He has passed on now. But he worked with Wernher Von Braun 

at Redstone. And when we were kids, you know, I mean, here he 

was sort of a rocket scientist, and he used to come home very upset 

sometimes because he would say, now the government is getting involved in the space program, and we no longer can set off a rocket 

until the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the rocket, 

you know. We used to be able just do what we wanted, but now 

the government is involved and is stopping our creativity. 

But really there has been such a tremendous amount of spin off. 

We are talking about technology, and whether it is your GPS, just 

getting to work this morning or whatever, these are all spin-offs of 

the space program, incredible amounts of stride that the taxpayers 

get in an indirect way from the space program. So I think it is very 

important your committee is reauthorizing NASA. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, if we reauthorize that, that 

will be the first time in 3 years. It is a $17 billion reauthorization. 

And I hope this year will be a bipartisan effort as well. Congresswoman Lofgren sits on the committee, too. And I am certainly 

pleased to hear you are sympathetic to aeronautical engineers. We 

will put more of those in our budget. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

The chair would recognize the gentlelady from California if she 

would like to question. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No, Madam Chair. I understand that the majority 

and minority are working closely together to deal with this as best 

we can. And I certainly will do my part, not only as a member of 

this committee, but as a member of the Science Committee. And I 

want to praise both the chair and ranking member for their leadership. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you both for coming. Is there anything 

else you want to tell the committee? Anything at all? Otherwise, 

we certainly appreciate your attendance this morning. We certainly 

will take into consideration and look at the graph that you have 

given us and recognize what has happened to the committee in the 

last several years and what you are looking at going forward. We 

appreciate you both coming. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much. 

The committee is going to recess until 10:30. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We will now reconvene the Committee on House 

Admin to continue the hearing on committee funding for the 113th. 

A quorum is present, so we may now proceed. The committee now 

welcomes Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers of 

the great State of Michigan for the Committee on the Judiciary. 

And the official reporter will enter a page break. We have a new 

section. 

The CHAIRMAN. The House Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction 

over protecting our constitutional freedoms and civil liberties, oversight of the United States Departments of Justice and Homeland 

Security, legal, regulatory innovation, competition, and antitrust 

laws, terrorism and crime, and immigration reform. The committee 

also has jurisdiction over all proposed amendments to the Constitution. 

Its priorities during the 113th include small business regulatory 

relief, immigration reform, enhancing efficiencies within our legal 

system, discouraging frivolous lawsuits, modernizing our patent 

and copyright laws, and ensuring our cybersecurity efforts match 

our national security needs. We appreciate both the chairman and 

the ranking member, their attendance here today before our committee. The committee has had an opportunity to evaluate all of 

your submitted requests, and we are looking at all of that, and are 

going to give it every serious consideration certainly. And we again 

appreciate your attendance. 

And the chair now recognizes Chairman Goodlatte for his remarks. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking 

Member Brady, and members of the committee. I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify on the Judiciary Committee’s budget for the 

first session of the 113th Congress. In this economy, all Americans 

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

that. And the Judiciary Committee is prepared to do the same. 

However, Ranking Member Conyers and I would like to make the 

case before you today that the Judiciary Committee is deserving of 

the maximum amount of funds that you can dedicate to it. Historically, the Judiciary Committee is one of the most active committees 

in the Congress. In the 112th Congress, for example, nearly 15 percent of the total legislative measures introduced were referred to 

the committee. The Judiciary Committee reported 77 bills and resolutions to the House, with accompanying legislative reports on all 

but a few. 

In addition, a total of 42 bills in which the Judiciary Committee 

had a jurisdictional interest were signed into law by the President. 

Excluding postal designations and coin-naming bills, the Judiciary 

Committee had more legislation under its primary jurisdiction enacted into law than any other House committee. 

Already in the 113th Congress, the Judiciary Committee has 

been hard at work to meet the demands of the heavy workload of 

the committee, including work on issues of great importance to the 

entire Congress. One only needs to pick up a newspaper and read 

the headlines to appreciate how busy the Judiciary Committee has 

been and will continue to be this year as we consider such issues 

as immigration reform and firearms, in addition to our normal 

heavy workload. 

We also expect to increase the committee’s efforts to engage in 

aggressive oversight this Congress. Among the important issues 

the committee continues to consider are ensuring that Federal law 

enforcement agencies have the necessary tools to prevent terrorist 

attacks, that the constitutional rights and civil liberties of Americans are protected, that America’s borders are secure, and that the 

administration of justice is fair and efficient within both the Justice Department and Federal law enforcement agencies, and within 

our Federal judiciary. 

In addition, the committee plays an important role in strengthening our economy and putting Americans back to work. We ensure 

robust and fair competition under the antitrust laws, encourage innovation, and promote America’s global competitiveness through 

our intellectual property laws, improve our immigration laws to attract the best and brightest from around the world, and bolster the 

business climate by providing relief from burdensome and excessive 

regulations. 

These issues are critical to the safety and economic well being of 

millions of Americans. Because of this, it is vital that we retain a 

highly qualified staff as the cornerstone of the committee’s capacity 

to consider complicated and often controversial legislation and policy issues that fall within its jurisdiction. To attract and retain 

quality staff, the committee must be able to offer compensation 

that is at least somewhat competitive with the private sector. This 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

is particularly challenging when a disproportionate number of committee staff are attorneys, with substantial experience and public 

policy expertise who could command higher salaries from the private sector. 

In addition to the personnel that are necessary to manage the demanding workload of the Judiciary Committee, there are operating 

funds that will be critical in enabling the committee to properly investigate certain policy issues under its jurisdiction. For example, 

I believe that it is an important function of the committee to conduct field hearings on certain complex issues, such as immigration 

reform, where a full evaluation of the issue is not possible without 

seeing firsthand how the current programs operate and to better 

understand the successes and deficiencies of the current law. 

Furthermore, one of the commitments that I made when I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee is that the committee 

would build a new cutting-edge Web site to replace the outdated 

Web site that currently exists. It is a disservice to the Members of 

the House and the public to not provide user-friendly, current, 

transparent information about the important issues being considered by the Judiciary Committee. And therefore, rebuilding the 

committee’s Web site is a top priority. 

While I will do what is necessary to ensure that the Judiciary 

Committee is even more productive while operating with less, I respectfully request that when allocating funds to committees, you 

take into account the legislative burden of the committee and 

whether it will require more resources when compared with other 

committees. 

Lastly, I note that our budget submission continues our commitment to give the minority one-third of the staff slots and one-third 

of the salaries after subtracting shared administrative expenses 

and staff. 

And I thank you for your time, and yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:] 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 80286A.008
19 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 80286A.009
20 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 80286A.010
21 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 80286A.011
22 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 80286A.012
23 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 80286A.013
24 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman very much. 

And at this time, the chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. 

Conyers. 

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

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairwoman Candice Miller, and of 

course, the ranking member, Mr. Brady, and Zoe Lofgren, who is 

a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as well as this responsibility, and Mr. Harper of Mississippi. We are all glad to be 

here with you. 

My chairman has done an excellent job of describing our situation, our responsibilities, and what our ask is. I ask unanimous 

consent to put my statement in the record in its entirety. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. And I probably won’t have to read it 

all because much of it is repetitive. But the 2013 budget request 

for the House Judiciary Committee is very important. I would like 

to tell you that when I first came to the Congress, John W. McCormack was the Speaker of the House. And I came to him and I 

asked him, before I had gotten an assignment, that I be assigned 

to the Judiciary Committee. It was the committee handling the 

civil rights activities, which, in the 1960s, was really going on at 

a very high pace. And I told him that that was a request I would 

like to have passed on. At that time, from Arkansas, his name escapes me right now, but he was the chairman of this committee. 

It was a Democrat. And he, I went before him, and they acceded 

to my request. And I was very, very pleased to start my career out 

on the Judiciary Committee. 

The chairman at that time was the late Emanuel Celler of New 

York, who handled most of the civil rights activity during that period. And during many of those years, there were Republican chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee. And we got along quite 

well, as we still do today under Bob Goodlatte’s leadership. 

So I join with the chairman in requesting that we allocate as 

much as we can, the maximum amount of budget for the committee 

to reflect some of the critical issues. 

The chair, Ms. Miller, has already outlined our constitutional responsibilities, and so I am sure everyone is aware of them: 77 bills 

in the last Congress; one in eight of the legislative measures introduced to the House are referred to our committee; and 40 bills 

signed into law. We had more than 150 subcommittee hearings 

during the last Congress and 20 full committee hearings and approximately 50 full committee markups. And so our committee 

plays a major role in dealing with diverse legislative and oversight 

issues that have national and occasionally global significance. 

In any one session of Congress, of course, immigration reform 

and reduction of gun violence, copyright enforcement, constitutional 

amendments, voting rights, and criminal law are all part of our 

day-to-day everyday responsibilities. In addition, we have oversight 

of the Department of Justice, which is I think a significant responsibility. And we have oversight of the Federal judicial system itself. 

One of the things that really make this job a treat is that we are 

able to be invited over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

to meet with him to discuss our legislative issues and other issues 

that connect us and the Supreme Court and the rest of the Federal 

judiciary. 

Chairman Goodlatte has explained the other oversight responsibilities, so I won’t go into that. 

There is one thing I would like to point out, that it could be that 

our jurisdiction, because of our jurisdiction, the committee workload will increase in this 113th session of Congress. And Chairman 

Goodlatte has proposed an ambitious hearing and legislative schedule, in which we will be dealing with all of these very current and 

topical issues that fall within our jurisdiction. 

As your committee considers, Madam Chairman, the budget allocations for this year, I urge you to prioritize the Judiciary Committee’s budget request based on our extensive legislative responsibilities. And I must point out that, in addition, we received cuts from 

the 112th Congress that have made us actually have to reduce 

some staff. And I think that was an 11 percent cut from the 112th 

committee considerations. So, given the negative ramifications, and 

our staff does work long hours and are frequently called upon to 

work at night and sometimes on weekends, so if there were even 

fewer staff allocated, I am hoping that that could be minimized to 

the greatest extent possible. The chairman, and I with him, have 

submitted a budget request before you today that reflects our 

shared commitment to retaining the most experienced people that 

we can to support the significant work of the committee. And I am 

pleased that Chairman Goodlatte is committed to working cooperatively with me in an effort to minimize any impact of funding reductions, and on the workload and assignments that are part of our 

daily work. 

So I thank the members of the committee, appreciate your attention to our request, and hope to be able to persuade you to be as 

efficient but as generous as possible. I thank the members of the 

committee. 

[The statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 80286A.014
27 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 80286A.015
28 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 80286A.016
29 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 80286A.017
30 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We appreciate both the 

chairman and the ranking member and your comments. 

We appreciate your attendance here. 

Just a couple of comments. 

As I say, we have received all your budget documentation, started taking a look at it. And I think it is important that you detailed 

out here the possibility of some field hearings, in particular about 

immigration reform. When you think about comprehensive immigration reform being one of the priorities, I think, for the Congress 

at this time, so we are certainly cognizant of the fact that the committee does have some rather unique challenges going forward in 

the 113th. We are looking at some of those kind of things. One 

thing I would say, whether this is a question or observation, or just 

sort of throwing something out there for you as an offer, this committee has really tried to do some enterprise types of projects that 

could resource the respective committees in particular ways. I am 

talking about IT, like the House cloud. I am not sure exactly if the 

committee has had an opportunity to be utilizing some of the various enterprise platforms that this committee has made available. 

We are going to try do a better job with the Wi-Fi service on the 

Hill, as you perhaps go to paperless kinds of committee hearings, 

so that everybody would have good reception for their iPads, et 

cetera. 

I was sort of looking through some of the detail you provided 

about your Web site, for instance, rebuilding your Web site, et 

cetera. This is an area I think our committee could probably, hopefully, if you think it is appropriate, make some resourcing available 

to you. These are not huge ticket items, but it could add up a bit 

and help you with your staffing, et cetera. You would be able to— 

you know, money is fungible—use it in other ways as you see most 

appropriate. So I offer that to you. And if there are any comments 

or questions you have in regard to that. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank you for your recommendations, Chairman. 

You are quite right that this new technology offers us an easier 

and more efficient way to communicate and keep everyone in the 

country involved and up to date on our developments. We will continue to look at that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. We will definitely take you up on that offer. And we have hired a new IT person to head our efforts there. We think the committee’s work in 

that area needs to be improved, particularly with regard to the 

Web site, and we will be looking for help and resources wherever 

we can find them to accomplish that. And we are looking at using 

the Library of Congress upstream as a way to modernize our Web 

site and to increase the transparency of the committee, which we 

think is also important for us to do. So I definitely welcome any 

way that you can help us. 

As you have noted, we do have a heavy burden, heavy workload 

anyway, and anticipating that sequestration would cause us to 

incur some reductions, coming in as a new chairman we made some 

very tough personnel decisions. But at the end of that, we have 

some very particular needs, and we also have some additional work 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

that was perhaps not anticipated just a few months ago related to 

both Second Amendment issues and immigration issues. 

So anything you can do to help us level the resources available 

to committees based upon the amount of work that needs to be produced by those committees would be helpful to the Judiciary Committee because I think we do as much as any committee in the 

Congress. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. 

At this time, I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

My only comment and issue, as I have with all the other committees, and especially your committee, because you have a certain 

quality and expertise of people that, attorneys you need to hire, is 

your ability to hire people at the salary that is three or four times 

less than they can make on the outside and also the ability to keep 

the people with the institutional knowledge that you do have working there that came in at a relatively low salary and then asking 

them to take another cut. My issue and my concern is whether we 

get, not only your committee, but all committees, whether we keep 

the ability to be able to keep the people and hire new people. 

And with that, as the ranking member made note of, you have 

a senior member of your committee and a valued member of our 

committee right here who has much more knowledge about your 

workings than I do, so I would like to yield the remainder of my 

time to Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Brady. 

I actually think that these reductions, given what the committee 

is facing, are probably unwise. And I would not say that, and I 

have not said that to other committees. But if we in fact are going 

to move into the very complex area of reform of immigration law, 

that is a massive effort. And, you know, cutting personnel is not 

going to make us better able to do that. So I have a concern about 

that. 

I also wanted to ask, it is my understanding on the Democratic 

side, that the staff is each being asked to take a 20 percent reduction in salary. Is that correct, Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. I think that it is. I want to be accurate. That is 

a worst-case scenario. Although just this morning, we were going 

over this, and we had one lawyer, of course unnamed, that we had 

just been able to raise up after months of working below the rates 

of compensation for the other attorneys to get back at a level. So 

when you take into consideration the sequester effect and the fact 

that there was a reduction in the 112th Congress, I think the case 

that we are putting forward is not an overexaggeration of the need 

for you to consider all these factors and the quality and the significance of the issues that we are called upon to handle, as you well 

know. 

You have been a subcommittee chair as well as a senior member 

of the Judiciary Committee, so I know that you can verify everything that me and Chairman Goodlatte have remarked about here 

today. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I guess I am just wondering if there are ways to 

economize in other areas, because when I think about, for example, 

some of the lawyers, and I think that on both sides of the aisle, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

these are attorneys who took a pay cut to come, in most cases, from 

the private sector for the chance to work on the public’s business, 

and so they didn’t come here to make money, but at some point, 

if you can’t make your car payments, you can’t do this. So I am just 

wondering, are there ways to economize to prevent further reductions in salary? Because I think it is going to impinge the capacity 

of the committee on both sides of the aisle to do the really important work that the Congress has entrusted with us. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, Congresswoman Lofgren, as you noted, 

the committee is, and as you know, we are already hard at work 

on immigration reform, and we are going to continue that. It is not 

an easy topic. It is going to take a while to get through that. So, 

virtually all of this year, we are going to be very dedicated to doing 

that. We have some great attorneys, many with outstanding backgrounds and previous experience and degrees from America’s top 

universities. And they work for the Judiciary Committee because 

they want to be involved in these public policy issues, but they are 

paid substantially less than they would earn in the private sector. 

We had the advantage, if you can call it that, coming in as a new 

chairman, of going through the entire staff and making tough decisions prior to my taking office as chairman, to anticipate the sequestration. And we have reached out to Ranking Member Conyers 

and his chief of staff to work with them to help find ways so that 

they don’t experience that kind of a pay cut. We do not want to see 

that happen. 

But both in terms of our need for additional employees that we 

did not fill because of the anticipation of the problem, but not anticipating that we would be spending so much on immigration and 

virtually every subcommittee on the committee has a heavy workload, but some heavier than was anticipated, and their need to not 

cut back on great people that they have on their side, we really 

could use consideration by your committee that our cut not be comparable to some other committees that—and I don’t want to get involved in naming anybody—but that may not have that kind of 

workload or the need to have as many attorneys as the Judiciary 

Committee that by the very nature of its work needs to have. 

Ms. LOFGREN. May I ask, and I don’t know if we are in a position 

to do this, but given the two hot-button issues that are facing the 

Congress in terms of the Second Amendment and immigration reform, whether you could provide a modest sum that might allow 

the committee to better meet those challenges if we were to take 

a look at that. I don’t know. I mean, I don’t know whether the committee is even willing to do that. But if we cannot actually step forward and discharge our obligations, the whole Congress is going to 

suffer in that regard. Do you have what the amount would be if 

we were to do a minor adjustment to deal with those two issues? 

Mr. CONYERS. Not on me at the moment, but I could certainly 

submit it for the record, and I would be pleased to do that. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We would be happy to. We have given our overall budget recommendations, and we would ask that consideration 

be given for that. But we would be happy to provide any supplemental information. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just note, just by way of precedent, a couple of years ago, the committee did give an augmentation to the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

Ethics Committee because of the workload that they had. And, you 

know, every committee is going to come in and say our workload 

is crushing, and that is true, but there sometimes are circumstances where there are anomalies that we have to cope with. 

And this may be one of those cases. 

Could I ask just one more question, and then I won’t take my 

time? 

Mr. Goodlatte, I want to make sure that the entire legislative 

history of the committee is available on our Web sites. And that 

used to be the case. I was actually thinking about referring somebody to some testimony that was received when I chaired the subcommittee, and I found, much to my dismay, that all of it was 

gone. Storage is cheap. I think it has now been restored. But I 

think that the obligation, no matter which party has the majority 

and who is chair, that that is the history of the committee, all of 

the testimony ought to be available on the Web site for all of the 

subcommittees. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I agree, both from the standpoint of doing proper research, and also from the standpoint of transparency. I think 

the chairwoman’s offer with regard to help from this committee, 

and again, our new technology folks will definitely work with the 

House Administration Committee on use of cloud technology, for 

example, so that there should be no problems with storage of information. 

And access and good search capabilities as well. Our Web site is 

woefully in need of improvement, and we are dedicated to doing 

that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I appreciate that. I look forward to working with 

you on that. 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady for her comments. 

And at this time, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And welcome to both of you. And thanks for the great job that 

you are doing. 

I had the privilege of serving in the 111th Congress of serving 

on Judiciary, and Mr. Conyers, you as chairman. 

And I noticed the committee has always had a great working relationship across the aisle, and I know that you are continuing that 

tradition, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate that hard work in difficult 

times, particularly on the budget side of things and trying to do 

this. 

In 2011, there was a 5 percent cut and 6.4 percent in 2012. And 

while nobody likes to see that, it appeared to me that you did an 

incredible job on those restrictions and less funds that you had 

available. Am I correct in that, in the 112th, that you met your obligations during that time? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Yes. I was not chairman then, but certainly we 

met the targets that we were responsible for. And we also anticipated that there might be further cuts by not filling all positions. 

And not all positions need to be filled. But I would also argue to 

the committee that because of the work that we are now undertaking, some of which came about without anticipation—not that 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

we wouldn’t be working on immigration law. The nationwide push 

and the nationwide interest in doing comprehensive immigration 

reform is a good development. And we want to take full advantage 

of it. We need to have the right people to do it. 

And we have other similar burdens. And we have short-changed 

other subcommittees in order to be able to do that. So our request 

to have some help with some personnel would be very important 

to us and very welcome if you can favorably respond. 

Mr. HARPER. And I know we mentioned a number of areas that 

it would be very important in this Congress. Are there any other 

special circumstances that you think the committee should be 

aware of as we try to set these figures? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, other than to say that there are positions 

that the committee needs to have related to specific areas of the 

law, antitrust law, for example, where we need to have the resources so that as we do the extra work that is needed in immigration, for example, we are not short-changing a huge area of jurisdiction in importance to the committee, and that is oversight. I 

mean, virtually every other week, we have a major antitrust issue 

that the committee needs to be looking at. Last week, it was the 

merger of American Airlines and U.S. Air. That is a very important 

thing that our antitrust laws play very heavily into. And we need 

to have the expertise in that area available to the members of the 

committee. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could I just add on just briefly? 

Antitrust is a huge area. But the other area, Mr. Harper, that 

is—I don’t know if it is going to become a growing concern yet because we haven’t had a chance to look at it carefully, but in the 

voting of last year in November, there were many reports that 

there were long lines and a lot of waiting. I think some people, I 

hate to say this, even in Michigan, there were 1- and 2-hour waits 

in some places. And in some States, there were even more than 

that, which we wanted to look at. I don’t know if it is going to be 

big enough or consume any more of our staff than we can afford, 

but it is something that I wanted to mention here at this committee hearing. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate both of the comments. I will just 

say, as a former Secretary of State of Michigan, chief elections officer, I am not aware of anybody waiting that long of time. But I am 

appreciative of those comments, and will certainly look at that. 

I appreciate both of you coming, the chairman and the ranking 

member. Again, we have had a good discussion. And the committee 

will take every due consideration of the very good documentation 

you put forward and your requests for your budget. Thank you very 

much both of you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee now welcomes Chairman Lucas 

and Ranking Member Peterson of the Committee on Agriculture. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

The official reporter will enter a page break as we record a new 

section. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee on Ag has jurisdiction over agricultural policies generally, agricultural production and marketing, 

stabilization of prices of agricultural products and commodities, 

commodity exchanges, crop insurance and soil conservation and the 

expansion—excuse me—extension of farm credit and farm security. 

During the 113th, the committee’s priorities include working on 

a farm bill, guarding against and stopping unnecessary regulations, 

and ensuring our WTO and trading partners allow fair access for 

American products and commodities. 

So we appreciate both the chairman and the ranking member 

being here. The committee has had an opportunity to look at all of 

the budget documentation that you have submitted, and we appreciate your attention to all of that detail. 

And at this time, the chair would recognize the chairman, Mr. 

Lucas. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of the 

committee for this opportunity to speak with you today. 

I appreciate Ranking Member Collin Peterson joining me to outline our committee’s proposed budget for the next year. As all you 

know, we have had a very long and proud history of bipartisan cooperation, and I plan to continue that spirit of cooperation as we 

proceed with the work of the committee in the 113th Congress. 

In addition to bipartisanship, the committee has a long history 

of fiscal responsibility. The modest spending and cooperative nature of our committee spans back more than two decades under the 

control of both parties. 

With the impending expiration authorizations of both the 2008 

Farm Bill and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 

CFTC, we have a significant workload ahead of us in this Congress; 

therefore, we are proposing level funding for the committee for the 

113th Congress. 

The resources provided us will allow us to write both of these 

comprehensive pieces of legislation as well as proceed with a robust 

oversight agenda, as outlined in our oversight plan submitted to 

you earlier this year. 

With significant cuts in the 112th Congress and the budget uncertainty, we were unable to fill four of our positions on the committee. In addition to those four open slots, we are now down another five staff people, a press person, an investigator and three 

policy advisors. We have not filled these positions, because we did 

not know what budget cuts to expect for this year and this Congress. This equals a 28 percent reduction in our staff if we do not 

fill these open positions. 

In response to this budget uncertainty, we have consolidated positions and have eliminated subcommittee staff directors. Unfortunately, this puts our subcommittee chairmen at a disadvantage, as 

this committee has always been able to provide at least one staff 

person to serve each of the subcommittee chairmen. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

We also reduced the number of subcommittees at the committee 

from six subcommittees to five subcommittees. And finally, we have 

done very little travel and limited our field hearings. We are doing 

everything possible to work more efficiently and effectively. 

The committee will continue to support leadership in implementing an additional 11 percent cut, if sequestration takes place. 

However, I am concerned about the long-term impact on the committee to fulfill its responsibilities, as well as being able to retain 

qualified, experienced staff. In order to implement this level of 

cuts, we will have to continue to make very conservative staffing 

decisions. This will hinder our ability to have an aggressive oversight hearing agenda, and additionally, we will have to continue to 

limit the number of field hearings and site visits that we would 

like to do. 

However, if the committee allocates a 5 percent increase over our 

actual spending in 2012, then we should be able to maintain our 

current staff levels and hire four additional staff members. While 

we would still be shorthanded under this scenario, we certainly can 

make it work. 

Madam Chair, we truly have our work cut out for us in this Congress, but we firmly believe that we can accomplish all of this, 

given our current resources. 

We greatly appreciate your consideration of our budget request. 

Please let us know if we can provide any additional information. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Lucas follows:] 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 80286A.018
38 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 80286A.019
39 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the chairman very much. 

At this time, we recognize the ranking member, Mr. Peterson. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking 

Member Brady and members of the committee. I am pleased to be 

here today to support the Agricultural Committee’s budget request. 

As Chairman Lucas has said, the Ag Committee has a history of 

working in a bipartisan fashion, and not always easy, but we work 

very hard to listen and understand each other. 

As Chairman Lucas has outlined, there are many challenges before us, including completion of the 5-year Farm Bill and the CFTC 

reauthorization. The farm bill has proven to be a tough project to 

finish, as you all are aware, but the committee has worked hard 

over the past couple of years to use all opportunities to get the bill 

done. So we are going to continue that effort this year, and I hope 

and expect that it will mean a final farm bill signed into law this 

year. 

Financial reform oversight will continue to be a focus for the 

committee as we consider CFTC reauthorization. And we need to 

make sure that we do not repeat some of the mistakes of the past 

with regard to financial sector regulation. 

The public record shows that we are a frugal committee. We 

strive to use our resources and staff as efficiently and effectively 

as possible. 

And through our work, Chairman Lucas has been fair to the minority. We have no complaints about the division of resources. The 

majority has worked to protect the rights of the minority, and we 

appreciate the chairman’s efforts in that regard. It helps make the 

rest of our work all the easier when we agree on policy decisions 

and, perhaps more importantly, when we disagree on policy. 

So I thank the committee today for the opportunity to visit with 

you and your important work on behalf of the House, and appreciate your consideration of the Ag Committee’s budget request. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Peterson follows:] 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 here 80286A.020
41 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you, gentlemen, both very, very much, 

and you do have some unique challenges, certainly, as we go into 

this Congress with the farm bill. 

Sometimes people say, why is the farm bill so important? Well, 

if you like to eat, maybe it is important. If you don’t care about eating, maybe you don’t care, right? But it is critically important for 

our country. 

And we certainly all appreciate the bipartisanship that the committee has always demonstrated, and hope you are going to be very 

successful with that this year. 

Just a couple of things. As I say, we have looked at the detail. 

I was just looking at all the vacancies that you have in both the 

majority and the minority on the committee. We are certainly cognizant of that. I know you have detailed out here a bit for field 

hearings perhaps on your farm bill as well, which I think is certainly an appropriate thing. 

Just one thing I would say, it is a question or a comment, or sort 

of throwing it out there for you. One of things that our committee 

has, this committee has done very well in the past and really want 

to ratchet up here a bit is to help resource the respective committees with perhaps IT kinds of things that you are utilizing, some 

new technologies. We know we need to have a little bit better WiFi service on the Hill as you possibly go to paperless committee 

hearings, those kinds of things, to make sure your iPads are working properly, et cetera. 

I was sort of trying to look through some of the detail you gave 

about various kinds of things that you have done with IT. It looks 

like you have sort of purchased your own software agreement, et 

cetera, rather than using the House cloud. And I guess I just offer 

that up as perhaps whether there are any of the enterprise kinds 

of foundations, projects that this committee is working on that 

would assist your committee, we certainly want to stand by and do 

that however we go, whether that is Web site development, whatever it is. 

So not really so much in the form of a question, but want to help 

if we can on things that you think might be appropriate. 

Mr. LUCAS. Absolutely, Chairman. 

We have some very good IT people on the staff and working in 

whatever way will make the systems more efficient. I know that 

there have been efforts to try and address the committee providing 

resources for all committees, subscription costs and all those sort 

of things. We are willing to look at those. Collin and I have run 

this ship in a very frugal fashion, and we are going to continue to 

do that. Whatever help you can provide, we will be very pleased 

with. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. At this time, I recognize my ranking 

member, Mr. Brady. 

No questions. 

At this time, the chair recognizes Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. I just want to thank you for what you are doing, 

and under somewhat less than perfect circumstances, I think you 

have done a commendable job on the committee. And we will— 

though these are not the best days to set things, but are there any 

special circumstances, Chairman Lucas, that you think the comVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:24 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 080286 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A286.XXX A286

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

mittee needs to be aware of as we are trying to set the amounts 

for each committee? 

Mr. LUCAS. I would just note that as we work through this farm 

bill process, having to reduce the number of staff people who work 

with the subcommittee chairmen means that our additional staff 

have to work a lot of overtime. And I would say this: the people 

who work on the Ag Committee, the lawyers and the economists, 

the policy folks are very focused on this subject matter and are 

willing to go to great lengths to get the mission done. 

If we don’t return to some sort of normal funding levels in the 

future, I can see once the 5-year farm bill is done, a potential for 

desertion amongst these good, overworked folks. I want to maintain 

that skill set, and knowledge for oversight and all the things that 

come after that. 

So, I just observe that our folks are going to do everything that 

is necessary to get this farm bill done, but after that, I may have 

a hard time retaining them when the adrenaline of the farm bill 

process is over. 

Mr. HARPER. Just so you know, Mr. Chairman, the staff behind 

you did a good job of holding their applause when you said that. 

So thank you for your time. 

And I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. We certainly—again, we appreciate both the 

chairman and the ranking member being in attendance today. The 

committee is going to give every serious consideration to your budget requests, which are very well thought out, and certainly we are 

very cognizant of the challenges that you face with the farm bill, 

et cetera. And all these vacancies and the budget constraints that 

you have been operating under, we are appreciative of that, and we 

will look at it all. Thank you very, very much. We appreciate you 

both coming. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. In the interest of time, we will take the 

written testimony from Chairman Ryan, and we would ask the 

ranking member if he has any comment in regard to the budget. 

[The statement of Mr. Ryan follows:] 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 here 80286A.021
44 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 here 80286A.022
45 

The CHAIRMAN. I will tell you, sir, that the committee has received all the documentation that you have submitted. We have 

looked at it. We appreciate it. 

We are especially appreciative of how fiscally conservative the 

Budget Committee has been in regards to you have really been 

walking the walk there, and the committee is well aware of that. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. And if you have any comments— 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, Ranking 

Member Brady, committee members. I appreciate those comments. 

I do have a written statement to submit for the record. 

And I know Mr. Ryan would join me in saying that we have had 

a bipartisan relationship when it comes to dealing with our committee budget issues as they affect the committee, and we have 

been trying to do a lot more with a lot less. So I thank the members of the committee and hope everyone can get home before the 

airports close. 

[The statement of Mr. Van Hollen follows:] 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 here 80286A.023
47 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Thank you so much. 

We appreciate your attendance. 

Any comment from the ranking member? 

Mr. Harper, any comment? 

Mr. HARPER. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Very well. Thank you so much. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. HARPER [presiding]. We will now reconvene the Committee 

on House Administration to continue the hearing on committee 

funding for the 113th Congress. A quorum is present, so we may 

proceed. 

The committee now welcomes Chairman Hastings and Ranking 

Member Markey of the Committee on Natural Resources. 

Would the official reporter please enter a page break into the 

hearing record to begin a new section? 

Mr. HARPER. With a history dating back to the Louisiana Purchase, the Committee on Natural Resources has a proud history 

and jurisdiction over our Nation’s energy and mineral resources, 

fisheries and wildlife, affairs related to our Native American communities, our water and power resources, and our public lands and 

environmental regulations. 

Its priorities in the 113th Congress will be to continue to maximize our Nation’s great natural assets and lower energy costs for 

millions of Americans while stifling job-killing and industry-harming regulations. 

Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey, welcome. 

You will have 5 minutes to testify before the committee. 

I will now recognize the chair. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

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

for the opportunity to discuss the work of the Committee on Natural Resources and to present our 2013 budget requests. 

The Natural Resources Committee is a real work horse in the 

House, to a degree that I do not believe is widely obvious to all. 

A quick look at the statistics of the legislative activity of the committee in the 112th Congress best demonstrates just how heavy a 

workload the Natural Resources Committee and its staff perform 

for the House. 

Last Congress, the committee ranked fourth in total bills referred to it, nearly 700; first in the number of bills reported out of 

committee; first in bill reports filed; first in number of bills passed 

by the House, over 100; fourth in bills considered under a rule; 

third in public laws enacted; and fifth in total hearings among the 

authorizing committee, over 200. 

The committee’s jurisdiction under House Rule X is deep and 

broad. As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we must maintain a diverse staff with specialized expertise on diverse matters ranging 

from offshore energy production, to 398 National Park units, to National Forests and the ensuing fires, wildfires on those forests; to 

over 560 wildlife refuges; to commercial and recreational fisheries; 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

to 566 recognized Indian tribes; to all mining and minerals and 

coal production; to Federal hydropower and western irrigation 

products; to our overseas territory; and to ocean and wildlife generally, including the endangered species. 

These activities all have tremendous impact on our Nation’s 

economy and the Federal budget. There are areas in our Nation 

suffering severe economic hardship and double-digit unemployment. Many of these areas have a direct connection to our Federal 

lands, Federal policies and Federal laws, and many of these areas 

are subject to laws subject to reauthorization under our committee’s jurisdiction. 

Many do not realize the committee is responsible for one of the 

largest sources of nontax revenue in the Federal Government in 

the form of oil and natural gas leasing and production. Between 

2008 and 2012, approximately $1 billion to $2 billion every month 

was collected by the Interior Department from this development. 

The committee’s ability to uphold this workload and fulfill our 

duties to the House is directly reliant on the committee staff. It is 

for these reasons we have acted aggressively over the past 2 years 

to reduce our nonstaff salary budget. In total, the committee has 

reduced its nonstaff salary budget by over 50 percent from the 

amount spent in 2010 to the amount proposed in 2013. These costs 

now represent just 6 percent of our total budget, and our staff salary represents 94 percent of the budget. 

Even with making these deep cuts to form a lean, efficient operating budget, the reductions to the personnel budget have already 

affected the ability of both the majority and the minority to hire 

and retain staff. Further reductions would directly impact our existing staff. 

And it is for these reasons that I am requesting a budget for 

2013 that reflects a freeze from what we had in 2012. However, 

should the sequester be maintained government-wide for all of the 

fiscal year 2013, I want to assure you that the committee will certainly fulfill its duty to execute the choices that we would have 

been required to do, but to be clear, a full-year sequester equaling 

11 percent reduction would require impactful adjustments to the 

existing staff of the committee. It would reduce the committee’s 

budget by over $800,000. 

For the majority, positions identified as core capabilities just last 

year would now go unfilled and positions occupied at the beginning 

of the year would need to be vacant by the end of the year. The 

majority already has three staff spots permanently unfilled under 

the sequester, and it would grow to at least six, meaning that one 

in 70 majority staff positions would be unfilled. 

The House as an institution asks and receives a great deal from 

our committee. We very capably perform both legislatively and reducing our budget to a core operating level, so we ask you for your 

consideration for all of this hard work as you review and determine 

our budget for 2013. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to any questions that you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Hastings follows:] 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 here 80286A.024
50 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 here 80286A.025
51 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 here 80286A.026
52 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 here 80286A.027
53 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 88 here 80286A.028
54 

Mr. HARPER. Now the chair recognizes Ranking Member Markey. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDWARD MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

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

Brady, thank you for having us here. I am here to ask for support 

for the Natural Resources Committee’s budget request for the 

113th Congress. 

Doc Hastings and I, we have our vigorous disagreements and debates in the Natural Resources Committee, but I wholeheartedly 

support his presentation of the budget facts as they relate to the 

impact of the cuts that our committee has experienced over the last 

2 years on our ability to carry out the work entrusted to us by the 

House of Representatives. 

In order to be able to carry out the duties entrusted to it by the 

House over all of these diverse and complex matters, the committee 

needs a budget that will enable us to do our job. As Chairman Hastings has noted, our committee was already forced to absorb a 6.8 

percent cut in funding in 2011 and faced a further reduction of 6.4 

percent last year. These reductions mean that the committee is 

now operating with a budget that is 12.7 percent less than what 

it received in 2010, a reduction of more than $1 million in funding. 

The committee and its staff have worked long and hard to prevent these prior cuts from harming our productivity. Our committee has been one of the most active in the House in terms of 

bills referred to us, hearings we have held, actions we have taken 

on these bills. Sustaining this level of effort requires a dedicated 

professional staff. 

As Chairman Hastings has noted, under the request he is submitting for 2013, personnel and salary costs will comprise 94.3 percent of the committee’s budget. The budget that Chairman Hastings has submitted provides for a freeze at 2013 allocation. In my 

view, even this request is barely sufficient to enable the committee 

to do its work. I would therefore strongly urge that the committee 

approve a budget that would allow for a 5 percent increase in funding. This would help bring the committee’s funding level back to a 

more sustainable level. 

What the committee should not do, in my view, is to allow sequestration to further slash the committee’s funding. I voted 

against the sequestration when it came up before the House because I opposed that type of across-the-board cuts that it would require. I understand that the committee is in a difficult position now 

that no action has been taken by the Congress to eliminate sequestration and replace it with a balanced package of spending reductions and tax reforms. 

If the committee approves a committee funding resolution with 

an 11 percent sequestration reduction, it will adversely affect the 

ability of both the majority and minority to retain and recruit talented and experienced professional staff. The committee would not 

be able to maintain the pace of legislative activity to which the 

chairman and I are committed and which the demands from our 

colleagues require. 

I would note that the chairman has, consistent with the proper 

practices of our committee, allocated one-third of the personnel and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

salary budget to the minority. We have also agreed to continue the 

practice of the committee to employ the nonpartisan shared staff 

responsible for certain shared financial management, administrative, and support functions out of the two-thirds share of the majority. We think this arrangement has been fair to both the majority 

and the minority. With respect to staffing, the majority has also 

agreed to a two-thirds/one-third split for the committee staff, which 

results in a proper allocation for the minority. 

So I would conclude by reiterating my strong preference that the 

committee’s budget be increased by 5 percent. If that is not possible, I would argue that, at a minimum, the budget should be 

maintained at the current level in light of the substantial challenges before our committee this Congress. What we cannot and 

should not do is to allow sequestration to harm the ability of Congress to do the oversight and to pass the legislation that the American people expect us to be working on. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. 

[The statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 80286A.029
57 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 80286A.030
58 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Markey. 

And I thank each of you for being here. And now I will ask a few 

questions and tell you first of all how much I appreciate the work 

that you do on the committee. You do have a great staff on both 

sides. And we certainly want to enable you to continue doing the 

great job that took place in the 112th. 

Are there any special circumstances, Mr. Chairman, or you, Mr. 

Markey, any special circumstances that we need to be aware of 

when we are establishing these figures? 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, I would just respond by saying, and I pointed that out in my remarks, 94 percent of our budget is salary. That 

is pretty hard to effect. But there are some issues, you know, supplies that necessarily go with all committees, for that matter. I 

think that is something that your committee really ought to look 

at, to see if there can be some—perhaps some consolidation, whether you are talking about subscriptions, whether you are talking 

about phones, or anything like that. I mean we found, for example, 

going through our budget, which this is a good exercise, that maybe 

the cost of phones is extraordinarily high. Now that needs to be 

looked at. We are certainly going to look at that. But with 94 percent of our budget being salary, it is pretty hard to look at other 

areas. You get it on the margin at that point. 

Mr. HARPER. So you are continuing to look anywhere you can to 

effect that savings. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Yeah. I mean, just to give you an example, I mentioned the 94 percent is salary right now. Just two Congresses ago, 

the ratio was 90-10. There was 10 percent for travel and everything 

else. And one of the areas that is affected, we have jurisdiction over 

all public Federal land. A lot of that is not on the East Coast. I 

mean, there is some on the East Coast and the West Coast, and 

we think it is important to have hearings when we can. But we 

have obviously had to cut our travel budget because that is part 

of the nonsalary part. But, you know, those are decisions that need 

to be made. But I think it is advantageous for the American people 

if we can have hearings in other areas. 

Mr. HARPER. Mr. Markey, anything you would care to add to the 

comments of the chairman? 

Mr. MARKEY. My father always said when two people agree upon 

absolutely everything, you don’t need one of those people. 

So Doc spoke for me. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Chairman. 

And now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Brady, for any 

questions he may have. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just thank you for testifying in front of us. And as I said to every 

committee here, it is my main concern that it is hard to find qualified people to come in to work for us here at the salary that we 

pay them when they can make two and three times in the private 

sector. And then when we do find them at a lower salary, we wind 

up cutting them. And I know they have dedication, but I think that 

sometimes school bills and rent and mortgage and little stuff like 

that matters a little bit. So have you had problems with people 

that—to attract better people and the people that you have, to be 

able to keep them? 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you for the question. 

I think one of the challenges we face, and Mr. Harper mentioned 

this when he was introducing the committee, is the diversity we 

have as far as our jurisdiction. And I talked about that also. It is 

sometimes very hard to find a staff that say is expert in—has a lot 

of knowledge in ocean policy to try to figure out what is going on 

in National Park policy, or western irrigation, or western power. So 

sometimes it is difficult to find people that overlap, and you have 

to find people that have expertise in those areas. 

But, you know, we do it the best, but because our portfolio is so 

difficult, I am not sure we have any more problem than other committees. But we do have a wide portfolio, as I mentioned, and that 

is difficult in itself. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions. 

Mr. HARPER. We thank each of you for being here. 

Thank you. 

The committee now welcomes Chairman Graves and Ranking 

Member Vela ́zquez of the Committee on Small Business. Would the 

official reporter please enter a page break into the hearing record 

to begin a new section. 

Mr. HARPER. Established to protect and assist small businesses, 

the committee has jurisdiction over matters related to small business financial aid, regulatory flexibility, and paperwork reduction. 

It also has legislative and oversight responsibilities related to the 

Small Business Administration and its programs. 

During the 113th Congress, its priorities are to continue to strive 

to alleviate the crushing burdens on our Nation’s small businesses 

from excessive health care-related regulations and mandates and to 

ensure that the Small Business Administration is operating efficiently and effectively in prudently expanding capital and opportunities to our job-creating small businesses. 

Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Vela ́zquez, welcome to 

each of you. And we will recognize each of you now for 5 minutes 

of testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SAM GRAVES, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

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

Brady, for the opportunity to discuss the 2013 budget request of 

the Small Business Committee. 

I am proud of the Small Business Committee’s accomplishments 

in the last Congress. The committee held 80 hearings, 9 field hearings. We engaged in aggressive oversight of the administrations’ 20 

agencies, and enacted Federal contracting reforms. We reauthorized important research grant programs, passed regulatory reform 

legislation, and developed some unique communication tools to 

reach out to small businesses all over America. 

We have also been very pleased to serve as a resource to all 

Members of the House who call on us for assistance with their 

small business constituents’ needs, and we look forward to building 

on that success. 

The committee has done all of this work on a very tight budget, 

and we should. We understand that Federal spending has to be 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

curtailed, and we have been willing to prioritize and save. In fact, 

last year the committee was one of only three committees that were 

asked for an additional 1 percent above the across-the-board cuts 

for all the other committees. 

The committee provides one-third of its resources to the minority, 

over which they have full control. And I appreciate the sacrifices 

and very tough decisions that the ranking member has made to ensure that the committee lives within its means, while meeting its 

responsibilities. 

Today we are talking about the additional cuts in 2013 and how 

various budget scenarios might affect the committee’s operations. 

And like most committees, the vast majority of our funding is devoted to personnel. Currently, we have 28 staff doing the work to 

keep the committee running and meeting our oversight and legislative responsibilities. And frankly, we could use more staff. But 

knowing that more budget cuts are likely, the majority made decisions not to hire and to combine some staff duties so that our payroll would be sustainable in 2013. We hope that will be the case. 

But honestly, an 11 percent cut would require us to make some 

very difficult personnel decisions. The committee does not have a 

significant amount of non-salary spending to look to for savings. 

And these expenditures give us the tools to do our work like communications, reference materials, supplies, equipment. And there 

really is not a whole lot of fat to cut if we want to do effective oversight and run an efficient organization. 

If the committee’s budget level is funded or set at 105 percent 

of what was actually spent in 2012, the outlook improves. And we 

still may not be able to hire the additional staff that we need, but 

we would be able to maintain the status quo. The budgets that the 

committee has submitted under these scenarios reflect this reality. 

And our budget submissions show relatively flat or slightly reduced 

spending in non-personnel budget categories. The personnel budget 

is adjusted for whichever scenario is going to occur. 

And I appreciate that the House Administration Committee has 

a tough job to do in administering yet another round of budget cuts 

to the committees. We will do our best to work with whatever resources are provided. And we hope that the members will consider 

that our committee is already doing more with less, and it has an 

important role to fulfill as it advocates for the Nation’s best job creators. 

Thank you for the committee’s time. 

[The statement of Mr. Graves follows:] 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 80286A.031
62 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 104 80286A.032
63 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Vela ́zquez. 

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

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Chairman Harper, Ranking Member 

Brady. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the budget submission for the Small Business Committee in the 113th Congress. 

I think it goes without saying the key role small businesses play 

in our economy. During tough times, small firms are often looked 

upon to help lift us back toward prosperity. Our job on the committee is not solely to investigate and examine any matter affecting 

small businesses but also serve as the voice of small firms and entrepreneurs in Congress. 

The Committee on Small Business covers a number of issues: 

Health care, taxes, energy, capital access, contracting, technology, 

agriculture, trade, not to mention jurisdiction over the Small Business Administration. Such an extensive portfolio requires staff with 

expertise in the various issue areas. As many committees have indicated, it is difficult to retain highly skilled staff with a budget 

that continues to dwindle. We have made adjustments along the 

way, but deeper and deeper cuts will undoubtedly take a toll. 

While the funds are reduced, the workload only continues to increase. The reality is that the minority was able to manage with 

last year’s budget strictly due to the fact that we were understaffed. Although our operational expenses are kept to a strict minimum, our funding does not allow us to fill all vacant slots. For example, we actually need a regulations counsel as well as an economist. We have not yet filled those positions. 

Now with sequestration in effect, any and all future planning as 

far as staffing are concerned have been put on hold until we know 

what the outcome will be. Chairman Graves and I, along with all 

our committee members, continue to work in a bipartisan manner 

to fulfill our jurisdiction of responsibilities. We understand these 

spending cuts are inevitable, but we ask that you are gentle when 

reviewing our numbers. The better staffed and equipped our committee is, the better prepared we are to fulfill our jurisdictional responsibility. Thank you, and I appreciate your time, and will be 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much. 

And we know this is a difficult time. We have already been 

through a round of reductions in the 112th. And so I would ask 

each of you, do you have any unique challenges to your workload 

that you will have in this Congress versus the 112th? 

Mr. GRAVES. Well, the biggest thing is obviously going to be, you 

know, trying to continue those resources, provide those resources to 

committee members that obviously they need when they are doing, 

you know, serving their constituencies, whether it is, you know, 

through doing a small business symposium or a contracting event 

where, you know, they are trying to show small businesses the opportunities within the Federal Government on contracting. You 

know, that gets tougher when the budget is cut. And then also just 

trying to do more with less. And again, that is where we are. I 

think we are authorized up to 47 employees, but we have 28. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

Mr. HARPER. Well, I want to say thanks for the effort you are 

making. 

And this is obviously difficult for everyone to try to do. 

But I am going to now recognize Ranking Member Brady to see 

if he has any questions. 

Mr. BRADY. Again, my comment is whether or not you can attract 

the quality people to do your job, or whether you can keep them 

ones you have with the institutional knowledge. They may not 

want to stay. They are getting paid less probably than the private 

sector. Now you are asking them to take another cut. And I wonder 

how that may affect the ability for you to perform in your committee. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. It is very difficult to be able to hire experts, 

qualified, talented, committed staff. And not only that, but just for 

these staff to feel that they will be remunerated and that they will 

stay on board. It is very easy to train staff that will be willing to 

leave and go into the private sector. I am pleased, don’t forget, this 

is the smallest budget of any committee. And given the state of the 

economy and how fragile the economy still is, we get so many calls 

from Members, individual Members, not only that serve on the 

committee but across the board, asking us to help them navigate 

some of the obstacles that small businesses are facing when they 

are trying to access capital through traditional lenders or to help 

put together workshops in their districts. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. And thank you for appearing for all of 

us. 

And that is all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much for taking the time to come 

and see us. Thank you. 

The committee now welcomes Chairman Conaway and Ranking 

Member Sa ́nchez of the Committee on Ethics. Would the official reporter please enter a page break into the hearing record to begin 

a new section? 

Mr. HARPER. We welcome both of you here. In the interest of 

time, I had some information here to read about what your committee does and the importance of it, but I have firsthand knowledge of how important the committee is. And we welcome both of 

you here today. And we are going to attempt to get through before 

they call for votes here. 

And we appreciate very much you being here, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Sa ́nchez. And you each have 5 minutes to 

testify before the committee. 

And I now recognize Chairman Conaway. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE CONAWAY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Harper. 

Let the record reflect that your exposure to the Ethics Committee 

is as a member of the Ethics Committee. 

Mr. HARPER. Yeah, let’s clear that up, please. 

Mr. CONAWAY. In the interest of time, I am going to dispense 

with reading my testimony to you, if I could get unanimous consent 

to enter it in the record. 

Mr. HARPER. Without objection. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

Mr. CONAWAY. When I started as chair this time, the team mission is to get our work done as quickly and expeditiously as possible. That requires some resources to make that happen. One of 

the complaints about the House Ethics Committee is that our investigations and our processes take too long and drag out. And 

some of that is built into the system, but the idea is to move things 

along quickly. Members are far better off with an answer than with 

the unknown. So both on the customer service side of our shop, advice and education side, getting those answers out quickly as well, 

but on the adjudicatory phases, making that happen quickly is high 

on our list as well. 

We are currently at 24 employees. We are rated up to 29. We 

don’t have the resources to go to 29 at this point. We are in an unusual circumstance, as you are well aware, coming off of a particular case the last 2 years that provided additional resources to 

the committee. And we would argue to keep some of those, given 

the increase in workload that the STOCK Act is in the process of 

having, as well as continuing to do the job in as expeditious a manner as we can because of the impact that our work has on Members’ reputations as well as their ability to do their job as well. 

So, with those brief statements, Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the 

ranking member and be ready for your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Conaway follows:] 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 80286A.033
67 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 80286A.034
68 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 80286A.035
69 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Ranking Member Sa ́nchez, you are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you so much. And in the interests of time, 

I would also ask unanimous consent to just have my formal statement included in the record. 

Mr. HARPER. Without objection. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Great. In the interest of time, I just want to touch 

on three very important things that impact the work of the Ethics 

Committee. We are a unique committee in that we have a nonpartisan professional staff, and they have a tremendous workload 

to do the work that we require of them and that gives confidence 

to the public in the work that we do up here on the Hill. 

In 2007, private travel was mandated to be reviewed by the Ethics Committee. And that has increased the workload of the committee tremendously. We are coming up almost on the 10,000th request for private travel. And that is an involved process of getting 

information from the trip sponsors. It requires a lot of time. And 

that has increased the staff hours required in order to review each 

of those requests for private travel. 

In 2008, the Office of Congressional Ethics, the OCE, was created. They are able to refer matters to the Ethics Committee. And 

that has also increased the workload of the staff themselves. While 

the majority of work that the committee staff does is still self-initiated by the committee, those OCE referrals do add to their casework. And staffing authority was increased in accordance with the 

creation of the OCE, but we have never been fully staffed up since 

then. Although we operate with a highly trained staff, we are not 

at our maximum capacity in terms of the staff that we could hire. 

The one thing that is keeping us from doing that, of course, is the 

budget. 

And then lastly, with the passage of the STOCK Act, we now are 

requiring periodic transaction reports of transactions of stock or assets. And that occurs several times throughout the year. Each one 

of those transactions has to be reviewed and certified by committee 

staff. So that will also significantly increase the caseload. 

So we are basically here—and I am in agreement with everything the chairman said—we are basically here to say that given 

the challenges that face the Ethics Committee, further reductions 

in our budget would mean longer wait times for Members and others to get the answers that they need and deserve. 

So I will leave that to your consideration. I know you have a 

tough job to do. But we also are seeking to do the work the Ethics 

Committee needs to do under very challenging circumstances. 

And with that, I will yield back the balance of my time. 

[The statement of Ms. Sa ́nchez follows:] 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 80286A.036
71 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 80286A.037
72 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 121 80286A.038
73 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you so much. 

And we do appreciate what the Ethics Committee does. And 

while we may not be fully staffed, you have an excellent staff that 

is very dedicated and hardworking, and much appreciated for a lot 

of the work that the average Member may never pay any attention 

to or look at what has to be done in such great detail and to make 

sure that every ‘‘i’’ is dotted and every ‘‘t’’ is crossed, and sometimes in triplicate to make sure that that gets done. 

So we are in a difficult budget era, and we understand that, but 

I would ask each of you, do you have any unique challenges—and 

I know you are not at liberty to discuss details—but do you have 

any unique challenges that you see facing you in the 113th Congress that did not exist in the 112th Congress that we need to be 

aware of just in generalities? 

Mr. CONAWAY. Yeah, as the ranking member mentioned, we have 

got these periodic transaction reports. Those are coming in, they 

are required within 30 days of when the filer becomes aware of a 

transaction but no later than 45 days after a transaction of notice. 

We will have those throughout the year. Then the annual financial 

statements themselves will include very similar information and 

there will be numerous inquiries, I suspect, from the press and others as to why there may be differences, clerical and others. So we 

anticipate that that will only grow. 

We are also challenged with working with some Members as to 

how they actually deal with the STOCK Act. And that is requiring 

additional resources. 

I want to echo your comments earlier about our team. We have 

a terrific staff. And one of the reasons why we have been able to 

do the work that has been done so far, and I think, quite frankly, 

improve over what previous years have done, is because of the hard 

work and dedication of the team that is in place. They are terrific. 

But the STOCK Act will have additional ramifications that we really can’t tell. Electronic filing of that implementation of that, the 

education piece of it that will have to go with the electronic filing 

piece for these PDRs, as well as for financial disclosures will increase our workload as well. And because it is a complaint-driven 

system, you never know when a spat of complaints will come in. 

We don’t anticipate those right now, but we are subject to Members 

running afoul of the rules. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Anything you would like to add to that? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. No. I think the chairman summed it up quite adequately. The STOCK Act will create a deluge of additional work. 

And that is something that we will try to keep pace with as best 

we can. But it will be very challenging if we don’t have additional 

staff to help that. 

Mr. HARPER. I will now recognize Ranking Member Brady for 

any questions he may have. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you for your testimony and appearing today. 

I dare not ask this committee any questions. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you for your time. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Let me make one off. I have written a report to 

you, we talked about areas of potential savings. We use Westlaw 

and LexisNexis on our committee. There may be other committees 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

who have subscriptions to that one as well. And an institution-wide 

subscription might be cheaper rather than each individual committee doing it. That way we keep the resources that we need to 

have it, but the House would spend less money doing it. 

Mr. HARPER. Certainly Judiciary comes to mind and other committees. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Judiciary. I suspect that many of the lawyers on 

all of the committees somehow have access to it. And if there is a 

way we can squeeze a little out of those guys, those guys being 

Nexis and Westlaw, then it might help the overall efforts. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you both for being here. 

The committee now welcomes Chairman McKeon and Ranking 

Member Smith of the Committee on Armed Services. Would the official reporter please enter a page break into the hearing record to 

begin a new section? 

Mr. HARPER. In the interest of time, and knowing that votes 

could be coming shortly, rather than read the entire script that I 

have here, I want to say we commend you on the great work that 

the committee does. We have some difficult time that we have upon 

us because of budget restraints. 

But at this time, I will now recognize Chairman McKeon for 5 

minutes for any remarks he would care to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Chairman Harper, Ranking Member 

Brady, distinguished members of the committee. 

Mr. BRADY. You are looking at them. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you for the opportunity once again to testify 

on the resource requirements of the Armed Services Committee 

and the work that drives those requirements. There was a thing 

here that told me what to do, and I covered it up. 

I am grateful to be joined here today by my partner, Ranking 

Member Adam Smith. Adam’s presence here today is more than 

symbolic. I am proud to say that the Armed Services Committee is 

truly a bipartisan committee. For more than a half century, our 

committee has fulfilled the House constitutional responsibility to 

provide for the common defense. We do that each year by pulling 

our parties together to craft an annual defense authorization bill 

(NDAA). Each year, Adam and I have worked to stop politics at the 

water’s edge and build a sound military and national security policy based on bipartisan consensus, sending a message to every man 

and woman in uniform that their country is behind them. 

This week, we started the first series of hearings in preparation 

for the 52nd annual NDAA. We will do it in the toughest partisan 

environment either of us has ever known. Every year, the 

naysayers ask if this is the cycle when we won’t get a bill done, 

and every year, we beat the odds. Last year, we passed our bill 

with only hours to spare. 

The partisan environment does not give me pause. The enhanced 

oversight burden that we face does not deter me. If there is one 

thing that I worry will stop us from getting our work done or cause 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

us to produce a substandard product, it is a resource deficit that 

we face in our committee. 

The Armed Services Committee (HASC) is the largest committee 

in the House, overseeing the largest Federal department. Yet we 

are also a no-frills, bang-for-your-buck organization. The committee 

ranks 10th on overall committee funding. We have the lowest staffto-Member ratio of any committee, at 1 to 1.15. 

Traditionally, we return less than 1 percent of our allocated 

funds, which I will elaborate on later on in my testimony. I appreciate that last year the HASC resources were not cut as deeply as 

they might have been. However, that cut did have an impact. 

Though we are authorized 71 staff slots, we could only sustain 67 

personnel on staff in the 112th Congress. In order to sustain this 

reduced staff, we were forced to cancel important resources like 

subscriptions—by the way, that sounds kind of, you know, a subscription? But we have to be able to respond immediately when 

they testify on the Senate side, and then come over to our side. 

This gives us the ability to get these things online and have our 

questions ready the next day. Deferred maintenance, replacement 

of equipment we have had to defer. 

Ninety-six percent the of the committee’s budget is spent on staff 

salaries. That is the case in large part because we rely on highly 

specialized staff to carry out our mission. Employees must be able 

to hold top level security clearances as a condition of employment. 

They must also be not just proficient but experts in a variety of national security policies, weapons platforms, and strategically vital 

regions. Most importantly, Adam and I have been able to rely on 

them to do the Herculean behind-the-scenes work that it takes to 

get a bill like the NDAA passed. 

Like many Americans, HASC staff has gone without cost-of-living adjustments for 2 years. At the proposed 11 percent cut, the 

committee will only be able to support 61 staff, and even then, we 

may need to implement a furlough system. We will limp by on old 

equipment and rely on detailees from other agencies to carry out 

vital oversight work. We will not be able to fill critical vacancies 

in our Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee or the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. 

I am concerned that a deep cut to the committee’s budget would 

be pennywise but pound foolish. Given the size and scope of the 

Department of Defense (DOD) budget and the opportunities that 

we have to find other savings, it would behoove us to be able to 

have a more complete staff that could help us delve into these 

things. Proposed cuts would cripple committee functions at an important time. 

The defense bill we have already begun work on for fiscal year 

2014 will be one of the most important our committee has ever 

passed. This is a pivotal time for the Department of Defense. Their 

resources are on the decline, while threats around the world are on 

the rise. As I said, we have already started the hearing process. We 

have already heard from several of our combatant commanders, 

and things are getting worse, not better. 

The committee will have a decisive role to play in a number of 

key areas. We will help determine how our forces withdraw from 

Afghanistan without giving up the gains we have made over the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

course of a decade. We will help chart the military’s course in dealing with the emerging cyber threat. We will ensure that missions 

against the emerging al Qaeda threat in North Africa are properly 

resourced. Most importantly, we will embark on a substantial reform project. 

Adam and I often disagree on the appropriate amount to spend 

on the military, but we do agree on this: As it stands today, our 

military strategy, the defense budget, the DOD policy, and the 

threats around the world are mismatched. If we do not reform the 

Pentagon, we will find ourselves in a readiness crisis with a hollow 

force. 

In the absence of a fiscal year 2014 defense authorization bill, 

the Pentagon and the White House will begin making a series of 

irreversible and shortsighted decisions. They will be forced to. 

These decisions are aimed at resolving short-term budget problems 

at the expense of long-term strategic challenges. 

Many of us have already experienced the first taste of those 

choices when the Air Guard attempted to divest itself of critical 

equipment last year. It was the House Armed Services Committee 

that uncovered the flaws in the Air Force’s logic, and it was the 

HASC, through the NDAA, that protected those assets with a better solution. 

Thank you for listening to me. 

[The statement of Mr. McKeon follows:] 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 132 here 80286A.039
78 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 133 here 80286A.040
79 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 134 here 80286A.041
80 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Smith. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Brady. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here. 

I concur with everything that Buck said. I have a statement for 

the record, which I will submit. We do work in a very bipartisan 

way to produce a product. I always like to say, we are one of the 

most bipartisan committees in Congress. And I think our National 

Defense Authorizing Act proves that. We come together every year 

to pass a substantial piece of legislation. 

I only want to highlight a couple of budget facts about our committee. First of all, we have the lowest ratio—I may get this mixed 

up—we have the fewest staff per Members of any committee in 

Congress, the largest committee in terms of the number of Members. And also our budget, and one of the key decisions you are 

going to have to make as you make these cuts, is whether or not 

you cut the amount of the overall budget or the amount that the 

committees actually spend. I understand that there are many committees that have budgets that exceed what they spend on a year 

in and year out basis. So if you do an across-the-board cut, they 

will have plenty of room to work. We don’t have that room because 

we spend right up to our budget. Because of the size of the committee, because of the limited number of staff—I am not seeing the 

percentage here—but I think it is somewhere over 90 percent of 

our budget is staff, are the people who actually write our bill every 

year. If we face an 11 percent cut, it will make it very difficult for 

us to produce the same quality product that we used to because it 

will cut the people who are responsible for producing that product. 

We don’t have wiggle room on technology or stationery or travel. 

We just don’t have much budget. It is staff dependent. And if you 

take this 11 percent across-the-board approach, I think that would 

be very, very unfair. We are hoping to get, you know, a smaller 

number, reflective on what is actually spent so we can maintain 

the staff necessary to do our job, frankly. 

And as Mr. McKeon indicated, you know, 51 straight years, we 

have passed a bill. Last year, you could make an argument that the 

defense authorizing committees were the only committees that 

passed substantive legislation, given that the Appropriations Committee didn’t even get there. So it is important work, and we need 

staff to do it. 

We don’t have much wiggle room budgetwise. I hope you will 

take that into account when you go to make these numbers work. 

I understand you have a very difficult job. I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Smith of Washington follows:] 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 here 80286A.042
82 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 139 here 80286A.043
83 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 140 here 80286A.044
84 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you so much. I appreciate each of you giving 

us some insight into the difficulties that you face. 

And what I would ask is, as we are looking at the 113th Congress, are there any unique challenges that you see you face as a 

committee that you didn’t face in the 112th that we need to be 

aware of? 

Mr. MCKEON. Sequestration, yes. That has been a huge cut to 

the Defense Department. And I alluded to that in my statement. 

The fact that they are having to make decisions—now, if we pass 

that Continuing Resolution (CR) today and the defense appropriations bill, that will help get through this year. But we have already 

started our budget process for this next year. And I guarantee you 

the Chiefs are going to need guidance from us and from our committee and from the Members of Congress in final decisions that 

they make. 

And as I also pointed out, we need very top quality staff. Most 

of our staff could make more if they left our committee and went 

somewhere else. Because of the training, most of them have served 

in the military and retired at high ranks. But that is required for 

the job they have to do. We have former pilots that oversee the 

planes and the services and the pilots that fly them. So I think this 

year, going from the defense budgets that we have had for the last 

10 years to what we will be dealing with going forward, it is crucial 

that we not be under-resourced at this time. 

Mr. HARPER. And Ranking Member Smith, do you see any 

unique challenges that you see as far as your workload is concerned for the 113th Congress? 

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I would just clarify the chairman said 

sequestration. He doesn’t mean the sequestration that we are dealing with here; he means the sequestration that is so going to disproportionately hit the Department of Defense as they have to 

scramble to figure out what to do under that and the legislative authority that we are going to need to help them. 

Another responsibility of our committee is to examine reprogramming requests that come from the Department of Defense. There 

are going to be a lot of reprogramming requests that are going to 

be very, very important. And I think that would enhance the workload significantly. 

Mr. HARPER. I will now recognize Ranking Member Brady for 

any questions he may have. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I am one of the most fortunate people in this 

Congress to be able to serve on two committees, this committee, 

which is totally nonpartisan, and Armed Services Committee, 

which I am proud to serve on for the last 14 years, again shows 

its bipartisanship. I am lucky to say I have two chairmen. They 

don’t look at each other as ranking or chairman; they look at each 

other as equals, and they conduct themselves as such in the committee, and which we do appreciate it, because I think they both 

realize that we are also helping out our men and women that are 

in harm’s way and were in harm’s way, and they keep their eye 

on the ball. 

The only I guess comment or question I would have is knowing 

that you can’t hire more people—it is tough to do that—it is also 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

tough to hire people with the quality and the skill set and the institutional knowledge that they would need to be able to perform on 

Armed Services Committee. That is one thing. But the other thing 

I am really concerned about is keeping the people that we have. We 

have an excellent staff. I work with them all day long all the time 

we are there, and they do a great job. And it is hard to have them 

continue what they are doing when they get hired at a low rate, 

and because of their dedication, as the chairman stated, and then 

we have to cut them down. And hopefully, we can keep them with 

the institutional knowledge and the skill sets that they have. Now 

we are going to ask them to take a pay cut. So I am trying to do 

my best, and I know this committee will try to do their best not 

to make that happen, put the men and women that are out there 

in harm’s way and were in harm’s way that are protecting our 

country, it would be a disservice to them. 

So I thank you for testifying in front of us, and would ask again, 

I am sure you run into the problem of keeping good people there 

and do not want to have the decision of telling them that the good 

people you have got now have to take a pay cut. 

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Just reiterating the challenge of keeping people in such a highly skilled position as professional staff 

member on Armed Services in light of pay cuts and downsizing and 

the difficulty of that. And that is our greatest challenge. As we had 

mentioned, our staff, you know, drives the show. They write the 

bill. They do the work. They keep us informed. And, you know, 

even at their current level, they work significant hours to get this 

product done. The cuts that are talked about here would be devastating to our ability to continue to produce the product we want 

to produce. 

Mr. MCKEON. We just lost, an example, we lost a staff member 

who retired after 23 years. He was a retired colonel, and then he 

came to work for us 23 years. The knowledge that he had for personnel was—it will be very, very difficult to replace. We are not 

able to at this time to do that. And then we lost another staffer 

that had been with us for 20 years, a distinguished pilot. In fact, 

I learned after his death that he flew, as far as we have been able 

to verify, more combat missions over Vietnam than any other pilot, 

over 500 and was a great member of our committee. When somebody in the military or somebody, you know, at the Pentagon would 

try to snow him on something, it was very difficult to do. But 

again, these people are hard to find and hard to replace when we 

lose them, hard to keep them—I shouldn’t say hard to keep them. 

They stay because they are very dedicated. But it is hard to get 

them, have the adequate time to, even though they are highly 

qualified, to get up to speed with how the committee works and 

those kind of things. It takes some time to break people in, and the 

way the budget works, it is very difficult to do that. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, ranking member. 

I am proud of both of you, you do an excellent job, and proud to 

be on that committee. 

And I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HARPER. I now recognize Mr. Nugent for any questions that 

he may have. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As the newest member to HASC, it truly is an eye-opening experience. We take our national defense, I think a lot do, just take it 

for granted that we will always have the best military, one that 

can protect us against all threats. In my short time sitting on 

HASC, I see the multiple challenges that we face. We face obviously the sequester and also the continuing resolution. But the 

threats that we face outside that, that staff that I have dealt with 

in this short period of time, in the briefings I receive, both classified and unclassified, it really opens your eyes, I believe, to the 

threats that we are facing. And so I worry about, as we move forward, if we start cutting the budget of Armed Services that has to 

oversee the great men and women that serve this country, we have 

the oversight capacity to do that, but it’s also important to make 

sure they have the resources available to them for our sons and 

daughters that go out to fight, that they have the resources. So the 

question I think is redundant possibly, but one that is worth asking again. If we were to take the recommendation of this budget 

cut actually versus what you are requesting, how does that affect 

us in Armed Services? 

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Well, first of all, I didn’t have the 

exact number earlier, 96 percent of our staff budget goes to salaries. So it goes to the staff. So there is just no room to find savings 

anywhere else. We will have to cut staff. And you know, as a new 

member of the committee, you can appreciate the fact that you are 

going to play a critical role, as everybody on that committee does, 

in putting together the final product. And there is a steep learning 

curve in understanding that the staff is there to help us to figure 

out how to, you know, accomplish our priorities. If they are not 

there, it reduces our effectiveness as members of the committee 

and reduces the effectiveness of the ultimate bill. It really, again, 

comes down to staff. 

And, you know, as I mentioned earlier, you know, because we are 

so staff dependent, we spend the entire budget that we get. And 

so an across-the-board budget cut would be really devastating to 

our ability to perform those tasks. 

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCKEON. We have 71 authorized slots now on our committee, but we are only filling 67. We would have to go down to 

61 is our estimate right now. 

You know, I am a little unique in the fact that I have chaired 

two committees now in this Congress. And I see that there is difference between committees. Most of our leadership people that go 

into leadership don’t become chairmen. The Speaker is an anomaly. 

He was chairman of the Education Committee. But it was just one 

committee. I have told him a few things about how committees 

function differently and kind of surprised him. 

The other day we were talking, and I said, we hold a hearing almost every day, full committee. And then subcommittees on top of 

each other. And he said, ‘‘Really?’’ I said, ‘‘Yeah.’’ So I appreciate 

that you give us the opportunity to come in and explain. 

Fortunately, a couple of you are on the committee and see this. 

But most people in the Congress don’t really know. They know 

what their committee does, the committees they serve on, but they 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

don’t get the breadth of the whole Congress, and they don’t see the 

difference in the committees. If you look at how much our committee is budgeted, how many staff we have, and then look at all 

of the committees across the gamut and see how many of them get 

legislation that actually is signed into law during the year, I think 

that that is a result of key excellent staff that we have and the 

ability to work together. As I left our committee today, we were listening to three of our combatant commanders, to go down and vote 

in my other committee. I got there, and the minority had walked 

out of the committee. I mean, that would never—we wouldn’t even 

think of that in our committee. And it is not the way to get things 

done. But I would just say that, as you go through your deliberations, please look at the results at the end of the day of what the 

committees produce, and why we do that, and how we are able to 

do that, and fund us accordingly, because our work is in the Constitution directed, and we have to carry out that responsibility. And 

I don’t think anybody in the Congress wants us to do less than our 

best. 

Mr. NUGENT. Well, I am glad you pointed out the fact that it is 

in the Constitution in regards to national defense. And that has to 

be one of our core priorities. Because without it, nothing else matters at this point, because we won’t be able do those things that 

are important to us, other things that we need to do to serve this 

country. So I want to, once again, thank you both for your leadership. And it is an honor to serve with both of you. Thank you. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Nugent. 

And I thank the witnesses for being here and sharing your insight into what is a difficult time for us all. And I also thank our 

committee members who participated in these hearings for yesterday and today. And the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:24 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 150 80286A.045
89 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 151 80286A.046
90 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 152 80286A.047
91 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 153 80286A.048
92 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 154 80286A.049
93 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 155 80286A.050
94 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 156 80286A.051
95 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 157 80286A.052